|
|
A Special Report
Covering:
• Merger proposal from Baylor’s regents and interim administration
• A summary of the public debate over the merger proposal
• Regents and interim administration’s withdrawal of merger proposal
• Why self-governance is not an obstacle to alumni association-university partnerships
• Alumni respond with unprecedented financial support of BAA
• Most recent exchange between the BAA and Baylor’s regents and interim administration
On September 9, Baylor University Board of Regents chair Dary Stone and
Baylor interim president David Garland submitted a proposal to the
Board of Directors of the Baylor Alumni Association (BAA) that would
prove to be one of the most widely discussed subjects within the Baylor
family in recent years.
The written proposal, titled “A Proposal to Combine Resources and Enhance Alumni Relations,”
called for the BAA to terminate its independent 501(c)(3) status and
become a “new Baylor Alumni Association” within the university’s
Division of University Development.
The delivery of the written proposal was followed by a presentation of
the proposal’s merits to the BAA’s board during its regularly scheduled
meeting on Saturday, September 19. A little more than a month later,
Stone and Garland informed the BAA by written letter that they were
withdrawing the university’s merger proposal.
Baylor’s proposal generated voluminous debate on the Baylor campus and
among alumni nationwide, as well as media coverage in local, regional,
and national outlets.
Terms of the Proposal
At its September 19 meeting, the BAA board approved the establishment
of a study committee to fully assess the terms and merits of the merger
proposal and to report its findings to the board. “The BAA is certainly
interested in any proposal the university has to offer,” David Lacy,
the BAA’s president for 2009, said in an e-mail message to BAA members
on October 1. “We will study the proposal carefully, gather facts, and
respond in a way that is best for Baylor. That is what we always
attempt to do with any request from our school.”
Under the proposal’s terms, the BAA would dissolve its charter as a
501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation and agree to the nullification of all
rights and responsibilities under prior contracts between Baylor and
the BAA. In addition, the BAA would turn over all of its assets and
operations to the university as well as editorial control of the BAA’s
alumni publications, including the Baylor Line magazine, which would be consolidated with the university-produced Baylor Magazine into one publication.
In exchange, Baylor would absorb the BAA as a department of the
university, and the BAA’s governing board would be reconstituted as a
board of advisors that would “provide advice on how to best reach and
involve Baylor alumni.” The university would continue to allow the BAA
to be housed in the Hughes-Dillard Alumni Center, and BAA employees
would “have the option of becoming employees of Baylor consistent with
Baylor policy,” including the BAA’s executive vice president becoming
the vice president for alumni affairs. In addition, in 2010 the regents
would select a member of the current BAA board to serve as a Baylor
regent.
“Although it is our fervent hope that the BAA will join with Baylor in
creating this new Association, we recognize you may wish to maintain
separate status and go a different direction. If so, we will continue
to assist you in maintaining your independence which is virtually
unique among private university alumni associations,” the proposal
concluded.
Public Discussion
As the BAA’s officers and staff began the process of appointing the
study committee, the proposal began receiving extensive coverage in the
local media and exposure through the university administration’s
efforts that encouraged alumni, students, faculty, and staff to support
the proposal.
Following the presentation to the BAA board, a Baylor leader was quoted in a Waco-Tribune Herald
story as saying that the BAA was “in decline, with financial
contributions almost nonexistent.” In the same story, Baylor’s
leadership alleged the existence of a “conflict of purposes” between
Baylor and the BAA and accused the BAA of positioning itself in a
“watchdog role”—stating that “we can’t have conflicting messages.”
The following day, Monday, September 21, Baylor sent several
communications to its various constituents. First, the university
administration e-mailed Baylor faculty and staff members advocating the
proposal, which was provided via a Web link, and then forwarded that
e-mail to all Baylor students with a note of support for “an exciting
proposal.” That same day, the university-produced Baylor Proud blog was sent to Baylor alumni and other constituents, carrying a lead story in support of the merger proposal.
