MSU

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
P1ace in book drop to

 

 

LIBRARIES remove this Checkout from
.—:_—. your record. FINES win
be charged if‘book is
returned after the date
stamped be10w.
r" ”7 [x

 

'r , ""‘ z I -
‘ ‘4
M ’15:?!» A"
J :9, :b1 ‘_
" _\

 

 

A PROFILE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS, COMPOSITION AND ROLE
OF THE GOVERNING BOARDS OP THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND SEMINARIES

IN THE UNITED STATES

BY

Thomas Francis Xavier Hoar, 8.8.3.

A DISSERTATION

. Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1985

Copyright by
THOMAS FRANCIS XAVIER HOAR,
1985

S.S.E.

-----—-v——-—-——.r~

This work is dedicated to
my brothers in the
Society of St. Edmund

and
To my parents, brother and sisters,

and their families
all of whom I love and cherish.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

'A faithful friend is a strong defense:
and he that hath found such a one hath
found a treasure.‘

Apocrypha, 6:14

I have been blessed with many friends. A number of
them have been actively involved in the preparation of
this work.

I am grateful to the members of the Society of
St. Edmund who supported and encouraged me during my
studies, and to the staff and people of St. Casimir Parish
who welcomed me as a brother and friend.

I appreciate the willingness of Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker,
Dr. James Rainey, and Dr. Keith Anderson to serve as
members of my Guidance Committee. I am deeply
appreciative of the kindness and direction that Dr. Louis
C. Stamatakos has shown me as my Chairman, nmmber and
friend.

I am indebted to the unselfish efforts of Ms. Betty
Dencrek, Ms. Sally Ellis, Ms. Liz Arasim, Mr. Bryan Coyle,
Miss Thelma Joseph, and Mrs. Betty Rafoul for their
assistance in the planning, preparation and presentation
of this study.

In addition, I wish to acknowledge and thank

iii

Dr. Richard I. Ingram of the Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges and Dr. Fred L.
Hofheinz cu? Lilly Endowment for their interest, support

and advice.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I.

II.

I “RODUCT I ON 0 O O O O O I O 0

Background . . . . . . .
The Reason for the Study .
The Purpose of the Study .
Significance of the Study
Research Questions . . . .
Methodology . . . . . .

Selection of the Sample

Assignment of the Sample to

Subgroups . . . . .
The Instrument . . . .
Data Collection . . .
Data Analysis . . . .
Assumptions of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Definitions . . . . .
Organization of the Study

SURVEY 0? LITERATURE . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . .
A Historical Perspective .
Summary . . . . . . . . .
The Governance of American

Education . . . . . . .

Higher

The Legal and Moral Obligation of

Governing Boards . . .
Leadership . . . . . . . .
Financing an Institution .
Institutional Mission . .
Academic Responsibilities

Educational Programming

Institutional Autonomy

Academic Board of Review

Board Maintenance . . . .

V

Page

viii

OOQO‘U‘UJH

Hrd

11

13
13
14
15
17
19

21

21
22
32

32

35
38
45
57
61
61
68

70

Chapter Page
II. SURVEY OF LITERATURE (continued)

Selection of Board Members . . . . . . . 72
Orientation of Continuing Education

of Trustees . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Trustee Development . . . . . . . . . 79
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Theological Education . . . . . . . . 82

and Seminaries . . . . . . . . . . 109

Trusteeship of Theological Schools
summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 118

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Population of the Study . . . . . . . . 120
Assignment to Subgroups . . . . . . . . 122
Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Survey Instrument Construction

and Data Collection . . . . . . . . . 123
Data Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Survey Response Rate . . . . . . . . . . 132
Size and Occupancy Level of the

Governing Boards . . . . . . . . . . 134
Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . 137
The Primary Occupation . . . . . . . . . 143
Multiple Board Membership . . . . . . . 149
Denominational Funding and Fund-

raising Activities . . . . . . . . . 152
Election and Selection of Board

Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Length and Limitation of

Board Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Standing Committees . . . . . . . . . . 162
The Executive Committee . . . . . . . . 166
Committee and Board Activities . . . . . 168
Board Participation . . . . . . . . . . 171
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 186

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

vi

Chapter Page

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (Continued)

Major Findings and Conclusions . . . . . 190
Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Implications and Recommendations . . . . 208

Recommendations for Future
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Concluding Statement . . . . . . . . . . 216

BIBLIWRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 18

APPENDICES
A. TIMETABLE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
B. INITIAL LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL . . . . . . . 231
C. FOLLOW-UP LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
D. SURVEY INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
E. COMPOSITION OF POPULATION . . . . . . . . . 241

F 0 MASTER CODE BOOK 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 S 1

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Survey Instrument Response Rate by
Denominational Groups for the
Governing Boards of Theological
Schools and Seminaries . . . . . . . . . 134

2. The Size and the Occupancy Level of
Governing Boards of Theological
Schools and Seminaries . . . . . . . . . 136

3. Characteristics of Voting Members of
Governing Boards of Theological
Schools and Seminaries . . . . . . . . . 139

3A. Denominational Analysis of the
Characteristics of VOting Members
of Governing Boards of Theological
Schools and Seminaries . . . . . . . . . 142

4. Primary Occupation of the VOting
Members of Governing Boards of
Theological Schools and Seminaries . . . 145

4A. Denominational Analysis of the Primary
Occupation of the Voting Members
of Governing Boards of Theological
Schools and Seminaries . . . . . . . . . 149

5. Multiple Board Membership of Board
Members of Theological Schools and
seminar ies I O I O I O O O I O O I O O O 151

5A. Denominational Analysis of the
Multiple Board Membership of
Board Members of Theological
Schools and Seminaries . . . . . . . . . 152

6. Denominational Funding and Fund-
Raising Activities of Theological
Schools and Seminaries . . . . . . . . . 154

7. Election/Selection of Board Members

of Theological Schools and
Seminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

viii

Table

7A.

10.

10A.

11.

12.

13.

13A.

Denominational Analysis of the
Election/Selection of Board
Members of Theological Schools
and Seminaries . . . . . . . . .

Length and Limitations of the
Terms of Services of Governing
Boards of Theological Schools
and Seminaries . . . . . . . . .

Board-Chair CEO Requirements
for Theological Schools and
Seminaries . . . . . . . . . . .

Standing Committees of the Governing
Boards of Theological Schools and
Seminaries . . . . . . . . . . .

Denominational Analysis of the
Standing Committees of Governing
Boards of Theological Schools and
Seminaries . . . . . . . . . . .

Characteristics of Executive
Committees of Theological
Schools and Seminaries . . . . .

Committee and Board Activities
of Theological Schools and
Seminaries . . . . . . . . . . .

The History of Active Participation
by the Governing Boards of
Theological Schools and Seminaries

Denominational Analysis of the
History of Active Participation
by the Governing Boards of
Theological Schools and Seminaries

ix

Page

157

160

162

165

166

168

170

173

178

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The role of the governing board in institutions of
higher education has been the focus of many studies and
debates over the past two decades. Campus turmoil of the
19605 renewed interest in the traditional structures of
campus governance. The 19705 saw an increase in the
demand for accountability by funding agencies, sponsoring
bodies, and the public in general. The 19803 have brought
challenges to institutions of higher education that demand
these institutions be or become flexible 'in their respon-
siveness to new consumer needs and other pressures of the
eighties. . . ."1

The involvement of the governing boards of insti-
tutions of higher education has become a critical component
in the response of colleges and universities to the changing

nature of higher education. Numerous studies have been

 

1Richard T. Ingram, “Toward Effective Trusteeship for
the Eighties," in Handbook of College and University Trustee-
ship by Richard T. Ingram et a1. (San Erancisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1980), p. 3.

2
conducted in an effort to define the proper role of the
governing board in higher education.

The tradition of lay boards governing institutions of
higher education is long and complex, dating to medieval
Europe.2 W. H. Cowley, in his 1980 work, Presidents, Pro—
fessors and Trustees, provided a detailed description of
the development of the lay governing board from medieval
Europe to colonial America. A review of the historical
records of American higher education underscores the
influential role the lay governing board has played in the
development of higher education in this country.

The early American colleges, established in theocratic
colonies,3 were dominated by a mission and a curriculum which
had the expressed purpose of educating members of the
colony for a life of service to the colony and the church.
The governing boards and faculties of these institutions
were comprised mostly of clergymen. This style of reli—
giously-oriented institutions dominated American higher
education for two-thirds of its history. As the country
developed and the needs of society changed, colleges
and universities were forced to adjust their institutional

missions and structures. Theological education became a

 

2W. H. Cowley, Presidents, Professors and Trustees (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980), p. 29.

3Ursula Delworth; Gary R. Hanson and Assoc., Student
Services: A Handbook for the Profession (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1981), pp. 3-6.

3
specialized discipline and eventually was relegated to
specialized institutions. Institutions dedicated to
the preparation of ministers are not predominant in American
higher education. It is not difficult to understand
why in contemporary times these institutions, which exist
on the fringe of the academic community, have often been
overlooked. A review of the literature on governing
boards of higher educational institutions reflects this
situation. There is inadequate information available on

the governing boards of theological schools and seminaries.

THE REASON FOR THE STUDY
Although theological schools and seminaries have been
over-shadowed by the secular institutions of the academic
world, they have not been immune from the societal forces
which have enveloped and changed the direction and academic
structures of many colleges and universities during the
past two decades. Jesse H. Ziegler, in a series of articles

published between 1972 and 1977 in Theological Education,4

 

addressed the issues facing institutions of theological
education. An examination of Ziegler's writings reveals
his concerns and those of other theological educators which
parallel the issues affecting other institutions of American

higher education. Among the issues Ziegler identified as

 

4Jesse H. Ziegler, Theological Education, Autumn 1972,
1976 and 1977.

 

4
influencing the development and status of these institu-
tions were: (1) financial constraints and limited insti-
tutional resources; (2) the quality of education and
academic tenure; (3) the changing nature of the student
body; 4) external pressures and accreditation; and (5)
retrenchment, reduction in staff and deferred maintenance
of the physical plant. Institutions of higher education,
including institutions of theological education, require
strong leadership to effectively and efficiently meet the
challenges caused by these conditions.

In 1982, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching issued a report on the governance of higher
education which stated:

In recent years, demands for accountability by agencies

beyond the campus have caused confusion about where

authority is lodged and have worn down the traditional
governance structures of higher education. We conclude
that if the correct balance between integrity and
accountability is to be maintained, the academy must
assume more responsibility for regulating itself.5
The authors contend that any discussion of the leadership
or the governance of higher educational institutions must
begin with an examination and a discussion of the role of
the governing board. As a result of their comprehensive

study, the authors called for a renewal of leadership in

the governance of American higher education by trustees,

 

5Carnegie Foundation, The Control of the Campus: A Report
on the Governance of Higher Education (Washington, D.C.:
CarnegieEoundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
1982) I p- 4.

5

administrators, the faculty and sponsoring bodies. As the
authors state: “What is most required is no less than a
rebirth of leadership in higher education.”6

Prior to, and in response to, the Carnegie Commission's
report, a number of research studies were conducted to
investigate the composition, nature, and role of the
governing boards of American public and private institutions
of higher education. Additional studies conducted have
examined the character of the governance and the governing
boards of specialized institutions. However, to this
investigator's knowledge, there have been no comprehensive
studies conducted to explore the characteristics, com-
position, and role of the governing board of American

theological schools and seminaries.

THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Robert Lynn, Vice President, Religion Division of the
Lilly Endowment, Inc., has stated that events of the last
two decades have forced theological educators "toward a
belated discovery of trusteeship.'7 This study was designed
to investigate and describe trusteeship as it is exercised
by the governing boards of theological schools and

seminaries.

 

51bid., p. 39.

7Robert W. Lynn, ”The Responsibilities of Stewardship,"
in The Good Steward. See Association of Governing Boards
of Universities and Colleges, 1983, p. 2.

 

6

Specifically, this study has developed a descriptive
profile of a representative sample of the governing boards
of accredited institutions of theological education in the
United States. In addition, a profile has been developed
for each of the subgroups of the study. The profile, in
turn, provides an opportunity to compare and contrast the
characteristics, structures, and activities of these
boards by denominational affiliation. Futhermore, this
study has identified areas of concern regarding the governing
boards of these institutions which should be used to focus

future research.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

A review of the literature reveals a substantial
amount of material concerning the governance of colleges
and universities. However, until recently, there has been
a notable lack of material pertaining to the governance of
institutions of theological education. A number of studies
are currently underway which examine various aspects of
these institutions. There have been several works published
regarding the role of trustees in theological schools and

seminaries, including Robert Greenleaf's, Seminary as

 

Servant: Essays on Trusteeship, (1983); and The Good

Steward: A Guide to Theological School Trusteeship, published
by the Association of Governing Boards (1983). However,
these works are experienced-based discussions rather than

research-oriented presentations. Therefore, documentation

7
of the existing characteristics, structures, and activities
of the governing boards of these institutions is needed.
Several specialized and limited studies have been or
soon will be undertaken. Representative of these studies
are William C. Miller's case study on the Governance of
Nazarene Theological Seminary, 1983,3 and a 1981 study
prepared for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary on
the organization of boards of trustees of theological sem—
inaries.9 Although Miller conducted an in-depth study of
theological education governance patterns, his investiga-
tion was limited to one theological seminary. The 1981
study by Ben Fisher, prepared for the Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, investigated the institutions of
theological education for thirty-two denominations. Yet
Fisher's work is limited in that its purpose '. . . was to
develop a profile of seminary board organization, and to
determine the extent to which these institutions are now
engaged in trustee orientation."10 Because both of these
studies were limited in their scope, they have limited

utility.

 

8William Charles Miller, The Governance of Theological
Education: A Case Study of Nazarene_Theological Seminary,
1945-1976, Ph. . diss., Kent State University, 1983.

 

 

9Ben C. Fisher, Summary of Findings on Organization of
Boards of Trustees of Accredited Theological Seminaries in
the United States and Canada (Wake Forest, N.C.: Southeastern
Baptist Theological Sem1nary, 1981).

101bid., p. 2.

8

An interest in these long-neglected institutions is
emerging, and they are now becoming the subjects of dis-
cussion and study. Some of the literature which has
appeared in recent years and the activities of Lilly
Endowment and the Association of Governing Boards support
the notion that, like other institutions of higher educa-
tion, the organization and the nature of institutions of
theological education are evolving. Therefore, these
theological schools and seminaries should be candidates
for study.

Historically, any significant development in institu-
tions of higher education has resulted in a corresponding
development in educational administration and governance.
The governance of-colleges and universities has been
studied, and there exists a great deal of documentation on
how these institutions have adapted their structures and
activities to meet the challenges of changing societal
needs. This is not the case with information currently
available about the governance of theological schools
and seminaries. Any available research is sketchy and
limited because it does not document the existing charac-
teristics, structures, composition, and activities of the
governing boards which oversee the operation of these
institutions. This study has documented the nature and
activities of these boards, as well as provided a basis by
which the future evolution of these boards may be compared

and contrasted. As a result of being a foundational and

9

descriptive study which crosses denominational lines, this

study has identified areas which deserve further study.

Furthermore, this study provides information to chief

executive officers, governing boards and denominational

officers that may be useful to them as they plan to meet

the challenges which face their institutions.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This descriptive study gathered the responses of chief

executive officers of post-baccalaureate institutions of

theological education throughout the United States to a

structured questionnaire designed to elicit responses to

each of the following questions:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Is the institution free standing; does it have
an independent governing board?

What is the relationship of the institution to
the sponsoring body/denomination?

What is the current composition of the governing
boards of theological education (occupation,
level of education etc.)?

Who are the trustees; how are they chosen; and
how long may they serve as members of the board?
What is the size of the governing board; and

how often does it meet?

What structures exist to facilitate the governing
board's trusteeship, (i.e., does the board

employ a committee system)?

10
(7) In what activities does the governing board
participate, (i.e.,policy formation, election
of board members, appointment of the president,

etc.)?

METHODOLOGY

A. Selection of the Sample

The chief executive officers of 134 post-baccalaureate
theological schools and seminaries representing forty-three
denominations, communions, and ecclesiastic communities of
the United States, plus the chief executive officers of
fifteen nondenominational or interdenominational institutions
constitute the population of this study (see Appendix E).
Those chief executive officers and their institutions were
selected from the 1984 ATS Bulletin published by the Asso—
ciation of Theological Schools in the United States and
Canada. The total list of participants in the study will
be 149, (for a detailed discussion on the process of
selection of members of this study see Chapter III).

