From this Friday's issue of the Specator
A reader sent this in. It contains vital information for concerned alumni and the broader national community. The Spectator, as the voice of the students and the primary source of unfiltered information about the Hill for alumni all over the world, plays a key journalistic role in this process. Bolding added.
____________________________________________________
The College has announced that plans for the Alexander Hamilton Center (AHC) will be suspended indefinitely. Administrators, trustees and the three faculty founders of Center came to the agreement after several weeks of negotiations concerning the governance structure of the Center as it was described in the charter.
The AHC was designed by Sidney Wertimer Professor of History Douglas Ambrose, Elias W. Leavenworth Professor of Economics James Bradfield, and Publius Virgilius Rogers Professor of American History Robert Paquette as a center for the study of, according to the charter, “freedom, democracy and capitalism as these ideas were developed and institutionalized in the United States and within the larger tradition of Western culture.” The AHC planned to sponsor lectures, colloquia and conferences centered on annual thematic programming as well as awarding an annual junior fellowship to a doctoral candidate or postdoctoral scholar. Hamilton alumnus and trustee Carl Menges ’51 announced a $3.6 million donation to the Center in October.
President Stewart and Dean of the Faculty Joe Urgo approved the proposal for the AHC in August, primarily, according to Urgo, because of the programming and kinds of activities it would bring to the College. On September 6 the College formally announced its support of the formation of the Center on campus.
In its October 20 issue, The Spectator reported on concerns raised by faculty members about the governance structure of the AHC at the October 3 faculty meeting. A majority of faculty members expressed opinions that the Center would be too autonomous. The trustees and the Committee on Academic Policy (CAP) expressed similar concerns, leading the administration to look more closely at the charter and discuss the issues with the founders. “It became very clear that the founders had a very different idea of what the Center would be. [President Stewart] and I envisioned a Center of Hamilton College, where the founders saw it as really separate from the governance structure of the College,” said Urgo. “You reach an agreement on principles, but when you start talking about the details you may start to disagree.”
Both the faculty and the trustees believed the Center should go forward at Hamilton because of the educational opportunities. However, they were concerned that it would be too autonomous and separate from the College. “The trustees were extremely enthusiastic towards the Center; there was no disagreement on the value for the College,” said Urgo. “They simply asked for clarification of the governance structure.”
Elihu Root Peace Fund Associate Professor of Women’s Studies Vivyan Adair expressed a similar opinion in regards to the faculty. “From the very beginning, the faculty was asking for nothing more than an accountable governance structure for the AHC; nothing more and nothing less. No one I spoke with wanted the program to not go forward. Now, many in the press are making the faculty look as if they’re complicit at the very least. Faculty had nothing to do with the decision other than to suggest very early in the process that the charter was flawed,” she said.
During discussions following the October faculty and trustee meetings it became clear that the founders and the administration had different perceptions of Hamilton’s role in the governance of the AHC. “Hamilton has an ideal of shared governance, a community we all share…we talk about things a lot. With any program or initiative, we want it to be within these structures. The most valuable thing we have on College Hill is our community. Having a center not connected to the governance…is antithetical to that ideal,” said Urgo.
On November 3 the administration presented the AHC founders with, according to Urgo, a dozen or so revisions to the original charter, which were formulated by trustees, Urgo and Stewart. “We offered a clarified document…the founders did not accept that. It was not what they had in mind and not what they wanted to do,” said Urgo. The founders responded by creating a revised proposal that, according to Paquette, they believed answered the areas of concern raised by the trustees. The founders’ included the following insertion:
“The Board of Overseers of the AHC ensures that its policies and operation comply with the resolutions of the Trustees of Hamilton College and their fiduciary responsibilities. The founders of the AHC recognize that violation of those resolutions, disregard of those responsibilities, or deviation from the center’s scholarly mission as clearly defined in the charter may result in the removal of the AHC’s executive director from his office by the president of Hamilton College and the Board of Trustees or the discontinuance of the center’s funding by the College or both. This provision of the charter is irrevocable.”
Urgo explained why this concession was unacceptable to the trustees and administration. “The problem with that compromise is that the only option it gives the president and the dean is to shut down the center entirely,” he said. Urgo compared this arrangement to his jurisdiction over the English department. As it stands, Urgo hires professors and works with them to create the curriculum, which he ultimately has to approve. He works with the faculty to work out disagreements and problems. Urgo compared this insertion in the charter as giving him jurisdiction only to eliminate the entire English department in times of difficulty and controversy, rather than discussing and working through problems.
