HHIUHIIINlllHllIIIINHIIllllllHJlilHllllllHllHllHHl 1293 01691 4388 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Constitutinq Governing Boards of Land—Grant Universities presented by James F. Anderton, IV has been accepted towards fulfillment ofthe requirements for Ph,D, degree in EdtioaLional Admin. Smuu MIX Maior professor October 20, 1997 .fiw—n.---- .. Da t c MSU (.1 «m Iii/irmuIn-r Action/liqlml Opportunity Imu'runun 0-12771 ‘r Vl—v- W. — ‘9’ - —V- *gf ‘ “v“ ' _ruv-" fi'.fi‘p———-.—_ 'fi‘ LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE lN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. T0 AVOleFlNES return on or before date due. DATE D E DATE DUE DATE DUE A! {EB 2733:3991. '1 Nov so 5 ram # SEPolio £0021“ Edges WWW It - n 2053 JAMZVI: m1 Fl 9 M E Wad 3% 1/98 cJClHC/DateDue.p65-p.14 CON STITUTIN G GOVERNING BOARDS OF LAN D-GRAN T UNIVERSITIES BY James F. Anderton, IV A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Education Administration Department 1997 Reset 3nd effective ieieriorating procedures L Md memb ABSTRACT Constituting Governing Boards of Land-Grant Institutions by James F. Anderton, IV Research, literature, and observation indicate the quality, credibility, and effectiveness of governing boards of Land-Grant institutions is deteriorating. This study represents qualitative research describing procedures used to constitute these boards and howthe procedures influence board members in decision-making. The purpose of the research is to discern how selection procedures (the independent variables) can be changed so that quality, credibility, and effectiveness (the dependent variables) improve. The research involves 5 of the 49 Land-Grant institutions located in the contiguous 48 states and constituted under the Morrill Act of 1862. The 5 institutions have board members selected through varying procedures. representative of those used by the 49 Land-Grants, with varying levels of partisan, political input. Procedures include district or state-wide elections, legislative elections, gubernatorial appointment, and self-perpetuation. They also include use of student, faculty. alumni, and ex-ofiicio board members. The selection p by political negative in Grant instit The : lYPiCally lo] Wild betwe Eieculive ct bequeath t] and some d< The r. singliloi, of] P‘Iificipqms ashamed w pCIItjCiFilms Others find it The re combined sel “Suiting divi: credibflilll. on should be gov The research demonstrates that the more partisan and political the selection process, the more the agenda and decisions of the board are driven by political considerations. This partisan condition can and does have negative influences on these agendas and decisions associated with Land— Grant institutions. The research found that boards with self-perpetuating members are typically larger in size, utilize executive committees to act in place of the board between meetings, and place greater emphasis on fund-raising. Executive committees can be divisive be creating the appearance (and frequently the reality) that some board members have power and knowledge and some don’t. The research also demonstrates that there is not an archetype, singular. or best procedure for constituting these boards. It finds all affiliated participants from 4 of the 5 institutions dissatisfied with various procedures associated with constituting their boards and that 3 of 6 non-affiliated participants find board member quality and effectiveness deteriorating. The other 3 find it stable, at best. The research concludes with alternatives, represented by sole or combined selection procedures, to help remove political polarization, its resulting divisiveness, and improve perspectives regarding quality, credibility, and effectiveness. It also finds that publicly supported institutions should be governed by boards that include publicly selected members. Copyright James F. Anderton, IV All rights reserved Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my parents who supported higher education, but were never able to experience it as students; and to my wife, Denise, and children, JV and Sarah. for their encouragement and tolerance. It is {In "intens "more inte interested ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is pleasing to write that I began this dissertation project with an ”intense" interest in the subject matter and concluded with an even "more intense" interest. This was facilitated by the interesting and interested people who helped me along the way. Thanks to my professors at Michigan State University who proved you can teach an old dog new tricks. (I am 54 years and not quite your traditional doctoral candidate.) They were all skilled at humoring me and putting up with my "attitude." My dissertation committee members (Bob Lowry, Cecil Mackey, Kay Moore, Jim Votruba, and Steve Weiland, Chairperson) were always supportive—-though always challenging. Comments such as "a conclusion in search of data" and "heroic assumptions” were commonplace--and deserved. The guidance of these individuals with respect to all aspects of this project were invaluable. Thanks also to: Roy Dexheimer, Dick Hersh, Tom Melly, Bill Scandling and other members of the board. faculty. and administration of Hobart demonstr irstitntior interest, c nines; nnc about hon Cre (Ind organ indebted ll responsibi Lost Patticqun never heSl‘: Their Pets; of Hobart and William Smith Colleges who provided a context which demonstrates how a board can function positively on behalf of its institution; John Upjohn who provided constant encouragement, interest, and always a knack for asking the right questions at the right times; and Tim Light and Bill Laughlin who provided helpful thoughts about how to organize questions relating to the research; Credit for the work associated with transcribing the interviews and organizing the research data belongs to Cindy Oltman. I am indebted to her efforts on my behalf. Obviously, I, alone, take responsibility for mistakes and omissions. Lastly, and most importantly, I want to thank the research participants. Though anonymous, they were insightful, candid, and never hesitated to state what works, what doesn't work, and why. Their perspectives made this dissertation possible. l. Proble lnh Bee Cor Stnt Res Pots H- Renew Intrc Deti. Histc Boar Who th. Table of Contents I. Problem and Purpose ............................................................... I Introduction ........................................................................ l Beginnings of US. Higher Education, the Morrill Act,and Land-Grant Colleges ............................ 3 Governing Boards of Land-Grants designated under the 1862 Morrill Act ............................................ 9 Statement of the problem .................................................... 15 Researchable questions ...................................................... 20 Potential benefits of the research ......................................... 25 II. Review of the Literature .......................................................... 27 Introduction ...................................................................... 27 Definition of governance .................................................... 27 Purpose of governance ...................................................... 28 History of governance ........................................................ 29 Board composition and selection .......................................... 31 . What selection processes are used to recruit Land-Grant board members ....................................... 35 What loyalties are created through these processes ............... 40 viii Sho Ill. Hesenr W“ Researc Intrc What does the literature say about the representation responsibilities and assessment of board members ...... 44 What does the literature say about how the selection procedures influence board members sense of representation .......... ' ............................................... 45 What recommendations exist in the literature regarding board member selection procedures and how to improve the quality of Land-Grant boards .................... 47 Shortcomings of the literature ............................................. 53 III. Research Design ............................................................... A ..... 56 Introduction ...................................................................... 56 Use of qualitative methodologies ......................................... 57 Conducting the study ......................................................... 61 -What was researched .............................................. 61 —Selection of the institutions to be studied ..................... 62 -Selection of interviewees .......................................... 65 -Processes, scheduling, and confidentiality related to interviews ........................................ 67 IV. Research Data ...................................................................... 71 Introduction ...................................................................... 71 Trustee responsibilities, constituencies, and stakeholders ....... 72 -How many hours per week do board members devote to university matters .............................. 73 ix Boo -Who do board members communicate with regarding university activities ........................... 75 -What issues consume their time ................................. 79 -What do board members consider to be their responsibilities ........................................ 82 -Who do board members consider to be their key constituencies and stakeholders .................. 88 -Can these constituencies and stakeholders be ranked in order of importance ........................... 93 Board member selection, orientation, and evaluation ............. 95 -Have selection criteria been formally defined _ for board members .......................................... 95 —Who and what processes are involved in assembling a list of potential board members ..................... 108 Preferences for selection procedures - if elected, partisan or non-partisan ballot; state-wide or district elections; or gubernatorial/legislative appointment; or self-perpetuating; or combination of these ....................................... 114 -How do selection procedures influence board members in their decision-making .................... 127 -Orientation programs for new members .................... 133 Education and development programs ...................... 139 —Board assessment and evaluation procedures ............ 144 Are -What specific skills and competencies would board members like added to those possessed by their current board members. . ...150 Impact of selection procedures on decision-making ............. 153 -Who and what are the external and internal influences in decision-making .......................... 154 -How do these external and internal influences affect board member decisions ........................ 162 -What are the consequences of these influences on board decision-making ............................... 166 -External and internal opinions that are valued most, least .......................................... 167 -Role differentiation of board members selected by self-perpetuating procedure and by statutory political procedures ........................... 172 -Issues involving statutory politically selected board members more than those selected by self-perpetuating procedures ....................... 176 Are selection procedures and board members selected perceived to be better or worse than 10 years ago ........ 177 -Is knowledge of higher education of those selected perceived to be improving .................. 184 -Are board members focused on single issues or a variety of issues ...................................... 188 -Are board members becoming more diverse .............. 192 -What are the consequences of board member diversity ........................................... 198 He Oth V- Conclu. 111m B001 Proc Elec- Evol' Num‘ ope: Research participants recommendations regarding selection procedures and ways to improve board quality .......................................................... 201 Participant recommendations on: _ -Board member qualifications ................................... 201 -Processes to identify potential governing {. board members ............................................. 208 ‘ -E1ection and appointment procedures ....................... 214 -Board performance evaluation procedures ................ 218 -Number of board members on a board, length of terms, and number of terms ................ 221 Other strengths, weaknesses, and issues relating to Land-Grant boards as perceived by research participants ............................................................ 230 V. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................ - ......... 240 Introduction ..................................................................... 240 Board member qualifications ............................................. 243 Processes to identify governing board members ................... 246 Election and appointment procedures ................................. 249 Evaluation procedures ...................................................... 256 Number of board members, length of terms, number of terms..259 Open meetings laws ........................................................ 264 PII Tobie: U1 La Appendict A. B. C. Hitlerence: Impact of changing state funding levels on state control of board member selection methodologies ..................... 265 Project research and personal opinion ................................ 266 Table: Unrestricted state and total current funding of Land-Grant universities (1994) ............................................ 268 Appendices A. Researchable Questions ............................................... 270 B. Consent Form ............................................................. 275 C. Land-Grant Governing Board Selection Procedures ........... 278 References ................................................................................ 289 Bibliography .............................................................................. 297 xiii Introducti Res increasing Grant Ufllt destined 1 to larger n Themqion institutionS , This inch 10’ Mosscic UMVersity (In one Lt 11057 311 Ch ' Chapter I PROBLEM AND PURPOSE Introduction Research, literature, and observation indicate there is increasing concern about the quality of governance at the 51* Land- Grant universities constituted under the 1862 Morrill Act--an Act designed to promote and help provide "a liberal and larger education to larger numbers [of students]” (Morrill, 1888, speech) in each state. The majority of governing board members at all but five of these institutions are selected through political processes controlled by the * This includes 1 Land-Grant university for each of the 50 states and 2 for Massachusetts (Massachusetts Institute of Technology [(M.I.T.] and University of Massachusetts-Amherst). State systems which have more than one Land-Grant campus, e.g., the University of California System has 7 such campuses, are counted as a single Land-Grant university. state in whic governing cc effectively se This re LandGrant u setimpetus 935mg boar. statutory poli selection proc the external c alternative se Contrlbute to t universitY gov The qbo not trying 10 (It Qbsotute terms 900d trustee Q state in which the university is located. The politically-driven governing control represents a process which may or may not effectively serve the needs of these universities. This research will compare and contrast the workings of five Land-Grant university governing boards: two that have elements of self-perpetuating members, i.e., new board members are selected by existing board members, and three that are constituted through statutory political procedures. It will describe these current trustee selection procedures and identify who is represented by those selected (the external and internal influences). The study will also suggest alternative selection models that may, based on the research, contribute to the improved effectiveness and credibility of Land-Grant university governing boards. The above describes what I am trying to accomplish. What I am not trying to accomplish is the compilation of a manual that defines, in absolute terms, the attributes of good board selection procedures, a 9 00d trustee, a good board, or good governance. Beginnings t LondGrantt Highe educating in lives as uppe teaching the and Latin tex it was elitist < AS the and Qgficultu bqume more to erl Indugtr new lYpes at e Many p institution 8' H technical SCho. mode evldent 1 otInillionQiIeI the estth Shed Beginnings of U .5. Higher Education, the Morrill Act, and Land-Grant Colleges Higher education in the United States began as a means of educating males from economically advantaged families primarily for lives as upper class gentry, politicians, or clergymen. It focused on teaching the Greek and Latin languages and memorization of Greek and Latin texts. It served the patrician world, not the practical world. It was elitist and not democratic (Nevins, 1962, p. 17). As the Country's population grew and the need for engineering and agricultural skills grew correspondingly, the aims of education became more diverse. The utilization of natural and human resources to fuel industrial growth required new curriculums and, importantly, new types of educational institutions in which to teach them. Many private initiatives were begun to create these new institutions. However, "all these varied efforts to provide popular technical schools and colleges on a basis of independent support made evident the necessity of governmental aid. The frequent rumors of millionaire patrons did not materialize; bequests were made only to the established colleges or for the founding of new institutions on the old lines" (11. succeed, gor lustin Republican } ettecting cha 15'. Morrill b necessary be '1. The and 2- The Che< less 0ng old lines" (Ross, 1942, p. 27). If these new technical institutions were to succeed, governmental financial support would be required. Justin Smith Morrill, 1810-1898, a successful merchant and Republican politician from Strafford, Vermont, was interested in effecting change and opportunity in higher education (Nevins, 1962, p. y 15). Morrill believed "that a new and vigorous type of education was necessary because of certain conditions: '1. The rapid dissipation of the public land by donations to local and private interests . . .2 2. The soil deterioration and wastage engendered by the cheapness and easy acquirement of these lands might be lessened by more thorough and scientific knowledge of agriculture and by a higher education of those devoted to its pursuits . . .; 3. The need of a useful education for the man who will use it . . .; 4. The inadequate existing scheme of collegiate education which ignored the needs of farmers and mechanics . . .; 5. The fact that several states were quite unable, unless federally aided, to provide adequate educational facilities . . .; [and that,] 6. Ar de sci Because oil:- until 1887 an lorum Which riot was pass President Ab! inTIOduced in States to 9x15 loundyng of h designated Q. The leg pODUlist-onen ot the kind to l Years to Comp Period, Lqmyc ChQIucter. The on "'orgqmsm' inethlcqbllt b0 6. America must seek to realize what Europe had already demonstrated: the benefits from agricultural and industrial schools'" (Eddy, 1957, pp. 27-29). Because of his position in the US. House of Representatives from 1854 until 1867 and in the US. Senate from 1867 until 1898, Morrill had a forum which could help make his vision a reality. In 1862, the Morrill Act was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. The Act, which evolved from a bill first introduced in 1857, provided that public lands could be granted by the states to existing or to-be-established trustee bodies for the use or founding of higher education institutions. These institutions became designated colloquially as ”Land-Grant" colleges. The legislative action taken in 1862 began a new type of populist-oriented education. It was "an educational revolution, but not of the kind to happen overnight. It would take almost one hundred years to complete” (Eddy, 1957, p. 46). During this one hundred year period, Land-Grant institutions would experience continuing change in character. The initial character was described by Abraham Flexner as an "'organism.’ In an organism, the parts and the Whole are inextricably bound together" (Kerr, C. 1982, p. 20) in one community. This organi: federation” institutions i "he really It can be adde more a neck Powered by The in Hatch Act of experiment 5 Jenglation er uanersitjes C lmflsmitted t. This organism characterization evolved into what Flexner labeled "'a federation” (Kerr, G, 1982, p. 6), a union of organisms. As these institutions continued to grow in size and complexity, they evolved into "the really modern university—-the multiversity. . . [where] many parts can be added and subtracted with little effect on the whole. . . . It is A more a mechanism . . . held together by administrative rules and powered by money" (Kerr, G, 1982, p. 6, 20). The impact of the 1862 Morrill Act was greatly expanded by "the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. By providing for experiment stations and extension services, this 'three-legged stool' of legislation ensured that knowledge coming from these colleges and universities could be tested in a real—world setting and effectively transmitted to a public beyond enrolled students. "The complete Land-Grant model created by these three pieces of legislation--encompassing teaching, experiment station research, and extension--applied to agriculture alone" (Jones, Oberst, and Lewis, May/June 1990, pp. 11-12). Support exists to extend this Land-Grant agricultural model to other competitive initiatives that include engineering (ibid, pp. 13—16) and economic development (Cote and Cote, January/February 1993, pp. 55—72). The i vith the nee every state had Throug endowment needs oi its L successes in sell-serving Were respon results Occur- lSlond. Persc the maloritm ln Spite The first governance matters these new colleges faced began with the need-to use or dispose of the 30,000 acres of national land that every state was granted for each US Senator and Representative it had. Through the sales of these lands, each state was to create an endowment whose income would be used to support the operating needs of its Land-Grant college. While there were a few notable successes in these activities (principally in California and New York), self-serving land speculators became involved in many states and were responsible for less than sufficient yields on the sales. The worst results occurred in Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Personal gain was more important than institutional gain in the majority of states (Nevins, 1962, p. 28-37). In spite of these beginnings, the Land-Grants have grown to be some of the largest and most important universities in the world. This has been possible because of the continued assistance of federal moneys; the addition of state moneys; and room, board, tuition, grants, and endowment provided by students, alumni/a9, parents, and friends. Individual campuses can have more than 40,000 students from more than 80 countries, 3,000 faculty members, and programs ranging from agriculture to zoology located on each of the earth's continents. ‘ Populist in c research an- nany oi the impact 'j N AS than any oil: needs of our A Sea sulittort bloc X171). Sevent. Grants Under U'S- Supreme TB 8.0. 1138 [, Were legal. 1; Education (34; to be unconsti Elementqu/ at Populist in orientation at the undergraduate level, the elitist graduate research and applied sciences programs at these Land-Grants involve many of the brightest minds whose work and discoveries have global impact (NASULGC, 1995, p. 4). These institutions, to a greater extent than any others, serve diverse student populations and the diverse needs of our Earth. A Second Morrill Act was enacted in 1890 "specifically to support black Land-Grant institutions" (Christy and Wiliamson, 1992, p. xvii). Seventeen additional institutions were designated as Land- Grants under this legislation. The 1890 Act was affirmed in the 1896 US. Supreme Court decision regarding Plessy V. Ferguson (163 US. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138 [1896]) which held that "separate-but-equal" institutions were legal. In 1954, the US. Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education (347 US. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686 [1954]), found this separation doctrine to be unconstitutional (Christy and Williamson, 1992, p. vii; Alexander and Alexander, 1984, p. 163). Additionally, a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 1994 designated 29 tribal, i.e., Native American, colleges as Land-Grants (NASULGC, 1994, p. 9). in Mc and univers: designated c each of the t 23}. Their mi cliberal and destined to s 17 LandGm] total of 65,501 the 29 Amem enrolled 14.01 (NASULGC, 1, GOVeIm'ng be 1862 Morrill A. In March, 1995, there were a total of 105 Land-Grant colleges and universities, including all the campuses of the state systems designated as Land-Grants, spread throughout each of the 50 states, each of the territories, and the District of Columbia (NASULGC, 1995, p. 23). Their mission is to teach "agriculture and the mechanic arts . . . for a liberal and larger education to larger numbers, not merely to those destined to sedentary professions" (Morrill, 1888, speech). In 1989, the 17 Land-Grant institutions constituted under the 1890 Morrill Act had a total of 65,500 students (Christy and Williamson, 1992, p. 36). In 1994, the 29 American tribal colleges constituted as "1994 Land-Grants" enrolled 14,000 students equating to nearly 10,000fu11-time equivalents (NASULGC, 1994, p. 7). Governing boards of Land-Grants designated under the 1862 Morrill Act The early governance of Land-Grants chartered under the 1862 Act can be generously described as unstable. "Their management involved much confusion and dispute. The typical governing board was almost as ineffective in financial management as in educational direction. Selection by governor, legislature, or in a few cases by popular vot interference local and gr competence would sateg the most ecc 99100). Since b0fIIds corny Statutory prc their State le! bodies are cc these boards bectinse of th TpiCQHY Sele Which they Se legislatures it five states (De Caroling, (Ind Mammal 10 popular vote, brevity and uncertainty of tenure, legislative interference-at times to the point of abolition or reorganization--and local and group pressure all worked against administrative competence. . . . The popular ideal of hard-headed businessmen who would safeguard, invest, and direct the expenditure of public funds in the most economical way was not generally realized" (Ross, 1942, p. 99-100). Since inception, governance of these institutions has been by boards composed primarily of individuals selected or elected through statutory procedures and informal processes developed by each of their state legislatures. Accordingly, these Land-Grant governing bodies are constituted in many different ways. Individuals serving on these boards are appointed, elected, or serve on an ex-officio basis because of their special office or position. Those appointed are typically selected by the governor and/or the legislators of the state in which they serve. In 47 states (94 percent), governors and/or legislatures make the appointments. Included in these 47 states are five states (Delaware; Massachusetts--M.I.T only: New York: South Carolina, and Vermont) that use self-perpetuating _a_nd gubernatorial/legislative appointment/election procedures to select their trustei elect their 1 wide (Nehrc Colorado's I Governor [C White the Ur Iegents sele Within each . defied at la 204021.) Pro; Grants Const thr011911 state and/0T gliber; Eight 5 MassachuSet, campus or m (NASULGC, 15 Nebraska, are or election to 1 menses. (Ti 11 their trustees (Trustee Selection, 1980, p. 15). The remaining 3 states elect their Land—Grant boards through state-wide (Michigan) or district- Wide (Nebraska and Nevada) elections. (Colorado State University, Colorado's Land-Grant institution, has its trustees appointed by the Governor [Colorado State Board of Agriculture Organization, 1996, p. 1] while the University of Colorado, also state-supported, has all of its 9 regents selected in partisan elections in which one regent is elected within each of the State's 6 congressional districts and 3 regents are elected at large [Colorado Revised Statutes, 1996, Article 20, Section 23- 20-1021) From the above, it is clear that the vast majority of Land- Grants constituted under the 1862 Morrill Act select their trustees through state-mandated political procedures that involve elections and/or gubernatorial and/or legislative appointment/elections. Eight states (Alaska, California, Illinois. Louisiana. Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, and Tennessee) have multi- campus or multi-institution Land-Grants operating as one system (NASULGC, 1994, p. 14-15). These institutions, with the exception of Nebraska, are part of the group of Land-Grants in which appointment or election to their boards is controlled by politicians and political processes. (The State of Nebraska is divided into eight equally- populated c one regent 1996, p. 8). The d i: most pror members. i and knows c Processes to yith respect It is cl: Selection (wt 20 ot 32 trusts BYtaws of the UTVGISTTY. wj nembers of t] predominate] their politicjm these appoint. State of 0th i politicql pteSS 12 populated districts with each district electing, in a non-partisan ballot, one regent to serve on the 8 person board (University of Nebraska, 1996, p. 8). The debate regarding election or appointment of public officials is most pronounced when it relates to judges and university board members. I am aware of the politically oriented issues in this debate and knows of the trend toward increasing use of appointment processes to select judges. Will or should this trend be experienced with respect to Land-Grant board members who are still elected? It is clear that the power and procedures for Land-Grant trustee selection (with the exception of the University of Delaware, which has 20 of 32 trustees selected by its entire board (University of Delaware Bylaws of the Board of Trustees, revised May 1992, Par. 5105); Clemson University, which has 7 of 13 trustees selected by the self-perpetuating members of the board; and Cornell University and MIT. which are predominately private institutions) are controlled by the states and their politicians, political parties, and political processes. Many of these appointed and elected trustees are the result of political spoils. State of Ohio Senator Linda Furney states, "There is tremendous political pressure for these appointments. They often appoint people who are eitl contributors can serve a: cronies are : quoted in 11: But st bustness. Lt research. stc the National Colleges_ yy Shidents anc appIOXimate thud of all TX doctoral deg (NASULGC, l Ltmd‘GIanti billion in the ASSOCiateS' 1 Critics economics n 13 who are either active in political campaigns or are large financial contributors" (Cyrill, 1996, January 18, p. 1). They, i.e., the appointees, can serve as recipients of political patronage. "Far too often, political cronies are selected by governors to serve on these boards" (Weiss, quoted in The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 20, 1995, p. A30). _ But statistics indicate Land-Grant governance is not frivolous business. Land—Grant institutions represent 105 of the 181 public research, state, and territorial colleges and universities that comprise the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. These colleges and universities "enroll more than 2.9 million students and claim upwards of 20 million alumni. . . . [They] award approximately a half-million degrees annually, including about one- third of all bachelors and masters degrees, 60 percent of all US. doctoral degrees, and 70 percent of the nation's engineering degrees" (NASULGC, March, 1995, p. 2). The annual operating budgets of the Land-Grant institutions chartered under the 1862 Morrill Act were $24 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1994 (Minter, J. W. and Associates, 1996, 94findat diskette). Critics contend that "Land-Grants have been driven by economics, not prestige" (Weiland, August 15, 1997. conversation with the researcl 19605 in whi iacilitated tl return for iii wholesale ti ucaises the: 1977, p. 164). Since Social respo; [TheYl have ] COIlsideratjo Wagnel, [99 14 the researcher). This is evidenced by their actions during the 19505 and 19605 in which one scholar, Wendell Berry, claims they not only facilitated the replacement of the small farm by agribusiness, but, in return for financial assistance, actively supported agribusiness in this wholesale transformation of American agricultural enterprise. Berry accuses these Land-Grants of prioritizing money over mission (Berry, 1977, p. 164). . Since the Berry book was published, "public concern about the social responsibility of colleges and universities has increased. . . . [They] have been criticized for a lack of sensitivity to public considerations . . . [and] inattention to problems of the larger society” Wagner, 1993, pp. 696-697), including public service programs for education in general and K-12 schooling in particular (Wagner, 1993, p. 717). This increased concern has led critics to question the relevance and responsibilities of Land-Grant institutions. The purpose and direction of these institutions is being questioned and governing boards are being asked for answers. Statement c The 5 board rnerrr‘l political par "Kerr and G1 advisory co: conventions and alumni Ultimately, i decided Upo governor (In In(1101117 0i t: C0millions 4 0t Political p University of University of excelitions.) political PIoc nomination f Tend“. inte 15 Statement of the problem The selection process for the majority of Land-Grant university board members is based primarily on loyalty to politicians and political parties--which is driven by partisanship and special interests (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 104). Selection processes include the use of advisory committees; special nominating panels; nominating conventions: district and state—wide political caucuses and/or elections; and alumni screening, nominating councils, and/or elections. Ultimately, the recommendations of these groups are considered and decided upon by the governor, the legislature, a combination of the governor and legislature, or the electorate. The final selection of the majority of trustees in 43 of the 49 Land-Grant institutions in the contiguous 48 states is, therefore, made by a politician. political body, or political process. (Clemson University, Cornell University, University of Delaware, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Nebraska, and the University of Nevada are the six exceptions.) In turn, trustees are dependent on these politicians and political processes for their selection. Re—appointment or re- nomination for election can depend on continuing to represent the agendas, interests, and priorities of these political constituencies. And, "it mm appointrne: The 1 Primary dut Perhaps, su remains ab. or universitj 1991p, 52). institutions this mission T member, reg Priorities the she Serves, more gem those Selecte Consequenc e geographic o ettecfiVeneSs instituyOn bet 16 And, "it must be recognized that politics cannot be taken out of political appointments" (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 43). The literature, research, and observations suggest that the primary duty of trustees should be loyalty to the university. This is, perhaps, summarized best by the statement that "the duty of loyalty remains absolute . . . : Trustees must place the interests of the college or university they serve first and foremost" (Ingram and Associates, 1993, p. 62). Governance of a university requires a commitment to the institution's mission and a willingness and determination to protect this mission from agendas caused by mixed loyalties. Any board member, regardless of the selection process, may have a mission and priorities that differs from the mission and priorities of the university s/he serves. Are these differing missions and priorities found less or more frequently among politically appointed/elected trustees than those selected through other processes. and what are the consequences of these differences? Finding oneself "beholden to geographic or special interests" (Kaze. 1996, p. 35) can result in loss of effectiveness and credibility as a trustee and compromise the institution being governed. But, i dissociated greater con influencedl needs oi on. stateconnc this from ha Perpetuatiny {011119 diVer: inStitution? t more than or relitesemed interItal inilu appropriate inuppromqy ”My ls elects (1110 the Person Who h erratupleS inc] applicable Stc 17 But, is it reasonable to assume that any trustee can be totally dissociated from the influence of geography or special interests? A greater concern could be a situation in which all trustees are influenced by like factors and, as a result, focus on and assure that needs of only narrowly defined constituencies are met. Do present state-controlled and self-perpetuating selection procedures preclude this from happening? Can and do these politically-driven and self- perpetuating selection procedures provide meaningful representation for the diverse peoples and organizations funding and affecting the institution? Should trustees be selected by more than one procedure or more than one constituency? Should other groups of stakeholders be represented by their own trustees? Who and what are the external and internal influences on trustee decision-making and what influence is appropriate--and how is the line between appropriateness and inappropriateness crossed? (The New Shorter Oxford Enalfl Dictionary, 1993, defines "constituent" as ”a person who appoints or elects another as her/his representative" and a "stakeholder" as "a II M person who has an interest or concern in something. Constituent" examples include voters (parents, alumni. students within the applicable state), politicians. and political parties. "Stakeholder" examples 1 other states for operatic Thes ot LandGrc six states-T York, and St indSpenden observation of LQHdGra 0t incteasing relating to q Iese(Ircher is MY int “Private lib; SUCCeSSiUlly ; on this board lethal and in thIQuill) form, 18 examples include alumni, parents, and students registered to vote in other states; and foundations and organizations that provide funding for operations, research, or endowment. These statements and questions produce a tension: the selection of Land-Grant university trustees is controlled (with the exception of six states-Delaware, Massachusetts [M.I.T.], Nebraska, Nevada, New York. and South Carolina) by state-mandated political procedures (the independent variables), while the literature, research, and observations suggest that the quality of governance and effectiveness of Land-Grant boards (the dependent variables) are deteriorating and of increasing concern. It is this tension, and the resulting questions relating to quality, effectiveness, and board influences that the researcher is addressing in this dissertation. My interest in this subject is prompted by my role as a trustee of a private liberal arts college that, from a personal perspective, has a successfully functioning board. Twenty-four of the thirty-six trustees on this board are selected by a self-perpetuating board which uses formal and informal selection criteria. N o trustees are selected through formal, state—wide, politically-driven processes. I believe that boards constituted primarily through a self-perpetuating procedure are less likely t motivation: promptedt The ( contrasting institutions. to identity I oi terms, at. PGISpective allocation 0 influences c comparing 1 With Land-G Gilbernqtom differing SGTI Putticqums 19 less likely to have their focus preempted by or subjugated to the motivations and influences of politicians and political parties that are prompted by considerations irrelevant to the institution involved. The above premise will be studied by comparing and contrasting trustee selection procedures within five Land-Grant institutions. Governing board elements (examples include processes to identify potential board members, number of board members, length of terms, and number of meetings) will be compared with participant perspectives of board effectiveness; activities—-including issues and . allocation of time devoted to Board matters; external and internal influences on decision-making; and outputs. This will be done by comparing Land-Grant boards that have self-perpetuating members with Land-Grant boards whose members are elected or appointed by gubernatorial and/or legislative bodies. A comparison of the impact of differing selection procedures and elements on board decision- making, quality, and effectiveness from the perspectives of the participants is a key component of the research activities. tiesearcha. Becc backgrounr What is the operating i What is the each partic prescribed What are a members in Web of thee When did er Procedure? Becca bl selection though Part How do Lani responsibilii (Dreams re 20 Researchable questions Because of the public policy aspects of this research, preliminary background questions to be researched are: What is the amount of state support as a percentage of unrestricted operating funds for each Land-Grant participating in this study? Whatis the legal framework associated with the governing board of each participating institution, e.g., are there open-meetings laws, a prescribed number of meetings, prescribed committees, etc? What are the total number of board members and the number of board members not selected through state-controlled political procedures at each of these institutions? When did each state adopt its current board member selection procedure? Because board member decisions could possibly be influenced by selection procedures, the first primary question to be researched through participant interviews is: How do Land-Grant university board members describe their responsibilities, constituencies, and stakeholders? Subsidiary questions relating to this include: i How many matters? I Who do bot activities? ° What issue consuming ' What do be ' Who do boc Stakeholder ' can these c importance The secc What selection governing b0 Q1 0 l‘lCIVe Selecti metubers? 21 o How many hours per week do board members devote to university matters? 0 Who do board members communicate with regarding university activities? 0 What issues consume their time, beginning with the most time consuming? 0 What do board members consider to be their responsibilities? 0 Who do board members consider to be their key constituencies and stakeholders, i.e., who do they represent? 0 Can these constituencies and stakeholders be ranked in order of importance? If yes, what is the ranking? The second primary question to be researched is: What selection, orientation, and evaluation procedures are used for governing board members? Subsidiary questions are: 0 Have selection criteria been formally defined for governing board members? ' Who and what processes are involved in assembling a list of potential governing board members? 0 Would you prefer board members, if elected, to be selected by a Partisan or non-partisan ballot: in state-wide or district elections; or by gubemr combinatic self-perpet stakeholde ' How do se] decision-m ‘ Do boards] What are 1h ' Do boards y theh memb ° What proCe indiridual a ‘ What specfi those Posse; The third What is the imp muting? Using the es t abj hhhd‘Gtam in S t questioIts: 22 by gubernatorial appointment; by legislative election; by a combination of gubernatorial and legislative appointment; by a self-perpetuating board; or by a combination of several stakeholders? 0 How do selection procedures influence board members in their decision-making? 0 Do boards have orientation programs for new members? If yes, what are the components? 0 Do boards have on-going education and development programs for their members? If yes, what are the components? 0 What procedures are in place to assess governing board members individual and collective effectiveness? ' What specific skills and competencies would you like added to those possessed by your current board members? The third primary question asks: What is the impact of selection procedures on board member decision- making? Using the establishment of tuition as a decision issue common to all Land-Grant institutions, please answer the following subsidiary questions: 0 Who andv decision-n 0 How do the decisions? ' What aret making? ' Which exte Opinions a1 ' How might self‘Perpeti Procedure? ' Ale there is: leSliSlatively Selected lhl‘t The tom hreboqrd mem Perceived to be (Piestions tel a ti 0 ISTPPWledg‘ Wild fiSCCIl un 23 0 Who and what are the external and internal influences in this decision-making process? 0 How do these external and internal influences affect board member decisions? 0 What are the consequences of these influences on board decision- making? 0 Which external and internal opinions are valued most? Which opinions are valued least? 0 How might a board member's role differ if s/he was selected by a self-perpetuating board rather than through a statutory political procedure? 0 Are there issues that tend to involve gubernatorial and legislatively selected board members more than board members selected through the self-perpetuating procedure? The fourth primary question asks: Are board member selection processes and board members selected perceived to be better or worse than ten years ago? Subsidiary questions relating to this are: ' Is knowledge of higher educational institutions, academic matters, and fiscal understanding perceived to be improving? o Are board interested i Are board race, genc t What are t The hid What recomm {th Why) do y h°Grds with re ' Board Inem ' PrOcesses 1 ‘ Election an ' Performqnc I thbey Oil of terms? The sixth the there Other hoards YOu Won The abov htorhlatjon on: 24 Are board members focused primarily on single issues or are they interested and participative in a variety of issues? Are board members becoming more diverse with respect to age, race, gender, geography, religion, and occupation? What are the consequences of changes in board member diversity? The fifth primary question asks: What recommendations regarding board member selection procedures (and why) do you have to improve the quality of Land-Grant university boards with respect to: Board member qualifications? Processes to identify potential governing board members? Election and appointment procedures? Performance evaluation procedures? Number of board members on a board. length of terms, and number of terms? The sixth primary question asks: Are there other strengths, weaknesses, or issues regarding Land-Grant boards you would like to discuss? The above questions generate responses beyond the information originally sought. Stories, anecdotes, and personal narratives at and internal Potential hen A trey } processes use universities re Chhhglhg the: description of him positive helpful, and w Tttrothei Ctilestion "are L stakeholders v based on the li (lbovemenfior mtehhht intluer The bené hOPeTUlly, hnllte 25 narratives about selection, appointment, election processes, external and internal influences, and funding also add interesting insights. Potential benefits of the research A key product of this research is a description of procedures and processes used to constitute governing boards of the Land-Grant universities researched, and participant recommendations for changing these procedures and processes. The work also includes a description of what elements within these procedures and processes have positive value to their institution, and why, and which are not helpful, and why. Another product of this research is an analysis concerning the question "are boards representative of the constituencies and stakeholders who are important to their institutions." This analysis is based on the literature and responses from interviews held with the above-mentioned study participants. It describes external and internal influences involved in board decisions. The benefits of accessing this information in one work will, hopefully, inure to the collectivity of colleges and universities in both the public and private sectors. It is intended that this study inform pubhc policy engaged in 0 education go 26 public policy makers, university boards, and institutional leaders engaged in assessing ways to strengthen the performance of higher education governing boards. Chapter 11 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This literature review presents what is known and written about the problem described in the Introduction (Chapter I). It provides definitions and histories where appropriate and details published recommendations to alleviate the problem. It concludes with a critique of what is written and what additional research could be done as a next step in addressing the problem. Definition of governance 'Governance' is a derivative of the word 'govern.’ Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1981, defines govern as "to control and direct the making and administration of policy: to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of a person or group." k 27 Me with authoritj direct and co: both definitio; governance c concepts emh ”guardianship Purpose of goy The cen education instz' 1989' n. 12). "T. elaboration ofy educational ins 198th- 12), The received Wide a andhsshdates I). lngmm 82 As 28 New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993, defines govern as to "rule with authority,- conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of a subject; direct and control, have under protective guardianship." Common to both definitions are the words 'control' and 'direct'. With respect to governance of higher education and Land-Grant institutions, key concepts embodied in these definitions are "policy , influence", and "guardianship". Purpose of governance The central purpose and responsibility of governance of higher education institutions is "the function of guardianship" (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 12). ”The role of trustees and governing board members in representing institutional interests in the face of increasing external involvement has become more important" (Hines, 1988, p. 13), A further elaboration of the purpose and responsibility of governance in higher educational institutions is detailed in Trustee Responsibilities (N ason, 1982. p. 12). The list of responsibilities contained in this publication has received wide acceptance and endorsement in the literature (Ingram and Associates, 1988, p. 13-14; Kerr and Gade, 1989, Appendix C, Item 1). Ingram 8r Associates in Governin Public Colle es and Universities (1993) state it seminal stud oi time" (Ingr responsibiliti 1980, revised conflicting re; trustees, insti state that is i: COmP‘Biing co: Althoug governance w Percent of all I- PIogmms for: GOVeTDCInCe W QOVerned Can I HistoI-y of go” GOVGIHC it] the 14th Cent these “’03 John 29 (1993) state that N ason's listing of the 12 board responsibilities and "his seminal studies of. higher education trusteeship . . . have stood the test of time" (Ingram & Associates, 1993, p. 95). Included in these responsibilities is the task "to preserve institutional autonomy" (Nason, 1980, revised 1989, p. 8). Because of the possible politically-driven conflicting representation matters associated with Land-Grant trustees, institutional autonomy can be perceived as existing in a fluid state that is influenced by the forces of and relationships with many competing constituencies and stakeholders. Although great emphasis is placed on the importance of governance within higher education, it is interesting to note that "42 percent of all public institutions . . . do not provide formal orientation programs for new trustees" (Ingram, 1984, revised 1989, p. 1). Governance without knowledge and understanding of what is being governed can be less than efficient and effective. History of governance Governance in higher educational institutions had its beginning in the 14th century universities of Germany and Italy. Notable among these was John Calvin's Academy which was the first institution using non-acadern Gade, 1989, p and the oldes Board of Ove colony (lngra Land-C mid-19th cent selected by th the legislature or the use of c 0f the toregoir Massachusett: are selected, i: We. ( 15 Those in the iIldit Provide. COntrol e illllllence 30 non—academic and non-clergy groups to provide governance (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 17). In the United States, Harvard, established in 1842 and the oldest of American higher educational institutions, utilized a Board of Overseers composed of "leading men" of the Massachusetts colony (Ingram 8r Associates, 1993, p. 6). Land-Grant governing boards, tracing their beginnings to the mid-19th century, have been constituted in many ways. They are now selected by the Governor of the state in which the institution is located, the legislature of the involved state, elections within the state involved, or the use of appointment by position. Most states use a combination of the foregoing. However, in the case of five states (Delaware. Massachusetts--MIT, New York. South Carolina, and Vermont), boards are selected, in part, by self-perpetuating methodologies. In Effective Trusteeship (1995), Ingram notes that: Those who formed this nation fervently believed that, although the individual states should have primary responsibility to provide for education at all levels, they should not directly control education lest it become the instrument of political influence and propaganda. . . . Public colleges in the United States are [to be] governed by surrogates of the general public. . 31 . . They are expected to cooperate with the government, . . . but certainly not to conduct themselves on behalf of government (Ingram, 1995, p. 2-3). The authors of Trustee Selection stress the importance of "preserving institutional integrity" of these public colleges and note this is a key obligation of "the lay governing board [which] is a central feature of American post—secondary education" (National Commission on College and University Trustee Selection, 1980, p. 14). While each of the Land-Grant institutions has a governing board. Kerr and Gade state the quality of these boards is questionable. In The Guardians, they note that inferior board appointments have led to inferior leadership which, in turn, has made these appointments undesirable to many'able, potential candidates. "This downward spiral leads to more interference by the states because of perceived lack of leadership" (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 106). Board Composition and Selection ’ . What qualities and skills are sought: Determination of the qualities and skills required for board membership is the primary responsibility of a board's committee on trustees. Or of the institu determine W bOGId" (Gale I'eXperience, organization. llngfam, 1989 lhatiudiViduc (13.35)th cm COucerns. ° What attri] The 5126 ""’ever, it is Sto %' WeQVel 32 trustees. Quality and skill attributes need to match the specific needs of the institution-~which can change with time. "This is the time to determine what . . . constituent groups should be represented on the board" (Gale, 1994, p. 5-8). Individual considerations, as described in Making Advisory Committees and Boards Work, should focus on "experience, professional backgrounds, affiliations with key organizations outside the institution, and demographic characteristics" (Ingram, 1989, p. 8). Ingram also notes in Effective Trugteegship, 1995, that individuals selected need to possess "knowledge and experience" (p. 35) that can be used to assist the institution in dealing with its many concerns. ' What attributes of diversity are sought: The size of governing boards precludes individual representation from each of its constituencies and stakeholders. However, it is important that boards be understanding and reflective of "ethnic, age, and economic diversity of the larger population, just as students [are]" (Weaver, 1995, p. 5). Writing in Boards in the E e of the Storm, Weaver also notes that the presence of greater diversity among the trustees gives them a more inclusive view and "broadens the collective Wisdom available . . . for decision making" (Weaver, 1995, p. 5). She recor that can evo plea for inclr W essay, Grigs the year 200i Asian Ameri loXtaposed v minorities in Cover: While those a eXCeotions tc Mossachuset inSlilutiong hr elemouts. Cc and MIT has 5 (Massachuse t Amended 199: Size Car moons inCIeQ 33 5). She recommends that institutions take advantage of the wisdom that can evolve from diverse and interactive participants. Another plea for inclusion of diversity on governing boards is made in Overcome the Obstaclgg to Board Divergity (Grigsby, 1995). In this essay, Grigsby notes that 40 percent of our educationally-aged youth in the year 2000 will be minorities, e.g., Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans. and Native Americans. This percentage is juxtaposed with the current 19 percent of trustees represented by minorities in our public sector institutions (Grigsby, 1995, p. 36). Governing boards of public institutions average nine trustees while those of independent institutions average 28 trustees. [Notable exceptions to these averages are Cornell University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Both of these Land-Grant institutions have publicly and privately supported educational elements. Cornell has 42 trustees (Cornell University Charter, 1984) and MIT has 78 members, i.e., trustees, of its Corporation (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bylaws of the Corporation, Amended 1993).] Size can affect the ability of a board to accomplish work. As groups increase in size, it becomes more difficult to be focused and goal orientet twelve rneni 1994, p. 32). 1 some membe efficient and Larger group satisfaction c ThiIth loSliiution the coneoes and "ppmldmatel Percent Were Americans C0: GOVemjng BOt While t} "oleining boc governing boo Populations re respond to inc] 34 goal oriented (Kreeger, 1975). "Moreover, as group size exceeds about twelve members, attaining consensus decreases dramatically" (Reddy, 1994, p. 32). Large group sizes may result in "social loafing" where some members lessen their contribution toward making the entity efficient and effective (Latane, Williams, 8: Harkins, 1979, pp. 822-832). Larger groups are also less content and have less pleasure and satisfaction derived from their work (Kerr, 1989, pp. 287-313). Thirteen percent of public institution trustees are alumni of the institution they serve While the comparative figure for independent colleges and universities is 31 percent. These data, published in Composition of Governing Boards; 985, reveal that, in 1985, approximately 90 percent of board members were white and six percent were African Americans. Hispanics, Asian and Native Americans composed the remaining percentages. (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1986, p. 3-12). While there has been an increase in minority representation on governing boards between the 1985 study and Grigsby's article of 1995, governing boards continue to be more homogeneous than the populations represented. This lessens the "insight and ability to respond to increasingly diverse educational needs" (Callan 8r lionetschlag Mir higher educc serving on g Years old” (C Honetschlag quality of inc of those who effectiveness makes up the all Ol these or bonds is M 1992,13, 34). What selectio; members ll913on universities lir loot lltat eQCh llleY SeIVe Sig] 35 Honetschlager, 1992, p. 4). In Policies for Improving Trustee Selection in the Public Sector, 1992, it is noted that in a "recent survey of public higher education trustees in one state, . . . 71 percent of those currently serving on governing boards are male, and 51 percent are over 60 years 01 " (Callan 8t Honetschlager, 1992, p. 4). Callan 8r Honetschlager, like Kerr and Gade (1989, p. 106), are concerned with the quality of individuals serving and write that "there is virtual consensus of those who have examined the issues since 1980 that the overall effectiveness of education governing boards is declining. . . . Who makes up the board makes a difference. . . . The major factor to which all of these analyses attribute the weakening of public governing boards is gpality of board appointments . . ." (Callan 8r Honetschlager, 1992, p. 3-4). What selection processes are used to recruit Land—Grant board members Approximately 75 percent of board members in public universities (including Land-Grants) are appointed by governors. The fact that each of these trustees must be a citizen of the state in which they serve significantly narrows the pool of potential trustees (Kerr and Gade, I frequently ii of individual under the Mt to select son creatures of 1962, p. 83.) ' picking cand 1996, p, 8 A). . lleIIuont hav "OMS leXclu l’loSsachuset ClernsoI1 Unit have 0 malori The Slotes oi ‘ trustees throu Commission c problen selecting llllSl W 36 and Gade, 1989, p. 40). This gubernatorial appointment procedure frequently includes some form of legislative input and/or confirmation of individuals chosen. Each of the Land-Grant institutions designated under the Morrill Act of 1862 incorporates the use of political processes to select some or all of their trustees. (Because these institutions are creatures of their states, they are governed by their states (N evins, 1962, p. 83.) "Regrettable, the typical citizen could give a hoot [for] picking candidates for university governing boards" (Skubick, May 3, 1996, p. 8A). Only the universities of Delaware, South Carolina, and Vermont have a component of their trustees selected by their own boards (excluding Cornell University in New York and MIT in Massachusetts which are primarily private institutions)--and only Clemson University in South Carolina and the University of Delaware have a majority of their board positions selected by their own boards. The states of Colorado, Michigan, Nebraska, and Nevada select their trustees through district and state-wide elections. (National Commission on College Trustee Selection, 1980, p. 15). Problems associated with the state political processes for selecting trustees included in Callan and Honetschlager's Policies for Improving Trustee Selection in the Public Sector, 1992, are: rec tre C0] des pol ' Lac ' Lac orn The ab. Michigan Qsc """Qoniven the Skills of th is] (h, 37 o "Governors are pressured to use board appointments . . . to reward individuals and organizations for political support. 0 In most states, no tradition of careful consideration and no requirement exists that governing board appointments be treated differently from other appointments to boards and commissions. [It could be argued that all appointments deserve a high level of scrutiny and process rigor.] 0 In most states, no systematic process exists for recruiting and screening potential appointees. o In some states, board appointments are considered politically sensitive, but unimportant. 0 Lack of explicit criteria for qualifications. 0 Lack of systematic process for reviewing the qualifications or nominees" (p. 5-6). The above problems can be highlighted by using the State of Michigan as an example. "If [a trustee] sounds more like a politician than a university regent, it's because, in Michigan, a person must have the skills of the former to become the latter. . . . Michigan's selection process [is] the nation's most politically divisive method of choosing state-univer each univer; . In recent y Republicans ll, l998, p. A lohn Engler, state's three GPPOintees i: attention to t Created by cu December 8, L lll Ohic “no POlitics, , the GOVeInor] ClliZenrY of Ou IGWQrdjng COI buy these Posi appointed as t 19% t). 38 state-university regents. . . . Each party makes two nominations for each university; the top two vote-getters on the November ballot win. . . . In recent years, nominations have come down to litmus tests: Republicans must be 'pro-life,’ Democrats 'pro-labor'” (Healy, October 11, 1996, p. A43). Because of these circumstances, Michigan’s Governor. John Engler, "has proposed ending direct election of the regents at the state’s three largest public universities, making them gubernatorial appointees instead. . . . Given our diminishing public resources, more attention to the process of selecting trustees and to the problems created by current procedures clearly seems warranted" (Haro, December 8, 1995, p. B1). In Ohio, "the appointments appear to be motivated by money and politics. . . . [Faculty at Ohio State University signed a letter urging the Governor] to create a board that reflects the composition of the citizenry of our state. . . . The way trustees are chosen amounts to rewarding contributors to the governor's political campaigns. People buy these positions. . . . Six of the seven individuals [the governor] has appointed as trustees gave money to the governor's 1990 or 1994 campaigns, in amounts ranging from $450 to $119,000" (Ball, April 1, 1997, p. 1). Pohfi educational l816 appoin to oversee [ represented matter to the Woodward, scholars wei theatre for t}; Places conse Webster and Marshall and Anothe pollfiml Proc. The del largely p0lltllcr: lndepel POtentic llme Qm 39 Politicians and their politics in the boardrooms of higher educational institutions is not a recent phenomenon. Following the 1816 appointment of nine new trustees by the State of New Hampshire to oversee Dartmouth College, Dartmouth and its existing trustees. represented by Daniel Webster (Dartmouth Class of 1801) took the matter to the US. Supreme Court. "In Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1818, Webster argued that 'If Colleges were places where scholars were answerable to politicians, Colleges [would] become a theatre for the contention of politics, party and faction [rather than] places consecrated to piety and learning” (Reese, lune, 1996, p. 28). Webster and his clients argued this case before Chief Justice lohn Marshall and the Supreme Court in 1818 (17 US. 518). Another perspective on boards constituted through partisan political processes states: The debate over whether or not trustees should be elected rests largely on beliefs about the process. While proponents of popular election argue that election is more democratic and independent from political patronage, opponents say that potentially excellent trustees will not subject themselves to the time and funds necessary to conduct a campaign. Moreover, The alc "ml Qllpointr "Heglonces t. Ol lhe institut A few I SeleClEd thror trustees otte; llllsloess, or s. such Coses, bc DGCembeI 8, 1 ll" lOYOllies Loyullje making lllOUg] 40 election as well as appointment, if it involves a partisan political process, can result in trustees who may be less qualified and less interested in serving as tmstees. Wrangling over election or appointment may result in political conflict that carries over to the internal operations of the board (Hines, 1988, p. 15). The above literature makes it apparent that political elections and appointments at public institutions are heavily influenced by allegiances to politicians and/or parties and not necessarily the needs of the institution being served. A few Land—Grant universities have a number of board members selected through self-perpetuating procedures. In these instances, "trustees often are selected because they have the same educational, business, or social background as other members of the board. . . . In such cases, board members tend to 'clone' themselves" (Haro, December 8, 1995, p. Bl). What loyalties are created through these processes Loyalties held by individuals can and do affect their decision- making thought processes (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 43). The New 8mm loyal, as "tai obligations o: [hm to whom one ideal, practice lmplici l°Yolty or alle the selecting lllell Political lltShtution ser gooernors are lhstttutions of lune!" Operat Chancellor Th Gllbethatonq} Governor's plc he [Bartlett] 50 not yet llhderg ChllllCellor" (Hr 41 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993, defines the root of loyalty, i.e., 'loyal', as "faithful or steadfast in allegiance; true or faithful to the obligations of duty, love, friendship. . . 'Loyal‘ is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1981, as "faithful to the sovereign to whom one is subject; faithful or tenacious in adherence to a course, ideal, practice, or custom." Implicit in any subjective selection procedure is the sense of loyalty or allegiance by those chosen to the individuals or bodies doing the selecting. For those trustees selected through political processes, their political loyalties can frequently conflict with their Land-Grant institution served. Frequent examples of this are found when governors are trying to reduce spending, but state-supported institutions of higher education are needing more funds just to keep current operations viable. At the State University of New York (SUNY), Chancellor Thomas Bartlett retired in lune, 1995 after a dispute with Gubernatorial appointed trustees who wanted to implement the Governor's plan to cut the University's budget. "Some of the trustees, he [Bartlett] says, believe they are direct agents of the Governor and do not yet understand what their relationship should be with the chancellor" (Healy, August 9, 1996, p. A20). A professor at the SUNY College at G of SUNY, our and strive to of trustee. . . . the SUNY mis November 15 When 1 the PIOpositic university the "ll "lYpicall are intended t unfettered abr' lhlStees Seek Notation on 1 lqnu(hr/Perm, Trust at loYalties lmpq m("ligament Perhaps more 42 College at Geneseo commenting on this situation stated, ”F or the good of SUNY, our trustees should behave more like judges than activists and strive to present themselves as apolitical when acting in the role of trustee. . . . It is the duty of a trustee to put politics aside and fulfill the SUNY mission. . . . Give us back trustees we can trust" (Macula, November 15, 1996, p. B11). When events like this SUNY example occur, there is conflict with the proposition that "trustees must place the interests of the college or university they serve first and foremost" (Ingram 8t Associates, 1993, p. 62). "Typically, trustees—and governors—have understood that trustees are intended to be above politics. . . . [They are to] maintain an unfettered ability to advocate for institutional needs. Whenever trustees seek to implement a political agenda, . . . they place higher education on the slippery slope to permanent politicization” (Marcus. lanuary/February, 1997, pp. 15—16). Trust and credibility of trustees are eroded when conflicting loyalties impact their decisions. Theory Z, a book about Iapanese management, emphasizes this and notes that "this feature [i.e., trust], perhaps more than any other, accounts for the high levels of commitment, of loyalty, and of productivity. . (Ouchi, 1981, p. 81). this indicate of trust, it als productivity. itsell, does 11. point becaus had aides wh Some c loyalties on d tmstee disclo resllonsibilitie The lltlllCiary; more to be H llllerests of thc l0 plloriliZe re CW Sllllemem that lellSlong lemqin l p0lltloal 43 This indicates that if the selection processpworks against establishment of trust, it also has negative impact on commitment, loyalty, and productivity. Gardner states, in On Leadership (1990), that loyalty, by itself, does not represent "sufficient qualifications. I emphasize the point because more than one recent President of the United States has had aides who possess no other qualifications" (Gardner, 1990, p. 10). Some downsides associated with the impact of conflicting loyalties on decision-making can be resolved through mandating trustee disclosure statements (Ingram, 1994, p. 5-7). Ingram, in Guide to Conflict of Interest 8: Disclosure Issues, formally defines fiduciary responsibilities before having the individual list conflicts of interests. The fiduciary responsibilities statement emphasizes that "all decisions . . . are to be made solely on the basis of a desire to promote the best interests of the institution . . (Ingram, 1994, p. 5). In spite of this effort to prioritize responsibilities and disclose conflicts of interests, Governing Public Colleges and Universities, 1993. includes the statement that: tensions between elected political leaders and the academy remain high. . . . The dangers attendant to preoccupation with political party affiliations in the board room are also very real-_ an un: board board hones exace: nature What does th and assessme Guardi determinatior lepresentnno Share 0 basic mahllg Sure t POSsib1e deg“ llltme IesDons llltlSon, 1980,} Itplesefving in} 44 an unfortunate phenomenon more commonly found in elected boards than appointed boards. . . . [The] factions within the board that are based on politics or personalities rather than honest differences on issues [are frequent]. . . . [They are exacerbated by] the small size of public boards and the political nature of trustee selection (Ingram 8r Associates, 1993, p. 9-35). What does the literature say about the representation responsibilities and assessment of board members Guarding the institution and maintaining its ability for self- determination are prevalent thoughts among authors dealing with representation responsibilities of board members. Magrath, writing in Governing the Public Multicampus University, 1990, states, "all trustees share a basic responsibility, to hold in trust the college or university, making sure that its fundamental mission . . . is fulfilled to the greatest possible degree (Magrath, 1990, p. 3). Similarly, Nason writes that a prime responsibility of trustees is "to preserve institutional autonomy" (Nason, 1980, p. 8-9). Ingram describes this primary function as "preserving institution independence" (Ingram, 1995, p. 5). Anotl (1993) and N . assessment outside cons outside the u assessments continued se chosen by its the board. 1'} e1loose outsi lltYlor, 1993, 3 Percent of for Percent of the What daes t he lllllttence bag The lite essentially 51L 011d decision! helium] and Q 45 Another obligation of trustees noted by Ingram 8r Associates (1993) and Nason (1980) is that trustees need to undertake either self- assessment procedures or have assessments of their work done by outside consultants. When trustees are selected by constituencies outside the university, e.g., the governor or the electorate, periodic assessments by these constituencies have much to say about the continued service of those they select. For a board with members chosen by itself, assessment of these members is the responsibility of the board. These boards may choose self-assessment or, preferably, engage outside consultants to do the assessment (Chait, Holland, and Taylor, 1993, p. 3). Formal board self-assessments occurred at only 29 percent of four-year public institutions in the 1986-1991 period versus 41 percent of the four-year private institutions (Ingram, 1996, p. 54). What does the literature say about how the selection procedures influence board members sense of representation The literature relating to trustee selection procedures is essentially silent regarding the procedures' impact on representation and decision-making. Criticism does exist, however, with respect to political and government involvement in the process. "It must be recognized t (Kerr and Gc University T. One a seems criterit and lx and pr perspe credibj Trustee lhts decline c illtlellehdence 1989, p. 106), In "Cor and Gordon H and SleVen Sc York at BUlfqh selection proc Donne)" “gent 46 recognized that politics cannot be taken out of political appointments (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 43). The National Commission on College and University Trustee Selection writes that: One manifestation of improper governmental intrusion is what seems to be the priority given to political rather than qualitative criteria in trustee selection process[es]. . . . The lack of diversity and balance in age, sex, minority status, geographic coverage, and professional expertise in board membership limits board perspective and seriously damages the board's legitimacy and credibility (National Commission on College and University Trustee Selection, 1980, p. 14). This decline of legitimacy and credibility has resulted in a lessening of independence for public institution governing boards (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 106). In "Confessions of a Public University Refugee," ]ohn DiBiaggio and Gordon Haaland (former presidents of Land-Grant universities) and Steven Sample (former president of the State University of New York at Buffalo) write that "As a result [of the politically-based selection process], many individual trustees come to the board with (1 political agenda or feel compelled to represent a particular constituency attention to groups... . . much greate Haaland, 195 What recomr selection prc hoards It is tir univer he retc electer leader: Spring, Ken (11 White boards seleCllllg boa lll‘lll‘tduqls wi individualS lht 47 constituency. . . . At private universities. the board . . . pays much less attention to the media and the demands of various special-interest groups. . . . And as a general rule, it is possible to attract people of much greater stature to private boards" (DiBiaggio, Sample, and Haaland, 1996, p. 89). What recommendations exist in the literature regarding board member selection procedures and how to improve the quality of Land-Grant boards It is time for a serious look at how public colleges and universities are governed, including how trustee selection can be reformed. The gap in expectations between and among elected political leaders, trustees, presidents, and faculty leaders is widening dangerously (Educational Record, Spring/Summer 1996, p. 51). Kerr and Gade, writing in The Guardians, 1989, note that "among public boards, . . . appointment is a better means than election of selecting board members" (p. 41). They state many qualified individuals will not involve themselves in an election process and individuals that do run frequently make commitments to special interest gro drawback o relatively sr Anotl quality of b( sources. It i; Ttewpomts c (Sbick, 1995, recommemp include; ‘ Establ institu' lthowlt ‘ Estabu . Seek a; experts . DeVelo Stolen“ 48 interest groups to finance their campaigns. They note another drawback of an elected board is that it almost necessarily mandates a relatively small board (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 41). Another means of improving the selection procedure and quality of board members is to have individuals appointed by multiple sources. It is believed that this procedure would provide diversity of viewpoints and link more constituencies and stakeholders to the board (Shick, 1995, p. 19). Callan 8: Honetschlager provide a list of recommendations for improving the process in Policies for Improving Trustee Selection in the Public Sector. These recommendations include: 0 Establish "a method to determine the needs of the institution and the board with respect to skills, experiences, knowledge, and backgrounds of board members. ' Establish . . . a non partisan screening process. . . . 0 Seek appointees of both genders and of varied background, experience, occupations, and ethnicity. 0 Develop or require screening committees to develop explicit statements of qualifications. ° Estal veins Hone They also (It nominating, 5). Addition: presents res members. ll defend the (I maintain an Wmmr that seek bo C"llallllltit (It in ("l atmosl °Vetridjng 10 than to any n 378.379). B‘loIdr dlllelent than Frequent“. 49 0 Establish orientation programs for new trustees and for on- going in—service education of boards" (Callan 8r Honetschlager, 1992, p. 8-11). They also advocate inclusion of alumni associations in the screening, nominating, and selection processes (Callan & Honetschlager, 1992, p. 6). Additionally, Governing Public Colleges and Universitie , 1993, presents responsibilities and desirable qualifications for board members. With respect to responsibilities, board members are "to defend the autonomy and the independence of the university [and] to maintain an overriding loyalty to the entire university rather than to any part of it or constituency within it." With respect to qualifications, they seek board members that possess "independence, . . . the capability and willingness to function as a member of a diverse group in an atmosphere of collegiality and selflessness . . . [and an] . . . overriding loyalty to the university and to the public interest rather than to any region or to constituency" (Ingram 8r Associates, 1993, p. 378-379). Board members should know that their roles and functions are different than those of university executives and administrators. Frequently, board members bring an executive attitude rather than a "W‘ board mem board may (Mackey, A1 undermine ‘ Robe new trustee offered by a bodies. M01 one nationa their unders- The 11‘ Mlhhesota, t Which would rePlaced Wit. members Wh Department ‘ God the Direc plODOSed our November. 15 Ielllthe its BC 50 board member attitude to their deliberations. "When this happens, the board may exercise executive functions rather than board functions" (Mackey, August 14, 1997, conversation with the researcher) and undermine the authority and responsibilities of administrators. Roberto Haro advocates that "As a condition of appointment, new trustees should be required to participate in a training program offered by a national educational group for members of governing bodies. Moreover, trustees also should be required to attend at least one national or regional seminar or conference each year, to update their understanding of key issues" (Haro, December 8, 1995, p. B2). The literature also describes threats to lay governing boards. Minnesota, in 1996, had an amendment proposed to its Constitution which would abolish the board of regents. This board would be replaced with a state education commission consisting of eight members which would have oversight responsibilities of a new Department of Education and its Director. All commission members and the Director would be political appointments of the governor. This proposed amendment did not have sufficient support to get on the November, 1996 ballot. Montana considered a similar proposal to replace its Board of Education, the Board of Regents, and the Commissio and a State November, eliminate a) with a Secre othernatori Oklahoma '1; ooVernance would be Inc Cohsolidatec Blllh Of these outonomy Q1 the llleIature lh Mar elmlmlttng r; boards, and t rePlace these the University its SlateWi de ' p. Bl Ken om 51 Commissioner of Higher Education with a Department of Education and a State Education Commission. This proposal was defeated in the November, 1996 elections. In Oklahoma, there is a proposal that would eliminate all constitutional and statutory boards and replace them with a Secretary's Advisory Council, with the Secretary being a gubernatorial appointment. "These developments in Montana and Oklahoma inject a disturbing elementna‘vastly reduced role for lay governance. . . . These two proposals . . . suggest higher education would be more responsive to state needs if its authority was consolidated under closer control of the government" (AGE, 1995, p. 6). Both of these initiatives, if enacted into law, would lessen the autonomy and independence of Land-Grant institutions advocated in the literature. In March, 1995, Governor ]im Edgar of Illinois signed legislation eliminating the Illinois Board of Regents, the two multicampus system boards, and the Board of Governors for Universities. New boards will replace these and be constituted by gubernatorial appointees. Thus, the University of Illinois (the Illinois Land-Grant institution) will have its statewide elected board replaced by an appointed board (AGE, 1995, p. 6). Kerr and Gade write, "executive appointments. on balance-is [sic] probal appointme. In 19 formed a Rt regent qua] nomination Minnesota r changes on University a 1996, "asked legents are recommend University 9, CitiZens' Cor demands "th ..the hOard ( agavemqnc‘ concentrate ( tl‘lmlhtStrqfiv must be fixed 52 [sic] probably better than [elected trustees or] legislative . . . appointments . . ."l (Kerr and Gade, 1989, p. 43). In 1988, to further discuss Minnesota, the State of Minnesota formed a Regent Candidate Advisory Council (RCAC) to "determine regent qualification, to identify and screen candidates, and to make nominations to the Legislature, which elects regents” (University of Minnesota Alumni Association, January 24, 1997, p. 1). Because of changes and challenges new to the University since 1988, the University of Minnesota Alumni Association (UMAA), in September of 1996, "asked a group of 21 Minnesotans to study the process by which regents are selected to govern the University of Minnesota and to recommend any changes that would strengthen regent selection and University governance for the future" (ibid). This group, known as the Citizens' Committee on Regent Selection, found that good governance demands "the selection process favor qualification over partisanship, . . . the board and its electors recognize the essential difference between a governance role . . . and political representation, . . . the board must concentrate on policy development and reduce the time spent on administrative detail, . . . the accountability for the quality of selection must be fixed [i.e., with the governor rather than 201 legislators],” and that the reg representa election pr. particular 1 concluded i establish a tholificatio and recomr the GOVernr shortcoming bilerc hoards of pt lllhhber of p: or Walk tor t Colleges hec Taylor Write or "95mph Wrote their in (ll. "deCided ll 53 that the regents primary responsibility is governance, not representation (ibid, p. 12). The study also found that "the legislative election process handicaps candidates who are not affiliated with a particular political group or party (ibid, p. 13). The Committee concluded its work by recommending statutory changes that would establish a Citizens' Advisory Council that would establish regent qualification criteria, write regent job descriptions, and seek, assess, and recommend a single candidate for each open regent position to the Governor (ibid, p. 14). Shortcomings of the literature Literature relating to the selection processes of the governing boards of public and Land—Grant institutions is written by a limited number of prolific authors. Most of these authors are connected with or work for the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges headquartered in Washington, DC. Chait, Holland, and Taylor write that "most of these works, however, are 'armchair studies' or prescriptive exhortations by seasoned practitioners. . . ." When they wrote their work entitled The Effective Board of Trustees, 1993, Chait et a1. "decided to take a different approach so that we could develop a homework empirically The l and the fin} is centered reliance on describes sc literature d( selected bor llll°ll9h a se docuhmntat “lied loyalt outonomy Q: question oln m that! Politi tacos 0t this : libel" lmDIor I:tlrttre sentoI odrnrn Slutty Wollld ( 54 framework of effective trusteeship that was systematically and empirically tested" (Chait, Holland, and Taylor, 1993, p. 3). The literature relating to concerns with the selection processes and the implications of conflicts of loyalty on decision-making matters is centered on the influence of politics. This literature cautions against reliance on political processes for constituting governing boards and describes several untoward consequences resulting from its use. The literature does not, however, compare and contrast the politically selected boards with governing bodies whose majority is selected through a self-perpetuating process. The researcher could find little documentation in the literature relating specific troubles caused by mixed loyalties, although newspaper accounts indicate that the autonomy and independence of Land-Grant institutions is brought into question almost daily because of trustees with loyalties that are rooted in their political lives. Questions relating to these matters are a major focus of this study and the focus of participant and researcher thoughts about improving these governing boards. Further research involving past and present board members and senior administrators at Land-Grant institutions not included in this study would add significantly to the body of thought on improving these bean in state leg state gover 55 these boards. It might also be additive if these matters were addressed in state legislatures and by a committee within the organization of state governors. .w..- A Hmw- lntroductior This r ended quest leSearch sut end qhestior determined 1 answers an ( Thhntitathe glealer 1mm Commhhith. and SubSlqnt hre lethal, q Cha ter III RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction This research is descriptive in its orientation and uses open- ended questions to learn of and understand the perspectives of the research subjects. It does not employ the use of quantifiable, closed- end questions. [I considered the use of quantitative methodology, but determined its attributes are not conducive to providing the descriptive answers and anecdotes sought from the research subjects. While quantitative methodology could have facilitated responses from a greater number of participants, the responses would not have communicated the depth of the subjects’ experiences or the reasoning and substantiation resulting in their perspectives] Because responses are verbal, as opposed to numerical or measurable answers, the 56 reader will data. Cont the researc literature. reflect the r representa "the proces: Pie-underst l988, p.13“ and the rear tosearched ( have recordt dullllg the er Supplement6 irrdeMdent is on deSCIip lepresem the 57 reader will find no charts, tables, or graphs. depicting the research data. Conclusions and recommendations are, nonetheless, based on the research and derive and evolve from participant responses and the literature. Quotes cited in Chapters IV and V are used because they reflect the range of perspectives of the participants and are representative, in word and tone, of the responses. Hermeneutics. "the process of understanding, . . . reflecting the 'prejudices,’ [and] the pre-understandings of the interpreter" (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983, p.13), has applicability to the research subjects, the researcher, and the reader. Use of qualitative methodologies The research framework consists of institutional case studies researched and described through use of qualitative methodologies. I have recorded and reported the subjects' perspectives on what occurs during the execution of their duties. These institutional studies are supplemented by asking the same protocol of questions to independent, topically informed, individuals. The focus of the studies is on description, not causality. The words of the participants represent the primary data (F raenkel 8r Wallen, 1990, p. 6). One establisher This is not which will: findings. Thes land-Gran: lull/tho Wa partisan pr: through a or thtitirtions l0 helP Piotr lllshtutions j Political pro inStttution W With eXClustt least tWo uni CumThis in th lh the : 58 One researcher states, "Theory or hypotheses are not established a priori" (Creswell, 1994, p. 162) in qualitative research. This is not true in this study. I have stated a premise [see page 18] which will be confirmed, negated, or altered based on the research findings. These studies compare and contrast five governing boards of Land-Grant institutions. These boards have been constituted in varying ways: solely through political processes. solely through non- partisan processes, through self-perpetuating methodologies, and through a combination of the foregoing. [Note: names of the institutions participating in the study are not mentioned. This is done to help protect the identities of those individuals who represented their institutions in this research] The boards constituted solely through political processes are represented in this study by at least one institution with exclusively elected trustees and at least one institution with exclusively appointed trustees. Within the five institutions are at least two universities that are the sole publicly-supported research campus in their states and at least two that are not. In the study, answers to multiple questions from research participants are collected, analyzed, and compared with answers from other partic differences process, dis negative el LandGrant regarding t decision-mt process. Beca‘ Stakeholder Students fin these perce relllesentat llllPortant it What I am s this lesearc hosed on ac i"l‘ltltllett" c than What h b91019 any ( 59 other participants, resulting in a distillation revealing similarities and differences of responses (Strauss 8r Corbin, 1990, p. 273). From this process, discussion and debate emerge regarding positive and negative elements of the selection procedures employed to constitute Land-Grant governing boards. Discussion and debate also emerge regarding the impact of selection procedures on representation and decision-making, and contemplated strategies for improving the process. Because perceptions exist about which constituencies and stakeholders are represented and how they are prioritized (e.g., students first, alumni/ae second, faculty/staff third, etc.) and because these perceptions can contradict alternative realities of the primary representation of politicians, political parties, or single issues, it is important that interviewee responses possess candor and honesty. What I am seeking is perspective, not perception. ["Perspective," in this research, is meant to represent "what is” and a "mental concept II M based on actual experience. Perception" represents "what is imagined" and a "mental concept based on what is believed. rather than what has been experienced."] To help allay these concerns, before any questions were asked and the issues of representation and influence 1 protocol cc anonymou without car of anecdot. Inter making pic institution; lhternal an. leggiding t: hotore deCis ll the influet perPetuattn governors 0 Triton palllctpant/t one issue, th This WoIk C O ‘l‘ltotltunnS< 60 influence introduced, I explained to each participant that the interview protocol contained no trick questions; the interviewee would be anonymous in the dissertation: there is a need to be candid and that without candidness, the research would be valueless; and that the use of anecdotes to illustrate answers and comments would be helpful. Interviews with participants included questions about decision- making processes and influences regarding an issue common to each institution: tuition. Participants were asked to describe Who and what internal and external individuals and groups impact decision-making regarding this issue. They were asked who is communicated with before decisions are made in this matter. It was interesting to discern if the influences are different with trustees selected through a self- perpetuating procedure than with those elected or appointed by governors and legislatures. Interview sessions allowed me to interact as a participant/observer. This ethnographic technique is used to explore one issue, the establishment of tuition, and to ascertain and describe the elements and mechanics involved in the related decision-making. This Work could not be accomplished through raw quantification of data (Atkinson, P. and Hammersley. M., 1993, p. 248). "Description [is] , , . the core is this resp In th data result: You-the re matters des thoughts at comPtlrisor 01 lop, and Blklen' S" It coflducfing The I. the length 0 A" What The q universities on represen lesemch 0f E 81 . . the core of the ethnographic enterprise" (Wolcott, 1988, p. 217) and it is this responsibility for which the researcher must be held accountable. In this qualitative framework. there is constant comparison of data results. Because this research method is descriptive, not causal. you--the reader-«will make judgments and conclusions relating to the matters described. (This does not preclude me from presenting my thoughts and ideas in the last chapter of the work.) This constant comparison of data is "like a funnel: things are open at the beginning or top, and more directed and specific at the bottom" (Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S., 1992, p. 29). Conducting the study The research, study, comparisons, and write-up were completed over an approximate 15 month period. The following factors affected the length of this timetable: A. What was researched? The question of how governing boards of Land-Grant universities are selected and the impact of these selection procedures on representation matters and work of trustees was studied through research of existing literature and interviews With past and present governing politicians The as they rel research. between it Perpetuati selected th B- Sele Lanc With the ad deljbGrate, help assure Various pro repreSSm 1 Constunted pqmgmphs With the PH] ”Wh- tr 62 governing board members, senior administrators at the institutions, politicians, and trustee selection consultants. The internal and external sources of influence were described, as they relate to the establishment of tuition, by the participants in the research. These descriptions show what, if any, differences exist between those who influence the decision with boards of self- perpetuating institutions and those who provide influence with boards selected through politically-driven processes. B. Selection of the institutions to be studied Land-Grant institutions in the study were selected by myself With the advice and counsel of my dissertation committee members. A deliberate, non-random selection process of institutions was used to help assure the data base contains representative samples of the various procedures used to constitute boards. The five universities represent 10 percent of the 49 Land-Grants in the contiguous 48 states constituted under the 1862 Morrill Act. The immediately following Paragraphs describe the range of numbers and attributes associated With the principal characteristics of the five universities studied in this research. (The universities are not described individually because this would con and their c 0 Low Opprc Studer theSe ; ‘ M bOQId: t“Isles throng includj 63 would compromise the objective of anonymity.) These characteristics and their associated data are: Location - Land-Grant institutions participating in this research are located in 3 of the 4 times zones spread across the continental United States. Founding Dates - All participating institutions were founded approximately 150 or more years ago. [Many universities founded prior to the Morrill Act of 1882 chose to become Land- Grant institutions following enactment of this statute] Student Populations - These five Land-Grant campuses have undergraduate and graduate student populations ranging from approximately 10,000 to approximately 40,000. The aggregated student population of these campuses is 116,000. Number of Trustees/Regents - The number of trustees/regents at these institutions ranges from below 10 to above 15. Trustee Selection Procedures - These institutions have governing boards constituted through use of political processes (with trustees/regents elected or appointed — including students); through use of ex-officio criteria, i.e., appointment by position - including students; and through use of self-perpetuating CIVerc institr perce This States that . SOVerning l Land-(3mm Minnesota 1 Iegents by t House of Be The s. QHHUQ] Opez estQblished . 