The chief executive officer was selected as the
participant in this study because this individual was
expected to have an overall knowledge of the governing
board and the mission and nature of the institution. It
was further expected that this individual possessed the
necessary information to accurately complete the survey
instrument. Finally, it was expected this individual, in

conjunction with the chair of the governing board, plans

__—-——‘ ~——_.—_ ,,

11

the agenda, supplies information to the governing board,
and executes the directives and the policies of the governing
board. Therefore, this individual has an intimate knowledge
of the workings, structure, nature, and composition of the
governing board.

B. Assignment of the Sample to Subgroups

In order to facilitate the analysis of the data obtained
from the respondents, each member of the sample was assigned
to one of the twelve subgroups based on denominational
affiliation. This allowed the investigator to determine:
whether or not the characteristics, structures, or activities
of the governing boards of these institutions are unique
to one denomination; and whether or not the characteristics,
structures, and activities of these boards transcend
denominational sponsorship. The denominational classifi-
cation that was employed in the assignment of partici-
pants to subgroups coincides with the denominational

classification contained in the 1984 ATS Bulletin.

 

Subdenominations were classified under the heading of the
principal denomination (see Appendix E).

Group one consists of those institutions that are the
sole theological school or seminary for their denomination.
Group two constitutes those denominations that have two or

three institutions of theological education. Groups three

,through eleven are comprised of those primary denominations

that have four or more associated institutions. Group

12
twelve consists of fifteen institutions which are classified
as either interdenominational or nondenominational
institutions.

C. The Instrument

Information for this study was gathered through the use
of a forced choice written questionnaire containing thirty-
five items (see Appendix D). The instrument was designed
to determine: (1) if the institutions in the sample of
this study are governed by an independent governing board;
(2) the characteristics, structures, activities, process
of selection for membership, and composition of the governing
boards of the institutions under consideration; (3) how,
if at all, the characteristics, structures, activities,
process of selection for membership or composition of these
boards are determined or influenced by the sponsoring body
or denomination; and (4) how, if at all, the characteristics,
structures, activities, process of selection for membership
or the composition of these governing boards differ according
to denomination.

The instrument was pilot tested by: two former chief
executive officers of theological schools; a chief executive
officer of a private religious affiliated college; a faculty
member of the Department of Educational Administration at
Michigan State University (MSU); the executive vice president
of the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and
Universities; a senior consultant of Lilly Endowment;

a vice chair of trustees who is currently the director of

13
graduate theology at a private college with religious
affiliation; and a bishop of a large metropolitan Roman
Catholic diocese who serves on the governing boards of
several institutions of higher education including a dioc-
esan seminary. None of those involved in the pilot test
were members of the sample. The members of the test
group were chosen because of their experience and knowledge
of trusteeship. A number of them are also familiar with the
governance of theological schools and seminaries. In
addition, a research consultant reviewed the questionnaire.
Criticisms and suggestions for revisions were gathered
from the research consultant,.the MSU faculty member, and
members of the pilot group; and appropriate revisions were
made in the questionnaire to clarify aand improve the in-
strument. Face validity of the survey instrument was
assumed as a result of this pilot test.
D. Data Collection
Data was collected through a survey instrument which
was mailed to the chief executive officers of the insti-
tutions under study on November 20, 1984. Each member of
the sample received a personally addressed cover letter
(see Appendix B), a survey instrument and a self-addressed,
stamped envelope for the return of the completed instrument.
A follow-up letter to nonrespondents was sent on December

4, 1984 (see Appendix C). All survey instruments received

14

on or before January 11, 1985, constitute the total response
group.

E. Data Analysis

The items of the survey instrument were coded. The
information gathered from each survey was translated into
the developed code and transferred to a ”mark sense" data
entry form. Data on these forms was transferred to a data
tape with the use of an optic scanner. The data was
processed by the Michigan State University Cyber 170/750
computer with the use of a descriptive statistical program.

Descriptive information was tabulated and analyzed.
From this data, a profile of the characteristics, structures,
activities, process of selection and composition of the
governing boards of the sample and each of the groups has
been developed. In addition three subgroups were formed
for the purpose of analysis of variance. The supgroups
are: Catholic, Denominations other than Catholic and Inter/

nondenominational institutions.

ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY
In investigating the research questions for the study,
the following assumptions were made. If these assumptions
were violated, the findings of this study could have been
influenced.

(1) The person to whom the questionnaire was sent

 

was, in fact, the person who completed it.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

15
The respondent was the chief executive officer
of a free standing accredited theological
school or seminary.
The respondent had full knowledge and under-
standing of the total governance structure of
the institution, the workings of the governing
board, its characteristics and structure, and
the relationship of the institution and its
governing board to any sponsoring group or
denomination.
The respondent's answers to the questionnaire
were honest, complete, accurate and current.
The items of the survey instrument were under-
stood by the respondent and had face validity.
The institutions selected for this study share
as a common educational purpose the transmission
and development of theological education.
Survey research is an acceptable and adequate
method of gathering data for descriptive

studies in the social sciences and education.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study has been conducted under the following

limitations:

(1)

The study was undertaken as a study of educational
governance, not one of theological issues. The

unique theological traditions of the numerous

(2)

(3)

16
denominations, communions, and ecclesiastic
communities which influence theological education
has not been considered. 'Only those issues that
influence the educational governance charac-
teristics and structures of the governing boards
of institutions of theological education were
considered.
The sample surveyed was composed of the chief
executive officer of post-baccalaureate insti-
tutions of theological education in the United
States. Only those institutions which are
accredited schools, candidates for accreditation
or associate schools of ATS, as listed in the
1984 ATS Bulletin, were included in this study.
Therefore, the results of this study may not
be generalized with confidence to institutions of
other countries or to other institutions of higher
education.
This study concerns the characteristics, structures
and activities of the governing boards of the
stated institutions. Therefore, it was limited
in its ability to report on the rationale and‘
theology that underpin the mission of these
institutions. For example, the theology of

ministry and the faith life of individual denom-

l7
inations, communions, and ecclesiastic communities
were largely undetected.

(4) Due to the unique nature of theological education,
the results of this study may not be generalized
with any degree of confidence to other professional
preparation programs or specialized post-baccalau-
reate institutions.

(5) Due to the unknown characteristics, structUres and
activities of the governing boards of institutions
of theological education, this study was limited
to describing the characteristics, structures, and
activities of the governing boards. This study
made no attempt to judge the quality or efficiency
of these boards.

(6) As a result of being a foundational study, this

study did not test hypotheses.

DEFINITIONS
Each of the following terms are used throughout this
study and are defined as follows:
The Church--The community of believers and followers
of Jesus Christ and his teachings. The one church comprises
numerous denominations, communions, and ecclesiastic com—
munities of various traditions and structures.

Theological Education--The general term used for the

 

..—-—..—..

study of theology, ministry and church administration.'

18

Theological Schoo1-—A post-baccalaureate institution
specializing in theological education, including ministerial
preparation programs, graduate degree programs and continuing
education programs. The term most often used for schools
of theology which are part of a comprehensive university
or a consortium of institutions of theological education.

Seninaries--Post-baccalaureate institutions of theo-
logical education with a primary mission of ministerial
preparation for a specific denomination.

Sponsoring Body/Denouination--An ecclesiastic community
or church that either endorses, supports or controls an
institution of theological education.

Governing Board--Denotes the corporate body of an
institution of higher education whose primary responsibility
is the determination of policy of the institution,11 and
is the steward of the mission and resources of the insti-
tution.12

Free Standing Institution--An institution of higher
education which is independent, that is, it is not a subunit
of any other college or university.

Chief Executive Officer--The chief administrator

of an educational institution who is appointed by the

 

1lsr. Marie Fox, Changes in Relationships Between
Governing Boards of Catholic Colleges and Universities and
Their Sponsoring Religious Bodies, Ph.D. diss., Florida
State University, 1974, p. 23.

 

 

12Robert W. Lynn, "The Responsiblities of Stewardship,"
in The Good Steward. See Association of Governing Boards
of Un1versities and Colleges, 1983, pp. 2-3.

 

19

governing board to administer the institution under the
guidelines and policies set by the board.

Canon Law--A code of law governing the activities of
the Roman Catholic Church.

Diocese-~A geographic and jurisdictional area of a
denomination or ecclesiastic community.

A Sacred Congregation--An administrative entity of the
Roman Catholic Church, sharing the jurisdiction of the
Pope by his delegated authority, but not final authority.13

Clerics or C1ergy--Generic term used to denote ordained
ministers of any denomination, community, or ecclesiastic
communion.l4

Laity--Term used to denote a member of a church
who is not an ordained minister. It is not used, as is
customary in educational writings, to denote noneducators.15

Stewardship--Term used to denote an understanding of
trusteeship that has a sense moral duty rather than legal

responsiblity.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

The investigator has presented a review of the per-

 

13Walter D. Wagoner, The Seminary: Protestant and
Catholic. (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966), pp. 3-4.

14Fox, Changes in Relationships Between Governing Boards,
p. 24.

lSIbid.

20
tinent literature in Chapter II of this study. The review
of the literature focuses on three topical areas: (1) the
role, responsibilities, and nature of governing boards of
private institutions of higher education; (2) the nature
and purpose of theological education; and (3) the various
aspects of the administration and governance of theolog-
ical schools and seminaries.

Chapter III contains a detailed presentation of the
methodology used in this study. This description includes
the processes for selection of the sample, the design and
pilot testing of the survey instrument, data collection,
and procedures used for data analysis.

The investigator presents an analysis of the data and
the findings of the study in Chapter IV.

Chapter V is a summary of the study, the major findings,
conclusions, and implications: recommendations for con-
sideration by theological educators, governing boards of
institutions of theological education and denominational
officers; and recommendations for further research.
Insofar as possible, the investigator has developed
inferences from the findings and presented recommendations
pertinent to the governance of theological schools and
seminaries. In addition, the investigator presents sug-
gestions for future research in the area of governing

boards of institutions of theological education.

CHAPTER II
SURVEY OF LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

In order to provide a framework for this study, an
extensive review of the literature in three topical areas
is presented. The first topical area focuses on the role,
responsibilities, and the nature of governing boards of
private institutions of higher education. A limited his-
torical review is presented as a foundation upon which to
build an understanding of the current practices of trustee-
ship in American higher education. In addition, a thematic
discussion of the current practices and responsibilities
of governing boards and the nature of trusteeship, as it
has been presented in the literature, is provided.

The second topical area is an examination of the nature
and purpose of theological education. In order to understand
the governance of theological schools and seminaries, a
familiarity with the special nature and mission of these
institutions is required. The presentation of this topical
area centers upon the educational aspects of these insti-
tutions. Similarities and differences in educational

philosophy and structures are noted. Since they are not

21

22
germane to this study, theological differences that may or
may not exist between institutions of various denominations
are not discussed.

The third, and final, topical area delves into the
various aspects of the administration and governance of
theological schools and seminaries. The unique nature of
institutions of theological education has been investigated,
and its influence upon the structure and functions of the
governing boards of these institutions is presented. In
addition, the relationship of these institutions to spon—

soring denominations is discussed.

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Although thought to be an American invention, the origin
of lay governing boards of trustees can be traced to
fourteenth—century Italian universities. During the two
centuries prior to the founding of the first colonial
college in America, patterns for controlling institutions
of higher learning by lay governing boards had developed
not only in Italy but throughout Europe.

Thus, some 200 years before the founding of the first

American college and at least half a century before

Columbus set sail to discover the Americas, the

primary progenitors of American boards of trustees

had begun to take command of Italian higher

education. These boards arose in Italy over a concern

for trusteeship over the public funds made available
to the professors.1

 

1W. H. Cowley, Presidents, Professors and Trustees
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980), p. 30.

23

Out of the traditions of Bologna, Basel, Geneva, Leyden,
Edinburgh, Dublin, Oxford, and Cambridge, the institutions
of colonial America established lay governing boards to
oversee the operation of higher education. W. H. Cowley
provides an enlightening presentation on the historical
developments of the American adaptations of the lay governing
board.

As society took root on the East Coast of North America,

the leaders of the colonies realized that "in the future the
state would need competent rulers, the church would require
a learned clergy, and society itself would need the adornment
of cultured men.'2 In this context, the American system of
higher education was born. The purpose of this review is
not to examine the entire history of American higher educa-
cation, but to present the roots from which today's insti-
tutions of higher education draw direction and tradition.
For a detailed examination of the historical development
of American higher education, the reader is referred to
the 1961 history of Richard Hofstadter and Wilson Smith3
and to the 1962 work of Frederick Rudolph.

In its brief history, American society has undergone

numerous periods of upheaval, change, and growth. The

 

2Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University:
A History (New York: Vintage Books, 1962), p. 6.

 

 

3Richard Hofstadter and Wilson Smith, eds., American
Higher Education: A Documentary History (Chicago: Univers-
ity of Chicago Press, 1961).

 

24

influences that changed society also affected its
institutions. The theocratic colonies, which spawned the
first American institutions of higher education, have
given way to a pluralistic, technological nation. In
response to these changes in the national and world order,
American institutions of higher education have developed from
institutions '. . . whose basic and chief duty was to
train its students to be religious and moral men',4 to
multipurpose institutions.

One of the greatest periods of massive and rapid
expansion of American higher education occurred after
World War II. The Serviceman's Readjustment Act, commonly
known as the G. I. Bill, offered financial incentives and
created opportunities for hundreds of thousands of returning
servicemen and women to pursue their education. The Cold
War and "the impending tidal wave of students in the early
19608'5 gave further impetus for expansion and development
of colleges and universities in this country.

In 1960, John J. Corson wrote in Governance of Colleges
and Universities, that the succeeding four decades would be
a time of adaptation, expansion, and creativity for this

country's institutions of higher education. To be successful

 

4Ursula Delworth; Gary R. Hanson and Assoc., Student
Services: A Handbook_for the Profession (San Francisco: Jos-
sey-Bass, 1981), p. 5.

5Ibid., p. 11.

25
during this period of growth, he argued, a working concensus
would be needed among all members of an institution--in-
cluding trustees, faculty and administrators--especially
with regard to the purpose of the institution.5

Corson was concerned with the growing complexity of the
governmental structure of colleges and universities. He
perceived and identified a number of areas of confusion to
which educators must be attentive.

As institutions expanded and as academic disciplines
developed into highly specialized fields of study, Corson
recognized that the decision-making process which had
traditionally existed on the campuses was breaking down.

In the university the problem of synthesizing the

activity of many self-oriented individuals and of

the competing faculties of many departments and

several schools becomes the point at which the academic

success of an institution is often made or lost.7

This high degree of specialization which was developing
at the time had the potential to promote a myopic vision of
the institution. In many senses, the faculty was losing
its ability to wisely govern the institution.

Additionally, Corson stated, there was an increasing
dependence by these institutions on the interests and favor

of external groups. He argued that governmental and indus-

trial involvement in research, along with the dependency of

 

6John J. Corson, Governance of Colleges and Universities
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), p. 4.

7Ibid., p. 29.

26
institutions on external sources of funding, would muddy
the already murky waters of the decision-making process
used by institutions of higher education.
The failure or inability of governing boards during
the past century to take the lead in formulating
educational policy has created a power vacuum.
Their delinquency has given rise to one of the most
provocative contributions of recent decades to planning
for higher education. . . .8
This failure and the long-standing tradition of faculty
autonomy created a serious problem in the governance of these
institutions. Where there is no leadership, there is no
institutional vision, Corson concluded. The responsibilities
which the governing board delegated to other constituencies
were not being fulfilled, according to Corson. Rather, he
affirmed that trustees have full and broad powers, and
stated:
They may abdicate from their position of authority, but
they cannot annul it; they may vacate their posts, but
they cannot destroy them; they may delegate activities
and decisions but they cannot thereby avoid their own
responsibilities.9
One of the reasons for this breakdown in the authority
and function of the governing board, according to Corson,
was that the board was seldom called to account for its
stewardship to any higher authority. He saw this as a

major flaw in the governance of American institutions of

higher education.

 

8Ibid., p. 45.

9Ibid., p. 49

27

Succeeding developments in higher education would
underscore the insightfulness of Corson's observations.
The publication of his theories preceded a period of
turmoil and sweeping change in the governance of higher
educational institutions by their governing boards. As
campuses erupted in the late 19603 with protests and the
demands by students and younger faculty members for a more
active voice in the governance of these institutions,
trustees responded by reclaiming some of the authority
which they had previously abdicated.

At the time, Corson articulated three central problems
facing trustees: (1) communication needed to be improved
between the board and the faculty so both would be informed
on educational issues and problems, while allowing the
faculty to freely exercise their roles; (2) the responsi-
bilities of governing boards must be defined and board
members must be educated in their proper role in order to
fulfill these responsibilities; (3)the needs of society
and the institution need to be respected to ensure that
the institution meets its social responsibilities. In
order for the institution to achieve the greatest good, he
added, trustees must provide leadership and balance.10

Corson concluded his work with a summary of the major

publications which had preceded his study. He indicated

 

lOIbid., p. 171.

