The Stick

The concept of "the Stick" was developed as part of PEC’s September 22, 2006 launch of the "carrot or stick" campaign. While "the Carrot" represents the business plan and aid for keeping R-MWC a women’s college, "the Stick" is the litigation that PEC has been forced to support as it is clear that the trustees will not re-consider the strategic plan or even meet with PEC to explore ways to keep R-MWC a women’s college. PEC contacted every trustee directly by mail with a gift of carrots when the campaign was launched. Attached was a note explaining that the carrots were a peace offering to come together and meet with PEC to work for the college’s future. If you read the note that accompanied the carrot gift, you’ll see that PEC was extremely active in trying to reach out to trustees before supporting litigation. Unfortunately, the only trustee who contacted PEC after receiving her gift of carrots was Alumnae Association President Janis Ansell (she has since resigned from the Board).

As part of "the Stick" PEC is presently litigating two lawsuits against the college, not the individual trustees: (1) a suit to enforce the 4-year contract that Randolph-Macon Woman’s College made with present students and require the college to delay implementation of any coed vote until after the class of 2010 graduates (i.e., temporary relief); and (2) a "Charitable Trust" suit to require R-MWC to use the charitable assets of the college to advance the purposes for which those assets were donated – to operate a college under the name of Randolph-Macon Woman’s College to educate primarily women in the liberal arts (i.e., more permanent relief). Both suits are proceeding toward hearings that will probably occur in early January.

In the student contract case, attorneys for the college have produced 2,188 pages of documents in response to our discovery requests, and our students have produced nearly as many documents in response to the college’s requests. The college initially filed a motion called a "Bill of Particulars" together with an old-fashioned Virginia motion to "Crave Oyer." Together, those motions required the student plaintiffs to produce the written documents upon which they relied for their contract. The students’ response to the motions was filed last week. The students rely upon their letters of acceptance, which offered them, among other things, a place in their respective classes (2008, 2009, and 2010) at "Randolph-Macon Woman’s College," and specifically offered them the benefits of the "Macon Plan," a coordinated curriculum plan whose benefits can only be realized if a student remains at R-MWC for her entire college career. The offer letters are identical for all three classes of plaintiffs (first years, sophomores, and juniors). The College now must file its responsive pleadings in the contract case. Once the College has filed its official Answer to the Complaint, the schedule for hearing the contract case will be more definite.

In the charitable trust case, brought by the student plaintiffs as well as plaintiffs who donated money to the college for specific funds (art and scholarships), the College has filed a "Demurrer," which is another old-fashioned Virginia name for a Motion to Dismiss. The student and donor plaintiffs must file their memorandum in opposition to the Demurrer on December 13, 2006. Once that response is filed, a hearing will be set for the Demurrer early in 2007, which will most likely reach the main legal issues in the case.

Many people including former trustees, alumnae and faculty have repeatedly asked PEC to look into the college’s operational issues. As funding and volunteer assistance allows, PEC has begun to investigate in much greater depth the factors that have led to the current state of the college’s finances and the move toward coeducation. This investigation is proceeding on many different fronts; however, PEC’s ability to pursue any of these issues depends upon our ability to either pay for the expertise necessary to undertake the projects, or to find volunteers among our supporters who have the qualifications to do this on a pro bono basis.

As information comes to light, PEC has been seeking the assistance of various professionals including forensic accountants, financial analysts, curriculum planners, admissions and tuition discounting experts, and more (both alumnae and non-alumnae) to help us find the most effective ways to continue to fight the actions of the Board of Trustees and to reverse the September 9 vote. If you have such expertise and have not already volunteered to help, please consider volunteering today.

PEC continues to hope that the Board of Trustees will enter into discussions with PEC and others who are challenging the coed vote. We wish that we could share every aspect of our work publicly, but PEC has learned that the Board of Trustees will simply use the information that we provide to further entrench themselves. We will continue to publish details of our work as soon as it is strategically safe to do so. PEC truly hopes that our supporters can appreciate the need for legal counsel to maintain the privileges of the various individuals (students and donors) who have taken on the task of serving as the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, and that this necessarily means that PEC cannot communicate everything about these suits publicly. As we continue the fight, our ability to maximize our legal leverage depends upon the level of funding and pro bono counsel we receive. PEC never wants to doubt that one more dollar, or one more hour's work, might have turned the tide. PEC and its supporters will not give up this fight and we hope that other alumnae, students, parents, faculty, former trustees, friends of the college -- even current trustees -- will join us by funding our work. 

Please click here to donate to The Stick.