Hamilton College Alumni for Governance Reform

Was the document flawed? Or was it that both parties could not agree on the degree of faculty influence in the project? Too many commentators act as if the mission of a program is unrelated to the structures of governance. The faculty want influence over the project; the founders apparently fear the influence of the majority of the faculty. I don’t call that a flaw; I call that a fundamental disagreement. Perhaps the trustees wanted to micromanage the project; perhaps they attempted to impose a version of the charter that demanded an unwanted faculty influence on programming? From what I can tell, this center did not have the autonomy of the Hoover Institute. Yet that case is instructive. Hoover has remained true to its mission because it is removed from faculty influence. In this curious case, we have far too many questions and too few answers. Can unhappy alum enlighten us on particulars of the trustees’ objections? December 1, 2006 at 05:58PM | Interested Observer

_________________

for context see comments under the ACTA posting