At a meeting on November 22, administrators and the AHC founders agreed that these issues could not be resolved and creation of the Center at Hamilton would be postponed indefinitely. In an email to the faculty, Urgo wrote, “We have agreed throughout our conversations that the Hamilton community would have been enriched by more professional contact with colleagues at other colleges…Where we have not reached agreement is on the governance structure of a center devoted to these aims on campus, its relationship to the College administration, to the Board of Trustees of Hamilton College, and to the wider, external community of scholars and supporters.”
Paquette issued a statement to supporters of the AHC. “I regret to inform you that the Hamilton College administration has retreated from its previous agreement, publicly announced on 6 September, to support the creation of the AHC on campus. I have no intention, at this time, of pointing a finger of blame…Please know that I regard the recent events as the end of chapter, not end of story. The administration’s backpedaling was not unanticipated by the founders of the AHC. The center continues to exist; it has financial backing; it is an attractive scholarly product that may well attract interest from others.”
In a November 29 Utica Observer-Dispatch article, Paquette stated that the Center may move off campus if the founders cannot reach an agreement with the college. The article quoted Paquette saying, “The center lives, on paper. It has money to support it. It has even more money than the $3.6 million. Other people are willing to help, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.”
Urgo stressed that the administration would like to go ahead with some of the planned programming of the AHC as soon as next semester. “We are hoping to receive some of the programming that was described in the charter. We still have an agreement that the programming is wonderful; these are three of our most respected faculty members,” he said. However, in the Observer-Dispatch article, Urgo also stated that “plans for a cohesive center are no longer in play, at least for now.” Funds already raised or donated to the AHC through Hamilton will be returned, according to Urgo, unless the donors want to slate their donations for other resources. Donors could, however, repledge their money to the Center should it follow through with its plans to move off campus.
Urgo stressed that there were no hard feelings between the administration and the AHC founders. “[The decision] was very cordial and amicable. My respect remains very high for these three faculty members,” he said. As far as the image of the College, Urgo said this is “not a catastrophe.” “We are looking for the next opportunity, going about business as an academic institution,” he said.
December 3, 2006 at 06:50PM |
student reporter
The College has announced that plans for the Alexander Hamilton Center (AHC) will be suspended indefinitely. Administrators, trustees and the three faculty founders of Center came to the agreement after several weeks of negotiations concerning the governance structure of the Center as it was described in the charter.
The AHC was designed by Sidney Wertimer Professor of History Douglas Ambrose, Elias W. Leavenworth Professor of Economics James Bradfield, and Publius Virgilius Rogers Professor of American History Robert Paquette as a center for the study of, according to the charter, “freedom, democracy and capitalism as these ideas were developed and institutionalized in the United States and within the larger tradition of Western culture.” The AHC planned to sponsor lectures, colloquia and conferences centered on annual thematic programming as well as awarding an annual junior fellowship to a doctoral candidate or postdoctoral scholar. Hamilton alumnus and trustee Carl Menges ’51 announced a $3.6 million donation to the Center in October.
President Stewart and Dean of the Faculty Joe Urgo approved the proposal for the AHC in August, primarily, according to Urgo, because of the programming and kinds of activities it would bring to the College. On September 6 the College formally announced its support of the formation of the Center on campus.
In its October 20 issue, The Spectator reported on concerns raised by faculty members about the governance structure of the AHC at the October 3 faculty meeting. A majority of faculty members expressed opinions that the Center would be too autonomous. The trustees and the Committee on Academic Policy (CAP) expressed similar concerns, leading the administration to look more closely at the charter and discuss the issues with the founders. “It became very clear that the founders had a very different idea of what the Center would be. [President Stewart] and I envisioned a Center of Hamilton College, where the founders saw it as really separate from the governance structure of the College,” said Urgo. “You reach an agreement on principles, but when you start talking about the details you may start to disagree.”
Both the faculty and the trustees believed the Center should go forward at Hamilton because of the educational opportunities. However, they were concerned that it would be too autonomous and separate from the College. “The trustees were extremely enthusiastic towards the Center; there was no disagreement on the value for the College,” said Urgo. “They simply asked for clarification of the governance structure.”
Elihu Root Peace Fund Associate Professor of Women’s Studies Vivyan Adair expressed a similar opinion in regards to the faculty. “From the very beginning, the faculty was asking for nothing more than an accountable governance structure for the AHC; nothing more and nothing less. No one I spoke with wanted the program to not go forward. Now, many in the press are making the faculty look as if they’re complicit at the very least. Faculty had nothing to do with the decision other than to suggest very early in the process that the charter was flawed,” she said.
