MSU

LIBRARIES
“

\—

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wil]
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped be1ow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SELECTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE: CASE STUDIES OF
THE SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION OF TRUSTEES

SERVING TWO PRIVATE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES

by

Jack Bernard Fistler

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Curriculum

1982

0‘ \ a (.313 {1:49

ABSTRACT

SELECTING THE RIGHT PEOPLE: CASE STUDIES OF
THE SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION OF TRUSTEES
SERVING Two PRIVATE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES
By

Jack Bernard Fistler

This study explored and described the practices and procedures
for selecting new trustees at two private liberal arts colleges and
considered the nature of the participation and involvement of board
members at those institutions. These points were described for each
college:

1. Trustee selection policies and practices.

2. Criteria for trustee selection.

3. Relationship of board composition and diversity to board and
institutional needs.

4. Relationship of board composition and diversity to trustee
participation.

5. New trustee orientation practices.

6. Relationship of board structure and organization to trustee
participation.

7. Nature of board member participation.

A descriptive, case study method was utilized. No evaluative
comparisons between institutions were made. The principal methods of

data collection for each college were (1) personal interview with the

president, (2) telephone interviews with trustees, and (3) published and
written materials and bylaws. Questions used in the interviews were
developed after a thorough review of the literature on trusteeship. The
interview responses were analyzed for content rather than in relation to
quantifiable hypotheses. Complete confidentiality and anonymity were
accorded each college and its president and trustees.

The study provided some general perspectives on trustee selec-
tion and participation at the two colleges.

1. Co-optation in trustee selection was in effect at both
colleges.

2. The selection process was less formal than the bylaws
implied and appeared less systematic than writers recommend.

3. The president was a pivotal influence in the selection
process.

4. Each college determined the "right" people for trusteeship.

5. The adjustment to trusteeship was the result of various
individual factors and institutional practices.

6. The nature of trustee participation was multi-faceted and
synergistic.

The findings of the study placed in perspective various state-
ments in the literature on trusteeship. Fifteen general observations
were posed in relation to trustee selection and participation at other
private liberal arts colleges. The observations and other specific

suggestions were presented as topics for additional research.

Copyright by
JACK BERNARD FISTLER

1982

©

for Amy and Holly

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The support and assistance which I received in this study is
acknowledged with gratitude. Sincere appreciation is extended to Dr.
Walter F. Johnson, my major advisor, for his valuable guidance on this
project and his constant encouragement to explore "an itch that needs to
be scratched.” The other members of the guidance committee--Dr. Richard
Featherstone, Dr. Frederick Ignatovich, and Dr. Stanley Stark—~provided
helpful comments and insights on this study, and in classes and
conversations.

Albeit anonymously, my gratitude also is extended to the
Presidents and Trustees of "Alpha" and "Beta" Colleges for their
cooperation, time, and candor.

I gratefully acknowledge receipt of a grant from the Sage
Foundation of Detroit, Michigan, to help defray typing and binding
expenses.

The interest and support of friends and relatives has been
appreciated and has been acknowledged personally. Special tribute for
their encouragement is accorded to my parents-in-law, the Honorable Don
A. Petrucelli and the late Carol Petrucelli, and to my parents, Mrs.
Doris Fistler and the late Bernard Fistler.

With heart-felt gratitude, I humbly thank my wife, Amy, and my
daughter, Holly Anne, for their devotion, understanding, patience, and
encouragement. Each in her own way has participated in, and contributed
to, this project. To them this work is dedicated with love.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.

Chapter

I.

STATEMENT OF THE STUDY.

II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 0N TRUSTEE
SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION . .
III. ALPHA COLLEGE: CASE STUDY OF TRUSTEE
SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION .
IV. BETA COLLEGE: CASE STUDY OF TRUSTEE
SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION .
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .
Appendix
A. QUESTIONS FOR TRUSTEES OF ALPHA
COLLEGE AND BETA COLLEGE.
B. ALPHA COLLEGE CORRESPONDENCE
BETA COLLEGE CORRESPONDENCE
PROJECT ABSTRACT.
C. ENDORSEMENT: UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE

ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN
SUBJECTS, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY,
JULY 6,1981. . .

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .

vi

13

42

92

138

165

167

176

177

{OWVOU'IAMNH

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.

25.
26.
27.

28.

LIST OF TABLES

ALPHA COLLEGE

Geographical Distribution of Alpha Trustees.

Sex and Age of Alpha Trustees Interviewed.

Formal Education of Alpha Trustees .

Occupations of Alpha Trustees. . .

Approximate Income Level of Alpha Trustees .

Length of Service on the Alpha Board .

Adequacy of the Introduction . . .

Specific Reasons for the Invitation to Trusteeship .

Cross- Reference on Alpha Trustees' Responses to
Questions 4 and S.

Perceived Effectiveness of the "Committee on Trustees” .

Alpha Trustees' Perceptions of Board Balance .
Time-Frame for Participation: Alpha Trustees.
Perceptions of Orientation Procedures.

"Work, Wealth, and Wisdom" .

BETA COLLEGE

Geographical Distribution of Beta Students .

Geographical Distribution of Beta Trustees .

Sex and Age of Beta Trustees .

Formal Education of Beta Trustees.

Occupations of Beta Trustees .

Approximate Income Level of Beta Trustees.

Length of Service on the Beta Board.

Adequacy of the Introduction . . .

Specific Reasons for the Invitation to Trusteeship ,

Cross- Reference on Beta Trustee's Responses to
Questions 4 and 5.. . . . . . .

Beta Trustees' Perceptions of Board Balance.

Time-Frame for Participation: Beta Trustees .

Perceptions of Orientation Procedures.

"Work, Wealth, and Wisdom" .

vi

52
53
S4
S6
S7
58
62
63

65
69
70
73
76
84

93
103
104
105
107
108
109
112
114

116
119
121
123
130

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE STUDY

The Research Problem

 

Regarding effective trusteeship, J. L. Zwingle states that the
"magic ingredient is people. Procedures are no substitute for people."1
Yet in 1969, W. H. Cowley recognized that the problems of selecting and
educating trustees had not yet been fully met.2 Frantzreb emphatically
states: "Perhaps the greatest limiting factor to effective trusteeship

3 Recognizing

is the very process of selection of members of the board."
the need for additional focus on the selection and participation of

"citizens responsible for the totality of higher education,"4 numerous
books, articles, conferences, and a national commission have addressed

the topics in recent years. If boards of trustees in colleges and

. . . . . . . S . .
univerSIties are to realize a "renaissance of their influence," 1t 15

 

 

1J. L. Zwingle, Effective Trusteeship: Guidelines for Board
Members, Fourth Printing (Washington, D.C.: Association for Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1975), p. 13.

2

W. H. Cowley, "Myths and Half-Truths Distort View of Trustees,"
Colleges and University Business 47, No. 2 (August, 1969):48.

 

3Arthur C. Frantzreb, Operational Imperatives for a College
Board of Trustees in the 19705 (New York: Frantzreb and Pray
Associates, 1970), p. 6.

4Zwingle, Effective Trusteeship, p. 14.

SCarnegie Commission on Higher Education, Governance on Higher
Education: Six Priority Problems (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), p. 34.

 

 

2
certain that the matters of trustee selection and participation deserve

careful attention.

Purpose of the Study

 

The researcher's purpose in this study is to describe the
practices and procedures for selecting trustees at two private liberal
arts colleges and the nature of the participation of those trustees in
serving on their respective governing boards. More specifically, the
researcher describes those practices in relation to specific reasons for
enlisting individual trustees, new member orientation, trustee percep-
tions about board composition and organization, and the participation of
each trustee in board responsibilities and activities. The comments and
perceptions of the trustees regarding their selection and the nature of
their service, as well as the comments of the two college presidents,

are of paramount importance in this study.

Need for the Study

 

The literature on governing boards indicates that trustees
serving private colleges generally are selected for membership by the
method of co-optation. Given the self-perpetuating membership process
of private college boards and the generally few restrictions on the
selection of the trustees, the responsibility and initiative for trustee
selection and trustee participation lies with the governing boards and
the presidents.

Research studies on boards of trustees have focused frequently
on demographic analyses, with moderate attention to trustee involvement
and board effectiveness, and on the roles and functions of governing

boards, in theory and in practice, as viewed by trustees and presidents.

3
Generally based on the results of national, state, or association
surveys, these reports provide valuable data regarding trends in the
composition and diversity of governing boards, as well as perspectives
on the nature of board involvement in collegiate governance. Few
studies of this type have described practices directly linked to the
selection and participation of trustees or have provided data based on
individual boards. And the literature concerning trustee selection and
participation is largely prescriptive. Therefore, this study of the
governing boards of two liberal arts colleges provides descriptive
evidence of trustee selection and involvement. The case studies may
serve as a pilot approach for determining suitable hypotheses, ques-

tions, and methodologies for larger scale investigations.

Focus of the Study

 

Given the complex interrelationships of factors regarding the
selection of trustees and the nature of their participation, the focus
for this study is to describe or consider the nature of, the following
points for each of the two private colleges.

1. Trustee selection policies and practices.

2. General criteria, actual and/or perceived, for trustee
selection, and specific reasons for the selection of particular board
members.

3. Relationship of board composition and diversity to board and
institutional needs.

4. Relationship of board composition and diversity to trustee
participation.

5. New trustee orientation practices.

4
6. Relationship of board structure and organization for trustee
participation.
7. Nature of board member participation, as characterized by
the president and individual trustees.
8. Nature of the relationships between the board and president,
and between the board chair and the board, as characterized by the

president and trustees.

Sgppe of the Study

 

The scope of this study is to describe trustee selection and the
nature of trustee participation in board functions at two private
liberal arts colleges. The two institutions were selected according to
the following criteria:

1. Private liberal arts college granting at least a
baccalaureate degree.

2. Enrollment of 1,000 to 2,500 students.

3. In terms of student enrollment, denominational affiliation,
and/or board membership, one college with a regional/state orientation;
and one college with a national representation as well.

4. At least one college with current denominational affiliation.

5. Current presidents at their respective institutions for a
minimum of four to five years.

The rationale for the criteria for the study of the two private
institutions may be highlighted. This researcher graduated from a
private liberal arts college and is particularly interested in that
segment of higher education. The composition and diversity of private

board membership may be affected by the typically large number of

S
trustees serving private boards than public boards, and by the general
method of coeopting new board members. Since the majority of private
colleges enroll between 1,000 to 2,500 students and grant the Bachelors
degree, the two institutions are typical private liberal arts colleges.

The regional/state, or national/regional/state base of the
institution may influence the selection criteria for new board members.
A denominational affiliation may affect board composition and diversity
as well as trustee selection procedures.

Presidential tenure of at least four to five years generally
ensures that the presidents have participated in the process of enlist-
ing new trustees and have developed operational relationships with their
board's memberships. As an example, it is acknowledged that it
generally takes a president approximately five years to change the

composition and diversity of a board.

Definition of Terms

 

The following terms are used in the study and are defined to

assist the reader.

Governing Board
The corporate body, of varying size, which is charged by the

institutional charter or enabling legislation with full, legal responsi-
bility for the institution. Board members often are referred to as
trustees. (In this study, the terms "lay governing board," "board of
trustees," and "the board" are used interchangeably with "governing

board.")

Co-optation

 

The process by which new trustees are approved by the current
board membership. Co-optation implies a mutual benefit in which new
trustees provide service to the institution and receive altruistic and

personal satisfaction from such service.

Selection of Trustees

 

The policies and practices employed by colleges for enlisting

particular individuals for service on their governing boards.

Participation of Trustees

 

The variety of ways by which trustees fulfill their roles and
the nature of their involvement in various board functions and

activities.

Methodolpgy of the Study

 

In explaining and describing the nature of trustee selection and
participation at two private liberal arts colleges, the researcher
utilized a descriptive, case study method. Questions for exploration,
rather than for measurement against quantifiable hypotheses, were used.
A detailed description of trustee selection and participation at each
institution is presented. No evaluative comparisons between the two
colleges are made. The subject populations consist of the presidents
and the 1980-81 trustees of the two participating liberal arts colleges.
The principal methods of data collection for each college were:

(1) personal interview with the president, (2) telephone interviews with
the trustees, and (3) published and written materials from each insti-

tution. The materials included college catalogs, annual reports, and

7
governing board bylaws. The president of each college served as the
contact for obtaining necessary materials and documents.

The researcher selected the interview approach as the appro-
priate method for obtaining the trustees' and the presidents' opinions,
perceptions, and attitudes concerning trustee selection and participa-
tion. The interview process enabled the researcher to probe for
explanations regarding responses to questions. The imprecise and
subjective nature of the methodology is acknowledged. The interview
process, however, was selected "for the sake of the richness of infor-
mation that only the interview can give.”1

A total of fifty-one interviews were conducted, one with each of
the two presidents and forty-nine with the trustees of the two colleges.
Twenty-two of the thirty-six trustees at one college were contacted,
while twenty-seven of the twenty-eight trustees serving the other were
interviewed. The total trustees interviewed represented sixty-one
percent and ninety-six percent of the board memberships, respectively.
With the wide range of membership at each institution, the researcher
anticipated that not every trustee would be contacted in the one and
one-half month period allotted for conducting the telephone interviews.

The questions used in the interviews primarily were open-ended
and were developed after an extensive examination of the literature on
boards of trustees. The questions were arranged in four categories:
the selection process, board balance and orientation, participation and

involvement, and evaluation. A section for collecting demographic data

 

1A. A. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement
(New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1966), p. 32.

8
also was included. The questions for the trustees are listed in
Appendix A. The content of the responses from the interviews was
reviewed for each question, and each category, in relation to the points
listed as the focus of the study. The personal interviews with the
presidents covered questions similar to those for the trustees. In
addition, the presidents provided information about actual trustee
selection practices and board organization and procedures, as well as
their general perceptions regarding the trustees. A specific set of
questions for the presidents is not outlined, due to the wide-ranging
nature of those interviews. In reporting the case studies, the presi-
dents' comments were included wherever the researcher deemed appropriate.
The board Chairpersons generally were included as regular trustees in
the case descriptions but were treated separately as officers of the
board in certain instances. For the reader's convenience, a similar
format was used for each case description. In describing the interview
responses, the attempt was made to provide a "sense" of the trustees'
answers, and to illustrate the variety and richness of the responses,
without compromising readability. The researcher tried to avoid using
modifiers that might distort the responses or data and might bias the
reader's perspective.

The general sequence of events occurred as follows:

1. In March, 1981, the researcher selected two colleges accord-
ing to the specified criteria and contacted the president of each
college to explain the study and to request the board's participation.

2. After a careful review of the proposal, the presidents,
board chairs, and executive committees of the two liberal arts colleges

agreed to participate in the study and accepted certain confidentiality

9
safeguards. Throughout the study, the colleges were identified only as
"Alpha” and ”Beta” college.

3. The trustees at the May, 1981, board meeting of each insti-
tution reviewed the proposed Study, with no trustee demurring. The
researcher presented the study at Alpha College's board meeting. All
the trustees of each college were reminded through regular institutional
correspondence of the review and approval of the study.

4. Personal interviews with the two college presidents were
conducted in May, 1981. At that time the complete listings of current
board members, and trustees who had recently vacated unfilled posts,
were obtained.

5. In May, 1981, the trustees of Alpha College received the set
of questions at their board meeting. Trustees not in attendance
received the questions through the mail. (See Appendix B.)

6. In mid-May, 1981, the Beta College trustees were alerted by
mail of the impending telephone interviews. Each trustee received a
packet containing a brief review of the study, a copy of a letter from
the college's president, and a set of questions for consideration. (See
Appendix B.)

7. Telephone interviews with the trustees were conducted in May
and June 1981. Each telephone interview required approximately twenty
minutes. The notes of the interviews were hand-recorded. At the
completion of the study, each governing board will receive a report of

the findings, including the college's case study.

10

Confidentiality of the Study

 

There are potential risks, especially regarding social and
working relationships, involved with the collection of data concerning
institutional policies and practices, and particularly with the treat-
ment of comments and viewpoints gathered in personal and telephone
interviews. Any inappropriate use and/or description of the subjective
responses of the presidents and trustees of the two colleges might
affect the essential working relationships between the president and the
board, as well as between the trustees. The doctoral guidance
committee, the presidents and executive committees, and the researcher
concur that the likelihood of such risks is minimal. The University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, at Michigan State
University, also approved the project. (See Appendix C.)

Complete confidentiality and anonymity was accorded the two
colleges and their officials. The institutions, referred to as "Alpha"
College and "Beta" College, were not identified by name, affiliation, or
location. The trustees and presidents are not identified by name. In
reporting the data, the researcher did not organize or pattern the data
in any format that would permit identification of an individual by
linking data elements. The pronouns "he" and "she" were not used, for
such usage might jeopardize confidentiality and anonymity. Without
affecting the validity of the study, in the researcher's opinion, a few
readily-identifiable comments by the trustees or the presidents were not
used. Footnote citations for a college's published or written

materials, which are quoted or referred to, list only the general nature

ll

of the source. Quotations from the personal and telephone interviews
are enclosed in quote marks in the text but are not cited in footnotes.

Prior to each personal and telephone interview, the researcher
reaffirmed the assurance of confidentiality and anonymity. The trustees
were reminded that their participation was entirely voluntary. The
presidents and trustees were free to decline to answer any particular
question. None of the fifty-one individuals interviewed declined to

participate completely.

Limitations of the Study

The interview technique was used, with the inherent limitations
of that format acknowledged. The colleges were selected, not randomly
chosen. The very nature of the study lessened the possibility of making
meaningful generalizations beyond the subject populations. While the
interview approach enabled the researcher to obtain individual comments
and perceptions, the interview situation was "fraught with the possi-
bilities of bias." The researcher acknowledged the possibility that he
might "unwittingly influence the respondent" or bias the study by
"selective understanding and recording of the answers."1

The reliability of information and the value of the study
depends almost entirely on the cooperation, and particularly the candor,
of the presidents and trustees. In that regard it must be noted that a

respondent's recall "will be a complex function of elapsed time since

 

1Oppenheim, Questionnaire, p. 31.

12

the event, current cues or relevance for his present affairs and the

significance of the event in his life."1

Organization of the Study

 

The study is presented in four chapters. Chapter II reviews the
pertinent literature related to the selection and participation of
trustees.

Chapters III and IV present the case descriptions of Alpha
College and Beta College, respectively. A similar format is used in
each study.

Chapter V includes a summary of the study, a consideration of
the issues raised in the case studies, the researcher's observations and

recommendations, and suggestions for further research.

 

1Charles F. Cannell, and Robert L. Kahn, "Interviewing," in
The Handbook of Social Psycholpgy, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot
Aronson, vol. 2 (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
1968), p. 560.

GMWERII

A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON TRUSTEE

SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION

Background

An institution of European and colonial origin,1 lay trusteeship
was entrenched firmly in the American college governance structure by
1829 when Francis Wayland retired from the presidency of Brown. A
leader of exceptional wisdom and zeal, Wayland pondered: "How can
colleges prosper directed by mean . . . very good men to be sure .
but who know about every other thing except education."2 A century and
a half later, boards of trustees remain the topic of continuing discus-
sion, with various writers echoing Wayland's remarks or advocating
reforms to rectify the peripheral nature of trusteeship.3 Trustees
confront a wide range of educational and managerial issues, which are

made more complex by such matters as pressures for governing board

 

1Gerald P. Burns, "College Trustees and History," College and
University Journal 8, No. 1 (Winter, 1969): 33-37; and W. H. Cowley,
Presidents, Professors and Trustees, ed. Donald T. Williams, Jr.
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980), pp. 29-48.

2Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University: A
Histogz (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), p. 172.

3Thorstein Veblen, The Higher Learning in America (New York:
8. W. Huebsch, 1918; reprint ed., New York: Hill and Wang, 1957),
p. 50; J. L. Zwingle and William V. Mayville, Collpge Trustees: A
Question of Legitimagy, ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10
(Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1974).

 

 

 

13

l4

reform, demands for institutional accountability, and fiscal
stringencies.1 Yet the 1973 report on governance issued by the Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education2 and numerous other commentators depict
the governing board as an essential structure for coping with the
challenges and ”the changed conditions anticipated for the 1980's and
1990's."3 As Zwingle notes: "Good institutional health should begin
with a good board."4 Good boards, in part, result from "selecting good
people and educating them early and well."5

Since about 1965 the volume of literature on trusteeship has
multiplied significantly. A variety of research studies, monographs on
trusteeship, and articles examine governing board topics. The
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB)
sponsors research and publications promoting effective trusteeship. The
literature, however, has not answered numerous questions entirely or

satisfactorily, for there is no model of governance which is "clearly

superior for all set-tings."6 Much of the literature on trusteeship is

 

1Richard T. Ingram, "Trustees--Power and Sanity in the 1980's,"
Educational Record 61, No. 1 (Winter, 1980).

2

 

Carnegie Commission, Governance, p. 32.

3Lewis B. Mayhew, Surviving the Eighties (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1979), p. 296.

 

4Zwingle, Effective Trusteeship, p. 11.

5Richard T. Ingram, and Associates, Handbook of College and
University Trusteeship (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980),
p. 47.

 

 

6Harold L. Hodgkinson, College Governance-~The Amazing_Thing is
that it Works at All, Research Report No. 11, ERIC Clearinghouse on
Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher
Education, July, 1971), p. 8.

 

15
prescriptive rather than descriptive. As one writer notes: " .
there is a vast literature about how they [boards] should operate."1
The following essay briefly reviews the variety of literature regarding
trustee selection and participation. Single references often cover a
wide range of trusteeship topics. Various writers often are concerned
with similar issues and present similar views and suggestions. The
references cited, therefore, are representative of the large volume of

literature on the selection and participation of trustees.

Board Functions and Responsibilities

 

Much of the literature on trusteeship is concerned with board
duties and obligations. In order to emphasize the importance of trustee
selection and participation, it is important to note briefly the broad
authority and responsibility of governing boards. Regardless of the
variance in governance structures serving public and private institu-
tions of higher education, the provisions for authority are remarkably
uniform. According to the characteristic concept of governing boards,
the ultimate authority and responsibility for an institution are lodged
in the board as a corporate body which represents continuity and
accountability under law. Boards are endowed with broad, full powers,

by the charter or enabling legislation, to manage the institution.2

 

lDonald E. Walker, The Effective Administrator (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1979), p. 130.

2J. L. Zwingle, "Governing Boards," in Handbook of College and
University Administration, Vol. 1, ed. Asa S. Knowles (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970), pp. 2-8 — 2-15; and John E. Corbally,
Jr., "Boards of Trustees in the Governance of Higher Education," Theory.
Into Practice IX, No. 4 (October, 1970): 240.

 

 

 

 

16

Numerous scholars of college governance provide descriptions of the
roles and functions of governing boards.1 Other writers place special
emphasis on particular functions within the broadly-defined responsi-
bilities of governing boards.2 Nason provides a comprehensive review of
the variety of board functions and responsibilities.3

The concept of lay governance appears deceptively simple. The
trustees hold "in trust" the educational enterprise, exercising manage-
ment and legal responsibility for the trust. Yet the responsible
exercise of that authority in maintaining "the vitality and integrity of
the institution,"4 and in relation to specific duties, elicits
considerable comment. Critics and advocates for improvement often focus

on the lack of clarity about board roles and functions,5 the nature of

 

1As examples, see Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership (New
York: Paulist Press, 1977), pp. 91-133; Orley R. Herron, Jr., The Role
of the Trustee (Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, 1969),
pp. 21-41; Arthur C. Frantzreb, "The Management of Volunteers," in
Handbook of Institutional Advancement, ed. A. Westley Rowland (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1977), pp. 129-141.

 

 

 

2Two examples are John D. Miller, The Academic Community (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962), p. 184; Robert Menke,
"Frisky Horses and Frisky Trustees," in In Search of Leaders, Current
Issues in Higher Education, 1967, ed. G. Kerry Smith (Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Higher Education, 1967), p. 154.

3John W. Nason, The Future of Trusteeship: The Role and
Responsibilities of College and University Boards (Washington, D.C.:
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1975),
pp. 8-23.

4

 

 

 

 

Zwingle, "Governing Boards," p. 2-14.

5John F. Budd, Jr., "Are College Trustees Obsolete?" Saturda
Review/World, March 9, l974:'48-49; Greenleaf, Servant Leadershlp,
pp. 91-133; Corbally, "Boards . . .," pp. 241-243.

 

 

l7
trustee attention to academic affairs,1 and the general effectiveness of
board efforts.2 Of particular importance in performing a range of
functions, the governing board should operate at the policy level.
Numerous writers emphasize policy direction as the appropriate approach
for trustees in fulfilling the responsibilities, without meddling in
administrative detail.3 Zwingle recommends that a board apply the
functions of planning, authorization, and review to each aspect of the
trustees' deliberations and actions on behalf of the institution.4 For
trustees to govern wisely, "the art of trusteeship consists largely of
discerning and holding the middle ground of policy making . . ."
combined with a cooperative effort with other members of the

institution.5

 

1Beardsley Ruml, and Donald H. Morrison, Memo to a College
Trustee (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959); John K. Galbraith,
"How the University Can Protect Itself," College_Mapagement 2, No. 9
(September, 1967); Zwingle and Mayville, College Trustees, p. 29.

2Ernest L. Boyer, ”A Fresh Look at the College Trustee,"
Educational Record 49, No. 3 (Summer, 1968); James G. Partridge,
J. Hurst, and A. Morgan, Boards of Trustees: Their Decision Patterns
(Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education,
1973); John W. Pocok, "Where Are the Managers in Higher Education?"
AGB Reports 13, No. 9 (July/August, 1971): 13-17.

3John J. Corson, "The Board of Trustees-~Necessity or
Anachronism?" AGB Reports 15, No. 9 (July/August, 1973): 7-8; Frantzreb,
Operational Imperatives, p. 2; Raymond M. Hughes, A Manual for Trustees
of Colleges and Universities (Ames: The Iowa State College Press,
1951), p. 13.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4Zingle, Effective Trusteeship, p. 12.

5Charles A. Nelson, "The Lay Trustee-—Up or Out?" AGB Reports

14, No. 7 (April, 1972): 12.

 

 

18

Trustee Selection and Participation

 

Perlman asserts that the issues of what a board should do, or
what are its "proper prerogatives, is exceeded in importance only by the
issue of who should or should not serve on the board."1 The Carnegie
Commission emphasizes that "the quality of governance depends, in the
end, and above all else, on the people who participate in it."2 In
addition, boards of trustees need to be organized appropriately to
promote effective trustee activities. Yet Pray notes that: "all too
few boards of trustees have met the standards of composition, organiza-
tion, and performance that are necessary prequisites to the solution of
basic institutional problems. ."3

The issues of trustee selection and participation are particu-
larly important for private colleges, which generally select board
members, with relatively few restrictions, through the method of
co-optation.4 In addition, the large majority of trustees of colleges

and universities serve in the private sector, but private boards tend to

meet less frequently than public boards, averaging two to four meetings

 

1David H. Perlman, "College and University Governing Boards in
the United States" (Chicago: Roosevelt University, 1972): 14.