28

that there had been a lack of indepth material presented
up to that time. As a result, it was necessary for trustees
to work from a loosely built theoretical foundation.
However, he was able to identify three areas previously
covered by other authors: (1) comments of trustees on
their experiences; (2) works (or manuals) designed to tell
trustees how to carry out their roles; and (3) a few
volumes that analyzed the role of the trustees in the
field of education as representative of society and as its
administrators.11

A contemporary of Corson, Gerald P. Burns, wrote in 1962
that the sole purpose of the governance and administration
of a college or university is to facilitate, enhance, and
operate the total program of the institution in the fulfill-
ment of the institutional mission.12

In this same volume, Harry J. Carman examined the role
of the governing board and individual trustees in faithfully
discharging their responsibilities for the overall adminis-
tration of institutions of higher education in this country.
Carman chastised those members of governing boards who, while
having enormous power legally vested in them, are incompetent

to serve as board members. He was especially critical of

 

111bid., p. 188.

12Gerald P. Burns, ed., Administrators in Higher
Education: Their Functions and Coordination (New York: Harper
and Row, 1962), pp. 28-30.

 

 

29
those who '. . . attempt to meddle with those aspects of the
educational program with which they have no competence
to deal.“13

However, Carman cited two reasons why, despite these
shortcomings, American institutions of higher education
would continue to grow and develop as quality institutions.
The first, as Corson clearly pointed out, was the willingness
of governing boards to abdicate their responsibilities to
others within the institution. The second, was that
governing boards granted autonomous authority to the
faculty to deal with all academic matters. They were
governed only by broadbased policies, including the design
and implementation of the curriculum.

Carman acknowledged that debate was developing at the
time over whether this style of governance was appropriate.
However, he pointed out that no matter what was being dis-
cussed in the halls of academia, the tradition of delegation
would continue. His concern was how this tradition of
delegation would develop without the governing boards re-
linquishing their moral and legal responsibilities.

In 1966, Burns expanded on his previous work and

published Trustees in Higher Education. The author provided

 

a historical perspective to the evolution of trusteeship

in American higher education. He aptly pointed out the

 

*;3Harry J. Carman,«'Boards of Trustees and Regents," in
Administrators in Higher Education, see Burns 1962, p. 81.

30

need for understanding the foundations upon which governance
and administration were built. Although brief, this intro-
duction provided the reader with an overall appreciation
for the continuing processes and refinement of the role of
the governing board in higher education. From this his-
torical perspective, Burns identified and succinctly
expanded on what he believed to be the state of affairs of
higher education in 1966.

The current scope and status of American higher

education can best be presented in terms of the

major problems and potentialities facing the field.

Those considered potentialities are positive, and

among the more important are public interpretation,

curriculum revision, extra-curricular possibilities

and competition with other institutions. Those con-

sidered problems are negative, and among the more

important are financial hazards, government inter-

ference, personnel shortages, and enrollment

problems. 4

In the succeeding chapter the author promised to in-
vestigate theory and practice of academic governance as
they apply to trustees. However, it was devoted primarily
to an investigation of the practice of academic governance
and lacked any discussion of theory. Burns articulated
what he believed to be required of a member of a governing

board: ”They are expected to give considerable time,

material support and sound judgment to their

 

14Gerald P. Burns, Trustees ihHigher Education: Their
Functions and Coordination, (np.: Independent College
Funds of America, 1966), p. 18.

31
responsibilities."15 However, Burns did not provide an
indepth discussion of theory.

The issue of the delegation of board authority and
responsibility, which had been raised by previous authors,
emerged again. Burns contended that the best way to examine
the leadership responsibilities of the governing board
was to analyze the major functions in which the board
participated. This type of analysis may be affected by
the relationship of the board under study to the president
and other senior administrators of the institution.

Burns called for a strengthening of the board-president
relationship. He also discussed some practical suggestions
designed to ensure a productive relationship without creating
ambiguous lines of responsibility for the board or the
president.

Burns noted that the developments taking place in
American society in 1966 would influence the development of
colleges and universities in succeeding years. How colleges
and universities would develop in this milieu would depend
on the governing boards of these institutions. In order
that boards of trustees be leaders in this development,
Burns wrote that: ‘

There must be continuing learning experiences offered
by qualified professionals if the board member is to

 

151bid., p. 37.

32

remain abreast of new departures in his institution
and new dimensions in higher education.16

He underscored the argument made by many that trustees
must be attentive to and educated in their role and re3pon-
sibilities so they may execute the public trust which has
been legally and morally given to them.

At the time of publication, this was a welcome piece
of scholarship. Burns' work was insightful and helpful in
understanding the developments and literature pertaining

to the field of academic governance.

SUMMARY
Although the tradition of lay governing boards of insti-
tutions of higher education is long and rich, there was,
prior to the 19603, little understanding of the proper
role and responsibilities of board membership in American
institutions of higher education. As the campuses of this
country evolved through the turbulent 19603 and 19703 a

clear understanding of the trusteeship began to emerge.

THE GOVERNANCE OF AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION
As discussed above, the role and responsibilities of
university trustees have evolved through the centuries as
the institutions which they serve have developed and
matured. This process continues and will continue as long

as there are vibrant institutions of higher education. In

 

——-—_..—.—_--

..—. _.

15Ibid., p. 144.

33

.the past decade, there has been a resurgence of concern
over the role that the governing board plays in the life
of an institution.

J. R. Baldridge, regarding the importance of under-
standing the role of the governing board states:

Of all the issues that have been studied about higher

education, the activities of a board of trustees is

probably the least understood--and one of the most

important.17
A renewed interest in the role of the governing board can,
in some part, be attributed to the uncertainty that has
engulfed institutions of higher education. For example,
institutions which for several decades experienced unin-
hibited growth suddenly found themselves in the midst of
declining enrollment and financial crisis.

During this climate of decline, many institutions
began to examine their governance structures. The process
of governance is always more difficult during the lean
years than during the years of plenty.18

A substantial collection of literature is available to
assist an investigation of the role and responsibilities of

governing boards. Much of this literature presents a

practical rather than theoretical perspective. From an

 

17John W. Nason, The Nature of Trusteeship: The Role and
Responsibilities of College and University Boards
(Washington, D.C.: Association ofGoverning Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1982), p. 52.

131bid., p. 10.

34
examination of the practical suggestions made by many of
the authors, a clear model emerges. This section begins
with an examination of the literature in which the major
legal and moral obligation of the governing board are
discussed. The remainder of this section centers upon the
twelve responsibilities gleaned from the literature that
are commonly held by the majority of scholars to be those
responsibilities that pertain to all types of institutions
of higher education. These twelve areas of responsibility
have been, for the purpose of this study, classified as
belonging to five general categories: leadership, finances,
mission, academics, and board maintenance. The twelve
areas of responsibility that are presented for consideration
are: (l) the appointment of the president; (2) the support
of the president; (3) assessment of presidental performance;
(4) the assurance of financial solvency; (5) the approval
of long-range plans; (6) the enhancement of the institution's
public image; (7) the assurance of adequate physical
facilities; (8) the publication and adherence to the
statement of institutional mission; (9) the approval of
educational programs; (10) the preservation of insti-
tutional autonomy; (11) the role of the board as a court
of appeals; and (12) the self-evaluation of the board's
performance. In addition, the issues of trustee selection,
orientation, deployment and continuing education are

discussed.

35

THE LEGAL AND MORAL OBLIGATIONS OP GOVERNING BOARDS

In the past, the role of trustees has been primarily
viewed as legal. In recent years, this vision of insti-
tutional governance has been expanded. It now includes an
understanding that the role of the trustee is rooted not
only in the law but in the obligations encumbent upon
those who accept a trust.

These boards hold in trust the physical and financial

assets of the institutions over which they have legal

control, and they have the power to direct and supervise

operations and programs in the best interests of the

intended beneficiaries.19
The traditional philosophy of governance of American higher
education has been that trustees seek to promote their
institutions for the good of society, while remaining
unencumbered by any special interests that might threaten
the integrity of the institution.20

Gerald P. Burns captures the essence of the legalistic
atmosphere that must permeate the functioning of the
governing board:

The board of trustees is the legal entity of the

institution. The board has the responsibility and

authority to govern the college or university in

accordance with the charter or articles of incorporation

approved for it by the state in which it is located.
In some ways the influence of the board goes beyond

 

19John Nason, "Responsibilities of the Governing Board,”
in Handbook of College and University Trusteeship, see Ingram
1980, p. 27.

 

20Nancy Axelrod, A Guide for New Trustees, AGB Pocket
Publications, no. 9 (Washington, D.C.: Association of Gov=~*~ “"
erning Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1982), p. 2.

 

36

its strictly legal scope, and in some ways it never

reaches (or at least exercises) its full legal

responsibility. Many experienced trustees feel that
fundamental as such legal prescriptions are, still
more important is the spirit by which the letter of the
law is interpreted and applied. This spirit is to be
found in the actual procedure of the board and the
personality of its membership. Although it defies
description, this elusive thing called "spirit” is
intimately related to the influence of the board in
any given situation.21

The spirit by which a governing board can be identified is

in large part a function of how it is organized.

Duke University's Commission on University Governance
identifies three types of boards: (1) a controlling board;
(2) a passive board; and (3) a supportive board.22

A controlling board characteristically attempts to
”maintain a direct, pervasive, and continuing influence on
all major activities within the university.'23 A3 a
result, the action of this type of board tends to be
uninformed and at times arbitrary because of the inability
of the board members to deal comprehensively with the
volumes of information needed to administer an academic
institution. The passive board characteristically is

associated with those institutions where trusteeship is

viewed primarily as an honor. This system of trusteeship

 

21Burns, Trustees in Higher Education, pp. 37-38.

22Duke University, The Board of Trustees Interim Report
of the Commission'onUniversity Governance (Bethesda,
Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 040 655,
1970): PP. 10-11.

23Ibid., p. 10.

37
”effectively abdicates its legal authority by passive
acquiescence.'24 Any and all proposals presented to the
passive board by the administration are accepted with little
or no discussion. The danger of this type of institutional
model is that the administration which assumes the respon—
sibility of the governance of the institution may become
unresponsive to other parts of the institution, especially
to the faculty and the student body.

The supportive board, which is the model of choice,
assumes full responsibility for developing and governing
the institution along continuously developing goals.

Zwingle noted that there is a great deal of encroachment
upon the power and authority of institutional governing
boards from within and without the academy. He contended
that if the erosion of authority continues unchecked,
institutional governing boards will become increasingly
ceremonial and increasingly less a governing body.

'Board strength depends in great measure on the
blending of personalities and experience and the careful
deployment of these human resources.'25 Trustees have an
obligation not only to exercise their legal responsibi-

lities, but they have a moral obligation to ensure that the

 

24Ibid.

25J. L. Zwingle, ”Build a Better Board," AGB Reports 18
(May-June, 1976), p. 34.

38

board is structured and functions so that the institutional
mission is fulfilled.

The first duty of the trustees, then, is to under—

stand the purpose of the institution, to determine

direction, and to assist in holding a steady course.

Purposes may change with changing times, but changes

are matters for serious deliberation and sober

judgment.25

Trustees of American institutions of higher education
no longer can be satisfied with the survival of their
individual institutions. They must place the survival of
their own institutions within the context of the growth and
development of the American higher educational system for

the benefit of society, ultimately for whom they hold in

trust the assets of their institution.

LEADERSHIP

The administration of a college or university is an in-
creasingly specialized and complex profession, so

beset by varied and conflicting demands that it is
frequently described as an impossible job. But it is
an essential job, and the special task of those who
bear primary legal and moral responsibility for a
college or university--its trustees--is to see that
this job is performed successfully.27

Three of the twelve commonly held responsibilities
of trustees can be classified as pertaining to leadership:

(1) the appointment of a president; (2) the support of the

 

26J. L. Zwingle, Effective Trusteeship: Guidelines for
Board Members (Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1982), p. 6.

27Barry Munitz, ”Strengthening Institutional Leadership,"
New Directions for Higher Education 22 (1978): 11-12.

39
president; and (3) the assurance that the institution is well
managed by assessing presidential performance.
The selection and the appointment of a president is one
of the most critical matters which the governing board
must address.23 This responsibility rests with the board.
However the board, in order to fulfill this responsibility,
must seek the counsel of those members of the academic
community who are well versed in the needs and operations
of the institution. In recent years, many institutions have
utilized a presidential search committee in the process of
choosing a president. This system assists in articulating
the qualities that are required for the president of an
institution and provides a framework by which to assess
the candidate's qualifications.29
In addition to the all-important value of finding the
right president, the search and selection process has
three other advantages. First, it forces the insti-
tution to look critically at itself, its mission,
its status, its needs, and its prospects. Second,
through their intense cooperation in a common cause,
trustees, faculty, students, administrative officers,
and others can greatly increase their mutual under-
standing and trust. And finally, if done well, the
choosing of a president can tell the institution's

story to a wide audience in a way that will enhance
its reputation.30

 

28Nason, ”Responsibilities of the Governing Board," p. 28.

29John W. Nason, “Selecting the Chief Executive," in
Handbook of College and University Trusteeship, see Ingram
1980, PP. 119-22.

3°Ibid., p. 144.

40

The qualities and criteria established during the
selection process are the building blocks by which the
board is able to support and assess presidential performance.

The president is the agent of the board of trustees.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the board of trustees to
support the actions of the president in the exercise of
his or her responsibilities as directed by the governing
board.

Tensions between president and governing board, while

inevitable, must be minimized for an institution to

be effective. The selection and equally important

retention of quality executive leadership for colleges

and universities are much more likely to be successfully
achieved when the governing board is willing to analyze
candidly what it is asking of the presidential
candidate. In addition, the board must be willing to
provide continuing understanding and support for those
expectations, and to assess with the president how

well those original objectives are being met and

how many of them remain relevant in the context of

current priorities.31
Only through an open and ongoing dialogue will the president
and board be able to work as partners.

The chair of the board has a unique opportunity to
ensure that the board and the president are fully aware of
each other's activities and intentions. The personal
relationship between the members of the governing board

and the president will determine how well the board and

the president fulfill their respective responsibilities.32

 

31Munitz, "Strengthening Institutional Leadership,"
pp. 20-21.

3ZZwingle, "Build a Better Board,” p. 35.

41

The working relationship that exists between the
president and the chair of the board will greatly affect
the overall function of the board and the institution.
There must be a clear understanding of the authorities and
responsibilities that belong to each position.33 The
president is the spokesperson of the institution, while
the chair is the spokesperson of the governing board.34
The blurring of these roles will lead to serious conflicts
between the president and the board.

The single greatest contribution to be made to the
president by the chairperson is to lead and manage

the board well. This means seeing that the limits of
the board's role are not breached, that issues addressed
are important and time-relevant, that adequate infor-
mation is available and sufficient time for discussion
provided and that required decisions are rendered

with all prudent dispatch. In all of this the chair—
person should be in continuing consultation with the
president as to purpose, procedure, timing and the
potential responses of the administration to possible
alternative decisions on matters brought to the board
table. If the chairperson does not have the desire

or personal capability to take on this task of board
management and see it through, the chairperson/president
team will have a pitifully unbalanced stride.35

The president has the obligation to ensure that the
policies of the board are implemented and that the board

is fully informed. This often can be accomplished through

 

33John W. Pocock, The Board Chairperson and the President,
AGB Pocket Publications, no. 8 (Washington, D.C.: Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1981),
pp. 10-12.

34Zwingle, Effective Trusteeship, p. 28.

35Pocock, The Board Chairperson and the President, p. 4.

42
ongoing communication with the chair, which allows the
chair to assist the president in keeping the board informed.

Pocock pointed out three significant functions in which
the president and the chair must join forces: planning,
resource allocation, and evaluation.35 These processes
will fall short of their intended purpose should the chair
and the president fail in maintaining a strong working
relationship.

The maintenance of this relationship will allow the
process of presidential assessment to occur in a non-
threatening constructive atmosphere.

Assessment should occur not only initially as part of

the search process but also continuously at predeter-

mined intervals during the president's period of

service. Systematic and periodic review provides a

candid look at specific challenges confronting the

chief executive, resulting in a calmer and more
positive context for dealing with those challenges,

reduced political tension, and a sound base for a

subsequent presidential search whenever it is required;

ad hoc or crisis-generated assessments cannot provide
these benefits.37

Munitz argues that a positive and constructive evalu-
ation process can aid in the retention of strong educational
leaders. This process provides an atmosphere and a framework

which enhances the necessary partnership between the board

and the president. The danger, as Munitz observed, is

 

351bid.

37Munitz, "Strengthening Institutional Leadership,” p. 12.

