The Story

Controversy Increases Over Revoked Pledge

Nov. 23, 2007 | By Alden McCray, DSJ Staff Reporter

President Nichol faces controversy over an e-mail he received from former President Sullivan. Courtesy of University Relations.

In recent weeks, controversy surrounding President Gene Nichol and a revoked pledge from James McGlothlin (’62) has been circulating in the press, the web and on campus. On Nov. 13, the Board of Visitors released an email from President Emeritus Timothy Sullivan to President Gene Nichol sent in Dec. 2006.

The correspondence was released in accord with several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Both McGlothlin and Sullivan consented to the release.

The email came only months after the October 2006 Wren cross removal. In it, Sullivan addresses Nichol concerning McGlothlin’s pledge. The email reads:

Dear Nick, Greetings from London where we are having a great holiday. I hope things are well with you, Glenn and the girls. I need to tell you about a recent communication from Jim McGlothlin. As you know I have been working hard with Taylor toward a 12 Million dollar gift from Jim to the Law School. I felt that we were making good progress and moving toward closure, but I talked to Jim who is very upset and angry about the Wren cross, and is not prepared to give any more money at this time because he is so upset about the removal of the cross from the Chapel. I am not sure that I can do anything more to help you with Jim. He is very angry. I have said from the time that you became president that I would help you with anything that you needed, and I was prepared to talk about anything with you. We have not spoken (absolutely your right) but I could have told you where this decision would go. I will do anything that you can think of that would help you at this time - but I have to say that I am so sorry that William and Mary has come to this place. Best - Tim.

In February 2007, Nichol announced that the Capital Campaign for William and Mary had reached its $500 million funding goal months ahead of schedule. In March, the College confirmed that McGlothlin had amended his will to remove a $12 million pledge, leaving the Campaign short by that amount.

“I am heartsick to learn of this decision,” said Nichol in March. “It represents a serious setback to the College. And while I know it is intended to make a policy statement, ultimately it only hurts our students.”

At the same time, McGlothlin wrote to the Board of Visitors, “A very large contribution was in the making just before Tim Sullivan retired… Unless a change in direction takes place, it will be difficult for me to provide future financial support to our wonderful school.”

Some believe that the ambiguous language of Sullivan’s email might have lead to a miscommunication. While the email spoke of “working towards a pledge” and “making good progress towards [a contribution],” President Nichol suggested in a recent statement that he thought McGlothlin had already officially made a generous commitment.

“During the summer of 2005 the donor made a written estate commitment to the Campaign for William and Mary,” Nichol wrote.

David Solimini (’04), a leader of the ‘I Heart Nichol’ campaign, said, “[The pledge] was banked two and a half years ago. It was finalized then. They credited it towards the 500 million - two and a half yeas ago. The email says ‘moving towards a donation,’ ‘coming to closure on’ or ‘bringing to closure’ - it is all prospective language. It’s future tense.”

“Here is the thing I keep coming back to - I don’t see how it’s clear,” Solimini said.

The email leads Solimini to believe one of two things. “One, it wasn’t actually banked and he never actually gave it, which would be Tim Sullivan’s error, because it was banked two years ago when Tim Sullivan was president, or they are talking about a different donation,” he said.

Thomas Fitzpatrick (’04) agrees. “The $12 million pledge was added to the total two years earlier,” he said. “I can understand how President Nichol would believe it was in reference to a future gift because the 12 million was already in the bank in 2005.”
Nichol also seems to chalk up the situation as a misunderstanding. He was recently quoted in the Flat Hat as saying, “I would not under any circumstance describe a gift committed, locked up, placed in the capital campaign a year and a half or two years earlier as one on which we are ‘making progress toward closure.’” He also explained that he tried to contact McGlothlin directly about his concerns.

According to Solimini, “this was definitely not the smoking gun that [the anti-Nichol] people were looking for.” Others believe that the email condemns Nichol for knowingly losing such a large pledge.

ShouldNicholBeRenewed.org is a website organized by alumni, featuring records of Nichol’s current and previous job performance, an online petition, news articles and criticisms of the President. The website focuses on a number of campus issues involving Nichol. ShouldNicholBeRenewed.org did not respond to multiple requests for an interview about the email.

Alum James McGlothlin graduated from the College in 1962 and from the Law School in 1964. It has been suggested by someone familiar with the issue that this is not the first time McGlothlin has rescinded a substantial pledge to the College.

The Board of Visitors is set to review Nichol’s contract, which expires in June. Rector of the BOV Michael K. Powell released his own statement about the issue, which concludes that “this matter has conspired to rob the College leadership and the Board of Visitors of time that should be spent on the critically important business of William and Mary. It is time to move on.”

“The Board is fully aware of the facts surrounding this matter and it is the Board that will consider whether anything in this episode bears on the performance of College leadership,” Powell said. “Public sparring over such matters has little effect and only serves to harm the best interests of the College and its reputation.”

DSJ News Editor Jonna Knappenberger contributed to this report.