I appreciate your keeping the public informed about the ongoing legal battle involving the historic MUW Alumnae Association (we really prefer that than being called the "older" group!).  However, I feel obligated to point out a few inaccuracies and shortcomings in your most recent article.
 
Those unnamed "MUW administrators" you have been talking to are leading you into the briar patch. For them to say "they hope the two groups iron out their differences and come together..." Really? Well, MUW President Claudia Limbert, acting upon the specific advice of her top advisor Perry Sansing, chose to personally CREATE the second group. It is not as if some type of natural division occurred among the alumni and is now being battled out. "Their" claims that "they" hope the alumni work it out must be viewed as misleading, as it was by "their" efforts that the second alumni group was even formed!
 
I recall seeing your byline and coverage of this matter previously. I believe you reported on Dr. Limbert's disaffiliation of the historic MUW Alumnae Association PRIOR to the formation of the "new" alumni association. If so, you should be aware that the "differences" are not between the "two groups" but rather between the historic MUW Alumnae Association and Dr. Limbert. If you aren't familiar with the progression of events, you need to know that the initial lawsuit was filed by the historic MUW Alumnae Association and named only Dr. Limbert! And while the legal process has prompted some changes in the parties to the suit, the "new" group is not a party to the lawsuit and has really been brought into this discussion by those same "MUW administrators" to achieve just what your article is helping them do -- to deflect the facts and shift the onus from Dr. Limbert and Mr. Sansing. There is really no excuse for that!
 
The disaffiliation of the historic MUW Alumnae Association was initiated in early February and that matter has not been resolved, hence the court proceedings which are ongoing. The articles of incorporation of the "new" alumni group were filed on February 20 by the MUW Alumni Director, well before the 60-day notice period had expired and while Dr. Limbert was still in ongoing and supposedly sincere negotiations with MUWAA President Betty Lou Jones to resolve differences with the historic association. I think this timeline is telling, and I do not want you to be a party to the disinformation campaign currently being undertaken by unnamed "MUW administrators."
 
Further, the affiliation agreement signed on March 27 by Dr. Limbert and the interim president of the "new" association, prior to any legal decision on the matter before the court, calls for bylaws to be submitted within 60 days. Your recent article reports that this "new group" now has "new bylaws." I am an MUW alumna and supposedly a member of the "new" alumni association, yet I have not seen any proposed bylaws nor have any bylaws been presented for approval to the MUW alumni as a body. The website which has been designated the "official" communications forum of the "new" alumni association has a page labeled "Bylaws" (http://www.muwaa.org/bylaws.html), yet there are not now nor have there been bylaws posted there. As the failure to agree on bylaws was the "final straw" prior to Dr. Limbert formally announcing the disaffiliation of the historic MUW Alumnae Association, I think this issue of bylaws is critical. Where are they? If they exist, who approved them? What happened to following the tenants of "Robert's Rules of Order," the the basic handbook of operation for most clubs, organizations and other groups?
 
Many "W" alums feel strongly about preserving the historic MUW Alumnae Association, an organization which was formed by the very first graduating class of the "Columbus school founded in 1884 as the nation's first public college for women."  In covering this matter, you should also be made aware that alumni of many other colleges and universities have equally strong opinions about preserving an independent alumni association and about the precedent being set should Dr. Limbert's disaffiliation of the original MUW alumni group be allowed to stand. If you review transcripts from the May 8th hearing, you will find testimony to that.
 
So, unfortunately for unnamed "MUW administrators" -- and for journalists covering it -- this matter is much more complex than two groups of women from a historically all-girls college engaging in a little disagreement. It is about university presidents and unchecked authority, the IHL and governance of public universities, the role of independent affiliated entities at state institutions of higher learning, and much more. And it is a battle being fought by sincere alumni who believe they have the ability to elect their own officers, the authority to function within an independent, democratic framework and the right to know where their contributions are being applied.
 
And the issues won't be resolved by asking the the two groups to "iron out their differences," either. Without having seen proposed bylaws, alumni don't even know what those differences might be! At this point, the major difference is that the officers of the historic MUW Alumnae Association are operating under long-standing bylaws and have been elected and serve the alumni through a democratic process commonly known as "majority rules," while the officers of the "new" MUW Alumni Association came into power through a series of appointments began by Dr. Limbert and continued under her office's auspices with no disclosure to the alumni themselves as to how these officers were "appointed" to their posts and without any approved organizational structure of governance.
 
As a former reporter, I know how difficult it can be to give adequate coverage to the complexities of legal battles. I know too the obligation that most journalists feel towards the truth and the public's right to know. Well, I feel it is your right to know how I, as a representative MUW alumna, feel about this particular story! It may be of interest to you to know that I was not actively involved in the leadership of the historic MUW Alumnae Association prior to Dr. Limbert's initiating the disaffiliation process. I just an alum who has sought out the facts: I have read all available published documents, I have talked to key individuals from all "sides" either in person, on the telephone or through e-mails, and I have formed an informed opinion.
 
I do not think it is right for Dr. Limbert to sever the relationship between MUW and the 118-year-old historic MUW Alumnae Association, nor do I think it is appropriate for her to displace it with a "new" alumni association of her forming comprised of individuals of her choosing functioning under bylaws which she mandates. Her autocratic and undemocratic actions violate my fundamental beliefs -- beliefs forged as an journalism major who graduated from MUW 25 years ago, beliefs tempered through participation in numerous organizations governed by the principles of "Robert's Rules of Order," and beliefs instilled in me as an American citizen.
 
Please consider this correspondence as an "off-the-record" appeal for you to take another look at the facts of the alumni battle being fought by the historic MUW Alumnae Association and for you to expand your reporting to contain more of the real issues -- there is a lot more at stake here than your latest article suggests, and Mississippi's leading newspaper should address it in a much more in-depth and serious way.
 
Thank you.
Cheryl "Sherrie" Jackson Cooper
BA-Journalism, MUW Class of 1982