43

that crisis-generated and crude assessment processes tend

to drive away our finest leaders.38

Our challenge is to strengthen the person and the
office. If that objective is achieved, then the
institution as well as those whom it serves cannot
help but benefit.39

Munitz has identified three principal benefits which result

from a well conceived and executed assessment process. This

process:

(1)

(2)

(3)

allows the governing board, as a whole, to
come to a better understanding of the role,
responsibilities, and burdens of the office of
the president. Additionally, it allows the
president the opportunity to educate the board
in the complexities of academic leadership.
provides the board with an opportunity to view
the president's performance in context rather
than in the hectic atmosphere of an isolated
crisis.

allows the president to increase the
fundamental credibility by which the administrative
process is able to deal with the day-to-day

implementation of board policy and the problems

 

38Barry Munitz, "Measuring a President's Performance,"
AGB Reports 18 (January-February, 1976), pp. 36-37.

39Ibid., p. 40.

44
of managing a complex institution of higher
education.40

Additionally, the board will benefit from an ongoing
evaluation process by being able to: (l) establish standards
by which to appoint, support, and evaluate the president;
(2) sharpen the intensity and quality of its own perceptions
and understanding of the institution; (3) assist and support
the president when correct decisions are unpopular; and
(4) be better prepared when the time arrives to begin
again the process of a presidential 3earch.4l

As a result of an investigation of sixty-one college
and university board chairs and sixty presidents, Robert
Cleary has concluded that institutional factors affecting
board-president relations must be set in a framework that
takes into account the personalities involved as well as
the need of mutual trust and respect. These conditions
must exist between the board chair and the president so
that the board may function properly in fulfilling its
responsibilities. He stated:

Conclusions about structure and patterns must be

understood in a framework that rests on the impor-

tance of personalities. As people interact with one

another, the patterns which develop mandate the

nature of the trustee-president relationship to a

greater extent than anything else does. While this
survey indicates that structural and experiential

 

40Munitz, "Strengthening Institutional Leadership,"
pp. 13-14.

411bid, p. 14.

45

factors have significance in the relationship, a

wise president or chairman will make every conceivable

effort to relate personally to his opposite number in

such a way as to advance mutually desirable goals and

thus serve the best interests of the institution.42

FINANCING AN INSTITUTION

As the ultimate authority of an institution, the gov-
erning board has the responsibility to ensure that the
institution operates efficiently and effectively so that
the assets of the institution are used wisely in order to
fulfill the institution's stated mission. In trying to
accomplish the mission of the institution, the board has
the responsibility: to ensure financial solvency, to
approve long—range plans, to assure adequate physical
facilities, and to enhance the public image of the
institution. Each of the four responsibilities are complex
and multifaceted and must be undertaken with care and some
attention to detail. These areas are intricately bound
toqether. For example, in order to assure adequate physical
facilities, the institution must have the financial resources
required to build and maintain these facilities. A plan is
needed that details facility requirements which will be

necessary to accomplish the educational mission of the

institution in the present and future. This may not be

 

42Robert E. Cleary, ”Institutional Factors Affecting
Trustee-President Authority Relations,’I Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the
Study of Higher Education, Washington, D.C., March 1980, .__.,11
p. 37.

46

possible if the institution has a poor image or is held in
low esteem by its constituencies.

Boards of trustees were first formed to assist the

president and professors of the early colleges in

handling the business interests of their institutions.

Since 1636 this aspect of the institutions' operations

has in many instances, become big business.43

Wise financial and physical asset management is
essential for the fulfillment of an institution's mission.
In times of tight money, good management may make the
difference between success and failure. Trustees play an
important role in the monitoring of the institution's assets.

While final authority and responsibility for the

budget rests with the board of trustees, a wise board

will avoid a line-by-line examination but rather

devote its attention to broad policies and priorities

reflected in the budget.44

Radcock and Jacobson accurately note that trustees, more
than any other group in the academic community, are in a
better position to preserve and improve the financial health
of an institution.45 The trustees are sufficiently removed

from the day-to-day operation of the institution. Therefore,

they are theoretically in a position to ensure that the

 

43Burns, Trustees in Higher Education, p. 101.

44Badgett Dillard, ”Financial and Physical Asset Manage-
ment,” in The Good Steward, see Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1983, p. 105.

45Michael Radcock and Harvey K. Jacobson, ”Securing
Resources," in Handbook of College and University
Trusteeship, see Ingram, 1980, p. 265.

47
resources of the institution are being used to provide the
greatest benefit to the institution and to those it serves.
The management of resources and the development of
institutional plans must be linked to the purposes and
goals of the institution.46 Therefore, the trustees must
be fully informed because it is not sufficient for the
board to Simply examine the bottom line of a balance sheet.
The frustration of many trustees is that the window
through which they must view the financial operation
of their institution is often obscured and sometimes
even distorted. That window is the series of reports
on the financial affairs of the institution, and it
is often obscured both by the accounting technicalities
of the presentation and by the omission of indicators
as to program relevance and priority.
This matter of visibility is of critical importance
to the individual trustee or regent and to the board
as a whole.47
The technicalities of which Pocock writes often are
alien to individual trustees. Trustees are drawn from
many walks of life and the fund accounting system, the
system used in the majority of American institutions of
higher education, is complex and dissimilar to general
business accounting practices. Therefore, the governing

board must educate itself and its members in the basic

principles of fund accounting. Likewise, the chief financial

 

46Charles A. Nelson, Trustees and Resource Management,
AGB Pocket Publications, no. 6 (Washington, D.C.: Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1982),
p. 5.

47John W. Pocock, “Reporting Finances," in Handbook of
College and University Trusteeship, see Ingram, 1980,
pp. 304-050

 

48
officer of the institution must be prepared to explain
and reconcile financial reports with the programs and
activities of the institution.

The concepts of fund accounting are relatively
simple. The procedural mechanics are more complex but
can be left to the accountant.

The concepts of fund accounting stem directly
from the stewardship or fiduciary role of trustees;
that is, from their responsibility to hold in trust
for the benefit of others those funds and assets that
come to the institution. Donors and legislatures
specify the uses to which their funds are to be put,
and it is the obligation of the trustee to see that
these directions (restrictions) are honored.48
In order to fulfill this fiduciary role, the governing

board must be concerned with the acquisition of, and the
expenditure of, the institution's resources. Funds are
received through a variety of sources: student tuition
and fees, subsidies from sponsoring bodies (i.e.,government
agencies and religious communities), government entitlement
programs, private donors, investment income, and the sale
of services.
Each source has its unique opportunities and
limitations. This diversity of sources requires
a continuing understanding by the board of the mix,
trends and causative factors at work, so that financial
strategies and policies can be developed.49
The generating of income and the underlying policies are
often neglected by governing boards. Yet, the financial

health of an institution and its ability to support the

 

43Ibid., p. 310.

49Ibid., p. 313.

49
institution's educational activities and programs are
dependent on the inflow of resources to the institution.
Individual trustees as agents of the governing board can
play a significant role in the acquisition of income.
Again, this role requires a thorough understanding of the
institution and the context within which it operates.
Trustees can be of assistance in the budget hearings of
governmental funding agencies and state legislatures.
They also can be actively involved in the recruitment and
retention of students and grant3--both of which are impor-
tant sources of funds for an institution. Some trustees
who possess an expertise in the financial world can use
their knowledge to oversee and consult on the investment
portfolio of the institution. Trustees also can contribute
their own funds to the institution and encourage others to
do likewise.
Nations appoint ambassadors to represent their political
and economic interests. Ambassadors travel with high
rank, are given certain privileges by international
agreement, and are accorded respect as part of protocol
governing such matters.
Trustees, as sponsors, serve primarily in the
role of ambassadors of the institution. As ambassador,
the trustee represents the institution to important
constituencies and to important leaders in those
constituencies, works assiduously to have the programs
and policies of the institution understood by those
constituencies, and works to gain their friendship
and support. In addition, the trustee interprets

to other members of the board and the management of the
institution the attitudes and needs of the consti-

50

tuencies that must be understood and factored into
the making of institutional policy.50

As ambassadors, as bridges if you will, the trustee
is at the very heart--the very pinnacle—-of respon-
sibility for winning sponsorship and support, and
trustees should expect to take personal leadership in
this responsibility. In this role, they affect the
very future of the institution because they are
the individuals who deal with the important decision
makers, the powerful political figures, the poten-
tial major donors, the heads of influential business
and industry, and the leaders who wield great social
power and influence.51
Like the ambassadors of nations, trustees cannot act
independently of their institutions. The trustee who is
representing his or her institution must be involved in an
ongoing dialogue with the president and other administrative
officials of the institution. This is necessary to insure
a coordinated effect in lobbying and fund raising. An
uncoordinated or conflicting campaign to gain external
support for the institution can be detrimental to the
overall efforts and welfare of the institution. Few
donors or organizations will want to contribute to the
support of an institution that is so poorly organized
and managed as to allow conflicting solicitations and presen-
tations to infiltrate and typify its campaign for support.
Success in goals and programs for institutional
advancement is neither a natural nor an accidental

happening. Success in the ultimate goals of student
recruitment and philanthropic asset building

 

50Francis C. Pray, ”Trustees Must be Ambassadors," in
Trustees Role in Advancement, see Frantzreb, 1981, p. 13.

SlIbido' pp. 15-160

51

must be the result of a studied design. Those

organizations that design their destiny will

be here to achieve even greater service to mankind.

Those who do not will experience increased

tribulation.52

As with the acquisition of resources, the governing
board must be concerned with setting policies that govern
the allocation and expenditure of the institution's
resources. The development of a budget is the process
where the institution allocates its limited resources to
those activities and programs that best fulfill the insti-
tution's mission. The trustees are responsible for making
certain that these resources are allocated according to the
priorities and guidelines that they established.

The board must ask the administration to justify its
budget in relation to the board's established goals. This
can best be done by asking hard questions in a nonthreatening
atmosphere.53 In examining the budget, trustees must
always be aware of the implications that a budget has not
only on present activities but the future of the institution
as well. How will the expenditure of funds this year
effect the long-term financial health of the institution?

This question is frequently overlooked. Short-sighted

financial management may embark an institution on a path

 

52Arthur C. Frantzreb, "Advancement is Seldom Accidental,"
in Trustees Role in Advancement, see Frantzreb, 1981, p. 49.

53Joseph P. O'Neill and Samuel Barnett, “Check Your
College's Vital Signs,“ AGB Reports 23 (May-June 1981),
pp. 40-41.

 

52
to financial disaster from which it may not be able to
return. Short-term solutions may be the cause of long-term
problems.

Several case studies of colleges which closed during

the 19703 indicate that many of the trustees of those

institutions were surprised by the colleges' financial
crisis. A frequent reaction was to ask, "Why didn't

we see it coming? We knew we were in trouble, but

not like this . . .'

These trustees did not receive, nor did they de-
mand, trend-line data, financial reports, and general
status reports in a readily understandable form.
Unfortunately, at too many colleges there is a tendency
for trustees to refrain from asking the hard
questions.54
As mentioned earlier, an important responsibility of

the governing board is the overseeing of the physical

plant. The board is obligated to ensure that the physical
plant is adequate to support the academic and social
programs of the institutions. In addition to acquiring

and constructing campus facilities, the board is responsible
for determining that these facilities are properly
maintained.

A trap many institutions have fallen into is that during
hard economic times administrators try to defer expenditures
for maintenance of the physical plant. Such action results
in hidden liabilities that could undermine the financial
solvency of the institution at a later date. Trustees

have an obligation to be aware of the state of the physical

plant and the administration's plan for its maintenance.

 

 

' '_"' "1 »-_. - .

54Ibid., p. 36.

53
If no plan exists, then the trustees must question its
absence.

An especially heavy responsibility falls on the trustees
when new construction is under consideration. An

ugly or inefficient or badly sited building is likely
to plague the campus for a hundred years or more.
Beyond that, there is the problem of unnecessary
building; the ”edifice complex" is as common an
affliction of college presidents as hoarding books is
among librarians. A substantial number of institutions
are in financial difficulty today because of over-
building in the sixties; if these institutions had
simply maintained the plant existing in the previous
decade, they would have sufficient space for current
enrollment and would not be burdened with debt service
on buildings now discovered to be unnecessary.

When debt is to be incurred, trustees must always
ask: How is it to be serviced? . . . That question
should be answered satisfactorily before the building
contract is approved.

Caution must also be exercised in the acceptance
of gifts or grants for new structures. Frequently
the funds offered are not adequate to meet the full
cost of construction; rarely do they provide continuing
support for maintenance of the building. As energy
and personnel costs rise, it becomes more and more
evident that there are some gifts an institution
simply cannot afford to accept.55

A trustee does not have to be an industrial engineer in order
to fulfill these responsibilities. He or she only needs
to be informed and willing to ask questions of the admini-
strative officers, faculty, students, alumni, and staff of
an institution.

Trustees should be involved in decisions relating to

new construction at the following points: (1) approval
of the program that requires the facility; (2) agreement

 

55Charles A. Nelson, ”Managing Resources,” in Handbook
of Collegg and University Trusteeship, see Ingram 1980,
pp. 346-47.

 

54

that it needs to be built; (3) selection of the
architect; and (4) approval of the plans; . . .56

As a part of the proper exercise of its fiduciary
responsibilities, the governing board must approve all
institutional planning. However, simple approval of a
plan in its final form falls short of this responsibility.
Since the board has the ability to initiate and improve
the planning process, it should take an active role in the
development of the plan. As with the fulfillment of other
areas of responsibility which trustees are obligated to
perform, the planning process must be rooted in the mission
of the institution.

Clark Kerr has presented a challenge to trustees-—that
they assure forward motion for their institutions and not
be sidetracked by what he calls the “current survivalist
mentality" of many in the academic community.57 A plan
must account for the future and what is projected to
occur. It must be reviewed and updated to remain useful.
The future of higher education is not always bright.
However, the doom and gloom of difficult times can be
lightened by solid and realistic planning.

The lean years that loom ahead suggest that for all

institutions, large and small, planning will have
to be a regular occupation, not something undertaken

 

56Dillard, "Financial and Physical Asset Management,"
p. 107.

57Clark Kerr, "Trustee Job Assignments," AGB Reports 16
(1974), p. 2.

55
in a major way once every ten years and then forgotten
in between. The plan must set guidelines for all
institutional action and, on this ground alone,
must be constantly reassessed and altered if necessary.
No plan is automatically self-fulfilling, especially
when rapidly changing outside conditions can make the
best of judgments out of date overnight. Moreover,
no plan will be of any help if it is not taken seriously
by the institution. Many elaborate plans have been
printed up only to be put on a shelf and forgotten.
Plans are made to be questioned and revised, but they
are also made to be carried out.58
The most important responsibility that the board has in
regard to planning is to see that it is carried out. This
has been an area where many boards have failed in the
past. In addition, the board has the responsibility to
insist on high quality planning. This can be accomplished
partially by providing a sufficient staff and resources
needed to carry out the process. A primary ingredient
ensuring quality planning is the positive attitude by
board members regarding the need for long-range, ongoing
planning and their willingness to participate in the
process.
The trustees must insist that the plan be realistic and
feasible. A false sense of institutional pride or the desire
to cling to dated or inappropriate traditions is detrimental

to the planning process and to the health of an institution.

A candid assessment of institutional strengths and weaknesses

 

53Rhoda M. Dorsey, "Engaging in Institutional Planning,"
in Handbook of College and University Trusteeship,-see —
Ingram, 1980, p. 147.

56

must be part of the planning process.59 This process should
result in a master plan approved by the board and used as
a reference for the activities of the institution.60

The final responsibility of the board with regard to
the planning process is to make certain that the plan
works. This may be accomplished by evaluating the outcome
of the existing plan. Then, after assessing these outcomes,
future planning is possible.

Standing outside the institution and involved in
their own business and professional activities,
trustees can take a detached view of the academic
scene. They are less likely to lose sight of the
educational forest by being lost among academic
trees. They can ask the tough questions the answer
to which may well be the price of survival.51

Those organizations that recognize the validity
of objective, long-range planning based upon forces,
issues, trends, market analyses, and comprehensive
data and those that recognize the validity of sales
management, institutional marketing, cost-effective
communications, and publications that promote the
entire institution (including fund-raising promotion)
have a greater probability for future security than
those organizations that ignore reality for the
comfortable status quo.62

The board should be the master of the plan-~not mastered

by it.

 

59Ibid., p. 150.

60Dillard, "Financial and Physical Asset Management,"
p. 107.

61Nason, The Nature of Trusteeship, p. 35.

 

62Frantzreb, "Advancement is Seldom Accidental,” p. 49.

S7

INSTITUTIONAL MISSION

Every college and university was created to serve one
or more specific purposes: to provide an educated
ministry in colonial days; to prepare citizens who
could cope with the problems and prospects of a new
democratic society; to train young people in the arts

and skills necessary for an honest living; to safeguard

the true faith; to train school teachers; to carry on
research in science and technology; or--simply stated
but not so simply achieved--to encourage young men
and women to explore and develop their inherent
potentialities. Over the years and under the pressure
of changing circumstances, these original purposes or
missions have frequently been modified. Locally

centered institutions have become regional or national.