2Carnegie Commission, Governance, p. 79.

3Francis C. Pray, "Trustees: Accountable or Discountable?"
(Frantzreb, Pray, Fenner and Thompson, Inc., December, 1972): 2.

4Nason, Future of Trusteeship, 28-29.

 

19
annually for the majority of private colleges.1 Zwingle states,
regarding private colleges, that there is:

. great variation in board size--and quality. Here the

possibilities are open for improvement both in organization
and role, . . . But . . . board meetings tend to be fewer,
the agendas too stereotyped, and the role of the trustee
too passive.

Many of the proposals for reform in collegiate trusteeship
generally relate to issues of trustee selection and participation.
Nason's discussion of factors affecting the "future of trusteeship"
includes several of such issues. It is acknowledged, however, the
"there is no single pattern of effectiveness. Board operations will
vary. . . . What will work in one situation may not in another. ."3
The recommendations, suggestions, and guidelines regarding trustee
selection and participation are indeed numerous. Only a few will be

highlighted to convey a sense of the literature. The reader is

encouraged to explore the references for more specific details.

Research on Governing Boards
Cunninggim describes problems relating to the role of the
governing board and of the president as "derivative problems" which are

dependent upon the "people that trustees and presidents are.:4 Numerous

 

1J. A. Davis, and S. A. Batchelor, The Effective College and.

University Board (Research Triangle Park, N. C.: Research Triangle
Institute, Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, 1974),

pp. 17—18; Irene L. Gomberg, and Frank Atelsek, Composition of College
and University Governing Boards Higher Education Panel Reports, No. 35
(Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1977), p. v.

 

 

2Zwingle, Effective Trusteeship, p. 15.
3Nason, Future of Trusteeship, pp. 24-38, quotation on p. 24.

4Merrimon Cuninggim, "The Governance of Higher Education:
Selected Problems," AGB Repprts 16, No. 2 (October, 1973): ll.

 

20

research studies, based on national, regional, or association samples,
have compiled data on the composition and diversity of governing boards.
McGrath notes the increase between 1860 and 1930 in the number of
trustees from business and law.1 A 1947 survey report by H. P. Beck
indicated that trusteeship has gone to individuals possessing wealth,
time, and prestige.2 Hartnett's comprehensive Study reports data
similar to Beck's. That report indicates that "In general, trustees are
males, in their fifties, white, well-educated, and financially well,off,"
and are business-oriented, Protestant, and politically conservative.3
Subsequent reports reveal some changes in the composition and diversity
of boards, notably the addition of younger men and women, minorities,
and faculty and students, as well as the changing dynamics and inter-
actions resulting from more diverse memberships.4 A more recent survey
conducted by Gomberg and Atelsek provides comprehensive data on aggre-
gate board memberships, for public and private colleges, and illustrates

changes in the diversity of the aggregate composition of boards.5 It is

 

1Earl J. McGrath, "The Control of Higher Education in America,"
Educational Record 18, No. 2 (April, 1936): 260-267.

2H. P. Beck, Men Who Control Our Universities (Morningside
Heights, N. Y.: King's Crown Press, 1947).

 

 

3Rodney T. Hartnett, College and Universipy Trustees: Their
Backgrounds, Roles, and Educational Attitudes (Princeton, N. J.:
Educational Testing Service, 1969), pp. 19-20.

 

 

4Robert Birnbaum, and Jean-Louis D'Seilly, "Portrait of the
Trustee as a Young Man," Journal of Higher Education 42, No. 7
(October, 1971); Rodney T. Hartnett, The New CollegegTrustee: Some
Predictions for the 1970's (Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing
Service, 1970).

 

 

5Gomberg and Atelsek, Composition of . . . Boards.

 

21

interesting to note, that while private college boards tend to be
larger than the boards of public institutions, private board membership
is generally less diverse, in terms of demographic factors, than public
boards.l

Various studies attempt to "accumulate practical wisdom about
the way boards actually operate. . . ."2 The study conducted by
Hartnett, utilized in Rauh's volume on trusteeship, explores topics
concerning the nature of trustee activities and involvement.3 Davis and
Batchelor present a large volume of data on trustee activities as well
as attitudes and perceptions of college presidents and trustees concern-
ing numerous board functions and activities. The study by Davis and
Batchelor provided much of the background for Nason's treatise.4 Other
surveys report on a number of similar topics regarding board composition
and diversity and trustee activities.5 Blackburn provides a succinct

. 6 . .
summary of the research on governing boards. The various studies on

 

1Ingram, Handbook of . . . Trusteeship, p. 49; Gomberg and
Atelsek, Composition of . . . Boards, pp. v, 3.

2

 

 

D. Walker, The Effective Administrator, p. 130.

 

3Hartnett, College and University Trustees; Morton A. Rauh, The
Trusteeship of Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969).

 

 

4Davis and Batchelor, The Effective College and University
Boards; Nason, The Future of Trusteeship.

 

5Richard T. Ingram, "Report of a Survey of Policy Boards,"
AGB Reperts 12, No. 4 (January, 1970); Charles A. Nelson and Frederick
J. Turk, "Some Facts about Trustees," AGB Reperts 16, No. 7 (April,
1974); New York State Regents Advisory Committee on Educational
Leadership, Coliege and Universiey Trustees and Trusteeship (New York:
[n.p.], 1966.

6Robert T. Blackburn, Research on Governinngoards and Some
ngblem SolvinggTactics and Strate ies Involvipg a Professor as a
Trustee (Ann Arbor: Center for the Study of Higher Education,
University of Michigan, September, 1977), pp. 1-27.

 

22
trusteeship provide the background data for the comments and suggestions

regarding trustee selection and participation.

The Selection Process

 

The nature of trustee selection depends largely on the type of
institution, with private college trustees generally selected by
co-optation. Martorana presents a typical discussion of the methods of
trustee selection, citing the findings of numerous research studies.1
With few stipulations other than possible provisions for denominational
or alumni representation. the responsibility and initiative for trustee
selection at private colleges lies with the president and the board.
The literature generally acknowledges that much of the actual selection
of new trustees is done on "a casual and even impromptu basis."2 The
reports of the New York State Committee on Educational Leadership and
the AGB National Commission on Trustee Selection provide evidence that
issues concerning trustee selection are not resolved totally.3

To assure the selection of active trustees, various writers
recommend that "the first requisite is an orderly and intelligent method

of selection," with trustees selected "on grounds other than sheer

 

1S. V. Martorana, College Boards of Trustees (Washington, D.C.:
The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963), pp. 40-47.

 

2Robert L. Gale, Buildipg_a More Effective Board (Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,
1978), p. 1.

 

3New York State Regents, College and Universigy Trustees . . .;
Malcolm G. Scully, "Bar Professors, Students as Trustees of their Own
Colleges, Panel Urges," The Chronicle of Higher Education 22, No. 2
(July 28, 1980); 4.

 

23

expediency."1 Emphasizing that the selection process must be a
continuous activity, Frantzreb recommends the creation of a standing
”committee on trustees," second in importance to the Executive
Committee, which is responsible for the selection as well as the
orientation, activation, and evaluation of board members.2 Created to
fill the "urgent need for guidelines to assist authorities in .
placing the most able people on boards of trustees," the AGB Commission
on Trustee Selection lists eighteen recommendations for improving the
quality of trustees serving on public boards and fourteen recommenda-
tions concerning private colleges.3

The task of selecting new members of the board should be a
deliberate process, to ”be taken with the utmost seriousness," with the
needs concerning new members stated "in concrete terms."4 Houle and
Kauffman reflect the general views that the determination of membership
needs should be directly related to institution mission and direction as
well as to the skills determined appropriate for service on the board.

Perlman contends that the reverse is often the case, with board

 

1Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
Commission on Higher Education, "Functions of Boards of Trustees in
Higher Education" (Newark, N. J.: Middle States Association, April,
1971): 5; Algo Henderson, The Innovative Spirit: Change in Higher
Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1970), p.
265. See also Hugh Calkins, "A Plan for Survival," AGB Reports 17,
No. 4 (January/February, 1975).

 

2Frantzreb, Operational Imperatives, pp. 6-9.

3Malcolm G. Scully, "Bar Professors . . .," p. 4; Robert W.
Scott, "Trustee Selection: Private Colleges and Universities," AGB
Reports 22, No. 6 (November,December, 1980).

4Cyril Houle, The Effective Board (New York: Association
Press, 1960), p. 28.

 

24

membership dictating board activities.l Gale suggests a four-step
procedure for enlisting new board members:
1. Determine membership diversity and skills needed.

2. Establish a search and recruitment procedure.

(A

Establish an orientation procedure.

4. Establish procedures for terminating member services.2
Techniques such as a "board profile" or a rating analysis are suggested
to assist in matching trustees to institutional and board needs.

The literature includes numerous suggestions that candidates for
trusteeship are to be researched carefully "to ascertain the nature of
personal nuances” in relation to the talents and skills needed.3 As
Tolley states: "Election to the board is fully as important as the
appointment of a full professor."4' The process of identifying and
selecting new trustees is to be an open, continuous activity, with

opportunities for faculty, students, and other interested individuals to

make recommendations.

 

1Houle, The Effective Board, pp. 23-26; Joseph F. Kauffman,
At the Pleasure of the Board (Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 1980); Perlman, "College and University Governing
Boards . . .," p. 14.

2

 

 

Gale, Buildingla More Effective Board, p. 2.

3Arthur C. Frantzreb, ed., Trustee's Role in Advancement
New Directions for Institutional Advancement, No. 14 (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, December, 1981), p. 30.

4William P. Tolley, ”Organizing and Energizing the Board for
Effective Action," in Selected Issues in College Adminietration, ed.
Earl J. McGrath (New York: Teachers College Press, 1967), p. 28.

5Scott, "Trustee, Selection," p. 15.

25

The actual invitation to board service is regarded as a vital
part of the selection process, which is "all too frequently .
offered in a casual, haphazard way. . . ." Houle and other writers
place special attention on the necessity of a personalized and formal
invitation.1 Each prospective trustee should receive a comprehensive
description of the institution's purposes and needs, together with a
variety of written materials about the board and the college. In
addition, the authorities on trusteeship concur that it is imperative
that a new trustee receive a concise indication of the reason or purpose
for which the individual was selected as well as the expectations for
effective performance.2 Lahti and Pray provide examples of performance
standards for college trustees.3 As several writers note, the failure
to explain the trustee's task is "an inexcusable oversight," and is
generally self-defeating, while the selection of a new member merely to

fill "a rotation spot" or "representative requirement" is "an insult.
4

H

 

1As an example, see Houle, The Effective Board, pp. 27-35;
quotation on p. 32.

 

2Frantzreb, Trustee's Role in Advancement, pp. 8, 23-25, 31-32;
Atherton Bean, "Fund-Raising and the Trustee," An Address . . . San
Francisco, January 29, 1972, p. 10; Rev. Joseph A. Sellinger, S. J.,
"Trustees: What One PreSident Wants," Educational Record 56, No. 2
(Spring, 1975): 76-77.

 

 

3Robert E. Lahti, ipnovative College Manegement (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973), pp. 21-32, 152-155; Francis C. Pray,
"Contract with a College-Trustee," Arlington, Va.: Frantzreb and Pray
Associates, Inc., 1975.

4Gerald P. Burns, Trustees in Higher Education ([n.p.]:
Independent College Funds of America, Inc., 1966), p. 67; Frantzreb,
ed., Trustee's Role in Advancement, p. 31.

 

26
"It is important to note that, in private colleges particularly,
the president is a key participant in the process of selecting new
trustees, in conjunction with board officers and other administrators.
VOSKUYI regards an active interest in board member selection as "one of

. . . 1
his [the preSIdent's] most important concerns.”

Characteristics/Qualities of Trustees

 

Much has been written about the desirable qualifications of new
trustees, yet the commentators generally agree that each institution
will need to determine those attributes which are most applicable for
its purposes.2 The lists of desirable qualities range from broad
conceptual attributes to specific skills and talents. Houle lists
possible "basic traits which eii_board members should possess," while
Corson asserts that only "three qualities-~intelligence, time, and
curiousity"--are needed.3 Martorana surveys the literature on the
characteristics noting that one qualification appears frequently: "the
expectation that persons selected for membership . . . will have and
will take the time to devote to their duties.”4 It is interesting to
note that the comments by Chambers (in 1938) and more recent writers do

not differ to any considerable extent. Chambers lists such attributes

 

1The Trustee. A Key to Progress in the Small College
(Washington, D.C.: The Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges,
August, 1969), p. 148; also see Burns, Trustees in Higher Education,
pp. 63-64; and Tolley, "Organizing and Energizing . . .," p. 28.

 

 

2Nason, Future of Trusteeship, p. 24.

3Houle, The Effective Board, p. 23, John J. Corson, The
Governance of Colleges and Universities, Rev. ed. (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1975), p. 272.

 

 

 

 

4Martorana, College Boards of Trustees, p. 39.

 

27
as capacity for detachment, tolerance, and flexibility, which appear in
similar phrasing in the lists of Burns and Lahti.1 Scholars generally
agree with Hughes that the quality of trusteeship "depends largely on

the character of the members of the board. ."2

Board Balance

 

It is generally acknowledged in the literature that a diversity
of board membership, with a "broader base in occupation, in age, and in
ideas," adds strength to the board and enhances its legitimacy.3 The
report of the AGB Commission on Trustee Selection recommends a "greater
diversity in the makeup of boards of trustees at both public and private
colleges."4 A number of commentators comment on the skewed composition
of board membership, as noted in several research studies, and suggest
improving the composition and diversity of boards.5 As an example, the
Carnegie Commission recommends that "board membership reflect the
different age, sex, and racial groups of the institutions constitu-

. 6
enc1es. ."

 

1M. M. Chambers, "The Good Trustee," Journal of Higher
Education 9, No. 3 (March, 1938): 127-129; Burns, Trustees, pp. 65-66;
Lahti, Effective College_Management, p. 24.

 

 

2Raymond M. Hughes, A Manual for Trustees of Colleges and
Universities (Ames: The Iowa State College Press, 1951), p. 4.

 

3Cuninggim, "Governance . . .," p. 12; Nason, Future of
Trusteeship, p. 2.

 

4Scully, "Ban Professors . . .," p. 4.

5As examples, see Clark Kerr, "Conversations with Clark Kerr,"
AGB Reperts 15, No. 9 (July/August, 1973); David A. Fedo, "College
Trustees Don't Have to be Nitwits," The Chronicle of Higher Education
22, No. 5 (March 9, 1981).

 

6Carnegie Commission, Governance, p. 35.

28

The issue of board balance is related directly to the selection
process. The development of a well-balanced board necessitates a
careful consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of current
trustees in relation to current and future institutional and board
needs. Attention to board balance is particularly important for private
colleges, where the generally self-perpetuating selection proCess may be
both a strength and a weakness in relation to board diversification. As
Gale notes, "every board needs to recruit outside the family" especially
to avoid heavy denominational or alumni representation.1 Gale recom-
mends that board composition be considered in two separate elements:
diversity (personal and demographic factors) and individual talents and
backgrounds.2 Frantzreb asserts that there must be "e_ee£_ef criteria"
for board membership composition "stated objectively, honestly, openly,
and adhered to . . . to provide leadership, not just friendship."3 In
an ideal sense, trustees should represent broadly the institution's
constituencies, but no member should "represent" any particular group.4
Burns adequately reflects the opinions in the literature: "A well-
balanced board will have members from various professional and occupa-
tional fields, not alone to provide different perspectives, but to

"5

provide specialized advice and assistance. Mere tokenism to

 

1Gale, "Building a More Effective Board," p. 6.

2Ibid., pp. 2-5.

3Frantzreb, Operational Imperatives, p. 7.

 

4See Louis H. Heilbron, The College and University Trustee
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973); and Hughes, A Manual for
Trustees . . ., p. 7; Cunninggim, "Governance," p. 11.

S

 

 

 

Burns, Trustees in Higher Education, p. 65.

 

29

make boards more representative is to be replaced by efforts to recruit
trustees. To perform effectively, "the board needs to be independent,
free of conflict of interest, competent, devoted, and sensitive to the

. groups involved in . . . the campus."1 Techniques such as a board
profile or a rating analysis are suggested to assist in matching
trustees to institutional and board needs.2

Regarding the issue of faculty trustees, Blackburn and Perlman
review the literature, noting the consensus that faculty should not
serve as trustees of their own institutions.3 Various commentators
recommend the appointment of faculty and students to appropriate
governing board committees, thus permitting representation of the two
groups and avoiding conflict of interest entanglements.

The question regarding the appropriate length of service needs
careful deliberation by each governing board, for "no fool-proof
mathematical formula is available for determining the proper term."4
Research studies indicate that private college boards use shorter terms
of appointment but have more members with lengthy service than do public

boards.5 To improve board balance and effectiveness, and to keep the

"dead wood" on a board to a minimum, it is generally recommended that

 

1Carnegie Commission, Governance, p. 33.

2Ingram, Hendbook of . . . Trusteeship, pp. 53-55; Francis C.
Pray, "Match Your Trustees to Your Needs," College and University
Business 54, No. 2 (February, 1973).

 

3Blackburn, Research on Governing Boards . . ., pp. 43-50;
Daniel Perlman, "Faculty Trusteeship," Educational Record 54, No. 2
(Spring, 1973).

 

4Heilbron, The College and Universipy Trustee, p. 7.

 

5See Nelson and Turk, "Some Facts About Trustees."

30
boards specifically limit the terms of trustees and provide for a
rotation of membership. As Heilbron notes: ”a board with obsolete

equipment will not fare very well."1

Orientation

 

As various authorities affirm, a well-organized orientation to
the responsibilities of trusteeship is essential. Indeed, Lewis

suggests, the assumption that newly "elected, appointed, or proclaimed"

{a
H"

individuals are instant trustees is ”so frivolous as to be amusing.
Axelrod, in a guidebook for new trustees, describes the variety of
orientation activities in public and private institutions, which range
from "a hearty welcome accompanied by a free copy of the by-laws to a
two-day simulation training workshop."3 Several writers emphasize the
value of orientation procedures, for colleges cannot afford to wait
several years for trustees to adjust to their roles. A comprehensive
orientation should acquaint the new trustee with the basic facts of the
institution, the "organization, mechanics, and procedures" of the board,

trends and issues in higher education, as well as an "intimate feel" of

 

1Charles A. Nelson, "Trustees: Serve or Resign," AGB Reports

15, No. 9 (July/August, 1973): 20; Louis H. Heilbron, "The Uses and
Abuses of Trustees," Paper presented . . . April 21, 1970, San
Francisco, Ca.

 

2Robert L. Lewis, "Building Effective Trustee Leadership, or
How to Exploit Your Trustees," Educational Record 61, No. 4 (Fall,
1980): 18.

 

3Nancy R. Axelrod, A Guide for New Trustees (Washington, D.C.:
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1977),
p. 2.

 

31

the college.1 Emphasizing that an institution deserves informed
trustees, Frantzreb contends that new trustees should not be permitted
to serve without participating in an orientation program.2 Among the
numerous suggestions for effective trustee orientation are specialized
training sessions, trustee-in-residence programs, "buddy" systems,
manuals on trusteeship, and conferences on trustee duties.3 The recent

Handbook on College and University Trusteeship contains a chapter on

 

. . . . 4 . .
organ121ng orientation programs. In essence, the orientation prepares
trustees for more effective service. As Ashmore comments, colleges must
recognize that "most trustees are grown, not born--and most colleges

have to grow their own."5

Participation and Involvement

 

Regarding trustee service, Henry Wriston offers an often-quoted

opinion that trustees ought to contribute "work, wealth, and wisdom,

 

1Rauh, Trusteeship, pp. 106, 108; Burns, Trustees in Higher
Education, p. 72; Harry J. Carman, "Boards of Trustees and Regents," in
Administrations in Higher Education: Their Functions and Coordination,
ed. Gerald P. Burns (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 87.

 

 

 

I.

2Frantzreb, Trustee's Role in Advancement, p. 33.

3Houle, The Effective Board, pp. 36-40; Arthur C. Frantzreb,
and Melvin M. Marcus, "Trustee-In-Residence: A Proposal for Improved
Governance," [n.p.]; 1972; Arthur C.Frantzreb,; "Trustee Chairmanship:
Position and Function," Arlington, Va.: Frantzreb, Pray, Ferner and
Thompson, Inc., 1974: 6; Milton W. Durham, and Michael DeBusk, Handbook
for College and University Regents (Denver: Golden Bell Press, 1964).

 

 

 

4Ingram, Handbook of . . . Trusteeship, pp. 87-100.

5Frank L. Ashmore, "Trustees Are Grown, Not Born," Pride,
December, 1960: 20.

 

32

preferably all three, but at least two of the three."1 Davis comments
regarding involved trustees, "more to be desired are they than gold."2
The various writers in trusteeship generally acknowledge that board
members possess significant potential for institutional leadership, if
colleges are ready "to utilize fully their talents, Skills, and
wisdom."3 Board effectiveness, however, involves a complex, synergism
of institutional and personal factors, for "the board is an organism,
not a collection."4

The literature on trusteeship contains numerous suggestions for
activating board members for effective service. Active trustee partici-
pation and involvement is a function of both motivational and organiza-
tional factors. Houle, Sellinger, and other commentators note the
motivational considerations necessary to prompt trustee activity. Houle
indicates that the motivation and encouragement of trustees should be
continuous, stemming from the initial invitation to service. A board
member's individual efforts should link directly to the reasons for that
individual's selection. As Smith suggests: "the board will fulfill its
corporate role only as well as each member finds fulfillment in being a

trustee."S

 

1Henry M. Wriston, Academic Procession: Reflections of a
College President (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), p. 44.

2Paul H. Davis, "More to be Desired Are They Than Gold . . .,"
Association of American Colleges Bulletin 44, No. 3 (October, 1958): 398.

3

 

 

Frantzreb, "The Management of Volunteers," p. 133.

4Nason, Future of Trusteeship, p. 24.

 

5Houle, The Effective Board, pp. 18-36; Sellinger,
"Trustees . . .," p. 73; G. T. Smith, in Truspee's Role in Advancement,
ed. Arthur C. Frantzreb, p. 2; also see Voskuyl, in The Trustee.

 

 

33

Numerous writers, such as Herron and Martorana, provide general
descriptions of board organization.1 To insure that governing board
operations are not a "random affair,” Pocock calls for an overhauling of
board procedures and structures to develop better the "organized I
capability and capacity" of board management.2 Various strategies
recommended for improving board operations include: improve the func-
tioning of board committees, with only the minimal number of committees
necessary;3 restructuring meeting formats;4 subjecting the agenda to a
"harsh test of relevance”; and organizing board sessions as "educational
experiences" for trustees.S The authorities on governing boards note
the special importance of committees in performing the detailed work of
the board and in focusing on critical policy issues for board attention.
As a result, assignments of trustees to particular committees need to be
considered carefully.6 Ingram provides a concise discussion of the role
of board committees, noting the delicate position of the executive
committee.7 It is important as well that the agenda and meetings be

structured to permit effective deliberation of issues, trends, and

 

1Herron, Role of the Trustee, pp. 65-87; Martorana, College
Boards of Trustees, 66-75; Ingram, Handbook of . . . Trusteeship,
pp. 63-86.

 

 

 

2Pocock, "Whare Are the Managers. . .," p. 13.

3Ibid., p. 14.

 

4Paltridge, et al., Boards of Trustees; Zwingle, Effective
Trusteeship, p. 19.

5Nelson, "The Lay Trustee-~Up or Out?" pp. 9-11.

6Zwingle, Effective Trusteeship, pp. lS-l6; Ashmore, "Trustees
Are Grown, Not Born,” p. 24.

 

7Ingram, Handbook of . . . Trusteeship, pp. 69-76.

34

policies, avoiding lengthy attention to the minutiae of pro-forma
decisions.l Perlman states that the functions assumed by boards often
are influenced by the size of the board and the length of the term of
service. On large boards the executive committee actually may do much
of the board's work.2 Since private boards tend to be larger, the issue
of board organization for effective performance is critical. Sellinger
states: "members of the larger board should be chosen for different
purposes and exercise fairly distinct roles."3

Numerous commentators concur that trustees, to function
effectively, need to be well-informed: "the exceptional member . . . is
not only a dedicated person, but an informed one."4 Hesburgh represents
the general view that "trustees need to be informed clearly and
forcefully, on a continuing basis, about the institution's basic
needs."5 The president is acknowledged generally to have the major
responsibility fer keeping trustees informed, as the official channel of
communication between the board and the college constituencies.6

Opportunities for discussions and communications with faculty,

 

1Tolley, "Organizing and Energizing . . .," pp. 27-31.

2Perlman, "College and University Boards," p. 15.

3Sellinger, "Trustees . . .," p. 74; also see Hugh Calkins,
"A Plan for Survival," AGB Reports 17, No. 4 (January/February, 1975).

 

4Nelson, "The Lay Trustee," p. 7; Carman, "Boards of Trustees
and Regents," p. 97.

STheodore Hesburgh, "The College Presidency: Life Between a
Rock and a Hard Place," Change 11, No. 4 (May/June, 1979): 4S.

6Ruml and Morrison, Memo to a College Trustee, p. 77; Mayhew,
Survivipg the Eighties, p. 42.

 

3S

administrators, and students must be provided as well.1 Holderman notes
that contacts between trustees and college officials, especially the
president, are both formal and informal: "Ideally, the flow of
information--ora1 and written--should be timely and continuous.”2 Since
private college boards tend to meet only two to four times per year,
efforts to keep in touch with trustees are particularly important.

Various writers regard the evaluation of general board effective-
ness and self-assessment by trustees as integral parts of a board's
Operations. As Miller states: ”the board's quality is related to the
extent the board evaluates itself."3 Miller, Stuhr, Pray, and the
Association of Governing Boards present various methods for conducting
board evaluation and trustee self-assessment.4 The literature generally
advocates opportunities for trustee renewal or continuing education.
Herron provides descriptions of several in-service programs at various

colleges.S

 

1Corson, Governance, p. 273; Pocock, "Where are the
Managers . . .?", p. 16. '

2James B. Holderman, ”Trustees: Moving to Center Stage,"
Educational Record 62, No. 1 (Winter, 1981): 34-35.

 

3See Myron Wicke, in The Trustee, p. 13; Richard 1. Miller,
The Assessment of Coliege Performance (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1979), p. 235.

4Miller, Assessment, pp. 221-235; Robert L. Stuhr, "How Do
Your Trustees See Themselves? Here's a Way to Find Out," College and
University BusineEE.54, No. 2 (February, 1973); Francis C. Pray, "Report
Card for College Trustees," Educational Record 45, No. 3 (Summer, 1964);
Ingram, Handbook of . . . Trusteeship, pp. 423-429.