64 procedures, i.e., trustees/regents selected by existing board members. a Total Number of Institutions Governed by these 5 board; - Although there are only 5 Land-Grant institutions in this study, the boards of these institutions govern a total of 12 campuses. ‘ 0 Percentage of Fiscal Year 1994 Unrestricted Current Funds Provided by the States in which these Institutions reside - The average percentage of state support in 1994 for these 5 institutions was 32.9 percent. The median support was 35.2 percent (Minter and Associates, 1996, 94findat Diskette). This research included, but was not limited to, studies of all states that employ popular election methodologies in constituting their governing boards. These states include: Colorado, although not for its Land-Grant institution; Michigan; Nebraska; and Nevada. The State of Minnesota was also studied in detail because of its system of electing regents by the 201 members of the Minnesota Senate (67 members) and House of Representatives (134 members). The source of data in this research relating to the unrestricted annual operating revenues of all the Land-Grant institutions established under the Morrill Act of 1862 is I. W. Minter and Associates at Boulder immediatt C. Sele Twr service) at interviews base is the those of bc administra With and tr live llIliVer: Ieitttesentq politicians. President. ( these 5 inte Were hEld e affiliated in becqIlse 1 b1 Would provj 65 of Boulder, Colorado. [This information is found in the Table immediately following Chapter V.] C. Selection of interviewees Two trustees (a board officer and a trustee with fewer years of service) and a senior administrative officer of each institution were interviewed. The rationale for including these individuals in the data base is that the perspectives of the board officers may be different from those of board members with fewer years of service. The senior administrative officers know the issues board members are involved with and frequently know who they consult with on these issues. With five universities participating in the research, 15 institutional representatives were interviewed. Additionally, 2 interested politicians, 2 trustee selection consultants, a former Land-Grant president, and a former Land-Grant trustee were interviewed. (Four of these 6 interviews with individuals not affiliated with Land-Grants were held early in the process and before 12 of the 15 university- affiliated individuals were interviewed. This order was implemented because I believed the answers from the non-affiliated participants would provide a wider range of exposure and answers and, therefore, make are group of 1 is large et employed duplicativ Thr inteIViewj (19), and It and potitic Unknown t petspecfiv leninistrc and lame research The Michig(In S With indivic at other Sit 6 0r bY telep} 66 make me more informed as I transitioned to interview the institutional group of participants.) The research sample size was used because it is large enough to demonstrate diversity in selection procedures employed, but not so large that it was economically inefficient and duplicative. Throughout the interview process, attention was given to interviewing males (15) and females (6), persons of color (2) and whites (19), and representatives of various age groups, geographic locations, and political parties (9 Democrats, 6 Republicans, 1 Independent, 5 unknown to researcher) to be able to compare and contrast diverse perspectives. The triangulation provided by board members, senior administrators, interested politicians. trustee selection consultants, and former officials helps assure balance and credibility to the research. The literature search and review was conducted primarily at Michigan State University and through use of the Internet. Interviews with individuals participating in the study were held at their offices (4), at other sites mutually agreeable to the subject and the researcher (5), or by telephone (12). willing to travel, me were incu D- Prat Eac call from r role of sub exPect to i We lollm Gmeans 0: IelllleSling PlocedumE “Chat Con person. ant Prior to beg telephonic: SigDEd (Ind 67 No subjects in this study were remunerated for their time. I was willing to reimburse participants for out of pocket costs incurred for travel. meals, and telephonic/facsimile communications, but none were incurred or known to me. D. Processes, scheduling, and confidentiality related to interviews Each interviewee was initially contacted by a letter or telephone call from me that briefly explained the research project. the potential role of subjects in the project, and what, specifically, subjects should expect to be doing as participants. These letters and telephone calls were followed by another telephone call or fax from me that served as a means of answering questions potential interviewees had and requesting their participation. if not previously agreed to. Consent procedures were communicated with this follow-up information. The actual Consent Form [see Appendix B] was faxed or presented in person, and signed when meeting with each participant immediately prior to beginning the interview. When interviews were conducted telephonically, the interviewee communicated to me that s/he has signed and mailed the Consent Form if I had not already received it. Foll each of the the intervi telephonic participan one-hall h period. Datr and the int COPies, lac tICInscripti reSearcher COmpared the ground methodolo other meat m(IinlCIiIIe-t Period. Du 68 Following the literature search and review, I communicated with each of the 21 subjects individually to conduct the interviews. Nine of the interviews were held face-to—face and twelve were held telephonically. A single protocol of questions was used with all participants. Interviews lasted approximately one hour to one and one-half hours. All interviews were completed within a three month period. Data was collected through the literature search and review, and the interview process. It was recorded through notes, document copies, facsimiles, electronic mail, and audio tapes. Verbatim transcriptions were made of the 21 taped interviews and the researcher's notes associated with each interview were reviewed and compared for consistency with the transcriptions. In conformance with the grounded theory framework and the use of ethnographic methodology, all literature researched, interviews, audio tapes, and other means of gathering information were analyzed and compared (Geertz, 1973, p. 20). Audio tapes and notes from the interviews will be maintained by me in a secure place for approximately a seven year period. During these seven years, it is possible that I could expand research continuin A s participat the public (Confiden researche hhwm the identit Controlled "interview CurIeutly t institution for the ins: lhrough us all related phOlOgmp describing “HOHYmity 69 research about these matters and find the tapes and notes to be of continuing value. A guarantee of the confidentiality and anonymity of the subjects participating in the interview process is difficult to achieve because of the public visibility associated with many of them and their positions. (Confidentiality is defined here as 'known only by the subject, the researcher, and dissertation committee members.’ Anonymity is . defined as 'known only by the subject and the researcher.') Masking the identity of trustees and university administrators is somewhat controlled by attributing their comments to a "participant," "interviewee," or "non-affiliated respondent," i.e., an individual not currently working as a board member or administrator of a Land-Grant institution. Chances of confidentiality and anonymity being preserved for the institutional and non-affiliated participants are enhanced through use of disguised identifying references, and securely storing all related research documents. The fact that no videotapes, photographs, or audio tapes are included with this published document describing the research should also help provide confidentiality and anonymity. N o subjc references reg university's uni location are mt subjects, their L known only to ; documents rela locked in a sea I am Very difference betw Probably the Inc observer to malt ObseIver/resem. these diSlinction biases and Preju work Will lack cr ' ———~r _....._ __ . - s- ..__-."’ 70 No subjects are ever named in this dissertation. Identifying references regarding them, their university affiliation (and the university's unique characteristics), and specifics about geographical location are masked to help provide confidentiality. Identities of the subjects, their university, and other specific related information are known only to myself and members of my dissertation committee. All documents relating to this research and its subjects are stored and locked in a secure repository that only I have access to. I am very sensitive to the statement that "Recognizing the I difference between observed [communicated] and inferred behavior is probably the most critical aspect of so-called objectivity for an observer to make and convey to readers" (Wolcott, 1988, p. 19). I, as an observer/researcher, have the right and the duty to make and report these distinctions, but they are made with extreme care. Pre-existing biases and prejudices can and do influence objectivity. The research work will lack credibility if unfairly influenced by any preconceptions. Introduction The rese laws and other the various pro selected, and 11 individuals whc governance rnt newer trustee, t institutions; 2 Ct matters; 2 inter Past Land-Grar Each of 1 relating to Lan 4 Chapter IV RESEARCH DATA Introduction The research data in this chapter have two components--the by- laws and other documents of 14 Land-Grant institutions that describe the various procedures by which their governing board members are selected, and notes and audio tape transcriptions of interviews with 21 individuals who have experience and/or expertise in Land-Grant governance matters. These 21 individuals include a Board officer, a newer trustee, and a senior administrator at each of 5 Land-Grant institutions; 2 consultants with expertise in these governing board matters; 2 interested politicians; a past Land-Grant president; and a past Land-Grant trustee. Each of the 21 individuals responded to 6 categories of questions relating to Land-Grant governance. These responses. with the by-laws 71 — and other docr not useful or p extracts of all included are e: that represent were concerns inclusiveness c gives paramoc participants to subsidiary que; I. Trustee stakeholders This seri university boar responsibilities and stakeholdt 72 and other documents, provide background and data for analysis. It is not useful or practical to include all responses in their entirety, or even extracts of all responses, because of duplication and length. What is included are excerpts of responses from a cross-section of participants that represent the range of all participant perspectives. When there were concerns about including or not including a response, inclusiveness and breadth became the guiding principles. This chapter gives paramount importance to communicating the responses of the participants to the question protocol. The 6 categories of questions, subsidiary questions, and selected responses of participants follow. I. Trustee responsibilities. constituencies, and stakeholders This series of questions is asked to learn how Land—Grant university board members describe and demonstrate their responsibilities as they interact with their institutional constituencies and stakeholders. — A. How mt university ma Respon week" to "at lc Board Chairpe the Board. The serve on multi for several ins commitments ‘ Chairpersons. year would cor Chairperson of hours a week t serve as the Cl require additio president, and Hours dc times of Board meetings are h meetings. 4 73 A, How many hours per week do board members devote to university matters? Responses to this question ranged from "less than an hour per week" to "at least 25 hours a week." All participants stated that the Board Chairperson spends a multiple of the hours devoted by others on the Board. The time commitment increases significantly for those who serve on multi-campus Boards and/or Boards that have responsibility for several institutions of higher education in their state. These commitments "would be 10 hours a week on average" for non- Chairpersons. One system Board Chairperson said "1,500 hours in a year would constitute the Chairmanship's role." The Board Chairperson of a single campus Land—Grant university stated "10-15 hours a week that I personally devote to it." Chairpersons frequently serve as the Chairperson of board Executive Committees and this can require additional time spent with the Board Secretary, the institution's president, and a small number of other board members. Hours devoted by non-Chairpersons is concentrated around the times of Board meetings and committee meetings. Most committee meetings are held when board members are gathered for Board meetings. — Forma range from 2 required. The Committee In serve on 2 co: as many corn There i board membe in later years participation t member incre seeking re-ele l Board a l meet with the interests in at strategising or 74 Formal Board meetings, within the 5 participating institutions, range from 2 to 12 per year — with additional meetings held when required. These formal meetings last from 2 hours to 8 hours. Committee meetings last from 2 hours to 4 hours. Most board members serve on 2 committees and the Board Chairperson frequently attends as many committee meetings as possible. There is a time-intensive learning period in the early years of a board member's service and this consumes more time than is devoted in later years of service. It often happens, however, that "the level of participation and the time commitment and visibility" of a Board member increases in the later years of a term if that member is seeking re-election or re-appointment. Board members who are minorities are frequently "on call to meet with the minority student groups" and members with special interests in athletics can devote additional hours counseling and strategising with coaches and attending sporting events. — B. Who (1, activities? This at individuals CI] with, i.e., who decisions. In they have no . noted that "or people that to A non-c communicate staff, the vice- ] communicatin I and staff." Al [i.e., new] trust Board of Trust presidents. C trustee commr hocause we re Board Secreta: 4 75 B. Who do board members communicate with regarding university activities? This question seeks to determine the internal and external individuals and groups that governing board members communicate with, i.e., who are the influences on board member opinions and decisions. In prefacing a response, one participant stated "legally they have no obligations to communicate with anybody. " Another noted that ”one of the things [presidents do] is figure out who are those peOple that talk to trustees." A non-affiliated respondent said, "on the internal side they communicate with the administration, . . . the president and the senior staff, the vice-presidents. In most state systems, they're also communicating with the state system of higher education set of offices and staff." A former Land-Grant board member stated many "early [i.e., new] trustee[s] . . . communicate largely with the Secretary of the Board of Trustees . . . [but] . . . the direction was different under different presidents. One senior administrator stated that "probably 90% of all trustee communication comes through [the board secretary's] office because we request it that way." A board member commented, "The Board Secretary . . . knows the history . . . better than the President, because presi relationship b major avenue the role of the between the E President) anc of the Board a re(illitenrents The stut 0nd the Board Procedure. ln are elected, th considered to gtlbernqtonql COttSidered to a large compo usually Consid "truncations 0 Iesponsibilitie perceiVod as v 76 because presidents come and go, . . . but the Secretary stays." [The relationship between the Board and the Board Secretary is typically the major avenue of communication between the Board and the institution. The role of the Board Secretary is to facilitate questions and answers between the Board and the institution (as represented primarily by the President) and to schedule and coordinate meetings and appearances of the Board and its members in accordance with statutory requirements and non-statutory requests. The study demonstrated that the relationship between the Board and the Board Secretary varies based on the board member selection procedure. In states where board members of Land-Grant institutions are elected. the staff in the office of the Board Secretary is frequently considered to work for the Board. In states where board members are gubernatorial appointments, the office of the Board Secretary is often considered to work for both the board and the institution. In states with a large component of self—perpetuating board members, the office is usually considered to work for the institution. The intonations and implications of these differing work relationships affect the roles and responsibilities of Land—Grant board members. When the staff is perceived as working for the Board, the board is typically perceived as a governing l institution, th A few ] athletic direct about minorit On the he more poht‘ likely to be se COItgressionc participant wj resPousibility institution]," 1' "there are clec as bOCIrd mem their term] the with re: the GOVeInors .Ithe GOVeInor legislature S tCI same indivldm 77 a governing board. When the staff is perceived as working for the institution, the Board is frequently perceived as a monitoring board. A few participants spoke of frequent communications with athletic directors and coaches. These conversations included concerns about minority opportunities, athletic budgets, and player. On the external side, because "Land-Grant schools will tend to be more political than perhaps other state universities, . . . trustees are likely to be sensitive to political pressures, governor's interests, [and] Congressional interests." In spite of political pressures, one participant who serves on an elected board stated, "I think my responsibility as a board member is to do what's best for [the institution]." Another participant commenting on elected boards said, "there are clearly some political influences and they are more obvious as board members come close to election time. [In the earlier years of their term,] they're somewhat more independent." With respect to communication and possible influence between the Governors and legislatures that either appoint, confirm or elect, "the Governor stays informed through his appointees [and] the legislature stays informed through the legislative appointees." This same individual, who is knowledgeable about states with an element of self-perpe legislative b: self-perpetut Similarly, a r gubernatoria appointees ft with other me Most tr with the press that talking tc that Press cor Source so thq; Over the place on Q Controve information c, BeCCIUSt pattieipqn t ho With a broad b There is communicatio: 78 of self-perpetuating board members, when asked if the Governor and legislative bodies communicate more with their appointees than the self—perpetuating members responded "Oh, absolutely. Absolutely." Similarly, a member of a board constituted with gubernatorial/legislative appointees or electees and self—perpetuating appointees found that members tend to communicate more frequently with other members who were selected through the same process. Most trustees and regents, when asked about communicating With the press agreed with one participant who said, "I do not think that talking to the media is a viable option." One board member stated that press communications were best handled "through a central source so that we don't get stories that are flipping and flopping all over the place." Another commented. "there always is a spokesperson on a controversial issue. . . . They [administrators] want the right information coming from the right person." Because of the public nature of these institutions, one participant hoped "that they [governing board members] communicate with a broad base." There is general agreement that the internal prioritized order of communication is first the "board secretary. That would be the lion's share of the c a big drop off C. What i. consuming? The rnc matters requj has been ded with less than Would argue 1 tegqrdless of “Stine questr A Sonic "The most tirn this] Category buildings are ; strategy for it Ocademic iss committee me '3“ -—-r-— 79 share of the contact. Next would be the president. [After that,] there's a big drop off." C. What issues consume their time, beginning with the most time consuming? The majority of participants agreed that budget and financial matters require the greatest amounts of attention. "Most of the time has been dedicated to dealing with financial issues, . . . how to manage with less than adequate resources." Another participant stated "I would argue budget is overwhelmingly over time the focal point [and, regardless of the issue], it almost invariably goes back to someone asking questions about what is the cost and benefit to that." A senior administrator stated the above in a different manner: "The most time-consuming issues are related to resources. [Within this] category are the physical plan, the capital construction plan, what buildings are needed, what renovations are needed, what is the strategy for funding, what is the budget." This person ranked "academic issues" as the second most time-consuming area, and sub- committee meetings" as third. The fin member's pri [most time-cc committee I'r owns quite a meeting, we 5 reading to do Athletir time. One no 0t energy in tr internal bocm tflVestigationg President and We're Q bettei different chle Spend Some ti. other Words, 11 give people Q 80 The time allocated to committee meetings can be a board member's primary use of time and attention. One stated that "Mine [most time-consuming issue] would be property matters because of the committee I'm on. It's called Buildings and Grounds and the University owns quite a bit of property and whenever we're going to have a meeting, we go on tours about the property [and] we have a lot of reading to do." Athletics was mentioned by several participants as a focus of time. One noted, "The selection of the athletic director consumed a lot of energy in terms of the emotions and in terms of the rather bitter internal board relationships and interactions." Another noted that investigations "took a lot of our time and a lot of briefing by the President and a lot of energy by a lot of people on this campus. . . . We're a better institution today because of the way we did that." A different athletic perspective came from a participant who stated "I Spend some time on athletic issues that are still around the access. In other words, my contention [is] we ought to let everybody in. . . . Let’s give people a chance to fail." Other participant rankings found athletics, "unfortunately," first, then "diversity issues-~particularly as they're related to searches and new hires, or litigation issr productivity i matters;” am and student I away from th A boar most time-co: was affiliatec thtough self-I Two in issues, but to ‘ "what they fix not Protessiol to be 0 trustee and its operat " ' What they offices (Ind try ought to be hir spending (1 lot 81 new hires, and then budget" "policy and procedure issues, . . . litigation issues, . . . and campus and university issues;" "faculty productivity issues, . . . committee notes and minutes, . . . and financial matters;" and "the establishment of a budget [and] tenure." Curriculum and student matters, when mentioned, were matters to be handled away from the purview of governing boards. A board member ranked "board membership" as the second most time-consuming responsibility. [Researcher note: this person was affiliated with an institution that has some members selected through self-perpetuating methodologies] Two individuals chose not to rank the most time-consuming issues, but to comment on, according to one non-affiliated individual, "what they [board members] ought to be doing. . . . Hopefully, they're not professional trustees in the sense they have nothing else to do but to be a trustee. . . . They should inform themselves about the university and its operations. . . . They should be available to assist the President. . . . What they ought not to be doing is going around and popping in on offices and trying to figure out who ought to be removed . . . or who ought to be hired." A politician stated, "What boards should be spending a lot of time on is the planning, strategy. and advising the President an university. B D. What c Bespo depends upo board membe CIPPOintment advocacy ttel the university University ant Anothe p0hr: at the 1 than theY Woc differ from pri institution. ltj the legiSlCIlLu’e thistees. They tundamentql I: 82 President and working closely with the President on the direction of the university. But I don’t think that’s the norm," D. What do board members consider to be their responsibilities? Responsibilities tend to be in the eye of the beholder--"it depends upon the trustee." This former Land-Grant President said board members have a few principal responsibilities: ”policy making, appointment of a chief executive officer, assuring accountability, advocacy (representing the institution to interests outside who support the university like the government), and as a buffer between the university and the public at large." Another participant commented "that at the rhetoric level it's policy: at the behavior level it's far more administrative management than they would perhaps realize. . . . Most trustees of state institutions differ from private institutions in that loyalty is not first to the institution. It is first to something larger. That would be their Constituent group, whether it's the state, the voters, the Governor, or the legislature. They become in essence overseers as opposed to trustees. They have a responsibility in which essentially distrust is the fundamental premise as opposed to trust. I would say that really defines the c institution's ' One It role is." Ech. PGIticipant 5 Committee It discussion. '1 is never any ttt 0 meeting With It Several categ hlnctions, . . , .and to make "Cte‘tttY the s UhtVersity is ‘ members]. T} gOVGIn to me 0180”th ar HOl here." A c lflSfitutiOm H“ 83 defines the difference between a state trustee and a private institution's trustee." One respondent noted "that trustees often don't know what their role is." Echoing this comment, but in a more direct manner, a participant stated "I'm in my [blank] year. I'll be damned if I know. Committee meetings don't leave room for much deep thought or discussion. They're pretty much set up by the administration. . . . There is never any discussion. It is almost horrifying to think of me speaking at a meeting." I With respect to specific responsibilities, an interviewee listed several categories in the following order: "attendance at ceremonial functions, . . . obviously to show up at the [number] annual meetings, . . . and to make an annual contribution." This same individual stated "Clearly the statute in the Charter says that the management of the University is completely in the hands of the [governing board members]. That's what the written word says. But govern, I think, govern to me infers a much deeper level of both time commitment and also policy and decision-making and implementation that frankly is not here." A similar view was expressed by a person from another institution: "We don't really govern on this board. It's called rubber stamping. T whole lot of Anoth we're all abc the macro-dc the senior ac of this institu through an e. govern, to a 1 their budgets reports that c they include Whey. . . . aft gOVernane I review and In potor decisio One pg of that tSSUe [i lot the instllut 84 stamping. The issues are brought before us and we don't really have a whole lot of input. We listen and we approve." Another participant stated, however, that ”governance is what we're all about.” One other said, "We definitely govern. . . . We make the macro-decisions relative to policy, but we do it in consultation [with the senior administrators.]" The concept of shared governance is used at this institution. And one interviewee responded, "They govern through an extensive series of monitoring mechanisms. . . . They govern, to a significant extent, by the policy decisions that are made in their budgets. . . . We have a large number of scheduled governance reports that come to the board during different months of the year. They include everything from faculty tenure to salaries and salary policy, . . . affirmative action, . . . faculty workload. . . . [These] governance reports force the issues before the board in terms of review and monitoring and gives them an opportunity to make any policy decision on that issue or give any instruction relative to it." One person commented, "I think there's a real difference of opinion on our Board as to what our responsibilities are. . . . My view of that issue [is that we are charged with] selecting the best leadership for the institution that's available . . . [and to] develop jointly [with the (H President] the other colleag to be managi that. I don't 1 start meddlin A Iesp role in the se those who be the Universit‘ Parameters \ the Universit' The extent to administratjc kind of expm when audit. a respt I think for] the come i 85 President] the vision for the University and the philosophy. . . . My other colleagues think that the state constitution says we are supposed to be managing in some way this institution. I wasn't [selected] to do that. I don't believe I have the capability to do that. . . . Once people start meddling in that chain of command, you have nothing but chaos." A respondent stated, "They all believe they have an important role in the selection of the President. Then the board splits. There are those who believe that they have a constitutional right to administer the University. literally. And there are those that say their role is to set parameters within which the President and administrative officers run the University and theirs is a role of monitoring and setting policy. . . . The extent to which they are moved beyond policy and into administration also differs on issues, depending on their particular kind of expertise or political interest, or interest at the moment." When asked if board members affirm, govern, monitor and/or audit, a respondent replied, I think that varies depending on how the trustees were [selected for] the board. . . . Trustees that are elected by the legislature come into their first meeting thinking that they're going to Whip the place into shape. . . . Most of them, after the first couple of years and c: of it a perpe an ide peopl certai they'n gllber: depen little 1: Many Committees time betwee; A [nu] ettecu We do: our tu] ' ' - Th large]. 88 years, . . . start to have a more balanced View of the university and come more to think of it less in a monitoring role and think of it as governing or setting policy. . . . Now the self- perpetuating group, I think, come onto the board with more of an idea of what a board should do because they're business people who have served on perhaps not educational boards, but certainly corporate boards so they have more of a sense of what they're there for and not get into micro-management. . . . The gubernatorial appointees probably fall somewhere in between depending on who they are. But they probably come in with a little broader perspective than the legislature [selections]. Many boards, particularly larger boards, make use of Executive Committees to make necessary decisions on behalf of the board in the time between meetings of the full board. An interviewee noted, A [number] person board is not going to function very effectively unless it’s a very unusual [same number] people and we don't have [same number] that are that unusual. As a result, our full board meets except in a true crisis only [number] a year. . . . They're held and we urge good attendance. They tend to be largely formal. They serve a real purpose, several purposes, I rnear They anflEi thesfl Chan here recon efiher uhhnc lehra Execu [suhhe hfllbo Comm Some: Qndsi Inthe. has acted in ] Committees, 87 mean to the extent that ritual has some value in institutions. They have a ritualistic function. . . . The committees . . . report to an Executive Committee which is comprised of all the chairs of the standing committees plus such additional persons as [the Chairperson] names. Typically, the Executive Committee hears the reports of the standing committees, passes on the recommendations of the standing committees in the sense of either voting them down or voting to relay them to the board for ultimate approval. [When a] hot potato [issue arose], our board felt rather strongly. When I say board here, . . . on that issue the Executive Committee took it, acted on it, and rejected the [subject] proposal. . . . Now that matter was then reported to the full board when it next met, but as an action that the Executive Committee had taken in the meantime. . . . It seemed to [need] some action on it promptly, not to let it just simmer, and simmer, and simmer. In the above instance, it appears that the Executive Committee has acted in place of the Board. For boards with Executive Committees, it is appropriate to ask if the board is THE board or is it a farm club to in the resea 5. Who t constituenci A Lar. located becc 14.4% for the University [It unrestricted Stated, "The Grant] unive the good trug to the tundqr Anotht person Stalet election, they lheylre eleCte VSIY pOWerfu lQCUltY' StUde 88 farm club for the Executive Committee? [This matter is discussed later in the research] E. Who do governing board members consider to be their key constituencies and stakeholders, i.e., who do they represent? A Land—Grant university has strong ties to the state in which it is located because that state provides a material percentage (between 14.4% for the University of Vermont and 62.1% for Louisiana State University [Minter and Associates, 1996, 94findat Diskettel) of its unrestricted annual operating funds. Because of this, one respondent stated, "The stakeholders are the citizens of the state. The [Land- Grant] university is a creature of the public, a creature of the state, and the good trustee ought to be of a mindset that she or he is responding to the fundamental best interests of the total state and its citizenry." Another interviewee defined who this 'total state' is. That person stated, "If they're [board members] elected, if they run for election, they clearly have constituents in the body politic. . . . Whether they're elected or appointed, the Governor and the legislature are very, very powerful constituents. And I would say way down the list are faculty, students, and administration. High on the rhetoric level, low on the (ICitlt former Lam political off citizens that . . . In Land- community When Parties as C( IeSpondent ; desPite the s be] those wh 0f the Pelitio agriculture." retilesentatit the line as OI conslitllencje °l Constituen. tea] fOTIIltIl Q issues, the pa aren't factors 89 on the actual priority level." Agreeing with these observations was a former Land-Grant president who said, "Their constituencies are political officials, . . . the legislative or executive branch. They are the citizens that elected them, . . . the political party from which they come. . . . In Land—Grants, it can be other constituencies like the agricultural community . . . and corporate business interests." When asked about the Governor, legislators, and political parties as constituencies or stakeholders being represented, one respondent said, "I don’t think none [sic] of those were in our minds despite the source of our selection. . . . Perhaps the exception [would be] those who historically had roots to a special interest group in one of the political parties, [i.e.,] union involvement or union loyalty, or agriculture." Another comment dealing with this aspect of representation was, "I think the political parties are a little bit down the line as opposed to geographic constituencies or economic-based constituencies. . . . I think there's a clear feeling that there's some type of constituency representation on these boards, but I don’t think it's real formal and probably breaks down a lot. . . . But [in] 99% of the issues, the parties, the legislative offices, [and] the Governor really aren't factors. A dift stated, "The representat Committee treated very face of the e main core g network. Ve But narrow.‘ One 1: Iepresentati that more no for the Unive becCtuse of b. legiSlature, e Person replie on, you d on’ t appointed, th 90 A different perspective was represented by an individual who stated, "There has never been any opportunity to exercise any representation of any constituency. . . . If you're not on the Executive Committee . . . or a major force in the business community, you're treated very politely and cordially. But if you disappeared from the face of the earth, no one would really take much notice of it. . . . The main core group . . . turns out to be . . . the so-called good ol' boy network. Very fine men. Good businessmen. Good thinkers. Honest. But narrow." One board member, in expressing an opinion regarding representation, stated, "We represent the people of [state] {— translate that more narrowly to the taxpayers. . . . And I think we're an advocate for the university. We have that dual role." When asked if s/he, because of being appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the legislature, ever felt like an agent for the Governor or legislature, this person replied, "No, I think it's like the Supreme Court. Once you get on, you don't look back. [And, because] people don't expect to be re- appointed, they don't try to curry favor with the Governor and, therefore, they probably do what they want to do. I don't know what the Governor wants and I don't feel any obligation to find out." Another res tried to run ‘ what we've "We ought t influence." ' said, "I think respond to h institution. . and doing w Respo "The PONY 01 Contractors c When the pa: 91 Another respondent stated, "The Governors [of this state] have not tried to run the University or tell the Board what to do, or second-guess what we've done or anything like that." And one person commented, "We ought to be making decisions independent of any political influence." This philosophy was shared by another board member who said, "I think there are people on our board who think they have to respond to their party. I am free of that. . . . My loyalty is to this institution. . . . I hope that people respect me for voting my conscience and doing what's best for the University." Responding to political party agendas, one participant stated, "The party only has a couple issues. They want to have union contractors on campus. They don't want to have charter schools." When the participant was asked if s/he supported these positions, s/he responded ”Yes, I do. Those to me are the party issues that you know that if you go the wrong place on those you're not going to get re- nominated. " With respect to governing board members representing students and faculty, an interviewee stated, "It is only at the odd moment that the faculty or administrators of the institution mean very much to most [board members]. They [board members] Say so, but they don't act so student son Seve: members 36 of these sta‘ metribers] re board mem} university cc exPund the s tend to be th. petsPective c hOpe . . . they them there, , tn With the id. state interest With a broads A part "I'Ve neVer ev CQHYtttQ the C 92 don't act so. . . . They speak about students and the interest of the student sometimes. . . . They see the faculty as their employees." Several states have all or a portion of their Land-Grant board members selected or elected by their legislatures. With respect to one of these states, a respondent said, "I think the legislative [board members] represent the legislature first. . . . [With respect to the other board members, I] believe that they truly represent the entire university community. . . . We, at times, have thought about how do we expand the self-perpetuating membership of this board because they tend to be the more active members of the board." Another perspective about legislatively selected board members was that "We hope . . . they will represent the University and not the group that put them there. . . . It doesn't always take. . . . The legislative group comes in with the idea that they're there to represent the legislature and the state interests. . . . [The other] groups . . . I think they probably come in with a broader perspective of representing the University." A participant commenting on gubernatorial appointments said "I've never ever in a meeting gotten the sense that they're in the room carrying the Governor's order or even the legislature's order. . . . Once they come < 'we're here F. Can t importance only of thos The s members, it reSpond to 5 011d stakehc the board In intended] vc One l "poplilation Community] StUdents, the Governor/1eS lust (1 Vehicle Adttte might be a b‘ 93 they come on the Board, they really kind of assume the mantle of 'we're here to represent the University.” F. Can these constituencies and stakeholders be ranked in order of importance? If yes. What is the ranking? (This question was asked only of those who had not provided a ranking in Question I., E. above.) The subject matter of this question suggests that board members, in representing various constituencies and stakeholders, respond to some more than others. In this sense, the constituencies and stakeholders can be described as the independent variables and the board members can be described as the dependent [no pun intended] variables. One board member ranked the order of importance as the "population as a whole, then the district, then the business community." A former Land-Grant board member stated, "the students, the faculty, then the public at large. Probably then the Governor/legislature. . . . The political party I would put last. That's just a vehicle." A different response was, "personal ambitions and strategies might be a better way to understand their [board members'] behavior asoppose When 05kt other polit' [board Inei being elect having an - really belie thing leads board and 1 Wire our 5 XYZ." Othe. PCIIty, In In iSsues that ( access and : tepresentjn! the State. , . would their 1 the tegiSlatu as opposed to outside influences controlling what they're doing." When asked if s/he saw Land—Grant trusteeships as stepping stones for other political offices, this same respondent replied "No, but they [board members] do. . . . You get a more politically oriented person being elected and serving on the Board, and that's a big drawback to having an elected board as opposed to an appointed board. . . . People really believe the [Land-Grant] university is theirs. . . . The ownership thing leads to more people placing political demands on the governing board and you [the board member] say 'OK.’ Since we own it and you’re our spokesman from agriculture or whatever, you should do XYZ." Other responses were "[I'd] say the people of [State], then the party. In my case, I’d like to make certain there's some insight on issues that affect minorities so, therefore, I'm always preaching about access and retention;" and, "I think the legislative group will say it’s representing the legislature. By their saying that, they probably mean the state. . . . [Researcherz With respect to self-perpetuating members, would their first loyalty be to the university as opposed to the state or the legislature or the population in general?] Definitely." Som state gover politicized, campus iss institution. committee attendance 11. Board: This : gOVGIIllng 1 LtmdGrant tt' Have board mem, Should they A for] In mc end u hQVe; 95 Some Land-Grant institutions have provisions that permit out-of- state governing board members. These members tend to be de- politicized, representatives of the alumni/ae, and less familiar with campus issues and the politics and finances of the state that affect the institution. If they serve on a board that meets frequently, or that has committee meetings at different times than board meetings, attendance can be a problem. II. Board member selection, orientation, and evaluation This series of questions is asked to explore matters relating to governing board selection, orientation, and evaluation procedures at Land-Grant institutions. A. Have selection criteria been formally defined for governing board members? If not, should they be formally defined? If yes, what should they include? A former Land—Grant President responded, In most instances they have not. In most instances, the trustees end up in their positions because of political patronage. They have been active in the party in one form or another. . . . Barely [doe like 96 [does this] provide the kind of mix that most presidents would like to see on a public board. That is, representatives from the corporate community, from the working community, from alumni, etcetera, so that it would be a good mix, and give you a good cross section. . . . [Researcherz Would you like to see formal criteria defined for tmstees?] No question. I think they could be defined, too. I think there could almost be a means test, if you will, for someone who had the right preparation, the right motivation, the right attitudes, the right commitments to serve on a board of trustees." A politician said, "No [there are no formal criteria]. I've always been intrigued with going to more of an appointed system as opposed to an elected system. But, even then, I don't think you want to go with criteria as to what the minimal criteria is. I've just been an advocate of having the Governor appoint people because he can recruit different types of people to serve on the boards of trustees as opposed to more political elected boards. I don’t think having set criteria makes a lot of sense because you need a balance of people on these boards of trustees, balance of interest, and geography and different things such as that." A senior administrator, commenting on gubernatorial appointme Governort criteria. Y( A nc N o, [ crite like 1 Mad elect woul to be Pohfi ”sup Criter involt . l'drt educq Prior] discip; thepu 97 appointments, said, "I think that’s usually a political process. The Governor owes a political debt, I think. I don't sense that there's any criteria. You get a mixed bag." A non-affiliated respondent stated, N 0, [there are no formal criteria, but] I think there are de facto criteria generally of a political [nature]. [Researcherz Would you like to see selection criteria formally defined?] Absolutely. Made very explicit and public so that every appointment or election would be measured against those criteria. Criteria would have to be more than general criteria. They would have to be very specified. . . . Too often, it's nothing more than a political hack kind of criteria. It's a payoff for people who have . . supported the Governor in a run, . . . and if it's an election criteria, it may be something else. It may be that they are involved in political parties or other kinds of influential things. . I 'd rather see a history of interest in and work with higher education issues. I would like to see demonstrated evidence of prior public voluntary service that suggests a person’s got discipline and a motive that is not egocentric, but is, in fact, for the public good. I would like to see evidence of a person's abili notiu Ano formal crit- skeptical. others [tha trustee is c think that's they’re goi eVerybody useful thing trustees w( Clectttll Wrc A pc metubers a ttCttei said, The : 98 ability to have a time commitment and not just the honorific . . notion of appointment. Another non-affiliated participant said, "No [there are not formal criteria] Sure there should be. I'm not a cynic, but unduly skeptical. I can read in the Association of Governing Boards and others [that] have got model statements as to what the role of the trustee is and they apply both to the private and public sector and I think that's a nice thing. But they're going to be generalities and they’re going to be a little bit like motherhood. Of course, not everybody agrees with motherhood anymore. The fact is, yes, that’s a useful thing, but it’s going to be at a level of generality. . . . I’ve seen trustees want to use their position to aggrandize themselves and that's clearly wrong. " A participant, commenting about a state where governing board members are nominated by the political parties and run on a partisan ticket said, The selection Within the party structure is anything but formal. It’s very informal. . . . In [this] case, [s/he] had been involved in the party as a field staff person handling all of [a territory]. . . . [S/he] was employed by the party. It was [her/his] second job out olcol oiuni lnanm one. ‘whOt noun udder Olfim lgeo§ tosd' Yout expe Chose dlSpr 99 of college. [The] first job had been to be employed by the [name of union] to manage two political legislative campaigns. So the [name of union] knew [her/him]. That's important point number one. And important point number two is [s/he] was someone who was known throughout the state party circle. And those are the folks who show up at the state conventions. . . . They wanted a [gender]. [Person’s name] was the one on the slate for the [gender] slot for the board. All of a sudden they had a vacancy to fill. [The person on the original slate was chosen to run for another office] They wanted to have someone who could walk into the convention without having campaigned and be nominated. [They] needed a known person.- They said the added attraction was [s/he] had the labor endorsement by virtue of the union--being known. And [s/he] was from the [geographical area]. All of those things in combination led them to say, 'Would you do it. . . .' That's exactly how it happened. You walk in and you're nominated. Other people have had experiences quite dissimilar to that where they have actively chosen the route only to find when the Whole slate . . . has a disproportionate number of males/females, [different parts tof is vc esse Som bonc inter unde tor a An it lIIVolveme] lhac' trust be it: Polit: that': ter 100 the state], black/white, and that they don't bring the right plug to the slate, so they go and select someone else who balances the ticket. [Besearcherz Do you think there should be some type of criteria established for candidates?] Absolutely. You are going to ask the question about whether the whole nominating process is valid, right? There should be criteria and I do think it's essential that people have an association with the university. . . . Something that gives them a link so that there is an institutional bond. . . . It facilitates your service. [Other skills, talents, and interests include] a strong moral compass, . . . some financial understanding,.accounting, investments, . . . some appreciation for agriculture, engineering, applied arts, and liberal arts (19). An interviewee commenting about political party nominating involvement said, I had lunch with a fellow trustee over the weekend and this trustee said to me, 'Well, in our party everybody knows that to be nominated as a trustee in this state [is to be the recipient] of political payoffs.’ Well, that made my palms sweat because that's wrong. The university suffers because the political parties take that point of View. . . . It should not be a reward. . . . It sho abo you you whc mos mat help of se Seve Selected th have manc' Congressic this geogm UntVeISity ‘ Connectjcu reflect the s Stttttltes of. Nevada; 0n legislqture ' 101 should not be that sort of political plum. . . . It should really be about service, not about political payoff. [Researcherz Because you said criteria should be formally defined, what criteria would you like to see?] To me, it seems so basic that a [board member] who has some kind of a connection to this university makes the most valuable contribution. It certainly helps if this is your alma mater. . . . Having a vested interest in this place would be very helpful — if you had some strong connection, even some history of service. Several states with Land-Grant governing board members selected through varying methodologies have statutes or by-laws that have mandated criteria regarding geographical or district (usually Congressional district) representation. Among the states that have this geographical or district representation are Colorado (for the University of Colorado — not the State's Land-Grant institution); Connecticut (geographic areas are not defined specifically, but "shall reflect the state’s geographic, racial, and ethnic diversity" [The General Statutes of Connecticut, 1995, p. 762]): Delaware; Minnesota; Nebraska; Nevada; and Vermont (where nine trustees are elected from the legislature assuring some geographic diversity). However, in Vermont, it a legislc legislature that board there were were (ICIUI other thing legislature [Researchg definitely. {Mined fro; 0t [the] leg: tegtSlCttiVe run and the the easier Wanted to s happened, A res Self'petpett [regarding ‘ nomthllng 102 if a legislator serving as a governing board member leaves the legislature during her/his term as a board member, s/he remains on that board. Commenting on this, a participant said, "[In] this past term, there were only two . . . of the nine legislative representatives that were actually still in the legislature. The other seven had gone onto other things, had retired, but they were still on the board. The legislature feels that's a problem and they want to solve it. [Researcherz Would you like to see them remain on the board?] Oh, definitely. Because they do still have that knowledge that they've gained from being on the board and they have the contact with the rest of [the] legislators." There are no formal criteria for the Vermont legislative trustees. 'Those from the legislature decide they want to run and they campaign to become elected. It is not a requirement that the legislative trustees be legislators. They could select anyone they ' wanted to serve on the board, but no one can recall that that's ever happened. So far as I know, it's a political process in the legislature." A respondent, commenting on board members selected through self-perpetuating procedures said, "No, there's nothing in writing [regarding criteria]. . . . If we get a good one, I'll say that was the nominating committee just having enough Wisdom and sense as they kicked (In and then ' really do 1 picked so gotten us the absen sufficient : Comments talk about What strer a lot of tim Want peg}; good 1'11ng fitSt grade begin With. find Y011I5e evethhing ttbOut." 