Raleigh Town Hall Meeting
11-30-06
Report by Eliza Rucker Hager, '69

With contributions from Jamie Boyce ’02, Melissa Peden ’60, Mary Jane Evans Bryant ’59, Claire Bledsoe Pratt ’69, Eliza (Liza) Rucker Hager ’69, Marcy Wiggs Romary ’92, Susan Prescott Little ’69, Louise Scott (Scotty) Steele ’59, Kathleen (Kathy) Nowack Worm ’82, and Elizabeth (Betsy) Gordon McCrodden ‘66

On November 30 about 70 alumnae from the Triangle area attended a wine and cheese reception hosted by Trustee Mary Laurie Johnson Cece ‘84. Ginger Hill Worden, Heather Garnett, and Skip Kuhn represented the College. Linda Bennett, Triangle Chapter Alumnae Representative also attended.

Heather welcomed everyone and introduced Ginger, who proceeded to explain/defend the Board’s recent adoption of the Strategic Plan. She gave some history of her association on the BOT, mentioning in particular the problems with recruiting that go back to the 1980‘s. Examples she cited:

• President Lorimer had said that recruiting was a “big issue”.
• The college's ACE Program of the 80s that was aimed at increasing enrollment.
• President Spivey’s enrollment goal of 1000 students, which was never met.
• President Lambeth’s remarks at the end of his interim term that increasing enrollment was vital.
• The Board’s charge to President Bowman to increate visibility of the school, which she did by establishing the Pearl Buck Award, recruiting students from other countries (particularly the Masai student).

All of these efforts did increase visibility but not enrollment.

While Ginger was on the Board, they hired several marketing and enrollment consultants, but the student body number has not increased. Today there are 586 residential students, 715 including prime-time and part-time. (The goal is still 1,000.) The retention rate is 61%.

Three years ago the BOT did some financial modeling and market studies and decided to hire A&S.

At this point Ginger stopped the history lesson and apologized to the alums for the poor communication from the Board, particularly last summer before the Board vote.

She went on to say that the Board had three choices:

• Stay the course. This would mean that the school would gradually spend the endowment down, which would result in faculty leaving and unacceptable maintenance deferrals.
• Merge with another woman’s college. The school would last longer but would lose the campus and in the long run would not affect the market issues that they are trying to address.
• Admit men and adopt a global emphasis.

There were more apologies for the poor communication, but she emphasized that this was not an issue that the 13,000 members of the Alumnae Association could vote on. She admitted that President Bowman’s last annual report was misleading, but the bottom line is that high school students are not willing to attend a small, single-sex liberal arts college in a small town

The meeting changed course about this time as alums asked questions and made comments:

Alum ’56 had two issues. She expressed her feelings of betrayal and insult because of the process that was followed and said she does not trust the people who led that process. She is also concerned about rumors concerning the sale of the art collection. Ginger responded that all assets of the college have to work for the college and that Randolph-Macon is a school, not a museum and that no one attends R-M because of the collection. She, personally, does not want to sell any of the collection but will not promise not to do so. The alum said that she had chosen R-M because of the collection and after graduation she had gone to work as registrar for the Corcoran Museum. She went on to say that “this is a national art collection that attracts international attention -- that is global.” Ginger invited her to attend the December 9 meeting in New York at which the future of the collection will be discussed.

There was some back and forth discussion about the reunion last June at this time, and I did not get all of it. The main point was that the reunion attendees felt that the Board had already made their decision in June. Alum ‘66 was there; she said that Ginger had attended her class meeting and made some of the same arguments that she is making tonight, leading her to believe that the BOT had already decided to accept the Plan. Mary Laurie said the Board had not made any decision at the time of Reunion; they were waiting for the A&S report, which came the next week. Ginger then said in September the students asked for a second opinion on the financials and the coed option. This would have been prohibitively expensive so the school requested A&S to return to campus and do more surveys and presentations to the students. Ginger says that the students were satisfied with the A&S results after this visit.

Alum ‘69 asked why R-M was having problems with enrollment when Sweet Briar was doing so well. Ginger and Skip responded that SBC wasn’t really doing so well. Recently (they did not say when) SBC had gone down to 130 freshmen. The number of incoming freshmen is now up, but their enrollment has not grown. Skip said that Hollins University is also having trouble meeting enrollment goals.

Alum ‘56 lamented the loss of identity because of the loss of the name. Ginger had no response to this except to remind us of the December 9 announcement. She said that the Board had come up with three names that have a history with the college but would not reveal them to us.

Alum ‘66 commented on the naming video. Discussion was lively with alums saying it was silly and sophomoric and Ginger saying that 17 year olds like silly and sophomoric.

