- This topic has 11 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Many thanks to “guest blogger” for the summary of the meeting. I was there and the summary is accurate.
There were some odd moments at the meeting. One was when Ms. Pacheco de Alas said it would not be a good idea to have faculty representatives on the board because it would create conflicts of interest – for example, faculty involved in a discussion of faculty salaries.
A fair point, but hardly a sufficient reason for rejecting the idea. Many independent schools have faculty reps on their boards. But they are not allowed to vote, and recuse themselves at the Chair’s request or when the Board goes into executive session.
What the Board missed was a simple question: Would the Academy have had to suffer so long from dysfunctional leadership if faculty reps on the Board had been able to speak frankly and directly to other Board members about faculty concerns?
That alone is more than enough reason to welcome faculty reps on the board. The more feedback, the more transparency, the more data about real conditions inside the school, the better.
I just read the report on yesterday’s meeting. It is depressingly accurate. Here are a few predictions–
Nothing will change in terms of school leadership or school culture. Mr. Watson, laboring with a sub-par salary, will receive a generous bonus this year.
No one will wonder why something as simple as setting the Headmaster’s salary has to be farmed out to an expensive consultant. What is a Board for if not to do such housekeeping?
There will be a minor raise in faculty/staff salaries–say 1.5%-2%. The magic number for Academy raises. Much will be made of this act of generosity. But higher health care and pension costs will eat up the extra hundred bucks a month so the net gain for most teachers and staff will be zero. No one will complain.
The “inner circle,” loyal and true, will do better, but no one will know this since everything fundamental to their interests is done behind closed doors.
Faculty members and lower level staff will continue to be silenced through intimidation or remain silent through fear and indifference. This will further erode morale but who cares?
The Board will pretend that the 990’s were incorrectly filled out; they won’t be changed because, of course, they weren’t incorrectly filled out.
The endowment will continue to shrink since tuition is too high, and financial aid is too low, for Albuquerque’s demographic. The school will begin to sell off its assets in land. A coffee shop in the library is just the beginning.
No one will again mention that Academy is 1600th, out of 1600 schools, in terms of philanthropic efficiency.
Mr. Watson’s evaluations will never be made public. There won’t be another evaluation.
Much will be made of the students’ successes. Teachers won’t be mentioned.
Dave Mochel will return to Academy on a fine spring day to remind the teachers and staff that all of this is their fault.
Well stated Samson123 and Diogenes. I would like to add the number of times this-or-that board member would remark about Andy’s retiring in 2-3 years. Much angst and further deflection from dealing with the issues in the here-and-now.
I get planning head, I’m a teacher. I also get when I have to deal with a crisis immediately. Thus a prime example of being an educator and…not.
I also was taken back when Adam said Gary’s replacement would not be in charge of finances, but oversee HR, technology and…facilities? (Not sure about that last one.) I do not recollect just who, then, will captain the good ship Finance? Major concern and please correct me if I misheard this aspect.
Another odd thing, Samson123: there was no commitment to any follow up after the meeting. Surely the trustees know by now that we have to take action. One administrator summarized beautifully the urgency of the need to fix the Academy’s leadership problems. And Mr. Honegger acknowledged those problems at least twice.
We simply cannot wait. We need change now.
Keep the faith and focus on the fundamentals, preferably with an experienced national level consultant on endowments (if we consult nationally on executive pay, why not bring them in for endowment advice?) and a forensic accountant in tow:
1) Board minutes should be available. What conversations were had about the spend rate from the endowment, and who made the decisions about this?
2) What is reported on 990’s vs. what is reported to the community?
3) How does the board justify talking about a spend rate that does not include debt service? This is very curious.
4) Most people will acknowledge that questionable investment and financial management decisions have been made for decades. What is the current board doing to change this?
5) In the 90’s faculty at the Academy had some pretty free-wheeling debates and spoke truth to power. What happened?AA is, in the grand scheme of things, really small potatoes. Face it folks, this is a secondary school. Yet, for this community, it was a great hope, and the faculty truly were inspirational. Wonderful scientists, physicians, artists, writers, business leaders have emerged from its halls. This heritage exists precisely because it had the flexibility to admit students from the entire population, not just those of financial means. One of the greatest gifts in the modern history of secondary education has been squandered over decades. In my humble opinion, truth and reconciliation may be a place to begin.
Thank you, BeenThere. I’ve really enjoyed your sensible, balanced posts. And thank you for some of the history lessons posted elsewhere – really valuable.