 

 

 

 

5Pray, in Trustee's Role, ed. Frantzreb, p. 17; Orley A.
Herron, Jr., "A Study of Inservice Education Programs for Boards of
Trustees in Selected Colleges and Universities in the United States,"
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965; Herron, Role of the
Trustee. '

 

 

36

The President and the Board Chairperson

 

The role of the president and the board chairperson in trustee
selection and participation is discussed prominently in the literature.
The two officers are described variously as an "inseparable partner-
ship," "jointly responsible" for the leadership and management of the
institution.1 Frantzreb and Gies and Anderson describe the character-
istics of the effective board chairperson.2 As the most important
trustee, the chairperson is responsible for the interpersonal and
Operational dynamics of the board. The chair often participates to a
considerable extent in the selection process of new trustees and works
closely with the president in such matters as the basic direction of
board efforts and the preparation of meeting agenda. Hughes comments:
"Just as the college never rises above the level of the president, so
the board rarely rises above the level of its [chairperson]."3

The governing board and the president serve the college through

an interesting reciprocal relationship. Several writers describe the

interaction between the trustees and the president.4 While the board

 

1Gerald P. Burns, "The Board of Governors Revisited, " College
and Universi_y_Journal 11, No. 2, Joseph C. Gies, and Wayne W. Anderson,
The Board Chairperson and the President (Washington, D. C. Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1977), pp. 2-3.

 

 

2Frantzreb, "Trustee Chairmanship"; and Gies and Anderson,
The Board Chairperson and the President.

3

 

Hughes, A Manual for Trustees, p. 7.

 

4Charles A. Coolidge, "Training for Trustees?" Association of
American Colleges Bulletin 42, No. 4 (December, 1956): 512, Clifton R.
Wharton, Jr. , "The Stewardship of Trustees and the President," AGB
Reports 16, No. 1 (September, 1973); Lewis, "Building a More Effective
Board, " p. 20.

 

 

37

initially selects and appoints the president to serve "at the pleasure
of the board," and receives counsel and support from the board. The
president is often a vital factor in trustee selection and must work
vigorously to develop and maintain knowledgeable and active trustees.
As an example, Wriston asserts that the informing of the trustees and
the strengthening of the board's personnel are a president's first and
second duties, respectively.1 The working relationships between the
trustees and the president need to be compatible and mutually supportive,
without losing the objectivity necessary for decision-making. The
literature generally concurs that a college needs both a strong board
and a strong president.2 While trustees at times may be "frisky
horses," Tolley contends that "No one can survive as a college president
if he is not skilled in the direction and management of trustees."3 The
general view of the relationship between the board and the president is
reflected in "Burns' Law":

The most effective administration and governance occurs in direct-

proportion to the amount of mutual influence, cooperative effort
and shared initiative between president and board.

 

1Wriston, Academic Procession, pp. 70-72.

 

2Tolley, "Organizing and Energizing," and Kauffman, At the
Pleasure of the Board, pp. 52-62.

 

3Wriston, Academic Procession, p. 84; Tolley, "Organizing and
Energizing," p. 24.

 

4Burns, Trustees in Higher Education, p. 82.

 

38

Summary

This brief review of the literature and some issues concerning
trustee selection and participation perhaps raises more questions than
it answers. Each of the several topics highlighted could be the subject
of a lengthy, detailed review. Each reference on particular topics was
not cited, since writers often treat several issues within a single
article, position paper, or monograph. Rather, the review provides a
general sense of the literature.

The roles and functions of governing boards and the responsible
exercise of the board's broad authority are discussed repeatedly by
critics, reform advocates, and supporters of trusteeship. Comments
often focus on issues related to the clarification of board authority,
trustee efforts to manage or monitor the institution's financial and
intellectual assets, and general board organization and performance.

Numerous research studies, based on national or other sample
pOpulations, provide a general profile of board composition and diver-
sity. While variations occur within institutional types and between
colleges, the data generally depict board membership as skewed toward
the upper socio-economic levels of society. Several recent surveys
provide evidence that, due in part to pressures for governance reform,
trustees are becoming somewhat more diverse in terms of demographic and
personal factors. Other studies are providing, at least on a composite
level, insights into the actual functions of boards and the attitudes
and perceptions of trustees, board Chairpersons, and presidents.

Much of the literature on trustee selection and participation is

prescriptive, based in part on the results of research studies and the

39
writers’ experiences with boards of trustees. The consideration of
effective methods for selection and activation is important from private
colleges, which tend to meet less frequently, to be larger, to have less
diversity in membership than public boards. The authorities devote
considerable attention to the process of selecting new trustees. The
selection and formal invitation of prospects for board service should be
a carefully organized and personalized procedure, which recruits the
most capable individuals. Particular reasons for selecting an
individual should be conveyed during the invitation, along with a
concise explanation of the role of a trustee and expectations for
service. An assessment of institutional and board needs in relation to
the trustee prospects and thorough research of candidates are integral
parts of the process. The president, board officers, and the nominating
committee, or Committee on Trustees, are important participants in
strengthening the board through new appointments.

The qualifications desired in new trustees may vary according to
each board's needs, although the writers suggest basic traits appropri-
ate for all board members. The attributes and talents of new trustees
need to be considered in relation to the appropriate balance in the
composition and diversity of the board. A pluralism of backgrounds,
occupations, and viewpoints generally strengthens the board and enhances
its efforts and deliberations. Through careful consideration of
trustee qualifications in relation to board needs and directions, and
guidelines for the length of service, the board increases its potential
for effective efforts and provides for continuity as well as new

perspectives.

40

New trustees need to be prepared for fulfilling their responsi-
bilities through comprehensive orientation programs. A variety of
formats may be used to ensure that new members gain a working knowledge
of the institution, an understanding of trustee obligations, and a
general perception of trends and issues in higher education.

The active participation of trustees is perhaps a function of
motivation as well as board organization. To serve effectively,
trustees need to be informed and encouraged continuously. The involve-
ment of board members in particular activities may relate directly to
the purposes or reasons for which the individuals were selected and
their attributes and talents. Generally, boards which are better
organized tend to function more actively and effectively. Attention to
the committee structure and process and board meetings and agenda likely
will improve board performance. Periodic evaluation and self-assessment
by trustees are needed to identify strengths and weaknesses in trustee
performance and general board efforts. The results of such evaluation
and self-assessment may assist in re-activating lethargic members and
in identifying criteria for new membership. In-service education
sessions provide opportunities, without the press of routine matters, to
discuss issues in higher education as well as to learn better ways to
fulfill trustee roles.

The president and the board chairperson are vitally important to
the board's functioning. Both officers often are intimately involved in
the selection of new trustees and jointly are responsible for the
direction of trustee efforts and the operation of board procedures. The

working relationships between the president and the board chairperson,

41
and between each of the officers and the trustees need to be supportive
and reciprocal, without lessening objectivity.

The review of literature provides a general framework for the
consideration of trustee selection and participation. Chapters III and
IV present the attitudes and perceptions of the trustees and presidents
of Alpha College and Beta College in response to questions concerning

trustee selection and involvement at their respective institutions.

CHAPTER III

ALPHA COLLEGE: CASE STUDY OF TRUSTEE

SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION

The College

 

Founded less than seventy-five years ago by a religious order as
a liberal arts college, Alpha College engaged in a ”process of change
and re-evaluation” in the 1960's.1 As a result, the college became
coeducational and diversified the academic program. Within the frame-
work of a fully-accredited, private, four-year, residential liberal arts
college, a faculty of 101 members serves a diverse student body. The
recent enrollment included full-time and part-time undergraduates.
graduate students, and students in an off-campus external degree
program. While undergraduates accounted for two-thirds of the total
enrollment, only two-thirds of that segment were enrolled full-time.2
Through programs in several divisions, Alpha awards one Masters, four
Bachelors, and four different Associates degrees. The current President
has been at Alpha for five years, with seven years additional experience
as president at other colleges. The President stated that part of the

college's mission is:

 

1Alpha College Catalog, 1978-1980, pp. 6-7.

2Alpha College, The President's Report, 1979-80, p. 8.

42

43
. to gather many individuals of all ages, creeds, and
backgrounds into a vibrant, cohesive community that challenges
each member to life and growth.

Alpha College is located in a city of 24,000, and is near
several larger urban areas and a major metropolitan area. Recent
enrollment at Alpha included approximately 1500 men and women students,
enrolled full-time and part-time, from twenty-five states and twenty-
four foreign countries. Given the college's geographical location and
the number of part-time students, there are "especially high concentra-

tions" of students from the immediate county and one of the nearby urban

areas .

Board Structure and Organization
In the process of the changes in the 1960's, the board "was

expanded and began to take a more active role in governance."3 The
board was transformed from a small group of trustees, all members of the
religious order, and advised by a large "lay advisory board," into a
large lay governing board with a specified number of trustees who were
members of the order. The fiyieee of Alpha College are brief and provide
the framework for the legal and operational relationships between the
religious order and the Board of Trustees. As owner of the college, the
order delegates to the trustees, with certain specific limitations, the
control of "The property, business, secular and educational affairs and

.114

policies. In actual practice, the order judges the board's

 

1Alpha College, Admissions literatpre,.no date, p. 1.

2Alpha College, The President's Report, 1979-80, p. 7.
3

 

Alpha College Catalog, 1978-1980, pp. 6-7.

4Bylaws of Alpha College, 1980, p. 2.

44
selection for college president, reviews and ”elects" new trustees, and
approves financial contracts over a specified amount. The current board
size of thirty-six trustees corresponds with the President's preference
of a large board, which ”reviews and approves" the work of board
committees. The following paragraphs describe the way in which the

board is organized to carry out its responsibilities.

Board Meetings and Agenda

 

The board regularly holds Fall, Winter, and Spring sessions,

1 Each

although only the ”annual meeting" held in October is required.
meeting is held on one day for three to four hours. Often, some
committee meetings precede the full-board session. Reports of the
committees are part of the meeting agenda.

The President, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board,
prepares the agenda. Reports and minutes from the previous board
meeting and interim committee meetings, and the agenda and related
items, are sent to the trustees prior to the next board meeting. Addi-
tional reports and materials are distributed during the meetings. As
many as six faculty and six students, on a rotating basis, are guests at
each board meeting. The researcher observed at one meeting that these

guests are invited to, and do, participate in the discussions and delib-

erations.

Board Leadership

 

Four officers, reviewed and elected from the membership

annually, are stipulated in the Bylaws. The Chairman presides at all

 

1Bylaws of Alpha College, 1980, pp. 3-4.

45

board meetings and provides the general direction for board activities.
The Vice-Chairman presides in the Chairman's absence and assists in
guiding the trustees' efforts. The Secretary performs a variety of
record-keeping and official notification functions, while the Treasurer
monitors the college's financial affairs.1 The leadership of the board
works closely with, and often relies on, the President and other college
officials in performing the varied duties.

While the officers are reviewed each year, they often hold their
respective positions for more than one year. In practice, the Chairman,
the President, and the chairman of the Nominating Committee present the
officer candidates, or nominations for re-election, to the board for
approval. The President indicated that their judgments regarding
officer candidates are ”subjective" and are based generally on "who

might be good for succession to the chairmanship.”

Committees of the Board

 

The Bylaws stipulate that the Board appoint a Nominating
Committee and "establish such other committees, including an Executive
Committee, as they deem in the best interests” of the college. The
"duties, responsibilities, and powers" of the committees are determined
by the board members.2 Currently, the Alpha board is organized into ten
committees and an Executive Committee, with its eight members. With the
number of 1980-81 members listed in parentheses, the ten committees are:

academic affairs (8), athletics (5), college relations (6), finance (8),

 

lBylaws of Alpha College, 1980, pp. 5-6.

2Bylaws of Alpha College, 1980, pp. 4-5.

46
investment (6), legal (3), nominating (5), physical facilities (3),
planning (4), and student life (5). The committees meet at varying
times, as the members deem necessary or as issues dictate. As examples,
one committee met when its members attended the dedication of the new
college library, while the academic affairs group generally meets before
each board meeting. The finance and Executive committees meet the most
frequently, five to eight times per year, and often meet together.

The chairman of the Nominating Committee, the President, and the
Chairman recommend committee assignments for board approval, with the
leadership and membership of the committees reviewed annually. New
trustees serve on the board for one year before receiving a committee
assignment. New members may designate their preference of committees.
The President stated that, generally but "not always consistently,"
committee assignments correspond to the members' areas of expertise.
There are no faculty or student liaisons at the committee level.

The trustees' committee assignments vary considerably in terms
of the number, and the combination, of committees. As examples, of the
twenty-two trustees, nine are members of one committee, seven serve on
two, and four are on three committees. Two trustees are awaiting
assignments. The assignment decisions are a combination of the
trustees' preferences and the judgments of the President and the board
leaders. In general, the committee memberships are diverse, with the
exceptions of four committees: finance, investment, physical facili-
ties, and legal. Those committees especially are composed of trustees
with specific expertise. In addition, four of the six members of the
investment group are also on the finance committee, and four of the six

on investment and five of the eight on finance are from the same urban

47

area. In some instances, these trustees also serve on committees not
directly related to their occupational expertise. For some trustees,
their sole committee assignment relates to their specialized skills.

The Executive Committee is composed of eight trustees, including
the five board officers. The Chairman of the Board does not chair the
Executive Committee. As required, one member of the religious order
sits on this committee.1

The committees are important in the functions of the Alpha
board. As two trustees noted, "the board as a whole looks to the
committees," and "the board is only as successful as the committees."
The review and approval of committee reports and activities are major
parts of board meetings. The President is an e§_officio member of all
committees but meets most often with the Executive and finance

committees.

Trustee Selection and Eligibility
Ever since the lay governing board replaced the "lay advisory
board" in the 1960's, the board has consisted of thirty or more
trustees.2 The provisions in the Bylaws regarding trustee selection are
brief. Thus, the selection process is basically the discretion of the

Board and the President.

Eligibility
The Board of trustees is to "consist of not less than fifteen

(15) nor more than fifty (50) Trustees," as determined by the Board. At

 

1Bylaws of Alpha College, 1980, p. 5.

2Alpha College Catalog, 1968-1970, 1973-1975, 1978-1980.

48

least six members of the religious order, including three of the local
unit's officers or their designated representatives, must serve on the
board.1 The 1980-81 trustee roster included thirty-six members, not
including the President as an additional e§_officio member. The current
president of the Alpha alumni association also is included in the
membership. Three "Trustees Emerti" are listed but are not included in
this study.

Upon election as a trustee, each new member is assigned to a
"class" according to the date of expiration of the term. The trustees
are elected to three-year terms. Provisions concerning re-election and
cumulative service are not included in the Bylaws. Re-election to
additional terms is common. The President indicated an interest in more
formal provisions regarding consecutive terms or cumulative service
rather than an implication of "life service." Trustees elected to fill
board vacancies officially serve until the next Fall meeting, but
re-election to a full three-year term is then possible.2 Given the
re-election process and the "class system," there are generally one to

three new trustees elected each year.

Nomination and Selection
As in the case of eligibility criteria, the Bylaws state the

minimal procedures for trustee selection. The Nominating Committee is

 

1Bylaws of Alpha College, 1980, p. 3.

2Bylaws of Alpha College, 1980, p. 3.

49
responsible for submitting nominees for trustee positions for the
approval of the religious order at its annual meeting, or by mail
ballot.l

In reality, the nomination and selection process is less formal
than the Bylaws imply. The President, board officers, and the chairman
of the Nominating Committee actively participate in identifying and
cultivating prospective trustees. Through their various contacts, the
President and the board officers identify nominees, whose credentials
are checked with the leadership of the religious order. Trustee candi-
dates who are members of the order are identified "through their roles,
offices, or past involvement." Often, mail ballots are used for the
election, and re-election, of members, with the trustees-elect confirmed
by voice vote at the next board meeting. One trustee succinctly stated
the process: "The administration really elected me; the board passed on
it."

At Alpha the trustee nomination/selection process is a
continuous function involving referrals and personal contacts. The
President is involved considerably in enlisting prospective trustees.

As one member noted, the board is "the President's baby--not to control

it, but to build it." Through follow-up on referrals from trustees and

college personnel and personal contacts, the President and the chairman

of the Nominating Committee seek nominees "willing to give of themselves
and to avoid personal gain." Among the criteria listed by the President
as important qualities of prospective trustees are: (1) interest in

private, church-related colleges, (2) intelligence and prudent judgment,

 

1Bylaws of Alpha College, pp. 1-2.

50
(3) distinction in background or occupation, (4) demonstrated
reliability and commitment, and (5) above conflict of interest.

In the process of cultivating new trustees, "if chosen, would
you serve" discussions ensue between the prospect and the President and/
or board official. The members of the Nominating Committee, who review
the candidates, are assigned by virtue of their demonstrated commitment,
interest in involvement, and contacts. Much of the work of that
committee is conducted by telephone or mail. At the time of this study,
the Nominating Committee, at the impetus of the President, was being
transformed from its "pro forma role" into a "Committee on Trustees."

In addition to establishing more formal procedures and criteria for the
nomination/selection process, the committee's expanded responsibilities
would include trustee orientation and the review and evaluation of

trustee performance.

Orientation and Communications

 

While basically responsible at present for trustee orientation,
the President referred to the process as "almost non-existent, left to
chance." The individual's familiarity with the institution prior to
election as a trustee and the contacts with college and board officials
during the selection process generally constitute the orientation. As a
result, the President feels that one-fourth to one-third of the trustees
are "fuzzy" on operational matters of the college.

New trustees are provided with the Bylaws, catalog, and other
written materials. All members regularly receive a variety of publica-
tions and reports through the mail or at meetings. The materials

include catalogs, admissions literature, student newspaper, and literary

51
magazine, and reports which address issues such as placement, develop-
ment, and investment. The President considers that the trustees are
"well-equipped" with information. The more active trustees also are in
frequent contact with the President and other college officials and

trustees by telephone or occasional visits to the campus.

The Trustees

 

Twenty-two of the thirty-six Alpha College trustees were inter-
viewed in the period of time allotted for the study. That number repre-
sents sixty-one percent of the total membership. With two trustees
having resigned during the 1980-81 academic year, the twenty-two
trustees represent sixty-five percent of the thirty-four members
serving in May, 1981. It was not possible to interview the Chairman of
the Board. The three emeritus trustees were not included in the study.
The following demographic data, collected during the interviews,

presents a general profile of twenty-two Alpha trustees.

Geographical Distribution

 

The geographical distribution of both the total membership and
the trustees interviewed corresponds closely to the concentration of the
student enrollment. Of the total membership, eighty-six percent, or
thirty-one members, reside within one hundred miles of the campus.

Table 1 compares the geographical distribution of the total membership

and the trustees interviewed.

52

Table 1

Geographical Distribution of Alpha Trustees

 

 

 

 

 

Total Members Trustees Interviewed

Percent Percent
Residence Number of Total Number of Total
Same
Community
(as Alpha) 10 28 8 22
Same
locale 3 8 3 8
Same state 9 25 5 l4
Continguous
states 11 31 5 14
Other
states 3 8 l 3
Total 36 100 22 61

 

The number of trustees interviewed is fairly representative for each of
the areas, with one exception. 0f the trustees who reside in contiguous
states, nine are located in a nearby urban area which contributes
heavily to student enrollment at Alpha. That group represents twenty-
five percent of the total membership, but the researcher was able to
interview only three of the nine. Five of those nine trustees serve on

the finance or investment committees, or on both.

53

Sex and Age

 

Of the total board membership of thirty-six, roughly two-thirds
of the trustees are men, with twenty-three men and thirteen women. Of
the trustees interviewed, thirteen are men and nine are women. Two of
the trustees interviewed did not reveal their ages. The average age of
the other twenty trustees is fifty-seven years. The youngest trustee is
thirty-three, and the oldest is eighty-two. It is interesting to note
that the average age of the female trustees is slightly lower than the

overall average. Table 2 presents the sex and age data.

Table 2

Sex and Age of Alpha Trustees Interviewed

 

 

 

 

 

Sex Age
Percent
Number Percent of Total Years Number Percent

Male 13 59 36 31-40 2 9

Female 9 41 25 41-50 2 9
51-60 8 36
61-70 6 27
71-80 1 5
over 80 l 5
NA 2 9

Total 22 100 61 , 22 100
Mean Age 57.35

Median Age 57.00

54

Formal Education

 

In terms of their highest levels of education, the Alpha
trustees are well-educated. Nineteen of the twenty-two trustees earned
at least the Bachelors degree. Four of the trustees are Alpha gradu-

ates. Table 3 lists the educational backgrounds.

Table 3

Formal Education of Alpha Trustees
(by highest level of achievement)

 

 

Level Number Percent (approx )
High school graduate l 5
Some college 2 9
Bachelors degree 7 32
Some graduate study 1 5
Masters degree 5 23

Professional degree

 

(law, medicine) 3 l3
Doctorate 3 13
Total 22 100

 

Religious Affiliation

 

Sixteen of the trustees, or seventy-three percent, are members
of the religious denomination with which the religious order is affili-

ated. Three of the trustees interviewed are members of that order. The

55
other six trustees are affiliated respectively with three different

types of religious organizations.

Other Relationships

 

The trustees indicated the nature of their relationships with
Alpha prior to election to the board, with some listing multiple
factors. Four members listed alumni status, while three were members of
the religious order. Other prior ties with the college included various
occupational or personal contacts with college officials, financial
donors, and parents of Alpha students. Three trustees had served on the
"lay advisory board.” Eight members had no particular previous rela-

tionships, with one commenting "I didn't even know of the school."

Occupation

The current occupations of the twenty-two trustees are listed in
Table 4. Of the total membership, business vocations are the most
numerous, but the researcher was able to interview only four trustees
with "business" occupations. The three members of the religious order
serve in education and are included in that category. It should be
noted that the number of trustees from the religious order is the
minimal number specified in the Bylaws. The "other" category includes
one trustee each with occupations in architecture, medicine, banking,

and social service.

56

Table 4

Occupations of Alpha Trustees

 

 

 

Occupation Number- Percent
Education 6 27
Business 4 18
Law 3 l4
Housewife 3 l4
Retired 2 9
Other 4 18
Total 22 100

 

Income Level

 

The approximate income levels, current or at retirement, for
almost all the trustees who reported specific levels are higher than the
national average. The median income for thirteen members is $70,000 to
$80,000. The responses of five other trustees suggests high levels,
with incomes described as "ample," "pretty high up," or "very
comfortable." For the three members of the religious order, the ques-

tion is not applicable.

57

Table 5

Approximate Income Level of Alpha Trustees

 

 

 

Income Level Number Percent
Less than $30,000 1 5
$30,000 - $49,000 1 5
$50,000 - $69,000 3 13
$70,000 - $99,000 4 18
More than $100,000 4 18
Other 5 23
Not applicable 3 13
Not obtained 1 5
Total 22 100

 

Length of Service
There is an almost equal division between those members serving

three or fewer years and those who have served more than one term of

three years. Table 6 lists the length of service on the Alpha board.

58

Table 6

Length of Service on the Alpha Board

 

 

 

 

 

Years Number
1 year or less 4
2 years 3
3 years 3
4 years 1
5 years 1
6 years 1
7 years 1
8 years 2
10 years 3
More than 12 years 3
Total 22
Mean = 5.9 years
Median = 4-5 years

Ten trustees, or forty-five percent, have served three years or

less. Eight members, or thirty-six percent, have completed eight or

more years of service. The average length of service is almost two full

terms. The lower median length of service, between four and five years.

suggests perhaps that the researcher interviewed more of the "newer"

members of the board. The longest period of service was fifteen years.

59

The three members with more than twelve years of service had served on
the "lay advisory board" and continued on the lay governing board.

There is no observed pattern regarding the length of service and
the trustees' age upon election to the board. While one member is
forty-four and has served seven years, another trustee who is seventy—
eight just completed the first year of service. Most of the trustees
were elected to the board between ages forty and sixty, with an almost
equal number elected in each ten-year span.

In addition to being a trustee of Alpha College, four members
are on the boards of other colleges. Eight trustees are on the govern-
ing boards of community educational or service organizations. Three of

the trustees interviewed have experience on corporate boards.

Trustee Responses

 

The comments of the twenty-two trustees reveal some of their
attitudes and perceptions regarding trusteeship at Alpha College. The
trustees' remarks on each question are reviewed and summarized in this
section. The President's viewpoints and comments are included where

appropriate.

The Selection Process (Questions 1-7)

 

1. Why did you accept the responsibility as a trustee?

Among the various responses, the most frequent reasons for
accepting were related to an interest in the college, or higher educa-
tion (8), and the desire, or obligation, to serve (9). Other comments

included:

60

° new and challenging experience (5)

° asked to serve (3)

° provide direction for the college (3)

- accepted due to profession or occupation (3)
° long-standing family ties to the college (2)

Contacts with college officials and some familiarity with the
college, due to close residence, were important factors. One local
trustee was "more than glad to be of help." Another member accepted
with the provision that the college "would utilize instead of use me.”
Trusteeship enabled one member to "give to others as has been given to
me." One trustee would add a "new dimension" to the board as "one who
is not a typical trustee with wealth or board experience.” For one
member, the invitation to serve came at a time when a new experience was

welcomed.

2. Were you seeking such a position? Why?

The unanimous response was "No." One trustee responded, "Hell,
no." Three members had declined to participate on their first invita-
tion. For several trustees, the invitation to serve was "flattering”
and a "great honor." While not seeking trusteeship, one member accepted
because, "I knew I wanted to serve the college, but did not know exactly

how."

3. Was the nomination/selection process personalized? Who was
involved?

All twenty-two trustees commented that the process was.
"personalized" in some manner. Twenty referred to a variety of personal

contacts with current, or former, trustees as well as with college

6l
administrators. The President, leaders of the religious order, the
Chairman, and several trustees were cited as the officials involved in
referring candidates, or in exploring trusteeship with prospective
members. Often, the invitation for a particular member to serve, if.
nominated and elected, involved more than one official. Letters, tele-
phone contacts, personal introductions, community relations, and the
official outreach of the President and the religious order were part of
the process.

Two trustees considered their circumstances to be somewhat
different. One was on the board by virtue of a position in the leader-
ship of the religious order. The other member was invited to serve
primarily through a corporate superior who previously served as an Alpha

trustee.

4. Did you receive an adequate introduction to the needs of the
institution and the role of a trustee?

While the trustees considered the selection process to have been
"personalized," they were less in agreement about the adequacy of an
introduction to needs/role. Table 7 lists the responses.

Twelve trustees felt that the information received "covered it
pretty well" and provided "a fair idea" of the needs of the college and
a trustee's responsibilities. Two members, respectively, recalled that
the college official gave "a great deal of explanation" and was "very
honest" about institutional matters. Four of these trustees stated that
they already were somewhat familiar with the college's goals and needs

through general community relations. One of the four, however, admitted

62

Table 7

Adequacy of the Introduction

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Yes 12 55
Qualified yes 2 9
No 7 32
Not applicable 1 4
Total 22 100

 

that without the local relationship, "perhaps as a stranger" more
information would haVe been needed.

Two trustees gave a "qualified yes.” One commented in terms of
the introduction that "there could have been more, but it was forth-
right." The other member felt that the discussion of needs/role was
”not practical enough about the campus and the people to know."