Church founded and controlled colleges have sought to
break the dominance of the denominations and the limi-
tation in clientele. Normal schools have become full-
fledged institutions of arts and sciences. Teaching
colleges aspire to become research-oriented
universities. Sometimes these changes take place
because of a sharp awareness of new social needs,
sometimes because of a general institutional urge to
improve its position in the academic pecking order.63
Whatever the original mission or the mission that has
evolved from societal or institutional influences, the
governing board of an institution of higher education has
a key role to play in clarifying and articulating the
ongoing mission of the institution. An institution's
statement of mission sums up the academic identity of the
institution. It lays down the foundations of educational
philosophy upon which the academic community seeks to

build and fulfill the aims and purposes of the educational

institution. The statement of institutional mission is

 

63Nason, "Responsibilities of the Governing Board,” p. 33.

58

the pivotal commitment to society around which all the
activities of instruction, research, and services of an
institution must revolve.

At first glance, the formulation and the articulation
of an institutional statement of mission may seem to be a
straightforward and uncontroversial exercise. However, the
vested interests of the many constituencies which comprise
an academic community make this process a complex and ex-
tremely vital activity of the institution. Different members
of the academic community and different constituencies within
the institution understand and express what they believe to
be the appropriate mission of the institution. At times,
these understandings and expressions are diverse and
conflicting.64

The formulation of a mission statement must be a joint
venture of faculty, staff, students, and other concerned
constituencies. However, the trustees must act as the
catalyst to coordinate and process the diverse interests
and ideas of each of these groups.65 The trustees have a
responsibility to perceive the differences of each group

and to help them to work together to build a mosaic which

 

64Carol J. Guardo, "Defining the Mission of a University,"
Case Currents (September 1982), pp 24-27.

 

65Nason, "Responsibilities of the Governing Board," p. 34.

59

will give rise to a clear picture of direction and purpose
of the institution.56

If a school lacks a mission statement, the trustees

should initiate a process for creating one; if a

statement exists, the trustees should periodically

review it. A task force of board, administration,

faculty and students should devise the mission statement

as a concensus document expressing concisely the

school's distinctiveness and charting its course.67

The governing board should not write the statement of
mission because they may lack the necessary expertise to
formulate a comprehensive statement.68 However, they
possess a certain amount of objectivity by which to promote
the marriage of ideas and concerns that may be proposed by
the various constituencies of the institution.

Development, renewal, and growth come mainly from

uncovering, stimulating, or enticing people within

the organization to bring new fervor and imagination

to their tasks.69

This statement accurately sums up the responsibility
of the governing board in regard to mission formation and
review. The board must be the agent of change and develop-

ment. The unplanned change of an institution's mission

may lead to dangerous consequences. Without a master plan

 

66Zwingle, Effective Trusteeship, pp. 4-6.

 

67John H. Tietjen, "Planning, Mission Goals, Programs,"
in The Good Steward, see Association of Governing Boards
of Universities and Colleges, 1983, p. 67.

68Nason, "Responsibilities of the Governing Board," p. 34.

69George Keller, 'A Change in Plans: The View From Four
Colleges," hange (March 1983), p. 36.

60
that is rooted in a sense of mission, an institution may
become a collection of individuals, each doing what he or
she believes aids the fulfillment of her or his own
personally perceived purpose of the institution. This can
lead to an uncoordinated and unproductive use of the
institution's limited resources. However, planned change
grounded in and directed by a set of goals developed from
a clear understanding of institutional mission can lead to
a vibrant academic community where all members and society
as a whole are the beneficiaries of this change.
Closely allied to the mission statement and flowing from
it is the statement of institutional goals, usually made
in the form of lists of specific goals. Statements
of institutional goals tend to be broader than mission
statements in that they cover all areas of institutional
activity, and more specific in that they attempt to
refine the generalized rhetoric that is characteristic
of mission statements. Tbgether, mission and goals
statements characterize the institution for itself,
its students, and the outside world. At their best,
they give guidelines for the development of academic
and nonacademic institutional programs and a yardstick
against which institutional activities may be
evaluated. They are, therefore, enormously important
to an institution, and trustees must play an important
part in their development.70
Too often, mission statements are ignored by the
institution. They are ceremoniously displayed in catalogues,
commencement speeches and fund-raising campaigns. Then,
they are quickly returned to the file drawer in the archives

from which they are infrequently retrieved. Trustees must

 

70Rhoda M. Dorsey, Institutional Planning, AGB Pocket
Publications, no. 11 (Washington, D.C.: Association of
-Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1984), p. 11.

61
insist that they be kept, not in the archives, but in the
active files of every department and office on campus.
All institutional activities must flow from and contribute
to the fulfillment of the institution's mission. Therefore,
the governing board has a moral obligation to clarify and
to see to the implementation of the institution's statement

of mission.

ACADEMIC RESPONSIBLITIES

The three areas of trustee responsibility that will be
considered under the section of academic responsibilities
are: (l) overseeing the educational program of the
institution; (2) preserving the autonomy of the institution;
and (3) serving as a court of appeal.

A. Educational Programming.

The governing board has a moral as well as a legal
responsibility to ensure the quality of an institution's
educational programs. The extent to which the governing
board is involved with the development and implementation
of the institution's academic programs is a topic of much
debate.

As colleges and universities grew more complex and edu-

cational programs burgeoned, trustees turned over their

original responsibility for the content of education

to the president whom they had chosen for his or her

professional competence in this sphere. In this

century, pressure from faculty, along with the proli-
feration of managerial responsibilities, brought

about a further transfer of authority for educational

programs from president to faculty. At least faculty

have felt for a long time that, as experts, they
should have the dominant voice in deciding what should

62

be taught and that trustees should stay clear of what

is not properly their business. Conventional practice,

at least in this century, has assigned responsibility

for finances and physical plant to the trustees and

reserved responsibility for the educational program

to the president and faculty.71

By and large, the members of the faculty and the
administration feel that they have the expertise necessary
to develop and oversee the academic programs.72 However,
they often neglect the activities required to maintain the
institution and provide the resources necessary for the
fulfillment of the educational mission of the
institution. These activities include fund raising,
public relations, and long-range planning. The faculty is
often quite willing to relegate these activities to the

trustees .

They [the faculty] want only to feel secure about
academic programs and their own independence and
about other matters in proportion as they reinforce
and support those two concerns. 0n those matters
they believe that the first and final word belongs to
them--should belong to them, at any rate. They are,
after all, the experts.73

To think that the trustees can abdicate or delegate
their responsibilities for the academic affairs of an

institution is nonsense.74 How would a governing board he

 

71Nason, "Responsibilities of the Governing Board," p. 36.

72Harold C. Martin, ”Trustees and Academic Policy,“ AGB
Reports 17 (1974), pp. 10-11.

73Ibid.

74Nason, "Responsibilities of the Governing Board," p. 36.

63
able to fulfill its legal or moral obligations if this
were the case?

Trustees are expected to remain at a respectful distance
from the curriculum. However, they have an important role
to play, even though at times this role may not be clearly
defined.75

After all, colleges and universities exist for little

but their academic programs, and most people recognize

that American trustees hold supreme authority in the
governance of institutions. Trustees tend to be more
directly involved in academic programs in schools

with strong sectarian missions; with local, teaching

faculties rather than more cosmopolitan, research-

oriented ones; and during times of unrest rather

than times of quiescence. Moderation even in querying

educational programs has nonetheless become the norm

among trustees.76
The governing board must exercise its responsibilities for
the formulation of educational policy in conjunction with
the academic community.

Nason cautions trustees that, while they have the final
authority, they should: (I) "listen very carefully to the
recommendations of the president; and (2) should not
meddle with [the internal workings of] the curriculum.'77

This is sound advice. While the trustees have an objective

and broad institutional view of the educational program,

 

75Martin Meyerson, ”Overseeing Academic Programs,” in
Handbook of College and University Trusteeship, see Ingram,
1980, pp. 175-78.

75Ibid.: pp. 173-74.

77Nason, "Responsibilities of the Governing Board," p. 37.

64
they clearly are not the experts in the area of curriculum
development. Thus, the fundamental virtue of a board's
involvement in overseeing the academic program lies not in
the board's expertise in academic affairs but in providing
a sound and separate perspective. “To be sound, however,
the perspective must be an informed perspective, and solid
information serves best when it is continuous. . . ."78
Thus, the role which the governing board must assume is
that of policy making, setting the policy by which the
faculty, in exercising its responsibilities, develop and
implement the curriculum in keeping with the policy guide-
lines established by the board.

In order to fulfill its responsibilities in this matter,
the board must rely on the president as well as other admin-
istrative and academic officers of the institution. The
authority for development and implementation of the curri-
culum is diffused throughout the organizational structure
of the institution. Schools, departments, deans and
directors all have varying degrees of authority in the
overseeing of the academic programs of an institution.

This diffusion of authority has three impli-
cations for the proper role of trustees in academic
oversight. First, trustees must be prepared to
buttress the authority of the president and other
officers when necessary; they must be sensitive to
the very great vulnerability of a president, provost,

dean, or other officer who is not so backed. Second,
trustees must recognize that presidents and other

 

73Martin, "Trustees and Academic Policy," p. 12.

65
officers can weary of the struggle to exercise even
their limited powers and thus may abdicate too much
responsibility to schools and departments. Thus,
trustees must continue to insist on an accountability
from presidents and other officers that they rightfully
exercise their central responsibility. Third—-a
caveat upon the preceding point--trustees must have
sufficient understanding of and patience with the
canons of collegial governance so that they do not
pressure presidents or other officers into needless
and potentially destructive confrontations with
faculty over questions that involve the fragile
balance of academic authority.79
Thus, the oversight of educational programs by trustees in
reality is oversight of the performance of the president
and officials of the institution. In addition to being
concerned about the programs that are being offered, the
trustees must be concerned with the composition and the
support of the faculty.

Trustees also must be attentive to the employment
conditions of the faculty in order to ensure a healthy
faculty and curriculum. 'No board of trustees should
permit the administration to be casual about the procedures
of employment, continuance, promotion and dismissal.'80
Martin suggests four considerations that the trustees must
take seriously when assessing the health of the faculty.
They are: (l) quality--as much as the institution can

afford and attract with its limited resources;

(2) renewal--to assure a continuous flow of fresh talent into

 

79Meyerson, "Overseeing Academic Programs,” p. 176.

80Martin, "Trustees and Academic Policy," p. 16.

66

the institution; (3) flexibility--to ensure that new needs
are able to be met as they develop; and (4) economy--that
the institution is receiving the greatest value from the
resources available.81

In the minds of many of an institution's constituencies,
the quality of an institution often is tied to the quality
and reputation of the faculty. Therefore, the policies
that the board establishes regarding the management of
faculty and the establishment of tenure procedures have a
significant effect on the overall institution. The board
should have a working knowledge of the following inter-
relations in order to set tenure policy: (1) existing
bylaws, rules, regulations and relevant statutes that
affect tenure procedures; (2) current contract and nego-
tiation agreements, particularly those that directly
affect the staffing of programs; (3) the institution's
affirmative action program; (4) the institution's budget;
(5) the institution's priorities; and (6) a profile of
the faculty on staff at the institution.32 In addition,
it is imperative that the board comprehend the meaning of

tenure, the rights and privileges associated with it,

 

81Meyerson, "Overseeing Academic Programs,” p. 182.

82Richard P. Chait and Andrew T. Ford, The Tenure
Issue, AGB Pocket Publications, no. 7 (Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 1977), pp. 8-9.

 

67

and associated controversies.33 A working understanding
of the pros and cons of the tenure issue is necessary
prior to the establishment or revision of tenure policies.

Once the board has established tenure policies, its role
changes. The board does not perform indepth examinations
into the character or competencies of an individual faculty
member. The procedure and policies approved by the board
should be sufficient guidelines for the academic admin-
istration to carry out these tasks.

The recruitment and selection of new faculty, along with
the review and promotion of existing faculty, are
perhaps the most important responsibilities of academic
administrators. Undertaken in conjunction with the
faculty, these are among the most cherished duties in
academic life. There is little role for trustees in
evaluating faculty for appointment or promotion,

even though in most institutions trustees will be

asked formally to approve and legally to bind the
institution to these decisions. (In awarding tenure,
they may obligate resources and constrain future
choices for thirty years or more.) Trustees can and
must, however, examine closely the procedures, the
criteria, and the rigor of judgment by which these
recommendations are brought to them. Trustees must
also examine closely the direction, support, and
rewards that are given existing faculty to the end of
best serving the purposes of the institution.84

The board will have to take into account the state of the
institution, the needs of the faculty, and the educational
programs of the institution when making decisions to grant

tenure to an individual. Thus, the board's role should be

 

83Richard P. Chait, "Setting Tenure and Personnel
Policies,” in Handbook of College and University Trusteeship,
see Ingram, 1980. PP- 210-13.

84Meyerson, "Overseeing Academic Programs,” pp. 181-82.

68
to raise questions regarding how the individual faculty
member's strengths meet the needs of the institution.85

As a rule, if the board feels assured that the pre-

scribed process has been followed and the appropriate

criteria applied, there should be little cause to
review individual tenure decisions. The board may
receive these assurances formally or informally from
the president or from its normal review of faculty
portfolios.86
The board must be careful not to violate its own procedures
by interfering with established policies on an individual
basis. On the other hand, the board must not abrogate its
responsibility to ensure a quality faculty. The tenure
issue is a complex responsibility in which the members of
the governing board must be well versed and diligent in
carrying out.

8. Institutional Autonomy.

The second area of responsibility, examined under the
heading of academic affairs, is the preservation of insti-
tutional autonomy. The governing board has a duty to
defend the institution from interference so that its
educational mission is maintained.

The freedom of the university to manage its internal

affairs without outside interference has never been

absolute, but it has been substantial. The nature of
the educational enterprise requires a high degree of
autonomy. The capacity for independent thought will
not flourish under thought control. The university's

function as a critic of society presupposes a certain
independence from the society being criticized. With

 

85Chait and Ford, The Tenure Issue,_pp. 9-10.

861b1d., p. 9.

69

the support of understanding trustees, real progress
has been made in institutional autonomy.87

Academic freedom is the cornerstone of the American
higher education system. The board of trustees must
guarantee that the free exchange of ideas exists.

Simply put, One of the responsibilities of governing
boards is to defend the institution they govern--to
defend their existence, their programs and operations,
their right to manage their own affairs. One of the
great contributions of the modern college or university
is its role as a critic of society. It can perform
this role only as long as it is protected from those
who would silence its criticisms or twist them to

serve some ulterior end. This is why academic freedom
is so important, why boards of trustees must not permit
outside groups or extremists within (such as the
radical left during the turbulence of the sixties

and early seventies) to muzzle the voices expressing
unpopular positions. Colleges and universities pride
themselves on teaching students to think for
themselves. This cannot be done without a guarantee

of academic freedom.83

The better the governing board fulfills its responsibilities
in the areas of academic programming, faculty-personnel
management and articulation of the mission of the institution
to its constituencies, the easier it will be to safeguard

the autonomy of the institution. In addition, a financially
healthy institution will be in a better position to hold

off critics who try to pressure the institution and erode

its independence. The issue of autonomy, then, is closely
tied to the overall functioning of the institution.

C. Academic Board of Review.

 

87Nason, "The Nature of Trusteeship," p. 39.

88Nason, “Responsibilities of the Governing Board," p. 41.

70

The final responsibility to be classified under the
general heading of academic affairs is the governing
board's ability to act as a final court of appeal. As the
legal authority of the institution, the governing board
must ensure that policies are established to protect the
rights and responsibilities of all members of the academic
community. They must also make certain that the policies
and procedures are being followed. Trustees also must
guarantee that due process--the provisions and
procedures--are carried out. However, they should not
interfere with the proper exercise of the duties of college
officials.

One hopes that, if the procedures are orderly and

fair and if the administration acts with intelligence,

most cases will be resolved before reaching the board.

But when they do come to the board, the trustees must

decide on the merits of the case. The president and

deans may not always be right. If they are not, the

board must be prepared to rule against them. If this

happens very often, however, it may indicate that the

time has come to look for a new president.89

In this age of litigation, a governing board would be
irresponsible not to hear cases that are referred to
it on appeal. However, trustees can undermine the authority
of the president and his or her administration should they

too casually overrule decisions that have been properly

adjudicated.

 

89Ib1d., p. 45.

71
BOARD MAINTENANCE

The final responsibility of a governing board is that
of self-assessment. The board must examine and judge its
own performance and contribution to the enhancement of the
institution's mission. The board should be receptive to
criticism from its members and other constituencies. The
credibility of a board would be severely curtailed if its
members failed to meet this responsibility.