103 kicked around names to come up with a good one. Frankly, every now and then we get a lemon. You sit back and say, you know, did we really do diligence. What were we thinking in the room when we picked so and so. If we'd had a checklist in front of us, would it have gotten us a different outcome. That's tough to say. . . . I don't think it's the absence of a checklist. I think it’s perhaps the absence of a sufficient network to find good people." Another interviewee commented, "The self-perpetuating . . . group meets fairly regularly to talk about types of people that are needed to round out the board — what strengths and weaknesses might be gained by the new group." One participant answering this criteria question stated, "I think a lot of time is wasted in trying to spell out that kind of thing. You want people who are energetic, who are bright, who are logical, make good judgments, who are not excessively emotional, . . . but all of that's first grade stuff. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be involved to begin with. I don’t see much value in trying to write it out. Then you find yourself stumbling into questions of gender, race, religion, and everything else and what do you talk about and what don't you talk about." kicked arc and then t really do c picked so . gotten us t the absenc sufficient r Commente talk about What siren One a lot of tim Want PeOp good ludgn fiISt grade ; been With. find Yourse eve'tllthing about." 103 kicked around names to come up with a good one. Frankly, every now and then we get a lemon. You sit back and say, you know, did we really do diligence. What were we thinking in the room when we picked so and so. If we'd had a checklist in front of us, would it have gotten us a different outcome. That's tough to say. . . . I don’t think it's the absence of a checklist. I think it's perhaps the absence of a sufficient network to find good people." Another interviewee commented, "The self-perpetuating . . . group meets fairly regularly to talk about types of people that are needed to round out the board — what strengths and weaknesses might be gained by the new group." One participant answering this criteria question stated, "I think a lot of time is wasted in trying to spell out that kind of thing. You want people who are energetic, who are bright, who are logical, make good judgments, who are not excessively emotional, . . . but all of that's first grade stuff. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be involved to begin with. I don't see much value in trying to write it out. Then you find yourself stumbling into questions of gender, race, religion, and everything else and what do you talk about and what don't you talk about." In t members, solely wit. duties of t full-time l: undergrac members ; be appoin (Code of It "All appoj than half c composed One Partic Ctttetttl ass langudge i GOVeInors‘ minority is Practice of diverse sec BOQId. "Thl 104 In the State of Iowa, "The state board of regents consists of nine members, eight of whom shall be selected from the state at large solely with regard to their qualifications and fitness to discharge the duties of the office. The ninth member shall be a student enrolled on a full-time basis in good standing at either the graduate or undergraduate level at one of the institutions. . . . No more than five members shall be of the same political party. . . . The members shall be appointed by the governor subject to confirmation by the senate" (Code of Iowa, 1995, 262.1, 262.2). In another Section, the Code states . "All appointive boards . . . shall be gender balanced, " i.e., no more than half of the board plus one can be of one gender when the board is composed of an odd number of members (Code of Iowa, 1997, 69.16A). One participant, commenting on Iowa, said s/he believed there is some criteria assuring the presence of minorities on the board. While this language is not in the Code of Iowa, it has been the practice of Iowa Governors, "for the last 20 some years," to assure that at least one minority is on the Board of Regents at all times. It has also been the practice of Iowa Governors, though not mandated by statute, to assure diverse geographical representation from within the state on the Board. "The flexibility in the law that [Iowa] now [has], consistent with the respor caused it [ Anc her/his ins to see the] another or then you d narrow gr. Worst [gm People wh One N o [3 the t Whe: 105 the responsibility that the Governors have exercised, I think, has caused it [selection procedure] to work extremely well." Another respondent asked if criteria were formally defined at her/his institution replied, "No, not really. [Researcherz Would you like to see them formally defined?] No. For sure. I think if you have another one [influential group participating in establishing criteria], then you do have candidates who are really owing everything to very narrow groups who are vocal in the process. I think the alumni is the worst [group to establish criteria] because you get a few activist people who grab onto the mantle of being alumni." One board member stated. No [formally defined criteria do not exist in this state] Because the voting public defines them in this state. . . . But in a situation where regents or trustees were appointed, I think criteria would be important. . . . In the state of [state's name], we are divided into [number] districts and only the people within that district elect you [in a] non-partisan [election]. [Researchen Is the election truly non-partisan?] I've been up for election two times. I'm [political party affiliation] and I ran against [same political party affiliation]. I guess you would have to say it's non- pat USE tha exp anc Are tinc you you Cer nect und. to (It 106 partisan. . . . [Researcherz What formal criteria, if any, should be used?] I think the most basic criteria is a college degree. I don't think you necessarily have to be a graduate of the institution that you're serving, but I think you need to understand the experience. The next important criteria is a willingness to serve and a formal commitment to devote the time. . . . [Researcher: Are there any particular skills that [would be helpful? Like finance?] Some of those skills may be a detriment because if you have lawyers on the board, they want to be lawyering. If you have finance guys, they want to tear the finances down. Certainly nice, certainly okay to have those folks, but not a necessary part of the criteria. . . . I think you have to haVe an understanding of how higher education works and a willingness to accept that higher education is different than business. Universities are not run like businesses. They can be run in business-like manners. I personally am weary of folks who say they're going to come in and be on the board and run it like a business. Another participant, from the same state as the board member above, commented, "This is a populist state and any sort of elitist inclinatior rejected. . tor a publi An . multiple rr regard to l Perpetuati lstate] is [c ttttY divers members l Selection]_ tor as lutuI looking for the teCfiSIat bGCQuSe fl,“ 107 inclinations to establish limits on who can hold office would be soundly rejected. . . . I'm not certain who is competent to establish the criteria for a public university." An interviewee, commenting about boards that employed multiple methods to select members, said, "No, not formally [with regard to formally defined criteria]. But among the [states with] self- perpetuating members, [they] know what [they're] looking for. Since [state] is [one of] the whitest states in the union, if there's going to be any diversity on the board, it has to come from the self-perpetuating members because it's not going to come from the [other methods of selection]. . . . So maybe that's one of the criteria that [they're] looking for as future members of the self-perpetuating board. Also, [they're] looking for someone who can raise funds. . . . [One] can't depend on the legislative trustees to help fund raise, even within [their own] state because they run for office." B. W] potential board car A f In t exc is 1: “Pl bee quc und OPP say; CCInt quai plus 80m. mQjc W W 108 B. Who and what processes are involved in assembling a list of potential governing board members? (How is a pool of governing board candidates assembled?) A former President responded, In many states there are no pools established. . . . There is an exception or two. In Illinois, for the University of Illinois, a pool is brought forward to the Governor for consideration, potential appointees. The Governor selects from that pool. They have all been screened to make sure they have appropriate qualifications to be a trustee of a university. And then, as I understand it, those appointments have to be ratified. . . . It alleviates the Governor of the burden of having to deny an opportunity to someone who he feels obligated to because he says, 'You know, I'm picking from this list of qualified H —-——_..___.—__n candidates. Perhaps next time around you could try to become a l. qualified candidate. . . .' Sometimes, a person is interested in t pursuing the role and isn't given the opportunity because of some position they take on an issue which is contrary to the majority or those who control at the time. nor Ass fort citiz theI legi DISC appoll'llme his Staff pe [board m e1 public. fro: makes the [board men W“.-- - 109 A non-affiliated participant stated, There is no common practice. They [governors] get their names in any which way, but there is no systematic way that this is done. They often are people who are friends of the Governor where gubernatorial appointment reigns. . . . [Where] members are elected by [district], people will go and basically self- nominate themselves. . . . There ought to be an American Bar Association screening type and that the names that would go forward to the legislature would have been screened by a Citizens' advisory [committee] and so that for each vacant slot, there'd be like four names that would go forward [and] the legislative members would select who they wanted. Discussing the mechanics in a state with gubernatorial board appointments, one interviewee said, "The Governor does that. One of his staff people does that and they get recommendations from past [board members], from current [board members], from the general public, from the legislature. Once he gets that done [the Governor makes the appointments], he pretty well steps aside and lets the [board members] do the job." Another interviewee commenting on gubernatorial appointments said, "Well, I don't want to poke fun. I don't kno selection a politica comment said, "The positions decide I n state that or Wrong] re.qioris oi IePIesent. required." [591ected 1 diVersity 1] blocks, po Worries to. President ( Selections answer is] [QPDOinted llO don't know how the Governor, for example, comes up with his selection. For the most part, it would appear that he is doing it to pay a political debt. That's what it looks like to me.” A third person commenting on gubernatorial selection processes for board members said, "The Governor's office probably looks at, first of all, which positions are coming up. . . . If they're women, the Governor will decide I need a woman. . . . Then I think he looks at what part of the state that person is from. . . . I think that the Governor believes, rightly or wrongly, . . . that the people in certain counties and certain areas or regions of the state will be upset if the Governor does not have representation from that part of the state even though that’s not required." One person from another state said, "Gubernatorial [selected board members] are chosen for diversity, geographic diversity in the state, and the satisfaction of political interests: women, blacks, political supporters. Basically, I don't think the Governor worries too much about other things." Another respondent, asked if the president or board officers are involved in approving gubernatorial selections before they are formally appointed said, "Publicly, [the answer is] no because we like to distinguish that the Governor has his [appointed number] and the board has its [self-perpetuating number] 44 4 and once advising : An are selec select, an the nomir before an Caucus, w number 0: independe endOISem The unity . endorsem COHSensuE Person Slo In H inVol‘ied i1 lteSlqture People set behind the Ill and once [the board] starts advising him, that invites him to start advising [the board] and perish that thought.” Another respondent, commenting about a state where trustees are selected on a partisan ballot, said "Individuals self-nominate, self- select, and put themselves forward. Anyone can do that. By the time the nomination takes place, the individuals have typically appeared before any number of the constituent party organizations - black caucus, women's caucus, union/labor caucus, Hispanic. There are a number of special interest groups that meet. Those groups independently interview candidates and then endorse. . . . Their endorsement is carried to, what in the party is called, a unity caucus. The unity caucus then gets the sense of the special interest groups' endorsements and gives favor to those who seem to have the consensus and the unity caucus usually selects two people for the two- person slate." In making observations about a state where the legislature is involved in selecting board members, one individual stated ”In [that] legislature, it looks like, you know, there isn't any list assembled. People self-nominate and then they run. And they campaign by going behind the scenes and will you vote for me and da, da, da, da." C< a person of the ho serving c interest i are alum for recruj adminisn almost at In 1 members Committe makes up through it accept thc it's, the pr: Whatever . perpetuqfi alumni Off 112 Commenting on a state where there are non-partisan elections, a person said, "They do it [self-nominate] on their own. Most members of the board tended to be involved in politics in some way prior to serving on the board and many in education. . . . So they've had an interest in public policy and government issues to start with and most are alums of the university. . . . There's certainly no formal mechanism for recruiting board members to run and I would say that high-level administrators get involved in recruiting or encouraging people almost at their peril." In a state whose Land-Grant has some self-perpetuating members. a board member commented, "[They] have a Nominating Committee which the Chairman names. . . . Once that committee makes up its mind, . . . it reports directly to the full board. It doesn't go through the Executive Committee. . . . The full board is expected to accept that report of the Nominating Committee without question so it's, the process has been, relatively free of negotiation and politics or whatever you want to call it." Another person replied that their self- perpetuating pool is developed with "a roster of names from the alumni office, almost always with an eye for development capability, but also leading alums, and the board sits down and [it will] throw out names at and come down. . . . selects [tt comment names to: affiliated committe. It's hard t4 Satisfied \ Considem Process (1 the last th and they 1 When I so their Selec for [(19ch among lht I10 [110th 113 names and background information will be developed on individuals and come back to the next meeting and it's a matter of narrowing down. . . . The board is set up so that the self-perpetuating group selects [the self-perpetuating] board members." Another person commenting on who and what are involved in assembling a pool of names for self-perpetuating board members at a university s/he is affiliated with said, "I have no idea. The operations of the nominating committee have never been discussed with [that] board as a whole. . . . It's hard to tell What criteria [are] used or how they got them. I'm very satisfied with their results for the most part. . . . It's pretty good considering the way it was done." Significant change occurred in the process at one institution according to a participant who said,"'Until the last three years, it was done very secretly by a group of trustees and they went out of their way not to ask anyone's opinion . . . and when I say out, I mean completely out. They just kind of met and made their selection. The person who headed up the committee headed it up for [decades]. [Researcherz What is the breakdown of party affiliation among that board's self-perpetuating members?] There is absolutely no thought given to party registration. [They] don't know it." C. W: partisan gubernat oi guberr board;or onbehah providers Re: affiliated The nnc con The One \NOt neit son] Educ nece 114 C. Would you prefer board members, if elected. to be selected by a partisan or non-partisan ballot: in state-wide or district elections: or by gubernatorial appointment: by legislative election: by a combination of gubernatorial and legislative appointment: by a self- perpetuating board: or by a combination .of several stakeholders. e.g., gubernatorial on behalf of the state and the public: alumni/ae: parents: grant providers: benefactors: etc? Why? Reflecting on the nature of Land-Grant boards, one non- affiliated participant stated, The major focus of [these] governing boards is budget and micro-management. The fact that most states want 100% control for 40% or less money demonstrates [this] point. . . . There are only two ways that one can do justice to an institution. One would be to have a self-appointed board and the other would be to have a non-partisan commission that made it neither gubernatorial nor elective, but really represented in some sense the best outlook for an institution called higher education. Either of these, I think, or some combination thereof. . . . Either higher education in a state is perceived to be a necessary good for the good of that state and to get the best pl. the go p6! hol inte So, the] thos pert Per: he/s 80m 115 possible people or it is perceived as a business which is meant to spend the least possible amount of money--which is defined as good as opposed to get the best possible product. So, in a philosophical sense, we're really talking about whether or not the purpose of governance is quality or the purpose of governance is oversight. Election and appointment inherently politicizes and I think detracts from the possibility of full quality. A former President said. Idon't like the elective process because it inevitably leads to people running for office who hope to gain something from holding that position rather than people who have a genuine interest in serving the institution over a long period of time. . . . So, I don’t think the elective process is a workable one--unless there was some formalized nominating device to assure that those people were screened and I don't believe that can occur. That doesn't necessarily mean the appointed process is perfect either because you can get a Governor who only places persons in those positions who he is in total agreement or whom he/she could control. Or because of patronage appoint someone who the party feels there's an obligation to. And, quite V0 eit thc I9} loc tro: COE uni me: ha; can VVOL ISCC 116 frankly, that does occur. . . . My preference is some kind of a review process by some independent body to recommend a slate of candidates representing all political ideologies from which the Governor can select with subsequent ratification by the state senate or some other appropriate body. A board member stated, I hear people across the state constantly say, 'I go into the voting booth . . . and I don't know any of these people,’ so they either pull the party lever or they don't vote at all. . . . One thing that I think is wrong . . . is that . . . we have too much representation from the [city] area where the university is located . . . and the largest group of alumni in the state come from [county] and we have no one on our board from [same county]. . . . I had to become political in order to serve my , , university. . . . I had to become a politician. . . . The [board members] of this state are dramatically affected by what happens at the top of the ticket. We’re [the board member candidates] kind of anonymous people here. . . . [My preference would be] a blue-ribbon panel, appointed by whoever, to make recommendations on a non-partisan basis to the office of the gc (II do The ansv boards CI] about an finance (1 they had I the State ] Youtee1q about as 1 C18 electio: A it fiISt ChOiCfi 117 Governor. I think anything that would take the politics out of what we do here would be helpful. And I think it would increase the pool of people who would be willing to serve their institution and also it would increase the quality of the candidate. . . . Many people [have] said, 'I would love to do that . . . but I'm not going to run statewide. I'm not going to a political convention and get beaten up by a lot of people who don't have anything to do with my responsibility.’ One other interviewee commented, "Should they be elected? The answer there is just look at most of those states that have elected boards and you'll see why I would be very, very deeply concerned about an elected board. It's too happenstance. It's too dependent on finance and campaign pressures. . . . Having lived in Illinois where they had elected regents for the University of Illinois where nobody in , the state knew who they were. It was just awful. [Researchen How do you feel about self-perpetuating selection processes?] That's just about as bad. I’m familiar with Clemson and that's just about as bad as elections." A former trustee with experience in an elected board stated, "My first choice would be the Governor/legislature [confirm consultc institutic combinc suggest come in . And, it appointr Would gc an estab; hOWeVer‘ CIPpointn change’ c boards. , . ' Candidc both finm Process 0 the Side if. and OIppot I’m “gains 118 [confirmation/confirmation selection procedure] and add in consultation with the alumni association. Some entity that has an institutional loyalty that will assure people of quality. . . . It could be in combination with self-perpetuating and the only reason I would suggest that is you can end up with a board . . . of people who don't come in with the blend of skill sets . . . to be making good judgments. . . . And, if you didn't have that through the mix of Governor/legislative appointment, you'd need to support that somehow. Probably that would go back to the criteria of those nominating should be looking for an established set of criteria--a blend." Another participant said, however, "I prefer statewide election. I'm opposed to gubernatorial appointments." Agreeing partially with this, while also advocating change, an interviewee said, "I would be opposed to self-perpetuating boards. . . . I've always been very supportive of the elective process. . . . Candidates . . . are people who have to make a serious commitment both financially and time-wise to get that job. . . . However, I am in the process of changing my mind about that. . . . I’m coming down now on the side that says that it’s probably better to have a mixture of elected and appointed [board members] because I think it gives some balance. I'm against totally appointing [board members] because . . . if the Governc likely to for the u Sol thin sense of changing board an would pr tn11y non qualified Candidate elected tl [Researct 0Utside th somebodt the Other 1 Percent it: p 60p1e [01 breadth or boardy 119 Governor is the guy who has you on the board, you're probably not likely to fight when he tells you he’s not going to give you the money for the university's budget. You’re probable likely to say ’Well, okay.’ So I think a mixture is probably a pretty good idea. It gives you a sense of balance.” Another interviewee, in agreement, said, "If I were changing things, I would think [they] could probably go to an 11 person board and have 8 elected and 3 appointed." And one commented, "I would probably see a combination . . . to be the best way of getting a truly non-partisan and interested group of folks who were really well qualified. [Researcherz Does the election process inhibit qualified candidates from participation?] I believe so. It can. People who get elected through the political process are people who owe chits. [Researcherz How about opening up the governance activity to those outside the state?] I think it works for privates. The advantage for somebody outside the state would clearly be a broader view. . . . On the other hand, state supported institutions where [they] have [number] percent in-state students, it seems appropriate enough to have in-state people [on the board]. . . . On the other hand, I think we lose some breadth or diversity [by not permitting out-of—state individuals on the board].” Al procedur appoint l Mflfik best of b: Nebraskl [and the} nature 0: SYstem. . board mt maybe e ntimbers Teasons_ the finar. PUblic se A I S Nt 120 Also commenting on preferences for board member selection procedures, a person stated, "I think the debate whether to elect or appoint [board members] is over-rated. It’s less important than people think it is. . . . Having said that, I would lean toward trying to get the best of both worlds and say that the mixture might be ideal. . . . In Nebraska, there have been attempts to change the selection method [and they were] soundly defeated at the polls-because of the populist nature of [the] state. They were voting on going to an appointed system. . . . So I think a combination, a somewhat larger number of board members would be attractive. I don’t think it's necessary or maybe even attractive for public universities to have the kind of numbers that privates have. They are selected for very different reasons. . . . I think the reasons there are large private boards, . . . [for] the financial support of the institution, aren’t really relevant in the public sector." A non-affiliated individual said. I guess that my preferred system is the current majority system. Namely, gubernatorial appointment on a statewide basis, not a narrow basis, with a check, maybe a nominal check, with a legislative body like a state senate. I do not personally favor 121 election of regents, certainly not on a partisan basis. N on- partisan elections are often a sham because you know what parties they belong to or what interest they’re carrying. No, my preferred option would be, let the Governor be identified and . <- ,3 responsible for putting good people on that board and to the extent that we need to reform. as I think we do, . . . it’s easier to work with 50 Governors, hard as that is, than to work with all the other configurations you might put forward to select trustees. [Researcherz Would you prefer potential board members come from a pool that might be selected by a non-partisan nominating body?] Yes, I would, but you’re still going to have the Governor exercise discretion and some selectivity. . . . I mean, you cannot have an immaculate conception here. People have to come out of the juices of life, they’ve got to be people who have been successful in politics, in government, in business, in the professions, . . . . But having some kind of screening and a pool of names that’s brought forward with people meeting at least, in theory, some nominal criteria, certainly can’t hurt and it may help. l regents s It ‘ (11'. ca ca: de ma car uni the the Dec So . 122 Commenting on a state where the "constitution says that the regents shall be elected by the legislature," a politician said, If you were to have a change, it would take a constitutional amendment. . . . I personally think the current process has worked well where the candidates are selected by the legislature. . . . The vast majority of people who have served on the board have done a good job. . . . We have a tradition that names come forward from [a candidate selection committee]. Prior to that, the [district] delegations meet and they look at the candidates from their district. They conduct interviews [with the candidates]. They have them make presentations before the delegations. The candidates campaign, if you will, or meet with individual members of the delegation and tell them about their candidacy, who they are, and their viewpoints about the university. So then the delegation makes a recommendation to the [joint] House and Senate education committees. [The legislature has] a very strong tradition [of going] along with who they've selected. [Researcher: 15 it the House that elects these people or the House and the Senate?] Everything is done jointly. So the [parties in the] districts meet jointly. the two education ide C01 tho dis Co: Cal me: 123 committees meet jointly. . . . We're not a unicameral legislature, but at this instance we work unicamerally or jointly. It is rather interesting you mentioned does the House elect them. There are [2 House] members [for every] senator and we have, all of us, one vote. So you know, arguably, the House may have a greater role because there are more House members. [Researcherz If one party controls both the House and the Senate, are successful candidates typically a member of the controlling party?] Bight now the majority is Democratic in both houses. When you break it up by districts, however, some districts have the majority Republican. And the tradition is strong enough where the person who is selected by the district generally prevails. . . . There's some folks come through that aren't really clearly identified as either party, [but] have been involved in the community. So I don't want to leave you with the impression that party affiliations is a hard and fast criteria either at the district or the at-large level. . . . [After the ]oint Education Committee report,] the presiding officer, the Speaker, will then call for other nominations. Throughout this entire process, any member can get up and nominate someone and that does be intrig lhemseb (In electt Politicize Process 3 have no ; COUehth based up it and lec Wouldn't ICItily the theoreliu hiSher ed 124 happen. They can nominate someone who has not gone through that candidate process or someone who has just failed to get selected through the process. N 0 one from the outside in recent years that didn't go through the [candidate selection committee] has been elected. Another politician said, "I like the appointed system, but I would be intrigued somewhat with some appointees from the board themselves. . . . Basically, I think an appointment process instead of an elected process makes sense. I don’t think you're ever going to de- politicize it, but take the election process out because in the election process people don't have any idea who they’re voting for. . . . People have no idea who’s on those ballots when they vote. . . . There's just no correlation between campaign efforts and winning the election. It’s all based upon what your political party does. I’d take the elections out of it and leave it up to the Governor." A board member commented, ”I Wouldn’t change it. I'd haVe the Governor appoint them, the senate ratify them. . . . And then they’re in for six years and then they theoretically are making decisions based on what's best for public higher education and not for any political reasons. . . . The longer they're on, the more de-politicized they are." Anotl combinatior meaningles mix and, git small margj tend to becc member cor methodolog sell-perpeh state suppc Operating [- IePresenta' rePlace eve Perpetuqm lefldershjp‘ b°qrds Witt like to See . t[11011911 the [district] 130 125 Another board member said, ”[My preference is] by a combination, but not one that is so obviously weighted so as to be meaningless. . . . I think it should be a mix, but much closer to an even mix and, given the choice, gubernatorial appointees to dominate by a small margin because what happens is the self-perpetuating members tend to become creatures of the administration." One other board member commenting on preference with regard to selection methodology said, ”My biggest preference would be that they all be self-perpetuating. Now that's somewhat unrealistic. . . . In terms of state support, that [number] percent of [annual non-designated operating funds] would be hard for us to replace. So, without representation, they're not going to play. [However,] if we could replace even [number] or [larger number] of them with self- perpetuating members who could bring additional funding and leadership, it would be terrific." Another commentary, related to boards with multiple selection processes for board members, was, "I’d like to see the other members who aren’t legislative trustees go through the [election] process. Names put forth and then run on a [district] ballot. I think district would be better because you’d know the Person more. [I prefer elections on a] non-partisan basis." ()ne be a combi unethatg people at 1 sell-perpe‘ the proces. establish 5 haveitbet W08, "Clea 1 Would saj SOWeHfiit Pohficalpr Simi lluu [Res polit knor 126 One interviewee stated, "Well, [my preference would] probably be a combination with the exclusion of the statewide election. I’m not sure that given the democratic system you’ll always get the best people at the end of a process like that. . . . I would like to see more self-perpetuating board members. [Researcher Would you like to see the process de-politicized?] Yes. I'd like to have the legislature establish some criteria and let peOple run against that rather than just have it be a popularity contest." And one board member's preference was, ”Clearly by a self-perpetuating process. In the best of all worlds, 1 would say all of them. I cannot imagine it [governing board] working so well if it wasn’t at least a majority who were not the product of a political process.” Similarly, one interviewee said. It would just be a monumental waste to politicize these offices. [Researcher Would you prefer to see these offices de- politicized?] Yes, and I think in our case it’s happened. Idon’t know What party anyone is on the board. It [politics] absolutely plays no role. . . . If there is any politicization of the board, it really relates to conservative versus liberal or moderate in those general terms. There’s no party politics. It’s just a point of [R61 hav lCIVt min thin a re and son. CCIII'. decision.” A In " ' the lrus getting the the Commit 127 view about education—-how best to promote the enterprise. [Researcherz Could you be better served if you were permitted to have someone from outside the state who could bring many favorable attributes to your board? Would that be a plus or a minus?] I think it would be a minus and, by the way, I know that a lot of boards do that. . . . If I lived in [another state], I don’t think I would know much about what was going on [in this state]. . . . Some [board members] live in [remote parts of the state]. It’s a real hardship for those [board members] to come to meetings and to quite have a handle on what's going on [compared with] someone who lived in [city] and who was 1/2 hour from the campus. . . . You can almost see the difference, see it and feel it. . . . They don’t have a sense of what’s happening. D. How do selection procedures influence board members in their decision-making? A non-affiliated respondent said. ”If it's truly a political process, . . . the trustees feel an obligation to whoever was responsible for getting them the nomination. So they feel they're obligated to carry out the commitments they made in achieving that office. . . . But a trustee should no for the fre [S/he] shor (4). Anoth bastardize more impt you now c detracts fr IeSponsibi the constit think the o are consci around 4 t< Governors QpPOinted person 901 the peopl e different Cc the GOVern appointed 128 should not function that way. A trustee of a university, which is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas, should not be an ideologue. [S/he] should be a person with a broad perspective and very flexible" (4). Another participant stated ”I think [a political selection procedure] bastardizes the process. I think that their constituent group becomes more important than the institution--whether it’s the people to whom you now owe allegiance or whether it’s the Governor. It clearly detracts from the word ’trustee’ if ’trustee’ is meant to hold the fiduciary responsibility for the good of the institution as opposed to the good of the constituents who elected them." A differing perspective was, "I think the only influence that election has is that for some trustees they are conscious of their public image and their electability the next time around 4 to 6 years later. I have seen a lot of examples where both Governors and legislators who played a key role in getting X appointed to a board got really irritated because once that board person got on the board, they acted like judges who often disappoint the people that appoint them. . . . Once you're on there, you have a different constituency. . . . Usually, the appointing authority, which is the Governor, has 50 other things on their mind and once they’ve appointed you to the board, they’re not going to go around wondering about, 'He participa: university back to th But Participai The cor spe we: The ride bid. G01 nor. Inu< DOS Wa bee 129 about, ’Hey, what [person’s name] is doing today.” Another participant agreed with this by saying, ”I think they're loyal to the university once they’re elected. I have not seen a great sense of going back to the party or their constituency.” But one person experienced attempted influence from selection participants when considering a second term and commented, The party wasn't happy with my vote on the [X] issue. [Name of company] did not win the award because their bid did not meet specifications. . . . Many members who are leaders of the party were also on the [company’s] board. and that's just the truth of it. I They didn't like the fact that, as Chair of Finance, I didn’t over- ride the decision of the administrators to reject the [company’s] bid. Didn't like it, so they wouldn’t support me. . . . So the Governor, over the rejection of the union, endorsed my re- nomination. . . . In my potential third nomination, it was just too much to overcome. The [party] leaders . . . did not like the position I took on the [athletic] issue. Was that a labor issue? Was that a union issue? Was it a party issue? It should not have been. It had to do with an athletic [issue]. But the fact that the At' de: An selection decision-1 selection said, "1 dc Executive Consists c 0n that Ct Contained on [date], Substantic in the WOI for the to there’s no one selection 1 trustees in dillerem lI 130 Attorney General and the [person in question] were best friends definitely had an influence, so I just chose not to fight it. Another participant described board organization, not the selection process of board members, as a means of influencing decision-making. This person, in response to the question ’Does the selection process influence board members in their decision-making] said, "I don’t think so. We never get to decide on anything. . . . The Executive Committee operates between sessions of the board, . . . consists of [number] members, . . . and there is no new blood ever put on that Committee. And the Executive Committee is a pretty self- contained, confident unit. . . . [As an example], my recollection is that on [date], the Executive Committee got together and approved a very substantial [matter]. Nothing wrong with it, but there wasn't a reason in the world why they did it on [date] and didn’t wait until. [4 days later] for the board to at least have the appearance of considering . . . . But. there’s no question the way things are run. They’re not run badly." One board member commented regarding influence from selection processes, "No, it is not reflected in the way they function as trustees in any way that I know of. Another board member, from a different institution, said, ”With the Governor appointing and no looking bi member] i their thout Governor appointee obligatior "You bet t maneuVei mean to 5 me. I don A p said, "The cOncerns t appointed diSlIictm consfituen GOVernoI how lheyg "when Yo] Quentiou t 131 looking back, they don't influence. . . . I think the longer the [board member] is on the board, the more independent they are in terms of their thought process." A senior administrator noted. "The idea of the Governor as the primary constituency kind of goes off once they're appointed. They know they have obligations that transcend that obligation.” A position contrary to this, from a board member, was, "You bet they do. . . . Sometimes people try to do political maneuvering and manipulation to get a result and a vote. I don’t mean to sound like some puritanical individual, but, boy that irritates me. I don’t take kindly to people telling me how to think.” A person commenting on district elections for board members said, "They [board members] are probably more responsive to the concerns of constituents in their district than they would be if they were appointed on a statewide basis by a Governor or even appointed on a district-wide basis by a Governor. So they are closer to their constituency and more responsive. They are not responsive to the Governor or the legislature. They owe nothing to either in the sense of how they got their seat." Agreeing with this was a person who said, "When you’re an elected [board member]. I think you pay closer attention to your constituents, which is how do your voters feel about this. . . . t or any pc [citizens] responsil Another, members over-res; constitue; Ta] "1 always Who they Process] [ Problem c think the s independt see the rig don’t Site: A b. (Illegicmce 132 this. . . . We weren't elected to be 'watch dogs’ or anti-administration. or any particular kind of mindset. We were elected by a group of [citizens] who really do believe in the university. We think that our first responsibility is to the university and our second is to the constituents." Another, commenting on ’do selection processes influence board members' said, ”Yes, and some of the [board members] seem to be over-responsive to some of the concerns in their particular constituencies." Taking another perspective, one elected board member stated. "I always say when you have a [number] year term and no one knew who they voted for, it [influence from those involved in the selection process] has nothing to do with anything. So that's why I've had no problem at all calling it the way I've seen it, which I have done. so I think the selection process [i.e., election] gives you a tremendous independence to do the right thing as you see it. Everybody might not see the right thing. How can you be afraid of the public when they don’t even know you’re there." A board member. commenting on selections made by the Governor and legislature, said, ”I think the Governor appointee owes allegiance to the Governor. I think the legislative [board members] definfieh [Besearc] special it Another 1 tustcoup tmyma university by those i E. Do Yes. what (Du Mo get YOU tick abc W the} 133 definitely owe it to the legislature. 1 think that’s expected. [Researcherz Is that good?] Not always, because then you get the special interest groups. I think it could backfire on some issues. Another participant said, ”I feel the legislative groups, certainly the first couple years on the board in general, they think of issues as if they’re a member of the legislature rather than a trustee of the university. I think the self-perpetuating group is less so [i.e., influenced by those in the selection process]." E. Do boards have an orientation program for new members? If yes. what are its components? One participant, with a non-affiliated view, said, Most of them do. I don't know how useful it is. [There are] two types of orientation programs: the nuts and bolts (how do you get reimbursed for your expenses; how often do you meet; if you're married, do you bring your spouse; how to get football tickets versus a show and tell about some basic information about the university--how [it] operates. Some board members who come on with an agenda of reform are very skeptical they’re going to be seduced and co-opted. So these orientation se: ha litt do in do: do: ab. in 1 An levels. 0 run. , . . T once You are the m! basis [G1 Substantit Commente perCGIVe 134 sessions don't work so well. If I were prescribing, 1 would say we ought to do two kinds of orientation sessions. We're going to have a nuts and bolts logistical kind of thing and maybe just a little overview, but really light at the beginning. Six months down the road, let’s have a little retreat or seminar. You’ve lost. in theory, a little of you virginity. You’re troubled by this. You don’t understand this. Then let these board members raise questions about things they’re beginning to see . . . and they don’t understand and want more information or want to argue about it. So have a later orientation session when you’ve been in the pool swimming a bit. Another unaffiliated participant said, "There’s probably two levels. One is at the pure information level--how does an institution run. . . . The second level of orientation has to deal with the issue of ' once you sort of know what functions must be performed, then what are the major policy questions that an institution faces on a yearly basis. [Give] people some sense of what is being called on--both substantively and at the functional level." A former president commented, "It all depends on how you perceive the board of trustees. I perceive a board of trustees as a helpful body. I want it to be active participc informed way to ci I'm of the do not be A t Land-Grc Very thor haVing th different - .. It's (In Politician Programs bIOtld i551 be Unders Particulql made." 0n. ”mei names: lhl 135 participants in the decision-making process and I want them to be well informed. If the CEO doesn’t want to be bothered, just wants to find a way to circumvent them, they don’t want them to be fully informed. But I’m of the opinion that every institution should have an orientation. 1 do not believe it's commonplace.” A former board member stated, ”I believe . . . 80 or 90 percent [of Land-Grants] have some orientation program. [Institution name] has a very thorough institutional orientation whereby they spend two days having the different colleges come in and present and have all the different vice-presidents for the respective operational units come in. . . . It’s an exhausting two days for the new [board member]." A politician said, "I would guess that 70 percent [have orientation programs]. I think [they consist of] two categories: understanding the broad issues and the role of the trustee, and the second category would be understanding the nuts and bolts of what the issues are at their particular university, how it operates, and What decisions are to be made.” One interviewee said, ”Yes [we had an orientation]. It was a very nice lunch. The distribution of a book that contained the members' names. their phone numbers, fax numbers. perhaps even a brief biograpl orientati the unive the same brochure Ar consulta could im; develop . have an . having 11 rotate. , , tor about said, "yyE our (men. [board 1m in the pas lengtheng An. but I think 136 biographical sketch of the members. . . . But there was no real orientation of what are the functions of the board--this is how we run the university, this is what we want you to participate in. . . . [It was] the same kind of thing that you would pick up if you picked up their brochures on facts and figures." Another institution, noted one of its board members, hired consultants "to look at our board processes and to determine how we could improve board functioning and one of the suggestions was to develop a formal orientation process. . . . We’re doing that and we have an on-going orientation, or re-orientation, if you will. We're having meetings now basically at every institution and the meetings rotate. . . . Each of the institutions provide [board member] orientation for about 1 day." One other board member, at the same institution, said, ”We had a study by [a consultant] as to what they thought about our orientation and they interviewed current [board members] and past [board members], this sort of thing. . . . We've had a formal orientation in the past. This is not new, but we've structured it a little more and lengthened it a little bit." Another interviewee said, "Yes, we do [have an orientation], . . . but 1 think we could do a better job with that. . . . I thought I knew a lot about th universi' people c And they was way for that. orientati staff is h 80 many is they St A ; 011T Orien CIPPIecia Written n OIgeniza board the being Q 9 board on An 137 about this university because I’d been very much involved with the university. But, when I became a [board member], I was dealing with people and things that were totally out of my realm of experience. . . . And they tried to do this all in about 2 days. . . . It was all too much. It was way too much. I think we can do a better job of preparing people for that. Sometimes, when you're a candidate, if you ask for some orientation and information about issues affecting the university, the staff is happy to do that equally to all of the candidates. But there were so many people here for me to meet, and one of the failings of our staff is they seem to think that we know everybody.” A senior administrator stated, "We are in a process of modifying our orientation. . . . People who are tmly new to the experience really appreciate it. Others don’t want to, don’t have much of a care. . . . The written materials include everything from job descriptions and organization charts for the university to budget cycles, descriptions of board meetings, past histories of issues that are still alive, essays on being a good board member. . . . We also give them board policy and board ordinances and all the rules and regs.” Another senior administrator commented, cc th de is: ”I: or or. be trc a I re col be' de' 011 Whole da' heard the university 138 The process often starts before the [board member] is elected because we do invite candidates to ask us questions and to come in for an orientation session largely driven by our View that if they’re going to run publicly and be engaged in public debate, we like to give them the opportunity to understand the issues as thoroughly as they want to and so most have taken us up on our offer. [Researcher note: with regard to a formal orientation, this person said,] Yes and no. There is an orientation. It is not run by the board. I think there is a need for both administrative and board orientations. . . . The way you train [board members] is the way you train elephants. You have a new one walk between two older ones. . . . [Board members] really get oriented over time by working with their more senior colleagues. . . . There is a steep learning curve. . . . It takes the better part of a term to get their arms around the issues and to develop a philosophy of higher education and their role in it. One board member said, "We do [have an orientation]. It’s a whole day process. [We] start off with the duties and responsibilities of board members. [We] talk about not micro-managing folks in the university and . . . about ours being a role of policy. fiduciary, and the like. [We the legisl first resp and thos. meetings 5 Dc for their. "1 "either ti would so non~curn [Researc going ed think the institutio those pe mmnm edilCCItio 139 like. [We] tell especially the legislators . . . that they will want to view the legislature as their first responsibility, but [we] tell them that their first responsibility is to the university. . . . It’s very well orchestrated and those people who miss it, you can tell by their behavior in board meetings that they haven't gone through the orientation." 