As I think about your post above, I’d like to ask the trustees to reflect for a moment. In the end, isn’t the example you set for our students the single biggest responsibility you have? If you agree, then surely you cannot ignore the multiple, heartfelt calls for action. We all so fervently hope that our current students will grow to be wise, caring, responsible leaders. What will they think if, in the face of such serious problems voiced by so many in our community, you, our leaders, do not act? What example will you have given them?
Is that the legacy you want to leave?
The long-awaited meeting with the Board confirmed what most people in the community have felt since about 2010, and former division head Mike Linsell said it best as the meeting was winding down, “Leadership has a lot to do with credibility.” Andy Watson and the Board of Trustees have lost their credibility in the greater school community and that’s why there is no trust when the Board reports on finances or Andy’s salary or anything else. So where to go from here?
I agree with Been There when he says, “truth and reconciliation may be a place to begin.” It’s time for the school community to begin to heal and move on and the best way for the trustees to signal they are serious about rebuilding their credibility and moving on is to help Andy retire, and the sooner the better. Nothing else will change until this first step is taken.
The truth and reconciliation mentioned by BeenThere is not possible without transparency. Per another post, board member Smidt openly expressed reluctance to share the endowment performance and structure because it would be “embarrassing”. This speaks volumes.
I appreciate the sentiment toward Andy Watson as clearly there is more resentment than respect. Who would replace him? Would the Head of School position attract the best position candidates with the endowment’s future dangling in the balance?
Trustees, what is the plan for the endowment in the next 5-10 years?
Mr. Watson, you have the support of the trustees so what is your plan to rebuild the trust and respect of the faculty and staff?
Ed and Eyes Open, good comments. We passed the point at which we needed new leadership long ago. I am sure the 2016 survey confirmed this for the board.
One coach put it nicely on Tuesday. Andy “lost the locker room.” I just can’t see any way for him to restore faith in his leadership. That’s why the senior administrator’s comment on Tuesday that “we can’t wait another two years” is exactly right.
We already have candidates interviewing for important jobs, like English department chair. What strong candidate will accept an Academy position when he or she has other offers from healthy institutions, where there is faith in their leadership?
Trustees, please consider this: of course a head search is work. But NAIS can help you find an interim for 2018/19. And you can start your search in the fall. Is it work? Of course. Is that a cost to you, who are volunteers? Of course.
But what is the cost to the Academy of maintaining a broken status quo? That is the only question that matters.
We just received the letter to the Albuquerque Academy Community from Chair Honegger regarding the “optional” meeting of “more than a hundred.” I am stunned at the tone-deaf nature of the email. This use of buzz words like transparancy, dialogue, and “constructive problem solving,” is a Kabuki dance with a tinge of chastisement. From everything I have read and heard, the Board has yet to acknowlege there is a problem—other than some uninformed/unhappy Community members. “Human connections” and “thoughtful governance boundaries” mean what exactly? Is thoughtful governance keeping the meeting on Tuesday to only “those in the know” and sending an upbeat email blast to the rest of us who look for information via this web page?
The most telling statement in Mr. Honegger’s email is a warning that we must balance any change with keeping students vital and “provide the very best education” for each student. That’s the rub. As of today, are we really? Yes, you have merit scholar success of the upper school and that is what is used to defend the increasing cost of tuition. But, what about those students that excel in areas other than strict academia? What about the Community vitality? We have students asking their parents to not attend school events as they are not engaged or proud of what they are producing. What is happening in the lower school with video teaching and social engineering? What is happening in athletics at all levels? The issue is bigger and more complex than a pledge for more communication and personal growth as a Board member. We have financial, educational, social, and ethos issues that if not addressed will damage the value of the education of past, present and future students.
Read Mr. Honegger’s latest email, and you’ll see something remarkable: nowhere does he mention the Academy mission. And the Trustees never mentioned the mission at Tuesday’s meeting. How do you explain that?
The mission is our North Star; it guides everything we do. Everyone, but most of all the Trustees, must know it and respect it and protect it.
The mission makes specific promises. Here are the last two:
We devote our resources to ensure economic accessibility to our students…
We entrust this mission to our graduates and successors as we preserve our resources …
But we are not keeping these promises! Shouldn’t that be a source of shame?
Trustees, what do you say?
- The forum ‘Meeting with Trustees, postponed… UPDATE: progress is being made!’ is closed to new topics and replies.