The board has no more right to be above assessment of

its performance than the president or any other part

of the organization. If improvement can be made, let

it begin with the governing board, which thereby will

set an example to the rest of the institution.90

To assess their performance, the trustees must have a
realistic understanding of their authority, their structure,
their responsibilities, and the mission of their
institution. The framework by which a board operates is
only a tool by which human beings attempt to fulfill a
trust that they have accepted on behalf of society and
their constituents. Ideally, a governing board should
function so that its members need not be concerned with
its structure. However, few boards operate in an ideal
atmosphere.91 In order that the governing board use its

limited time effectively and efficiently, it occasionally

must assess its own performance.

 

90Ibid., p. 46.

91Cyril O. Houle, The Effective Board (New York: Assoc-
iation Press, 1966): PP. 51-52.

 

72

The process by which trustees are selected and prepared
for membership on the governing board can either enhance or
inhibit the overall effectiveness and efficiency of
the board. Suggestions emerge in the literature that
governing boards which provide strong leadership, and are
viewed by their constituencies as having a realistic
understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their
institutions, are those boards which are concerned about
trustee selection, orientation, deployment and continuing
education. Although not considered major areas of trustee
responsibility, these supplemental areas of concern are
necessary ingredients for achievement of the primary

responsibility of the governing board--that of stewardship.

SELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS

The process of selecting members of a governing board
is unique to each institution. Generally, there are three
major processes by which individuals are selected to
become members of a governing board: (1) the governing
board may extend an invitation to an individual to serve
on the board; (2) members may be appointed by an outside
authority; or (3) members may be elected by some constituency
of the institution.92

The president of the institution has an important role

in the selection and appointment of individuals to the

 

———.—_- .‘—-—._. w
. ~ .1,—

921bid, pp. 27-31.

73
governing board. In the public sector, the president may
have the opportunity to recommend to the appointing authority
the names and qualifications of individuals whom he or she
feels would contribute to the institution. Likewise, in
the private sector, the president must be prepared to
recommend names of qualified individuals to the board or
the sponsoring body.93
A board need not be made up of the president's friends,
but it should include the kinds of people who can
contribute significantly to the well-being of the
institution and are compatible with the chief
executive.94
Success in building a strong board comes from recruiting
and selecting people who will be committed to the institution
_they are being asked to govern.95 Therefore, the institution
must know who and what it is in order to ask people to
become committed to to it. An understanding and realistic
appraisal of the mission, direction, needs, strengths, and
weaknesses of the institution will assist in the selection

of the most appropriate candidates to serve as members of

the governing board.

 

93Burns, Trustees in Higher Education, pp. 63-64.

94Robert L. Gale, ”Selecting and Deploying Trustees," in
Handbook of College and University Trusteeship, see Ingram,
1980, p. 48.

95Dayton Hultgren and Mary Bigelow McMillan, “Trustee
Selection, Recruitment, Development, and Assessment,“ in
The Good Steward, see Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1983, pp. 48-49.

74

These are concerns that the president and board should
examine together. The board and president of a private
institution, once they agree on the fundamentals of
their joint enterprise, can move to the nominating
committee stage, and begin consideration of board
composition. In so doing they may proceed in four
steps: (1) decide what specific skills are needed on

the board, (2) establish a search-and-recruit procedure,
(3) establish an orientation procedure, and (4) estab-
lish a procedure for terminating service.96

Burns enumerates the desired qualifications as he under-
stands them'from his reading of the literature.
(1) A college education
(2) An active interest in the institution
(3) A genuine interest in higher education
(4) Ability to attend meetings and work on behalf
of the institution
(5) Reasonable economic stability
(6) A good reputation in business or professional life
(7) A good reputation in the community for sound
character and moral judgment.97
Often the selection and appointment of trustees in the
private sector has been unduly influenced by a candidate's
wealth or access to wealth that he or she may steer to the
institution. In the public sector, membership in the "right“
political party has at times outweighed other more important
criteria.98 It is shortsighted to select a candidate on the
basis of one or two qualities. To fulfill their responsi-
bilities, trustees must have a combination of qualities

that will provide depth and breadth to their service on

the board. Institutions sponsored by a religious body or

 

96Gale, "Selecting and Deploying Trustees," p. 48.
97Burns, Trustees in Higher Education, pp. 65-66.

93Ibid.

75

a special interest group must consider a candidate's
qualifications in light of the specialized identity that
is inherent in these institutions as a result of the sponsor-
ship of a particular group.99

The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges established the National Commission on College and
University Trustee Selection. The Commission studied a
variety of institutions and published two reports that make
specific recommendations for the improvement of trustee
selection in both the private and public sectors. Below
is a summary of the recommendation which was published
regarding the selection of trustees of private colleges
and universities.

They include: each board should have a standing
committee on trustees for the maintenance of the quality
and appropriateness of the board: the search for trus-
tees should be continuous and broad, with four steps

of screening: trustee evaluation should be performed
for those seeking reappointment: established proce-
dures should be followed: invitations should be
personally extended by the most appropriate trustee

and the president, and should include specified
information: thorough and systematic orientations
should be performed by the board: no trustee should
serve more than 12 consecutive years, with a one-year
sabbatical between terms: terms should be for three

or four years: boards of church-related institutions
should include substantial numbers of lay persons:
students and faculty should not be voting members of
their own institutions' boards: each board should
establish procedures for dealing with a trustee's
potential conflict of interest: and alumni associations

 

99Thomas Savage, S.J. "The Board's Role in Maintaining
Institutional Identity," Curfefit“rssues*in Catholic~Higher
Education 4 (Winter 1984), p. 3.

76

should be encouraged to participate in nomination of
a limited number of trustees.100

ORIENTATION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION OF TRUSTEES

Trustees who possess the qualities needed to.govern an
institution of higher education need to be educated in their
specific responsibilities as members of a governing board.
Far too often, qualified people are discouraged in exercising
their responsibilities simply because they are unaware of
their proper role as members of a governing board of higher
education.101

It is erroneous to assume that simply because a
trustee sits on a corporate board of directors, or is
a brilliant professional man, or is a staff member of
another university, he is (upon election) automatically
and immediately prepared to serve as an enlightened
trustee. Even if he has served as a trustee in
another institution, he may not know enough about his
new institution to operate at optimum effectiveness.
In virtually every instance, it is incumbent upon the
trustee to welcome orientation, education and
training.102

 

100Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, Recommendations for Improving Trustee Selection
in Private Colleges and Universities. A Reporggfrom the
NationaiCommission on College and Univergity Trustee
Selection, (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED 194 028, 1980), p. l.

 

101Gale, “Selecting and Deploying Trustees," pp. 57-58.

102Burns, Trustees in Higher Education, p. 68.

77

The orientation and education of new and old trustees
is an investment in the future that institutions cannot
afford to neglect.103 "Whether the board is public or
private, a well-conducted orientation process is
essential.104

In the past, this process has been neglected. In a 1977
study, Leonard C. Romney reported that while trustees
should be well grounded in the mission and background of
their institutions, many of the trustees in his study felt
unfamiliar with their institutions and their operations.105

Although Romney's study cannot be generalized because of
the limited scope of his design, it does indicate that
attention is needed in the areas of trustee orientation
and education.

Trustees are responsible for their own education. They
should not delegate this responsibility. On the other hand,
they need not conduct the orientation and educational
programs themselves. A trustee committee, such as the

membership, nomination or orientation committee, should

 

103Richard T. Ingram, Trustee Orientation and Development
Programs, AGB Pocket Publications, no. 2 (Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 1981), p. l.

104Gale, "Selecting and Deploying Trustees,“ p. 57.

105Leonard C. Romney, “Productivity Assessment: A Study
of Faculty, Administrator and Trustee Performances,” Paper
presented to the American College Personnel Association
Convention, Denver, March 27-30, 1977, PP. 8-9.

78
have the responsibility of planning, overseeing and ensuring
that these programs do take place and that they meet the
needs of the board.105 The board must rely on the expertise
of the president and officers of the institution to provide
much of the information they require to understand the role
of the governing board and the nature of the institution.

A grievous error would be made if it was assumed that
an individual trustee can receive and process all the
information necessary to function efficiently as a member
of a governing board simply by exposing herself or himself
to an orientation program. Trustee education must be
understood as a program for long-range development that
will lead to an active and well-informed board.107

Too often the assumption that trustees are reluctant

to set aside additional time for either self-renewal

or institutional renewal becomes a convenient excuse

for not conducting a retreat--a kind of self-fulfilling

prophecy. Trustees will respond to reasonable requests
for their time and attention if they have reason to
think that they will be rewarded with a first-rate
experience.108

Often the failure of trustee educational programs stems

from a failure of those persons who are planning and pre-

senting the program to understand its objectives. The

 

106Gale, "Selecting and Deploying Trustees,” p. 57.

107Ingram, Trustee Orientation and Development Programs,
pp. 5-90

 

108Richard T. Ingram, "Assuring Trustee Orientation and
Development,” in Handbook of College and University Trustee=*‘"-
ship, see Ingram,il980, p. 94.

79
trustee committee which oversees the education of the
board, in conjunction with the chief executive and the
chair of the board, must clearly define the objectives of
the educational process. Long-term and short-term objectives
should be established and periodically reviewed to ensure
that they are meeting the needs of the board and the
institution.109 The development of these objectives can
be assisted by the assessment process through which the board

comes to an understanding of its strengths and weaknesses.

TRUSTEE DEVELOPMENT

The excitement and enthusiasm that a trustee gains by
participating in a well conceived and executed orientation
program can easily be underminded by having nothing to do
while serving on the board.110 A way to avoid this deflating
experience is to assign new trustees to active committees
where they will have the opportunity to put their enthusiasm
to good use. Assignments should be made to best fill the
needs of the institution and the the board, while considering
'the talents of the individuals involved. However, care must
be taken so that trustees are not pigeonholed on the basis
of insufficient information. For example, the talents of

a banker might not be best utilized on the Finance

 

109Ingram, Trustee Orientation and Development Programs,
p. 6.

llOGale, "Selecting and Deploying Trustees," p. 59.

80
Committee. The Educational Policy Committee might get
more work and support from the banker because his or her
interests might lie in program development.

Boards which meet infrequently (which is the case
with many private institutions) should also make an effort
to keep in contact with the new trustee between meetings.
Once an individual has become a board member, it is
important to extend an effort to encourage and maintain
the level of commitment of the individual similar to the
effort expended to recruit that individual. Too often,
the enthusiasm and commitment of good trustees to an
institution has waned because of a failure on the part of
the academic community to encourage and involve these
individuals in the activities of the institution other
than board meetings.

What does one finally look for in a good board
member? Perhaps the most important ingredients are
intelligence, good judgment, and the ability to ask
the right questions. Persons possessing these
qualities, fortified with an effective orientation
program, will become useful and productive trustees.
Also keep in mind that the more experienced trustees
can profit from occasional redeployment of their
abilities, interest, and energies through new assign-
ments and participation in special activities outside
regular board business. An alert chief executive and
board chairman, together with the chairman of the
nominating committee in the case of an independent

institution, can accomplish a great deal. Good

strategy coupled with patience and time will build an
effective governing board.111

 

lllrbid.. PP. 61-62.

81

The role which the governing board plays and the
numerous responsibilities which it must fulfill make the
job of a good trustee in higher education today a demanding
one. The quality of American institutions of higher edu-
cation will be ensured only if the many thousands of men and
women who serve on governing boards understand and take
seriously the moral and legal obligations of college and
university trusteeship. The model that can be gleaned
from the practical experience of successful institutions
must be reviewed and refined continuously so that an
ever-increasing understanding of the role and responsi-

of trusteeship develops and improves.

SUMMARY

The stewardship of trustees of American institutions
of higher education must transcend the legal requirement
of the office of trustee and embrace the moral obligations
of the good steward. The individual trustee must be
educated in the performance of his or her responsibilities
and must not abdicate nor delegate these responsibilities
lightly. The trustee has the ability to objectively
challenge, question and suggest alternative courses of
action.

Trustees should be chosen for their abilities, not
for their wealth. They must take seriously the responsi-

bilities incumbent upon the office of trustee.

82

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

A pamphlet published in 1643 entitled "New England's
Finest Fruits" sums up the rationale andthe mission for
the establishment of the colonial institutions of higher
education. According to this pamphlet, after establishing
the rudimentary structures necessary for survival and
governance of the colony, the people sought to '. . . advance
learning and perpetuate it to posterity dreading to leave
an illiterate ministry to the churches . . .‘112 as their
ministers, who were educated in the old world, passed
away. Of the colonial colleges and universities, Campbell
Stewart stated: "All the American colleges prepared clergy,
and the arts training was a necessary preliminary to
theology.'113

This mission was understood as a necessary service to

society. As stated earlier, the diversified society of

institutions of higher education evolved and developed
structures and missions to meet the changing needs of

society. With the assurance of survival and the establish-

 

112Campbell Stewart, "The Place of Higher Education in a
Changing Society,“ in The American College: A Psychological
and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning, see
Sanford, 1966, p. 916.

113Ibid., p. 917.

83

ment and growth of the nation, additional institutions of
higher education began to appear on the American scene.
Through the passage of time and the development of society,
the overriding need to provide an educated clergy
diminished. Ministerial preparation and the study of
theology no longer was the primary mission of American
higher education. Theological education became a specialized
discipline and eventually was pursued by specialized schools
of theology. The focus of this study was to investigate and
describe the governance of these specialized schools of
theology as they exist in this country today. In order to
understand the nature and the position these institutions
hold in society today, it is necessary to review a selection
of the literature on theological education from the past
several decades.

H. Richard Niebuhr, writing in 1956, reflected on the
role of the church and its place within American society.
He concluded that the church was an integral part of the
American way of life. With this premise in mind, he
reflected and reported on the mission and the purpose of
the church as it relates to theological education. He
concluded that, at the time of his writing, theological
education within the framework of American Protestantism
was in need of revision. He recommended that theological
schools and seminaries be understood as institutions of

higher education and be dealt with, except in regard to their

84
special mission, in the same way that other institutions
of higher education are dealt with in American society.
He wrote:

Whatever the function of the ministry is, theologically
considered, ministers must preach, organize churches,
counsel the distressed, teach the immature, and they
need to be trained by practice for the exercise of
these functions. Whatever the church ought to be, it
is expected of schools that they furnish men well pre-
pared to carry on the kind of work demanded of ministers
by churches as they are. Again, it seems clear that
many more or less technical questions of education
cannot be answered theologically. . . .

When the question is one about the education of
the ministry it will not do to ignore either the
general--the theological--nor the particular--the
educational--approach; the theologian as educator or
the educator as theologian cannot carry on his theo-
logical and his educational critiques separately and
independently, nor can he reduce them to one inquiry
with one method in the hope of gaining one single
answer.114

Educational and theological issues must be integrated in
order to establish a context for theological education.

The theological school, because it is the educational

center of the church, must be in a position to clearly
articulate the aims and purpose of the church and its
ministry. The author described the state of Protestant
theological schools and seminaries of the 19503 as being
places where inertia and conservatism reigned. Although
there had been great advances in biblical scholarship in the

previous decades and at the time there was a great deal of

 

114H. Richard Niebuhr, The Purpose of the Church and its
Ministryz4 Reflection on the Aims of Theological Education,
(New York: Harper and Row, 1956), pp. 4- -5.

 

85
publicity about the introduction of new ideas, seminaries
of the 19503 were teaching what they had always taught.
Niebuhr wrote: ‘

The adjustments made here and there to meet the

demands of changing times and the pressure issuing

from alumni and church boards scarcely affect the
main tenor of their work.115

Niebuhr argued that many of the subjects being taught
were important. However, he contended that these schools
did not understand the nature and places of these subjects
in an evolving society. He wrote: “The apparent conservatism
of the schools is really indicative of uncertainty of
aim,'116 and purpose. This lack of purpose led to a
curriculum that lacked unity. At that time, requirements
for graduation were mathematically distributed among the
various departments of the institution rather than being
reflective of a purposeful plan of study.

Niebuhr believed this lack of purpose was buried deep
within the denominational framework of the Protestant
church in America. Additionally, he noted that there
existed a rivalry between advocates of an academically-
oriented course of theological study and those who espoused
a course of study designed for the practical training of

ministers. According to Niebuhr, these hidden agenda,

floating free within the structures of the seminary and

 

1151bid., p. 96.
1151bid., p. 98.

86
the church, split faculties, dissipated the curriculum
and underminded the purpose and mission of many institutions
of theological education. Yet be sensed a new spirit
emerging in many institutions--a spirit of ecumenism which
was developing in the latter half of the 19503 and the early
19603. He described it as "the greatness of the common
Christian cause.'117 Niebuhr hoped this new spirit would
give rise to a common understanding of the purpose and
character of theological education.

