Updated September 6, 2016 at 5 p.m. with comments from Carol Moore.
Carol Moore, the most recent president of now-closed Burlington College, is publicly excoriating its board of trustees and People’s United Bank for backing previous president Jane O’Meara Sanders’ decision to buy a $10 million lakeside campus in 2010.
In a letter to the editor published in the Chronicle of Higher Education on Thursday, Moore describes the land purchase, which plunged the college into debt, as an “appallingly inappropriate business deal.” She blames it for the school’s demise.
Moore, a former Lyndon State College president who was appointed interim president of Burlington College in December 2014, demurred from criticizing her predecessors during her time in that post. (O’Meara Sanders was forced to resign in 2011. Her chief financial officer, Christine Plunkett, took the helm until she resigned suddenly in July 2014.)
But in her explosive letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Moore doesn’t hold back. She writes:
BC’s fate was set when its former board members hired an inexperienced president and, six years later, approved the imprudent purchase of a $10 million piece of property for campus expansion. Enrollment that year was about 195 and the budget just over $4 million, less than half of this ill-advised investment. What were they thinking? Where was the Finance Committee when these decisions were being made?
She suggests that People’s United Bank, which gave the college a $6.7 million loan to buy the land, was improperly influenced by O’Meara Sanders’ status as the wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). And she alludes to allegations that O’Meara Sanders overstated the donations she’d lined up to get that loan approved:
More interestingly, what bank lends a small, private, unendowed college of that size and financial status an amount that so obviously outweighs its ability to repay? People’s United Bank of Vermont. And the collateral? One planned gift of a revocable trust, payable upon the death of the donor, and the “promise” of another million-dollar gift. But, alas, no written record of such a “promise” could be found, anywhere in Burlington College’s records.
Who is to blame for this appallingly inappropriate business deal? Perhaps a board that steered clear of the tough questions which needed to be asked. Or a bank in the state of an influential senator — a senator, as it turned out, with bigger ambitions?
Reached by phone on Tuesday, Moore said the decision to approve the land sale warrants greater scrutiny — for the sake of the displaced students and staff. “I think it’s very, very important that somebody or some group of people get to the bottom of it and make it public.”
“I don’t have the answers,” she added. “I just happen to be personally involved in
the situation where students and faculty and staff were disadvantaged.”
The senator and O’Meara Sanders could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Most of you are forgetting the true story.. Jane Sanders LIED about the amount of pledges..she changed the amounts so the board and bank would think there would be plenty of money, surly the wife of a Senators wife wouldn’t lie right? Well she did..proven fact!!! Yes the board and the bank were wrong..the board for hiring someone who was unqualified to do the job..and the bank for believing her..Makes one wonder if there was pressure from the Senator himself!!! I think Ms Moore did the right thing about coming out on this..exposing a liar and cheater..it was not a cheap shot it was the truth!!!
Remember that Lady Jane keeps the checkbook in the family. People mix reckless and visionary in the same cauldron all the time. If indeed the President and CEO of BC are/were one and the same, more of this “death” belongs in Lady Jane’s pocket.
It’s the job of the Board of Trustees to analyze and oversee enoramous financial decisions like this. Jane Sanders worked for them, after all. They hired her knowing that she was not exactly an experienced college administrator, and it appears that they left her out to dry on her own. It’s tempting to view this as a cynical move by the Board to take ambitious steps, to look bold and visionary, and then fade into the background and blame someone else when they fail.
I congratulate and thank Ms. Moore for speaking out. She and other conscientious observers could be a vital asset for any business if they weren’t afraid to speak out about the appalling abuse of many unqualified or incompetent people serving on boards. As someone who has served on local and national boards, it doesn’t surprise me at all that foolish and irresponsible decisions were made by the CEO and rubber stamped by the board that ultimately destroyed this school.
It is prestigious to list board service on a CV, so those who are asked typically jump at the opportunity without the time or willingness to remove an incompetent CEO. Too few people wish to speak out when minutes are being taken, sitting around a conference table as they face the same CEO who was instrumental in getting them a seat on the board. It’s easier to let everything come crashing down because board members bear no real responsibility, they simply head for the hills as we all suffer corrupt and/or foolish CEOs running rampant through the thorny fields of fatally flawed decisions.
While all this may be true, Jane’s proposal could also be seen as visionary. If the Board, faculty and administration had embraced the opportunity to build on this admittedly gorgeous location, by creating the kind of curriculum that matched, they may have survived. Initially, the school seemed to position itself in a unique niche, by developing it’s film/media program. This would have been before Champlain College’s expansion. Those administrators led at the time by Christine Plunkett who were responsible for curriculum lacked the knowledge, vision and experience to add the content, the real meat to a program that may actually have enticed students to enroll. There is a lot of blame to go around.
Carol Moore’s self serving attack on Jane Sanders is an obvious attempt to distance herself from her own culpability. After a long academic career she has had to retire as the ineffectual president of a failing College. Read her press releases during her presidency, her Babbitt-like confidence in the College’s viability.
Mannie Lionni
If she had these opinions, why in the hell did she take the job in the first place? I can’t imagine that she was unaware of the problems BC was facing at the beginning of her tenure. It appears that she has a personal axe to grind and is does little to enhance her credibility.
Is she actually accusing anybody of a criminal act?
Does’t seem like it.
Nice to see Carol Moore speaking out. Let’s hope some former board members who were not in favor of the land acquisition, do as well. A full investigation and pursuit of accountability needs to happen here.
While Jane Sanders is not blameless, the true fault resides with the Board of Trustees. A board’s main function is to manage the financial assets of the school, and set a course for financial stability. They seemed to be serving a different master. The Board should have nixed the purchase immediately as making no practical or financial sense.
The Board also hired Jane, who’s experience leading an academic institution was questionable at the time. Many faculty had a challenging time relating to her, and her tenure was tumultuous from day one.
This land deal never seem workable from the beginning. The debt load was way over-the-top. Any unbiased person who looked at the balance sheet of the College would see that it was an incredibly risky and foolhardy purchase. I know a couple of the Board members saw this.
But the question remains just WHY the other Board members did not? This must be answered.
The Board seemed to not be acting in the best interest of the College. The reason for this needs to come to light, as it is indeed a cautionary tale for all non-profits and academic institutions.
Such a cheap shot Ms. Moore. Jane Sanders put the idea out there to the board. I’m sure they could have voted the idea down. Were they so enamored by Bernie Sanders that they wanted to make a favorable impression on him? I doubt that Senator Sanders used his influence in this case.