New College Independent Alumni/ae Association

New College Trustees July 2005

Ernest Brown

Tedd Corman

Kristin Faust

Peter Gabel

Martin Hamilton

Agar Jaicks

Luis Molina

Colleen O’Neal

Rodel Rodis

Ronald Smith

Cathrine Sneed

James Sweeney

New College Trustees July 2003

Jerry Black

Kristin Faust

Peter Gabel

Martin Hamilton

Agar Jaicks

Linn Jones

Luis Molina

Colleen O’Neal

Rodel Rodis

Cathrine Sneed

James Sweeney

New College Trustees July 2002

Jerry Black

Peter Gabel

Martin Hamilton

Linn Jones

Colleen O’Neal

Rodel Rodis

Cathrine Sneed

James Sweeney

New College Trustees July 2001

Jerry Black

Peter Gabel

Martin Hamilton

Kim Jackson

Linn Jones

Hans Kolbe

Colleen O’Neal

Rodel Rodis

David L. Smith

Cathrine Sneed

James Sweeney

Matthew Wilkes

Matthew Wilkes, Peter Gabel’s co-conspirator in conning WASC, as well as fellow 

board member for New College’s landlord, the Arlene Francis Foundation, might 

not be personally wealthy, but he could conceivably be compelled to testify 

against Gabel in a court of law. If anyone knows about Gabel’s liability in all 

this, it is Wilkes. The only way to test the depths of his loyalty to Gabel is 

to force him to face charges of perjury for not coming clean. It’s amazing the 

treachery that unfolds when everybody tries to save their own hide.

The San Francisco Business Times chimes in for all those creditors out there.

The San Francisco Chronicle has the story of the closing of New College. Although fair enough that the institution and trustees who ran it be chastised, it remains for another day to correct the erroneous assumptions about Prior Learning programs and other matters. For now, getting everyone resettled as best as possible is the priority; celebrating those who survived and went on to contribute to society in special ways will come later.

New College lost its accreditation yesterday. In the notice, WASC admitted the situation has gone on for thirty years, and that despite the failure to meet standards of higher ed throughout that time frame, they issued accreditation that falsely assured the public and students that their degrees would be worthy of credit. Now WASC is telling us that our degrees are worthless [links to WASC letter terminating accreditation, with reasons for termination--Admin.].

We’ve had several inquiries as to what is happening with teach-out, records preservation, and other aspects of school closure, but sadly we have no news to report from either the school trustees or WASC. We hope by next week to get a leaked copy of the WASC decision, unless, heaven forbid, WASC makes its report available publicly. That would be novel. We also hope to hear from the U.S. Department of Education.

We have heard talk that JFKU has offered to take teach-out students from law, psychology, and BA completion, but we’ve seen nothing in writing. For alumni concerned about the ability of prospective employers or graduate schools to obtain our official records when we apply for jobs or admission, we’re sorry to say you’re on your own.

As the list of creditors continues to grow as the school’s assets wither, we anticipate some movement toward either bankruptcy or involuntary dissolution. If this happens, maybe the alumni can be an active partner in the reorganization. At the very least, we would hope a U.S. Trustee would acknowledge our existence and grievances—something the school trustees have yet to manage. Maybe our cards and letters to California Attorney General Jerry Brown will help. Otherwise, we’re still in the dark.

Complaints regarding the mismanagement of finacial aid money and other funds at 

New College of California can be brought to the attention of the Office of 

Charitable Trusts.  Since NCOC was/is a non-profit it falls under the 

jurisdiction of the Sate Attorney General’s Office. Complaints can be made 

anonymously and should contain as much verfiable information as available. 

Complaints have already been lodged against each of the past members of Board of 

Trustees and Administration for their role in the mismanagement of the school 

and the misuse of federal financial aid money intended for students and used to 

cover operating expenses at the school.

