Board of Trustees Town Hall Sees Low Attendance

Seven members of the Amherst Board of Trustees gathered in Lipton Lecture Hall for a town hall meeting hosted by the Association of Amherst Students (AAS) on Sept. 19.

The town hall was sponsored by the AAS, with the goal of increasing transparency around the board’s function and recent decisions. The conversation began with an introduction of the board members present and what they are responsible for, before the board answered questions about financial decisions — including the choice not to divest from companies connected to Israel —  and also expressed a desire to have a broader engagement with the Amherst community.

The event drew few students, and its attendance consisted mostly of AAS senators.

AAS President Gent Malushaga ’25 and Vice President Hedley Lawrence-Apfelbaum ’26 moderated, asking a series of pre-submitted questions. Chantal Kordula ’94, the new chair of the board, explained that the board exists to “execute on the mission of the college.” This includes “setting priorities, managing finances, hiring leadership of the college, raising money, recruiting trustees, and generally being advocates for the college.”

The Board of Trustees went on to introduce themselves — all but one member of the present board are alumni of the college. Naana Frimpong ’00 said that becoming a member of the board allowed her to “give back in a way that [she]perhaps had not conceived of before.”

David Novak ’91 explained that there are two important factors when being considered for a position on the board — a close and ongoing interaction with the college, and the ability to bring a diverse perspective and identity to the board.

When asked what the board’s role is in shaping the function and policy of the college, they explained that the board focuses more on the long-term function of the college — green-lighting building projects, managing the endowment, and overseeing major changes like the end of legacy admissions — rather than daily life activities. Shirley Tilghman explained that the board occasionally considers academic issues but always tries to keep their “noses in and fingers out.”

Tilghman added that, in being responsible for the financial status of the college, the board is also responsible for maintaining “intergenerational equity” by ensuring that the amount of money that was available to students in the past remains available to current and future students of the college.

When asked who gets the final say in the matters of the college, Simon Krinsky ’96 explained that the board is not trying to do the job of the senior staff of the college, but there are still important things that the board decides on, like the decision to end legacy preference for admissions. Krinsky explained that this was an “emotional decision” that was deliberated upon until there was consensus, and that the board always makes sure it is “speaking with one voice.”

Beth Cisneros ’89 noted that regardless of personal interest, the board’s job is to decide what is in the “best interest of the college.”

When asked how this relates to the board’s decision not to divest from companies connected to Israel’s war in Gaza, a decision that came to the board after the AAS and the faculty passed resolutions calling on them to divest. Kordula responded that the board considered a wide range of perspectives throughout their deliberation. Echoing Tilghman’s point about “intergenerational equity,” she explained that the board members are fiduciaries and thus have to prioritize the “financial health” of the college, which involves maintaining the college’s endowment in perpetuity.

Krinsky, who chairs the investment committee, went on to express that this wasn’t “an investment decision but a board decision.” He explained that “only about 5% of the endowment is invested directly in companies in the name of the college, which are chosen by investment managers.” And that the matter to divest would have been “practically a symbolic gesture.”

Tilghman went on to emphasize that the board is an “institutional voice,” and since there is “no consensus on the war on campus,” picking winners would limit civil discourse.

When asked why the board keeps its discussions confidential, Kordula explained that the board needs to ensure that they can have “open, transparent discussions,” with each other about the issues they address, which is why they have their conversations “all together in a room without having concerns of whether things will leak or mischaracterize things that are said.”

Nevertheless, Kordula made clear she believes the board should do more to open lines of communication with the student body. She said the board doesn’t want to be seen as the “great Oz, sitting in their ivory tower,” she said.

Cisneros agreed, adding that the board is “making real efforts” to listen to faculty and bring in students to their discussions.

The board wants the community to know that they have diverse perspectives and don’t all come from wealth.

Frimpong said that before she was on the board, she viewed the trustees as “very removed,” as they were people “who were extremely wealthy, and who had no real understanding of the college experience.” She was surprised to find out that many of the board members were “scholarship students” during their time at Amherst, and she feels that a “lack of understanding” can impact the way someone “views the people making some of the strategic decisions” for the college.

Brett Donshik ’25, a student in attendance, expressed satisfaction with how the event went, explaining that he felt it “humanized the board of trustees,” and helped “bridge the gap between the student body and people that help run the school and its finances.”

Malushaga, the AAS president, said he was content with how the event went, and enjoyed “hearing the trustees talk candidly about how they feel their role at the college is, and what they feel their duty is.”

Yet Malushaga also mentioned dissatisfaction with the number of people that showed up to the event, as he was “anticipating a much larger crowd,” and thought it could have been a “valuable learning opportunity.” He wondered if this was due to other events at the same time, or if students “aren’t as worked up about the trustees as they were a few months ago.”

Overall he said the “trustees who participated had a really good time,” and that “hopefully there will be similar opportunities throughout the year.”