Timeline: Antioch University and the Coalition for the Common Good
Many members of the Antioch community have asked how the current situation with the leadership of the Coalition for the Common Good (CCG) developed.
Antioch conceived and helped establish the CCG as part of a broader strategy for institutional growth. In early 2026, nearly three years after the Coalition was founded as a “partnership of equals,” Antioch leaders began raising questions about its long-term viability and governance.
Over the months that followed, disagreements emerged around the authority of the Antioch University Board of Governors, control of University funds, Antioch’s relationship with its accreditor, and the leadership of President Lori Varlotta. This timeline provides an overview of the events that brought Antioch and the CCG to this point.
I. Antioch builds the foundation
Antioch University begins pursuing its Four Pillars of Growth Plan. The plan calls for a more integrated national university, a broader portfolio of mission-aligned programs, and expansion across campuses, delivery models, and markets.
The AU Board of Governors begins formally exploring partnerships and a coalition of mission-aligned institutions. One Governor describes the concept as a “Justice League of Universities.” Read Bill Plater’s Statement on the Founding of the CCG.
Antioch invests nearly $2 million with the Royal Bank of Canada and Deloitte Consulting to evaluate partnership models and identify prospective members. Otterbein University initially declines an invitation, then later expresses interest in joining Antioch.
Antioch restructures to connect its five campuses and operates as a more unified university. The University expands regional partnerships, grows enrollment, and increases tuition revenue from approximately $59.4 million in 2018 to nearly $73 million in 2023.
II. Antioch and Otterbein form the Coalition
Antioch and Otterbein establish the Coalition for the Common Good. The university presidents from the founding institutions sign the creation documents. Otterbein begins the transfer of its graduate programs to Antioch. This is a complex process, and many of the programs OU transfers are experiencing enrollment and revenue declines. OU commits to funding a $5 million investment fund to support the transferred programs and generate growth.
The Antioch and Otterbein presidents mark the new partnership at a signing ceremony. Newly appointed CCG President John Comerford says in his remarks, “What we have built is not a top-down thing from the boards or the presidents or the chancellors. It is a ground-up thing, a thing being led by the people that do the work on both of our campuses and university communities. And that is a really exciting thing to be a part of.”
John Comerford serves simultaneously as President of Otterbein and President of the CCG. Bill Groves serves as Antioch Chancellor and CCG Executive Vice President. During this period, Antioch’s leadership continues to manage Antioch University and communicate directly with the AU Board without the level of CCG intervention that begins in 2026.
After Chancellor Groves announces his retirement, Antioch launches a national presidential search. Antioch’s governing policy, as well as the Leadership Profile and President Q&A provided to candidates, each describe the President as the University’s chief executive officer, with broad responsibility for strategy, personnel, budgeting, communications, and operations.
III. Antioch evaluates how the Coalition is working
Dr. Lori Varlotta becomes President of Antioch University.
The Antioch Board Finance Committee directs President Varlotta to assess Antioch’s position and evaluate how the CCG structure is working.
President Varlotta and the Antioch Cabinet conduct the requested analysis for the March Antioch Board meeting. The report questions key assumptions underlying the CCG, examines its long-term viability, and notes that the Coalition has not added another institutional member. President Varlotta shares the analysis with President Comerford in advance.
President Comerford and CCG Board Chair Dan Gifford postpone the CCG Finance Committee’s review of Antioch’s analysis and direct the Antioch President and CFO to revise its substance and framing. They describe the analysis as “attacking the CCG,” and require the revised materials to align with President Comerford before redistribution. The intervention prevents the CCG Board from seeing Antioch’s independent analysis in its original form.
Antioch Board Chair Katrin Dambrot requests mediation with CCG and Otterbein leadership. CCG leadership declines. The Antioch Board also proposes a Committee for Common Understanding, bringing representatives from Antioch and Otterbein together to resolve differences amicably.
IV. CCG actions intensify the governance conflict
CCG leaders advance five major governance resolutions affecting Antioch’s authority, reporting relationships, shared services, and presidential role. They exclude President Varlotta from drafting and deliberating on the resolutions.
Newly elected Antioch Board Chair Steve Crandall formally questions whether CCG Vice Chair Charlene Moore Hayes breached her fiduciary duties by helping draft and approve resolutions that bypass Antioch’s reserved governance rights and required approval processes.
The Committee for Common Understanding meets and recommends that the parties collaboratively explore multiple paths forward. CCG leadership does not act on the report. President Varlotta also repeatedly seeks clarity about her supervisory, hiring, reporting, and decision-making authority while the internal investigation remains open.
CCG leadership gives notice that it may ask the CCG Board to dissolve the Antioch Board of Governors unless Antioch accepts specified governance conditions. Antioch maintains that the proposal conflicts with the CCG governing documents, which require action by a majority of the AU Standing Committee before the CCG Board may consider such changes.
The Antioch Board directs President Varlotta and her Cabinet to evaluate strategic alternatives: remaining in the CCG without changes, modifying governance and operational structures, separating, or other alternatives.
Chair Gifford declares that ex officio Board members will not receive executive-session materials or participate in deliberations about Antioch’s governance. CCG leaders exclude President Varlotta, an ex officio CCG director and CCG Executive Vice President, from the discussions.
The Antioch Board explains in writing why it believes the CCG Board lacks authority to dissolve the Antioch Board, revoke or amend the Antioch Board’s Charter, or amend the bylaws without Antioch Standing Committee approval. Antioch again asks the parties to negotiate rather than litigate.
The Antioch Faculty Senate sends a letter supporting the Antioch Board’s resolution directing a comprehensive review of Antioch’s strategic alternatives.
CCG leadership alleges that President Varlotta’s and her team’s analysis and descriptions of the CCG are inaccurate and unfavorable. They issue verbal and written warnings that threaten her termination.
The CCG Board does not act on the previously proposed action to attempt to dissolve the Antioch Board. Instead, the CCG Board agrees to move forward with a formal mediation process scheduled for September 3. Both the CCG Board and the Antioch Board agree to maintain the status quo and not take any action that would escalate present tensions.
While President Varlotta is on bereavement leave, the CCG Chair and Vice Chair issue a second written warning. They require a corrective plan within five business days and again threaten discipline up to and including termination.
V. CCG abandons mediation and acts against Antioch
CCG leadership seeks access to Antioch’s bank accounts while the parties prepare for mediation. Antioch objects that the request violates the status quo and its reserved governance authority.
CCG counsel contacts the Higher Learning Commission about a possible change in institutional control without the knowledge or approval of the AU President. At the time, HLC understands that counsel is acting on Antioch’s behalf. Antioch later clarifies that counsel is not.
The Antioch Faculty Senate sends another letter asking CCG leaders to preserve Antioch’s identity, restore stability, and give University leaders sufficient time to advance their work.
At a special meeting, the CCG Board adopts resolutions that purport to dissolve the Antioch Board, assume control of Antioch’s accounts and funds, and take control of Antioch’s relationship with HLC. It also cancels mediation less than one week before the scheduled session. AU Standing Committee members object to the actions.
Antioch files suit in Greene County, Ohio, and requests a temporary restraining order to preserve its governance, finances, accreditation relationship, and leadership while the court reviews the dispute.
VI. The court protects Antioch and orders mediation
The Greene County Court of Common Pleas grants Antioch a temporary restraining order. The order blocks implementation of the August 28 resolutions and prohibits adverse action against President Varlotta while the court considers further relief.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court extends the temporary restraining order for 14 days and directs the parties to resume mediation with the previously selected mediator. The court does not rule on the ultimate merits of Antioch’s claims.