All complaints must include a cover page that can be downloaded here:
http://ag.ca.gov/charities/forms/charitable/ct9.pdf

More information about the process can be found here:
http://ag.ca.gov/charities/

Alumni/ae may also consider initiating a class action lawsuit to gain control 

of the remaining property owned by NCOC and to avoid having that property sold 

to pay off debts incurred by Hamilton, Gabel, and the Board.  If we choose to, 

we can push the issue and fight to have each of these people held personally 

responsible for the debt rather than have the remains of the College auctioned 

off to pay for their unscrupulous behavior. 

–Raymond Buscemi, Humanities 1999/Psychology 2001

Reports from students who attended the Alice in Wonderland get together with the three remaining trustees Ted Corman, Philip Knowlton, and Jane Swan today, attest to the ethereal ambience created by the trustees’ inability to come to grips with the reality of loss of accreditation and access to federal funding. Allegedly, the accrediting agency WASC informed the trustees this morning that they have ten days to formulate a plan to deal with student, alumni, and employee issues under school closure. But instead of being forthright with those in attendance this afternoon about what will happen as the school disassembles, the trustees dithered in their delusions about what programs they might keep as profitable ventures in their looking glass world, as though the disaster of the last nine months never happened.

To say we find it odd that this remnant board that fails to make records available and likely doesn’t even constitute a legal quorum under federal law, is yet able to prolong the misery of everyone involved simply because they haven’t been hauled before a judge, is an understatement. The fact they haven’t been sued personally for the harms they’ve caused as trustees puzzles us no end.

A class-action lawsuit by New College alumni against Peter Gabel, et al would undoubtedly be a real circus. But should the alumni determine that it might be worth the effort and expense to sue the trustees for damages, there are some tangible remedies to consider. One of those — based on alumni input — would be the establishment of a community service center that would provide guest instructors, motivational speakers, and mentors from the alumni association as a resource to other schools and colleges. In this way, alumni could receive stipends or fees and simultaneously support ongoing community service consistent with the stated mission of their alma mater. My recommendation would be to use a court settlement to establish this facility in the Mission District of San Francisco. My suggestion for a name is the Ani Mander Service Center.

As the many comments on the February 13 San Francisco Chronicle article about New College’s collapse observe, the story is mostly one of malign neglect of faculty and alumni by a group of self-selected trustees who found a common interest in self-promotion. Part of that self-promotion included marketing degrees in such areas as activism and social change, rather than using more traditional connotations like political science. The coursework and emphasis of study could be the same, but the deliberate naming of programs in recent years to either reflect the ideology of trustees or to support the intentional marketing of a defiant image only contributed to the marginalization of the school.

Were the trustees truly devoted to nurturing agents of social change, they would have offered such academic freedom within recognized fields that would have enabled graduates to pursue these interests unhampered by social conventions. Other state and private universities in the Bay Area do this, and their alumni are able to enter academia and other realms seamlessly while achieving noble goals. For some reason, New College trustees thought they had to present an eccentric image to succeed. They were obviously wrong.

The school’s failure to provide academic conferences, a thesis catalogue, mentoring, and other alumni services, shows that the trustees sole interest was in milking students for federal funds and then abandoning them. This unconscionable malfeasance deserves redress.

With a decision on accreditation due any day, the New College trustees have sent a “new” eleventh hour plan to the accrediting agency–the dog ate our homework, so please give us more time. We kid you not.

Of course the whining includes lots of smoke blowing about what the trustees might do if given another chance, but as usual there is no explanation of why they neglected to do anything they promised eight months ago, or five years ago, or twelve years ago. Also in line with their long tradition of not accepting personal responsibility for the mess they’ve created, the trustees blamed the Department of Education in their latest list of excuses. Anything to avoid accountability.

The sooner this nonsense ends the better.

Some alumni/ae have expressed embarrassment at being duped by the school’s marketing, and regrets that they chose to attend there. Personally, I experience neither, though I admit to resentment that the return on my investment in studying there hasn’t been more fruitful.

It’s easy in hindsight to be critical of one’s choices, but the decision to enroll in a school that was apparently more nurturing is nothing to apologize for. The fact this image was fraudulent is grounds for seeking restitution, not for self-criticism.

Both alumni and faculty who were deceived by the false marketing are aggrieved parties. Given neither group received what was promised, perhaps they can walk the path to restitution together.

