From Conversation to Action: Gauging interest in stakeholder accountability at Michigan State
After a recent article, stakeholders are exploring whether the discussion should move beyond theory
A couple days ago, I published an article exploring a concept that most Michigan State stakeholders have likely never considered (I hadn't until now).
It explored a simple question:
What remedies exist when stakeholders believe a university has been harmed by those entrusted to govern it?
The discussion centered on a legal concept commonly seen in the corporate world. When shareholders believe directors or officers have harmed a corporation, there are circumstances under which they may seek to pursue claims on behalf of the corporation itself. The corporation is viewed as the injured party.
Universities are not corporations and do not have shareholders. Yet trustees still owe fiduciary duties to the institutions they govern. That reality raises an interesting question: What happens when stakeholders begin asking whether the institution itself has suffered harm?
For the detailed analysis, read the article here if you haven't yet:
The response to that article has exceeded every expectation I had.
Hundreds of Spartans have reacted and replied: alumni, donors, faculty, students, season ticket holders, and fans. People from across the political spectrum.
Many agreed. A few disagreed. Others raised important questions and concerns.
But one theme appeared again and again: people are tired of feeling powerless.
For years, discussions surrounding Michigan State governance have been reduced to elections (for those who pay attention to the races at the very bottom of the ballot), social media arguments, and public statements. Yet it is now obvious that many stakeholders increasingly believe those mechanisms are inadequate when concerns arise between election cycles.
Since publication of the article, a group of stakeholders has begun discussing whether further exploration of these issues is warranted. Those conversations have included questions about governance reform, transparency, fiduciary obligations, stakeholder rights, and what options may exist under Michigan law.
At this stage, no conclusions have been reached. No litigation has been authorized. No claims have been made. No organization has been formally established.
What exists today, though, is interest. The next step is determining whether that interest extends beyond a handful of conversations amongst a dozen or so influential Spartans.
If you are interested in receiving information as these discussions continue, please add your name and email address to the form below.
Signing up does not mean you support litigation. Signing up does not commit you to any course of action whatsoever.
It simply indicates that you believe the conversation is worth having and would like to stay informed as Spartan stakeholders explore what accountability, transparency, and governance reform might look like at Michigan State University.
The first article explored a theory. This effort seeks to determine whether enough Spartans believe that theory is worth examining further.
If you would like to be part of that conversation, add your name and email address: [GOOGLE FORM LINK]
The future of Michigan State will not be determined by a handful of trustees, donors, administrators, or writers.
It will be determined by whether Spartans are willing to engage when the institution they love faces difficult questions.
This is one of those moments. Let's see where this might go.
