Flashpoint: Behind the Dispute

Why Antioch Approved the CCG Structure

Flashpoint: the March 12 Board Book

The March 12 Board Book is the most important document in understanding how the divide between Antioch University’s leaders and Coalition President John Comerford developed. Rather than rely on competing descriptions of it, Antioch leaders invite journalists to read the relevant pages.

The report was authored and edited by members of Antioch’s leadership team. It was prepared as a direct response from the AU Board’s Finance Committee. That committee asked the new leadership team to use the available data to analyze the financial and operational position of AU, the CCG’s sole academic division.

The posted sections of the Board Book provide the emerging analysis of the Coalition’s governance structure, the economics of programs transferred from Otterbein, leadership costs, and the proposed rollout of shared services.

A few places for journalists and researchers to review include the following. (Note: the page numbers given are based on the PDF viewer’s “page count.”)

Page 4: The authors affirm that they want the Coalition to succeed. They say the data include favorable and unfavorable findings and that transparent financial analysis strengthens the partnership.
Pages 9–12: The report examines the transferred programs’ revenue trends, instructional costs, and use of investment funds. These are the underlying numbers behind the questions Antioch’s leaders brought to the Board.
Pages 17–19: The report identifies missing elements of the proposed shared-services operating model and sets out a specific alternative sequence for developing it. After noting that President Comerford chose another path, it says: “We are following that direction.”
Page 21: The conclusion explains both the scope and limits of the work. The authors say the newly assembled data will need refinement; they do not present it as beyond question.

Because this report became a flashpoint in the dispute, its language matters.

Readers can see for themselves that Antioch’s leaders raised questions, showed their work, acknowledged uncertainty, and proposed a way forward. The analysis was presented as a step towards joint problem-solving. Nonetheless, it was this very report that was characterized by CCG leaders as being disloyal, biased, and manipulative. The CCG president referred to the information it contained as a ‘full attack on the CCG.'

Read the March 12 Board Book

Why the Antioch Board Approved the Coalition Structure

Some Antiochians have asked a fair and important question: If Coalition for the Common Good (CCG) leaders are now taking positions that the Antioch University Board of Governors believes would strip away negotiated protections, why did the Board agree to form the Coalition in the first place?

The answer should be judged from the record available in 2023, not from hindsight. The AU Board knew the structure was new and that any affiliation carried risk. It did not, however, approve a blank check. The transaction was negotiated over an extended period with counsel, due diligence, regulatory review, written representations and warranties, closing conditions, equal representation on the new CCG Board, and multiple overlapping approval and consent requirements intended to protect Antioch.

Nothing indicates that the AU Board had reason to expect Otterbein—or future CCG leaders—would disregard those written obligations or later characterize Antioch's retained rights in a way the AU Board believes is inconsistent with the negotiated framework. The current dispute is therefore not evidence that the AU Board intended to surrender its legally negotiated protections. It is a dispute about whether the protections will be honored and enforced.

Read “Why the Board Approved the Coalition Structure”

CONTENTS

1. Why did the AU Board want to form the Coalition?

2. Did the AU Board understand that the legal structure of Antioch would change?

3. Was the AU Board simply trusting the other side to do the right thing?

4. Don't contracts assume that the parties will honor them?

5. Did the Board have reason to expect Otterbein—or John Comerford and Dan Gifford—to act unethically or later misstate the agreement?

6. What safeguards did the AU Board build into the structure?

7. How were those safeguards supposed to work in practice?

8. But isn't the CCG Board the fiduciary board with broad authority?

9. If these safeguards were real, why are we in litigation?

10. With hindsight, could the AU Board have demanded even stronger protections?

11. So, was entering the Coalition a mistake?

Otterbein Pitched Growth. Its Programs Were Already Shrinking.

ANTIOCH INHERITED A TURNAROUND, NOT A LAUNCH.

Key Data that Describe Otterbein’s Transferred Programs. OU’s “Ready to Scale” narrative doesn't fit.

Cover headline above is an editorial characterization supported by the supplied Otterbein/IPEDS preannouncement degree conferrals chart and President Comerford’s June 5, 2026 letter confirming that Grant Hospital pulled out of the CRNA program in fall 2022. It does not establish the profitability of the programs, a dollar cost of rebuilding, or causation of subsequent enrollment declines.

For media use: The 107, 96 and 89 total consists of MBA, Allied Health, MSN, Education and CRNA master’s degree awards in 2019–20, 2020–21, 2021–22 from the supplied IPEDS chart. John Comerford’s June 5, 2026 letter reports Business enrollment 208 to 187, Allied Health 91 to 72, and Education 213 to 272 in 2020–21 to 2021–22, and states that Grant Hospital pulled out of Otterbein’s CRNA program in fall 2022. The final point is an inference from these facts, not a quantified proof of readiness, profit, or cause of later declines. The letter describes fall 2022 after the July announcement, so partner withdrawal should not be called a preannouncement event.

Source: user-supplied Otterbein/IPEDS degree conferrals chart. Totals are the sum of the five series (MBA, Allied Health, MSN, Education, CRNA) for each academic year. The July 2022 announcement followed AY 2021–22. Awards lag enrollment.

Source: user-supplied Otterbein/IPEDS degree conferrals chart, AY 2019–20 to 2021–22. Education rose in President Comerford’s separate enrollment figures; this slide shows degree awards, which are a distinct lagging measure.

Source: user-supplied Otterbein University Master’s Degree Conferrals chart (AY 2018–19 to AY 2024–25). Series transcribed from that chart. The announcement occurred between 2021–22 and 2022–23 in the source visual. Conferrals lag enrollment and should not be characterized as contemporaneous demand or causal evidence of the transfer.

Sources: user-supplied Otterbein University Master’s Degree Conferrals chart, AY 2018–19 through 2024–25; John Comerford, letter to Antioch Board of Governors, June 5, 2026, stating “Fall 2022 - Grant Hospital pulls out of Otterbein CRNA program.” These are distinct points: declining MSN conferrals before announcement, and a clinical-partner withdrawal for CRNA afterward. No causal claim that the withdrawal caused the MSN conferral decline or quantified financial loss is established by these sources. John’s nursing enrollment comparison has an MSN-to-DNP classification change and is deliberately omitted. Nursing programs transferred January 2026 according to the letter.