He described theological education as the intellectual
activity of the church. As a result, he believed it must
be motivated by the church itself. "Its purpose is the
purpose of the church--the increase among men of the love
of God and companions.'118 The theological school, a
center for the intellectual activity of the church, is not
the intellect of the church, but a part of it.

Wherever and whenever there has been intense

intellectual activity in the church, a theological

school has arisen, while institutions possessing the
external appearance of such schools but devoid of
reflective life have quickly revealed themselves as
training establishments for the habituation of
apprentices in the skills of a clerical trade rather
than as theological schools.119

-As a center for the church's intellectual activity these

schools are charged with two functions: (1) to be a place

 

117Ibid., p. 102.
113Ibid., p. 108.

119Ibid., p. 108.

87

where the church exercises its intellectual love of God and
neighbor, and (2) to be a place which brings reflection and
criticism to bear on the activities of the church, including
its own intellectual activities. This reflective process
distinguishes church communities which are healthy from
those which are in need. As colleges and universities,
which may be considered the intellectual centers of society,
challenge society to be reflective, theological schools must
challenge the whole church to engage in the reflective pro-
cess that brings about growth and development.

As intellectual center of the church's life it is

the place where in specific manner faith seeks

understanding. As guide of the immature, it seeks to

lead them to a knowledge of the whole complex of

action in which they are to act; as illuminator and

critic, the school endeavors to aid the church to

understand what it is doing and by understanding

to modify or redirect these actions.120

A decade following Niebuhr's work--in an atmosphere of
heightened ecumenism encouraged by the efforts of Pope
John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council of the Roman
Catholic Church--Walter Wagoner, a Protestant educator
who was long associated and committed to theological
education, undertook an indepth study of Roman Catholic
seminaries of the United States. After extensive research,

observation, discussion and study, Wagoner published, in

1966, a volume entitled Seminary: Protestant and Catholic.

 

The author moved freely from Catholic to Protestant

 

1201bid., p. 125.

88

situations drawing parallels and contrasts from both
traditions. For the purpose of this review, the value of
this work lies in the basic dimensions of theological
education that are revealed through the critical observations
of an objective scholar. The juxtaposition of Catholic and
Protestant philosophies of theological education provides
a succinct picture of American theological education. To
facilitate the development of quality theological education,
Wagoner called for an increased dialogue between all
theological educators. He wrote:

Name almost any area of theological education--curri-

culum, field work, identification of potential semi-

narians, financing, devotional life--and the defi—

ciencies are so challenging that only the most tri-

dentine Catholic or the most doctrinaire Protestant

theological educator will wish to avoid taking counsel

together.121

Wagoner criticizes Roman Catholic theological edu-
cation on educational grounds, not on the differences of
church structure or belief. This study provides an insight-
ful and enlightening examination of American theological
education in general and the Roman Catholic tradition in

particular.

The Decree on Priestly Formation of the Second Vatican

 

Council was promulgated on October 28, 1965. This document
is the articulation of the Roman Catholic Church's under-

standing of the issue surrounding the spiritual and theo-

 

121Walter D. Wagoner, The Seminary1_Protestant and Catholic
(New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966): P. XVII.

 

89
logical education of her seminarians. Wagoner undertook
his study during the transitional period, between the
promulgation of this decree and its implementation.
However, it should be noted that many of the issues,
recommendations and concerns addressed by him have become
part of the Roman Catholic theological educational system
in this country. This fact alone confirms the insightfulness
and the value of Wagoner's presentation.

Wagoner described the basic nature of the hierarchical
structure of Catholic theological education. He noted that
the Decree on Priestly Formation granted the American episco-
pacy of the Roman Catholic Church greater latitude in formu-
lating and operating its seminaries. However, he was quick
to recognize that the influence of Rome was not entirely
removed from the education of the Church's ministers.
Catholic seminaries, he noted, are anchored in an ”inter-
national matrix of common tradition, Roman authority, and
local responsibility,'122 while there is no comparable
structure within all of Protestantism.

It will interest a Protestant seminary administrator

to note that his opposite number at a Catholic seminary

must be sensitive not only to the wishes of his faculty

the criticism of his students, and the quarterbacking
of his graduates, but also to the thinking in Rome,

directives from S.C.S.U.S., [The Sacred Congregation
of Seminaries and Universities of Study]. the desires

 

122Ibid., p. 6.

90

of his bishop, and that long, long tradition of
seminary life which began at Trent.123

In comparison, Wagoner acknowledges that in Protestant tra-
ditions graduate theological education takes place with more
of an arm's-length association between the church and the
seminary.

The predominance of the spiritual life of a Catholic
seminarian was examined and its effects on the overall
theological educational structures were explored. The
integration of theology as a rational science and an ex-
pression of one's faith and devotion was identified by
Wagoner as a major difference between Catholic and Protestant
theological education. The Catholic experience is one of
integration with an emphasis on the spiritual formation of
the individual, while the Protestant experience is one in
which the academic dimension of theological education is
emphasized.

Protestant seminaries have their reasons for
avoiding the systematic faculty review of each student's
character and spiritual stature, the chief of which
is probably a seminary job-definition which sees
itself more as a graduate school of religion than as
Christian community.124
Wagoner believed that Protestant and Catholic theo-

logical education could learn from these varying points of

view. In his presentation of the spiritual formation of

 

123Ibid., p. 7.

1241618.. pp. 36-37.

91
theological students, Wagoner oversimplified the Protestant
tradition and failed to account for the varied traditions
within American Protestantism. It would be an oversimpli-
fication to believe divergent views of theological education
can be reduced to the statement that Catholic seminaries
emphasize spiritual formation and Protestant seminaries
have an academic emphasis.

Wagoner proposes eleven areas that he believed needed
to be addressed by all theological educators, especially
Roman Catholic seminary administrative staffs and faculties,
in order to develop a deeper understanding of the principles
of professional theological education. The eleven areas are:

(1) Seminary self-study with the assistance of

outside consultants;

(2) Overall study of the seminary within the system

with a concern for cooperation and integration;

(3) The accreditation of seminaries by regional

academic accrediting associations;

(4) Membership and participation in the American

Association of Theological Schools;

(5) National leadership and support staff to assist

in the coordination and development of Catholic
theological education;

(6) A national study authorized and supported by the

episcopacy;

92

(7) Membership in professional educational

associations;

(8) Faculty members who represent a wide range of out-

standing graduate schools;

(9) Faculty control of basic academic policy and

curriculum matters;

(10) Creative tension to encourage faculty members to
publish and participate in scholarship activities;
and

(11) Episcopal commitment to the advancement of the
ideals of professional theological education.

To accomplish these goals, he suggested that Protestant
and Catholic seminaries be associated with major universities
and culture centers. In his opinion, this would give heed
to the concerns of laymen and clergy over developing a
broader educational experience for seminarians.

Theological education, to an uncomfortable degree
within Protestantism and to a shocking degree within
Catholicism, is the only major professional field
largely separated from an organic and living rela-
tionship to the graduate faculties of great
universities.125

As Wagoner suggested, and has been subsequently proven in
practice, the association of theological education with major
universities provides an increased possibility for colla-

boration between theological schools of like and differing

traditions. The consortia of theological schools and

 

1251bid., p. 92.

93

seminaries that developed during the past two decades are
testimony to Wagoner's contention that this type of co-
operation and association improves the quality of the
academic life within institutions of theological education.

The debate over the primary purpose of theological edu-
cation was addressed in 1973 by C. Daniel Batson and
D. Campbell Wyckoff when they presented 'An Alternative for
Ministerial Education." They began their arguments by
stating that the whole seminary system was in need of re-
evaluation and restructuring. They were concerned that
much of what was happening in seminaries was a result of
the financial crises which many seminaries were then
experiencing. In their opinion, administrative solutions
were not enough to right the wrong which they identified
as existing within American seminaries. They argued that
the very nature and purpose of theological education
needed to be addressed and reconsidered. Only through the
re-examination of the basic purpose and mission of theo-
logical education would theology schools be able to fulfill
the mandate they received from the churches. Their arguments
and suggestions for alternatives were based on the pre-
supposition that the Church is in need of professional
ministers whose primary purpose is to facilitate the
ministry of all Christians. They introduced the term
"ministerial education“ and explained the difference

between it and the traditional understanding of theological

94
education. The competency of the minister relies not on
his or her ability to master the academic disciplines of
theological education, but on the ability of the minister
to utilize the resources of the church for the good of the
Christian Community, including the utilization of experts
to solve and deal with practical problems.

The emphasis of this approach is to develop ministers
who are self-directed and self-motivated learners and to
provide professional ministers with the tools and the
abilities to continue to learn after their initial period
of formation. This approach requires an effective inte-
gration and utilization of the disciplines of theology and
practical ministry.

This alternative approach is one way of dealing with
the concerns of many regarding the competencies of ministers
in the active ministry. This may be the solution to one-half
of the debate over the balance of academic and practical
theological education.

Were the proposed model for ministerial education

to be adopted, it would seem to imply a major revision

of seminary graduate programs. Rather than the research

orientation of academic doctorates, it suggests graduate
study toward specialized competence in a particular
academic area and its relation to professional ministry.

Seminary graduate programs might be geared to training

persons for two types of institutional roles: First,

to serve as resource persons or resource coordinators

to the ministers in a given region in the area of the

graduate student's specialization. Such positions

would be under the auspices of national church struc-

tures (either conciliar or denominational structures).

Second, the seminary graduate student would be well
qualified to participate in teaching at the M. Div.

95

(perhaps soon to the D. Min.) level in seminaries,
particularly in the first-year program.126

However, this method of theological education does not
consider the churchs' need for research and scholarship.

A continuation of this debate was presented by James
I. McCord in 1978. He warned against mistakenly trying to
formulate only one purpose for theological education. To
do this, he cautioned, would be to ignore the rich and
varied religious heritage that has existed in the theological
institutions of this country.

The fundamental purpose of theological schools has been,
and continues to be, the preparation of ministers, scholars,
and church leaders. McCord suggested four goals that must
be pursued in this process of preparation. These goals
are: (l) to assist the theological student to think and
live theologically; (2) to assist the student in acquiring
a broad theological perspective; (3) to assist the student
in becoming a participant in an ongoing theological inquiry
(scholarship); and (4) to provide the student with the
necessary skills for ministry. Emphasis of these goals
will vary depending on the needs of the churches. The
degree of emphasis that is placed on one or more of these
goals will help determine the curriculum and the nature of

the seminary experience.

 

126C. Daniel Batson and D. Campbell Wyckoff, ”An Alter-
native Model for Ministerial Education,“ Theological
Education 9 (Winter 1973), p. 111.

 

 

96
McCord recognized that preparation for ministry is never
completed, and he suggested that a major thrust of the curri-
culum be one that provides an appreciation for ongoing
learning. He contended that institutions have no choice
but to provide opportunities for continuing education for
their constituencies. This concept of the purpose of the
theological school has a profound influence on its structure
and curriculum. According to McCord, a seminary with the
expressed purpose of continuing education will operate in
an atmosphere of tension.
A seminary is a graduate professional school, and it
must live within the tension of this description. It
cannot be a graduate school exclusively, nor should
it be a professional school exclusively. The seminary
must live creatively within this tension and seek to
maintain a balance between the two legitimate emphases.
The tension may be greater in this country because of
the character of American religion. It has always
carried a strong anti-intellectual bias, and it is
surprising how little knowledge is needed to ”get
by.“ One can develop a religious pattern and remain
at a superficial level throughout a career.127
The theological seminary must provide the environment and
the opportunity for the development of the intellectual
and spiritual lives of its students. The governing board
can play an important role by assuring that the appropriate
structures and curriculum are in place to encourage this

development within the seminary students. McCord is of

the opinion that there must be a reconciliation of these

 

127James I. McCord, "The Understanding of Purpose in a
Seminary Closely Related to the Church," Theological
Education 14 (Spring 1978): P. 63.

97
two viewpoints so that these institutions may fulfill their
mission of preparing church leaders.

Lawrence N. Jones, a contemporary of McCord's, broadened
the discussion of the mission of theological schools and
seminaries when he wrote: I'No theological school can be
true to its calling as servant of the church which does
not acknowledge the presence of the claims of all groups
which are constituents of the whole church.'123 The basic
trend of the author's argument was that theological schools
as agents of their respective churches must not discriminate
against any particular group or social class, in any respect,
through their formal or informal curriculum. The curriculum,
according to Jones, must reflect the specialized needs of
the persons who make up the church. ”Even schools which
have no minority student(s) . . . are not absolved from
the responsibility of taking into account the reality of
the church and the implicit claims its pluralistic constitu-
ency imposes upon it.'129 Theological schools should,
according to Jones, adapt their offerings and focus to
meet the needs of a changing society.

Edward L. Hayes wrote:

Theological education in the final quarter of
the twentieth century is typified by both growth and

 

128Lawrence N. Jones, ”A Reflection on Theological
Education for the Whole Church,” Theological Education 14
(Spring 1978): P. 94.

 

129Ibid.

98

decline, stodgy tradition and diversity by design.

Factors are at work forcing curricular and insti-

tutional revision and reform. To the degree that

professional theological schools respond to develop-

ments in contemporary higher education, they will be

able to navigate well the closing decades of this

century. Revitalization of theological schools will

in large measure depend upon how successfully admini-

strators, faculties, boards of control, and the

various constituencies res ond to new developments in

non-traditional education. 30
Hayes recognized that the issues facing theological education
were not unique. He listed a number of issues confronting
professional education, specifically theological education.
Among them were: (1) reform in graduate and professional edu-
cation was affecting most major professions; (2) education
had expanded to a mood of education for all rather than a
few; (3) the issues of decline/retrenchment, high costs,
loss of mission, and polarized ideologies were forging a
future for graduate schools, including graduate theological
education; (4) enrollments in schools with a visible evan-
gelical commitment had risen; (5) faculties and administra-
tors of theological education were unprepared to address
these issues; and (6) higher education was forcing a reform
of graduate education.

Hayes argued that there have been three institutional
patterns within theological education: (1) multi-purpose col-

leges and universities developed seminaries as specialized

schools and departments; (2) seminaries have expanded to

 

130Edward L. Hayes, "Educational Strategies in Theological
Education," Theological Education 15 (Autumn 1978): P. 33.

99
include a liberal arts curriculum; and (3) separate insti-
tutions for theological study have been founded and remain
detached from other institutions. In addition, Hayes
suggested that there has been further development in this
area of institutional structure and purpose. Those insti-
tutions that traditionally have been separated and inde-
pendent institutions in recent years have sought to develop
ties with other universities. This type of relationship
has opened the door to alternate strategies for theological
education.

Non-traditional approaches to education have become
part of the American higher education system. These new
approaches, in some instances, have been assimilated into
the structure and curriculum of theological schools and
seminaries. Hayes outlined how some of these ideas have
influenced the course of study at some of this country's
theological schools. As a result of this development in
non-traditional education, there has been a movement
toward reform in theological education. However, Hayes
stated that, "There is no common theory of curriculum
nor any generally accepted model for theological education
reform."131 He argued that there must be a renewed effort

to conceptualize the course of study appropriate for

 

l311bia., p. 41.

100
theological schools and seminaries. This conceptualization
may, according to the Hayes, bring about the needed reforms.

Hayes outlined six principles upon which the curriculum
of a theological school should be based. They are:

(1) content should reflect the aims and progress of
professional education; (2) explicit provisions should be
provided for the development of social understanding,
ethical behavior, and scholarly endeavors; (3) the pro-
fessional sciences and their application should be formed
together to provide a comprehensive curriculum; (4) a
theory for the practice of the profession must be developed;
(5) professional education should provide a foundation
which an individual may use his or her own style and
talents to build upon; (6) the content to which a student
is exposed should be limited in order that the student is
not overwhelmed.

Seminaries, like universities, have become specialized
and departmentalized in order to provide a holistic
curriculum. Interdisciplinary studies and integrated field
education programs must be part of the required curriculum,
according to Hayes. He hoped that this would provide the
basis for the integration of scholarship and functional
competence. In addition, curriculum reform must also con-
sider the changing nature of the current theological
student. New theological students are forcing subtle

changes in theological education. At the time of Hayes'

101
writing, there was little understanding about the effect
these new students were having on theological education
and the institutions which provide this education.

In response to the ever-increasing emphasis on profes-
sional preparation influencing the curriculum and the
structures of American seminarians, McCord articulated
what he believed to be the basic requirements for theological
inquiry. He acknowledged that current theology students
were better prepared professionally than at any other
time in the history of theological education. However, he
was concerned over the apparent lack of basic theological
scholarship.