Almost one-third of the trustees regarded the introduction as
"very general" or "not really enough." One member received "some over-
view," but, along with another trustee, perceived a "trust us" situation
in the selection process. Without an adequate introduction, each of two
trustees were "feeling my way" or "working on it now.” One trustee
stated "no, but it didn't take long to find out the needs."

It should be noted that four of the seven trustees responding

"no" have served on the board for less than three years. Regarding the

63
adequacy of the introduction, the researcher discerned no other patterns
in the comments of the trustees in relation to their occupations,
residences, or length of service, or differences between trustees
selected under other presidents. The responses must be interpreted
carefully. Actual board experience might temper the trustees' recall.
In addition, "familiarity" with the college at the time of selection
might have affected a trustee's perception of the adequacy of the intro-

duction to the college's needs and the trustee role.

5. Was a specific reason(s) given for inviting you to become a
trustee?

Almost three-fourths of the trustees interviewed indicated that
a specific reason was stated. Table 8 lists their answers. The
researcher divided the positive responses into specific and general
categories: "A" for specific reasons referring to the trustees' exper-

tise or particular background, and "B" for more general reasons such as

 

 

residence.
Table 8

Specific Reasons for the Invitation to Trusteeship
Response Number Percent (approx.)
Yes - 5A 12 55
Yes - SB 5 22.5
No 4 18.
"Occupation" l 4.5

 

Total 22 100.0

 

64

Over half of the trustees recalled specific reasons, such as
legal expertise, higher education experience, finance background, and
architecture and construction knowledge. One trustee was told that the
board needed members with an "awareness of human feelings and sensitivi-
ties." A member from the local community was to assist in ”improving
the liaison of the college and the community." One trustee's background
would be of help in student recruiting. For one member, the specific
reason was conveyed with the "usual flattery," while another trustee
stated "very simple--money."

The five "general" (S-B) reasons related to residence in a
particular area, sex, or general diversity of board membership. The
comments to these trustees were "very flattering" and conveyed the
"usual nice things," but were not linked to specific individual exper-
tise. One member was needed to ”help get the damn place into the
twentieth century." One trustee was on the board by virtue of a
position in the religious order. The four negative responses were not
explained.

The responses to Question 5, as in the case of Question 4, must
be interpreted cautiously. While a specific reason might have been
communicated, the trustees might not recall the exact comments. The
"reason” cited might be based on actual board experience and the recall
of the initial contacts. There were no observed relationships in the
responses between such variables as the college offical involved, or the
trustees' lengths of service, occupations, or residences.

The researcher explored the possible relationships between the
responses on Questions 4 and 5. Table 9 is a cross-reference of the

Alpha trustees' comments. While a variety of combinations resulted, the

65

Table 9

Cross-Reference on Alpha Trustees' Responses
to Questions 4 and 5

#4

+
10
9 .
8 (Yes, 5A)
7
6
S
4
3 .

. 2 (Yes, SB)
(Yes, Nd 1
#5- . +#5

 

10 9 8 7 6 S 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

- 1
(No, No)_ 2 ° (No, 5B)
3 (No, SA)
4
5
o
7
8
9
10
#4

Note: The parenthetical keys indicate the responses as "(Question 4,
Question 5)." The "Not Applicable" and "Occupation" responses
on Questions 4 and 5, respectively, are not included.

66

combinations reflected the high percentage of positive responses on
Question 5. Over eighty percent of the trustees who responded ”yes" or
"qualified yes" on Question 4 considered that a specific reason was
given (SA or B). Thus, three out of four members who considered their
introduction to needs/role as adequate received, or at least perceived,
a particular reason for the invitation to trusteeship. In addition,
five who regarded their introduction as less than adequate considered
that specific reasons were given. An extensive comparison of the
trustees' personal data items, such as age, occupation, or length of
service, with the paired responses did not uncover any particular
patterns. Due to the researcher's categorization of the responses and
the reliance on the trustees' recall, this comparison lacks precision.
On the other hand, it does provide some insights into the nomination/

selection process.

6. What characteristics, qualities, or attributes do you feel
are important in prospective trustees?

While the Alpha trustees listed a variety of desirable charac-
teristics, "willingness to work and to be involved" (10) was mentioned
most frequently. A trustee was not to be merely a name, or to "just
attend meetings," but one "who would work in between." The trustees'
list was similar to the President's criteria cited earlier in the case
study. With the exception of fund-raising and business expertise, the
qualities suggested primarily were broad concepts rather than particular

skills. Other attributes mentioned often were:

67

- interest in the college, or higher education (7)
° independent judgment and practicality (6)

° some specific area of expertise (5)

° fund-raising, or actual gift support (5)

° broad experience/background (4)

- business abilities (4)

One trustee noted that candidates should have some sense that
governing boards "do policy, not administration.” In a similar vein,
the trustee must be a "decision-maker" who observed the college from a
"wholistic view, not as tiny boxes." For one trustee, candidates should
regard board service as an opportunity for "returning to society that
which they have obtained." Another member stated "common sense,
mainly," but the trustee should "not be afraid to be controversial and

innovative."

7. What particular abilities or expertise do you bring to the
board?

With more than one item occasionally included, the trustees
listed a variety of specific talents or backgrounds and more general
abilities. The following responses were examples of "particular
abilities" in terms of occupational talents or special backgrounds:
° business/finance knowledge (4)

° higher education experience (4)

° perspectives of the local community (4)
° knowledge of the religious order (4)

° legal expertise (3)

' buildings and physical plant (2)

68

Included in the contributions of a more general nature were:

° objectivity and practical judgment (4)
° commitment to, and interest in, students (4)
° ”people" skills (4)

One trustee cited a "down-to-earth" business sense which
balanced the tendency of "academic people" to ”go on a tangent, off the
deep end." Another was not afraid to make waves." One provided a
”common approach," due to a self-perception of having the "least amount
of credentials” among the members.

Board Balance and Orientation
(Questions "A", 8-13)

 

"A". Will the new ”Committee on Trustees” provide for an
effective nomination/selection process?

Since the President indicated that the functions of the
Nominating Committee were being expanded, this question was added to
survey the Alpha trustees' opinions about the "Committee on Trustees."
It was somewhat apparent that the term has received limited use beyond
the President's discussions. For about one-half of the trustees, it was
necessary for the researcher to rephrase the question in reference to
the added duties of the Nominating Committee. Table 10 lists the
responses.

Over seventy-five percent of the trustees supported, at least in
theory, the new roles of the Nominating Committee. For one trustee, it
"made a lot of sense" to "institutionalize the process" by establishing
"more formal procedures." One trustee, who supported the new direction,
acknowledged that nomination/selection was a "difficult process--it

depends on who knows whom." Another member felt that the new

69

Table 10

Perceived Effectiveness of the
"Committee on Trustees”

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Yes 10 45
"Hope 50" 7 32
No 1 5
"Not know" 4 18
Total 22 100

 

dimensions of the committee would "help the administration clarify what
it's looking for.” One trustee commented that prospective trustees
"need to be researched." Five trustees referred to the potential
elimination of "deadwood" on the board through a more systematic
process. One was concerned that ”some members did not contribute much,”
and stated that some current trustees "would have been eliminated
quickly" with more careful selection procedures. Another trustee
perceived that "too many were on the board because their service would
look good in the obituary column."

One trustee considered that any additional efforts to formalize
the selection criteria would "tend to restrict the range of selection."
Only broad criteria, seeking "honest, community-minded, progressive

individuals" would be helpful.

70

8. Is there a good diversity and balance on the board?

The President regarded the board as "balanced" and cited the
addition of several trustees in recent years which helped to broaden the
diversity. Educators, members with varied religious backgrounds, one
minority member, women, and younger trustees had been enlisted.
Generally, in the President's view, ”the more diverse the membership,
the better the discussions and decisions.” Other categories for consid-
eration included the communications/media professions and educators from
private institutions. One trustee remarked that the President had built
"a board of expertise." The trustees' responses corresponded with the

President's views, as indicated in Table 11.

Table 11

Alpha Trustees' Perceptions of Board Balance

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Yes 17 77
Partially 5 23
Total 22 100

 

In general, the trustees considered that the board was
balanced with "a wide spectrum of individuals. Several of the seventeen
members who answered "yes" were "fairly," or "quite," "impressed" with
the board's membership. Two regarded the members as "a group of

activists who get things done,” and "challenge the President." One

71

trustee stated that the board ”always astonishes me on its composition
and loyalty.” One member felt that the board was "better balanced than
I've seen or read about," while another said the balance was "better
than I had hoped for."

Five trustees considered the balance "pretty good," but
expressed concern about particular segments of the membership. Two
cited the board as "fairly well diverse" but not balanced, due to
"perhaps a preponderance" of businessmen. One trustee pointed to the
need for more representation from a particular urban area. Another
trustee considered the religious order to be over-represented, while
another perceived that "conservative views” predominated. One trustee
suggested that the board always needed trustees with, or who could help

get, additional money and resources.

9. Are any changes needed in the size of the board, composition
of the board, or the terms of service of board members?

The Alpha trustees did not comment on each segment of the
question but did provide a mixture of suggestions. The responses of
individual members did not relate necessarily to their comments on
Question 8.

Five trustees were content that all three issues in Question 9
were satisfactory. Another five members, however, offered suggestions
for improving board composition. Three advocated the selection of
younger members. The board needed continuity, but "maybe it was too
elderly; we need to keep looking for replacements." Two trustees

commented that the board needed additional "representatives from

72
academe.” One member also advised that more trustees Should be chosen
from a particular urban area.

Twelve trustees commented about board size. According to five,
the current size of thirty-six trustees was not "cumbersome," for "the
committees do the work." For one trustee, the size was "large enough
for active work," while another stated that size itself was not
important, rather "who was getting the job done.” One trustee called
the board "large, but the need was great for publicity and outreach."
The five trustees generally agreed that the board would get "unwieldy"
if it became any larger.

Seven, or almost one-third of those interviewed, viewed the
board as "too big perhaps" and ”unwieldy." One suggested a size of
eleven to thirteen members, and another felt that "no one would speak
up" if board size increased. One trustee suggested: "make it smaller
and intensify each trustees' responsibilities."

The term of service elicited mixed opinions. One trustee viewed
the three-year term, with re-election, as "enough for challenge and
stability." Four trustees felt that the length of service depended on
an individual's contributions, with "no limits" on service for those
"workers" who provided "long, dedicated service." One of the four
wanted "the President and the Executive Committee, not the board" to
judge each trustee's effectiveness for continued service. Two other
members regarded re-election as "a little too automatic," and wanted the
board "to allow for more turnover." One trustee recommended a systema-
tic procedure for evaluating trustee performance. One member did not

know the actual term of service.

73

10. How long did it take for you to become an ”effective,"
participatory trustee?

The President stated that the time-frame for the trustees
"varied greatly," with ”some active after one meeting, some after two
years, and others not yet." Fourteen trustees regarded themselves as
active in one year or less. The average for the eighteen trustees who
stated a specific period of time was slightly more than one year, or

three meetings. Table 12 lists the minimum time-frame for active

 

 

 

 

involvement.
Table 12

Time-Frame for Participation: Alpha Trustees
Response Number Percent
Less than 1 year 4 ' 18
1 year 10 45
2 years 3 l4
5 years I 5
Other 4 18
Total 22 100

 

Four trustees "got busy right away" and regarded board service
as a "quick learning process." One member commented: "I'd like to
think I was effective from the beginning." Another required only "a

couple of meetings to become familiar with the actual procedures."

74

Ten trustees, virtually one-half of the trustees interviewed,
took approximately one year "to be aware of the college and its
problems, and the significance of service." One was "rather quiet” in
the first year and "evaluated what was happening,” but was "not bashful
to make a point." Generally, it took a year for the ten trustees in
”getting respect and giving input." One trustee with one year's
experience admitted to be "learning still,” while another member took a
year "just to learn the names of the buildings."

For three trustees, it took two or more years "to find out what
the score was" and "to feel comfortable." One was "not sure how
effective I am yet," and felt that the board's size made the adjustment
"tough in two years."

One trustee served almost two full terms "before I got the
grasp and knew what was going on." Of the remaining members, two stated
"not yet" after one year's service. One long-time member commented:
"I'm no more effective now than then."

The researcher compared the responses on Question 4 regarding
the introduction to needs/role to the comments on Question 10. The
comparison reflects the tendency for the trustees who perceived their
introduction as adequate to have felt actively involved in one year
or less. Ten of the fourteen members who responded positively on
Question 4 were active in one year or less. Yet four of the seven
trustees who answered "no" on Question 4 also required one year or less.
Since the trustees' average was one year for involvement, the compara-
tive evidence was not dramatic. This suggests that the time-frame for

each trustee's adjustment was a combination of numerous factors. In

75
addition, there were no patterns discerned between the combined
responses on Questions 4 and 10 and the trustees' personal data

variables.

11. How best did you gain an understanding of the roles and
duties of a trustee?

Two factors were cited as particularly important: contacts with
fellow trustees and college officials, and the experience gained through
meetings. Ten trustees noted the value of informal conversations, and
working relationships, with ”faculty, board members, and students,” as
well as the President and other administrators. Generally, an under-
standing of trusteeship came by ”attending meetings, listening and
learning, watching the process, and talking to peOple.” Three trustees
cited as helpful such activities as committee work on fund-raising. One
member listed previous board experience at another college. In addi-
tion, there was "a wealth of material, if you bother to read it." Two
trustees felt that "feeling your own way" helped to clarify duties and

roles.

12. Does Alpha College need to develop more systematic
orientation procedures?

Almost two out of three trustees concerned with the President's
opinion that better orientation was "a definite need." While there was
"generally care and concern" for the college, "some do and some don't"
have a clear awareness of the trustee role. The trustees' responses are

provided in Table 13.

76

Table 13

Perceptions of Orientation Procedures

 

 

 

Response Number Percent (approx.)
Yes 14 64
No 5 22
"Depends" 3 14
Total 22 100

 

Fourteen trustees favored better orientation, becuase "it was
not one of their strong points." One trustee wanted some guidelines "in
black and white" instead of the general attitude of "contribute what you
can." Another wanted defined expectations of board service. so one
would not "come on with no idea of what to do." Several trustees
suggested that new members needed "to know more about the college and
its history," as well as to become better acquainted at the outset with
other trustees and college officials. While one regarded orientation
especially important for new members without business or education back-
grounds, another suggested that those trustees particularly needed
better orientation. One trustee thought that more orientation would
help activate new members at more nearly equal rates.

For three trustees, the time commitment necessary as well as
individual factors prompted their indecision about more orientation.

One trustee commented that the difficulty with trusteeship was that you

"do not internalize it until you live it." Five trustees considered the

77

orientation adequate. One commented that if trustees were selected
well, orientation was "a simple thing; most people were smarter than
they looked." For another, ”attendance at even half the meetings" was
sufficient for orientation. There were no relationships observed
between the trustees' lengths of service, or other demographic
variables, and the responses on Question 12.

The researcher explored for possible relationships between the
responses to Questions 4, 10, and 12. As noted, there was a tendency
for those trustees who were active in one year or less (Question 10) to
have perceived the introduction to needs/role as adequate. There was no
observed relationship between Questions 4 and 12. As an example, of the
fourteen trustees who supported better orientation (Question 12), as
many answered "yes" as responded ”no" on the issue of the introduction
to needs/role (Question 4).

Similarly, Questions 10 (time) and 12 (orientation) were
compared with no patterns discerned in the responses to those questions.
As an example, nine trustees who felt active in one year or less also
favored a more systematic orientation. The paired positive and negative
responses to Questions 4 and 12 were mapped on the time-frame in
Question 10. Some slight patterns emerged. Five trustees in each of
these different combinations were active in two years or less. Of the
five who received an adequate introduction and considered orientation
adequate, all five were "active" in one year or less. Of the five
members who regarded the introduction as adequate but who supported more
orientation, one required two years to become involved. And two of the

.five trustees, who did not receive an adequate introduction and favored

78
more orientation, require two or more years to adjust. On the whole, a
variety of individual combinations predominated in the comparison of the
three questions.
In all the combinations of answers between Questions 4, 10, and
12, the researcher did not note any patterns between the trustees'
personal data variables and the responses.

Participation and Involvement
(Questions 13-19)

 

13. Do you have a special role, or interest, as a trustee?
The Alpha trustees listed a variety of interests which they
monitored or which corresponded to their activities. Several of the
members listed interests which directly related to their occupations.
The interests frequently mentioned were:
° academic program development and quality (6)
- general public relations (6)

- fund-raising (6)

business/finance issues (5)

° faculty recruitment, and liaison with faculty (4)

Other interests included athletics (2), and buildings and properties
(2), as well as student recruitment (l), trustee selection (1), and
student life (1). One trustee especially was alert to the relationships
between the administration and the religious order. The President cited
special roles for seven of the twenty-two trustees. The interests of
the seven were similar to their activities or roles which the President

recognized.

79

14. Does your committee assignment reflect your interest and
expertise?

The trustees generally were satisfied with their committee
assignments but offered little explanation. Only one member did not
regard the committee assignment as a good match but was "willing to go
where they want me." Two trustees were awaiting their first committee
work. Another trustee commented that new members should not have to
”sit and wait" for committee work. One trustee would feel "hurt if
displaced" from a particular committee. One member hoped to serve
eventually on other committees, while another felt that the current
assignment "best fits my time schedule." Another trustee liked a
particular committee, but noted "if it really met, then I could contri-
bute something." One other trustee had commented that some committees
did not meet regularly. One trustee stated the finance and Executive

committees were "the real ones, where the tough decisions were made."

15. Do the board meetings, and committee meetings, provide
ample opportunities for open participation? 00 any groups or individ-
uals tend to dominate?

Generally, the members concurred that "if one used the
opportunity . . .” to participate, " . . . no one was stifled." The
trustees regarded themselves as "strong-willed people," and "everybody
opens their mouths, nothing is cut and dried." The participation was
especially good at the committee level, where "most of the real
decisions were made." One trustee noted that the board and the

religious order had disagreements at times, but the relationship was

80
"cordial and open." Having served on another college board, one member
regarded the discussions as more Open at Alpha. For another trustee,
there was ”occasionally too much discussion.”

Two trustees did not agree completely with their colleagues.

One perceived that participation was "not as good as it could be; there
could be more interaction. . . ." The other felt "there was not much
time for open discussion."

While some trustees were "more verbose than others," no group or
individual dominated. One stated that the more verbal members were
"those with the greatest interests." Another trustee "appreciated the
input" of those with special expertise. Two trustees did note that some
members tended to "stick together" in relation to their residences and/
or occupations. One member observed that the Chairman did not let any

group or individual dominate the meetings.

16. How do you stay well-informed on issues related to Alpha
College, and higher education in general?

Eighteen of the twenty-two trustees listed reading as the
principal method. The reading material included minutes and reports,
college publications, and mailings from the President. One trustee
indicated: "I read all they send--they throw it at us." Another member
admitted to "not reading as conscientiously as I should.” The
President felt that about fifty percent, "the leaders," were well-read.

In addition to reading, eight trustees discussed issues with the
President, faculty and staff, or other trustees. The board members were
"free to call" and seek additional information. One trustee was ”clued

in" through discussions with the President three or four times per

81
month. Due to close proximity, a few members would ”stop by" the campus
on occasion. Eight trustees also cited the committee sessions and the

board meetings as sources of information.

17. Do you attend campus activities and events as a means of
being well-acquainted with campus life?

The President stated that "only a handful come often," and
hoped that other trustees could "get to campus activities more
regularly."

Six trustees attended several campus events each year, while
four members did not attend any campus activities outside of board
meetings. Distance was a definite, limiting factor for three trustees.
In general, a trustee's other commitments and initiative, rather than
distance, determined the frequency of attendance at campus events. One
trustee regularly attended "athletic contests, theatrical productions,
and art exhibits." Eight trustees attended "some but perhaps not
enough." Often the events attended were those occurring at times close
to board meetings. Three trustees indicated that they took visitors to
various campus activities, and at least one member was a guest lecturer

for a campus program.

18. Do you attend board meetings regularly?

The President estimated average attendance at sixty-five to
eighty-five percent, with committee meetings attended with similar
frequency. The trustees generally regarded their attendance as "pretty
good." One trustee "rarely missed," perhaps only "two times in eight to
ten years," while others had "made most of them." Some usually attended

two of the three meetings per year. One trustee noted that "some who

82

are listed do not attend." Another member offered a view that attend-
ance was not an end in itself: "It's better if you're there, but doing

was more important."

19. How do you prepare for board meetings?

The Alpha trustees typically prepared by reading and/or
discussing issues with other trustees or college officials. The reading
material consisted of the agenda, minutes, and reports from previous
meetings, and various other articles. One trustee would "read,
question, and wonder" in advance. Another member "read the minutes and

reflected on what had transpired at the last meeting [and] what had

transpired in the interim." Other than reading, one trustee went "open-
minded." One indicated preparation as "shower, shave, and go empty-
handed."

Six trustees had discussed agenda topics and other issues with
college officials and other trustees. One member, who prepared with
"lots of reading, and phone calls," stated that trusteeship was a "very
time consuming responsibility, more than I ever expected." The
President regarded the trustees as generally well-prepared for board
meetings.

Five trustees expressed concern about the information distri-
buted prior to the meetings. One viewed the material as "sketchy but
adequate." Two wanted the financial report distributed in advance. One
stated that "too much was passed out at meetings" and labeled that
practice "a rubber-stamp approach." Another felt that only the members

of the finance and Executive committees really were well-informed.

83

Evaluation (Questions 20-23)

20. What combination of "work, wealth, and wisdom" do you
contribute?

Henry Wriston's quotation served as a guide for this interesting
albeit imprecise exercise. Table 14 lists the trustees' self-evaluation
responses and the President's ratings of the board members. The
researcher defined "wealth" as "giving, or helping procure, resources."
A parentheses used with a number indicates a trustee's ”qualified"
response.

While the question is somewhat artificial, the results provide
some evidence of the nature of the working relationships between the
President and the trustees. The ratings were,the same in five
instances. Six trustees included fewer items than the President, while
eight trustees included more items. In one instance, the single item
was different on each rating. Two cases with "undetermined" responses
by the President are not counted. Thus, for fifty percent of the
trustees, their ratings were the same, or understated, in comparison
with the President's views. It also should be noted, since Wriston
asked for "at least two of the three," that eighteen trustees listed at
least two factors. The President rated fifteen members with at least

two items.

84

Table 14

"Work, Wealth, and Wisdom"
(1=Work, 2=Wealth, 3=Wisdom)

 

 

Trustee Code President

# l l,(2),(3) 3

# 2 (l),2 2

4 3 All 1.3

R 4 l,(2),3 1.3

# 5 All 1,2

# 6 2,3 2,3

3 7 (2).3 All

# 8 l Undetermined
# 9 l,(2),(3) All
#10 2,3 2.3
#11 1,2 1,2
#12 1,2,(3) All
#13 1,2,(3) All
#14 1,2,(3) All
#15 All 1,2
#16 1,2 2

#17 1,3 Undetermined
#18 2,3 2,3
#19 2 3

#20 1,3 3

#21 All All
#22 l,(2),3 All

 

85

21. Does service on the Alpha College board provide an oppor-
tunity for personal growth and development?

In general, the trustees viewed board service as a "very
enriching experience." The contacts with a variety of people and the
view of a college's operation were "extraordinary opportunities."
Several trustees referred to the enjoyment of meeting and interacting
with a cross-section of people. Other trustees gained a "new sense of
college operations," and thus, dealt with issues one "would ordinarily
ignore." For one trustee, serving on the Alpha board brought a greater
awareness of church-related, private colleges. Trusteeship put another
"in touch with the real world."

Serving as a trustee was like ”going back to college" for one
member, while another was "proud of being part of a college in a small
way." As for opportunities for personal growth, one trustee stated:

"if it didn't, I wouldn't be there."

22. What are the most rewarding features of your trusteeship?
Least satisfying features?

The trustees listed an array of "rewarding" features. Several
members derived satisfaction from assisting the college and its
students. As one trustee noted: "To have helped somebody else is all I
ask." Other trustees enjoyed the feeling of accomplishment in "seeing
work and commitment resolved in positive programs. One member appre-
ciated the way in which the college addressed "the changing needs of the
community and area. For one trustee, board service "was more satis-

factory than I expected it to be."

86
The twenty-two trustees cited few dissatisfactory features. One
mentioned travel for meetings, while one found "budget talk" necessary
but boring. One trustee thought that "no group wastes more time than
academe," and regarded relations with the religious order as frustrating
at times. Another member expressed frustration that ”early on I felt
helpless and did not know what was going on," and now "I don't feel I

contribute enough."

23. Are improvements needed in the relationships between the
Board and the President, between the Board and the Chairman, or are you
satisfied with these relationships?

The trustees generally were satisfied with the board's relation-
ships with the President and the Chairman. One-half of the trustees
cited the working relationship as effective and made no further
comments.

One trustee regarded the President and the Chairman as a "tough
act to follow." Another member commented that the two leaders "had not
tried to set themselves off" in their relations with the board. One
member felt that there "was not a finer chairman." One trustee stated
that the President "makes a real effort to keep the trustees informed
and to use them." According to one trustee, the college always had a
strong President and Chairman. That member viewed the President as
"high-powered," and stated a philosophy for leadership: "get the very
best President and hand [him/her] the ball." One trustee referred to
the charisma of the President, while another described the relations of

the board with the President and Chairman as a "love feast."

87

Four trustees, who generally were pleased with the President and
Chairman, offered some observations about communications. One perceived
a "distance" between the Chairman and the members, which "in general
needs some improvement." Another sensed that "distance" on the
President's part. One trustee stated that "more communication" was
needed from both officials. Another trustee sensed that at times the
President "told select members things" and later forgot that the whole
board had not been notified.

The President was "very pleased" with the board, regarding it as
"the best board I have worked with." The board was commended for its
efforts in fund-raising, providing financial advice and direction,
opening the meetings to faculty and student guests, and supporting the

President's ideas for the advancement of the college.

Summary

For the purposes of this study, the researcher interviewed
twenty-two of the thirty-six members of the 1980-81 Board of Trustees of
Alpha College. That number represented sixty-one percent of the total
membership. The trustees varied considerably in their responsiveness to
the questions. While several seemed quite interested in the topics and
willing to give their time to respond, others were reticent and provided
curt answers. Two trustees commented on the study. One referred to the
"long questionnaire" but cited the "good format," with "not ponderous
items to fill out." The other termed the questions "pretty incisive."

A brief summary of the Alpha trustees' comments is presented in the

following paragraphs.

88

The personal data provides a general description of a "typical"
Alpha trustee, for at least sixty-one percent of the membership. With
roughly two of three members being men, the average trustee is male,
middle-aged, well-educated, with an income level higher than the
national average. Of those interviewed, the average member is affili-
ated with the college's sponsoring denomination and has served on the
board for almost two full terms.