Papa Moon

Baby Moon

Consumer fraud is an interesting angle to consider in remedying the false marketing of the school. New College was not progressive; it didn’t provide student or alumni services, let alone an avant garde education. In fact, it didn’t even live up to the explicit promises in its student manual. Still, this is all moot absent a class-action lawsuit. Bottom line–crime pays.

Now that our journey to authenticity has nearly arrived, there will soon be time to reflect on our experience of the final battle to defeat the delusions that brought on the ruin of the institution. While there are no doubt many lessons to be learned, one that stands out is the need to filter out the noise generated by the delinquents comprising Prophet Peter’s coterie, in order to have thoughtful discussions about the future as well as the past.

A colleague of mine once observed that reticence is a much undervalued virtue, and I would only add that gaging one’s agenda in response to the tantrums of petty tyrants like Peter Gabel is a common mistake of genuine reformers. Best to get on with the task at hand and ignore the endless protestations of spoiled little rich kids and their sycophants. Otherwise, we only perpetuate the merciless misperceptions that brought on the wrath of reality.

Death must precede resurrection. Let’s get on with it.

In the dying days of New College, some have lamented the creativity that will be lost by its demise. But creativity does not depend on a decrepit institution run by insipid bureaucrats. It depends on the individual spirit that refuses to be complacent in the face of such petty tyrannies.

So this creativity will continue in other places and other ways without the distraction of fending off the interference of incompetent buffoons and mind-bending despots.

Diversity in academia, like life, is a healthy thing, but perversity of purpose is not a condition in which it can prosper.

One of the lessons New College administrators and trustees learned too late, was that alumni are a college’s greatest asset. Blow them off as irrelevant, and you might as well hang up the For Sale sign. In the case of New College of California, that is exactly what happened.

With the exception of a handful of well-heeled notables, New College has always treated its alumni this way. It fits perfectly with the tyrant trust-funder syndrome of its big benefactor, TV starlet progeny Peter Gabel. Surround yourself with fawning lackeys and everything will work out. Except it didn’t.

For thirty years, the MO of New College has been to systematically rip off students and faculty. Without tenure or a grievance system, it was like taking candy from a baby. Both these groups were so dependent on the institution for their loans and paychecks, they almost never complained. When they did, they were replaced.

But alumni are a different kettle of fish. They have moved on with their lives, and while some might have fond memories of their college experience and be willing to donate time or money to help current students make the most of their’s, alumni do not respond to being treated with contempt, let alone being blown off as insignificant.

So when New College tried pulling another fast one with its accrediting agency and the Department of Education last summer, a stunt that was obviously going to land the school in hot water – not to mention its students and employees – alert alumni decided enough was enough, and that the ringleaders of this psychopathic circus had to go. And go they did, one after another, dragging the school down with them.

New College’s board of trustees have been pulling the same con for so long that they apparently don’t know how to do anything else. After a while, though, even oversight agencies can catch on to the basics of shell games.

Judging by their past behavior, the Friends of New College LLC ruse is just another attempt by former school presidents Martin Hamilton and Peter Gabel — along with their trustee cronies Ted Corman, Phillip Knowlton, Luis Molina, and Jane Swan — to bamboozle WASC and defraud the Department of Education. What better way to launder proceeds from questionable real estate deals using federal funds, than to set up a holding company posing as a charitable organization?

Until the Office of the Inspector General investigates all the golden parachutes and other payoffs to the people who mismanaged New College’s money, we won’t know if felonies were committed. For now, none of the trustees — including Molina, Swan, and Knowlton — have provided any of the crucial information demanded by the alumni association last July. The fact the trustees continue to operate in secret suggests an ongoing cover-up.

San Francisco Weekly

Anyone with knowledge about financial fraud at New College can contact the Office of the Inspector General. They do investigations for the U.S. Department of Education.

Fiduciary integrity and the creation of a just and sacred world are not mutually exclusive; the latter without the former is, in fact, hypocrisy.

—Raymond Buscemi, Psy.D.