During discussions following the October faculty and trustee meetings it became clear that the founders and the administration had different perceptions of Hamilton’s role in the governance of the AHC. “Hamilton has an ideal of shared governance, a community we all share…we talk about things a lot. With any program or initiative, we want it to be within these structures. The most valuable thing we have on College Hill is our community. Having a center not connected to the governance…is antithetical to that ideal,” said Urgo.
On November 3 the administration presented the AHC founders with, according to Urgo, a dozen or so revisions to the original charter, which were formulated by trustees, Urgo and Stewart. “We offered a clarified document…the founders did not accept that. It was not what they had in mind and not what they wanted to do,” said Urgo. The founders responded by creating a revised proposal that, according to Paquette, they believed answered the areas of concern raised by the trustees. The founders’ included the following insertion:
“The Board of Overseers of the AHC ensures that its policies and operation comply with the resolutions of the Trustees of Hamilton College and their fiduciary responsibilities. The founders of the AHC recognize that violation of those resolutions, disregard of those responsibilities, or deviation from the center’s scholarly mission as clearly defined in the charter may result in the removal of the AHC’s executive director from his office by the president of Hamilton College and the Board of Trustees or the discontinuance of the center’s funding by the College or both. This provision of the charter is irrevocable.”
Urgo explained why this concession was unacceptable to the trustees and administration. “The problem with that compromise is that the only option it gives the president and the dean is to shut down the center entirely,” he said. Urgo compared this arrangement to his jurisdiction over the English department. As it stands, Urgo hires professors and works with them to create the curriculum, which he ultimately has to approve. He works with the faculty to work out disagreements and problems. Urgo compared this insertion in the charter as giving him jurisdiction only to eliminate the entire English department in times of difficulty and controversy, rather than discussing and working through problems.
At a meeting on November 22, administrators and the AHC founders agreed that these issues could not be resolved and creation of the Center at Hamilton would be postponed indefinitely. In an email to the faculty, Urgo wrote, “We have agreed throughout our conversations that the Hamilton community would have been enriched by more professional contact with colleagues at other colleges…Where we have not reached agreement is on the governance structure of a center devoted to these aims on campus, its relationship to the College administration, to the Board of Trustees of Hamilton College, and to the wider, external community of scholars and supporters.”
Paquette issued a statement to supporters of the AHC. “I regret to inform you that the Hamilton College administration has retreated from its previous agreement, publicly announced on 6 September, to support the creation of the AHC on campus. I have no intention, at this time, of pointing a finger of blame…Please know that I regard the recent events as the end of chapter, not end of story. The administration’s backpedaling was not unanticipated by the founders of the AHC. The center continues to exist; it has financial backing; it is an attractive scholarly product that may well attract interest from others.”
In a November 29 Utica Observer-Dispatch article, Paquette stated that the Center may move off campus if the founders cannot reach an agreement with the college. The article quoted Paquette saying, “The center lives, on paper. It has money to support it. It has even more money than the $3.6 million. Other people are willing to help, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.”
Urgo stressed that the administration would like to go ahead with some of the planned programming of the AHC as soon as next semester. “We are hoping to receive some of the programming that was described in the charter. We still have an agreement that the programming is wonderful; these are three of our most respected faculty members,” he said. However, in the Observer-Dispatch article, Urgo also stated that “plans for a cohesive center are no longer in play, at least for now.” Funds already raised or donated to the AHC through Hamilton will be returned, according to Urgo, unless the donors want to slate their donations for other resources. Donors could, however, repledge their money to the Center should it follow through with its plans to move off campus.
Urgo stressed that there were no hard feelings between the administration and the AHC founders. “[The decision] was very cordial and amicable. My respect remains very high for these three faculty members,” he said. As far as the image of the College, Urgo said this is “not a catastrophe.” “We are looking for the next opportunity, going about business as an academic institution,” he said.
December 3, 2006 at 06:50PM |
student reporter
hb
2 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
I don't see any conspiracy here, just principled differences among reasonable people. Perhaps these differences could have been identified earlier, but hindsight is 20-20.
While the highlighted paragraph is illuminating, it only tells a portion of one side of the story.
Dean Urgo apparently stated that a “dozen or so revisions to the original charter” were presented to the AHC: “We offered a clarified document…the founders did not accept that. It was not what they had in mind and not what they wanted to do.”
One really can’t presume or assume anything unless one can see the entire play-by-play: proposals and responses. Jumping to conclusions is not scholarly, and that is what many of these “scholarly” journals, bloggers and the like have done.
Penny Watras Dana, K'78