In response to the university’s efforts, on September 22 the BAA sent a Baylor Line News
e-mail to its members notifying them of the university’s merger
proposal and of the pending formation of a study committee. The message
also questioned why the regents were making a turn away from their
historic support of the BAA’s independence at this time and noted that
the BAA’s uniqueness as a self-governing alumni association serving a
private university matches the uniqueness of Baylor’s mission as a
doctoral-level academic institution committed to the Christian faith.
The Larger Context
Over the next four weeks, a vigorous discussion about the proposal and
the history of the BAA and its relationship with Baylor dominated
conversations in alumni circles and around campus.
Several BAA board members and past presidents wrote columns and letters to the editor that ran in the Waco Tribune-Herald and the Baylor Lariat,
some expressing approval of the merger proposal and others expressing
opposition to it. The BAA invited all alumni to e-mail the organization
with their comments about the proposal and began posting them online
for all to see. The Baylor Lariat, the Baptist Standard, the Dallas Morning News, the San Antonio Express-News, and Inside Higher Education ran stories on the situation.
In the course of their communications to BAA members and their comments
to the press, alumni association president Lacy and Jeff Kilgore, the
BAA’s executive vice president, attempted to correct some of what they
and others saw as mischaracterizations of the BAA’s character and
performance in supporting Baylor as well as to put the merger proposal
in a broader context than what university communications had provided.
Kilgore wrote a guest column that appeared in the Baylor Lariat and the Waco Tribune-Herald
in which he pointed out that Baylor’s primary argument for the merger
proposal “is that the BAA’s independence is unique among all other
alumni organizations serving private universities and should thus be
eliminated in order to conform.”
Kilgore noted that the BAA was established as a legally independent
organization more than thirty years ago at the encouragement of
Baylor’s administration and regents to help protect and preserve
Baylor’s unique qualities and mission. And two years ago, the BAA and
the Baylor Board of Regents mutually agreed upon and expressed their
commitment to the independence of the BAA.
The BAA later reported to its members that the BAA’s independent status
is not unique. Research into the matter revealed that Georgetown
University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the University
of Southern California (USC), Tulane University, and Duke University
are also served by alumni associations that are legally incorporated as
independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.
“The BAA’s purpose is to support Baylor and serve alumni, period. There
is no conflict of purposes,” BAA president Lacy said in his October 1
message to members. “Our 19,000 members love Baylor. Hopefully, no one
will attempt to paint our BAA board and staff as persons who do not
love Baylor.”
Lacy went on to observe that the BAA’s membership base has never been
stronger and ranks among the typical membership percentages of its Big
12 counterparts. “As a financially self-sufficient group that runs a
balanced budget, the BAA provides $1.8 million in programs and services
that engage alumni and encourage them to support the university,” Lacy
said. “This past fiscal year, the BAA engaged more than 24,000
participants in its programs and had nearly 1.5 million communication
contacts with alumni and friends. Members of the BAA constitute more
than half of all alumni donors to the university, directly contributing
$14.2 million to Baylor during a recent fiscal year. Membership dollars
to the BAA are up, at an all-time high actually, as are contributions
over and above membership dues.”
In addition to issuing statements from Lacy and Kilgore, the BAA asked
for all alumni and friends to provide their perspectives on the
proposal—and immediately the alumni association’s inbox was flooded
with e-mails. From October 1 to October 27, the BAA published these responses, including names and class years, in a special section of its website
dedicated to the merger proposal, and the voice of the Baylor family
was heard, with 88 percent of the responses supporting the BAA’s
independence, 7 percent supporting Baylor’s proposal, and 5 percent
being mixed.
Proposal Withdrawn
On October 27, the week after Homecoming, regent chair Stone and
interim president Garland sent the BAA a letter in which they announced
that Baylor was withdrawing the proposal.