The crumbling of the institution is, in fact, the crumbling of the illusion.

—Anonymous

Inside Higher Ed

Having read all relevant official documents as well as correspondence from many alumni, it is clear that the myth of New College is largely a fantasy. Indeed, by what right can New College claim to be San Francisco’s most progressive school given its well-documented history of actively opposing every effort by faculty and students over the decades to have democratic governance?

Granted some good academic work happened there — as it does elsewhere — but after reading the testimonies of former faculty and students, I can only conclude that it happened despite the institution, not because of it.

As you read the preceding testimonies and those that follow, try to examine them with an open mind and an appreciation of the difference between the school’s rhetoric and reality. If, together, we can accomplish this much, then we can begin unmaking the myth of New College, and perhaps, in turn, bring to an end the cruel hoax foisted on the idealistic scholars who once labored there. This false notion — built on the sacrifice of human dignity and respect — deserves to be dismantled.

As a faculty member at New College for the past five years, I have grown weary of the incessant blaming of all of New College’s woes on “activists”; “disgruntled former employees”; WASC (and more recently) the “Bush Department of Education”; or NC’s the “transitional leadership team” — anyone, it seems but the former administration, Board of Trustees and the famed “Historic Leadership.” New College’s problems did not begin in the past six months — the school has been horribly mismanaged. Instead of accountable and transparent governance structures New College has been ruled by a system of nepotism, favors and loyalty. Any opening of the books (as small groups of faculty members have consistently called for over the years) would reveal not only ludicrous financial schemes but hugely inequitable distribution of New College’s scant financial resources as well.

Most disturbing to me is the scapegoating of students. I believe it is unethical to invite students to a school that purports an activist agenda, to take their money and then to refuse to give them any voice. How is it possible that a school with New College’s mission doesn’t have any form of student governance? The answer I frequently hear to this is that students are apathetic except in times of crises. However, in my experience students who have tried to organize a governance structure are met with a lack of support from the administration. (Indeed when a proposal for a structure for student governance was approved by members of a task force that came together in the wake of the Leary debacle, the decision was struck from the minutes by one of New College’s former academic vice-presidents.)

Activists (student and other) did not start their efforts to create change within New College by going to the WASC or the media. They, like many faculty members who have worked on the Faculty Council, the Graduate Council, the Academic Affairs Workgroup; the Finance Committee (and all of the committees that emerge prior to WASC visits only to have their work totally discarded once WASC has left) — tried every avenue available to them only to be met with closed doors, unanswered emails and letters and broken promises.

As a teacher and adviser I have always encouraged students to focus on their own scholarship and community activism and have consistently been saddened and appalled that New College’s endless misfeasance (and malfeasance) gives students such cause to be distracted from their very important work. I wish nothing more than that all of New College’s students had had the support of a functional, ethical and financially sustainable institution in order to do there very important work in the world.

The constant focus on an external “enemy” which in New College’s case manifests as WASC and/or the DOE or on the “misguided” activist enemy within is as much a legacy of the left as is COINTELPRO. If progressive communities cannot make room for multiple voices and yes, even dissent, how can we even begin to expect or demand that of the right. New College has been many things to many people over the years, and for those who have dissented (many of whom were tuition paying students or poorly paid workers) it has often been an oppressive and retributive environment.

—Anonymous

PS During a visit to a classroom at another local small college several weeks ago the program director came into the class to announce that WASC would be visiting the following week. She encouraged students to speak with WASC and to be sure to express any concerns they had. Later that same day a librarian (who had come to the class to share with students the very comprehensive research resources of the institution) again suggested that students speak with WASC. Having spent years at New College and having been personally asked by my New College’s top administration to keep students away during a WASC visit, I was shocked that an institution would actually support students to openly express their needs and concerns.

As noted in July, there were three individuals who had to know the details of the financial frauds that led to the present financial crisis. They were Renee Stonework, Carol Small, and Sienna SK Man. In order for these crimes to take place, though, school president Martin Hamilton and board of trustees finance chair Kristin Faust had to be involved.

Why did they all resign? Why haven’t they been subpoenaed?