(Update: On October 30, Lynn Pasquerella resigned from the Board of Directors of the Coalition for the Common Good.)
October 30, 2026
Lynn Pasquerella, PhD
Independent Director, Coalition for the Common Good
President, American Association of Colleges and Universities
Dear Lynn,
I am writing in the hope that you can help Antioch and Otterbein find a constructive way through this dispute. Your independent position on the CCG Board gives you an opportunity to encourage a fresh look at the choices ahead and help both universities move toward a resolution.
Your leadership of American Association of Colleges and Universities and your public emphasis on trust, shared governance, and institutional autonomy resonate with me. Those values are central to Antioch’s concerns. I hope they can provide a starting point for a conversation about how we protect the educational purposes that brought these institutions together.
I recognize that directors have been working through difficult questions and differing views about CCG’s authority. The October 21 Court ruling gives all of us an opportunity to step back, consider the Court’s understanding of the structure, and ask what would best serve Antioch and Otterbein now.
The Court found a "substantial likelihood of success” on Antioch’s claims against CCG at the upcoming jury trial. It recognized important limits on CCG’s authority, including its ability to abolish the Antioch Advisory Board and the need for Standing Committee approval to amend the bylaws, or terminate Antioch’s president. It also held that CCG could not cancel the Advisory Board’s Charter or amend the founding agreements. These findings should guide the board’s actions going forward.
The Court also upheld CCG’s financial-policy and signatory authority and its ability to revoke "discretionary delegations”. However, the Court made it clear that “[t]he CCG lacked the authority to revoke authority, power, or responsibility 'housed within' the AU Advisory Board that was not delegated at the discretion of the CCG Board.” Those include the authorities negotiated during the formation of the coalition that were never “delegated” by the CCG and that are included in the Antioch Charter which the Court said could not be revoked by the CCG. I believe taking the ruling as a whole gives us a sounder basis for discussion and a clearer understanding of the responsibilities that each part of our governance structure retains.
With that in mind, I hope you will support a shared review of the path forward that takes both the Court’s reasoning and Antioch’s concerns seriously. Honoring the approvals required by our governing documents and preserving the Advisory Board’s continuing role would help rebuild trust. I would value your help in ensuring that these arrangements work in practice, honor the Court’s ruling, and give Antioch a meaningful voice in decisions affecting its future.
On leadership, I hope you will consider supporting Lori’s return to active service as I believe it has implications for accreditation as raised by the Court. Her leadership is widely supported by the Antioch community (foward.antioch.edu), provides essential continuity, and is necessary for Antioch to support our students, employees, and academic priorities. I would welcome hearing your concerns and discussing what expectations and working arrangements could make her return successful. There is no support at either the Antioch Board or the Standing Committee for termination, as required by the Charter, the Bylaws and the Court’s order, so keeping Lori on paid administrative leave does nothing but waste limited Antioch resources.
I appreciated your decision to abstain on the August 28 accreditation resolution, and I hope we can find common ground on protecting Antioch’s accreditation. HLC’s August 24 communication identified Lori, as president, and Antioch’s accreditation liaison as its appropriate institutional contacts. In discussing this resolution the Court allowed CCG’s leadership to contact HLC to "request for information" but found that the resolution "violates the CCG by-laws to the extent that it would authorize the CCG Chairperson and CCG President to make changes to institutional and programmatic accreditation without first obtaining the approval of the Antioch Standing Committee.” In footnote 13, addressing CCG’s authority to request information, the Court noted that a change in HLC’s designated contacts could lead it to a different conclusion.
John’s letter to the HLC ignored the role of the Antioch Standing Committee under 6.4 of the Bylaws and went far beyond a “request for information.” He copied Department of Education political appointees, and now the Department of Education has initiated a Title IV review of CCG’s entire structure. In addition, the CCG represented to the Court that this resolution had passed and was effective. But that resolution required 6 affirmative votes. Bylaws 4.6.2(G) requires a Supermajority Vote, defined as “approval by at least six (6) Board members,” to make “Changes to the Antioch Division’s institutional accreditation." The record reflects that the resolution only received 5 votes: it was "Approved August 28, 2026 by a majority of the Board 5-2-1.” In fact, it failed.
Although the Court permitted the CCG Board to place Lori on paid administrative leave, it did not rule that John had that unilateral authority. I am concerned that, if the CCG Board votes to ratify John’s acts or continue Lori’s leave in a way that changes the leadership or institutional contacts HLC relies on, it could jeopardize Antioch’s accreditation. Any resulting changes to institutional or programmatic accreditation made without the required Standing Committee approval could also violate the Court’s order. I would value your help in restoring Lori’s authorities while seeking clarification from the Court if necessary, before further changes proceed.
I would also welcome your support for a clear and fair accounting of the legal and communications expenses associated with this dispute, including how those costs have been authorized and allocated. A shared understanding of the financial commitments would help us assess the choices ahead and make thoughtful decisions about the use of university resources. My hope is that greater clarity would reduce mistrust and help us move forward. I am particularly concerned that CCG is continuing to incur legal expenses paid from Antioch funds when the Court has already said that Antioch has a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits”. This seems an unnecessary waste of resources.
Most of all, I would value your support for renewed mediation. The CCG Board’s earlier unanimous support for mediation gives us something to build on. The Antioch board recently passed a resolution requesting mediation between Otterbein and Antioch. Section 8(c), of the Strategic Operating Agreement that governs the CCG board’s authorities, is titled “Formal Process,” and specifically contemplates that formal dispute resolution is between Otterbein and Antioch. It identifies “the chairperson of the Antioch Advisory Board” and “the president of Otterbein,” or persons of equivalent position designated in writing by their respective boards, to lead the formal dispute process. Section 8(d) then provides for mediation led by those representatives. These provisions recognize distinct Antioch and Otterbein institutional voices and support direct engagement between the institutions. I hope the process can be led by representatives chosen through Antioch’s and Otterbein’s boards, consistent with the representative structure contemplated in Sections 8(c) and 8(d). It should allow a fair exploration of an orderly resolution while protecting leadership continuity, academic programs, and daily operations.
I would welcome a private conversation with you to understand your perspective more fully and explore where we might find agreement. Your independent judgment could help create the conditions for that conversation across the institutions, even where differences remain.
Antioch’s students and educational mission are at the heart of this appeal. Prolonging the dispute will commit still more time and resources to conflict. I hope we can instead use this moment to restore trust and reach a negotiated resolution that allows both universities to devote their energy to the people they serve.
Sincerely,
Steve Crandall
Chair, Antioch University Board of Governors