In their letter, Garland and Stone cited not having received a formal
response from the BAA about the proposal. “Instead, we have seen
opinion editorials from your president and executive vice president
criticizing our proposal, the University, and its governing bodies,”
they wrote. “We have not seen a single instance in which you have
publicly discussed the merits of the proposal directly and the impact
it could have enhancing national alumni relations at Baylor. Last week,
at its annual meeting, the BAA launched a five year plan upon which BAA
independence and separation from the University was the major building
block. All of these activities present a clear message that our
proposal, though made in good faith, is effectively and de facto
declined by the BAA.”
The proposal’s withdrawal was unexpected by the BAA’s leadership. “From
the moment the BAA received the merger proposal, it was our intent to
give it the due diligence needed before a response was given,” BAA
president Lacy told the Waco Tribune-Herald.
“We have worked nonstop since September 19, gathering feedback and
opinion from the members we represent. While surprised, we still stand
ready, as a willing partner, to work with Baylor to move the Baylor
family forward.”
In the same news article, regent chair Stone stated that “Baylor is the
only university in the world with an independent alumni association.”
He added, “They did not respond directly, formally, for almost two
months. . . . It was time to bring an end to the public rhetorical
debate that was not producing any progress whatsoever.”
In a fashion similar to its promotion of the merger proposal, Baylor
broadcast news of the proposal’s withdrawal to a wide audience. On
October 27, Baylor’s leadership sent an e-mail to Baylor’s faculty and
staff lamenting the “failure of the BAA to respond to us directly” and
“the public comments of the BAA leadership about the proposal.”
Two days later, an e-mail to Baylor alumni was sent by the university
announcing the withdrawal of the proposal and linking to the lead
editorial in that day’s edition of the Waco Tribune-Herald.
Titled “Scuttling Peace,” the paper’s editorial claimed that Baylor’s
proposal “granted provisions allowing association alumni to retain much
of their independence but also offered them a clear voice inside
Baylor, rather than continually barking from the outside” and declared
that “the hope for this change has been dashed on jagged rocks of
defiance.”
Between those communications, the BAA sent a message from president
Lacy to its members on October 28. “Contrary to the statements of
others, we have not taken actions that indicate the BAA would reject
the proposal. What we have done is go about our normal business at this
busy time of year [Homecoming] while giving attention to this new and
significant issue,” Lacy informed alumni. “The BAA’s ‘United for
Baylor’ five-year plan, which has been pointed to as evidence of an
inclination to reject the proposal, was actually formalized last spring
and presented in the issue of the Baylor Line
that came out the same weekend that the Baylor representative met with
our board. . . . Giving this proposal its due attention has amounted to
a great amount of work these past thirty-seven days, especially
considering the measures that were required to address the
public-relations efforts that the university initiated two days after
presenting the merger proposal to our board. It was never our intent to
address this matter in the court of public opinion before conducting
our assessment and response, but due to the university’s public efforts
to seek endorsements of the proposal and to disparage the performance
of the BAA, we were compelled to respond in an effort to provide
balance, context, and facts to our members for their consideration in
this process.”
Lacy concluded his message by saying, “We will soon formulate a more
official response to the university regarding the withdrawal of the
proposal. We look forward to identifying new and unique ways that the
BAA and Baylor can work together in the future as we serve Baylor
alumni. Over many decades, the BAA-Baylor partnership has been strong
and successful. We believe that it can continue to be so.”
On November 3, Lacy and BAA executive vice president Kilgore sent a response to Garland and Stone,
which they copied to all other Baylor regents, concerning the
university’s proposal and its subsequent withdrawal. On November 11,
Baylor interim president Garland and regent chair Stone sent the BAA their reply to the BAA’s letter. (To view pdf versions of both, click on the above links.)
“For the sake of achieving peace and unity for all of the Baylor
family, the BAA stands ready and willing to participate in a number of
cooperative joint measures that—if genuinely and fully implemented—will
result in better collaboration, coordination, and effectiveness in the
university’s overall alumni relations program,” Lacy and Kilgore wrote.
“These measures are common at many other universities all over the
nation.”