1". Do boards have on-going education and development programs for their members? If yes. what are the components? "I would say most of them say they do,” said one participant, "either through a series of retreats or maybe staff workshops. But I would say they’re incredibly superficial and inconsistent, informal and non-cumulative. . . . What I've seen is essentially non-existent. . . . [Researcherz What would you like to see as the components of on- going education and development programs?] Two things. One, I think they need to hear from the constituents called the people in the institutions--students, faculty, administrators. Hear the perspective of those people in a non-adversarial situation. Two, I think they need to hear from professionals outside the system who are expert in higher education that can bring a perspective from outside the state. outside their ow: getting 1 A1 educatio additive‘ [With] dis How do ‘ tough. B educatio tell you} When the Sittess l v the room 0] demure] board my Board's ‘1 have Q st things. . . [Your] dir 140 their own institutions, regarding issues of the day . . . so that you’re getting both an internal and external kind of perspective constantly.” Another person interviewed said, "Very few [have on-going education and development programs].” [Researcher Would they be additive?] Idon't think so. I would rather have an occasional retreat [with] discussion built around two or three topical issues. [Researcherz How do you do that in a ’sunshine’ environment?] Well, that’s kind of tough. But I tend to disagree with many of my colleagues in higher education because I've worked in the non-sunshine environment. I can tell you horror stories, pretty interesting ones, about what happens when there was no sun in the board room. I guess if I gotta chose, I guess I would come out moderate. I would like a little bit of closure, the room’s closed occasionally, but I’m more on the sunshine sidel" One politician said, "The difficulty with that question is the definition of what’s ’continuing education.’ Most boards will give their board members the opportunity to go to the Association of Governing Board's Annual Convention. . . . I would say very few boards really have a structured effort of teaching their board members about specific things. . . . [One way of doing this is to] have a presentation by one of [your] divisions as to what's going on in that division and what the issues a. former p talks by that the ‘ institutic Re educatio member. would be A it's an O; and you You lean a formal CIdminist tnformat different are Very tntOImqt initiqfiVe 141 issues are in that division--but it’s not like a training type of thing." A former president said, "I think more than in the past. . . . Instituting talks by members of the faculty or program heads, even students, so that the trustees are better informed about what’s happening at the institution.” Respondents at one institution, asked if they had on-going education programs, stated, "N one whatsoever;” and ”To educate the members? Sort of a continuing education kind of thing? N o, I think that would be a make-work activity.” A board member at another institution commented, "Well, I think it's an OIT [thing] and the [agenda] comes in and you ask questions and you talk informally with institutional [senior administrators] and you learn about it that way. And that’s what we have. We do not have a formal program, a school for [board members].” One senior administrator said, ”Every other board meeting is a so-called information session in which the board gets in-depth understanding of different parts of the university, issues around the university. . . . These are very often at the suggestion of the board members. At our last information meeting, we dealt with advising, and the advising initiatives which are being planned in order to improve that part of the retentio ’Well, w Wee that the} regiona A N b: to 142 retention program. . . . [We did this] because members had asked ’Well, what is the university really doing in its urban Land-Grant role. . . .’ We do send, at our expense, board members to various conferences that they want to go to. And particularly AGB conferences. but also regional ones and other national conferences." Another senior administrator stated. No. Not education and development on how to be an effective board member. They do have on-going education about the university and strategic issue sessions. . . . [These are] unrelated to [current] actions [and] increase their level of knowledge and prepare them for later actions. . . . Early in the 90's, we had more development retreats. . . . We had a group of senior Land-Grant former presidents, three of them, come in and work with the board a couple of different times. . . . We have ceased doing that, and I think it's a tragedy. The principal reason is because of the state open meetings laws. There is really no way to have a good candid discussion about board’s short-comings and the kinds of things one needs to focus on in a self-analysis to learn more about your performance as a board. . . . While we have taken the position in the past that we can bar the press from C11 and the . month (c anywhe: list and 1 board In retreat 1; higher 61 143 1 these sessions, the consequences of even legally barring them are judged to be too great. One board member said, ”The Chronicle for Higher Education and the AGB are both quite helpful in regard to those. . . . Once a month (almost), we have a strategic planning meeting that will last anywhere from 1 to l 1/2 hours. . . . There’s probably 30 subjects on the list and by the time you get through it, we’ll recycle it again.” Another board member commented, ”It’s informal. . . . We're going to have a retreat in September. That retreat will deal with some current issues in higher education as well as where we want to take the university in the future. [Researcherz Can you do that in private?] Nope. But we're doing it far enough away so that if they [the media] want to get to us, they’re going to have to go through all kinds of obstacles. . . . This Open Meetings Act is a killer." A board member at a different institution responded, "Yes, we do. In fact we have spent maybe four to five hours on [subject]. Workshop type thing, and videos, talks, lectures. I found it very educational actually.” Another interviewee said, ”Not really. . . . I think now probably all we get [is] The Chronicle of Higher Education. I get the sense that several of the trustees actually read it when it comes. Boards." G. W member 0 Grant in 0 to 5 pe themsel' meaning Operatic think a 1. men qnc A pe doing q . then you real defe become Who hav 144 comes. They [also] get literature from the Association of Governing Boards." G. What procedures are in place to assess governing board members individual and collective effectiveness? One non-affiliated participant said, ”I can't think of any [Land- Grant institutions] that do it [i.e., assessment]. . . . It’s probably close to 0 to 5 percent in terms of the number of boards that evaluate themselves or their members, except in the most general and rather meaningless way. [Researcherz Would this be helpful to board operations?] I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s going to help, no. . . . I think a lot of governing boards are mediocre. I think we have too few men and women on those boards that have real substance and stature. . . . A person’s either doing a good job or not doing a good job. If he’s doing a good job, for God’s sake, leave him alone. If he's screwing up, then you get rid of this guy. . . . With some exceptions, there's been a real deterioration in the quality of boards. . . . A lot of the boards have become mediocre. . . . I can give you chapter and verse of presidents who have gone from public universities to private universities." A trustees amount reasonc policy 0 whether willing 1 the poli1 What ou would 5: Summat gllbernc A [QOVernj unfortur they do: either. I PIesideI COmmer don't kn. 145 Another non-affiliated participant said, "Yes, [I’d like to see trustees evaluated]. Clearly, whether one is putting in the appropriate amount of time and effort--which can be defined in advance as reasonable and appropriate. Second, whether or not this person is policy oriented versus micro-management oriented. Third might be whether one is ideologically hell-bent or whether one is capable or willing to take into account alternative perspectives. Not simply on the political spectrum, but on the philosophy spectrum with regard to what ought a good institution look like. Under the best conditions, it would seem to me the board can create its own formative and summative evaluation. . . . 1 would shy away from a legislative or gubernatorial assessment.” A former Land-Grant President commented, "I don’t think they’re [governing boards] comfortable in doing so. And I think that’s unfortunate because it could be a very positive experience. The fact is, they don’t always do a good assessment of their chief executive officer either. I [have] suggested . . . they do the two concurrently--a presidential and a board assessment concurrently." A politician, commenting about assessment and evaluation in her/his state, said, "I don’t know how formal it is. . . . They’ll talk about the board and the mission individu where tl operate Yes." A governii say prof I don't it effective A Could be N0. And explore . unPOpul. board w] “Sked it . tnstitutio ‘treodt 146 mission of the board. I’ve never heard where they would assess individual members of the board. . . . They do have these retreats where they talk about their goals and objectives. [Researcher Do they operate under sunshine and open meetings acts at these retreats?] Yes.” Another politician stated, ”The trend in higher education governing boards is to have an annual assessment process, so I would say probably half and a little bit more than half [have assessments]. . . . Idon’t think they really do a personal assessment. It's more a board effectiveness assessment." A board member commented with respect to assessment, "That could be very explosive. We don’t do that and we should do that. . . . No. And that is a sore spot with me. . . . Every time I have wanted to explore this issue with other board members, it's been a rather unpopular thing to do. Therefore, I think there are members of this board who don’t discipline themselves.” Another board member, when asked if assessment and evaluation programs were present at her/his institution, stated, ”None. Not that I’m aware of. None by the board. . . . I read the literature . . . of the Association of Governing Boards and they're ‘ ever do. A effectim was ver "The scl particul entirely analysis away in Sphtas. A Place to board b1 probable basis at [but] the QdVCInto bY the dj bllng." ( 147 they're talking about something that has nothing to do with anything I ever do." A board member at a different institution said, ”Your effectiveness is what you get done when you’re there. I always felt I was very effective because I was always able to advance my agenda.” "The school newspaper” said another, "does a sort of job on their particular issue of the day and grades them. But the criteria are not entirely clear. The board . . . has tried on several occasions to do self- analysis, but has not really sustained that effort and they tend to shy . away from it. Particularly with the kind of board which is politically split as ours is." A senior administrator commented, ”There’s one process in place to assess their effectiveness--the elections. I would like to see board building and board development opportunities. [These] would probably involve some kind of self-evaluation activities on an annual basis at a minimum. I think that kind of activity is extremely useful, . . . [but] the opens meeting act [could have] consequences. . . . The advantages from a board development session may be overshadowed by the divisiveness that a negative editorial in the newspaper would bring." One other interviewee, from the same institution. commenting .. I‘ on the i: havetht way cor ekxied. A have at getofit indiVidu efiecfiVe toedo [is "That's : n0 Syste A (Issessn reoHySt board 01 Stateme board, “ Process ColleCtiv 148 on the impact of assessment and evaluation, stated, " No [we don’t have these programs]. It’s really a moot point with us. There is no way constitutionally to remove a [board member] once they’ve been elected. There is no recall. There’s nothing." At another university, a board member stated, "No, [we don’t have an assessment], and that’s one of the things that I am going to get off the ground. . . . But I would not go as far as to evaluate individual board members, but certainly we ought to evaluate our effectiveness as a board and we’re going to do that. That’s high on my to-do list." Another interviewee, at the same university, commented, "That's something that is discussed. We have a need for it, but there is no systematic way of doing it.” At one institution, a board member noted, "There's no individual assessment process. We do a self-assessment collectively and we just really started to do that. . . . We’re looking at our processes, at the board office, at how we function, at our goals and visions, mission statements, strategic plans and we’re trying to evaluate how, as a board, we’re doing and whether we’re making progress. That whole process is in its infancy with this board. [Researcher Do your collective assessments involve a consultant?] We do it with the aid of consult< in and i: the Legi . and, of logical : people . [consult System - reports - Another bOard it: A Ieport Ct [board n GSked, l have the of financ theY do ,5 Contribu. tnember 149 consultants." Another board member stated, "We had somebody come in and interview everybody we interface with. We had them interview the Legislature, the Governor, all of the state agencies we deal with, . . . and, of course, all the [board members] themselves. . . . It makes very logical sense and once you’ve got the ball rolling, you don't have people objecting any more." And one responded ”Right now we’ve got [consultants] developing a formal computerized electronic governance system which, in effect, will put everything, all these governance reports and all the reports we do, into a system of information. . . . Another one is to develop a system of performance measures for the board itself." Another senior administrator commented, ”There is no 'written report card that is prepared on an annual basis. I think that when a [board member’s] term comes up for renewal, the logical questions are asked. Number one, what has the attendance been? Number two, have they fulfilled the contribution to the university from the standpoint of financial [contributions], within their means? Number three. when they do show up, do they contribute? Number four, if they are contributing, is it constructive or is it, frankly, to the contrary." A board member from the same university as the above senior administrator said, "I assessr efiecfiv H. 1 those p ( compet quesfio Words, ' say’VVc admms more a< teCICher could [a frankly always endowr it think or 150 said, "The process of the Nominating Committee [works as the assessment vehicle] because we ask people who haven't been effective to step down and that happens.” H. What specific skills and competencies would you like added to those possessed by your current board members? One board member responded, "There are no skills and competencies not represented and I think it’s irrelevant [i.e., the question]. This is a very wide-ranging, very competent board. In other words, if you were to read all the resumes, you would simply have to Ill say 'Wow. . . . A really excellent group of people. A senior administrator from the same institution stated, "We could use some more academic horsepower and when I say that, I’m not talking about teachers per se, but I'm talking about the intellectual exercise. We could [also] use some more fundraising muscle. . . . We don’t ask, frankly, for board members to do much fundraising. . . . [We] could always use another sharp set of eyes who’s looking at how the endowment is being managed and how the budget [is working]." At a different institution, a board member commented, ”I don't think anything’s missing because 1 think with [number] people [on the board] . professi think we matter], are very who car A fairly to table thi minds. ' have pe Process. Keeping A tthQnta different; prinCpo enrich tl. ObVlous the 1(1ng 151 board] of varied backgrounds and diversity in education [and the] professions, . . . nothing is missing.” Another board member said, "I think we have sufficient competencies. If we want expertise in [subject matter], for example, we’ve got [institution] with some professors who are very, very competent in that area. . . . And there are private people who can provide that to us, too." A board member at another university responded, ”We've been fairly fortunate in the kinds of talents that have been brought to this table through the election process. We have very good financial minds. We have people who are very interested in student issues. We have people who are interested in external relations and endowment processes. . . . We also have people who are interested in athletics. Keeping those things in proper balance is very important.” Another senior administrator stated, "I do think there are some advantages by having a combination of appointed and elected with a different set of responsibilities and constituencies. . . . One of the principal advantages of having additional board members would be to enrich the pool of competencies, backgrounds, [and] experiences. . . . Obviously, the mixture of experiences, etcetera, would be increased by the larger number of members.” C when w degree. opinion long for . . with t agenda informe think we Which is differen‘ little Shy Curiosity too Prac regardn that's (1 1 O ability k itttpettai another 152 One other senior administrator said, "I thought it was helpful when we had somebody with a Ph.D. or a degree beyond the bachelor's degree. [Without that mindset. there] is a tendency to operate out of opinion rather than research. . . . There are times when one would long for . . . a kind of distance on the issue so that it would not be seen . . . with the gaze that is created through personal agenda or by political agenda. . . . [I] wish people would argue at a level that was better informed, higher, and ultimately, perhaps, more ethical. . . . What I think we're talking about is a kind of thoughtfulness or reflectiveness which is serious about the business of running [the institution]." At a different institution, a board member stated, "Our board has seemed a little shy of what I think of as the true intellectuals, people who have a curiosity about everything. . . . I would say we're a little too pragmatic, too practical." At another university, a board member commented, regarding skills and competencies missing from her/his board, ”Boy, that's a tough question. . . . I’ve never looked for skillful adversaries.” One board member said, ”What’s missing is a fundamental ability to get your arms around the big picture. That's the most important skill that all boards, not just ours, needs to have." And another stated, "Common sense is something you cannot teach. If anythir sense." things I more 1e is some underst III. V membt qtlestior Chosen ] Gram b( of the qr thtecnnS ptOCedu; 153 anything, I would like to have more [board members] have common sense." From one institution, a respondent commented, ”As a team, I think we have them all. It’s just you knowing who has what, and being able to capitalize on that for the interests of the board. . . . One of the things I would like to see for us in terms of the current board would be more leadership skills." And another stated, ”What comes first to mind is some representation on the board that has more of an understanding of higher education in general." 111. What is the impact of selection procedures on board member decision-making? Each research participant was asked to respond to a series of questions relating to the establishment of tuition. This subject was chosen because it is a decision-making issue common to all Land- Grant board members, regardless of how they are selected. The intent of the questions is to help determine if there are different influences affecting the decisions of board members selected by differing procedures. A. i to tuitic l P 1 it | ti. [ Cit 154 A. Who and what are the external and internal influences relating to tuition decision-making? A former Land—Grant institution President said, Public opinion has a strong influence. In a state institution, in a Land-Grant institution, the interests of the Governor and the legislature have a strong influence--often controlling it. Even in an institution which is constitutionally autonomous, if tuition increments are greater than what the Governor or the legislature consider to be desirable, the threat is that next year your budget will be constrained or reduced. So, in actuality, you do not have autonomy in the making of that decision. In fact, sometimes, they use the inducement to keep tuition down. So they have influence. Students concerned about it, and even demonstrating in that regard, can also have an impact. Hopefully, in setting tuition, the trustees listen to the administration, ask the proper questions about why the tuition increments are necessary. [and] ask for documentation as to how the funds are going to be expended. [They should] assure parents [also] i] univers interna as a ho Pregra: pressur legislat assumi other tk increas frequer looking Peers, \ imitect A the min 155 that every effort is made to maximize efficiency, and then [come] to a decision taking all those variables into consideration. A former board member stated the influences ”include the parents of students, the legislature, the Governor. External factors [also] include the health of the economy, [and] our cost relative to other universities. . . . Student loans are an external factor. They are also internally a factor insofar as you can have some degree of influence as a board member by assuring that money is available for work-study programs, you can supplement that. The other internal factors are the pressure you have on your faculty salary. . . . Externally, the legislative appropriation is the biggest factor in the equation. But, assuming [all things] are equal, there are no alternatives for trustees other than tuition. That’s the one thing we vote on in terms of a budget increase internally. That and student housing rates. . . . What frequently serves as the incentive to increase tuition, though, is looking at faculty salaries and saying those are so low relative to their peers, we have to do something to get those up. Housing can’t have an impact on that. That leaves only tuition." A non-affiliated respondent said, ”Internally, [the influences] are the administrators in charge. Externally, there are the Governor, the legislat choose busines you km in that j lndepe. Tuition legislat situatic Odmini: forces.’ 1 C L. 158 legislature, and any other political groups, including parties, who choose to see the issue of tuition as a political issue as opposed to a business issue. I think they’re all influential and one can’t predict, until you know the particular state and the year, the algorithm on influence in that particular situation. It’s purely political driven in Land-Grants. Independent of what one thinks, they ought to be internally [driven]. . . . Tuition is almost always a function of what the Governor and the legislature feel they can afford politically, as opposed to a private situation which is always done, obviously, at the board and administrative level without any outside, other than larger market. forces.” A politician stated. Setting tuition is essentially a tug and pull between internal pressures to provide services, and cost pressures to keep them down and be more competitive in the market place. . . . The Governor’s office in [state] has played a key roll--and then the legislature. We are under far more pressure [from them] at [institution] than we are anywhere else. That’s including our own students. So the legislature and the Governor’s office, and the parents probably. Internal influences tend to go the other 157 direction. The pressures are there to increase tuition by significant amounts. [Researcher Who are the players in that?] Almost all your administrators. And, frankly. students as well. You might think students want to keep tuition down. A lot of students have their tuition paid for by their parents so they're really not all that concerned about whether there's $50 or $100 more. They're more concerned about whether there’s a recreation facility, or whether there is computer equipment that is up to date and stuff like that. Faculty are a player. They tend to . . . pressure for increasing tuition for faculty salaries. A board member from an institution with board members selected through gubernatorial and self-perpetuating methodologies responded, A proposed tuition level comes out of the budgeting process that the university administration goes through every year. There are periodic reports to the Finance Committee of the board and that Finance Committee will try to provide some direction about how that budget’s going to turn out. Ultimately, it’s subject to board approval. But. of course, by the time you get to that stage, it all gets sort of formalistic because it’s too late to change much. inferno: board's and the is (In int Press at Perticip adminis tengltm poplllCIc 158 . . . A topic [during] the last several years is 'let's move toward no increases.’ That was a specific board pressure. The administration has done that in the preparation of its budgets. [Researcher Do the gubernatorial appointees hear from the Governor and legislature regarding tuition more than board members selected through other methodologies?] Not any more or less than other board members. I doubt that the exact amount of tuition ever comes up. It never comes up with me. You will get complaints about tuition just going up, up, up; 'When's it going to stop.' They're pretty well founded complaints, I think. At another institution. a board member commented, "The internal influences are the institutional [administrators] and the board’s Executive Director. The external influences are the legislature and the students and the interested citizens of the state. The Governor is an influence here because the Governor can make statements to the press about [how] the people of [state] expect low tuition." Another participant said, "The internal influences are students, faculty, and administration. The external influences are the Governor, the legislature, parents, and media. Then I would say the general pOpulace. That would be a distant five." and ki( . For e techno approx internc Anothe influen feels tk too big univers 1 Other b. don‘t fe the rub] raise th don't fe eVery Y State be 159 A board member at one institution stated, "We negotiate a bit and kick it [tuition] around. I'm not sure how scientific a process it is. . . . For example. we have a tuition surcharge related to information and technology and the high cost of Wiring all the dorms. . . . That's a pretty appropriate thing to have student tuition and fees pay for. Our biggest internal influences really are . . . that core group of administrators." Another board member at the same institution said, "External influences would [be] the Governor and legislature. . . . The legislature feels that our tuition is not enough and the students feel that tuition's too high. . . . The legislature appropriates the dollars that the university operates on and the students generate tuition money." At one institution using a combination of self-perpetuating and other board selection methodologies, a board member commented, ”I don’t feel . . . that I have any input on when the tuition changes. That's the rubber stamp part of it. They show us how much they're going to raise the tuition. There’s a few questions asked around the table. But I don't feel we have any input. We just rubber stamp it and approve it every year when they change it. . . . A lot of our students go out of state because they can't afford to go to their state university." At a different institution, but also with a combination of board members selectt stated is Apartic ComDon 160 selected by self-perpetuating and other processes, an interviewee stated, It's [i.e., tuition] made by the board, but based on administration recommendations. . . . The only relevance [i.e., influence] in [state] is big business. [Researcherz Is big business an external influence on, specifically, the tuition decision?] N o, sir. I believe that the university administration works on its concept of fiscal soundness, the establishment of a reserve, in such a way as to force decisions when they have to be made. [Researcherz Does your board govern, represent, audit, or monitor?] I think "monitor." I would like to have more activism, but there is no room for this activism now. Everything is going so well. There is no reason for anybody to say, "Hey, what the hell is going on here. Well, hell, I'm here to govern. What the hell do I govern. . . I'm not used to the fact that if it ain't broke, just leave it alone. [Besearcherz Isyour board ancillary —— other than statutorily?] Yes, except in the case of crisis. A participant from another university, but also with a board member component selected by self-perpetuating processes, said, "A [tuition] recommendation is made by the Provost and the admissions folks and the tint hflfion inflatic years, raising membt work c univer has us memb. and E) budge What t or the [Besec for the fuIlds. CI[flout CImom 161 the financial officer about what we can and should do. Because our tuition is so high, we have as a board stated as a policy not to exceed inflation as an increase year over year. That’s been in place three years, and we're going to hold the line--at the same time that we are raising faculty salaries. [Researchen Are the legislative board members influenced by the other legislators in this process or do they work on behalf of the university?] Oh no. They work on behalf of the university. . . . The legislators know that their lack of financial support has us in the bind we're in. So they play ball in this area." And from one institution with a self-perpetuating component of members, a senior administrator commented, "Internally, the Finance and Executive Committees are the ones who meet very early in the budget cycle with the administration. The administration presents . . . What they're looking for. [Researcherz Do you hear from the Governor or the legislature on the establishment of tuition?] Not at all. [Researcherz Do you ever have to lobby the Governor or the legislature for the state's operating funds?] Oh, clearly for the state's operating funds. We try to set our tuition and it's dependent on getting a certain amount of money from the legislature and we have always gotten that amount. We have not suffered from what many other state legisla higher self-pe Officer presen in this? to the s involv< PIopos influen influen efforts Worst I membt [institu group, 162 legislatures have done, which is to dramatically cut the funding of higher ed." Another person from an institution also with a component of self-perpetuating members said, "The Provost is the Chief Budget Officer so it's really the Provost’s job to put together a budget for presentation to the board. [Researcherz Is the Governor an influence in this?] Only in that the Governor has the say when the request goes to the state for state appropriations. Certainly he's not, that I know of, involved in any kind of public way about the development of the proposed tuition. [Researcher Is the press a meaningful external influence on tuition setting?] Well, our local newspaper is a negative influence. It's not terribly friendly to the university despite all our efforts to change that around. So, yes, they will write an article in the worst possible light." B. How do these external and internal influences affect board member decisions? One respondent stated, "I value very heavily what the [institution] thinks it needs--their staff and their whole administrative group. . . . Of course, sometimes the Governor and legislature get invoth [Resec suppo: studen pitch is dedsk at [uni hfithe becaus bYIed1 eXCeec board ; flafing inlport lRGSeQ increa: The 0tl tuition 163 involved if the press gets a hold of them. They ask for a quote. [Researcherz You listen to everyone?] Yes. I think we need to. I suppose there is one opinion that's [valued] least, but we even let student organizations come in and make a pitch at the meeting. Their pitch is usually to keep it down.” Another commented that external influences affect trustee decisions in tuition matters in a way that is "very direct. My first year at [university], the Governor decided he was going to force institutions [of the state] to hold their tuition down. Everybody buckled under because he threatened they would take action against the institutions by reducing their budgets an equivalent amount from the increase if it exceeded a certain percentage. So it can be extraordinarily direct." From another university, with a self-perpetuating component of board members, a participant commented on external influence by stating, "It is irrelevant. I really think it's the internal [that is important]. [Researcherz Do you ever hear from unions?] Never. [Researcherz The press?] No, and I think the reason is our tuition increases have pretty much tracked the CPI for the last 6 or 7 years. The other thing we do is we're a little more sensitive to the in-state tuition than the out-of-state tuition--meaning we have two separate increa: Agreei know 1 data Ct statisti it's mo pressu reside: we're t the so] studen that ar Pressu Who si Philos< the Go have 0 direct] eduCat 164 increases. We pay particular attention to the in-state tuition." Agreeing, another interviewee from the same institution said, "I don't know that we’ve gotten much [external] advice on that. . . . All of our data comes from the administration. They come up with all kinds of statistics and reports on what tuition is at all the other institutions. how it's moving, and why it's where it is. [Researcherz You don't hear pressure from labor unions or political parties?] No, no, no. For non- residents (we have a fairly large non-resident population), as far as we're concerned, [they] don't have much standing. They do, but it's not the same thing. We feel a very specific responsibility to the resident students." In another state. a senior administrator said, "I'm not certain that any of the groups have a uniform position on tuition, so the pressures would be different. There are some legislators, for instance, who simply want us to keep tuition down because they have a philosophy that the state ought to tax as little as possible. . . . I think the Governor feels the same way. There are some legislators who have a different philosophy: the people who are enjoying the benefits directly of the university ought to pay more of the cost of their education, or that by looking at peer comparison. . . . our tuition is lower and, ti we out are to studer tuition somet legislc salarie stated, low as and so 0i QCCe taquy those v balanc 165 lower as a percent of the cost of education than some peer institutions and, therefore, if we're going to measure in other ways against peers. we ought to measure with tuition. For the most part, student interests are to keep tuition increases at a minimum. However, we have had student leaders, in particular, advocated increases in education [i.e., tuition], particularly when, only when, they could see it was tied to something that was important to them. We've had students go to the legislature and advocate increases in tuition to pay higher faculty salaries, for instance." From the same institution, a board member stated, "There are those senators who believe that tuition should be as low as possible and then those who see that we are a value of sorts and say 'raise it 20 percent.’ So. we've got that balancing act in terms of acceptability there. And then we've got the balance between the taxpayers who want low tuition because their kids are in school and those who want students to pay more of it. I guess I see it as this balancing act between the needs of the university and the needs of the taxpaying public, including students." decisic makim effecti' institu' whom. explai strong would “Ppro net on Would 166 C. What are the consequences of these influences on board decision-making? A former President responded, "It can control the decision- making. It depends upon the board of tmstees. again, and how effective it is in making its case; how willing it is to advocate for the institution; how willing it is to either confront the issue or to persuade whomever is influencing the decision to change their view by explaining the circumstances that exist." A non-affiliated respondent said, "The consequences are probably to keep the tuition increase to a minimum independent of need--therefore tending to starve an institution by virtue of having very little relationship to the institution’s need. F aculty, staff, and students are really nothing more than another lobby group when it comes to this who have more or less influence. Generally less." A senior administrator commented, "The legislature is the strongest influencing factor. . . . The Appropriation Committee's bill would make assumptions about tuition and incorporate it into their appropriation of General Funds and so these assumptions would then net out of the appropriations X percent increase. In other words, they would be spending our tuition for us. So that is a very direct influence 'v- becau: percer assurr requir a3pe of that tuition gripe < value . [institt So we not to °Pinio leader (He, SC] Predjc, 167 because they would say, for instance, that we are going to fund 70 percent of your negotiated salary increases and we are going to assume that you will raise tuition 3‘percent, which is the amount required for 30 percent of that load. Then, on day one, we're faced with a 3 percent tuition increase and anything we need to do comes on top of that. That's a pretty direct influence." One board member said, "We've never had major issues over tuition policy in the years that I've been a board member. The students gripe a little bit, but, for the most part, we are perceived as giving value for the money spent. Over the last 7-10 years, tuition at [institution] hasn't gone up that much more than the cost of inflation. So we don’t have huge, long, laborious discussions over tuition. That's not to say they won't happen, but they haven't happened yet.” D. Which external and internal opinions are valued most? Which opinions are valued least? A former President responded, "The opinions of political leadership probably influence it the most. I think the least influential are, sadly, probably the faculty. . . . Far too often, I think the tuition is predicated upon external forces versus the true needs of the institution. But, as and a: peopl involv since ' appro philos .. Fac Agree: "The A the Go [Heseg staff." CIlllCQ] 168 But, again, some trustees feel the issue of accountability very greatly and are influenced by those who they perceive to be representing—-the people at large and their perception of what the people want." A former board member stated, "Political parties are not involved, except the legislators. The playing field has changed . . . since the legislature now has put a relationship between their appropriation and capping tuition. And I don't disagree with that philosophically. . . . [The] faculty is a strong influence in this decision. . . . Faculty collectively will say we believe we are due this X increase." Agreeing and disagreeing, a non-affiliated participant commented, ”The Appropriations and the Fiscal Committees in the legislature and the Governor are the overwhelming dominant source in setting tuition. [Researchen Whose opinions are valued least?] Probably faculty and staff." Another non-affiliated respondent said, "[The] self-perpetuating person is more likely to be responsive to the internal dynamics of what I would call the enterprise or the organization than the one who is appointed as a consequence of more external factors. But I’m afraid that can breakdown because it's the quality of the person that is critical. . . . I have seen, occasionally, board members who really ‘wanh llore theta afien' Then when ngnfi bang emph lOp (It Dhec ontus COgni Use sc Dhed secon Third 169 wanted to cow-tow to the appointing authority, which is the Governor. More typically, I've seen board members not open to being swayed by the appointing authority. The appointing authority rarely pays any attention to the appointee once its been done." A politician commented, "The Governor leads as number one. Then the legislature and then, probably, the broader community from whence a person comes and relates to. . . . The press is a pretty significant influence towards holding the line on tuition as opposed to being least valued. Probably in the least valued category would be the employees of the institution, the staff, administrative, Not so much the top administrators, but I'm talking about the staff." A board member said, "I value to a great extent the Executive Director's opinion. . . . Because of his long tenure, we've come to rely on his recommendations. I think that the institutional heads are cognizant of a political atmosphere and because of that they maybe use some self-restraint in terms of tuition. So I would put our Executive Director's recommendation first. The institutional heads have the second influence probably because they'll get up and make their case. Third. I would look to the students and parents." self-pe any op tuition: never] sometl rubber are val charge. acaden iIIlportt rarely i inVOlve Views c the 3qu preside anemic “990th most Qt' 170 At one university, with a board of more than 15 members and a self-perpetuating component, a board member stated, "I'm not hearing any opinions. I don't know enough about why they raised it [i.e., tuition] or why it is so high. Why do they have to have it that high? It's never really explained to us as a board. Not unless I'm missing something. It's never discussed that much. It's a perfect example of a rubber stamp." At another institution, an interviewee stated, "The opinions that are valued most would be the [very top university officers] who are charged with the responsibility for the entire enterprise. . . . The academic officers, senior administrators, of course, would have a very important role to play as would the business officers. Faculty are rarely involved in the tuition decision. . . . Students, obviously, are involved. . . . Ultimately the board has the say on tuition and so their views are taken very seriously at all stages." A board member from the same institution commented, "I value most internally the President's [input]. He's our chief administrator and I pay serious attention to the things he recommends. If I don't agree with him, I negotiate it off line--not in a public meeting. Externally, I think we pay most attention to the impact that tuition increases will have on our duder flungs tocon wank TheSt mnon precet butuh board [boon aveq bethe along Comm try, Y inlstc flunk 171 students. Our least external importance has to do with the legislative things. [In our state, a former] Governor challenged the [board's] right to control their own budget. He wanted to allocate the budget and wanted more control over what was then a pretty autonomous board. The State Supreme Court ruled that . . . the [board] does have an autonomous relationship with their budget. . . . So there's some precedence to say 'Yeah, okay, we have to deal with the legislature,’ but ultimately they can't come in and reset a tuition rate." Another board member from this same institution said, "The President, and the [board secretary] has a tremendous amount of common sense and has a very unique ability to think through for every action what is going to be the reaction. So I place a lot of my judgment on what he thinks, along with the President, and our corporate legal counsel has that common sense as well. [Researcher What abOut the media?] Oh, they try. Yes. Idon't pay attention to them. We have [X] major newspapers in [state] and, from time to time, they just love to stir things up and I think they purposely do that just to sell more newspapers. And some of our [board members] react right along with them." At one other university, a participant stated, "The biggest influence to us in setting tuition is how far out of line are we with our comp] respo assoc who d pretty of Fin [Rese them? self-p PTOCG 172 competitors--that, and being able to balance the budget." One respondent commented, "I think the input from the student governing association is considered to be quite important. Obviously, the people who deal with admissions, the student affairs area, I think have a pretty good sense of what the market will bear. The Provost and VP. of Financial Administration are strong influences upon the board. [Researcherz Are there opinions that have little value attached to them?] Oh lots. Oh, probably the press." E. How might a board member's role differ if s/he was selected by a self-perpetuating board rather than through a statutory political procedure? One non-affiliated respondent commented, "[The] self- perpetuating board [member] would feel less initial pressure to do what a legislature or a Governor would have wanted. . . . I would say there's a greater amount of sense of independence and principled argument in a self-perpetuating board. They become a more effective lobbying group relative to the issue of tuition when they were independent of political appointment or election, which is, of course, Why most states don't want to have self-perpetuating boards." .ljus tnnve thatfi dean: Their iackn theme coukl those heahl bass lSSUes discot could Shouk Ideal} fight] 173 A politician said, "I don't think there would be much difference. . . . I just don't see that much variation in the tuition policies of the universities throughout the whole country. . . . It's entirely conceivable that the broader trends and pressures in society are making the determinations here and not the board [members] at the institutions. . . . The boards, themselves, aren't all that powerful because of other factors. How they're selected is even less significant than the boards themselves." A former President stated, "[Self-perpetuating board members] could feel free to make decisions that they thought were right, not those that would be acceptable to some constituency. So, it should be healthier. . . . Trustees at a private institution [are not selected] on the basis of their political affiliations or their attitudes toward certain issues. [The institution] just looks for competent people. .‘ . . I've t discovered that the people they pick are just the very best people they could find--in a self—perpetuating board." A former Land-Grant board member stated, "Ideally, no [the role shouldn't differ based on the selection process]. Realistically, yes. Ideally, they would both be motivated by loyalty to the institution and right-mindedness. Doing the right thing for the right reasons. Reah Espet reaht depi posfii unpa flung. 'wouk Sflafii Sell~p belWE pelpe 174 Realistically, that doesn't happen in the political environment. Especially if you're are going for a second or third nomination. It's a reality that you have to be judged by the public ultimately, but the first step in that process is by the political party. If you do as I did, take positions which alienated certain influential members, it clearly has an impact. So, for some people, it would deter them from doing the right thing. It didn't deter me. I didn't make decisions based on whether it would help or hinder my re-election. . . . There's a lot of posturing to gratify those who would re-nominate them." An interviewee affiliated with a board selected by multiple processes, including self-perpetuating, said, "I think those that come from the legislature, particularly those that might be still serving in the legislature--where a tuition decision might come up, I think they're always thinking how this is going to play to their constituents; whereas I think the self-perpetuating group has more concern probably about making sure we have a balanced budget." One board member, from a different university, but also with a self-perpetuating component, responded, "I can't differentiate between our gubernatorial appointed members and our self- perpetuating members on the subject of tuition. I can't recall an inskr appo gubei scenc .ch bewd Inenfl seetl both 1 look( dont insfih 175 instance where I heard a comment [like] 'that's the Governor's appointee saying that.’ It may sound unreal, but that's just the fact." A board member from a different institution with only only gubernatorial appointed members said, "I think there's two dangerous scenarios. One is where a Governor would politically appoint a board . . . that . . . would carry out the Governor's program. The other would be where you have a self-perpetuating board that would eliminate members that it did not philosophically or ideologically agree with. I see those two scenarios as the same. They're both dangerous and they both would result in a board not looking at all the factors it ought to look at, but looking at only those factors that gave it similarity. . . . I don't like the whole notion of a self-perpetuating board . . . at a public institution, though." A respondent from another university with a self-perpetuating component of members commented, "That isn't an issue for us. It really hasn't been. In other words, legislators don't come there with their minds fixed about not raising tuition. They really don't. One of the things about this whole open meetings things is they [the public] get to look at all the facts. You know. they [i.e., the facts] don't lie." One 5 that i legisl selec issue politil boarc neWS perpe more Pohfit degre Where bOard lor fa] if ll Wt 176 One interviewee from that same university said, "We all act as one on that issue." I". Are there issues that tend to involve gubernatorial and legislatively selected board members more than board members selected through the self-perpetuating procedure? A politician said, "Without question. Those would be a set of issues that are more of the political arena. . . . I think any of the politically sensitive issues are more likely to be reflected on elected boards of trustees because peeple will view it as a chance to be in the newspaper and get some name recognition, whereas if you have self- perpetuating boards, you tend to have kind of an internal politics and more of a seriousness about the institution politics and not the external political issues." Another non-affiliated participant commented, "I think only by degree. I think the dominant issues are the dominant issues no matter Where you go. I suspect that in elected or appointed [by the Governor] boards there's a greater chance of political ideology and less tolerance for far left or far right views on college campuses than there would be if it was self-appointed." who 1013b: havir anytl state peoy Two- state men imme With I YeCIrs 177 A board member selected by a legislature stated, "Yes, because of the state legislature giving an appropriation to the university. We're lobbied very heavily to talk to the members of the legislature who decide how much money the university gets and we do our job, the lobbying. We aren't always successful, but we try." Another Land-Grant affiliated person associated with a board having a self-perpetuating component said, "Yes, community issues, anything that would involve anything the university is doing in the state is more of a concern and certainly would involve more of the people who live in-state [i.e., legislatively selected board members]." Two-thirds of the self-perpetuating members of this board live out of state. IV. Are board member selection procedures and board members perceived to be better or worse than ten years ago? This section of questions, beginning with the question immediately above, seeks to find perspectives on attributes associated with Land-Grant board members that have evolved in the last ten years. .