The Alpha trustees offered a variety of opinions and percep-
tions. Given the interesting array of individual responses to each
question and the few patterns noted between particular questions,
generalizations are necessarily broad. In addition, virtually no rela-
tionships were noted between individual responses and the demographic

variables. '

Selection

The trustees accepted their responsibilities for numerous
reasons. The "desire to serve" and "an interest in the college, or
higher education" were mentioned frequently. None of the twenty-two
trustees was seeking the position.

All the trustees interviewed regarded the selection process as
"personalized." Two-thirds of the members received an adequate intro-
duction to the needs of the college and the role of a trustee, while
most of the members recalled "specific" reasons for their invitation to
serve. Three-feurths of the trustees who regarded the introduction as
adequate also recalled that a specific reason was given.

The characteristics regarded as desirable in prospective

trustees were a combination of broad experience and particular skills.

89

The talents which the trustees contributed to board service were a
mixture of occupational skills, special backgrounds, and general

attributes.

Board Balance and Orientation

 

The trustees generally supported the expansion of the duties of
the Nominating Committee to a "Committee on Trustees." All the members
regarded the board, at least partially or as a whole, as "balanced."
Some suggestions were offered for increasing the diversity of the
members. One-half of the trustees commented on the size of the board,
with one-third of the members interviewed considering the board "too
large." The length of term generated few comments.

On the average, the trustees took slightly more than one year to
become fully involved. There was a tendency noted for the trustees who
perceived their introduction to needs/role as adequate to be "active" in
one year or less. With an average time-frame of one year, a variety of
factors likely contributed to the involvement time period. Personal
contacts with other trustees and college officials, and attending
meetings, were particularly helpful in the adjustment to trusteeship.

The trustees generally advocated more orientation procedures.
There were no relationships, however, noted between the responses con-
cerning the time-frame for involvement and the issue of orientation.

The comparison of the paired responses in Questions 4, 10, and 12
demonstrated a slight tendency for those who did not receive an adequate
introduction to needs/role and who favored better orientation, to take

longer than one year to become active participants.

90

Participation and Involvement

 

The trustees listed several special interests and roles relating
to their board activities. Generally, the committee assignments matched
the trustees' interests and expertise. There were ample opportunities
for participation in board and committee meetings, with perhaps more
distribution possible at the committee level.

Alpha trustees kept informed primarily by reading, with some
members occasionally discussing issues with other trustees and/or
college officials. Only a small number of trustees regularly attended
campus events, but distance was not a particular factor determining
attendance. Board meeting attendance averaged sixty-five to eighty-five
percent. The trustees primarily prepared for board meetings by reading
various materials and often by discussing agenda topics and issues with
other trustees or with college staff and faculty. Several members

suggested the availability of more information prior to board sessions.

Evaluation

 

The self-ratings by the trustees and the President's views,
using the "work, wealth, and wisdom" format, provided evidence of the
working relationships between the board members and the President. The
ratings basically corresponded for fifty percent of the trustees.

The trustees generally regarded trusteeship as an enriching
experience, with the opportunity to assist the college as especially
rewarding. Few "least satisfying" features were cited.

The relationships between the Board and the President, and the
Chairman and the Board, generally were acknowledged to be satisfactory

and effective. Both the President and the Chairman were considered

91

strong leaders. A few suggestions were offered concerning
"communications" from the President and the Chairman with the trustees.

The comments of individual Alpha College board members varied
considerably on specific items and between related questions. While the
researcher sensed the trustees' sincere interest in, and commitment to,
the college, the twenty-two members seemed to be particularly
independent individuals. One member stated that the trustees "were not
that close, but worked well together." Another trustee termed it a
"volatile and vibrant board." Additional consideration of trustee'

selection and participation at Alpha College will be presented in

Chapter V.

CHAPTER IV

BETA COLLEGE: CASE STUDY OF TRUSTEE

SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION

The College

Nestled in the middle of a community of 30,000, and near a
larger urban area, Beta College is a four-year, residential, under-
graduate liberal arts college, with a denominational affiliation.
Served by nearly 150 faculty members, students may select courses of
study in thirty-five major fields, leading to three different
Bachelors degrees. In addition, the fully-accredited college offers
several pre-professional options.1 The current President has served
Beta in that capacity for nine years. The college's mission, outlined
by the President, is to:

. offer with recognized excellence, academic programs in the
liberal arts, in the setting of a residential, undergraduate,
coeducational college, and in the context of . . . [our] . .
faith.2

Recent enrollment at Beta numbered over 2,300 men and women

students from forty states and twenty foreign countries. Table 15

presents the geographical distribution of the student body.3

 

1Beta College Catalog, 1980-81, pp. 3, s-o, 27.

2Beta College President's Report and Honor Roll of Donors,
1978-80, p. 1.

3Beta College Catalog, 1980-81, pp. 13, 327.

92

93

Table 15

Geographical Distribution of Beta Students

 

 

 

 

Residence Number Percent
Same state (as Beta) 1672 , 71.0
Contiguous states 241 10.2
Other states 396 16.8
Foreign countries 46 2.0
.Total 2355 100.0

 

Board Structure and Ogganization

 

With the authority to direct the college "vested exclusively
in," and the business and the property of the college "managed
exclusively by," the board,1 the Beta Board of Trustees represents the
"incorporated body under which the college operates."2 The current
board membership of twenty-eight regular trustees is smaller than in
other periods of Beta's past sixty years. There were fifty-three
members in 1967 and thirty-six in 1926. The President regards the
current membership of twenty-eight as a "nearly optimal" size, which
allows for board diversity yet permits effective work and deliberation

at the committee and fUll-board levels. The following paragraphs

 

1Bylaws of Beta College, 1976, p. 1.

2Beta College Catalog, 1966, p. 7.

94

briefly outline the manner in which the board is organized to fulfill

its responsibilities.

Board Meetings and Agenda

 

The board regularly meets three times per year, in October and
May as required, and in January.1 A typical two-day meeting begins in
the afternoon of the first day, with the bulk of the afternoon session
devoted to committee meetings. The evening provides an opportunity for
special in-depth presentations on particular topics, or dinners with
department chairpersons or graduating seniors. The full meeting of the
board convenes the following morning, and includes the reports of the
committee sessions. The board generally adjourns at noon.

The President is responsible for the meeting agenda and prepares
them in consultation with the chairman and Secretary of the Board.
Various written materials, as well as minutes and reports of meetings,
are sent with the agenda to the trustees for their review and prepara-
tion prior to the next meeting. Other materials are distributed during

the meetings.

Board Leadership

 

Three officers, elected annually from the membership at the May
meeting, serve the Board. The Chairman, the "senior officer of the
College," is the presiding officer and is responsible for providing
direction for the trustees' efforts. The Vice Chairman, currently also

the chairman of the Business and Finance Committee, will preside in the

 

1Bylaws, 1976 p. s.

95
Chairman's absence. The Secretary performs a variety of record-keeping
and trustee selection functions.1
Re-election to these positions is indeed common, with tenure
granted "almost indefinitely." As an example, the current Chairman has
held the position for two years, and the previous chairman served as

chair for twelve years.

Committees of the Board

 

There are four standing committees and an executive committee.
The standing committees are "to act in an advisory capacity . . . by
investigating and evaluating matters within the sc0pe of the committee
function" and to report their recommendations to the full board. The
four standing committees are: academic affairs and admissions, business
and finance, church/college relations and development, and student life.
The Chairman appoints the chairpersons of these four committees, after
consulting with senior administrative staff of the college for their
recommendations of those trustees best suited to provide strong
committee leadership. The standing committees meet at each board
meeting.

Each trustee is a member of one standing committee. With some
"rotation and movement each year," a member may serve on more than one
committee during the term of service. With board approval, the Chairman
assigns committee positions. The recommendations of college officials
are helpful in this process as well. New trustees are asked to indicate
their preferences of committee assignments, but not all the preferences

are honored. While the committees need a "diversity of strength," some

 

1Bylaws, 1976, pp. 8-10.

96
special skills may be important on a particular committee. As a result,
the business and finance committee is the least diverse in the back-
grounds and interests of the members. According to the President,
generally the trustees are placed "where their strength lies," and the
specific committees have relatively little turnover. In addition to the
trustees, each of the standing committees has "liaison" members, a
student and a faculty member appointed by their peers to observe and to
participate. The liaison members may participate in committee discus-
sions but may not vote.

The role of the committees is important in the functioning of
the board. From the President's perspective, the "review and approval"
of committee work and recommendations is a major part of board meetings.
The Chairman considers committee chairpersons to be a key element in
effective board leadership. As an e§_officio member, the President
attempts to visit each committee but admits to spending more time with
the business and finance. and development committees.

The executive committee has the "power and authority to act on
behalf of the Board of Trustees" (with certain specified exceptions),
and generally assembles once between each of the regular board meetings.
It does not meet during the regular sessions. The executive committee
is composed of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary of the Board,

the President, and the chairpersons of the standing committees.1

 

1Bylaws, 1976, pp. 6-8.

97

Trustee Eligibility and Selection

 

Since 1926 the board of Beta College has been restructured three
times, each time with variations in the requirements for selecting
members from the denomination's regions. The procedures stipulated in

the 1976 Bylaws permit a broad diversity and composition of trustees.

Eligibility

 

The Board of Trustees is to be "composed of not less than

."1 In 1980-81.

twenty-four nor more than thirty natural persons.
twenty-eight trustees served on the board, with the President as an
additional, e5 officio member. Ten "Honorary Trustees" also are listed
on the membership roster, but are not included in the study.

Board membership is divided into four "categories of
eligibility": denomination, at-large, faculty, and the President as

e§_officio. The provisions for the first three categories may be

outlined briefly.

Denomination. Twelve trustees must be elected by the denomi-

 

nation's national authority. All twelve must be members of that church,
with at least six being ordained ministers. The denomination is to
"endeavor" to elect at least one trustee from each of its regions. The

term of service is six years, with two trustees elected each year.

At-large. The Board is to elect between twelve and eighteen
such members. At-large trustees serve six-year terms, with two elected

each year.

 

1Bylaws, 1976, p. 1.

98

Faculty. Two Beta faculty members serve on the board. The
faculty trustees serve two-year terms, with one member elected each year
by the Board.

The maximum length of service for denomination and at-large
trustees, theoretically, is two consecutive terms, or twelve years. The
limitation may be waived by board action, provided that no more than
five trustees at any given time may be granted the waiver. Currently,
four Beta trustees have served more than twelve years each. In
practice, the board officers and other key committee leaders often
receive the waiver. Faculty service is generally limited to four years,
or two terms. The Bylaws do not specify the faculty service limitation,
leaving that decision to Faculty and Board discretion. According to the
President, the board has a "tendency to re-elect” its members to second
terms without much deliberation. Board vacancies are filled for the
unexpired portion of the previous member's term.1 Those trustees then
are eligible for re-election. It should be noted that the "staggering"
of the number of trustees elected each year, in combination with the

re-election process, contributes to a ”fairly small turnover" annually.

Nomination and Selection

 

The Bylaws state formal procedures for trustee nomination and
selection. The "Nominating Committee" of the board submits a slate of
nominees for board approval at the May meeting. The Faculty submits two

nominations for the one faculty trustee position. The denomination's

 

lBylaws, 1976, pp. 1-2.

99
national office forwards to the Secretary a list of the trustees which
it has elected.1

In actual practice the nomination and selection process is much
less formal than the Bylaws imply. While designated as a standing
committee, the Nominating Committee is not listed on the committee
roster and functions more on an EE.E22.P3515' There is a "tradition"
that the President, Chairman, and the Secretary actually constitute the
"nominating committee," and recommend new trustees for board approval.
In 1980-81, the Chairman-appointed Nominating Committee composed of
several trustees and board officers, only reviewed the nominations for
board office positions, with a tacit understanding that the current
officers would be re-elected. The committee met once between the
January and May meetings to review the board officer nominations and the
recommendations for new trustees for the May board sessions.

The "professional interest" committee of the faculty presents
nominations for the faculty members to consider. A two-step ballot
process narrows to two the candidates for the faculty trustee position.
The board elects one faculty trustee from the slate of two nominees.
The denominational elections are essentially a p£e_fezpe_review and
approval of nominees submitted by the Nominating Committee. The
Secretary monitors the nominations for compliance with the eligibility
criteria. The President acknowledged not knowing, except for the
ministers, which trustees filled denominational or at-large slots.

Acknowledging a "significant input" in the nomination/selection

process, the President stated a "perhaps selfish" interest in wanting

 

1Bylaws, 1976, pp. 2-4.

100
trustees who would be "supportive," and would provide ”counsel, leader-
ship, ideas, and financial support." In essence, "I like to pick my own
boss." The President referred to the constant search for prospective
trustees. A file of prospects is maintained, with several criteria
important in identifying candidates: (1) interest in a denominational,
liberal arts college, (2) potential of the prospect for effective
service, (3) geographical distribution, (4) board diversity and needs,
and (5) alumni and denominational background of the individual.

The trustee nomination/selection process is an open, referral
and personal contact process. Referrals and recommendations of prospec-
tive trustees are submitted by current trustees, clergy, alumni, college
administrators and faculty, and other friends of the college. The
nominations to the Nominating Committee from the alumni association1
often result from referrals submitted by college administrators. Few
referrals are received, though encouraged, from the faculty. The
contacts of the President, and the Chairman and the Secretary, are of
paramount importance. The President stated that the process in a sense
is "not as democratic as it sounds." Through personal contacts,
especially with those three officials, the enlistment of new trustees is
"pretty well set up." Often, the results of follow-up on referrals and
other contacts are "if nominated, would you serve" conversations with
the President, Chairman, and/or Secretary. It is a highly "personal"
process which "varies so much" according to the nature of the contact

between the individuals and college officials involved.

1Bylaws, 1976, p. 3.

101

Orientation and Communications

 

Newly-elected trustees receive a set of written and published
materials, including the college catalog, the Bylaws, and a brief out-
line of the President's expectations of trustee service. Since most
trustees are elected in May and attend their first meeting in October,
an orientation for new trustees is conducted at the October meeting.
Essentially a briefing session, the orientation is conducted early on
the first day of the board meeting by the President, Chairman, and
several of the senior administrative officers at the college.

The trustees receiVe periodic communications which include the
minutes and reports of board and committee meetings. In addition, the
President regularly sends a "newsletter" regarding board and college
activities, as well as items regarding issues and trends in higher
education. Board members also receive the student newspaper, alumni

mailings, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. The trustees are

 

encouraged to contact the President and college staff for information
and/or discussion.

The President recently developed the statement of "my expecta-
tions" of a new trustee to assist those members in the orientation to
board service. Before reviewing the members' demographic data and the
trustees' perceptions and attitudes concerning their selection and
participation, it is important to outline the President's "reflections."
The "most important overall responsibility" of the Board is to

insure that the purposes of the College are clearly stated,

understood and accepted, and then to evaluate the degree to
which these are being achieved.

102

As a guide for the new trustees, there are five general expectations:

1. Keep well-informed, so the trustee "can effectively
participate. . . ."

2. Be sensitive to "issues and input" and communicate these to
the President.

3. Serve as "representatives and ambassadors" of the college.

4. Procure resources, "by giving personally," and perhaps more
importantly, by "identifying other resources."

5. Support and encourage the staff, faculty, and study body.1

The Trustees

 

Twenty-seven of the twenty-eight trustees of Beta College were
interviewed for the purposes of this study. The number represents
ninety-six percent of the board's membership. The honorary trustees are
not included in this study. The following data regarding the trustees.
collected during the interviews, provides some perspectives about type

of individuals serving on the Beta board.

Geographical Distribution

 

As a result of the trustee eligibility criteria and the general
selection process, the Beta board has a national base. Tablelti lists

the geographical distribution of the trustees interviewed.

 

1President of Beta College, "Some Reflections on the Role of a
Member of the Board of Trustees . . ." Mimeograph, 1979.

.. ____., .—

103

Table 16

Geographical Distribution of Beta Trustees

 

 

 

Residence , Number Percent
Same community (as Beta) 4 15
Same locale 6 22
Same state 1 4
Contiguous states 6 22
Other states 10 37
Total 27 100

 

This distribution corresponds well with the national denomina-
tional base and the geographic distribution of the student body. Eleven
trustees (40%) reside in the same state as Beta, as do 71% of the
students. Eleven other board members (40%) reside in states which
contribute 16.8% of the student enrollment. Thus, 80%, or twenty-two,
of the trustees are from states which contribute 87.8%, or 2,068, of the

Beta students.

Sex and Age

The predonominate number of Beta trustees are men, with twenty-
two men comprising 81% of the members interviewed. The average age of
the trustees is fifty-six years. The youngest board member is forty-
three; and the oldest is seventy-three. Table 17 presents the sex and

age data.

104

Table 17

Sex and Age of Beta Trustees

 

 

 

 

 

Sex Number Percent Age (yrs) Number Percent
Male 22 81 40-49 11 41
Female 5 19 50-59 6 22
60-69 7 26
70 or over 3 11
Total 27 100 27 100
Mean age = 56
Median age = 57

It is interesting to note that, while women comprise only 18% of

the board's membership, the ages of all five are lower than the

trustee average. The average age of the women is 47.4 years.

Formal Education

 

The Beta College trustees are well-educated, as represented by

their highest levels of achievement in formal education settings.

Twenty-five of the twenty-seven trustees interviewed received at least

the Bachelors degree.

Table 18 describes their educational backgrounds.

105

Table 18

Formal Education of Beta Trustees
(by highest level of achievement)

 

 

 

Level Number Percent (approx.)
High school graduate l 4
Junior/community college 1 4
Bachelors degree 9 33
Some graduate study 1 4
Masters degree 2 7
Professional degree 7 26

(law, medicine, seminary)

Doctorate 6 22

 

Total 27 100

 

The number of Beta alumni serving on the board is large. Of the
twenty-five trustees who earned at least a Bachelors degree, twenty-one
are Beta graduates, or attended for two or three years. That alumni
contingent represents eighty-four percent of the Bachelors degree

recipients and seventy-eight percent of the total trustees interviewed.

Religious Affiliation
The religious affiliation of the trustees demonstrates a pattern
similar to the alumni representation. Twenty-one of the trustees inter-

viewed, or seventy-five percent, are affiliated with the college's

106
denominational sponsor. Sixteen of the twenty-one Beta alumni on the

board are members of the denomination.

Other Relationships

 

In addition to alumni status and denominational affiliation, the
trustees identified other areas of relationship with the college.
Several trustees listed multiple factors. Thirteen board members are,
or were, parents of Beta students, or were related to Beta graduates.
Eight were donors prior to joining the board. Three trustees were
acquainted with the college through working in the leadership structure

of the denomination.

Occupation

Table 19 lists the trustees' current occupations. The clergy
and business/finance vocations are most numerous. The category
"housewife" is somewhat misleading, since some of the five women are
"partners" in their spouse's work, or are involved in other part-time
vocations or service activities. The "retired" group includes former
business (3) public relations (1), or higher education (1) occupations.
It should be pointed out that the number of clergy on the board is the

minimal number stipulated in the Bylaws.

107

Table 19

Occupation of Beta Trustees

 

 

 

Occupation Number Percent (approx.)
Clergy ' o 22.0
Housewife 5 18.5
Retired 5 18.5
Business/banking 4 15.0
Higher education 3 11.0
Insurance/Sales 2 7.0
Architecture 1 4.0
Law 1 4.0
Total 27 100.0

 

Income Level

 

The approximate income level (current or approximate level at
retirement age) of the trustees is higher than the national average,
with the median income in the $50,000 to $75,000 range. In a few
instances, the family income was reported. Two incomes were reported as

"high" and "pastor's salary."

108

Table 20

Approximate Income Level of Beta Trustees

 

 

 

 

Income Number Percent
$25,000 - $35,000 8 30
$36,000 - $50,000 4 15
$51,000 - $75,000 2 7
Over $100,000 11 2
Other 2 7
Total 27 100

 

Lepgth of Service

 

With a six-year term of service, except for the faculty term of
two years, there is virtually an equal division between the trustees
serving fewer than, and more than six years. Table 21 outlines the
length of service on the board for the twenty-seven trustees interviewed.

Fifty-two percent, or fourteen, of the trustees have served
fewer than six years. Nine trustees, or thirty-three percent, have
served between six and twelve years, and four members (fifteen percent)
have completed more than two six-year terms. The four members with more
than two consecutive terms of service is one fewer than the maximum of
five, at any given time, permitted by the Bylaws, to receive Board
approval for continued service. The median length of service is between

five and six years. The average length is 6.8 years, slightly more than

109

Table 21

Length of Service on Beta Board

 

 

 

 

Year Number

1 year or less 3
2 years 4
3 years 2
4 years 2
5 years 3
6 years 3
7 years 1
8 years 2
10 years 1
12 years 2
More than 12 4
Median = 5-6 years Mean = 6.8 years N = 27

 

one full term. The longest period of service of a current trustee is
twenty-five years.

There is no particular relationship between the trustees' age
upon election to the board and the length of service. As an example,
the youngest current trustee is age forty-three and already has served
six years. Most of the board members interviewed, however, were.

elected between ages forty-five and fifty-five years.

110
In addition to being trustees at Beta College, many of the
trustees are serving, or have served, on the boards of civic, health, or
church organizations, as well as on corporate boards. All but one of
the twenty-seven Beta trustees interviewed, however, are serving for the

first time on a college board.

Trustee Responses

 

The responses of the twenty-seven trustees interviewed reflect
their perceptions and attitudes concerning selection and participation
as a trustee of Beta College. This section reviews their remarks on
each question and includes the comments of the President, and/or the

Chairman, where appropriate.

The Selection Process (Questions 1-7)

 

1. Why did you accept the responsibility as a trustee?

The members often included a variety of multiple reasons and
motives. The most frequent comments related to the "positive experi-
ences as a student and an opportunity to return the favor" (10). Other
frequent responses included:

0 opportunity to serve the college and Church (6)
- an "honor and privilege" to serve (5)

- willing to serve worthwhile causes, if asked (4)
0 an interesting challenge (4)

° familiarity with the college (3)

0 interest in higher education (3)

- Opportunity to promote liberal arts in a denominational setting (3)

111

The strength of friendships and family and community ties was a
definite factor. One member recalled sweeping classrooms as a Student,
while another considered the college as "part of my catalog of loyal-
ties." Other trustees looked forward to working with trustees whom they
admired and respected. For two trustees, the invitation to serve came
"at about the right time" in relation to other activities.

2. Were you seeking such a position? Why?

The overwhelming response was "No." Only one of the twenty-
seven trustees answered "yes." That member had "particular views about
the college" and "used politics" to gain election. Many of the other

twenty-six trustees indicated that the invitation to serve came "out of

the clear blue sky." One trustee was "honored and flabbergasted--
delighted to do it." Another stated: "I was not even a 'model'
graduate." One trustee as "overwhelmed" at the President's call and

"thought the call was for my spouse."

3. Was the nomination/selection process personalized? Who was
involved?

Twenty-four trustees, or eight-nine percent, considered the
process "personalized." One member responded negatively, and the two
faculty trustees regarded the question as not applicable. The twenty-
four trustees were contacted personally, in a variety of ways, to
explore their interest in serving, or to extend an invitation to be
nominated. The President, the Chairman, and/or the Secretary were
listed as the officials who contacted the prospective trustees. The
fermats for discussions included telephone calls, letters, campus

visits, or an appointment in the candidate's locale. In several

112

instances, telephone conversations continued after the trustees'
elections, prior to their first board meeting.

4. Did you receive an adequate introduction to the needs of the
institution and the role of a trustee?

While the process generally was regarded as personalized, the
trustees responded with less certainty that they received an adequate

introduction. Table 22 indicates the responses.

Table 22

Adequacy of the Introduction

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Yes 11 41
No 9 33
Partially 5 18
"Occupation" 1 4
"Familiarity" 1 4
Total 27 100

 

Eleven trustees felt that the college officia1(s) and/or materials
provided a "pretty accurate picture." One trustee recalled thoroughly
reviewing the educational program and the financial status of the
college. "No question about it; I would not want to go with a loser."
Two trustees recalled discussions about their "best area of service."
Four others stated that contacts with trustees whom they knew supple-

mented the introduction.

113

Those who responded negatively considered the introduction to
the college and a trustee's role to be "not very good at the time" and
"quite lacking.” One trustee regarded this issue as "the weakest
aspect of my board experience, not knowing what to expect." Another
"did not know what I was getting into," but wondered "maybe you cannot
prepare for that."

For five trustees, the process only provided partial answers,
even though they cited familiarity with the college, some of the staff,
and general governing board functions. Two trustees stated that the
introduction was not needed, due to a familiarity with the college
community and by virtue of occupation, respectively.

Regarding Question 4, on the adequacy of the introduction, the
researcher noted no patterns or differences in the responses of those
trustees selected under another president, or differences between the
occupational backgrounds, residences, or lengths of service of the
trustees, in relation to the responses. The answers, however, must be
evaluated cautiously. Regardless of the nature of the response, the
trustees' recall might be tempered by board experience. Perhaps those
who were "surprised" with the suggestion of trusteeship may have asked
fewer questions in the process of selection.

5. Was a specific reason(s) given for inviting you to become a
trustee?

The Beta board members did not state with unanimity that a
specific reason was given for inviting them to be trustees. Table 23
lists the various responses. The researcher divided the positive

answers into two groups: "A" for specific reasons related to the

114

individual's talents or special background, and ”B" for general reasons

such as geographical distribution.

Table 23

Specific Reasons for the Invitation to Trusteeship

 

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Yes - 5A 11 41
Yes - SB 8 26
Partially 4 19
No 2 7
Not applicable 2 7
Total 27 100

 

Eleven trustees were cited for skills and talents ranging from knowledge
of higher education, to business acumen, legal expertise, and church
leadership. The eight "general" (S-B) reasons were related to geograph-
ical distribution, sex, denominational representation requirements. As
an example, one trustee indicated that the board "needed local
trustees," while another hoped that the invitation had been for
"pragmatic rather than sentimental reasons." The trustees who responded
"partially" did not list specific reasons but rather offered conjectures
based on their recall of process. The negative responses were not

explained.

115

As in the case of Question 4, the responses on Question 5 must
be interpreted cautiously. While the college official involved indeed
might have had a specific reason, that reason might not have been
communicated adequately. And the trustees simply might not remember the
precise conversation. There were no observed patterns of response
related to such factors as the trustees' length of service, residence,
occupation, or age.

Since the issues in Questions 4 and 5 are particularly
important in the selection process, the researcher explored the possible
relationships between the responses to those questions. Table 24
provides a cross-reference of the Beta trustees' responses. No marked
relationships were discerned for the combination of responses. A "yes"
response to either question, as an example, did not relate with regu-
larity to a positive or negative response to the other question. A
thorough mapping of the demographic data with the responses did not
reveal any particular relationships between such variables as age,
occupation, length of service of the trustees, and the combination of
responses on Questions 4 and 5. The researcher acknowledged the
imprecise nature of this comparison, for it is based on the trustees'
recall and the researcher's categorization of responses. Yet the
exercise provides evidence of the wide variety of contacts and discus-

sions in the actual selection process.

