'It Is Now Time for the College's Accounting of Events'

By Jane Margaret O'Brien
Sunday, October 28, 2007

Editor's note: A version of the following commentary by O'Brien, president of St. Mary's College of Maryland, was delivered to the St. Mary's County commissioners in connection with last week's public forum on legislative proposals that the county could submit to the 2008 session of the Maryland General Assembly. One of those proposals would require gathering community input on construction projects at the campus.

St. Mary's College is committed to a good-neighbor policy.

Over the past decade, we have made a determined effort to enhance service to the community. Examples include the popular River Concert Series; certification by the Project Management Institute as a project management provider; hundreds of hours of student volunteer efforts in the schools and projects such as Christmas in April; the home for Special Olympics Maryland sailing, community sailing and sports camps; a competition-size pool in the new Athletic and Recreation Center used by local swimming groups; the County Scholarship Program to encourage local students to stay local by attending St. Mary's College; an attractive dining facility that is used by the community; special programs for area high school students; arts outreach programs for the area high schools; and a new Masters of Arts in Teaching program to better serve the needs of the school district.

We are distressed that this strong record of community support has been disturbed by controversy over the new Rowing Center, which houses our water safety equipment and rowing shells up to 63 feet in length. We strongly oppose the proposed state legislation to ensure community involvement in future construction, and we do not support the proposal that is before the St. Mary's County commissioners. In the case of the Rowing Center, our intention was not to be oblivious to neighborhood interests. In order to ensure that this kind of disagreement does not occur again at such a late stage in a construction project, the college is committed to instituting a program of public meetings early in the planning process of all future capital projects.

Over the past several weeks, the subject of the college's Rowing Center has been very much in the news. Throughout that time we have listened to the various criticisms, and we have responded in a respectful fashion in group and private settings. It is now time for the college to go on the record with its accounting of events.

¿ The waterfront development project has been in the works since program planning began in 2000. The permitting process associated with the project began in 2001, and all of the necessary permits were obtained in the prescribed fashion. After first claiming that the college sidestepped elements of the permitting process, opponents now claim that the institution was "legally correct but morally wrong" despite the fact that this project will reduce storm-water runoff by 32 percent and will have strong "green" building elements such as a geothermal heating and cooling system.

Furthermore, the Maryland Historic Trust during a recent visit reaffirmed its earlier judgment that the project did not endanger St. Mary's City's historic character. As a matter of fact, the college was founded in 1840 by the state legislature as the first effort to create a living monument to the original capital of Maryland. A complete description of the permitting process can be found on the college's Web site, http://www.smcm.edu/facilities/rcFAQs.

¿ The college understands that some of its neighbors are upset that the construction of the Rowing Center in its current location momentarily disturbs the preexisting views of the river as one heads north on Route 5. Upon learning of the depth of some of these feelings, the college did what good neighbors ought to do: We opened up a dialogue to assess the nature of the complaints, and we devised a process to resolve the dispute.

Two open forums were held on campus Aug. 29 and Sept. 2. An audience of approximately 100 community members, students, faculty and staff attended each meeting. As a result of some of the strong sentiment expressed during these meetings, the college established the "4-Cs" advisory committee consisting of seven self-identified members of the community, two members from Trinity Church parish, two members from Historic St. Mary's City, three members from the college staff and four college students. Some have suggested that the community members were handpicked as rubber stamps to a predetermined college position. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the suggestion is an insult to all who volunteered countless hours to help resolve an issue that is contentious to some.

The group was facilitated by Robin Roberts of Resolve, a professional facilitation firm, and eight meetings and frequent electronic exchanges among the members led to the completion of a report containing a number of recommendations and suggestions. This report was presented to the Building and Grounds Committee of the board of trustees at a special meeting Oct. 5.

¿ While the 4-Cs committee could not reach a consensus on two overriding options -- to move or not to move the Rowing Center -- we did identify the pros and cons of each option and we did distill 14 possible move options down to two. Three members from the community spoke about the committee's process and advocated for their positions. The Buildings and Grounds Committee chairperson thanked the entire committee for its good faith effort and the hundreds of hours that went into producing the report. On Oct. 6, the Buildings and Grounds Committee reported the outcome of the 4-Cs work to the full board and indicated that it would make a progress report at the next meeting of the board of trustees on Dec. 1. The full report of the 4-Cs is posted on the college Web site, http://www.smcm.edu, under "Waterfront Improvement Project."

¿ As was discussed in the open meetings and in the 4-Cs committee, construction of the main River Center building will proceed while the college undertakes an assessment of the options in the advisory committee's report.

¿ While the college is now in the midst of a good-faith effort to resolve the issue of the Rowing Center, some have continued to press their agenda for an immediate decision to move the building. Unfortunately, the campaign to move the Rowing Center has also included implied threats of arson that the college has taken seriously, as it must to protect the well-being of its students. Security has been enhanced, and the involvement of state and local authorities has been sought. We will not take the threat of violence lightly, and we will resist threats vigorously.

¿ It has been suggested that the lack of an immediate decision to move the Rowing Center suggests an institutional arrogance. What it really suggests is an institution committed to balancing the needs of its students with the interests of its neighbors in a thoughtful and fair process, with all sides being heard. St. Mary's has had an independent board since its founding in 1840, and the hard work of senior statesmen, including J. Frank Raley and William Donald Schaefer, has kept the board independent through its evolution into a four-year college and its designation as Maryland's "public honors college" by the state legislature in 1992.

St. Mary's has been called the nation's only charter college because of its unique governance structure, which has been critical to its rise as one of America's "Top 25 Hottest Schools" (Newsweek, Aug. 27). Furthermore, almost one-half of the trustees live in Southern Maryland or maintain residences here. These individuals are connected closely to the interests of this region, whereas a remote board of regents with little or no involvement in our region would only distance the college from its community. The very suggestion runs counter to the incredible legacy and well-being of Maryland's Monument School and would be resisted vehemently by more than 11,000 alumni and the more than 1,200 who live right here in St. Mary's County.

¿ The policy on tuition has been raised as another problem. It has been mentioned in public meetings that the college has raised its tuition when other state institutions have not. What is left out of the argument is that the other institutions with a different governance and budget agreement with the state received a hefty additional appropriation equal to their proposed rise in tuition while St. Mary's did not, and thus could not offer a zero percent tuition increase, as did the other state institutions. We find it troublesome that those who are in command of such facts would choose to distort the truth.

We sincerely appreciate the many years of strong support for the college by the St. Mary's County commissioners, and we look forward to a productive future of working together for the benefit of the county's citizens.