The next topic was about alums’ not being solicited to help with the recent capital campaign or with recruiting high school students. There were comments from many alums, and I’ve tried to capture as much as I could here:

• Alum ‘55 had attended reunion in June and was distressed at the physical condition of the gym and the library, in particular. Anyone who had seen these buildings should not be surprised to learn that the school is in financial trouble.
• Alum ‘66 asked the room if anyone had been asked to contribute to the recent $100 million capital campaign. No one had. Both Ginger and Skip looked stricken. She also said that area alums for years have been very involved with recruiting students but that the school had not asked for such help in recent years. She then read a letter from Sally Cone in which she denounced the Board's actions. Ginger was pretty shocked about the letter because she and Skip have visited her recently and left thinking that Sally was supportive of the Strategic Plan. She is very disappointed in Sally’s actions and blames the list serve because it allows so much unsubstantiated information to float around.

Ginger reiterated that no one on the Board wanted to go coed; that they all love the college and that there are “no ulterior motives.”

One alum said that a donation is an investment and that we need to feel good about that investment.

Alum ‘69 expressed her concern with the Strategic Plan and the process the college has used to generate this one. The last one was prepared 10 years ago. This one is “proprietary”, not a good thing. She felt that this format -- wine and cheese party -- is inappropriate for the business at hand.

Alum ‘51 commented on the two most recent mailings from the school -- one publicizing the new name announcement on December 9 and one asking for money for the annual fund -- that arrived within days of each other. Ginger again apologized for the School’s poor communication .

Alum ‘52 complimented Ginger on her performance in a difficult job. Then she went on to express her concern that the school is spending 12.5% of its endowment annually. Skip and Ginger said that percentage is lower this year but admitted it’s still too much. The alum said she thought alums should have been made aware of this number; that we should receive annual reports from the school on its financial situation. She asked if having fewer students who pay full price would help; Ginger said the school needs a critical mass, but did not say what that number would be.

Another alum asked, “What will you o when students withdraw from the college in January?” Ginger did not really answer the question. She said that “students are not happy but will come around.”

Alum ‘99 is “on the fence” about the Strategic Plan but asked why the BOT could not have waited one year to make this decision. Applause from everyone. Ginger said they needed to proceed with planning as soon as the decision was made -- the name change, changes in the physical plant to accommodate men, athletic programs, etc.

Alum ‘74 asked what happened to donations at the five schools in the study that went coed? Skip said they all experienced a dip and that Randolph-Macon is down in its annual fund this year. He refused to give a dollar amount when asked. Ginger said that the college would be out of business in 10 years if they do nothing. She expects enrollment to grow to 1100 students in six to seven years.

Alum ‘69 : “We think RMWC is gone.”

A young alum said that she can’t trust market research she can’t study; she needs to know the assumptions and see the data. Ginger reiterated what we’ve heard all along from the BOT members: the A&S research is proprietary and we cannot see the report.

The topic of alumnae involvement in recruitment was discussed. Skip said that in the last 25 years, the freshman enrollment had reached 200 only 8 times. This has resulted in a revenue stream too low to support operations and forced dipping into the endowment. They were asked again why alums have not been asked to recruit as they had in the past. Heather fielded this one. She said that her office had sent requests to alums in the bulletins and other mailings at least three times a year. She said that even the ACE Program had not increased enrollment. One alum responded, "Do you know how much mail busy people get in a day? You shouldn't be burying these requests in mass mailings; you should be on the phone asking people to recruit." Another young alum said that we should have gotten more information sooner about the recruitment problems. Heather’s response was to please stay involved with the college.

The meeting started getting more emotional at this point and comments were flying fast and furious: “Alums feel managed and manipulated.” “Why should I give money?” “R-M will be different because the support given there as a woman’s college will disappear.” Heather said that she will continue to give money because she appreciates what Randolph-Macon gave her and hopes that we will all do the same.

Alum ‘66 said that many in the room who are businesswomen and professionals had developed strategic plans and that all strategic plans start with a vision. She cannot see a vision in this plan and asked Ginger if there is one. Ginger said the vision is being built now with the five Strategic Planning groups. The school has received 26 completed applications from men and admitted that applications from women are down.

Alum ‘68 pointed out that all small coed colleges are struggling and asked if RM is just trading one set of problems for another. “Have you analyzed this?” Ginger replied, “Somewhat.”

Alum ‘66 asked why Kathleen Bowman was not fired after two or three years. The room erupted into loud applause, the loudest of the evening. Not surprisingly, Ginger had no response.

The meeting ended with a request from one attendee for a show of hands of who supported the BOT decision to go coed. I only saw one hand raised apart from Ginger and Mary Laurie.