116

Table 24
Cross-Reference on Beta Trustee's Responses to
Questions 4 and 5
#4

4.

(Yes, SA)

3 0
(Yes, SB)
- 2
(Yes, No/P)

 

. 4

(No/P, No/P) (No/P, SB)

(No/P, SA)

 

#4

Note: The parenthetical keys indicate the responses as "(Question 4,
Question 5)." "Not Applicable" answers on Question 5, and the
"Occupation" response from Question 4 are not included. "NO/P"
indicates "No" and "Partial" responses combined.

117

6. What characteristics, qualities, or attributes do you feel
are important in prospective trustees?

Acknowledging that not all qualities are found in any one
individual, the trustees suggested a wide array of desirable character-
istics. The attributes most frequently mentioned primarily were broad
concepts rather than specific areas of expertise:

- commitment to the college and its goals (11)

- objectivity and open-mindedness (10)

- commitment to religious values (8)

° business and finance expertise (8)

'- supportiveness, or supportive critic (6)

° willingness to give time and effort (5)

° interest in, or knowledge of, higher education (5)

- broad, general experience (5)

° willingness to contribute, and/or seek friends (3)

The President especially emphasized "commitment" to the college and
religious values. Both the President and the Chairman highlighted "a
real interest to do the work."

7. What particular abilities or expertise do you bring to the
board?

As the researcher anticipated, the trustees' responses were
varied and often included more than one item. Several trustees listed
various occupational expertise, or special backgrounds. The following

responses were examples:

118
- denomination contacts (5)
° higher education experience (4)
° management/personnel skills (4)
° business/finance talent (3)

Other "particular" abilities were more general in nature, and
included:

° knowledge of the college, or interest in higher education (8)
° "people" skills (5)

° objectivity and prgamatism (4)

° "perceptive" questioner (3)

Those trustees who cited "objectivity and pragmatism" provided
the most explanation with their responses. Applying "common sense"
enabled one trustee to "cut through to the heart of the issue." Another
member was "reasonable objective, perhaps a little bit cynical." One

trustee brought a "little people" approach to budget considerations.

Board Balance and Orientation (Questions 8-12)

8. Is there a good diversity and balance on the board?

Both the President and the Chairman generally considered the
board to be balanced with a diverse membership. The President did
indicate the need for such additional representation as women from
business/finance and the professions, higher education specialists, and
one or two trustees with, or who could help find, substantial wealth.
Seventy percent of the Beta trustees regarded the board as "balanced."

Table 25 lists their responses.

119

Table 25

Beta Trustees' Perceptions of Board Balance

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Yes 19 7O
Partially 4 15
No 4 15
Total 27 100

 

For the many of the trustees interviewed, the board, in one
member's words, was "a healthy combination of practical, hard-headed
businessmen, faculty and academicians, and church representatives."
Several trustees noted that the composition of the membership was no
longer "hamstrung by the charter." Two trustees emphasized that there
was a good balance of the sexes, occupations, and professions.

Four members, who responded "partially," were concerned somewhat
that the composition was skewed. They cited a heavy concentration of
alumni businessmen, and church representatives. Two members felt, with
individual exceptions, that the "church representatives contributed less
than the others." Another of the four trustees, however, noted that the
"real movers and shakers" were some of those with business expertise and
two of the clergy.

The four trustees who answered "no" cited the over-representa-
tion of clergy, alumni, and "local" residents, and the lack of women,

and members of the professions. These four trustees tended to view the

120
board as "tipped to conservatism” or "too homogeneous--too many similar
thinkers." One trustee commented that too many "non-independent
thinkers" thus "did too much seconding" of recommendations "milk-fed" to
the board by the administration. As one remarked, the composition of
the board might represent the mark of good leadership, but homogeniety
also could be a weakness.

9. Are any changes needed in the size of the board, composition
of the board, or the terms of the service of the board members?

In responding to Question 9, the trustees did not comment on
each item. The result was a mixture of responses, which in individual
cases did not directly link to their comments on Question 8. There were
two suggestions to increase the number of women, particularly women
associated with business/finance and the professions. Two trustees
suggested higher education, and one suggested minority groups, as
categories for improving board composition and diversity. One trustee
recommended a decrease in the clergy group, while another recommended
elimination of the faculty trustee positions. Perhaps as a sign of the
times, one trustee noted that the board was "weak in really wealthy
people."

One-third of the trustees remarked about board size. Only one
of the nine recommended a slightly larger board. While several had
"qualms about the size," they recognized that the current size permitted
a diverse membership and effective committee size. Four trustees
specifically noted that the board seemed "awfully large and unwieldy,"
and made deliberations more difficult in the full-board sessions.
Because of the size, one trustee regarded the executive committee as a

"guiding light" in the operations of the board. Two other trustees,

121

however, were concerned that the executive committee had too much
influence as a result.

The trustees generally regarded the six-year term, with the
possibility for re-election, as appropriate for effective service and
continuity. Three trustees did express concern that the list of
honorary trustees was growing too long.

10. How long did it take for you to become an "effective,"
participating trustee?

Both the President and the Chairman regarded the general time-
frame as one year, which corresponded to the trustee average. Fifty-
five percent of the trustees regarded themselves as active participants

in one year or less. Table 26 lists the "time-frame" for participation.

Table 26

Time-Frame for Participation: Beta Trustees

 

 

 

Response Number Percent
Less than 1 year 6 22
1 year 9 33
2 years 7 26
3 years 1 4
4 years 1 4
Other 3 ll

 

Total , 27 100

 

122

The six trustees who "hit the boards immediately," and required
less than one year, listed particular committee assignments and activi-
ties, as well as business or academic experience, as important for their
rapid adjustment to board service. Fifty-nine percent of the members
listed one or two years, and generally regarded "experience as the best
training." Several of these sixteen trustees considered the committee
work helpful in getting accustomed to board functions. There was
initially "some reticence," especially in full board meetings.

The responses listed under "other" included: "In some areas
immediately, in other areas I'm still working at it," and, "I don't know
if I really feel effective after six years."

There were no particular relationships observed between the
trustees' demographic data and the answers to Question 10. In addition,
the researcher compared these responses to Question 4, regarding the
introduction to needs/role. There was no relationship noted between the
adequacy of the introduction and the length of time indicated for
participation. As an example, of the twenty-two members listing two
years or less on Question 10, as many trustees responded "yes" or
answered "no" on Question 4. The time needed for each trustee's adjust-
ment likely was a result of a combination of individual factors.

11. How best did you gain an understanding of the roles and
duties of a trustee?

Three factors particularly were listed: peer relationships,
experience, and communications. Almost half (thirteen) of the trustees
interviewed listed the formal working relationships and informal discus-

sions with their more experienced peers as the primary method. The

123
dynamics of the board were clarified by "observing and working with
other capable trustees.”

Nine trustees indicated that written communications, including
minutes and reports of board and committee meetings, provided addi-
tional insights. "Just plain experience" was cited by eight members.
"Observing and absorbing," and "attending meetings, talking and
listening" helped in "feeling and plowing your way."

12. Does Beta College need to develop more systematic
orientation procedures?

As indicated in Table 27 , the opinions regarding orientation

were divided almost equally.

Table 27

Perceptions of Orientation Procedures

 

 

 

 

 

Responses Number Percent
Yes 12 44
Maybe 5 19
No 10 37
Total 27 100

 

Almost half (12) of the trustees felt the need for better orientation
procedures. Some of the twelve related from their own experiences that
more orientation "would have been helpful." One trustee felt that "some
don't get clued in--some not until their second term." Another stated

that a "college freshman approach" was needed, with a "thorough

124
introduction to the campus, bylaws, and trustees' duties." One trustee
suggested a "frank" orientation was needed on the "structure and
dynamics" of higher education.

Those members responding "maybe" recognized the importance of
orientation but were concerned that a "more systematic" process might
require additional time of both the staff and the trustees. Ten
trustees regarded the orientation as "adequate" or "fine." In one
trustee's opinion, the membership was a "highly sophisticated group,"
with many members already having had other types of governing board
experience. Another trustee commented that there was "nothing compli-
cated or profound" about board service, and the "less experienced caught
on quickly." The Chairman did not perceive a need for more orientation
procedures. -

In considering possible relationships, the researcher examined
Questions 4, 10, and 12. As previously noted, there were no observed
relationships between the responses to Question 4 (adequate instruction)
and Question 10 (time). There was no relationship noted between answers
on Questions 10 and 12. As an example, of the fifteen trustees who
considered themselves active in one year or less, seven responded "yes,"
and seven answered "no" to the need for better orientation. There was a
moderate relationship observed in the responses to Questions 4 and 12.
Eight of the twelve trustees who favored more orientation also indicated
a "partial" or "no" answer regarding an adequate introduction to needs/
role. Likewise, of the ten members who regarded orientation as ade-
quate, eight felt that the needs of the institution and trustee role
were discussed adequately. The paired positive and negative responses

to Questions 4 and 12 were mapped on the responses to Question 10, but

125

no pattern was discerned. In all the comparisons between Questions 4,‘
10, and 12, the demographic data of the trustees were not related to the

responses in any observed pattern.

Participation and Involvement (Questions 13-19)

 

13. Do you have a special role, or interests, as a trustee?

The diversity of the board might be reflected not only in its
demographic composition but also in the trustees' special interests.
Many of the trustees listed interests which corresponded to their‘
occupations and backgrounds. The interests most frequently mentioned
were:
° fund raising (10)
- academic program (7)
° business/finance (6)
- management/personnel (6)
° student life (5)
° church relations and values (5)
Other interests included student recruitment (3), faculty recruitment
(2), and alumni activities (I). In enumerating the trustees who
performed "special roles," the President listed sixteen trustees. The
interests indicated by those sixteen corresponded with the roles or
activities for which the President gave recognition.

14. Does your committee assignment reflect your interest and
expertise?

The members generally considered that their committee assign-
ments matched their interests and expertise. Twenty-four trustees felt

they were "properly placed" and assigned "where I can serve best."

126
Several members expressed a "curiosity" about the details reviewed by
the business and finance committee but were pleased not to serve on it.
Those trustees who had served on other committees generally regarded
each assignment as a beneficial learning experience. Only three
trustees were not pleased with their committee assignments.

One trustee, who was satisfied with the committee assignment,
did suggest that committee assignments should be rotated more frequently.
The present system “trained too narrowly--instead of broadly."

15. Do the board meetings, and committee meetings, provide
ample opportunities for open participation? 00 any groups or
individuals tend to dominate?

The Beta trustees interviewed generally agreed that there were
ample opportunities for a "good exchange of ideas." The members were a
"good vocal bunch" who had "heated discussions" at times. Several
members commented, however, that the Chairman was adept at tactfully
presiding over discussions. For some of those who commented on the
second part of the question, any "domination" occurred "only in respect
to individual expertise," and the "few outspoken members were actually
catalysts." One trustee indicated that, while the meetings were "open,"
there seemed to be a "fair amount of confusion on the real role of the
trustees" in fulfilling their responsibilities. It was acknowledged by
several trustees, however, that discussion and participation "worked
better" in the committees. In the President's opinion there was "good
participation" at the committee and board level. The Chairman's remarks

supported the President's view.

127

Ten trustees expressed concern that the meetings of the full
board were "often far too rushed . . . [with] . . . too much in too
little time." One member stated: "Sometimes there is not enough time
to question or probe." Another member felt that the Chairman often was
"pushing on the agenda." Three trustees suggested a careful review of
the agenda to allow appropriate time for discussing key issues. The
agenda was criticized by those members as "pretty tight" and "set in
concrete." Two trustees voiced concern that the executive committee
"wielded too much influence" partially as a result of the limitations on
discussion which a tight agenda produced.

16. How do you stay well-informed on issues related to Beta
College, and higher education in general?

For the most part, the trustees stay informed primarily by
reading. The members received a "very extensive set" of written
materials. In addition, the trustees talked with college staff,
faculty, and, on occasion, students.~ There was a tendency by those more
distant from the campus to rely particularly on reading. Conversations
with staff occurred primarily when the trustees were on campus, with
some telephone contact when necessary. Trustees with children attending
Beta acknowledged them as a source of information as well.

17. Do you attend campus activities and events as a means of
being well-acquainted with campus life?

The frequency of attendance depended on the individual trustee's
initiative as well as the distance from campus, although distance was a
real problem for twelve trustees. Only six trustees indicated frequent
attendance. A few members from more distant locations, however,

attended events more frequently than some trustees from the community or

128

locale in which Beta is located. Some trustees, particularly those with
children at Beta, or with friends in the area, allotted extra time
around board meetings in an effort to spend additional time on campus.
Several of the trustees, however, often attended events "only as
scheduled or available at board meeting times."

18. Do you attend board meetings regularly?

The trustees' responses confirmed the President's comment that
attendance was good, averaging over eighty percent. Distance from
campus was a minimal factor in attendance. Four trustees indicated
missing only one or two meetings in five or more years.

19. How do you prepare for board meetings?

"Reading" was the response of all but one trustee. The items
which they reviewed were board minutes, financial reports, minutes of
the executive committee, and the agenda materials for the next meeting.
One trustee admitted reading "even the mind-boggling financial reports."
According to another trustee, the "majority of members did not read the
material well." Some members consulted with the President, other
trustees, or the administrative staff on various issues prior to the
meeting.

In general, the materials for review were deemed "adequate" or
"substantial enough." One trustee suggested that the agenda for
committee meetings be distributed in advance. Another trustee suggested
"a little more lead-up time on weighty issues," while another felt that

the "information deals periphally with agenda issues."

129

Evaluation (Questions 20-23)

 

20. What combination of "work, wealth, and wisdom" do you
contribute?

Using Henry Wriston's notable quotation as a guide, the
trustees provided a self-evaluation. The President rated the trustees'
contributions on the same format. Table 28 lists the results. "Wealth"
was defined by the researcher as "giving, or keeping procured resources."
A parentheses is used with any item "qualified" by the trustee.

It is interesting to note the similarities between the trustees'
self-evaluation and the President's ratings. The researcher acknowl-
edges the artificial and imprecise nature of the exercise, but the
results suggest a close working relationship between the President and
the trustees. The ratings were the same in ten instances, while the
President included more items than the trustees in nine cases. Eight
trustees included more items than the President. Thus, the trustees'
ratings were the same, or were understated, in comparison with the
President for seventy percent of the membership. Interestingly, the

President listed all twenty-seven trustees, and the trustees themselves

totaled twenty-five as contributing "at least two of the three."

130

Table 28

"Work, Wealth, and Wisdom"
(l=Work,2=Wealth,3=Wisdom)

 

 

Trustee Code President
# 1 l,(2),3 1,3
# 2 1,2,(3) All
# 3 (l),3 1,3
# 4 1,3 1,3
# S (l),3 1,3
# 6 1,2,(3) All
# 7 l,(2),3 2,3
# 8 All 1,3
# 9 All 1,3
#10 1,3 1,3
#11 All 1,3
#12 l,(2),3 ' All
#13 l,(2),3 All
#14 1,2,(3) All
#15 l,(2),(3) All
#16 1,3 1,3
#17 All All
#18 3 1,3
#19 1,3 All
#20 3 3
#21 2,3 2,3
#22 All All
#23 (1),2,3 2,3
#24 2,3 2,3
#25 All All
#26 1,2,(3) All

#27 1,2,(3) 1,3

 

131

21. Does service on the Beta College board provide an oppor-
tunity for personal growth and development?

For a variety of reasons, the trustees' service was a "marvelous
learning experience." Personal contacts and the insights into the
college operation were particularly important. Board membership
provided personal contact with individuals with diverse backgrounds.
Being a trustee enabled one to "meet top caliber people." As one
trustee commented: "Definitely, how can you miss?"

In addition to the personal contacts, several trustees appre-
ciated the opportunity to gain a "whole new understanding" of the
"dynamics" of a college. One member noted that trusteeship "forced me
into a wholistic approach to educational issues and the running of an
educational institution." Another trustee observed "a variety of
leadership styles" and the process of "compromise on knotty issues."

22. What are the most rewarding features of your trusteeship?
Least satisfying features?

There were a wide variety of general perceptions and personal
comments listed as "rewarding" features. Numerous responses cited the
opportunity to assist the college in its "growth and progress." The
association, in "common cause," with other trustees and the college
personnel, also was listed often. The opportunity to assist somehow in
providing for students' educations was mentioned by several trustees.
On a more personal note, one trustee expressed "surprise and happiness
that the college was ready to make use of me. . . ."

The list of least satisfying features was shorter, but as

diverse. Among the comments, the "time commitment" and "travel for

132

meetings" were cited by three and two trustees, respectively. Three
other comments concerned the "difficulty in reaching closure on
decisions."

23. Are improvements needed in the relationships between the
Board and the President, between the Board and the Chairman, or are you
satisfied with these relationships?

In general, the trustees were quite satisfied with the board's
relationships with the President and the Chairman. Several trustees
expressed a "high regard" for, and confidence in, the President as a
"top-flight" leader and administrator. One member considered the
President to be "astute, open, and honest." Three trustees specifically
complimented the President's communication skills. One member, however,
felt that those skills were not complemented with good listening.
Another trustee noted that the President "needs to be less defensive
about [his/her] judgment and opinions.

Several trustees observed a "good rapport" and a close working
relationship between the President and the Chairman. One member had
"watched them grow beautifully in their roles." Some of the comments
regarding the Chairman's rapport with the board and management skills
were as complimentary. The Chairman was viewed as "open and fair," and
adept at managing meetings. In addition, the Chairman demonstrated
"good administrative expertise." One trustee, however, did not regard
the Chairman as "adept at reading the board." Another felt that the
Chairman did not have "the total confidence of the board."

It is interesting to note that the issues of the Chairman's
residence and non-alumni status were mentioned in several comments.

Three trustees noted that the Chairman resided a considerable distance

133
from the Beta community, and four trustees mentioned that the Chairman
was not a Beta graduate. As a result, the Chairman had "no background
of the college and community" and "others [trustees] were much more
involved." While not wanting to detract from the Chairman's abilities,
one trustee thought it was "unusual to step over others who have served
the college community" in the process of selecting the current Chairman.
On the other hand, three trustees considered the Chairman's different
educational background and locale to be "an asset" for "bringing in
outside perspectives." While both the President and the Chairman
referred to the distance factor, neither regarded it as a particular
problem.

Four trustees commented on the President's leadership of the
college. Two referred to the President's task of directing the institu-
tion. Of the two, one indicated that "99% of what happens depends on
the President" while the other regarded the President as "a very
forceful figure." One trustee, who felt that there was good rapport
between the board and the President, commented: "The President pretty
well runs the board." Another member commented that the Chairman "was
appointed at the whim of the President."

In his comments, the President regarded the relationships with
the board as "effective." The trustees were commended for "being
supportive" and for their efforts in providing the impetus in a fund-
raising campaign. The President, however, challenged the trustees to
"work harder" and to "take a higher stake" in the guiding of the college.
As a means of fulfilling its responsibilities, the President suggested

that the board needed regularly to review its role and effectiveness.

134

Summary

In conducting this study with the 1980-81 members of the Board
of Beta College, the researcher interviewed twenty-seven of the
twenty-eight members, or ninety-six percent of the membership. The
trustees were especially receptive to the interviews and seemed quite
interested in the concept of the study and its findings. Of the two
comments offered about the study, one trustee referred to the "fairly
exhaustive set of questions," while the other termed the questions
"interesting, not at all what I expected." The following paragraphs
provide a brief summary of their comments.

The demographic data provide a description of the "typical" Beta
trustee: male, middle-aged, well-educated, with a moderately high
income level. The average trustee also is a Beta graduate, is a member
of the sponsoring denomination, and is a veteran of approximately six
years of service on the board.

The responses of the Beta trustees to the interview questions
were an interesting variety of perceptions and attitudes. The variety
of comments makes the formulation of meaningful generalizations quite
difficult. As an example, the responses of the large number of trustees
with alumni status and/or denominational ties were as varied within that
group as in comparison to the few members without such links with the
college. In fact, the researcher noted few particular relationships

between the various demographic variables and the trustees' responses.

Selection

The trustees accepted their responsibility to serve for a

variety of reasons, but they especially stated a loyalty to, and

135
interest in, the college, as well as the opportunity to serve the
college and the denomination. With one exception, none of the trustees
interviewed was seeking the position.

Most of the members considered the selection process to have
been "personalized." While the process generally was regarded as
personal, the trustees were not as united in their views that they
received an adequate introduction to the needs of the institution and
the role of a trustee. Likewise, the trustees were divided in their
perceptions that specific reasons were given for inviting them to be
trustees. There were, however, no relationships noted between the
various responses to these two issues.

Regarding desirable characteristics of prospective trustees,
the members tended to mention broad precepts rather than specific skills
or talents. Yet the talents which they brought to board service were
listed as a mixture of occupational expertise and more general attri-

butes.

Board Balance and Orientation

 

Generally, the trustees viewed the board as "balanced." Some
concern was expressed regarding the relative numbers of trustees in
certain categories on the general outlook of the members. Several
suggestions were offered for improving the diversity of the membership.
While the length of term was perceived as an appropriate period of
service, the size of the board was mentioned, with varying degrees of
concern.

The trustees required one year, on the average, to adjust to

board service. Working with other more experienced and/or astute

136
trustees was regarded as particularly helpful in the adjustment process.
The members were divided almost equally in their perceptions of the
adequacy of the orientation process. The pattern of responses suggested
that a trustee's perception of the introduction to needs/role as
adequate or inadequate tended to be linked with a similar view of the

orientation process.

Participation and Involvement

 

The trustees listed a variety of special roles and interests
which related to their activities on behalf of the college or to their
monitoring of college issues and operations. The committee assignments
generally matched their interests and expertise. There were ample
opportunities for participation in board deliberations, but perhaps more
generally at the committee level. There were some concerns of varying
types regarding the agenda and discussions at the full board sessions.

The trustees kept informed primarily by reading, especially for
those more distant from the campus. While sometimes more a matter of
individual initiative, attendance at campus activities and events often
was combined with board meetings. Distance was not a factor regarding
regular attendance at board meetings. Board meeting attendance was
regularly over eighty percent. The trustees generally prepared for
board sessions by reading and reviewing the various minutes, reports,

and other materials which were received.

Evaluation

 

The trustees' self-evaluations, using the "work, wealth, and
wisdom" format, generally corresponded with the President's views. The

researcher regards the ratings as an indication of a close working

137
relationship between the trustees and President. The members felt that
trusteeship was a broadening, educational experience. The opportunity
to serve the college and its students was particularly satisfying. The
list of the least satisfying features of board service was diverse and
relatively short in relation to the more positive features.

In general, the trustees were pleased with the President's
leadership of the college. There was good rapport perceived between the
board members as a group and the President, as well as a close working
relationship observed between the Chairman and the President. The
trustees generally were complimentary toward the Chairman but some
concerns were raised about the Chairman's reSidence, and background,
relative to the college community.

While the trustee's responses often were varied in relation to
their peers on specific questions, or between related questions, the
researcher perceived a strong loyalty and commitment to the college on
the part of the trustees. As one Beta trustee stated: "The college has
a close-knit family/community feeling." Additional consideration of the
issues regarding trustee selection and participation at Beta College is

presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Statement of the Problem

 

Observers of higher education generally acknowledge that the
trustees' role, "never one for the faint of heart," must imply "more
than a seat on the 50-yard line."1 Therefore, numerous publications and
conferences, and the recent AGB National Commission on Trustee Selection,
have focused on the importance of selecting the right people to serve on
collegiate governing boards. To enhance trustee participation and to
promote board effectiveness, the selection of new trustees "should be
made in terms of those who are 'right' for a particular board, who can
strengthen it, and give it what it needs."2 Since the responsibility
for trustee selection and involvement at private colleges lies with the
presidents and the governing boards, the issues concerning trustee
selection and participation require careful consideration at those
institutions.

The researcher's intention in this study was to explore and to
describe the process for selecting new trustees at two private liberal

arts college and to consider the nature of the participation and

 

1Ingram, "Trustees--Power and Sanity," p. 29; and Bob Keeshan,
"Trusteeship: More Than a Seat on the 50-Yard Line," The Chronicle of
Higher Education 19, No. 15 (December 10, 1979).

 

2Houle, The Effective Board, p. 49.

138

139
involvement of the board members at those institutions. Specific
practices and procedures for trustee selection and orientation, board
structure and organization, and the nature of trustee activities at the
two colleges were described. The comments and perceptions of the
trustees regarding their selection and the nature of their activities,
and the remarks of the two college presidents, provided important
perspectives on trustee selection and participation at each college. In
addition, the study provided profiles of the composition and diversity

of the two governing boards.

Methodology_of the Study

A descriptive, case study format was utilized in investigating
and describing trustee selection and participation at Alpha and Beta
colleges. The subject populations consisted of the presidents and the
trustees of the two participating liberal arts colleges in 1981.
Questions for exploration were used in collecting data. The principal
methods of data collection for each college were: (1) personal inter-
view with the president, (2) telephone interviews with the trustees, and
(3) published and written materials from each college. The interview
format was selected as the appropriate method for collecting not only
information about selection practices and trustee activities but also
the perceptions and opinions of the board members and the two presidents
about trustee selection and participation at their respective colleges.
The subjective and imprecise nature of the interview method was acknowl-
edged as an inherent limitation of the study.

For the purposes of the study, fifty-one interviews were

conducted, one with each president and forty-nine with the trustees of

140

the two colleges. Twenty-two Alpha trustees, or sixty-one percent, were
contacted. Twenty-seven, or ninety-six percent, of the Beta trustees
were interviewed. The researcher had anticipated, given the diversity
of board members at the two institutions, that not every trustee would
be interviewed in the time allotted.

Questions used in the trustee interviews were developed after a
thorough review of the literature on trusteeship. The twenty-three
questions were analyzed in four categories: the selection process,
board balance and orientation, participation and involvement, and
evaluation. Demographic data also were collected from each trustee.
Each trustee of Alpha and Beta college received the question set packet
for review and consideration prior to the telephone interview. The
personal interviews with the presidents covered questions similar to
those posed to the trustees, as well as questions regarding actual
trustee selection practices, board organization, and the president's
perceptions of the trustees' participation. In reporting the trustee's
comments, the researcher attempted to provide a "sense" of similar
remarks but also to note the variety of opinions.

Complete confidentiality and anonymity were accorded each insti-
tution and its president and trustees. Prior to each interview, the
researcher re-affirmed the assurance of confidentiality and anonymity.
In presenting the case studies, the researcher attempted to organize and
report the data in a format that would not permit specific identifica-
tion of the institutions or the trustees.

The results of each case study should be interpreted cautiously.
Using the interview format, there were potential limitations in a

respondent's understanding of questions and the researcher's

141
interpretation of the responses. The validity of the findings depended
to a great extent on the candor and/or recall of the presidents and the

trustees .