Among the joint initiatives outlined as possibilities by the BAA were
greater interaction between the BAA’s and Baylor’s governing boards,
collaboration between the BAA and the Baylor Network in alumni outreach
activities, increased contact between the two organizations’ chief
staff persons, enhanced coordination and collaboration in alumni
communications, and shared fundraising activities.
Assessing Independence
Jeff Kilgore, the BAA’s executive vice president, told the Line
that despite this recent process over the past few months, the BAA’s
mission and purpose have remained unchanged. And, he said, the BAA
continues to be an operationally and financially healthy organization
that is resolute in its support of Baylor and its service to alumni and
the greater Baylor family.
“We have heard that the Baylor Alumni Association’s independence is
something that remains of great value to Baylor and to many in the
Baylor family,” Kilgore said. “Baylor alumni recognize this, and we
have heard their strong voices of support. We will go on supporting
Baylor as we always have, keeping the Baylor family fully informed,
engaged, and connected, but we will certainly continue to look for ways
to support Baylor and its students even more and hope for increased
communications with university leadership.”
BAA officials continue to point out that the BAA’s independent
status—fully in place for more than thirty years—has not been
considered an obstacle to collaboration or a premise for functionally
or programmatically separating the BAA from the university until recent
years.
The independent alumni association is the predominant model in the Big
12 Conference, with nine of the twelve universities being supported by
independently run organizations as their general alumni groups. Like
the BAA, most of these alumni associations have had a long history on
campus and have been viewed by their respective universities as the
best means of fostering an informed and engaged alumni body.
And far from precluding support from university administrators, these
organizations’ independence are often seen as a strength and utilized
as an asset.
“Our independence is not viewed as creating an antagonistic
relationship,” Jim Boon, executive director of the Texas Exes at the
University of Texas at Austin, told the Line. “The Alcalde,
our alumni magazine, is valued by our members because it delivers the
news about the university in a straightforward, credible manner. The
administration appreciates our magazine’s editorial independence. I
constantly get that feedback from the president and the vice president
for development.”
A study of alumni magazines that share the kind of editorial independence enjoyed by the Baylor Line
revealed that, counter to the university leadership’s assertion in
their November 11 response to Lacy and Kilgore, other universities find
it thoroughly appropriate to financially support alumni magazines
produced by an independent entity. Both Harvard Magazine and Yale Alumni Magazine, for example, are published by independent organizations and yet receive funding from their parent institutions.
In addition, Kilgore noted, being an independently governed and managed
alumni association doesn’t mean the organization must be barred from
participating in mutually beneficial partnerships with its university.
Kilgore noted that the kind of functional separation that Baylor’s
leadership has recently implemented upon the BAA—creating daylight
between the two organizations where alumni had only seen a seamless
unity of service before—runs counter to common practices in higher
education and reflects a much stricter interpretation of what the
Baylor Alumni Association’s independence means than previous
administrations have held.
Self-governing alumni associations and the universities they serve have
a mutually beneficial interconnectedness that takes many forms, he
said, ranging from direct funding to the sharing of communications
systems and alumni data. It’s not uncommon, he added, to find regular
interaction between both organizations’ chief staff persons. “This is
something we hope improves,” Kilgore said.
Boon, the Texas Exes’ executive director, said that a strong
relationship comes from both parties seeing the big picture. “We have
not had any tension between us and the university,” he said. “That’s
not to say that we won’t cover a subject in the Alcalde
that I’m sure the administration would prefer for us not to cover. But
at the end of the day, that gives us more credibility when we are out
raising money from alumni for scholarships. You can’t isolate one story
in the magazine. You have to assess the totality of the relationship.”
Boon went on to say, “Our ability to serve the university properly is
not dependent on any organizational chart. It’s dependent upon
relationships that exist between me and the university administration
and our volunteers. That’s based on trust and the knowledge that we’re
here ultimately to serve the university.”
