Administrative Opinions
The response to her from the board of trustees however, was grim in comparison to what the faculty may have wanted. In an email sent by Craig Matthews, a member of the board of trustees, just a day after the email by Mel Horwitch on November 30th, he expresses a number of concerns that, at the end of the day, could be the downfall of Polytechnic University. He recognizes that the University identified a number of problems several years prior, and yet little has been done to solve them. He has a number of concerns he wants to address as well. For one, he is concerned about the fall-off in enrollment, with financial consequences coming in as little as 2 years. He says they have put an emphasis on recruitment in recent years but have not succeeded. Their budgets are getting squeezed, the faculty is discouraged, and key staff members have left. He also acknowledges that the board is the starting point for additional capital, and that they would have to become far more energized if they are to go at this alone (Matthews, 2004).
Matthews concedes that he is not optimistic about a solo future of Polytechnic. While there was a great fight being put up by previous and current administration, as well as some faculty members, optimism and reality do not always line up. It seems that at the very best, Polytechnic could crawl out of its situation barely alive. But that is to say that they could do that at all, and the grim picture some of the board members paint makes it seem close to impossible. Emotions run deep when someone has an enjoyable history with their past, especially their past collegiate institution. These emotions can sometimes lead to the wrong decision, and sometimes someone (or some group) has to step up to the plate and, based on facts and not feelings, make the proper decision. And this was the main issue with the merger talks. People with strong feelings, including past alumni and current staff, are very biased when it comes to what decision is the right decision to make, no matter what the facts say. But in all truth, if the math doesn't add up to success, there may be a great rift but there is truly only one decision to be made.
Compared to George Bugliarello and his strong opinions on Polytechnic University solitude, the board of trustees was a bit more modest. In a letter written by Richard W. Foxen, chair of the Poly Futures Committee, to the board of trustees, discussion had progressed far enough for the formal consideration of a merger by the Poly Executive Committee. At a meeting of the board on December 9th, the board decided “(1) to ask NYU to prepare a definitive merger proposal; (2) to form an ad hoc board committee to make the case for Poly ‘going at it alone,’ remaining independent; and (3) restart the search for a new president, which had been interrupted by the NYU talks” (Foxen, 2005). As can be seen, the board of trustees had a slightly more neutral view on the situation. They believed both sides could make a proposition and the board could decide on a best case scenario based on the findings.
However, that is not to say that the board of trustees was all for the merger. A copy of the Poly Future Committee’s report was attached to the letter, laying out a case for an independent Poly. In addition, it is stated in the letter that “In this committee’s opinion, the worst possible outcome…would be to continue the discussions with NYU and thereby prolong the uncertainty” (Foxen, 2005). He also states that the view of the committee and report are clearly biased towards an independent Poly.