Case Studies: Findipge and Conclusions

The interviews with the presidents and the trustees provided a
wealth and a variety of information and comments regarding trustee
selection and participation at their respective institutions. The
following paragraphs present brief general summaries of the findings of
each case study and the researcher's conclusions. To avoid evaluative
comparisons, each case is treated separately. Generally, in quantita-
tive research studies, the findings and conclusions are presented in
separate sections. Given the subjective nature of the data and the
detailed descriptions in the case studies, the findings and conclusions
are combined.

In each case study, the researcher explored for possible
patterns of trustee responses on and between particular questions. It
is important to note that only a few patterns were discerned in the
trustees' responses between particular questions. In addition, the
board members' responses and stated perceptions generally were unrelated
to the personal and demographic data for the trustees.L These results
suggest that a variety of individual judgments, board experiences, and

recollections affected an individual's comments.

 

1Farmerie's study also reported little relationship between
responses and personal and demographic data. Samuel A. Farmerie,
"College Governing Boards" A Study of Characteristics and Functions of
Trustees Serving Pennsylvania Liberal Arts Colleges," Ed.D. dissertation,
The Pennsylvania State University, 1964.

142

Alpha College

 

In conducting this study, the researcher interviewed twenty-two
of the 1980-81 Alpha trustees, or sixty-one percent of the membership.
With the exceptions of the members with business vocations and the
members from a particular urban area, the trustees interviewed were

generally representative of the total board membership.

1. Trustee Profile. The "typical" trustee interviewed was

 

male, middle-aged, and well-educated, with a moderately high income
level. The average member was also affiliated with the college's
sponsoring denomination and had served on the board for almost six years.
In terms of the personal data, the profile of the average Alpha
trustee generally corresponds to the composite results of national
studies.1 The total percentage of women on the Alpha board, roughly
thirty-six percent, is higher than the national average reported in a

2
recent survey.

 

2. Selection Process. The provisions in the Bylaws of Alpha
College regarding the selection of new members are minimal. Basically,
the selection of new trustees was at the discretion of the President and
the board, with an informal review of the candidates by the leaders of
the religious order. The nomination/selection process was continuous

and involved personal contacts and referrals, primarily from college

 

1As an example, see Hartnett, College and University_Trustees,

 

1969.

2Gomberg and Atelsek, Copposition of College and University
Governing Boards, August, 1977.

 

143
officials and trustees. The President was involved considerably in the
cultivation and enlistment of prospective trustees. The board officers,
the Chairman of the Nominating Committee, and some of the officials of
the religious order also were active participants in the process. Board
approval of nominees generally was a p£e_§e£he_action.

None of the trustees interviewed was seeking a position on the
board. They accepted the responsibility of trusteeship particularly
because of a desire to serve and an interest in the college, or higher
education in general. While all the members regarded the process as
"personalized," only two-thirds of the trustees felt that their intro-
duction to the college and trusteeship was adequate. Three-fourths of
the members, however, recalled a specific or general reason for their
invitations to board service. Only nine trustees considered the intro-
duction as adequate and also recalled a reason given for their selection.

From the researcher's perspective, the cultivation and selection
of new trustees at Alpha is a highly-personal, loosely-structured
process. The President plays a central role in identifying and enlist-
ing those individuals who become trustees. While the trustees may have
joined the board for a wide variety of reasons or motives, their
comments suggest a high degree of altruism. The selection process does
not appear to be as formal as various writers recommend, particularly in
relation to the introduction to trusteeship, reasons for the invitation,
and expectations for performance. In addition, the extent of the
introduction to trusteeship and the information provided largely depends
on the nature of the contacts and discussions between the prospective

trustees and the President and other board officials.

144

It should be noted that, at the time of this study, the focus of
the Nominating Committee was being expanded to include responsibilities,
as a "Committee on Trustees," for trustee selection, orientation, and
performance evaluation. The trustees were generally in favor of more
formal procedures, although it was evident that the President was the

motivating force behind the change.

3. Characteristics of Trustees. The Alpha trustees frequently

 

cited "willingness to work and be involved" as a desirable characteris-
tic in prospective trustees. Other attributes listed by the President
and the trustees were a mixture of general experience and special
talents. Such qualities as an interest in higher education, sound
judgment, and distinction in background or expertise were listed. The
trustees' own stated contributions were various combinations of specific
expertise or background and broad experience.

The literature on trusteeship also mentions such qualities. The
attributes cited by the President and the trustees are quite similar.
The similarity suggests a general consensus between the President and
the trustees concerning several basic attributes as well as a recogni-
tion that a variety of characteristics are applicable to board service

of Alpha College.

4. Board Balance. A requirement for the representation of the

 

religious order was the only specific provision in the hyiey§_regarding
eligibility for trusteeship. Thus, the President and the board officers
were responsible for determining the composition and diversity of board
and committee memberships. The President and the trustees generally

regarded the board as "balanced" and cited examples of the variety of

145
expertise and backgrounds represented. There were several suggestions
from the trustees and the President for the addition of members with
particular expertise.

There were no provisions included in the Bylaws regarding cumu-
lative service and consecutive terms of service. Trustees were elected
to three-year terms, and re-election was common. The President and a
few trustees indicated an interest in more formal provisions governing
length of service on the board.

Various personal and demographic data, such as age, residence,
occupation, and length of board service, were presented in the case
description and provided evidence of the composition and diversity of
the Alpha trustees. In four instances--sex, religious affiliation,
residence from one urban area, and business occupations (for the total
membership)--the representations were skewed.

The researcher perceives a general commitment to board balance
and diversity. The comments of the President and the trustees suggest.
however, that board "balance" is interpreted especially as a measure of
the diversity of skills, backgrounds, and viewpoints which contribute to
board effectiveness. When selecting new trustees, the President and
board officials consider the skills and personal backgrounds which would
add appropriate strength to the board. Particular personal and demo-
graphic factors are important in each instance. The specific represen-
tation of personal or demographic factors may be intentional or inci-
dental. The comments concerning the length of service suggest that

membership continuity and change is a subject of discussion.

146

S. Orientation. In terms of the time-frame for each trustee's

 

involvement, the President stated that the time varied greatly. The
average trustee required approximately one year to become adjusted to
trusteeship. Orientation procedures were minimal. Sixty-four percent
of the trustees interviewed favored more systematic orientation proce-
dures. The contacts of new trustees with college officials during the
selection process, possible prior familiarity with the college, and
various written materials, generally constituted the orientation. The
President considered new trustees to be well-equipped with information
but noted that perhaps one—fourth to one-third of the trustees lacked
adequate knowledge of college operations. There was a slight tendency
for those who did not regard the introduction to trusteeship as adequate
and who favored better orientation to take longer than one year to
become involved. The trustees generally regarded their contacts with
other board members and college officials, and the experience gained in
board meetings and activities, as most helpful in adjusting to trustee-
ship.

In the researcher's view, the time-frame for active involvement
was likely the result of a variety of individual factors and experiences
as well as the trustees' interactions. The general comments of the
President and the trustee regarding the need for more orientation proce-

dures are supported by the large volume of literature on trusteeship.

6. Participation and Involvement. Alpha board members moni-
tored and/or directly participated in a variety of areas and activities,

often related to their special interests. Some of the trustees'

147
interests were directly related to occupational expertise. It was
acknowledged that much of the work of the Alpha board was done at the
committee level. Committee assignments to the ten board committees were
determined jointly by the board officials and the President, in relation
to each trustee's background and expertise and the needs of particular
committees. As a result, the diversity of committee membership was not
uniform. The committees met with varying frequency, with the Finance
and Executive Committees meeting most frequently, and often jointly.
Opportunities for discussion and deliberation were regarded as ample but
were considered better at the committee level. The full board sessions
generally were for the review and approval of committee recommendations.
Several trustees expressed concern about the committee system and the
size of the board.

The Alpha trustees primarily kept informed and prepared for
meetings by reading materials received from the President, although
several members were in frequent contact with the President and other
trustees or college officials. Only a few trustees regularly attended
campus events and activities. Board meeting attendance averaged sixty-
five to eighty-five percent.

The nature of trustee participation at Alpha College is multi-
faceted. Some trustees, by their own admission and in the President's
opinion, are involved more actively than others. The committee system
and the size of the board affect the activities and perceptions of some
trustees. As examples, the committees meet with varying frequency, and
some committees may be perceived by the trustees as more influential
than others. Several trustees prefer the deliberations at the committee

level rather than the full board sessions. The President is the primary

148

channel of information to the trustees, although communication with
college officials and faculty is possible. While assistance may be a
definite factor in some instances, the trustees' involvement with the
campus, in a broad sense, is more likely a matter of initiative and
choice. Distance is more of a factor regarding attendance at campus
events than board meetings. The nature of a trustee's participation
appears to be determined by such factors as time and other commitments,
individual initiative, distance, general interests, and motivation and

encouragement .

7. Evaluation. The Alpha trustees generally felt that trustee-

 

ship provided opportunities for personal growth and development, through
contacts with other trustees, activities and meetings, and general
consideration of issues. The opportunity to serve the college and
students was cited as particularly satisfying. The President expressed
pleasure with several of the board's accomplishments. The "work,
wealth, and wisdom" scale provided evidence of the working relationship
between the board and the President. The President's ratings and the
trustees' self-evaluations were the same for fifty percent of the board
members. Eighteen trustees listed two of three contributions, while the
President rated fifteen members with at least two. Both the President
and the chairman were perceived as strong, effective leaders. In
general, the trustees were satisfied with the relationships between the
board and the President and Chairman.

It is apparent that the trustees enjoy their roles as trustees,
for the opportunity to serve and for other social and personal satis-

factions. While the "work, wealth, and wisdom" scale is an imprecise

149
measure, the results suggest a close working relationship between the
President and the trustees. The trustees' satisfaction with the
President and the Chairman is a general indication that the board is in
agreement with the direction and leadership provided by the President

and the Chairman.

Beta College

 

Virtually all the 1980-81 trustees of Beta College were inter-
viewed for the purposes of this study. Twenty-seven of twenty—eight
members or ninety-six percent, were contacted. With only one exception,
therefore, the comments and perspectives of the trustees reflect the

tenor of the board.

1. Trustee Profile. The "typical" Beta trustee resembled the

 

average trustee depicted in national studies: male, middle-aged, well-
educated, and with a moderately high income level.1 The average Beta
trustee also was a graduate of the College, was a member of the sponsor-
ing religious denomination, and had served on the board for almost seven
years. The percentage of women on the board was similar to the national

level cited in a recent survey.2

2. The Selection Process. The Bylaws included several provi-
sions on the selection process and membership representation. Those

stipulations in actual practice were less rigid than the Bylaws implied.

 

1As an example, see Hartnett, College and University Trustees,
1969.

2Gomberg and Atelsek, Composition . . . GoverningTBoards,
August, 1977.

150
The "selection" of new trustees by the denominational authorities was
essentially a review and approval of specific candidates presented by
the board leadership and the President. Three categories of membership
eligibility--denomination, at-large, and faculty--provided board repre-
sentation guidelines. The most specific provision was the "denomina-
tion" section, which stipulated denominational membership and required
that six of that group were ordained ministers of the denomination.
Essentially, the President and the board officers were responsible for
identifying and enlisting prospective trustees for board service. The
Faculty of Beta presented their nominees for the board's election. The
selection process was continuous and open, with some referrals, and
involved personal contacts by the President and board officials. The
President was involved on a regular basis in the selection process.
Board approval of new trustees was basically a EES.£2£EE review.

The board members generally accepted their trustee role because
of an interest in, or loyalty to, the College and an obligation to
serve. Only one trustee was seeking such a position. For most of the
others, the invitation to the board was a surprise and an honor. The
Beta members generally felt that their selection was "personalized."
Less than one-half of the group, however, felt that they received an
adequate introduction to trusteeship. Over two-thirds of the trustees
recalled that specific or general reasons were stated regarding their
selection as trustees.

In the researcher's judgment, the selection process at Beta is
"personalized," with generally few restrictions on the enlistment of new
members. The President is a dominant participant in the process. The

nature of the contacts with prospective trustees varies considerably

 

151
and tends to be a matter of the individual's involvement. Given the
trustees' comments, the adequacy of the introduction to trusteeship and
the statement of reasons for selection appears to be less thorough than

the various writers on trustee selection recommend.

3. Characteristics of Trustees. In general, the trustees and

 

the President mentioned broad precepts rather than specific talents on
expertise as desirable attributes of new trustees. Such qualities as
commitment to the college, objectivity, commitment to religious values,
and general supportiveness were listed. The President and the Chairman,
as well as several trustees, emphasized willingness to work. The
talents which board members contributed individually were a mixture of
occupational expertise and general qualities.

The characteristics cited by the President and the trustees
frequently are included in the literature on trusteeship. The similar-
ity of the attributes listed by the Beta trustees and the President
suggest an acknowledgement of the various general qualities and more

specific talents or backgrounds which contribute to the board’s efforts.

4. Board Balance. The provisions in the Bylaws for denomina-

 

tion, at—large, and faculty representation were the only specific state-
ments governing the composition and diversity of the board. Basically,
the President and the board leadership determined the mixture of trustee
backgrounds and talents which were represented. The President and the
trustees generally perceived the board as "balanced" and diverse. There
were suggestions from the trustees and the President to improve board
diversity by adding trustees with particular talents or backgrounds.

Several trustees made positive and negative observations concerning the

152
representation of certain personal or demographic categories on the
outlooks of some board members.

The Bylaws included specific provisions for the length of
service. Trustees were elected to six-year terms, with a limit of two
consecutive terms unless waived by board action. Faculty trustee
service was limited generally to two terms of two years each. There was
a tendency to re-elect trustees without much deliberation.

The composition and diversity of the membership, as reflected in
various personal and demographic data, was described in the Beta case
study. The national base of membership was governed somewhat by the
provision for "denomination" representation. In three categories-~sex,
religious affiliation, and alumni status--the representation was skewed.

The comments of the President and the trustees suggest that
membership diversity is regarded as important for the board's effective-
ness. From the researcher's perspective, board "balance" for the Beta
trustees and the President is viewed as the appropriate mixture of the
members' skills, backgrounds, and outlooks for accomplishing board and
institutional goals. New trustees are selected for a variety of
reasons, or combinations of different factors. The relative representa-
tion of particular personal or demographic variables may be merely

coincidental to the more important factors for selecting new trustees.

S. Orientation. Both the President and the Chairman regarded

 

the usual time-frame for trustee involvement as one year. The trustees'
stated adjustment period averaged one year or less. Fifty-five percent
of the trustees were active in one year or less, while fifty-nine

percent regarded their time-frame as one to two years. Interactions

153

with other trustees, written communications and publications provided
through the President, and general board experience were listed as most
helpful in the adjustment of the trustees to their roles. An orienta-
tion session for new trustees preceded the Fall board meeting. The Beta
trustees were divided almost equally in their opinions on the need for
more systematic orientation procedures. In several instances, the
trustees' views of the introduction to trusteeship as adequate or inade-
quate were linked to similar opinions concerning orientation procedures.
The comments from the trustees suggests that the adjustment to
trusteeship is the result of various combinations of an individual's
experiences and other personal factors. The benefits gained from orien-
tation, interactions with other trustees, and the various published and

written materials vary according to each board member.

6. Participation and Involvement. The trustees listed a

 

variety of special interests and activities by which they contributed to
the board's efforts. A number of their special roles corresponded to
the President's views of particular trustees' contributions. Many of
the interests corresponded to trustees' occupations or special back-
grounds. The committee structure was regarded as central to the work of
the board, while the full board served primarily a review and approval
function. The assignments of trustees to one of four committees were
determined by the Chairman, board officers, and the President, in con-
sultation with other college officials. The assignments generally were
based on an evaluation of individual expertise as well as committee
needs. Each committee regularly met at each board meeting. The

trustees generally felt that their committee assignments were an

154
appropriate match with their interests and skills. The trustees felt
that opportunities for discussion and participation generally were
satisfactory but were perhaps more available at the committee level.
Any "domination" of meetings was attributed to expertise, which was
regarded positively. The President and the Chairman concurred that
there was generally good participation in board and committee delibera-
tions. Some of the trustees expressed some concern about the crowded
agenda of board meetings and the size of the board.

For the most part, the trustees stayed informed about the
college and higher education and prepared for board meetings by reading
various materials. Most of the communications, in the form of minutes,
reports, agenda, and other items, were received from the President.
Reading was emphasized particularly by trustees residing farther away
from the campus. In addition, some trustees at times talked with
college officials, faculty, and students to keep well-informed. A few
trustees regularly attended campus events, while others attended events
scheduled close to board meetings. Distance was sometimes a definite
factor regarding trustee involvement in campus life. Board meeting
attendance regularly averaged over eighty percent, with distance as a
minimal factor.

Trustee participation at Beta College varies considerably. A
combination of individual factors and situations appears to determine
the nature of each board member's involvement. The President is the
principal channel of information for the board members, even though
trustees occasionally seek information from other members of the campus
community. Since committee meetings are held at each full board session,

participation at the "working level" of the board is readily possible.

155
The activities and efforts of the members between meetings, however,
appears to depend on the nature of the tasks as well as such factors as

distance, time, other commitments, initiative, and motivation.

7. Evaluation. The Beta trustees generally regarded trustee-

 

ship as a positive learning experience which provided numerous oppor-
tunities for personal growth. The association with other trustees and
the consideration of challenging issues were cited. The opportunity to
serve the college and the students was particularly rewarding. The
President commended the trustees for their general support and for fund-
raising efforts, but challenged the members to become more actively
involved and to regularly assess their efforts.

The ratings on the "work, wealth, and wisdom" scale provided a
comparison of the trustees' self-evaluations and the President's ratings
of the trustees' contributions. The ratings were the same for the
trustees. For seventy percent of the members, the trustees' ratings
were the same, or were underrated, in comparison with the President's
views. Virtually all the trustees were considered to contribute in at
least two out of three categories.

The trustees generally felt that the board's relationships with
the President and the Chairman were satisfactory. Both were regarded as
effective leaders. There was some concern expressed, however, concern-
ing the chairman's lack of background in relation to the college.

In the researcher's opinion, the Beta trustees are sincerely
loyal to the College and find trusteeship to be satisfying, both in
terms of personal satisfactions and social interactions. The

similarity of the ratings on the "work, wealth, and wisdom" scale,

156
however imprecise a measure, does suggest a relatively close relation-
ship between the President and the trustees. On the whole, the trustees
appear to be satisfied that the two leaders are guiding the institution

and the board effectively.

Case Studies: General Perspectives
The two case studies provide specific views of the trustee
selection process and the nature of trustee participation at two private
liberal arts colleges. The detailed findings and conclusions, therefore,
may be especially pertinent for each institution. While two distinct
colleges were studied, the researcher noted several general similarities
in the findings of the two cases. As a result, some general perspec-
tives highlight trustee selection and participation at Alpha and Beta

Colleges and provide directions for additional research.

1. Co-optation. With one exception (at Beta), none of the

 

trustees interviewed was seeking such a position. Those trustees
generally regarded service on the governing boards as an honor. As a
result of their service, the board members stated that they received
various altruistic and personal/social satisfactions. The researcher
concludes, therefore, that co-optation, as a mutually-beneficial process
for the colleges and the trustees, is in effect at both Alpha and Beta.
This conclusion supports the statements in the literature regarding co-
optation as the typical method for the selection of trustees at private

colleges.

2. Trustee Selection. The identification and selection of new

 

trustees at both colleges is a continuous, personal, and

157
loosely-structured process. Each President is involved to a consider-
able extent in the selection process. The selection of new trustees is
basically at the discretion of the President and the board officers of
each college. Board approval of new trustees is essentially a p£2_fg£ma
action.

This study suggests that each board member's introduction to
trusteeship depends considerably on the nature of the interaction
between the President and board/college officials and the prospective
trustees for Alpha and Beta. Selection of trustees according to stated
eligibility criteria is less restricted, and denominational approval is
less formal, than the Bylaws for each college imply. As the trustees'
comments suggest, the board members' introductions to trusteeship, in
relation to the needs of the college, role of the trustee, and specific
reasons for the invitation, in general appear less systematic than

various writers recommend.

3. The President's Role. Each of the two Presidents performs a

 

major role in the identification and enlistment of new trustees. In
addition, each President is primarily responsible for the orientation of
new members and for the communications to keep the board informed on a
regular basis. The President works jointly with the Chairman of the
Board to prepare the agenda for board sessions and to provide direction
for board efforts.

The results of the two case studies clearly indicate that each
of the Presidents is a pivotal influence in determining the board's
membership and in providing the direction and focus of the trustees'

efforts. The nature of the symbiotic relationship between each

 

158
President and the board, however, is defined more specifically by their

interactions in serving the two respective institutions.

4. The "Right" People. The comments of the trustees and the

 

Presidents of Alpha and Beta suggest that a variety of talents and back-
grounds are applicable to trusteeship. With few specific restrictions
on membership eligibility, the Presidents and the board officers of each
college determine the "right" people for obtaining the appropriate
balance and diversity of the board membership.

Various writers on trusteeship suggest that a diversity of
trustee talents and backgrounds enhances the deliberations and deciSions
of governing boards. The results of this study suggest that, at each
of the two colleges, board balance is perceived from a functional as
well as a demographic perspective. Therefore, relative numbers of
personal and demographic factors represented by the trustees may be
intentional or incidental in relation to the combination of trustee
skills and backgrounds deemed appropriate for accomplishing board goals.
Each of the two colleges determine which prospective trustees are

"right" for its purposes.

5. Adjustment to Trusteeship. While the time-frame for the
adjustment to the role of a trustee varied for individual board members,
the trustees of both colleges generally considered themselves to be
active participants after approximately one year. The orientation
procedures differed between the two colleges. The trustees of both
institutions regarded contacts with other board members and college
officials, as well as various written materials, as helpful in adjusting

to trusteeship.

159
The literature on trusteeship generally recommends organized
orientation procedures. The importance of the orientation procedures at
each college, however, was not perceived equally by the trustees. Since
the average time-frame for active participation was similar for the
trustees of both colleges, the adjustment for each trustee is likely the
result of a combination of individual factors and institutional

practices.

6. Trustee Participation. The participation of the trustees

 

serving Alpha and Beta varies between the board members of each college.
Each board, however, exhibits a similar format. Much of the work of the
Alpha and Beta boards is done at the committee level. Distance from the
campus does not affect attendance at board sessions to any great extent,
but it does affect somewhat the actual activities of some trustees in
serving their respective college. The board members of both institu-
tions participated in a variety of activities often related to their
special interests and/or occupational expertise.

This study provides some glimpses of the multi-faceted nature of
trustee participation, but did not explore in depth the activities,
discussions, and decisions of the trustees. The results of the case
studies suggest that trustee service at Alpha and Beta is influenced by
varying combinations of factors such as individual interest and
experiences, distance, other commitments, interactions in group
situations, initiative and motivation, board organization and procedures,
and the board members' evaluations of the leadership of the President
and the Chairman of the Board. Yet a synergism unites the variety of
trustee efforts and opinions in promoting the general effectiveness of

the board.

 

160

General Observations

 

While the scope of study and the interview sample may be too
narrow for meaningful generalization, the researcher's findings and con-
clusions for the two case studies place in perspective various state-
ments and comments in the literature on trusteeship. As a result, the
researcher poses several general observations in relation to trustee
selection and participation at other private liberal arts colleges.

1. Governing boards of colleges are idiosyncratic. While, in

 

theory, there is a commonality of role and function, each board deter-
mines its own specific direction, organization, and composition accord-
ing to various intrinsic factors. As Nason and other writers concur:
"There is no single pattern of effectiveness."1
2. The President of the college is a principal force in the
selection of new trustees as well as the overall functioning of the
board. With co-optation as the primary method for trustee selection,
the President is involved considerably in the determination of member-
ship needs and the procedures of selecting individuals for board service.
3. The guidelines and recommendations in the literature regard-
ing trustee selection procedures are utilized in varying degree at
different institutions. To a great extent, the process for selecting
each trustee and the introduction to trusteeship is determined by the

nature of the interaction between the prospective trustee and the

President and/or board officials.

 

1Nason, Future of Trusteeship, p. 24.

 

161

4. The bylaws of the board generally place few actual restric-
tions on the selection process and the composition and diversity of the
board's membership. The President and other board officials, therefore,
largely determine the board's makeup and character.

5. Board "balance" is the mixture of skills, backgrounds,
attributes, and outlooks of the trustees determined by the President and
board officials to be most appropriate for board effectiveness.

6. Trustees are selected for a wide range of reasons in rela-

tion to that mixture. The relative numbers of personal and demographic

 

factors reflected in the board's diversity may be intentional or inci-
dental. Each board determines whether an over-representation of
particular skills, backgrounds, or outlooks is beneficial or detrimental.

7. There are no ”arcane skills"1 needed for trusteeship. A
variety of general attributes and specific skills contribute to a
board's activities.

8. Although formal orientation procedures are recommended
consistently in the literature, actual orientation practices vary.

9. A trustee's time-frame for active participation is the
result of various combinations of individual backgrounds, interactions
with trustees and college officials, and orientation procedures.

10. Each board will determine its own organizational structure,
according to a variety of factors, such as institutional customs, the
composition and diversity of the membership, and the perceptions of the

President and board officials.

 

leelrod, Guide for New Trustees, p. 10.

162

11. The nature of trustee participation is varied and complex.
The activities of each trustee may vary according to such individual and
institutional factors as time and other commitments, distance, board
structure and organization, reasons for selection, personal initiative,
and motivation.

12. Trustees rely to a considerable extent on information from
the President, and primarily read, as a means of keeping informed.

13. Governing boards are synergistic. As noted in the case
studies, the trustees have differing opinions on the nature of their
activities and roles, the structure and functioning of the board, the
outlooks of fellow trustees, and the leadership of the President and the
Chairman. Yet, "a board of trustees is more than the sum of its
individual parts."1 In accomplishing board goals, it is apparent that
the general goodwill and sincerity of the trustees overrides various
members' opinions of board leadership and efficiency.

14. For most trustees, membership on the board is a distinct
honor. While the members accept their role for altruistic reasons, it
is apparent the trustees enjoy board service and derive personal satis-
faction from social interaction as well as individual and board accom-
plishments. As King notes: "Trustees really enjoy and grow in
association with . . . other trustees . . . [board service] . .
provides in-service education and growth Opportunities that enrich the

lives of trustees."2

 

llngram, Handbook of . . .Trusteeshin. P- 54-

2John E. King, "A Toast to the Unknown Trustee," AGB Reports 22,
No. 4:46-47.

 

163
15. The President is a major influence in the selection of, and
works in close association with, the chairman of the Board. Their joint
leadership in large part determines the direction of board activities

and actions.

Recommendations for Further Study

This study suggests that trustee selection and participation are
important topics for further investigation and provide directions for
more research. The two case studies shed some light on the process of
trustee selection and the nature of trustee activities at two private
liberal arts colleges. In addition, the results suggest that research
involving individual boards, as well as interview techniques, may
provide perspectives on trusteeship not found in large survey research
or in the prescriptive literature.

The results of additional research, utilizing interview or
survey methodologies, would provide further descriptive evidence of
actual selection procedures and trustee activities. Such additional
information might (1) place in better perspective the relation of actual
practices to the prescriptive literature, and (2) determine the validity
of this researcher's general perspectives and observations.