-——- “$h- .:-- .— .-'.-~_.-:-_ -‘ p.‘ selec the r. If) don't direc ticke are tl Tenn] lndicc PUblit to the 178 A. Are board member selection procedures and board members selected perceived to be better or worse than ten years ago? A former Land-Grant board member responded, "I don't think the process ever worked. . . . This is all bullshit. That's the fallacy of it. . . . So, does the public know who they're voting for? Of course they don't. What they're voting for is a straight party ticket. . . . There was a direct parallel between your partisan affiliation and the straight party ticket in any given year and that is the correlation right there." A former Land-Grant President said, "The view of most of my colleagues is that they've deteriorated, that the quality of trustees has diminished, that they have become more intrusive than in the past. The kinds of people who are willing to serve as trustees at public universities is not of the quality it once was. . . . Most of my colleagues [former presidents of Land-Grant institutions] now say that the boards are the principal reason for their leaving and they don't feel supported. Tenures of the presidents have dropped and that's a pretty good indicator. There are a substantial number . . . who have gone from the public to the private sector--and I don't see any going from the private to the public sector. And that's a pretty good barometer. . . . There's a huge poht wors pres: trust invol selec 179 huge litany of these people who just grew tired of dealing with the political process." Another non-affiliated participant said, "I think they're getting worse because the process is becoming more politicized as the budget pressures have increased. And because of the legal liabilities of being trustees, because of the demands, the pressures, the onerous tasks involved." A politician from a state with a formalized board member selection committee commented. Has that system worked well? I would say yes. In fact, many times our biggest dilemma . . . has been which person to chose. There have really been some good people that have come forward. It's created another issue, [however]. When you have two to four very prominent people that have been very successful in their other endeavors and only one of them gets to be a [board member], . . . that's created some problems for us because you, quite frankly, get some folks that aren't used to finishing second or third. [Researcher Does that dissuade some peOple from participating?] Well, that's one of our fears. . . . The [board member] selection committee [is] running into some differ boon much 180 difficulty getting people to come forward. So there are several bills pending before the legislature to change our process and one of them is [to] narrow that list so you would have not quite the visibility of who wins or who loses. You might put a single name forward [to the legislature] and that way they would accept or reject that person. [If they reject that person.] then they would submit another name. . . . So, on the one hand we're successful, but it is creating the other problem. . . . Have we improved? I think overall the board has functioned very well. Whether they're a better board typically in the last ten years than they were prior, it's very difficult to judge. Some boards have been better than others. Another politician commented, "I don't think there's any difference overall. I think they do okay. I'm not cynical about the boards of tmstees. I think people are people and I don't think there's much difference." A senior administrator said, "I would say better and the reason for that is that ten years ago, there was virtually no change in our board. If you got on this board, you were never asked to leave. You left when you died. Well, the people that were implementing that next rnak lawn don“ cych thne down than Inedt W€tt lflGZG say; Cons 181 decision finally died. Those that replaced them came in with a different viewpoint that I think was more informed. . . . So I think the next wave of leadership realized that serving forever really didn't make sense. But, there is no mandatory retirement age in the by- laws." At another Land-Grant institution, a board member stated, "I don't know that they're getting any better. . . . I think that's probably a cyclical thing. . . . The statute hasn't been changed." At a different institution, a board member commented, "Any time they're [board members] visible and active, the perception goes down. . . . The public wants to believe that the President knows more than [they] do. . . . It's very easy to paint [them] as interlopers, meddlers, or intruders. . . . So the more visible we are, the less effective we're perceived to be. . . . We're supposed to show up with a [color] blazer on, we get introduced, and we step out of the light. I always say, 'If you don't like us making decisions, then change the constitution." One interviewee stated, "I would say neither better nor worse. . . . It was political selection then, political selection now. The quality, I mec SOIIl you' ago. less were indit Som 182 mean, sometimes you're lucky if you get really good people, and sometimes you're not. It's driven by the election among other things." A senior administrator commented, "I think that depends on who you're asking. The board is a different kind of a board than ten years ago. It would be considered less of an establishment board. Certainly less white, male businessmen. At one point, half of the board members were women two years ago. There's a much wider array of types of individuals than there have been. I tend to think that's a good thing. Some may not think it's a good thing." At the same institution, a board member stated, "I don't think there's any change in the process or in the quality. . . . What I think has changed . . . is . . . that up until probably 1980 or so, the board was run as a good ol' boys club. All the decisions were made ahead of time. They had a meeting for 20 minutes. They all voted yes. Then they went out and played golf. . . . But somewhere in the early 1980's, that good ol’ boys club was dissolved. Women were elected to the board. A younger brand of [board member] with different ideas started being elected and that changed and meetings became the time when you discussed issues. There was more disagreement. It became less of a social club and more of a working relationship." Also from the same institution, anofl quite the p abus crap they‘ beca YSCII of a, oher grou We'v lhne 183 another board member commented, "I would feel they're probably not quite as good as they were 10 years ago. A lot of that has to do with the press. The qualified people, . . . they're not willing to take [the abuse]." At a different university, an interviewee said, "That's kind of a crap shoot, you know. It's a mixed bag. Self-perpetuating groups-- they've generally been the strongest group. I think actually better because I think more care is given now to developing criteria. Ten years may not be the exact cut—off point, but at one point it was more of a, quite frankly, an old boy network. The self-perpetuating group is often referred to as the alumni trustee [group]. . . . Self-perpetuating groups generally are alums, but they certainly don't have to be and we've had plenty that aren't. The gubernatorial group as a whole, over time, has been a strong group. [Researcher Are the gubernatorial appointees perceived to be better than the legislators?] I hesitate to say better. . . . They've been stronger, I think. They tend to be business people from [state] who have more of a sense of running an organization. Some may come in with that kind of strength that a lot of the legislators don't have." mat imp pres into OPP and or p; invo micr with state or m dete: now eI1te1 184 B. Is knowledge of higher educational institutions. academic matters. and fiscal understanding of those selected perceived to be improving? A non-affiliated participant responded, "I think it's worsening. It’s very hard for people to balance an issue of what is good without presuming first that it might not be affordable and, therefore, don't go into depth on an issue. They're asking a bottom line question as opposed to a utilitarian question-~a question of value. I think, more and more, trustees are elected or appointed [to have this as] their sole or primary role. So the whole disposition of becoming intimately involved with conditions of 'ought' versus 'is' has gotten worse. And micro-management has deepened which means people are dealing with trees rather than forests." One other non-affiliated interviewee ‘ stated, "I certainly don't think it's improving. Whether it's deteriorated or not would be hard to answer. I would be inclined to think it has deteriorated. It certainly has not improved." A former President said, "I think it's less. They're more likely now to be people who are active politically and have agendas who enter in with a special, specific purpose rather than people who come intl insti cha] has the 1 mm cent to o] Sol 185 in there open-minded — just committed to enhancing the quality of the institution." And a politician commented, "I don't think there's a great deal of change. The irony of all this is that I'm tempted to say that the level has improved at [university], for example, just because they're not in the newspaper as much as they were, but that's kind of a cynical sort of vieWpoint. . . . But, oftentimes, one's impression is, 'Oh, things are running smoothly and trustees are doing the job,’ when they're not the center of [attention], so it's more one's impression of how things ought to operate as opposed to a knowledge level of the boards of trustees. So I don't think there's any substantial difference." Speaking of her/his experience at one institution, a respondent stated, "If you were to read the [number] resumes [of the board members] leaving aside the statutory [appointees]. you would be impressed that they represent the cream of what you want for a governing board. . . . We could be one hell of a governing body if we governed." Another participant said, "I think we're doing a better job of figuring out what they're [i.e., self-perpetuating nominating committee members] looking for. . . . In fairness to them, the new group of [board members] is a little more perceptive, sharper, and are aski And chat yea: idec in a: bror tunc getti tiIne W0rl of lh I86 asking more questions. . . . Yes, we have a more informed group." And one other interviewee commented, "We've made some structural changes that cause us to be better informed in that regard. Several years ago, we created a formal visiting committee structure with the idea of bringing more people into the governing process, particularly in areas where they have special expertise or interest. That has brought to us people very well informed in particular areas and they function in liaison with the standing committees. . . . I would say that has resulted in . . . more sources of input coming in." A participant from a different institution said, "If you're going to take a very short-term look at that, the three new [board members] we have compared to the three who just retired after [number] years, the answer would have to be 'yes.’ But that's a pretty short cycle to look at. . . . Not that the [previous] individuals are bad people, [we] just got better ones now." At another institution, a board member commented, "Sure [it's getting better]. I don't see how you can sit here and spend as much time as we all do and not gain a better knowledge of how this place works. Now, [with] some people on this board, . . . the academic issues of this institution don't interest them at all. Well, that's their loss. But, “.1.- itsc insh IIIUC sorn hnpi drav app: unfit ham ldnd Peg; CQIe EElect 0t th. 187 it's our loss as well because they have an equal vote." At the same institution, one other board member stated, "I think it improves as much as communication [improves]. In other words, we have rapport with the President. The reason we're effective at [institution] right now is that we have shared vision with the President and, therefore, there's a flow of information. If we didn't have shared vision, [a] skilled administrator [will] only give you what you have sense enough to ask for." Another interviewee responded, "Sometimes I think so and sometimes I don't. . . . As a general pattern, I do not see a general improvement under our system--it tends to be sort of the luck of the draw. I don't see any advantage being gained by gubernatorial appointment. If you have a good Governor who cares about universities, they may select the best people regardless of party. This happens to be [by] election . . . which is driven by narrow, . . . political kinds of concerns. It's almost patronage for the party faithful. . . . People don't care about [board member] elections very much. They care about gubernatorial elections and they care about presidential elections--and the [board member] folks drag in on the coattails most of the time." imr imp mo: I166 littl real inte 30m Othe 0110 to., “'1. vs...——. «.a‘. -LL_=._. ~ ., M‘ f— 188 At a different institution, a board member commented, "It is not improving in terms of our people elected with those skills. It is improving if you consider willingness to learn about those issues-—a more open mind on the part of the board members." A respondent from another university stated, "I think it is, but it needs to improve more. I would be happier if our whole board was a little more enlightened in [these] areas." C. Are board members focused primarily on single issues or are they interested and participative in a variety of issues? A former President commented, "I'm afraid more often than not they are focused on some single issue-~at least when they come on the board. And some never change." A former board member stated, "You really can't generalize on that. . . . Some come with agricultural interests, some with union interests, some with legal interests. . . . Some come in and they want a winning football team. They look at other things as well." A non-affiliated participant responded, "I think they're running on or being appointed on more single issues--but still heavily related to . . . the budget. . . . I think people get appointed increasingly on sin oth inte ant to l on] issr giv< sou dim in (I For are 189 single issue politics and this makes it difficult for people to move into other areas of policy when it's not theirs. Another non-affiliated interviewee commented, "They ought to be focused on larger issues and not a specific or single issue. The reality is that most of them tend to be focused on specific and partial issues. . . . [When one issue is] the only thing they ever get excited about, . . . that person tends to lose their influence on a lot of other issues and doesn't get listened to." One politician said, "I don't think there's any question there--they're interested in a variety of issues. . . . You might have a trustee . . . who. is fixated on athletics. Another trustee might be interested in distance learning. But I think that's not the rule. I think the rule is that trustees, by and large, have a variety of interests, get into a variety of different issues, and aren't just bulldogs for their particular interests." At one institution, an interviewee stated, "We have a mix. I can give you a [board member] who, if it isn't an athletic matter, is probably sound asleep. But the lion's share of them really are multi- dimensional." A board member at the same institution said, "Primarily in a variety of issues. We do have a few [board members] who have a particular issue or issues that are especially important to them. They are a definite minority. . . . On the other hand, we've got several [board me tha got thir dec our tror mo: dea hav poll boa "Atl boa rele iIldi: CIStc 190 members] that are extremely interested in athletics. Great fans and all that kind of stuff. They are hyper-sensitive to athletic issues. We've got a few who are interested in religious matters, and that kind of thing." At a different institution, a board member stated, "I think we're dealing with that because we have a strategic plan. We have forced ourselves to come up with . . . five macro-goals. . . . We [also] have to, from month to month, deal with our statutory responsibilities--each month there's something that comes along in a 12 month cycle that we deal with--that we're required by statute to deal with. . . . Because we have a strategic plan, [we] keep focused on the overall direction and policy and good of the university." At another university, in response to a question asking 'are any board members focused on single issues,’ a participant answered "Athletics. [Researcher How do they exhibit that?] They don't come to board meeting prepared to discuss the policy questions that are relevant to the other areas of the university. But if [we're] going to talk about athletics, they are here bright and early. . . . I think their indifference to participation and visibility on academic functions are astonishing. . . . That infuriates me. What we do here is important. If son der. W hat brie con Olht irrit eSp unii cou: sits gets the 191 you don't think it's important, then don't come. Give your seat to someone who wants to make this a better place. . . . I think if you don't demonstrate an interest in the academic life here, there are lots of ways that people are aware of that: you fall asleep when we're having academic presentations: you don't take advantage of the briefings; you don't read the materials; you don't read the reports that come through the staff. I don't think that's being a good steward. And other board members know that. They know who's doing what. . . . It irritates me when other people treat this institution with indifference, especially when in a leadership role." Another participant at the same university stated, "They participate in a variety of issues, but they each have their cluster of special issues." A person at a different institution commented, "We have a couple who are focused very singularly. . . . [One] particular individual sits up and pays attention to . . . one issue a month. . . to make sure he gets into the newspaper. . . . Once he's done his routine and quoted in the newspaper, he sort of tunes the rest of the meeting out. . . . But most of them . . . are genuinely involved in the rest of the issues as well." [bo bet COI ICC the rac tho wh see ins 192 A senior administrator at another institution said, "Each of our [board members] serve on two standing committees. They tend to become more familiar with the issues that are before their particular committees." D. Are board members becoming more diverse with respect to age. race. gender. geography. religion. and occupation? The former Land-Grant President commented, "Intuitively, I feel they're more representative in some ways in terms of gender and of race. I think there's a realization we represent a broader constituency than just white males. I think that's been reflected throughout the whole society. Not just boards of tmstees. In terms of age, . . . I don't see that the board members are getting particularly younger in public institutions." The former Land-Grant board member stated, "Certainly in terms of gender and race. Unfortunately, at _our university, the geographic [diversity] is not as valued as it once was. That value is lacking [because the nominating political parties fail] to remember [they] have [the entire state] to be concerned about." One non- affiliated participant said, "I think they probably are. They certainly are don dive 20y 193 are with regard to race. I don't know about religion so much. And I don't know much about geography. . . . I think there's more racial diversity and there's more gender diversity clearly than was the case 20 years ago. I think it's good." A politician stated, In terms of women, that's probably where there has been the greatest increase over time. [Our problem is] how can we better handle the [racial] diversity issue. One of the issues is when you're electing [board members] by Congressional district, and you don't have any at-large seats, it can create some difficulty in terms of how you develop [racial] diversity on the board. [When two good candidates, a white and a minority, run in the same district,] we unfortunately don't have any flexibility where you could somehow choose them both. . . . The flexibility comes in the form of an at-large seat and the way our system is currently operating, one of every three election cycles is only Congressional district elections. So you end up with no at-large seats to make some adjustments . . . to accomplish diversity when you have two particularly good candidates. . . . I have proposed a constitutional amendment . . . to increase the size of dur the get on] ele CIW bot 194 our board by three and move it to 15 with 3 additional at-large seats . . . . [The new three year election cycle] would go two at- large, two at-large, three at-large along with the Congressional districts and that would allow us to be more flexible. The other politician said, "I think that a great diversity occurred during the '70's and '80's and they’re probably less diverse now than they were [then]." A Land-Grant institution participant stated. "Yes. First of all geography: the Charter demands that they be divided up by count. The only place where we've gotten more diverse there is recently we've elected to invite out-of-‘state members to join the board. . . which I think is a good move. Secondly, [30 percent] of the self-perpetuated members are women and [25 percent] of the gubernatorial appointments are women. We have three minority females. We have one Hispanic. If we took a snapshot of the board 10 years ago, you wouldn't have had those people. You would have had some women, but I think we've worked a little on the diversity question. Andl think we've added a few more women. I don't think we're going to win any award, though. . . . You're not going to have the Rainbow Coalition." A board member from the same institution said. "There are more white ma Olt the res intt yet is t sor per the (Int Yet ten hot (ICC 195 males in their 50's and 60's than anything else. But, we have a number of women. We have a number of blacks." At a different institution, a board member commented, "I think they are with respect to gender and race. I think they are here with respect to geography because the Governor likes that. . . . I think we're fairly diverse, but probably not as diverse as we could be though." An interviewee from the same institution stated, "It's been close to 25 years [that] we've had a minority. We've had comparable worth, which is the gender balance, for more than 20 years. There's always been some people in their 40's. Of course, we've always had a young person because of the student requirement. We do have people in their 60's, occasionally people in their 70's--people of accomplishment and wisdom, although age doesn't necessarily confer wisdom." A board member from another university stated, "We're fortunate. We do have a diverse body. Yes, more diverse than 10 years ago. . . . We're heavy with lawyers. In terms of age, yes. In terms of gender, [more than one-third] are women . . . and we're not shy about speaking up, about being heard. I think the men on our board respect us. . . . I think we're pretty well balanced. That's an accident of the election process." And, at the same university, an int] thc mc to] wh Inc a it QIE prt QCII pre pet del org div bot 196 interviewee said, "Yes, they are because there's so much noise about that. It's politically correct. . . . I'm saying if the board was all white males with the same background, the board [wouldn't] have the insight to be able to really add what they should . . . At one institution, a respondent said, "Yes. They used to all be white males. Then there was a single female who looked like a White male very often. And then, finally, there was a female that looked like a female. . . . But that, to me, doesn't represent true diversity. . . . We are still, for the most part, operating within a certain class structure". At another university, a board member stated, "Ours definitely is probably more diverse than it was 10 to 15 years ago. We run the gamut from 35 to 70 years old. Race — all white. In [state], there's only 3 percent black, maybe 2 percent Hispanics and others. So you're ' pretty much 95 percent white. Gender--at one point we had [50 percent] women on the board. . . . Occupation--we have an attorney, a dentist, a Ph.D., 2 business people, a person who runs [a non-profit organization]. So it's pretty diverse." An interviewee from a different university responded to this diversity question by stating, "That's where the self-perpetuating board members come from for the most part. We usually have one or twc brii bat uni CGI per we do: yet per tho the tha wh. grc [he set. the 197 two members of the self-perpetuating board from the state, but the rest of them are all from out of state. It's been great because [these] people bring another set of values, backgrounds, and cultures to bear in the board meetings and it's healthy." Another participant from the same university said, "In terms of ethnic diversity, that’s improving and it's certainly a consideration that's openly discussed when self- perpetuating trustees meet and talk about the next class. Gender-~it's improved since the early 70's. It depends a lot on whether the group we get from the legislature includes women or not. Something we don't have any control over. But I think the balance varies from year to year--from respectable to not so great. [Researcher Is the self- perpetuating group more diverse with respect to ethnicity and gender than the legislative group?] Certainly ethnicity. That's the only place they generally come from-—although students sometime will provide that. Again, that's a consideration of the [self-perpetuating] trustees when they’re thinking about the new group and trying to balance the group that has been provided by the legislative. So it varies." [Researcher's note: In this state, the self-perpetuating board members select, by themselves, their successors; the legislative members, by themselves in an election, select the legislative board members]. dlt dit re< jut 6V 9V C62 se: tht tht trc for (iii a 1 (11'. 198 B. What are the consequences of changes in board member diversity? ' A non-affiliated participant commented, "Because there is more diversity, in a broad sense, boards are more representative of the realities of the total society. . . . But high caliber is not related, in my judgment, to gender or race. Some of thevery, very best trustees I've ever worked with are people of color and trustees that are women. I think boards, in a certain sense, are more democratic by far than they ever were before. That's probably true in the private sector, too. It's certainly true in the public sector." A former president said, "Generally speaking, it's positive. They serve as a social conscience for the board of trustees. They assure that the institution is representative of a broad constituency. They assure that under-represented groups are in programs which they traditionally may not have been found. . . . That's all very positive." A former board member stated, "The agenda changes. . . . Cultural diversity takes on a new meaning when you've got someone who . . . is a racial minority. [With] gender diversity, you have more people who are sensitive to and are pushing or supportive of agendas that would (ISE thc IeC CIIl CCII the tht bet pe Ori co: ret SE] to 199 assure gender equity in sports and faculty hiring, student count, all those things." A politician responded, "I think it's important for a variety of reasons that we have a board that represents the makeup of [state] and, hopefully, as a result of that there's more sensitivity on the board- -and that's why I'd like to see flexibility [in selection processes] so we can address those issues better." Another politician stated, "Like I say, there’s probably less gender sensitivity and racial sensitivity today than there was in the 70's and 80's. . . . I think the last 10 years has been a substantially more conservative time period." A participant from a university responded. "I think as younger people come on the board, they've experience a whole different orientation on those issues." A board member at the same university commented, "We don't have any minimums [i.e., diversity requirements]. It's not divided up proportionately, but there is a sensitivity to the fact that you’re expected to have a certain diversity in your board membership today." A board member at a different university said, "These are positive changes. Women bring a different set of values and attitude to the table than men do. I think that helps heighten the gender qt] YO let sn fir CO hc 9C. re cc in th CC 200 question" (3). Another board member from this university stated, "I think it's very positive. I think any time you have a diverse group. you're much stronger. . . . I contend that most people who have played team sports don't have a prejudice because they've had an exposure . . . and understand that they're all the same. So some guy who hasn't had that exposure [has] certain types of stereotypes and prejudices. I'm saying the diversity of the board has made everyone much smarter." And another respondent from this university commented, "I find that generally, on most diversity issues, the board is very conservative, regardless of party." At a different institution, a senior administrator stated. "I think we’re finding a wider focus. In 1991, when the board was composed of half women, . . . the board established the first commission on gender equity, looked at pay inequities, . . . established 7 principles which they revisit every year, . . . and the following year established a similar commission on minority affairs where, again, they looked at pay inequities, recruiting or retention of minority faculty and students. . . . I think access issues have become perhaps more important because of a more diverse board." A board member from this same institution commented, "I'm definitely more aware of the gender equity issues thc mc eq‘ do SS qt rel pr: 201 than I was when I first came on the board. I feel that the board has made some headway in the last 15 years as far as the issues of gender equity, but we still have a ways to go--and some of the departments don't have a great record as far as getting the ratio up. The [board members] tend to watch that now." V. What recommendations regarding board member selection procedures (and why) do you have to improve the quality of Land-Grant university boards? This section asks the research participants several questions relating to various aspects of Land-Grant board member selection procedures and how they might be improved. A. What recommendations do you have regarding board member qualifications? A non-affiliated respondent commented, In the first place, don't expect too much. Most board members are going to be appointed by Governors. Governors are politicians. It is not going to be a purist. antiseptic process. But 202 there are a lot of Governors that are certainly well-intentioned and want to do the right thing and are conscious that if they make good appointments, that plays back on them and whatever political aspirations they have. . . . Could [we] somehow engage enough Governors to commit themselves to a code of even better practices in the kinds of people they send forward as nominees, given the fact that alrnost all boards,.and Land-Grants, and public universities, are gubernatorial appointments? I'd like to be able, if it's possible politically, . . . to get the attention of Governors on this matter. . . . [It] would be nice in getting corporate America to see their interest in having better quality trustees appointed in the public sector which educates over 82 percent of our students. (That includes the community colleges). The former President stated, "Those qualifications ought to be clearly defined, in my view, to qualify for a university trusteeship. Ideally, the person should have received a college education, not necessarily a doctoral degree, but have been through college so that they understand what the college experience should be all about. Secondly, you would hOpe they would bring a special expertise to the ho ho re; Oil to ldt of III 05 SC 203 board and that would add to the diversity of the board in terms of its membership. . . . You'd like to have people from a spectrum of backgrounds and one could define that. The board should be broadly representative. Thirdly, they ought to come without an agenda. They ought to come with an open mind. . . . They ought to say, 'I'm prepared to listen to all views,’ and not feel obligated to represent some single ideology. . . . I think it's legitimate for a state institution to expect its trustees to be from that state. What I don't accept as legitimate is having to say that the person ought to be a graduate of that institution." A former board member said, "I think you should be a graduate of a Land-Grant university. You should be a graduate of a public university. . . . I think you have to think globally. You cannot have a parochial or myopic vieWpoint. . . . There should not be any restriction as to economic status. The more diversity in that respect, the better some judgments will be." A politician said, "I think it's a mistake to set minimum qualifications. For example, I think there's a time when it's maybe appropriate to have a student on your board. If you had minimal 6X Fi: be “I he or or th lu: is: 204 qualifications, you'd never have a studentqualify. Does he have age, experience, background?" At one institution, a senior administrator stated, "I think it's a mistake to have a shopping list of absolutely. . . the things which you must have. I would like to think that the most important thing is a ' nominating committee that has the ability to take a look at themselves and say we can't have [number] of the same. . . . I think that the only thing where I feel frustrated is . . . the geographic requirement balance. Finding good [board members] in those [lesser populated] counties has been a struggle." A board member from another institution said, "I would want to appoint people who had demonstrated . . . fiscal understanding, . . . who have an understanding about academics and education. . . . who have an understanding about medicine because we have . . . hospitals and clinics-~people who generally are good decision-makers and have an ability to take a macro view and to look at the big picture. . . . I think it's really important to have people on the board who want to further the quality of the educational enterprise in this state. . . . The issue is what can we do to further access qualified [nickname of state's ci' Ct th [R CC ex tht ar bc de de 205 citizens] and to make the product [i.e., board members] better. . . . Community involvement is critical, too." A board member at another university commented, "I think the [political] parties ought to set some non-political standards for filling those slots. . . . They ought to be non-political standards. . . . [Researcher You mentioned earlier some type of a blue-ribbon committee or a commission, perhaps non-partisan, to establish a pool. Is that something you would recommend?] I think it ought to be looked at. . . . There are a lot of qualified people in this state who should be serving in these positions who simply will not get themselves involved because they have to be elected like this. So, yes, I think it could be very helpful if it was chosen in the right way." At one institution, a senior administrator stated, "[I think] some experience with post-secondary education would be a requirement that's very desirable. . . . I think the relationship of being an alumnus is an important component--to be an advocate for the institution." A board member from this institution said, "I think the qualifications have to be more esoteric than concrete. I'd be looking for people who demonstrate leadership skills, who through other involvement have demonstrated willingness to negotiate. to compromise, to collaborate. CO] YO' etc ins SO ec is: trt 206 . . . I would be opposed to looking at socio-economic status. contributions as a' [board member] (you know, how many dollars have you given to the university). contributions to political campaigns, etcetera--ability to think issues through, demonstration that you've worked with tough issues." Another board member, also from this institution, stated, "They should have the ability to assess problems with common sense and dignity." At a different institution, a respondent commented, "In my ideal world, nobody would run for a board until they had really shown, in some way, an understanding of public policy issues related to higher education. . . What you want is a board which is made up of people with enough different talent that collectively. . . can deal with the issues and teach one another. . . . There ought to be people with legal training, and there ought to be people who come out of higher education at the undergraduate and graduate level, maybe even out of the institution itself. There ought to be people who know about finance and budgets--some folks from arts and letters as well as from natural science. [Researcher Does the election process facilitate this?] Not necessarily. Appointment might facilitate it more.” 207 One board member stated. "I would like to see enough diversity and . . . women. I don't want it to be the good ol' boys that it used to be." Another interviewee said, "I would certainly find it desirable for the legislature to develop criteria. In the best of all worlds, that would be in coordination with the university so that there could be a mutual understanding of types of individuals that should serve on the board. . . . The self-perpetuating group, I think, is doing a pretty good job of that." A board member at another university stated, "I happen to believe that the process we have where you have to fight your way up through your party, which is in many cases pretty tough, and have the party leadership, the Governor, the Speaker of the House, or whoever, endorse and ratify you, [works] pretty well. . . . I have to believe people putting themselves on the ballot reflects [their] commitment-- demonstrates a certain type of commitment because it's awfully tough losing an election." idt CID C0 kt dt 208 B. What recommendations do you have regarding processes to identify potential governing board members? A former board member stated, "I think a commission would be an excellent idea because of the public nature of the [institution]. A commission that has a cross-section of the public, a commission [that would] be university and mission specific, a commission that would have legitimacy with the Governor and legislature in terms of nominating candidates." One non-affiliated participant said, "[A] non—partisan commission would be one way. Under an optimal scheme, I would argue for a self-perpetuating board that drew its recommendations from any and all sources. . . . One would want to have the most open nomination process. '. . . The problem with the nomination process is that there's an implied quota system at times. You have to have so many people brought in from here and so many brought in from here to keep constituent groups happy, so the nominating process becomes a de facto election process. [Researcher Would you like to see the process de-politicized?] Completely" Another non-affiliated participant commented, "This is very subjective. I certainly think it's appropriate to involve stakeholders and alumni leaders. I guess my 0? bu CC CC 115 209 optimal group would be 2 or 3 each of the corporate, civic. and business leaders. I've seen that done in Minnesota and elsewhere. [They] have kind of a group that might recommend names--along with some former board members who've been there, done that, and know what's required." A former President said, "There could be a broadly represented commission appointed who would recommend candidates for trustee positions. . . . [They would] come up with a listing of potential candidates whose resumes would be reviewed and then some smaller list would be provided to the Governor for consideration. . . . If the trustees were to be elected (again, I have reservations about that), [it would be] guaranteed the nominees would come out of that pool. . . . The fact is, then the university would not have to worry because it wouldn't matter who was elected from either party. They would all be qualified candidates. I never concern myself about party affiliation." A politician stated, "I always thought that a committee for each school to recruit candidates made a lot of sense--not so much at the state level, but at the institutional level. That committee [would] go out and recruit 10 potential candidates that would think about seeking the nomination. . . . I'd like a committee that would beat the bushes and en [th lis CC it ht 210 encourage qualified people to seek the spot or put their names before [the selection body]. It should stop at that point. [The selection body would] not try and help them get elected or appointed-just . . . create a list of names of people that would consider the position." When asked about the establishment of a non-partisan commission to recommend candidates, a board member stated, "I think it simply places another level of political bureaucracy [in the process]. . . . Our awkward, unorganized, perhaps authoritarian way seems to have worked out well. I am satisfied with everything about this board except how it acts. [Researcher Would it act differently if it had different members?] No. . . . The administration has the capacity to draw in or draw out the board . . . and to have them operate or to keep them in the position they are now. [Researcher Is your board apolitical?] Yes. For the most part, I think so. . . . We do not have any litmus tests that I know of. It's a mystery to me how the self- perpetuating [board members] self-perpetuate themselves, but they're by and large a pretty good group. [Researcher You feel you've got a pretty good board?] We sure do. A very good board. [Researcher You're all upper crust. Is that a fair statement?] Yes. [Researcher Is that good? Is that representative?] I hear you. No. I would have to 211 say that could be improved. . . . If I were to‘do it. I would do it in a very undemocratic fashion." Another board member'commented, "If you're not going to have selection through a self-perpetuating process, then I think my preference would be . . . selection by appointment of some elected official directly without the buffer of a commission or anything else. I think pinpointing responsibility is important. . . . I think electing judges is a terrible system. I think commission selection is a terrible system because your best candidates aren't going to go through that kind of process. . . . The best of the choices . . . is to have appointment by the Governor and where he finds his candidates on his own . . . and he's got the responsibility for getting the good ones and not having the bad ones." At another institution, a board member said, "[In our state,] questionnaires are sent to all nominees. Before you're considered, you have to fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire would show education, what you've done, your involvement in the community. I think the Governor then has an Opportunity to look at your level of involvement, education situation. and try to make an assessment of values. That's fine. . . . I guess part of it is you hope you have the right 212 Governor. The wrong Governor and the wrong board could do a lot of damage to the system and the institutions here in [state]." At a different university, a board member responded, "It doesn't seem to me that there's any real consensus on how to do this and to do it well. The private schools have it all over us because they just go out and pick out these wonderful people who support the institution and I think that's a good starting point. [Researcher Would you recommend a combination of selection processes?] [When a self-perpetuating board looks] at people to fill slots on [the] board, are they typically people that are recommended because they're people [board members] know or [does the board] get a pool of people through the President's office to look at? If it's just from the people who are sitting on the board, that to me in-breeds the whole process. . . . However the pool is put together, you've got to throw a broad net. [Researcher What about having board members from outside the state?] There are times when it's not going to be convenient for them to come all the way across the country to do a meeting. Although our alumni boards do it, they don't meet every month. We meet every month, except [month]. You need to be visible on the campus. You need to be seen." Another interviewee commented, "I'd like to see real diversity in the SG 213 1 selection so screening becomes more complicated when you think about a board that is truly diverse in terms of areas of expertise and interest and understanding. [Researcher Would you prefer state-wide or regional elections for board members?] Maybe regional elections have an advantage. [Researcher Would you prefer partisan or non- partisan elections?] N on-partisan." At another institution, a participant stated, "I'm not sure this is optimal, but I'll throw out an idea of a nominating commission made up of representatives of various constituent groups suCh as alumni. business and industry, agriculture, student/parent groups, and faculty." One other participant at this institution said, "I think that the thing that would be most helpful is that anybody who is being considered for an appointment of this type sit down in a room like this and be told what this job is really all about." At a different university, a board member was asked how s/he would feel about a non-partisan commission that would recommend self-perpetuating board members. The response was, "I think that would be great. Yes, non-partisan. [Researcher Would you like to see more de-politicization of your board?] Yes, I would. Actually, when I'm voting. I don't think of it as what party I'm coming from. I don't feel th re tn CC 214 that's an issue with me on that board. [Researcher Do you have recommendations with respect to the number of elected or appointed trustees?] Actually, I think half and half." Another respondent commented, "The end results should be good if the criteria are good. That's not always what the political process provides." C. What recommendations do you have regarding the election and appointment procedures for Land-Grant institutions? A non-affiliated respondent said, "Get rid of elections and let the board self-perpetuate itself. . . . People are fighting more and more over less and less. . . . The whole purpose of boards has not been educational. It's essentially been a distrust and fiscal issue." Another non-affiliated participant stated. "I'm not opposed to having some trustees selected through other channels, but the fact is, we are public institutions. . . . I think the only realistic outcome is that the public universities, which are public corporations, are going to be appointed through a very public process. [Researcher Would you prefer that opportunities exist to appoint or elect people from outside the state?] Unrealistic. . . . There's really an argument that you need people who have a commitment to that state and have roots there. pe Gt pr ti. b1 215 They're going to be more credible in helping the university deal with local businesses, the local communities, the state legislature, the Governor." A former President commented, "I don't think a self- perpetuating process would work. I don't think most states, most Governors, would be willing to accept that. I don't think the elective process works. So, obviously, I think some kind of appointed process with ratification would be my preference." A former trustee said, "I would want to do away with nominations through the political process. . . . It's just making it better by taking those political aspects away and eliminating them from f decision-making. . . . I think statewide elections are a farce. . . . [Researcher Does the public know who they're voting for?] Of course they don't. What they're voting for is a straight party ticket. This is all bullshit. The only possible exception to that is if you would have off- period elections." A politician stated, "Ultimately, the university is a state institution and I think the governance structure should be such that it recognizes that it is a state institution. [Researcher Do you consider your selection process, even though it's done by the legislature. to be de be stt bc Sc 216 de-politicized?] I would say it's de-politicized in many respects because of the Congressional make-up. [Researcher's note: In this state, a citizen's candidate selection committee recommends potential board members to its legislature from each Congressional district. Some districts have a majority of legislators from one party and other districts have a majority of legislators from another party. Thus, board members are, typically, representative of both parties] Some would argue that was politicized." Another politician said, "I like the appointed board with perhaps a spot or two that would be self- perpetuating." A board member commented, "I'm not sure our board understands very much about the other half or the other two-thirds [of our population]. I think our representation is of a caliber that represents the upper middle-class and above." Another interviewee said, "I think as long as you're getting [number] percent of your budget from the state, I think you really have to acknowledge that with board participation. . . . Obviously, we would be delighted to appoint all [of them]. [Researcher Would your self-perpetuating board members run in elections?] I think a lot of them wouldn't. . . . Some very fine peeple that we're lucky enough to have on our board have said, 'I know damn 217 well there is no way I'm going to go through that.’ As a matter of fact, I would say probably 75 percent of our board that is self-appointed would say 'No way. . . .' I know that we would not have the board we have if it were elected." A board member from another institution stated, "In our case. it depends on the Governor and what kind of a person he is and how balanced he wants to make it and how political he wants to make it. But, on the other hand, you've got checks and balances here because the legislature has put in the statutory requirements [e.g., no more than half of the board plus one can be from one party, no more than half of the board plus one can be from one gender]." At one institution, a participant described her/his preference succinctly as, "Election." Another interviewee said, "I'm not sure that the selection process itself is going to ever overcome the political processes of this state. I'm willing to say 'okay' to a combination of appointed and elected or maybe some regionally, some state, some appointed, or some combination. . . . But I don't think any of it has a chance of succeeding unless . . . the electorate itself takes the board seriously and higher education seriously. . . . Unfortunately, we're still dealing a lot here with the luck of the draw." 218 In one state, which has an elected board, participants advocated for a board that would be constituted through elected and appointed processes. One person commented, "[A] way to do it, which might be better, would be a mixture of appointed and elected." Another said. "The ideal board is a mixture of elected and appointed. I think any appointed officials should not just be appointed by a Governor and be dependent upon that Governor's political persuasion. I think there should be some sort of ratification of these people by the legislature." One other stated, "Leave the board the way it is and add three more and let the Governor appoint those three." D. What recommendations do you have regarding board performance evaluation procedures? A former trustee said, "I'm a strong proponent of board internal evaluation because it does force you to take stock in what you're doing and try to put in some quantitative measures to the extent they're available--or it brings to your attention the fact that you're overlooking one of your fiduciary responsibilities. So, yes, as a board collectively, you need that." th (IE 11: 219 The former Land-Grant President answered, "I think university trustees have a definable set of responsibilities. They ought to be held accountable for satisfying those responsibilities and for assuring that the mission of the institution is being carried out. They ought to be assessed as to how well they go about assuring there is accountability. . . . I think you can look at an institution and say, 'Is it fiscally solvent, using its resources appropriately, controlling its expenditures? Is it of good quality? Are students doing well?’ If they're not attracting good students, why? If it's not meeting the needs of the entire state in terms of having a diverse, representative student body, why not? These are good questions." A politician stated, "I would encourage every board to do that on an annual basis and the Association of Governing Boards has a good process for the board members to go through. . . . I don't know that you can mandate a board to do that. but I would encouage them to do that." A senior administrator said, "I think some sort of informal report card probably wouldn't hurt." A board member from the same institution stated, "I don't think I would have any oversight evaluations except in connection with the question of re-appointment." 220 At another institution, a newer board member commented, "I think that the board ought to collectively have a formal process in place for its own review and I think we ought to ask . . . [administrative] heads for feedback and anonymous feedback. . . . The [administrative] heads may be threatened by it, but there's . . . an informal process [where] they're likely to tell you, 'Gee, I'd really like to see the board do this and deal with it. . . .' I do not think we ought to have a process where we evaluate individual members of the board. It serves no purpose because the Governor's not going to re-appoint [and] not going to remove. So what's the difference." One other board member at the same institution said, "We do it on a macro-basis on the body as a whole. I would think . . . as an organizational audit, . . . we ought to do that about every two years." A board member from one university commented, "I think that boards ought to be tough on themselves and they ought to be able to evaluate their performance and do it candidly with each other." A senior administrator from this university said, 'Yes. I think boards . . . should be more reflective and set their own criteria for performance, . . . set their own policies for conflict of interest. . . . set their own policies 221 or creed for civil behavior. . . . The only time that anything works truly is when the board does it itself." At another institution, a senior administrator stated, "Board self- evaluation activities can play an important part of core development and I wish we could do more of that and I think all of our board members wish we could do more of that." A board member at this same institution said, "I think performance evaluation procedures for board members is really important. That's probably my largest sense of dissatisfaction with our board is there is no way, other than the election process, to evaluate the participation of individual members. . . . I think that some evaluation process, outside of election, would be a helpful thing." E. Do you have recommendations regarding the number of board members on a board. the length of terms. and the number of terms? A former board member stated. "I would think it's [8] about right. I would not go to the large boards. [Researcher Is it more likely in a smaller board, with 8 or 9 members, that one member's agenda or personality could dominate and be disruptive?] It's been known to happen. Usually it takes two. [I] have a personal dispute with the tr 222 [name of trustee] model--which is to say [name of trustee] would make all the decisions and not tolerate any challenge. So, yes, can one person have an influence? Yes, very negatively. Unfortunately, it takes the board chair, because that's the most visible position, to set that negative or positive tone. It's difficult when someone has that visibility for even the majority of the board disagreeing with him to override the impact of that presence or persona." A board member responded, "[One President here] wanted a 26 to 30 member board made up of a Model Cities mother, three welfare people. two Chamber of Commerce people. a manufacturer, a labor leader, two priests, one rabbi, and the whole cross-section, because having a group of 20 plus people would never have any leadership. It would just be kind of a show and tell board. So, 8 and 9 member boards actually are small enough where they actually have some impact because all we haveto do is count to 5 here instead of trying to find a way to count to 16. It's an entirely different process [than] private institutions because their boards are just honorary boards. They're just there to say they're on the board and to help raise and bring some money in. They're not there to have impact on the curriculum. the Provost. the President, anything. Have you been to any of these 223 educational conferences? [Researcher Yes] Now they don't have to say this to the larger private institution boards because it's already that way. What they really want the Land—Grant boards to do is reign, but not rule. . . . When you have 28 or 30 people, . . . that's all that's going to happen. Now on a smaller board, they've got to con us to agree to reign and not rule." A non-affiliated participant stated, "I would argue generally the three or four year term allows for a learning curve and wisdom, particularly if board members can be re-appointed or re-selected. . . . I would argue that 9 [board members] is generally too small and somewhere between 15 and 25 would allow for greater breadth. It would begin to de-politicize. ]ust sheer numbers, alone, will give you a greater amount of perspective. . . . I would argue that in all cases the ability to get two terms is reasonable. I would probably go no longer than that on elected or gubernatorial appointed [boards, but] I would allow for longer terms in a self-perpetuating board." Another non- affiliated interviewee said, "My optimum board is probably about 9, but I've worked with boards as big as 12. I think 4 or 5, although New Mexico State has got only 5, is probably too small. . . . I personally do not favor term limits in general on anything. I'm not a term limits 224 [person]. I favor continuation. Yes, I'm in favor of turnover and change, but that's going to happen. I don't favor forcing people off. I think a 6 year term is about right. I think the California thing, which is 12 years, . . . is too long. My optimum would be 6 years, 9 board members." A politician commented, "I'd prefer the 9 as Opposed to the 28. What happens to the 28, you have an Executive Committee that's really your board. And I think that at the Land-Grant university. the board should be the board and I think anywhere from 7 to 11 members is the, appropriate number. The terms need to be shorter than 8 years. . . . I would think we ought to go with more 4 or 6 year terms. The reason for that is there's really a time lag between the appointment, the appointing source, and the power on the board. For example, [name] has been Governor 8 years now. [S/he] will have appointed all the boards at state universities. Now let's say [s/he] doesn't run again and a [member of the other party] gets elected. Well, all the boards will be controlled by a majority of [political party] for almost the entire length the [new person] might be Governor. So there's little accountability. Kind of a delayed sort of affect. I think the number of terms ought to be unlimited." 225 One board member said, "We couldget along with a lesser number [of board members]. but I don't think it becomes unwieldy provided that it is divided among functioning committees. And I don't necessarily feel the board has to do everything as a board." Another participant responded, "With a board of [more than 15], they say, 'How unwieldy--decisions don't get made. It must just be dreadful.’ Actually, because of the way we've structured this, it's very manageable. That's because we have an Executive Committee of [more than 10] which is really the decision-making body. The rest of them, they show up at board meetings. But from a decision-making standpoint, there's not much there. The one downside of that . . . is for those that don't serve on the Executive Committee, they think there's a sense of 'Are we really involved, and how important are we,’ and I think at times there's some frustration. . . . Actually, we've gotten better on that issue. I think the Executive Committee used to be very secretive. [Now] the Chair sends the minutes of the Executive Committee to the whole board just so they [can] see what was going on. . . . I have to believe that [more than 15] is a big number. I think if we could cut that number down. we'd be better off. I'd say if we could [reduce it by one-fourth], that's probably a better number. [Researcher Would you prefer. for t. 226 example, 4, 6, or 8 year terms?] The downside of a 6 year term is if you appoint a lemon, you're stuck with her/him for six years and you can't get rid of her/him. If the terms were shorter. if you had a non- performer, you'd be able to fix it quicker. Now when you're a board of [more that 15]. you can afford to have a couple non-performers. . One of the things we've done recently, which I think makes a lot of sense, is we appoint everyone for 6 years, but then when . . . their terms come up, we have been re-appointing for something less than 6 years. . . . If they're getting older or if they're just kind of on the bubble, . . . we've re-appointed for three. . . . I think it sends a message. [Researcher Would you limit the number of terms?] If you have a nominating committee that has the intestinal fortitude to make the tough decisions, the answer is no. I'm against term limits for [elected officials]. I basically feel that that's the electorate's job." A board member at another institution commented, "I'm happy with the current situation which is the 9 member board, 6 year terms . . . and I see no need to change it." At one university, a senior administrator responded, "The advantage to a larger board is that the President is able to control it better, very frankly. [Researcher Is that a plus or a minus?] The real it llt 227 fundamental question here is how do you manage that balance of power between trustees and administration? There are days when I believe that presidents withhold too much information from the boards and from the public. . . . Ultimately. with the larger board, you get yourself an executive committee and the President pretty much manages a few folks. . . . What's most important is that the President and the board have a good working relationship. [Researcher What are your thoughts on term lengths?] There's a need for continuity. It takes a while for board members to learn about institutions. . . . Maybe it takes 6 to 8 years for them to really understand and be able to make good judgments. . . . On the other hand, these long terms give folks license. . . . [You want to] balance between continuity and understanding and wisdom that comes with longer time in office versus the need to have new folks coming in and new ideas and preventing people from having license that goes with terms'that are overly long." A respondent from another institution commented, "An optimal number would be around 15. One way to do it would be to appoint 7 and elect 8. [Researcher What about length of terms?] They have 6 year terms. We certainly wouldn't want them to be any shorter than ”_p‘w‘ ‘_ .‘ .__ 228 that. It is a good thing that they serve more than one term. . . . It takes the better part of a term to get their arms around the issues and to develop a philosophy of higher education and their role in it. . . . It could even be a longer term, especially if you were going to limit it to one term." From this same institution, a board member said, "I cannot imagine being on some of these boards I hear described that have [more than 15] people. That must be an exhaustive process. They have to be purely ceremonial boards because . . . it's exhaustive for the administration to maintain any kind of meaningful contact. It doesn't make sense." At a different university, a respondent commented, "I think the [6 year] terms are about right. . . . I never thought I would be one who agrees with term limits, but I think 6 years, at least for me, is enough. You need fresh ideas. You give it everything you've got for 6 years--it's time [to leave]. [Researcher Do many self-perpetuating members come back?] In the history of the place, I think there have been 3. N one, I might add, none of those 3 have been self-perpetuating board decisions. In other words. you were elected by the self-perpetuating board and then the Governor decides you're a good person so he wants to put you back on. . . . I would love to expand the number of is 229 self—perpetuating members because we don't have enough to do all the work that needs to be done. . . . In terms of effort, it's clear that the self-perpetuating board members, at least at this university, put in typically more time and effort than the rest of the board. [Researcher is [a number more than 15] members about the right size? Too big? Too small?] I think anything larger than that would be unwieldy. . . . I just would change the composition. That's all." Another board member from the same university said, "I think 6 years is fine because it takes a while to learn the process. . . . [Researcher What about your number of board members? Too many? Too few?] I think it works out fine. I don't find [more than 15] being too many because the only time we come together as a full board is the last day of meeting. The rest of the time . . . we're off on our own committee work. [Researcher Do you have an Executive Committee? And, if yes, does it act in place of the full board from time-to-time?] Yes. But not very often," The senior administrator from this university said, in response to a question about board size, "I would not like to see it too much bigger. My feeling is if the board gets too big, . . . we'll end up with the Executive Committee kind of system where the Executive Committee does all the work and the board meets and gives a rubber stamp. [Researcher What about 230 length of terms?] I've got to assume six years is about right. [Researcher Is it correct to state that board members must go off for at least a year after completing a term before, if they're selected again. returning to the board?] Right, and I think that's a good practice. . . . A couple of times it happened the [board member] may have come in one route to the board, by gubernatorial appointment, and the next time around, the . . . self-perpetuating group may say this person is thekind of person we need right now on the board and elect them to a second term. . . . We think of [this] as an exception instead of making it an automatic thing." VI. Are there other strengths. weaknesses. or issues regarding Land-Grant boards that you would like to discuss? The former Land-Grant President stated, "The weakness is in not having clear definition of either role . . . or qualifications and selecting people accordingly. And secondly, having selection processes that are too politicized. Then, perhaps not having any way of assessing performance. . . . Contrary to public opinion, at least among some, I don't think presidents necessarily want to have weak boards. But just 231 like corporate leadership, they want to have the authority to conduct their affairs. If you're given responsibility and you're not given authority, how can you be held accountable?" One other non-affiliated interviewee said, "I think the weakness of the system is the quality of the appointees. And, [as a result], the expectations attached to them by those that appoint them have really deteriorated. In too many cases, we have too many board members that come on determined to i run the university and to straighten out a mess that is more in their mind than reality." Another non-affiliated participant, when asked, 'As state funding support continues to decline as a percentage of total funding support, do you see the state maintaining its dominant role in the selection of Land-Grant board members?’ responded, "You're asking an 'ought' question plus and 'is' question. The 'ought' question is that as fiscal support decreases, so should state control. . . . The 'is' model will be the reverse. The 'is' model will be that the greater the problems inherent in education because they're getting starved for funds, the greater the need for feeling of control on the part of the legislature and the government, so it’s the reciprocal. The irony will be, therefore, as state funding decreases, the interest in control increases." 232 A politician commented, "Land-Grant universities, . . . with their mission to serve the states, . . . more so than other schools, . . . need to maintain that close connection to the people. And so I don't find anything inappropriate in saying that they're publicly appointed or publicly elected board members as opposed to privately selected." A former board member stated, "When you have as predominant an influence in one party, . . . the influence of labor, it has a disproportionate influence in the party to its influence in the population, . . . I think you get a skewed decision . . . that would not reflect the public opinion, the majority [of the party], if it were put to a vote. . . . I would prefer the appointment process. I'm almost of the school of [former Michigan State University president] ]ohn Hannah [who said], 'You could get better trustees by picking people on the street corner of Abbott and Grand River.” At one university, a board member responded, "[I would like] having a broader representation without more numbers . . . on the board. I am very satisfied with the gubernatorial selection process." Another interviewee said, "I think [a partisan election] brings you trustees who are only concerned about doing those things that when they run for re-election, they can crow about it. And there's too much — -__ A_A=.~.h “Ar—77 ,_ #77 233 posturing." And one other stated, "At times the geographical requirement [for board members] is limiting. . . . In the best of worlds, I might eliminate that requirement." A board member from another institufion said, "One of the strengths . . . is that we're relatively apolitical compared to other states. I'm sure we're not pure, but we're relatively so." At a different university, a board member commented. I think that the [political] convention is very, very difficult for someone to go through. A political convention, if you're not a politician, you don’t even know how the dog-gone thing is organized. . . . When you go into a convention, it can reel out of control. . . . So anything can happen when you're in politics. And that's the bad part of this. Good people get overlooked. Good people, for a lot of reasons, aren't ever given the opportunity, and good people will not subject themselves [to the process]. . . . So that's the failure of the political process--to bring forth the best possible candidate. . . . So I think this process is discriminatory in that it weeds out too many people and it rewards, sometimes, the wrong people for the wrong reasons--and it also ends up in electing a lot of people who are either not qualified or are there for the wrong reasons. There should be only one reason that you should be there and that's stewardship. That is serving, not to be served. And. unfortunately, we've had a history of [board members] here who came to be served, not to serve. There's a huge difference. A board member from this same university said, "The only weakness of the process is that the [board member] elections are more a function of tickets/parties. . . . [What] if we turn around . . . and all the candidates on the ballot were non-partisan--modifying the political system. In other words, people would. . . . in a more graphic way, know who to vote for. You couldn't pull the party lever." And the senior administrator responded, "I'm not fully convinced the selection process is the problem. I can see the selection process going sour in almost [all its forms, and] you'd have to get terribly complicated in order to rectify it. . . . I really believe . . . that the pressure on this really has to come from a better educated public . . . [where] everybody else took very seriously the business of educating folks [about this]. Have you ever seen a President or even a sitting board that had the nerve to go out and tell folks that this was a terribly important job and they i 7 7 7 ————--.’_—\'T,D’-Vr'r - --~ -——.—- --,._‘_—q..4—. 235 needed to look at these criteria and forget about party lines and look at bi-partisan kinds of issues." At another institution, a board member stated, "I'm concerned in our state about this tendency . . . for people who have other political aspirations to use the board as a high profile job to get exposure throughout the state. . . . I have real qualms about boards who are appointed who represent no one but the person who appoints them. . . . Now, arguing against the case that I just made, I know some very good people who would probably love to be a [board member] who couldn't tolerate the election process and might be willing to step up and be considered for a nomination. Again, that's why I think a mixed bag [elected and appointed] is such a good thing." Another topic raised by participants in the course of the interviews was the impact of 'open meetings laws' (or sunshine laws) on their board activities. Following are some of their comments relating to this issue: A non-affiliated participant said, "I've worked in the non- sunshine environment. I can tell you horror stories, pretty interesting ones. about what happens when there was no sun in the board room. I 236 guess if I have to choose, I guess I would come out moderate. I would like a little bit of closure (the room's closed occasionally), but I'm more on the sunshine side. I'm a minority on this issue, you need to know. In my view, it's all going to come out anyway." At one institution, a respondent stated, "[In the] early '90's, we had more development retreats. . . . We have ceased doing that and I think it's a tragedy. The principal reason is because of the state open meeting laws. There is really no way to have a good candid discussion about board shortcomings and the kinds of things one needs to focus on in a self-analysis to learn more about your performances as a board and how we can improve with the press sitting there. While we have taken the position in the past that we can bar the press from these sessions, the consequences of even legally barring them are judged to be too great. (The open meetings act went into effect in the '70's).” A board member from another university said, "We're going to have a retreat in September. That retreat will deal with some current issues in higher education as well as where we want to take the university in the future. [Researcher Will you do that in a closed forum?] Nope. But we're doing it far enough away so that if they [ i.e., 237 the press] want to get to us, they're going to have to go through all kinds of obstacles. . . . The open meetings act is a killer." A politician stated that in her/his state, the Land—Grant board does operate under an open meetings act. "There are some exceptions to that. Generally speaking, . . . if they're dealing with personnel matters and collective bargaining kinds of issues, they can have closed meetings. [Researcher How do open meeting laws apply in the selection of the President?] The law provides that information can be kept private until they get to the final 3 or the final 5. There is a point where they must go public." At another institution. a board member commented, "When I first came on the board, if there were some controversial things that came on the agenda. we could address those things the night before, get them straightened out. and be unified the next day at the meeting. That cannot happen now because of the sunshine laws of the state. . . . When we do have controversial items that come up, and the board gets into controversy, the press just loves that and it doesn't help the university." One other question raised during the interviews related to the declining percentage of institutional funding provided by the states and the relationship of this funding to the control of governance selection procedures. The following comments provide two different perspectives on this issue: A board member from one institution receiving approximately 40 percent of its annual non-designated operating funds from the state said, "I don't think it would work well to elect 60 percent of the board, for instance, via some private sort of election system and 40 percent through a state system and try to say that there's some sort of correlative linkage between how we get funds and how we select [board members]. . . . I don't think that applies here. I think we'vegot an operation of a public institution that, in all senses, impacts the people in the state. Regardless of how our institutions get funding, I think it ought to be a state role when it comes to their governance." At another university, which receives less than 25 percent of its non-designated funding from the state, a board member said, "Without representation, they're [i.e., the state] not going to play [i.e., provide funding]. No, they don't deserve 50 percent [of the board seats] and 239 that's the weakness of the current system. If we could replace even three or four of them with self-perpetuating members who could bring additional funding and leadership, it would be terrific." Chapter V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The research found that participants from 4 of the 5 institutions studied were dissatisfied with various elements associated with constituting their governing boards. Similarly, the research found the perspective of all 6 non-affiliated participants to be that the quality of board members selected in the last 10 years has, at best, held constant. A member of this non-affiliated group described one selection procedure (partisan, state-wide elections) as "all bullshit," and another said selection processes were "more politicized." One other, in describing boards and board members, stated. "they've deteriorated" and "the quality of trustees has diminished." Another, describing her/his perspective of board members stated, "they're getting worse." 240 241 The participant ratios (12 of 15 institutional representatives and 6 of 6 non-affiliated representatives) and perspectives described in the above research findings may or may not be transferable to the totality of Land-Grant institutions constituted under the 1862 Act. They are, however, indicative of a need to assess the current selection procedures and their elements to determine if they can be made more appropriate and useful for the particular needs of the individual states and these institutions. (Examples of 'selection procedures' are gubernatorial appointment, election, and self-perpetuating appointments. Examples of 'elements' are board member qualifications, processes to identify potential board members. number of board members, and length of terms.) Based on this research, it is my conclusion that different states, because of different characteristics (geographic size, population, political environment, history and traditions), may best be served by constituting their boards through use of differing procedures. There is no archetype, single best, optimum procedure to constitute these boards. There is no best manner in which elements can be coupled together or with procedures to guarantee the best results. Each state needs to decide What procedure(s) and which elements to use. Each ( 242 state needs to decide what its board's responsibilities are and how that board can best be constituted to help assure that expectations are achieved. A continuum of options exist for each state in this assessment process: Leave the current procedure(s) and elements in place; Refine the elements within the current procedure(s); Combine the current procedure(s) with another procedure(s) and refine the elements: Change the procedure(s) and the elements. This chapter will provide alternatives and recommendations, based on the research, regarding: 0 board member qualifications, 0 processes to identify governing board members. 0 election and appointment procedures, 0 evaluation procedures, and number of board members, length of terms. and number of terms. It will compare the impact of the selection procedures on board influences and decision-making. It will also discuss open-meetings laws and the potential affect of the declining percentage of state 243 funding on the existing state control of board member selection procedures. The chapter will include combinations of selection procedures and elements that may serve as discussion models for states wanting to assess ways in which to improve their higher education governing boards. A. Board member qualifications While research participants responses ranged from support for "clearly defined" qualifications to "its a mistake to set minimum qualifications," there was general agreement that board members should have experience with higher education as a graduate--or as a current student, in the case of student board members. There was also general agreement that board members represent diverse backgrounds with respect to skills, gender, and race. Many advocated that some members of the board be alumni of the institution. Most participants mentioned the need for an understanding of fiscal and budgetary matters. Additionally, there was support for having representation from one or more individuals who had degrees in fields . offered by some of an institution's graduate schools, e.g., law and 244 medicine. I support these types of qualifications, but am reluctant to offer support if more specificity is attached to them. The life of a Land— Grant is, like other institutions of higher education, continuing to evolve and different stages of the evolution may call for different skills and attributes among board members. I don't support, and neither do the participants, qualifications that are based on political considerations. Partisanship is not the priority here. Governors and political parties should select individuals who understand their responsibilities are to govern, not be political spokespersons. There were divided perspectives regarding the inclusion of out- of—state residents on boards. Participants from lesser populated states advocated, based on experience, use of out-of-state board members-- particularly alumni/ae. Participants from states with larger populations and larger geographic areas argued against out-of—state board members. Participants from both sizes of states seemed comfortable with their differing perspectives in this matter. (It should be noted that out-of-state board members are only found on boards that have components of self-perpetuating members.) I don't support the selection of out-of-state board members by gubernatorial or election procedures. This is not done now and would, 245 likely, if ever tried, be political suicide for anyone endorsing it. State governors and state political parties should select only state citizens to provide stewardship over annual state unrestricted funding of Land- Grant institutions. If a state wants to expand its Land-Grant board by adding self-perpetuating members to help raise funds or help provide diverse attributes, out-of—state individuals should be allowed in the candidate pool. These out—of—state candidates may possess skills and commitments that can serve the institution better than in-state candidates. Self-perpetuating members should be selected. however, by all members of the board. This helps assure a broad level of support and helps avert divisiveness as these members begin their terms. With regard to less tangible attributes, several participants recommended that board members have open-minds and not be representatives of narrow ideologies or interests. There was almost unanimous agreement that members be able to act without political influence in their decision-making. Other desirable qualities included a "willingness to negotiate, to compromise, to collaborate," "the ability to assess problems with common sense and dignity." and "an understanding of public policy issues related to higher education." I 246 have found, through observation and my governing board experience. that good trustees speak directly, but non-confrontationally, and provide humorous illustrations. They use these tools for effective, team-building communication. The above less tangible qualifications have applicability to all board members, regardless of what procedure is used to select them. Defining qualifications is more art than science. But, the importance of the tangible qualities are dwarfed by the importance of the less tangible qualities. While inclusiveness with regard to diversity in its many forms can be an admired characteristic of a board, it should not be achieved at the expense of the ability to make quality. informed decisions. B. Processes to identify governing board members Alternative processes recommended by participants for identifying potential board members ranged from frequent participant support for "a non-partisan commission" to "our awkward, unorganized, perhaps authoritarian [self-perpetuating] way seems to have worked out well." A third perspective advocated "selection by appointment of some elected official [e.g., Governor] directly Without 247 the buffer of a commission or anything else. I think pinpointing responsibility is important." Differing selection procedures may be supported by differing candidate identifying processes. However. because there is agreement between the literature and the research participants that board members' first loyalty should be to the l institution, identifying processes should seek candidates who will prioritize acting on behalf of the institution above acting on behalf of the appointing or electing body. The participants and I believe that certain attributes associated with selecting procedures and their elements facilitate board quality and effectiveness better than others. (These attributes are described throughout this chapter.) Participants supporting use of an identifying commissiOn urged that it be "university and mission specific," and that its composition be "de-politicized," "involve stakeholders and alumni leaders, . . . corporate, civic, and business leaders, . . . [and] some former board members who've been there, done that. and know what's required." If this commission approach is implemented, on a partisan or non- partisan basis, and the qualifications outlined under A., shown immediately above. become the criteria. the candidates "would all be qualified . . . and the university would not have to worry who was 248 elected [or appointed] from either party." This commission identifying process could be used to assist candidate selection procedures associated with gubernatorial appointments and partisan or non- partisan elections. In one of many possible forms, it could also supply candidate names to boards with components of self—perpetuating members. Specific recommendations from the research participants for identifying self-perpetuating members included support for a plan in which names of candidates would be submitted "from any and all sources, . . . [and that it be] the most open nomination process." Regardless of how prospective board members are identified, they should "be told what this job is really all about." It is also important that the selection body "throw a broad net" and "not try and help them get elected or appointed--just . . . create a list of names of people that would consider the position." I support the use of a commission/advisory-type body whose work is to develop a pool of candidates Whose qualifications and attributes meet the needs of the institution for the term being considered. I also recommend that selections of board members be made exclusively from these pools. 249 C. Election and appointment procedures The literature and 20 of 21 of the research participants advise against selecting board members through partisan, statewide elections. Participant arguments against this election procedure include existing litmus tests* that are irrelevant to higher education, the need for board members to seek heightened visibility and headlines around election time, and the lingering influence of obligations owed to the agendas of those who helped nominate them, contribute to their campaigns, or are responsible for their re- nomination. It is my opinion that board members selected through election procedures feel much differently about unions and faculty unions as constituents and about faculty unionization matters than board members selected through gubernatorial appointment or self- perpetuating procedures. Participants in this research who discussed the selection procedure based on partisan, state-wide elections said it results in a board more divided and more divisive than boards constituted through any other selection procedures. This is not to say, however, that there *Litmus tests are defined here as philosophical positions or attitudes regarding a single issue that are decisive in making selection choices. 250 is any less interest in the fortunes of the institution that members selected by this procedure serve. It is to say that partisan influence may keep them and the institution from exploring and participating in issues, e.g., charter schools, that other publicly supported institutions in the state are dealing with. (The other state-supported institutions in this state have boards selected through gubernatorial appointment processes.) It was argued by 100 percent of the research participants commenting on this matter that voters do not know who or what they are voting for when electing higher education board members through partisan, state-wide elections. This procedure generated little respect as a means of providing Land-Grant governance. Boards constituted through regional or district popular elections have, in the universe of 1862 Land-Grants, only non—partisan elections. In these elections, the candidates self—nominate themselves or are asked to run by interested individuals or groups. Because these elections are held within a smaller electing district than the state, e.g., a Congressional district, participants stated there is greater likelihood that voters know who the candidates are and what their positions are on relevant issues. Participants agreed that these non-partisan elections eliminate the ability of the voter to vote a single partisan 251 ballot and know only that the candidate is a member of a specific political party. It is my conclusion that while some may argue the party receiving the most votes at the top of the ticket, i.e., in the gubernatorial and/or federal and state senate and house races, should also control the governing board of the state Land-Grant institution. others may validly argue that the decisions associated with governing the nation and the state are quite different than those associated with governing an institution of higher education. Participants in the research associated with non-partisan, regional elections as a selection procedure stated that politics are not involved in their decision-making processes. (I am not denigrating the importance of politics or politicians. My concern is that, when non-relevant partisan considerations become the basis of decisions affecting higher education, the educational institutions lose their ability to function independently of arbitrary ideology and political partisanship.) Three participants noted that some states, because of their populist traditions, are not going to eliminate popular elections of state governing boards. In these circumstances, I would, based on the research, recommend the use of non-partisan regional or district elections as opposed to partisan statewide elections. One former 252 Land-Grant board member, supporting this position, stated, "I think statewide [partisan] elections are a farce. . . . What they're voting for is a straight party ticket." The gubernatorial appointment procedure is used by three of the institutions studied. In one of the institutions, it is the sole selection procedure and in the other two, it is one of multiple procedures employed. At the institution where it is the sole procedure (senate confirmation is part of this process), there was agreement among the related participants that the process works well. This process, unlike other gubernatorial appointment processes, includes statutory language stipulating gender equity and political party representation equity on the governing board and that no more than 5 of the 9 board members can be of one gender or affiliated with one of the political parties. Also in this state, governors have a history and tradition of making appointments that assure diverse geographical representation from the state on the board and that at least one minority is always a member. Governors have respected these voluntary actions as good practices and board members concur that, as a result of statutory language and gubernatorial practices. the board functions well and is not divided or influenced by politics. It 253 should also be noted that while re-appointment to the board is possible in this state, there is no history of it. This is a factor that allows the board to function more independently of political influence than other boards. (The board chairperson is a member of the party with only 4 of the 9 board seats.) Members are not posturing, through their decisions, for re-appointment. The formal and informal elements associated with this particular gubernatorial appointment procedure are easily understood, implemented in good faith, and result in a board satisfactory to all participants from that institution in this research. This is the only institution in the study in which all of these attributes, including satisfaction, appear to be present. I found this board (the dependent variable), based on its selection procedure and elements-- including evaluation methodologies (the independent variables), to be the best, based on the needs of the institution, of those studied in this research. Self-perpetuating procedures are combined with other selection procedures at two of the institutions included in the research. Each of these boards has more than 15 members and each has an Executive Committee authorized to act in place of the full board in certain circumstances. (No other boards studied have more than 9 members 254 and, because of their smaller size, none had Executive Committees.) Self—perpetuating members of these boards recommended that more of the members be selected by this procedure. In fact, one affiliated participant commented, "Obviously, we would be delighted to appoint all [of them]." Members of these boards who were not self- perpetuating selections were not interested in increasing the self- perpetuating component. They did. however, acknowledge the quality of these selections and. in the words of one, described them as "Wow." They were concerned, though, that members not on the Executive Committee are likely to be excluded from some important decision- making. I interpreted this to mean that the Executive Committee, on occasion, becomes THE board and preempts the full board from fulfilling its governance role. These circumstances, according to the involved research participants, were more frequent and divisive at one institution than the other. These circumstances were found only, however, at the two institutions in the study that had self-perpetuating components of their boards. Based on the research, it is my recommendation that executive committees never usurp the responsibilities of the full board and be used only on an emergency basis. If a state can't accept this. it should 255 consider making the executive committee the board and eliminate the other members. This would avoid the waste of time and resources for all involved parties. There was consensus among the participants, although not unanimous, that because Land-Grants are state supported public institutions. their governing bodies should consist of a membership that is, in its majority, selected through public processes, i.e., elections- -preferably non-partisan by region or district--or gubernatorial appointment. I recommend that a self-perpetuating component be available as an option when states are seeking to attract out-of-state board members or constitute a board that has appropriate diversity (as defined by the state) that might not be generated through an election process. A state may wish to use the self-perpetuating procedure in combination with other selection procedures when its Land-Grant board is expected to raise funds on behalf of the institution. I also recommend that all board members participate in the selection of these self-perpetuating members. I recommend against the exclusive use of self—perpetuating boards at Land-Grant institutions. If a state Wishes to have a majority of Land-Grant board members selected through self-perpetuating procedures, that is, obviously. its business. It 256 is important, however, that the public be represented on these boards because of the public nature of the institutions. It is my conclusion, based on the research, that combinations of elected and gubernatorial appointments, or each of these procedures coupled with a self-perpetuating component can also work advantageously for a state. Regardless of the singularity or combinations of the procedure(s), attention should be given to assuring the articulate representation of the diversity within the state. This does not imply that every constituency and every stakeholder needs a designated board representative. It does speak to the need to have board members, regardless of color, age, economic status, etc., who can discuss and decide on issues while taking into perspective the multi-faceted needs of the states' population. D. Evaluation procedures The majority of research participants supported the need for board evaluation procedures. There was no support for evaluation of individual performances; only support for evaluation of board members acting as a collectivity. 257 When participants evidenced support for evaluations, I asked if they should be led by an outside consultant or be done by the board, itself. Content, comprehensiveness, and frequency were also discussed. Some participants associated with institutions constituting their boards through elections noted that the elections serve as the evaluating mechanism. However, in a state which has non-partisan district elections, a board member stated, "I think that some evaluation process, outside of election, would be a helpful thing." In a state which has partisan, statewide elections--where voters frequently vote "a straight party ticket,"--the election loses some of its validating credibility. One participant from another institution, commenting on evaluation procedures for this type of board said, "The only time that anything works truly is when the board does it itself" and a board member stated, "I think . . . they [i.e., the board members] ought to be able to evaluate their performance and do it candidly with each other.’ At another institution, a senior administrator stated, "Board self- evaluation activities can play an important part of core development. . ll Participants from a different institution, with board members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate, had a .r 258 perspective, based on actual evaluations, that the use of an outside consultant added discipline, a reporting timetable. and accountability to the board as it engaged in this activity. These interviewees believed the evaluation process has provided this board an opportunity to assure it has fulfilled its statutory obligations. One participant, who has also served as Chairperson of a private liberal arts college, said the evaluation should be done "about every two years, . . . [be] an organizational audit, . . . [and apply to the board] as a whole, . . . I agree with this timetable, its subject matter, and its scope. Evaluation activities are in place and becoming of increasing importance in the private sector. Our business culture has changed-- and become more‘productiveubecause of this increased accountability. Evaluation processes are also in place for undergraduate curriculums, Land-Grant presidents, non-tenured faculty. and increasingly for tenured faculty. I see no reason why Land-Grant governing boards, regardless of how their members are selected. should be excluded from these evaluation processes. Performance cannot be measured unless it is evaluated--and evaluated against meaningful criteria. Evaluation is a process that warrants consideration by all Land-Grant boards. ._ A? 7~ 4 1. _-- SH-uitAdwh - _~ s.n.-.~‘..:-_"-_‘a. '2 ."- ., 259 E. Number of board members. length of terms. and number of terms Most research participants advocated board sizes ranging from 8 to 12 members. Participants associated with boards having more than 15 members generally agreed that they would not want them larger than their present size and some suggested they were already too large. These larger boards have self-perpetuating components and met less frequently than the smaller boards. One board meets only two times per year. T wo of its three participants in this study stated this was not frequent enough to allow the board to govern. As a result, the board only monitors. Its Executive Committee, however, provides governance and interim decision-making as required. This, as stated earlier, is a source of concern among board members not serving on Executive Committees. One board member said that the purpose of these large boards is to "reign, but not rule." Interestingly, the size of the Executive Committees at the two institutions utilizing them approximates the size of the full boards of the other institutions studied. Larger boards operate with many committees that discuss and recommend decision items to the full board. One respondent noted that the committee structure makes a large board "very manageable." 