The Road Ahead
The BAA’s leaders insist that, despite recent actions to sever
operational ties with the BAA, the alumni association will continue to
serve the greater good of Baylor University by fulfilling its mission
and striving to remain a source of positive news and fact-based
information about Baylor. Unfortunately, at times the facts are not all
positive, but they are still just as important to share openly with
alumni and donors, alumni association leaders say.
In the spirit of transparency, the BAA’s Lacy and Kilgore say it’s the
BAA’s responsibility to share openly and honestly with Baylor alumni
some of the events that have transpired in the last few months. Some
recent actions taken by the university’s leadership that have raised
questions and caused concern among alumni, faculty, and students
include:
• Baylor’s leadership removed all links to the BAA on the university’s “Alumni & Friends” website in June 2009.
• Baylor’s leadership removed the BAA from the university’s toll-free number in August 2009.
• Baylor’s leadership declined to recognize or publicize the BAA’s Sesquicentennial anniversary.
• The BAA was denied a request in November 2009 for the mailing
addresses of non-member alumni to be used for a membership solicitation
and an encouragement for alumni to support Baylor.
• The BAA was informed in November 2009 that it would not be allowed to
welcome new graduates, present BAA awards, or host its reception tent
for new graduates and faculty as part of December commencement
exercises.
• Later in November 2009, the BAA was informed that the university
administration would no longer participate in the “Conversation with
the President” column in the Baylor Line magazine.
“While these recent decisions are a bit dispiriting and make it harder
for us to do our job, they do not change the heart and soul of a
150-year-old organization like the Baylor Alumni Association,” Kilgore
said. “Our ‘United for Baylor’ five-year plan maps out an exciting
future of support and alumni engagement in building a greater Baylor.
We are particularly excited about increasing the BAA’s role in raising
scholarship funds from dues and other gifts to help children of alumni
attend Baylor.”
Kilgore noted that the BAA’s membership revenue has been on a
record-setting pace for the first six months of the fiscal year, with
November’s membership revenue of $149,179 being the largest total for a
single month in the history of the BAA.
In addition, the BAA has announced two gifts to general operating funds
that total $1.5 million. The Baugh Foundation, founded by John and Eula
Mae Baugh, has provided a gift of $1 million to be paid over the next
two years, and Christian Mission Concerns, founded by Paul and Katy
Piper, has made a gift of $500,000 to be paid over the next five years.
Both organizations have been significant donors to the BAA, Baylor, and
other Baptist-related causes over the years, and they intend for their
collective $1.5 million gift to be considered a “challenge grant” that
they hope will be matched by other BAA members and donors.
“We take seriously our charge to be the official association of Baylor
alumni—of whatever opinion and whatever background,” Kilgore said. “We
are focused on remaining true to the principles and vision of the
founders of Baylor and open and accountable to all of the Baylor
family. We continue to invite Baylor’s regents to meet with us in
talking groups to achieve a forward-looking, healing solution to
matters troubling Baylor’s alumni relations. Baylor is a tremendous
university, our alma mater, and we will continue to work hard every day
to be the best alumni association possible to reflect Baylor’s
greatness.”
Following the university’s withdrawal of the proposal, the BAA’s
leadership has continued to communicate with Baylor regents and to
request that a formal communication process be established between
members of Baylor’s Board of Regents and members of the BAA’s Board of
Directors.
“Our request for the meetings is being strongly considered,” BAA
president Lacy commented. “We have asked for official meetings, with a
set agenda.”
It was proposed that meetings be held, regularly and routinely, between
three or four representatives from each respective board throughout
2010. It was also suggested that these proposed meetings will lead to a
better understanding of issues and decisions made by the Board of
Regents and will also add to increased dialogue between the
organizations.
“Early indications are that the Board of Regents is strongly
considering these meetings and may approve them for 2010,” Lacy added.
“The discussions we have had with representatives of the Board of
Regents in recent days have had a very positive tone, and we hope that
continues. We remain hopeful that they will approve the series of
proposed meetings and allow that to occur.”
|
|
.jpg)