Several topics might be explored regarding trustee selection:

0 the extent to which co-optation is in effect at other independent or
sectarian liberal arts colleges

- actual selection criteria and procedures at other private colleges

° similarities and/or differences in selection procedures at large

versus small private colleges, and for large versus small boards

164
° actual orientation procedures at other private liberal arts colleges
° the adjustment process for new trustess, and the relative importance
of formal orientation procedures, at private colleges
Various aspects regarding the nature of trustee participation
also might be investigated for private colleges:
' trustee activities in relation to board size and group dynamics
° the relationship of trustee participation to the selection adjustment
process, particularly the introduction to trusteeship and reasons for
the invitation to serve
° the affect of board organization and decision-making on trustee
participation
° trustee activities in relation to the leadership of the Chairman of
the Board and the President, and in relation to the trustees'
perceived effectiveness of the institution's leaders
- the interactions between the board and a new President
The case studies perhaps raise more questions than they answer.
Additional research, such as that indicated, may provide useful informa-
tion on trustee selection practices and the nature of trustee partici-
pation, and the importance of those procedures and efforts for effective

trusteeship.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONS FOR TRUSTEES OE
ALPHA COLLEGE AND

BETA COLLEGE

165

Questions for Trustees of College

Personal Data

 

° Relationship to college: alumna(-us), parent, donor?
° Educational background?

- Occupation?

- Religious affiliation?

- Length of service on ______College Board?

- Other governing board memberships?

- Financial status?

 

. Age?

Nomination/Selection Process

 

1. Why did you accept the responsibility as a trustee?
2. Were you seeking such a position? Why?

3. Was the nomination/selection process personalized? Who was
involved?

4. Did you receive an adequate introduction to the needs of the
institution and the role of a trustee?

5. Was a specific reason(s) given for inviting you to become a
trustee?

6. What characteristics, qualities, or attributes do you feel are
important in prospective trustees?

7. What particular abilities or expertise do you bring to the
College Board?

Board Balance and Orientation

 

8. Is there a good diversity and balance on the board?

9. Are any changes needed in the size of the board, composition of the
board, or the terms of service of the board members?

10.

11.

166

How long did it take for you to be an "effective,” participating
trustee?

How best did you gain an understanding of the roles and duties of a
trustee?

Does College need to develop more systematic orientation
procedures?

Participation and Involvement

 

 

 

13. Do you have a special role, or interest, as a trustee? l

14. Does your committee assignment reflect your interest and expertise?

15. Do the board meetings, and committee meetings, provide ample 5
oppotunities for open participation? Do any groups or individuals h
tend to dominate?

16. How do you stay well-informed on issues related to College,
and higher education in general?

17. Do you attend campus activities and events as a means of being
well-acquainted with campus life?

18. Do you attend board meetings regularly?

19. How do you prepare for board meetings?

Evaluation

20. It has been stated that trustees should contribute "work, wealth,
and wisdom, preferably all three, but at least two of the three."

What combination of work, wealth, and wisdom do you contribute?

21. Does service on the College Board provide an opportunity
for personal growth and development?

22. What are the most rewarding features of your trusteeship? Least
satisfying features?

23. Are improvements needed in the relationships between the Board and

the President, between the Board and the chairman, or are you
satisfied with these relationships?

APPENDIX B

ALPHA COLLEGE CORRESPONDENCE

BETA COLLEGE CORRESPONDENCE

PROJECT ABSTRACT

167

Alpha College
April 6, 1981

Dr. (name)
President

"Alpha” College
(city, state, zip)

Dear President (name):

It was a pleasure to discuss with you recently my dissertation project
at Michigan State concerning governing boards. I sincerely appreciate
your interest in this undertaking and your willingness to assist me by
being available for a personal interview and by encouraging your
trustees' cooperation.

As I indicated, much of the recent literature concerning governing
boards reviews demographic studies or presents prescriptions for
effective trusteeship. The purpose of my study is to describe trustee
selection and participation in board functions for a particular board.
Little research concerning trusteeship has focused on individual boards
of trustees. You may be assured of total institutional and personal
anonymity and confidentiality.

As suggested by the other participating institution, I intend to submit
to your trustees in writing the questions I will ask in the telephone
interviews. This procedure will enable the board members to reflect on
the question and prepare for the call. I plan to distribute a small
packet of information regarding the study, including the question set,
at your May board meeting. The telephone interviews will be conducted
during May 11—22, 1981.

Enclosed please find a brief statement of the research project and a
biographical summary for your information. I will be calling in the
near future to discuss further procedures for the study and your May
board meeting. It is likely that my advisor, Dr. Walter Johnson, will
accompany me to the May meeting.

Again, I deeply appreciate your, and the Alpha College trustees',
cooperation on this study.

Sincerely,

Jack Fistler
825 Touraine
East Lansing, MI 48823

168

Alpha College
(letterhead deleted)

April 7, 1981

Mr. Jack Fistler
825 Touraine
East Lansing, MI 48823

Dear Jack:

Thank you for your good letter of April 6th in which you outline the
procedures for our cooperating with you in acquiring data for your
dissertation project at Michigan State University.

By carbon copy of this letter and a Xerox of your letter to me, I am
informing Mr. (name), Chairman of our Board, of this proposal with which
I wholeheartedly agree.

You should plan on being present for the May 9th Board meeting. We
usually begin with coffee and rolls at 9:00 a.m. and the meeting
commences at 9:30 a.m. The meeting's location and further details will
be sent to you when our agenda is completed. Should you have any
questions, please call (name), my assistant, at (phone number).

If Dr. Walter Johnson wishes to accompany you, we would be delighted to
have him as our guest.

Sometime within the next three weeks you will be receiving a copy of our
agenda. Enclosed with this letter is a listing of our current Trustees.

We look forward to cooperating with you in this project. With all good
wishes, I am

Sincerely,

(name)
President

a1
Enclosure

P.S. If it does not violate your pledge of confidentiality, if it does,
don't worry about it.

169

Alpha College
May 9, 1981
To: Trustees of "Alpha" College

Thank you for your assistance in this Trustee survey/interview
concerning the selection and participation of governing board members.
This study constitutes my dissertation project at Michigan State
University.

Much of the recent literature concerning governing boards reviews
demographic studies or presents prescriptions for effective trusteeship.
Little research has focused on individual boards of trustees. The
purpose of my study is to describe Trustee selection and participation
in board functions for a particular board.

Enclosed are a brief description of the study and a set of questions for
your review. Your consideration of appropriate responses to the
questions will facilitate the telephone interview. I will be conducting
the telephone interviews during May 13-22.

Again, I deeply appreciate your candor and cooperation on this study.

Sincerely,

Jack Fistler
825 Touraine
East Lansing, MI 48823

JF/gc
enclosures

170

Beta College

March 17, 1981

Dr. (name)
President

"Beta” College
(city, state, zip)

Dear President (name):

I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to discuss with you my
dissertation project at Michigan State concerning governing boards. I
trust that this letter and basic proposal arrived in time for your
Executive Committee meeting.

As I indicated, much of the recent literature concerning governing
boards reviews demographic studies or presents descriptions for
effective trusteeship. The purpose of my study is to describe trustee
selection and participation in board functions for a particular board.
Little research concerning trusteeship has focused on individual boards
of trustees. You may be assured of total institutional and personal
anonymity and confidentiality.

My interest in working with private colleges on this project stems from
a sincere respect for, and commitment to, private liberal arts colleges.
I have enclosed a brief biographical summary for your information.

I deeply appreciate your, and the Executive Committee's, consideration
of this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jack Fistler

825 Touraine

East Lansing, MI 48823
JF/gc

enclosures

171

Beta College Office of the President
(letterhead deleted)

March 23, 1981

Mr. Jack Fistler
825 Touraine
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

Dear Mr. Fistler:

I discussed your letter of March 17, and the research you propose to
undertake, with the Executive Committee of our Board of Trustees on
March 20. The Committee agreed to ask the members of the Board of
Trustees to cooperate with you in your study. They also had two
specific suggestions.

The first would be that you submit to the Trustees in writing the
questions you would like to ask them. This would give them some
opportunity to think about these beforehand. They also thought that
this could be a convenient way to prepare the Trustees for your phone
call. Further, I will mention this matter in the next memorandum that I
will send to them, which will be in two or three weeks.

The second suggestion was that you stress when you call them that if
this is not a convenient time to talk with them, that you will be glad
to call at another time. Also, they thought that it might be well if
you sent the questions you would like to ask them to me first, as I
might be able to help you phrase them so that this would lead to the
answers that would be most accurate and helpful to you.

I trust this is an adequate response to your request.

Sincerely yours,

(name)

jb

 

 

"Beta" College Trustee Survey Jack Fistler
Researcher

May 15, 1981
To: Trustees of ”Beta" College

Thank you for your assistance in this Trustee survey/interview
concerning the selection and participation of governing board members
serving liberal arts colleges. It is my understanding that Dr. (name)
has advised you of my study and has encouraged your participation. This
study constitutes my dissertation project at Michigan State University.

Much of the recent literature concerning governing boards reviews
demographic studies or presents prescriptions for effective trusteeship.
Little research has focused on individual boards of trustees. The
purpose of my study is to describe Trustee selection and participation
for a particular board, and especially your personal impressions and
perceptions regarding your service on the "Beta" College Board.

Enclosed are a brief description of the study, a copy of a letter from
Dr. (name) regarding the project, and a set of questions for your
review. I interviewed Dr. (name) at ”Beta" on May 12. Your questions
are similar to those which I directed to him. Please review the
questions at your convenience. Your consideration of appropriate
responses prior tg_my_call will facilitate the telephone interview. I
will be contacting you between May 20-31.

 

You may be assured of the total confidentiality of your responses. The
name of the College and the names of "Beta" trustees will not be
revealed.

Again, I deeply appreciate your candor and cooperation in this study.

Sincerely,

Jack Fistler

82$ Touraine

East Lansing, MI 48823
enclosures

JF/gc

SELECTING THE "RIGHT PEOPLE": CASE STUDIES OF
THE SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION OF TRUSTEES

SERVING TWO PRIVATE LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES

Project Abstract

Jack B. Fistler

March, 1981

173

174

Purpose of the Study

 

The researcher's purpose in this study is to describe the
practices and procedures for selecting trustees at two private liberal
arts colleges and the participation of those trustees in serving on
their respective governing boards. More specifically, the researcher
intends to describe those practices in relation to trustee selection,
new member orientation, board structure and organization, and the
participation of each trustee in board responsibilities and activities.
A descriptive case study format will be used. Questions for analysis,

rather than quantifiable hypotheses, will be used.

Focus of the Study

 

Given the complex interrelationships of factors regarding the
selection of trustees and the nature of their participation, the focus
for the study is to describe the following points for each of the two
institutions:

1. Trustee selection policies and practices.

2. General criteria for trustee selection.

3. Relationship of board composition and diversity to board
and institutional needs.

4. Relationship of board composition and diversity to trustee
participation.

5. New trustee orientation practices.

6. Relationship of board structure and organization to trustee
participation.

7. Nature of board member participation.

\J

1 5

Methodology of the Study

 

A descriptive, case study method will be utilized. No compari-
sons between institutions will be made. The principal methods of data
collection for each will be (1) personal interview with the president,
(2) telephone interview with each trustee, and (3) published and written
materials from each institution. The materials to be reviewed will
include college catalogs, annual reports, bylaws of the board.

Questions to be explored with the presidents and trustees will

 

be developed through an extensive examination of the literature. The
questions will be explored for information rather than for responses to

be measured in relation to specific hypotheses.

APPENDIX C

ENDORSEMENT: UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS, MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY, JULY 6, 1981

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 176

UNIVERSITY CO.\I\ITT'I'EE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 43824
HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)

23S ADMISISTRATION BUILDING J I 7 . 98I
u x
(5:?) 355.2190 y '

Mr. Jack B. Fistler

The University of Minnesota Foundation
120 Morrill Hall

100 Church St., S.E.

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Dear Mr. Fistler:

Subject: Proposal Entitled, ”Selecting the 'Right PeOple:' Case
’ Studies of the Selection and Participation of Trustees

Serving Two Liberal Arts Colleges”
The above referenced project was recently submitted for review to the UCRIHS.

We are pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects

appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this
project at its meeting on JUIY 6. 1931

Projects involving the use of human subjects must be reviewed at least annually.
If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for
obtaining apprOpriate UCRlHS approval prior to the anniversary date noted above.

Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any
future help, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely,

”imam

Henry E. Bredeck
Chairman, UCRIHS

HEB/jms

cc: Dr. Walter F. Johnson

 

 

SELECTED B IBL IOGRAPHY

 

177

Ashmore, Frank L. "Trustees Are Grown, Not Born." Pride, December,
1960: 20-24.

Axelrod, Nancy R. A Guide for New Trustees. Washington, D.C.:
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1977.
(ERIC Document, ED 184 435)

 

Baldridge, J. Victor, et al. Policy Making and Effective Leadership: A
National Study of Academic Managgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1978.

 

 

Bean, Atherton. "Fund-Raising and the Trustee." An Address given to
the Union of Independent Colleges of Art. San Francisco. January
29, 1972. (ERIC Document 063877)

Beck, H. P. Men Who Control Our Univg3§ities. Morningside Heights,
New York: King's Crown Press, 1947.

 

Bell, Laird. "From the Trustees' Corner." Association of American
Colleges Bulletin 42, No. 3 (October, 1956): 353-361.

 

Birnbaum, Robert, and D'Heilly, Jean-Louis. "Portrait of the Trustee as
a Young Man: A Preliminary Study." The Journal of Higher Education
42, No. 7 (October, 1971): 574-586.

Blackburn, Robert T. Research on Governigngoards and Some Prgblem
Solving Tactics and Strate ies Involving a Professor as a Trustee.
Ann Arbor: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of
Michigan, September, 1977.

Boyer, Ernest L. "A Fresh Look at the College Trustee." Educational
Record 49, No. 3 (Summer, 1968): 274-279.

Budd, John F., Jr. "Are College Trustees Obsolete?" Saturday Review/
World, March 9, 1974: 48-49.

 

Burns, Gerald P. "The Board of Governors Revisited." College and
University Journal 11, No. 2 (March, 1972): 12-14, 16.

 

.________ "College Trustees and History." Collgge and University
Journal 8, No. 1 (Winter, 1969): 33-37.

Trustees in Higher Education: Their Functions and
Coordination. [n.p.j: Independent College Funds of America, Inc.,
1966.

 

178

Calkins, Hugh. ”A Plan for Survival." AGB Reports 17, No. 4 (January/
February, 1975): 4-17.

 

Cannell, Charles F., and Kahn, Robert L. "Interviewing." In the
Handbook of Social Psyehologyg Vol. 2, pp. 526-595. Edited by
Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.

 

Carman, Harry J. "Boards of Trustees and Regents." In Administrators
in Higher Education: Their Functions and Coordination. Edited by
Gerald P. Burns. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.

 

 

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Governance of Higher Education:
Six Priority Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

 

 

Chambers, M. M. "The Good Trustee." Journal of Higher Education 9,
No. 3 (March, 1938): 127-132.

 

Coolidge, Charles A. "Training for Trustees?" Association of American
Colleges Bulletin 42, No. 4 (December, 1956): 510-513.

 

 

Corbally, John E., Jr. "Boards of Trustees in the Governance of Higher
Education." Theory Into Practice 9, No. 4 (October, 1970): 239-243.

Corson, John J. "The Board of Trustees-~Necessity or Anachronism?" AGB
Reports 15, No. 9 (July/August, 1973): 4-11.

The Governance of Colleges and Universities. Rev. ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Cowley, W. H. "Myths and Half-Truths Distort View of Trustees."
College and University Business 47, No. 2 (August, 1969): 43, 48.

Presidents, Professors, and Trustees: The Evolution of
American Academic Government. Edited by Donald T. Williams, Jr.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980.

 

 

 

Cuninggim, Merrimon. "The Governance of Higher Education: Selected
Problems." AGB Reports 16, No. 2 (October, 1973): 9-14.

 

Davis, J. A., and Batchelor, S. A. The EffecEive College and University
Board: A Report of a National Survey of Trustees and Presidents.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Research Triangle
Institute, Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, 1974.

 

Davis, Paul H. "More to be Desired Are They Than Gold . . . ,"
Association of American Colleges Bulletin 44, No. 3 (October, 1958):
391-398.

 

Durham, Milton W., and DeBusk, Manuel. Handbook for Universipy and
College Regents. Denver: Golden Bell Press, 1964.

 

 

 

179

Farmerie, Samuel A. "College Governing Boards: A Study of
Characteristics and Functions of Trustees Serving Pennsylvania
Liberal Arts Colleges.” Ed.D. dissertation, the Pennsylvania State
University, 1964.

Fedo, David A. "Colleges Trustees Don't Have to Be Nitwits." The
Chronicle of Higher Education 22, No. 5 (March 9, 1981): 64.

 

Frantzreb, Arthur C. "The Management of Volunteers." In Handbook of
Institutional Advancement, pp. 129-141. Edited by A. Westley
Rowland. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1977.

 

 

Operational Imperatives for a College Board of Trustees in
the 1970's. New York: Frantzreb and Pray Associates, 1970.

 

 

"Trustee Chairmanship: Position and Function." Arlington,
Va.: Frantzreb, Pray, Ferner and Thompson, Inc., 1974. (ERIC
Document, ED 124 012)

 

, ed. Trustee's Role in Advancement. New Directions for
Institutional Advancement, No. 14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., Publishers, December, 1981.

 

 

, and Marcus, Melvin M. "Trustee-In-Residence: A Proposal
for Improved Governance." 1972. (ERIC Document, ED 124 013)

 

Fritz, Roger J. "Liberal Arts College Trusteeship." AGB Reports 9,
No. 9 (August, 1967): 10-19.

 

Galbraith, John K. "How the University Can Protect Itself." College
Management 2, No. 9 (September, 1967): 32-34, 36.

 

Gale, Robert L. Buildipg A More Effective Board. Washington, D.C.:
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1978.
(ERIC Document, ED 168 394)

 

Gardner, John W. "How to Prevent Organizational Dry Rot." Hagper!s
Magazine 231, No. 1385 (October, 1965): 20, 22, 24, 26.

Gies, Joseph C., and Anderson, Wayne W. The Board Chairperson and the
President. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1977.

Gomberg, Irene L., and Atelsek, Frank. Composition of College and
University Governing Boards. Higher Education Panel Reports,
No. 35. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, August,
1977. (ERIC Document, ED 144 514)

 

Greenleaf, Robert K. Servant Leadership. New York: Paulist Press,
1977.

 

180

Hartnett, Rodney T. College and Universitnyrustees: Their Baekgrounds,
Roles, and Educational Attitudes. Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service, 1969.

 

The New College Trustee: Some Predictions for the 1970's.
Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1970.

 

 

Hechinger, Grace. "A New-Girl Network for Trustees." Change 11, No. 6
(September, 1979): 21-22.

Heilbron, Louis H. The College_and University Trustee. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973.

 

"The Uses and Abuses of Trustees." Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, April 21, 1970. San Francisco,
California. (ERIC Document, ED 046 338)

 

Henderson, Algo. The Innovative Spirit: Change in Higher Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1970.

 

Herron, Orley R., Jr. The Role of the Trustee. Scranton, Pa.:
International Textbook Company, 1969.

 

"A Study of Inservice Education Programs for Boards of
Trustees in Selected Colleges and Universities in the United
States." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965.

 

Hesburgh, Theodore. "The College Presidency: Life Between a Rock and a
Hard Place." Change 11, No. 4 (May/June, 1979): 43-48.

Hodgkinson, Harold L. College_§overnance--the Amazing Thing_is that it
Works at All. Research Report No. 11. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Education. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher
Education, July, 1971. (ERIC Document 051 439)

 

 

Holdeman, James B. "Trustees: Moving to Center Stage." Educational
Record 62, No. 1 (Winter, 1981): 34-35.

 

Houle, Cyril O. The Effective Board. New York: Association Press,
1960.

 

Hughes, Raymond M. A Manual for Trustees of Colleges and Universities.
Ames: The Iowa State College Press, 1951.

Ingraham, Mark H. The Mirror of Brass: The Compensation and Working
Conditions of College and University Administrations. Madison: The
University of Wisconsin Press, 1968.

 

Ingram, Richard T., and Associates. Handbook of College and University
Trusteeship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980.

 

181

Ingram, Richard T. "Report of a Survey of Policy Boards." AGB Reports
12, No. 4 (January, 1970): 22-26.

 

, and Associates. "Trustees--Power and Sanity in the 1980's."
Educational Record 61, No. 1 (Winter, 1980): 24-29.

 

 

Kauffman, Joseph F. At the Pleasure of the Board: The Service of the
College and University President. Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, 1980.

 

Keeshan, Bob. "Trusteeship: More Than A Seat on the SO-Yard Line."
The Chronicle of Higher Education 19, No. 15 (December 10, 1979):
56.

 

Kerr, Clark. "Conversation with Clark Kerr." AGB Reports 15, No. 9
(July/August, 1973): 22-27.

 

King, John E. "A Toast to the Unknown Trustee." AGB Reports 22, No. 4
(July/August, 1980): 45-48.

Lahti, Robert E. Innovative College Management. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973.

 

Lewis, Robert L. "Building Effective Trustee Leadership, or How to
Exploit Your Trustees." Educational Record 61, No. 4 (Fall, 1980):
18-21.

Martorana, S. V. College Boards of Trustees. Washington, D.C.: The
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1963.

 

May, Irenee duPont. "Trusteeship: My Reasons for Serving." 5GB
Reports 12, No. 7 (April, 1970): 29-31.

Mayhew, Lewis B. Surviving the Eigpties: Strategies and Procedures for
Solviqg Fiscal and Enrollment Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1979.

McGrath, Earl J. ”The Control of Higher Education in America."
Educational Record 18, No. 2 (April, 1936): 259-272.

 

Menke, Robert. "Frisky Horses and Frisky Trustees." In In Search of
Leaders, Current Issues in Higher Education, 1967, pp. 153-157.
Edited by G. Kerry Smith. Washington, D.C. American Association
for Higher Education, 1967.

Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Commission
on Higher Education. "Functions of Boards of Trustees in Higher
Education." Newark, New Jersey: Middle States Association, April,
1971. (ERIC Document 077 471)

182

Miller, Richard I. The Assessment of College Performance: A Handbook
of Techniques and Measures for Institutional Self-Evaluation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1979.

 

 

Millett, John D. The Academic Community: An Essay on Ogganization.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962.

 

Nason, John W. The Future of Trusteeship: The Role and Responsibilities
of College and Universiey Boards. Washington, D.C.: Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1975.

 

 

Nelson, Charles A. "The Lay Trustee--Up or Out?" AGB Reports 14, No. 7
(April, 1972): 6-14.

 

"Trustees: Serve or Resign." AGB Reports 15, No. 9 (July/
August, 1973): 12-21.

 

 

, and Turk, Frederick J. "Some Facts About Trustees." AGB
Reports 16, No. 7 (April, 1974): 3-9.

 

New York State Regents Advisory Committee on Educational Leadership.
College and University Trustees and Trusteeship; Recommendations
and Report of a Survey. New York: In.p.], 1966.

 

 

Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New
York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1966.

 

Paltridge, James G.; Hurst, J.; and Morgan, A. Boards of Trustees:
Their Decision Patterns. Berkeley, California: Center for Research
and Development in Higher Education, 1973.

 

 

Perlman, Daniel. "Faculty Trusteeship." Educational Record 54, No. 2
(Spring, 1973): 115-125.

 

Pocock, John W. "Where Are the Managers in Higher Education?" AGB
Reports 13, No. 9 (July/August, 1971): 8-17.

Pray, Francis C. "Contract with a College Trustee." Arlington, Va.:
Frantzreb and Pray Associates, Inc., 1975. (ERIC Document, ED 124
015) .

"Match Your Trustees to Your Needs." College and
University Business 54, No. 2 (February, 1973): 33-39.

 

 

 

. "Report Card for College Trustees." Educational Record 45,
No. 3 (Summer, 1964): 251-254.

 

 

"Trustees: Accountable or Discountable?" Arlington, Va.:-
Frantzreb, Pray, Fenner and Thompson, Inc., December, 1972. (ERIC
Document, ED 124 014)

 

183

Rauh, Morton A. ”Governing Boards: A Redefinition." In New Teaching,
New Learning (Current Issues in Higher Education, 1971), pp. lSl-IS5.
Edited by G. Kerry Smith. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.,
Publishers, 1971.

 

 

The Trusteeship of Colleges and Universities. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1969.

 

 

Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University: A History.
New York: Vintage Books, 1962.

 

Ruml, Beardsley, and Morrison, Donald H. Memo to a College Trustee.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959.

 

Scott, Robert W. "Trustee Selection: Private Colleges and
Universities." AGB Reports 22, No. 6 (November/December, 1980):
13-16.

 

Scully, Malcolm G. "Bar Professors, Students as Trustees of their Own
Colleges, Panel Urges." The Chronicle of Higher Education 22, No. 2
(July 28, 1980): 4.

 

Sellinger, Rev. Joseph A., S.J. "Trustees: What One President Wants."
Educational Record 56, No. 2 (Spring, 1975): 73-77.

 

Stuhr, Robert L. "How Do Your Trustees See Themselves? Here's A Way to
Find Out." College and University Business 54, No. 2 (February,
1973): 40-41.

 

Tolley, William P. "Organizing and Energizing the Board for Effective
Action.” In Selected Issues in College Administration, pp. 24-32.
Edited by Earl J. McGrath. New York: Teachers College Press
(Columbia University), 1967.

The Trustee: A Keyeto Progress in the Small College. Washington, D.C.:
The Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges, August, 1969.
Papers presented at an Institute for Trustees and Administrators at
Michigan State University.

Veblen, Thorstein. The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum on the
Conduct of Universities by Business Men. New York: B. W. Hueboch,
1918; reprint ed., New York: Hill and Wang, 1957.

Walker, Donald E. The Effective Administrator: A Practical Approach to
Problem Solving, Decision Making_and Cempus Leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1979.

Walker, Eric. "The President and His Board." Educational Record 45,
No. 3 (Summer, 1964): 246-250.

Wessel, Nils Y. "Board-President Relationships: Second Thoughts." 59E
Reports 16, No. 4 (January, 1974): 3-15.

184

Wharton, Clifton R., Jr. "The Stewardship of Trustees and the
President." AGB Reports 16, No. 1 (September, 1973): 17-23.

 

Wriston, Henry M. Academic Procession: Reflections of a College
President. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959.

 

Zwingle, J. L. Effective Trusteeship: Guidelines for Board Members.
Fourth Printing. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards
of Universities and Colleges, 1975. (ERIC Document, ED 184 436)

"Governing Boards." In Handbook of College and University
Administration, Vol. 1, pp. 2-3 - 2-80. Edited by Asa S. Knowles.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970.

 

 

, and Mayville, William V. College Trustees: A Question of
Legitimacy. ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 10.
Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1974.