260 With smaller boards, although committees are used, the board acts in many matters as a committee of the whole. Participants frequently mentioned that duties associated with self-perpetuating members include fund-raising. This may help account for the larger boards associated with those having self- perpetuating members. (It is noteworthy that the 2 institutions in this study with self-perpetuating components also have the least funding from their states as a percent of annual unrestricted support.) These boards need several individuals who can help solicit and, indeed, contribute funds. [With respect to board member fund-raising activities, a trustee at one of the institutions with self-perpetuating members commented that. "Some do, some don't."] Smaller boards in this study, constituted through elections or gubernatorial appointment, are not as focused on fund—raising responsibilities as the larger boards. They are. as reported by those interviewed, involved in some fund-raising, but on a less intensive basis. Participants reported that smaller boards. those with 8 or 9 members, can be dominated by one or two members more readily than larger boards. One respondent stated that when this dominance factor resides in the board chairperson and that person "would make all the _w‘in—v __. - - u _Lm _-....—.'r. :nl-=‘— ~L‘ r" 261 decisions and not tolerate any challenge, . . . the consequences can be very negative." Based on the research, I recommend that Land-Grant boards whose stated and actual function is to govern--as opposed to monitor-- be constituted with an odd number of members between 9 and 13. These boards are envisioned to consist of 9 publicly selected members, i.e., selected by elections or gubernatorial appointment. If additional members are deemed appropriate, I recommend that the Governor appoint 2 or 4 individuals in cases where the 9 member component is elected. Alternatively, 2 to 4 self-perpetuating members could be selected by the board, where deemed appropriate. in situations where the 9 member component is either elected by the populace or appointed by the Governor. In states dependent on the board to raise funds, I recommend that board size range from 15 to 19 members and include components “of gubernatorial appointments and self-perpetuating members. If Executive Committees are necessary with these boards, their membership should be small-«approximately 5 members--and include representatives from each selection methodology used in constituting the board. The Executive Committee should make decisions only at 262 times of crisis when it is impossible for the entire board to meet. It should not look or act like a mini-board. Certain decisions should be denoted as the exclusive purview of the entire board. It is my recommendation that Land-Grant "governing" boards meet at least 4 times per fiscal year. Good governance implies awareness and understanding that are facilitated by regularly scheduled meetings that allow board members to Stay appropriately informed and appropriately involved. Perfunctory boards whose purpose is to "monitor" can meet less frequently to hold their reviews, make necessary affirmations, and fulfill statutory requirements. With respect to length of board terms, 4 of the 5 institutions in the study had terms of 6 years and one had terms of 8 years. Several participants commented that it takes 6 years just to become acclimated. One board member stated, "[We] have 6 year terms. . . . It takes the better part of a term to get [our] arms around the issues and to develop a philosophy of higher education and [our] role in it." I endorse 6 year terms where re-appointment or re-election is possible and 8 year terms where board members are allowed only one term. I also understand that 6 year terms without an opportunity for re- 263 appointment or re-election work well in some states and should not be changed. While the majority of participants endorsed 6 or 8 year terms, there was division with respect to the question of multiple terms. Some participants have the perspective that multiple terms allow more political influence to permeate the decision-making processes-- particularly as the time for re-appointment or re-election approaches. Others had the perspective that one term is sufficient and that a board "needlsl fresh ideas." One state requires a year off before a board member can be re-appointed for another term. I found, based on the research, that both single and multiple terms work. I recommend, however, that multiple terms be limited to two. This emanates from a concern that too much time in office breeds too much power. And too much power stifles growth and creativity in both individuals and organizations. One way to "break the lock on power" (Mackey, August 14, 1997, conversation with the researcher) is to implement term limitations. F. Open meetings laws Participants were also divided on the matter of open meetings laws--or "sunshine laws." I recommend that proceedings and actions of these public institutions be open to public scrutiny-board members of public institutions are accountable to the public. I am not, however, advocating that all board matters be open to the public. Many open meetings laws permit governing boards to hold closed meetings to protect union bargaining strategies, certain personnel matters, and executive and faculty searches from public examination. I agree these specific matters should be protected, but would remove searches from protection when they are narrowed to the final three candidates--or the final field of candidates if more than 3. I would also exempt board retreats that are for planning and board education. and for board assessment and evaluation activities. I believe that "sunshine" is healthy and makes board members more thoughtful and responsible in their words, their votes, and their demeanors. 265 G. The impact of changing state funding levels of Land-Grant institutions on state control of board member selection procedures The average percentage of state support for the unrestricted operating funds of the institutions in the study was 32.9 percent in 1994. Because this support is less than 50 percent, and is declining at some institutions, critics could ask if the states should continue to control the board selection procedures to the extent they currently do--at 43 of the 49 Land-Grant institutions in the contiguous 48 states. Because these are Land-Grant institutions, they are public institutions and, frequently, a state's most visible university. Because of their public nature, the large percentage of public funding. and the constant public scrutiny of their activities, I recommend they continue to be governed by procedures that include public selection, i.e., elections or gubernatorial appointment. When states, because of considerations relating to gender, race, geography, fund-raising, etc., wish to expand the board to assure the presence of board members with diverse attributes, a combination of selection procedures can be employed. Additional members could be added through processes involving gubernatorial appointments or self-perpetuating appointments by the entire board. Regardless of the procedure(s) used, 266 I recommend that the public be represented on these boards by publicly selected board members. Publicly supported institutions should be governed by boards that include publicly selected members. H. Project research and personal opinion In Chapter I, it was stated, "I believe that boards constituted primarily through a self-perpetuating procedure are less likely to have their focus preempted by or subjugated to the motivations and influences of politicians and political parties that are prompted by considerations irrelevant to the institution involved." In a very precise way, the research substantiated this opinion. However, this some research discovered other findings with relevance to this opinion. One self-perpetuating board member answering the question, 'Is your board ancillary — other than statutorily?’ stated, "Yes, except in the case of crisis." This individual said the large number of board members. infrequent meetings, the power of the Executive Committee, and administratively "forceldl decisions" made this predominately self-perpetuating board ancillary. While these influences aren't political in nature, they certainly Preempt board members from acting independently. 267 Another research participant noted problems associated with "a self-perpetuating board that would eliminate members it did not philosophically or ideologically agree with. . . . [This is] dangerous and . . . result[s] in a board not looking at all the factors it ought to look at, but looking at only those factors that gave it similarity. . . While the research confirmed, in a narrow sense, my opinion as presented in Chapter I, it also provided data that introduced influences and circumstances that can inhibit the independence of self— perpetuating board members. Although these influences are different than political influences, the result, as confirmed by the research, is often the same, i.e., loss of board member independence and loss of board quality, credibility, and effectiveness. TABLE Unrestricted State and Total Current Funding of Land-Grant Universities of the 48 Contiguous States for Fiscal Year Ending 1994* DOLLARS OF DOLLARS OF UNRESTR. STATE UN RESTRICTED UN RESTRICTED APPROPR. AS A % LAN D-GRAN T STATE TOTAL CURRENT OF UNRESTR. TOT INSTITUTION APPROPRIATIONS FUNDS CURRENT FUNDS Auburn 146,833,200 269,493,200 54.5 U of Arizona 243,706,200 556,864,500 43.8 U of Arkansas-Fay 110,353,900 198,370,700 55.6 U of Calif. System - 1,374,147,000 5,335,668,000 25.8 ---7 Campuses Colorado State U 86,623,000 269,561,000 32.1 U of Connecticut 135,719,000 301,990,800 44.9 U of Delaware 63,537,500 304,140,600 20.9 U of Florida 379,367,200 662,457,200 57.3 U of Georgia 285,368,700 480,127,800 59.4 U of Idaho 55,705,900 121,020,200 46.0 U of Illinois-Urbna 276,468,800 616,483,100 44.8 Purdue 191,653,200 512,832,500 37.4 Iowa State U 159,345,700 356,590,200 44.7 Kansas State U 121,088,700 221,685,500 54.6 U of Kentucky 239,804,100 648,951,600 37.0 LSU 175.1 14,500 282,048,500 62.1 U of Maine 60,805,500 137,434,200 44.2 U of Maryland at 201,285,500 457,094,300 44.0 ---College Park MIT Not Available Not Available Not Available U of Mass-Amherst 146,801,000 401,857,000 36.5 MSU-E. Lansing 232,504,600 659,742,900 35.2 U of Minnesota 329,297,800 1,021,532,000 32.2 Mississippi State U 91,027,300 195,704,600 46.5 U of Missouri Syst 138,899,300 613,540,000 22.6 Montana State U 46,003,000 108,026,600 42.6 U of N ebraska-Linc 155,257,700 313,939,300 49.5 U of Nevada 78,722,200 139,658,900 56.4 U of New Hamp 42,698,300 193,787,000 22.0 Rutgers (New Brun) 351,842,000 709,018,000 49.6 New Mexico St U 86,118,000 161,357,200 53.4 Cornell 125,351,000 946,150,000. 13.3 N. Carolina St U 250,824,800 431,410,400 58.1 268 269 UNRESTR. STATE DOLLARS OF DOLLARS OF UNRESTRICTED UNRESTRICTED APPROPR. AS A % LAN D-GRANT STATE TOTAL CURRENT OF UNRESTR. TOT INSTITUTION APPROPRIATIONS FUNDS CURRENT FUNDS Ohio State U 254,366,600 1,107,411,000 23.0 N. Dakota State U 45,866,000 108,898,200 42.1 Oklahoma State U 125,072,600 248,690,400 50.3 Oregon State U 101,184,800 236,392,700 42.8 Penn State U 176,221,600 564,864,600 31.2 U of R. 1. 56,306,200 137,210,900 41.0 Clemson 122,841,200 268,569,200 45.7 S. Dakota State U 39,756,600 78,613,600 50.6 U of Tennessee 186,769,400 376,512,900 49.6 Texas A&M 347,058,300 638,284,900 54.4 Utah State U 62,998,100 131,751,300 47.8 U of Vermont 26,462,000 183,755,000 14.4 Virginia State U 154,149,400 377,545,700 40.8 Washington St U 148,700,700 290,987,600 51.1 W. Virginia U-Morg 148,134,100 284,495,600 52.1 U of Wisc-Madison 371,672,700 lflgggggi'ggg is} - 80,404,700 . . . TOTAVIYgom Lamm 8,830,239,600 23.914.758.300 2047.1\48=42.6% *Source: Minter, I. W. and Associates (1996). 94findat diskette. Boulder, CO. APPENDICES it Appendix A Researchable Questions for Research Participants (Preliminary background questions to be researched by the writer) I. What is the amount of state support as a percentage of unrestricted operating funds for each Land-Grant participating in this study? 11. What is the legal framework associated with the governing board of each participating institution, e.g., are there open-meetings laws, a prescribed number of meetings, prescribed committees. etc? III. What are the total number of board members and the number of board members not selected through state- controlled political procedures at each of these institutions? IV. When did each state adopt its current board member selection procedure? Main and subsidiary questions (delete "21119.!" when interviewing board executive secretaries): I. How do land-grant university board members describe their responsibilities, constituencies. and stakeholders? A. How many hours per week do board members devote to university matters? 270 Appendix A Researchable Questions for Research Participants (Preliminary background questions to be researched by the writer) 'I. II. III. IV. What is the amount of state support as a percentage of unrestricted operating funds for each Land-Grant participating in this study? What is the legal framework associated with the governing board of each participating institution, e.g., are there open-meetings laws, a prescribed number of meetings, prescribed committees, etc? What are the total number of board members and the number of board members not selected through state- controlled political procedures at each of these institutions? When did each state adopt its current board member selection procedure? Main and subsidiary questions (delete "gther" when interviewing board executive secretaries): I. How do land-grant university board members describe their responsibilities, constituencies, and stakeholders? A. How many hours per week do board members devote to university matters? 270 II. 271 Who do board members communicate with regarding university activities? What issues consume board members' time. beginning with the most time consuming? What do board members consider to be their responsibilities? Who do board members consider to be their key constituencies and stakeholders. i.e., who do they represent? ‘ Can these constituencies and stakeholders be ranked in order of importance? If yes. what is the ranking? What selection, orientation, and evaluation procedures are used for governing board members? A. Have selection criteria been formally defined for board members? If not, should they be formally defined? If yes. what should they include? ' _ Who and what processes are involved in assembling a list of potential board members? (How is a pool of board member candidates assembled?) Would you prefer board members, if elected, to be selected by a partisan or non-partisan ballot; in state-wide or district elections; or by gubernatorial appointment; by legislative election; by a combination of gubernatorial and legislative appointment; by a self-perpetuating board; or by a combination of several stakeholders, e.g., gubernatorial on behalf of the state and the public; alumni/ae; parents; grant providers; benefactors: etc? Why? 272 D. How do selection procedures influence board . members in their decision-making? E. Do boards have orientation programs for new members? If yes, what are the components? F. Do boards have on-going education and development programs for their members? If yes, what are the components? G. What procedures are in place to assess governing board members individual and collective effectiveness? H. What specific skills and competencies would you like added to those possessed by your current board members? 111. What is the impact of selection procedures on board member decision-making? Using the establishment of tuition as a decision issue common to all Land-Grant institutions, please answer the following questions: A. Who and what are the external and internal influences in this decision-making process? B. How do these external and internal influences affect board member decisions? C. What are the consequences of these influences on board decision-making? D. Which external and internal opinions are valued most? Which opinions are valued least? ‘We .77.. IV. 273 E. How might a board member's role differ if s/he was selected by a self-perpetuating board rather than through a statutory political procedure? F. Are there issues that tend to involve gubernatorial and legislatively selected board members more than board members selected through the self- perpetuating procedure? A. Are board member selection procedures and board members selected perceived to be better or worse than ten years ago? B. Is knowledge of higher educational institutions, academic matters, and fiscal understanding of those selected perceived to be improving? C. Are board members focused primarily on single issues or are they interested and participative in a variety of issues? D. Are board members becoming more diverse with respect to age, race. gender, geography, religion, and occupation? E. What are the consequences of changes in board member diversity? What recommendations regarding board member selection procedures (and why) do you have to improve the quality of Land-Grant university boards with respect to: A. Board member qualifications? B. Processes to identify potential governing board members? C. Election and appointment procedures? inf na: CIClt 4.. --‘—d '7 274 D. Performance evaluation procedures? E. Number of board members on a board. length of terms, and number of terms? VI. Are there other strengths. weaknesses, or issues regarding Land-Grant boards you would like to discuss? The above questions generate responses beyond the information originally sought. Stories, anecdotes, and personal narratives about selection, appointment, or election processes also add interesting insights. OVt of 1 ton uni selt can hit Rec waj pro the anc coll can pro tele oft C01] (IS 1 the ele: pur Par lhq Inu' _.IIII Appendix B CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH RELATING TO CONSTITUTING GOVERNING BOARDS OF LAND-GRAN T UNIVERSITIES Overview of the study and the consent form process The purpose of this research, to be conducted through interviews of Land-Grant university board members, senior administrators, a former Land-Grant university President, a former Land-Grant university board member. interested politicians, and board member selection consultants/ experts, is to describe procedures used in constituting and evaluating governing boards. External and internal influences on board members will be researched and described. Recommendations from the participants will also be sought regarding ways to improve board member selection, election/appointment procedures, board member evaluation methodologies and criteria, and the length and number of terms served. The description, conclusions. and recommendations associated with this research should assist all colleges and universities interested in improving the means of constituting their governing boards and having them become more productive and focused in their work. Research involving the participants will include written, telephonic, facsimile, electronic mail. and in-person communication with the researcher. It is anticipated that the in-person interviews will be tape recorded. These means of communications will be used to learn from the subjects the procedures and processes employed by their institutions in constituting their governing boards and, in the case of the former Land-Grant President, the former Land-Grant board member, politicians, and consultants/experts, their thoughts about constituting governing boards. These communications will also serve as means for learning of changes contemplated by these institutions with respect to the related procedures. They will facilitate learning of the subjects’ opinions of the value associated with the various elements of the process. Data will be described and compared for the purpose of determining which elements of the processes are particularly effective and why they are effective. (It should be noted that in-person interviews will be conducted at times and places mutually agreeable to the participants and the researcher.) 275 ret Ide spt me its ca] stu stu sto tap nai ide wil COl'. Cor mY res furt res. arti 0th. use CCII] listt actj 276 All participant subjects will have pseudonyms. Identifying references regarding them, their university affiliation, where applicable, (and the university's unique characteristics), and specifics about geographical location will be masked to provide confidentiality. Identities of the participant subjects, their institutions. and other specific related information will be known only to the researcher and members of his committee. All documents relating to this research and its participant subjects will be stored and locked in a secure repository that only the researcher has access to. Because participation is voluntary, those asked to participate can decide to exclude themselves from the study, withdraw from the study at any time, or participate fully in the study. Participants in the study may choose not to answer any particular interview question. During audio taping of interviews, participants have the right to stop the recording at any time. If they choose not to have an interview taped. it will not be taped. All data collected will be held in strict confidence. Participants names will not be used in any reports relating to this work. Unique identifying characteristics of institutions and geographical location(s) will be disguised. On the form below, participants can choose to restrict forms of communications contemplated to be used in the interview process. Consent for Subject Participation I have read the above description and understand the nature of my involvement in the research. I understand that data from the research will be maintained for approximately 7 years for reference in further potential studies by the researcher relating to this matter. The data collected from the research may be used in the researcher's dissertation, reports about the research, in published articles, or in presentations at various conferences, seminars, and other forums relating to the topic. I have been assured that in any such uses, my identity will not be revealed. I have also been assured that I can deny permission for my participation in any or all of the activities listed below, and I can withdraw my participation in any or all of these activities at any time. Pa Pa Dc Re Re Dc 277 I agree to participate in the activities I have indicated below (please indicate "yes" or "no" for each category): 1. You may correspond in writing, by telephone, by facsimile. or by electronic mail with me regarding the subject matter: yes no 2. You may meet with me in person to interview me regarding this subject matter: __ yes __ no 3. You may audio tape these interviews: __ Yes _ no 4. You may ask me about what processes and methodologies are effective at my institution or are effective at other institutions with which I have familiarity: yes no Participant's Name (Please Print): Participant's Signature: Date: Researcher's Name: James F. Anderton, IV Address: 1700 Old Mill Rd. East Lansing, MI 48823 Work Phone 517 372-1888 Home Phone 517 351-1331 Work Fax # 517 372-1840 Home Fax # 517 333-6560 Researcher's Signature: Date: prc of t 11m Ca Appendix C LAND-GRANT INSTITUTIONS Governing Board Selection Procedures and Related Matters for Nineteen States The information presented below summarizes the selection procedure(s), the number of trustees/regents, length of terms. number of terms, meetings per year, and absence or presence of an Executive Committee associated with a sample of governing boards constituted under the 1862 Morrill Act. California: University of California System Selection procedures: Gubernatorial appointment: ex- officio: alumni (the President and Vice-President of the alumni association serve as regents); student vote and Board of Regents appointment for student regent Number of members: 18 appointed by Governor; 7 ex- officio (President, Governor. Lt. Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, Supt. of Public Instruction, President and Vice-President of the Alumni Associations; 1 student: 26 total regents. Additionally. 2 faculty members--the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Academic Council--sit as non- voting members. Length of terms: 12 years for gubernatorial appointees; term of office for ex-officio; term of office for alumni (usually 1 year); 1 year for student Maximum number of terms: Unlimited for gubernatorial appointees; term of office for ex-officio and alumni; 1 for student 278 Co Co 279 Number of regular meetings per year: 9 Executive Committee: N o Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 25.8% Colorado: Colorado State University Selection procedures: Voting members are appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate; non- voting "advisory" members are elected officers of the student bodies and faculty councils at Colorado State University. Fort Lewis College, and University of Southern Colorado Number of members: 9 voting. 6 non-voting "advisory." These 15 members are collectively known as the State Board of Agriculture. Length of terms: 4 years for voting; 1 year for non-voting Maximum number of terms: 2 Number of regular meetings per year: 2 Executive Committee: Yes (2 members minimum, 4 members maximum) Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 32.1% Connecticut: University of Connecticut Selection procedures: Gubernatorial appointment; election by university alumni; election by students; ex-officio Number of trustees: 12 Appointed by Governor; 2 elected by alumni; 2 elected by students; 3 ex-officio; 19 total trustees Length of terms: 6 years for gubernatorial appointees; 4 years for alumni electees: 2 years for students; term of office for ex-officio Delaware: 280 Maximum number of terms: Unlimited for gubernatorial appointees: 2 consecutive terms for alumni; student trustees must be active students Number of regular meetings per year: 8 (some include teleconferencing for trustees unable to be physically present) Executive Committee: Yes, 8 members--Chairperson plus Chairpersons (all titled Vice-Chairpersons of the Board) of the 7 standing committees. A formal meeting of the Executive Committee, because it has fewer than 10 members (a majority of the Board) may meet in closed session and invite the remaining board members to attend without the meeting being required to be open. "The Board shall act as a committee of the whole on all matters requiring action." Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 44.9% University of Delaware Selection procedures: Self-perpetuation; gubernatorial appointment; ex-officio Number of trustees: 20 Self-perpetuating; 8 gubernatorial appointees; 4 ex-officio; 32 total trustees Length of terms: 6 years; term of office for ex-officio Maximum number of terms: unlimited Number of regular meetings per year: 2 Executive Committee: Yes (at least 13 members). "The Executive Committee shall have authority to transact all business and do any act which could come before the Board." Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 20.9% 281 Florida: University of Florida (Governed by Florida State Board of Regents which is described below) Selection procedures: Gubernatorial appointment with confirmation by the Senate. Appointees must be "representative of the geographical areas of the state" who have been residents and citizens of Florida for at least 10 years (5 years for the student regent) prior to appointment; ex-officio Number of regents: 12 gubernatorial appointees (including 1 student) and 1 ex-officio (Florida Commissioner of Education); 13 total regents (all vofing) Length of terms: 6 years except for student regent who must be a full—time student Maximum number of terms: unlimited for gubernatorial appointees except for student regent who must be a full-time student; term of office for ex-officio Number of regular meetings per year: 6 Executive Committee: Yes (composed of all 14 regents). Meets 4-5 times per year by conference call. Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 57.3% Illinois: University of Illinois Selection procedures: Gubernatorial appointment with the advice and consent of the Senate-mo more than 5 affiliated with same political party; student referendum Number of trustees: 9 gubernatorial appointees and l (non-voting) student member Length of terms: 6 years for gubernatorial appointees; 1 year for student member Maximum number of terms: Unlimited for gubernatorial appointees; must be a student to be a student member . Number of regular meetings per year: 10 by bylaw lo 282 Executive Committee: Yes (3 members--Chairperson and 2 trustees), meets only in cases of emergencies Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 44.8% Iowa: Iowa State University (Governed by Iowa State Board of Regents which is described below) Selection procedures: Gubernatorial appointment with confirmation by the senate--no more than 5 from any one party and no more than 5 from one gender by statute; 1 minority and diverse geographical representation within the state by custom and practice. Number of trustees: 9 gubernatorial appointees-includes one student (who must be a student at time of appointment) voting trustee Length of terms: 6 years Maximum number of terms: Unlimited, but a 2ndl term is even extremely rare Number of regular meetings per year: 4 by statute, but monthly by custom and practice Executive Committee: N o Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 44.7% Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Selection procedures: Ex-officio; self-perpetuating; nominated by alumni, elected by the Corporation, i.e. Board; nominated by students and recent alumni, elected by the Corporation Number of members: 8 ex-officio; 25 life members; 25 "additional" members; 15 alumni; 5 students and recent alumni; 78 total members Length of terms: Term of office for ex-officio; life member has voting privileges to age 75; 5 years for 283 "additional" members: 5 years for alumni; and 5 years for students and recent alumni Maximum number of terms: Term of office for ex-officio; 3 for "additional" members, alumni, and students and recent alumni Number of regular meetings per year: 4 Executive Committee: Yes (10 members). "The Executive Committee shall have responsibility for general administration and superintendence of all matters relating to the Corporation. Unrestricted state appropriafion as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: N/A Michigan: Michigan State University Selection procedure: Partisan, state-wide elections Number of trustees: 8 Length of terms: 8 years Maximum number of terms: Unlimited Number of regular meetings per year: 11 Executive Committee: No Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 35.2% Minnesota: University of Minnesota-Twin Cities Selection procedures: Minnesota House and Senate, voting jointly, select all regents Number of regents: 12 (including one student or recent graduate) Length of terms: 6 years (including student or recent graduate) Maximum number of terms: Unlimited by statute, but Regent Candidate Advisory Council, i.e., screening committee, will not recommend an individual if s/he has already served 2 terms. The House and Senate members have honored these recommendations. Nt 284 Number of regular meetings per year: 11 by custom and practice Executive Committee: N o Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 32.2% Nebraska: University of N ebraska-Lincoln Selection procedure: district, non-partisan elections; student body presidents of each campus Number of regents: 8 voting; 4 non-voting (students) Length of terms: 6 years for voting regents; term of office for students Maximum number of terms: Unlimited Number of regular meetings per year: An annual, statutorily required meeting plus 8 or 9 Board established meetings Executive Committee: No Unrestricted state appr0priation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 49.5% Nevada: University of Nevada-Reno Selection procedure: district, nonpartisan elections Number of regents: 11 Length of terms: 6 years Maximum number of terms: Unlimited Number of regular meetings per year: 4 Executive Committee: N o Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds f0r fiscal year ending 1994: 56.4% 285 New York: Cornell University Selection procedures: Self-perpetuation; gubernatorial appointment; election by alumni; ex-officio; life membership; election by employees; election by faculty; election by students Number of trustees: 21 Self-perpetuating; 3 gubernatorial appointees; 8 elected by alumni; 4 ex-officio; 1 life member; 1 elected by employees; 2 elected by faculty; 2 elected by students; 42 total trustees Length of terms: 4 year terms for self-perpetuating; 4 year terms for gubernatorial appointees; 4 year terms for alumni electees; term of office for ex-officio; 4 year term for employee electee; 4 year term for faculty e1ectee;2 year term for student trustees Maximum number of terms: Unlimited for self- perpetuating, gubernatorial appointees, employee, and faculty trustees; 1 for alumni and they must be off one year before running again. 73 years of age is maximum age for all trustees except gubernatorial appointees, ex-officio, and life member trustees. Number of regular meetings per year: 4 Executive Committee: Yes (15 members. including 4 ex- . officio trustees). Can decide on all board matters except those requiring decision by the full board as prescribed by law. ' Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 13.3% Ohio: The Ohio State University Selection procedures: Gubernatorial appointment with advice and consent of the senate. Number of trustees: 9 voting; plus 2 non-voting students Length of terms: 9 years for voting trustees; 2 years for non-voting students Maximum number of terms: 1 S. 286 Number of regular meetings per year: 3 by statute, but 11 . by bylaw Executive Committee: No Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 23.0% Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State University Selection procedures: Gubernatorial appointment; election by alumni; election by agricultural and industrial societies within the Commonwealth: ex_ officio Number of trustees: 6 gubernatorial appointees; 9 elected by alumni; 6 elected by agricultural societies; 6 elected by industrial societies; 5 ex-officio; 32 total trustees Length of terms: 3 year terms for gubernatorial appointees, alumni, and agricultural and industrial delegates; term of office for ex-officio Maximum number of terms: Unlimited for all categories except ex-officio who serve .for their term of office Number of regular meetings per year: An annual meeting plus other meetings authorized by the Board Executive Committee: Yes (7 to 11 members of the Board chosen annually by the Board plus the President and Secretary of the Corporation. President serves as Chairman. "Transact such necessary business as may arise in the intervals between the regular meetings of the Board." Rarely meets.) Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 31.2% South Carolina: Clemson University Selection procedures: Self-perpetuation; and election by the General Assembly Number of trustees: 7 Self-perpetuating; 6 elected 287 Length of terms: Life for self-perpetuating; 4 year terms for electees. "All trustees are normally expected to retire at age 70." Maximum number of terms: Unlimited, but guided by retirement provisions Number of regular meetings per year: 4 Executive Committee: Yes (7 members-Board Chairperson and Chairpersons of the Standing Committees) f Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 45.7% Texas A&M University System: Texas A&M University - College Station Selection procedure: Gubernatorial appointment with confirmation by the senate Number of regents: 9 (all voting), no students Length of terms: 6 years Maximum number of terms: Unlimited Number of regular meetings per year: 6 by bylaw Executive Committee: N o Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 54.4% Vermont University of Vermont Selection procedures: Election by Vermont General Assembly; self-perpetuation; gubernatorial appointment; Associated Directors for the Appointment of The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College Student Trustees; ex- officio Number of trustees: 9 Elected by General Assembly; 9 self- perpetuating; 3 gubernatorial appointees; 2 students by the Associated Directors; 2 ex-officio; 25 total trustees _ .__,_uA-. ._~__ _ .. _ _,____ ._._.__.—._._.- _— 288 Length of terms: 6 years for General Assembly electees, self-perpetuating, and gubernatorial appointees; 2 years for students; term of office for ex-officio Maximum number of terms: 1 for General Assembly electees, self-perpetuating, and gubernatorial appointees. They can be re-elected or re- appointed to the board after one year off, but this rarely happens. 1 term for students. Term of office for ex-officio trustees Number of regular meetings per year: 4 Executive Committee: Yes (9 members-Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, President, 6 Committee Chairpersons). Meets only for emergencies. Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 14.4% Washington: Washington State University Selection procedure: Gubernatorial appointment with the consent of the senate Number of regents: 9 (all voting), no students Length of terms: 6 years Maximum number of terms: Unlimited Number of regular meetings per year: 1 by statute; 6 by custom and tradition Executive Committee: Yes (3 members-Board of Regents President, Vice-President, and Past President). They do not make decisions in the absence of the full Board. Unrestricted state appropriation as a percent of total unrestricted funds for fiscal year ending 1994: 51.1% References Alexander, K. and Alexander, M. (1984). The Law of Schools. Students, and Teachers. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co. Association of Governing Boards (1986). Composition of Governing Boards, 1985. A Survemf College and University Boards. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N o. ED265 810) Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. (1993). Ethnography and Participant Observation. In Densin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Ed.), Handbook. of Qualitative Research (p. 248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Ball, K. (1997, April 1). Money, politics talk in trustee appointments. The Lantern, p. 1. Columbus, OH. Berry, Wendell (1977). The Unsettling of America: Culture and grriculture (Chapter 8. pp. 143-169). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston, MA: Allyn 8: Bacon. Brown v. Board of Education (1954). 347 US. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686 (1954). Callan, P. and Honetschlager, D. (1992). Policies for Improving Trustee Selection in the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Chait, R., Holland, T., and Taylor, B. (1993). The Effective Board of Trustees. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Christy, R. and Williamson, L. (1992). A_ Century of Service. New Brunswick, N]: Transaction Publishers. 289 E. 290 Code of Iowa, 1995 Edition. Subtitle 4, Chapter 262, Section 262.1-262.2. Code of Iowa, 1997 Edition. Chapter 69, Section 69.16A. Colorado Revised Statutes, 1996, Article 20, Section 23-20-102 (Regents - election and term). ' Colorado State Board of Agriculture (1996, February 7). Colorado State Board of Agp'culture Organization. Fort Collins, CO. 1 Cornell University (1984). Cornell University Charter, 1984 Legislative .‘ Revision. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Cote, L. S. and Cote, M. K. (1993, January/February). Economic : Development and Land-Grant Institutions. journal of Higher Education, Vol. 64, No. 1. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. Creswell, I. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative 8: Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Cyrill, C. (1996. January 18). Gender equity bill may alter OSU trustees. The Lantern, p. 1. Columbus, OH. DiBiaggio. I. A., Sample, S. B., and Haaland, G. A. (1996). Confessions of a Public University Refugee. T rusteeship, 4(3), pp. 8-9. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Eddy, E. D., Ir. (1957). Colleges for our Land and Time: The Land-Grant Idea in American Education. New York: Harper 8: Brothers. Educational Record (1996, Spring/Summer). Study to Examine Governance of Public Institutions. Educational Record. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Flexner. Abraham (1930). Universities: American En lish German. New York: Oxford University Press. 291 Fraenkel, I. R. 8: Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to Defign and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gale, R. L. (1994). Committee on Trustees. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Gale, R. L. ( 1986). Nominating Committee. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities andColleges. ‘ (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 265 808) Gardner, I. (1990). On Leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books. Grigsby, E. III (1995). Overcome the Obstacles to Board Diversity. Trusteeship. 3(2). 36. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. ( 1995). Ethnogzaphy. New York, NY: Routledge. Haro, R. P. (1995, December 8). Choosing Trustees Who Care about Things That Matter. The Chronicle of Higher Education. p. Bl-2. Washington, DC. Healy, P. (1996, August 9). Activist Republican Trustees Change the Way Public Universities Seek Presidents. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A20. Washington, DC. Healy, P. (1996, October 11). Political Clout and Views on Abortion Sway an Election for a Regent's Post in Michigan. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A43. Washington, DC. Hines. E. R. (1988). Higher Education and State Governments: Renewed Partnership, Cooperationi or Competition? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5, Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988. 292 Ingram, R. (1994). A Guide to Conflict of Interest 8! Disclosure Issues. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Ingram, R. (1995). Effective Trugsteeship. Washington. DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Ingram, R. (1989). Making Advisory Committees and Boards Work. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Ingram, R. (1989). Trustee Orientation and Development Programs. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Ingram, R. (1996). New Tensions in the Academic Boardroom. Educational Record. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Ingram, R. and Associates ( 1993). Governing Public Colleges and Universities. San Francisco, CA: Iossey-Bass. Iowa Legislative Service Bureau (1995). Code of Iowa 1995 Edition. Des Moines, IA: Iowa State Government. I ones, R. C., Oberst, B. S., and Lewis, Courtland S. (1990, May/June). Building US. Economic Competitiveness: The Land-Grant Model. Change. Washington, DC: Heldref Publications. Kaze, I. (1996). Is This the Future of Lay Governance? Trusteeship. 5(1), 35. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Kerr, C. (1982). The Uses of the University (third edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 293 Kerr, C. 81 Gade, M. (1989). The Guardians: Boardgoi Trustees of American Colleges, What They Do and How Well They Do It. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N 0. ED 330 285) Kerr, N. L. (1989). Illusions of Efficacy: the Effects of Group Size on Perceived Efficacy in Social Dilemmas. I ournal of Experimental Social Psychology, p. 25. Kreeger, L. E. (1975). The Large Group: Dynamics and Therapy. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Latane, B., Williams, K. 81 Harkins, S. (1979). Many Hands Make Light the Work: the Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Iournal of Personality and Social Psychology. p. 37. Mackey, C. (1997, August 14). Conversation with the researcher. East Lansing, MI. Macula, A. I. (1996, November 15). [Letter to the Editor.] The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B1 1. Magrath, P. ( I 990). Governing the Public Multicampus University. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Marcus, L. R. (1997, I anuary/F ebruary). Boards of Trustees and Political Agendas. On the Horiz_op. 5(1), pp. 15-16. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1993). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Bylaws of the Corporation, Amended as of October I, 1993. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Michigan Governor would end direct election of trustees. (1995, October 20). The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A30. Washington, DC. 294 Michigan State University (1994). Michigan State University Board of Trustees Bylaws. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Minter, I. W. and Associates (1996). 94findat diskette. Boulder, CO. Morrill, I. (1888). Quotation from speech to Vermont Legislature. The Land-Grant Tradition, (1995). Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (N ASULGC). Nason, I. W. (1982). The Nature of Trusteeship: The Role and Responsibilities of College and University Boards. Washington. DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N 0. ED 226 648) Nason, ].W. (1989). Trustee Responsibilities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. National Commission on College and University Trustee Selection (1980). Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Nevins, Allan (1962). The State Universities and Democracy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Ouchi, W. (1981). Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). 163 US. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138 (1896). Reddy, W. B. (1994). Intervention Skills: Process Consultation for Small Groups and Teams. San Diego, CA: Pieiffer 8: Company. Reese, I. (1996, June). Tenure. Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, June 1966. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College. Ross, Earle D. (1942). Democracy's College: The Land-Grant Movement in the Formative Stage. Ames, IA: The Iowa State College Press. 295 Shick, E. (1995). The "Local Board"in Multicampus Systems and Universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Skubick, T. (1996, May 3). Capitol Comment. Lansing State J ournal. Lansing, MI. Staff (1995, May/June). Illinois Shakes Up Public Governance System. Trusteeship, 3(3), p. 6. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Staff (1995, N ovember/December). Real Threats to Lay Governance. Trusteeship, 3(6), p. 6. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Staff (1995). The Land-Grant Tradition. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). Strauss, A. and Corbin, I. (1990). Grounded Theory Methodology. In Densin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (p. 273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. The General Statutes of Connecticut (Revision of 1958, Revised to January 1, 1995. Volume 3, Part III, Sec. 10a-103. The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College Board of Trustees (1996). (Available from Secretary to the Board’s Office, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405.) Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1818). 17 US. 518 (1818). University of Delaware (1992). University of Delaware Board of Trustees. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. University of Minnesota Alumni Association (1997, January 24). Report of the University of Minnesota Alumni Association Citizens' Committee on Regent Selection. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Alumni Association. 296 University of Nebraska (1996). Bylaws of the Board of Regents of the University of N ebrailgg. Lincoln. NE: University of Nebraska. Wagner, Ion (1993, N ovember/December). Social Contracts and University Public Service: The Case of Agriculture and Schooling. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 64, N o. 6. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. Weaver, G. (1995). Boards in the Eye of the Storm. Trusteeship. 3(5), p. 5. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Weiland, S. (1997, August 15). Conversation with the researcher. East Lansing, MI. Wolcott, H. (1988). A Case Study Using an Ethnographic Approach. In Iaeger, R. (Ed.), Complementapy Methods for Research in Education (p. 217). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Wolcott, H. ( 1988). "Problem Finding" in Qualitative Research. In Trueba, H. and Delgado-Gaitan, C. (Ed.), School and Society: Learning Content through Culture (p. 19). New York, NY: Praeger. Bibliography American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (1985, January). Governance of State Colleges and Univepsflieg Achieving Institutional Mission. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 255 125) American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (1989, February). The President and the Governing Board. Conditions for Effective Leadership. Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304 080) Brunner, Henry S. (1960, October). To Fulfill the Promise: A Hundred Years of Growth in the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. School Life, Vol. 43, pp. 21-35. Chait, R. 8: Taylor, B. (1987, November). Evaluating Boards of Trustees: In Theory and in Practice. Baltimore, MD: Association for the Study of Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 411) Cleveland, H. (1985). The Costs and Benefits of Openness. Sunshine Laws and Higher Education. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N 0. ED 263 814) Curti, Merle (1935). The Social Ideas of American Educators. New York: Scribners. Doser, B. (1990, February). Effective Board/President Relations. Sidney, MI: Montcalm Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service N 0. ED 346 889) Frances, C., Huxel, G., Meyerson, I., 8: Park. D. (1987). Strategic Decision Making: Key Questions and Indicators for Trustees. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 424) 297 298 Fisher, I. L. (1991, March). The Board and the President. New York: Macmillan. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328 207) Graves McDonald, Iean (1995). Changing State Policies to Strengthen Public University and College Trustee Selection and Education. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges Public Policy Paper Series, N 0. 95-2. Harper, M. A. (1982. Iune). User's Guide to the Handbogl; of _ ' ,Colleae and University Trusteeship. Washington, DC: .‘ Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 238 366) Henry, Thomas C. and Roskins, Ronald W. (1989). Toward a More Precise Code of Trustee Ethics. Community College Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 27-33. Ingram, R. and Associates (1988). Making Trusteeship Work. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Klein, Arthur I. (1931, Ianuary). Rise of the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities. School Life, Vol. 16. pp. 83-84. Nelson, C. A. (1985, March). Policy vs. Administration. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 262 674) Rainsford, G. (1983, April). Twenty Steps to Responsible Trusteeship. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 232 495) Songe, Alice H. (1962, April). The Land-Grant Movement in American Higher Education: An Historical Bibliography of the Land-Grant Movement and the Individual Land-Grant Institutions. Washington, DC: Association of State Universities and Land— Grant Colleges. 299 Whitehead, I. (1983). Tips for Chaipriersons. Washington. DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 236 970) -g—n— ’ f ’ ”I11111111111111111111115