At least in the United States, there has
prevailed for the past two decades a mood of anti-
intellectualism. The churches do not, as a whole,
look to their theologians for counsel . . . and
little provision is made to further the task of
fundamental inquiry.132
McCord suggested that an Institute for Theological

Inquiry be established. Unlike other disciplines, he
argued, there is little support or encouragement for the
pursuit of basic theological research and scholarship.
As a scholarly discipline, he contended, theology lacked
the institutional endorsement necessary for fundamental

research and advancement of an academic discipline.

McCord chided the churches for this lack of support and

 

132James I. McCord, “The Seminary Enterprise: An ‘“-
Appraisal,“ Theological Education 17 (Autumn 1980), p. 55.

102
encouragement. He suggested that, as in the past, the
four marks of the Church--one, holy, catholic and
apostolic--should be the guiding principles of theological
inquiry. Theologians must be challenged to integrate
their inquiry with the "heritage of faith" that has and
continues to light the way for the community of believers.
The continuing articulation of the community's faith must
account for past experiences, present realities and future
visions. Traditionally, this has been the guiding principle
of the Church's theologians.

Those who would argue that scholarly inquiry by Seminary
faculties undermines the basic mission of ministerial pre-
paration are, in McCord's words, “short-sighted;'133 He
believed a faculty involved in fundamental theological
inquiry would be better prepared to instruct seminary
students regarding the issues challenging them in practical
settings of their ministry.

McCord stated:

At the present moment in history, our perception of the

tradition in its essential dimensions is so dwarfed that

it has less and less to say to the human condition..

The rectification of this situation is the scholarly

task upon which we should be launched, and it could be

as well the greatest contribution we can make to our
professional programs and to the church.'l34

 

133Ibid., p. 57.
134Ibid., pp. 57-58.

103

Leon Pacala, Executive Director of the Association of
Theological Schools, in a recent article, reflected upon the
state of theological education in the 19803. He recognized
the pressures and the circumstances of the past two decades
that forced institutions of theological education to become
introspective. This introspection, according to the author,
has been detrimental to the advancement of theological
education in general. He noted that there have been no
comprehensive studies conducted in the past decade con-
cerning the general state of theological education. After
conducting an inquiry of the chief executive administrators
of 124 institutions, Pacala concluded that, as a group,
these administrators worked within the ”orbit of the
church,'l35 and that there is an indication of stability
of leadership in the near future. In support of his claim
for future stability in leadership, Pacala indicated that
there is a movement toward extended terms of office for
the chief executive of these institutions. The leader,
according to the author, reported a need for specialized
and more professionally prepared and oriented leadership
within theological education. As theological schools and
seminaries became more complex educational institutions, a

need arose for educational administrators who are versed

 

135Leon Pacala, "Reflection on the State of Theological
Education in the 19803," Theological Education 18 (Autumn
1981), p. 11.

 

104

in the art of planning and who have a willingness to
participate in a collaborative style of decision-making.

Theological schools and seminaries simultaneously
belong to the world of the church and the world of higher
education. Each of these spheres of influence helps to shape
the structure and the purpose of theological education.

There is a remarkable concensus shared by the leader-

ship of theological schools in both national commu-

nities [the United States and Canada], that the

renewed ecclesiastical identity of theological schools

is the single most significant development of the past

decade.136

The renewal of ecclesiastical identity has brought about
a restoration of church-seminary relations, which suffered
during the campus unrest of the 19603. As a result of this
restored relationship, theological schools understand them-
selves as “instruments of the Church." The renewal of
ecclesiastical identity has provided these institutions
with the means by which to restate their institutional
mission. Thus, it has given them the ability to reshape
their curriculum, programs, composition of faculty and
staff, and direction in building a relationship with
higher education.

A concurrent development that has taken place over
the past decade has been the increased professionalization

of the theological curriculum. Professional competence

has become the dominant model for theological education.

 

1361bid., pp. 13-14.

105
Although this is not a new development in the history of
theological education, it is a renewal of a persistent
concern of the churches.

According to Pacala, these two developments have encour-
aged theological schools to expand their purpose and their
constituencies. No longer are theological schools viewed
as single-purpose institutions. The introduction of
continuing education programs helped to increase the
enrollment of these schools in the 19703 by 49 per cent.
The number of women enrolled increased from less than 10
per cent in 1970 to more than 21 per cent in 1979. There
also was a gain in the median age of theological students
and an increase in the number of minority students.137

The developments of the past decade have underscored
the need for the administration of theological schools and
seminaries to understand the process of long-range planning,
to possess the ability to discern the needs of the times,
and to anticipate the needs of the future.

The major challenge of the years ahead is to discern

ways whereby the identity of theological schools as

instruments of the church can be more effectively
implemented.133
This will have a considerable amount of influence on the

developing nature and structure of theological education.

 

'137Ibid., p. 16.
1331bid., p. 17.

106

A commitment to render closer accountability to the
churches will necessitate a rethinking of many of the tra-
ditional structures of authority and institutional autonomy.
The challenge will be to respond to the needs of the
churches without jeopardizing the educational integrity of
the institutions. The emerging identity of theological
schools as instruments of churches brings with it the
threat of growing sectarianism. The cooperative ventures
of the past aided the development of ecumenism and enriched
theological education. Accountability to a church is con-
crete and specific. Denominationalism, which has been
understood as accountability to a church of a particular
denomination, can be a positive dimension of theological
education. Denominationalism, however, should not be
confused with the fragmentation and isolation of the
churches under sectarianism.

Theological schools must resist any attempt to isolate
theological education from the other components of higher
education or from other theological traditions. Pacala
warns there is evidence of “growing isolation of theological
education from the rest of higher education.'139

Pacala outlined the challenges which, he believed, are
facing administrators of these institutions. These chal-

lenges include financial considerations, faculty and

 

139Ibid., p. 23.

107
student recruitment, expansion of programs and long range-
planning. He concluded his reflections by stating:

. . . The future will not be resolved without the total
investment of those who constitute the community of
theological schools in an enterprise sustained by
compelling visions of the purposes to which it is
called in service to the churches, the world and the
future. To discern that future and to enliven it

with compelling visions will be the responsibility of
every office and station which make up the corporate

enterprise.140

According to Pacala, this demands effective leadership of
extraordinary ability and wisdom. However, at no time did
the author deal with the role of the governing board in
providing the wisdom, insight, and moral view that he

claimed an administrator must possess.

Another author to recognize and comment on in the debate
over the purpose of theological schools and seminaries is

Joseph C. Hough, Jr., who described theological education

in this way:

. . . All theological education is practical in
practical theological education, and practical theo-
logical education is the task of the whole church.

. . . Theological education is thus the ongoing
recollection of the memory of Jesus Christ by which
the practice of the church in this world comes to
express those virtues which define Christian

holiness.141

He understands the purpose of theological education to be

the preparation of church leaders, including, but not exclu-

 

14OIbid., p. 42.

141Joseph C. Hough, Jr., ”The Education of Practical
Theologians," Theological Education 20 (Spring 1984),

PP. 63‘64.

108
sively, those leaders who must be ordained. Theological
schools are professional schools and, as such, it is
crucial that they prepare leaders to meet the needs of the
churches. In the past, only those preparing for a pro-
fessional life as ordained ministers studied theology. As
others have joined the ranks of theological students,
confusion developed regarding what is meant today in the
church by the term "professional minister".

Today, according to Hough, the professional minister
must be a ”practical theologian,” a person whose primary
task is to provide reflective leadership to the members of
the church. The practical theologian must respond to four
leadership tasks: (1) provide leadership for the continuing
renewal of the memory of Jesus and the identity of the
Christian community; (2) provide leadership for the reflec-
tive practice of the community; (3) provide for institutional
management in order to utilize the community's resources
in a ministry which is theologically sound; and (4) provide
spiritual and personal counseling.142

Therefore, the preparation of the practical theologian
must be grounded not only in the biblical and historical
foundations of the community but in the practical aspects
of ministry. The theological school cannot be a place

where theory and practice are taught separately. It

 

1421bid.

109
must provide an opportunity for the development of theory
and practice as integrated and coherent elements of the
whole process of ministerial preparation.

Debate over the purpose, nature, structure and rela-
tionship to church institutions of theological education
continues. The governing boards of these institutions
have the opportunity to actively participate in this debate.
The board should provide the theological school with guidance
and leadership, should not take a back seat in the rethinking
of the institution's mission, structure, curriculum or
relationship to the sponsoring church. The role of the
governing board has been notably absent from the discussions
presented in the literature concerning the changing nature

and purpose of theological schools and seminaries.

TRUSTEESHIP OF THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND SEMINARIES

The literature regarding the trusteeship of insti-
tutions of theological education available to this investi-
gator is limited. An extensive literature search has been
undertaken. Works that were discovered through this
process are reviewed below.

Robert K. Greenleaf has written a series of essays
on trusteeship entitled Seminary as Servant: Essays on

Trusteeship. He introduced the idea that there exists a

 

hierarchy of institutions. Seminaries and foundations are
at the pinnacle of this hierarchy. Because of their

stature, he said, foundations can serve as overseers

110
that can provide conceptual leadership to colleges and
universities. The seminary, in Greenleaf's view, is in a
strategic position to provide similar support to the
church. Churches and universities are in a position to
nurture and guide individuals and the whole range of
operating institutions, including governments and
the faculty. Meanwhile, seminaries are in the role of
servants to society.

The three chapters of this work, which are discussions
written over a three-year period, show a development in
Greenleaf's thinking on the subject of seminary trusteeship.

Caring for persons, the more able and the less able
serving each other, is, in my judgment, what makes a
good society. Of all the institutions I know about,
I would put the most stringent test of caring on
seminaries because I believe that they hold, potentially
through the churches, the greatest leverage to
influence the caring, serving quality of the whole
society.143
Seminaries must be more than institutions which train
pastors. Rather, they must be a constant source of
intellectual activity and prophetic vision, spiritual
leadership and inspiration for society-shaping influences
in the churches, according to Greenleaf. He believes

that seminaries have the opportunity for strong leadership

because of their place at the top of the hierarchy of

 

143Robert K. Greenleaf, Seminary as Servant: Essays On
Trusteeship (Center for Appliea Studies, Petersborough,
N.H.: W1ndy Row Press, 1983), p. 5.

 

lll
institutions. Therefore, they must muster their resources
and exploit this opportunity.

Seminaries today are marginal institutions because in
this country's highly institutionalized society they are
judged as not carrying much weight. Greenleaf believed
this to be true because seminaries have a marginal self-
image, especially in the view of their principal
constituencies. Seminaries do provide training for pastors;
however, ”they do not generally provide the sustaining
support and prophetic leadership for churches, for which
they are correctly positioned and . . . they are potentially
capable.144 He concluded that the initiative for changing
this situation rests with the seminaries and their governing
boards.

Greenleaf believes all seminaries have within their
nature the potential to attain a position of leadership.

He encouraged all involved in the operation of seminaries
to gather the resources necessary to move from a marginal
position in society to 'a central and crucial role'l45
within society. His basic premise was that ordinary good
people serving as trustees, who are sustained and directed
by strong and great goals, can provide the direction

necessary to move these institutions into positions of

 

144Ibid., p. 10.

145Ibid., p. 13.

112
leadership. The goal that must lead and motivate the
seminary trustee is to be a servant to society by providing
leadership for society through service to the churches.

The role of servant which was once lived out in a
person-to-person relationship must now be assumed by
institutions. If only a few seminaries take on this
role, they may act as the catalyst encouraging others to
join them. To do this, the seminary must regenerate itself
because no other institution exists in this process as an
available resource for the seminary.

Each seminary has a unique history and character.
Therefore, the trustees of each seminary will have to come
to an appreciation of the special nature and traditions of
their institution. Greenleaf warned that the trustee must
understand the institution before moving it forward.
Trustees who attempt to move a seminary to a place of
leadership might be at risk, because there may be resistance
from its faculty and administration. Leadership must be a
subtle process; it can never be coercive.

Evidence of the effectiveness of new constructive

leadership by trustees may be the emergence of new

transforming leadership among faculty and adminis-
trators, and this is the leadership that will move

the seminary from marginal to a central or crucial

role.145

Trustees must begin the process of leadership by asking

questions, not by providing answers. They must encourage

 

1461616., p. 13.

113
an ongoing search for identity and questioning of purpose.
The trustees must excite the faculty and administration to
seek answers to important questions that will give direction
to the search for meaning. The chair of the governing
board must assume this role with the other trustees.
According to Greenleaf the greatest asset that a governing
board has is not its legal authority, but the board's
ability to influence growth and development of the
institution. This influence stems from respect for the
board's decisions and judgments. Therefore, an atmosphere
of respect is a vital prerequisite for leadership. Strong
leadership can bring about unity and clarity of purpose.

The statement of mission must provide a clarity and
power by which the institution operates. Every member of
the institution, faculty, staff and students, in Greenleaf's
words, must be 'a servant to the mission.'147 The mission
statement is the governing idea by which the institution
functions. A serious breach of trust exists when those
who hold the position of trustee "acquiesce in an inadequate
statement of mission.'143 Once the statement of mission
is published, the governing board must support the president
in its implementation. No matter how strong and charismatic

a president may be, a weak mission statement will create

 

147Ibid., p. 29.

1431bid., p. 31.

114

difficulty for the president in leading the institution.
If the mission statement does not have power, it will not
give guidance to the institution. The trustee of a seminary
must be a person of faith. Greenleaf believed that many
trustees are lacking a faith in the principle for which
they should stand. The trust which is incumbent upon the
trustee must be faith- fully fulfilled. So the author
called upon all seminary trustees to recommit themselves
to the mission of their institutions.

The underlying premise of Greenleaf's work is servant
to society through service to the church. He provides a
thought-provoking presentation from which to examine the
proper role of the trustee'of institutions of theological
education.

William Baumgaertner stated: "Governing boards are
. . . one of the most substantial and, until recently,
hidden resources of church schools.'149 The trustees must
interpret the seminary to the church and, at times, the
church to the seminary. Too often, graduate faculties are
entrenched in the educational establishment rather than
being on the cutting edge of the church and society. The
trustee has an important role to play in encouraging

faculty members to stretch their minds and open their eyes.

 

149William L. Baumgaertner, "The Role of Trustees in
Seminaries," AGB Reports (May-June 1983), p. 17.

115

The trustees must ask what the church expects of the
seminary and what the seminary must do to fulfill its
mission. The governing board can help in maintaining
relations between the church and the school. In order to
accomplish these tasks, Baumgaertner believed that trustees
must first train themselves to listen.

To listen to the president. Insist that the president

share his vision of the school at least once a year.

To listen to the faculty. What are their hopes, not

just their complaints? To listen to the students.

What kind of service of church do they anticipate?

To listen to the denomination. What shifts in expec-

tations are taking place?}50

Trustees must have a sound foundation in the creedal
statements, the directives on theological education and
the history of the sponsoring denomination or church. If,
as Baumgaertner suggested, the trustee has a role in
interpreting the seminary to the church and the church to
the seminary, then the trustee must have a detailed under-
standing of both institutions and the atmosphere in which
they exist. Additionally, the trustee must take time to
know the faculty and alumni of the institution. Only then
can the trustee adequately represent the seminary. The
trustee also has the role of soliciting financial support

of the seminary. This, again, requires an understanding

of the seminary including its resources and needs.

 

1501bid., pp. 18-19.

116
In 1983, the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges
and Universities published The Good Steward. Robert Lynn,
a contributor to this volume, wrote:
This book represents an historic “first.“ There is
nothing quite like it in the literature of American
theological education. Of the thousands of volumes
written about theological schools, there are only a
few that even treat the work of the seminary trustee
in a cursory fashion.151
In the opening chapter of The Good Steward, Lynn addressed
the issue of the trustee as the steward of the resources
and mission of these institutions. He tied together the
biblical understanding of stewardship and the commonly
held notion of the role of the trustee.
The larger significance of trusteeship cannot be
understood apart from the rich overtones of such
enduring notions as ”ministry“ and 'vocation.'152
This stewardship, this ministry, of which Lynn wrote, cannot
be limited to the health of the institution's balance sheet.
Instead, it must transcend institutional constraints and
be a ministry of vision and of service to the church and
to society. Lynn's review of the basic function of the
trustees of theological schools or seminaries is not dis-
similar to the descriptions of trustees of other institutions

of higher education which were reviewed earlier. However,

like trustees of other institutions, trustees of institutions

 

151Robert W. Lynn, ”The Responsibilities of Stewardship,"
in The Good Stewardp, see Association of Governing Boards,
1983, p. 1.

152Lynn, "The Responsibilities of Stewardship, p. 3.

117

of theological education must exercise their trusteeship
within the context of their institution's specialized
mission.

To lead in such a mission, seminary trustees must have

competence, tenacity, fortitude and spirit. Most boards

are too involved in overseeing administration and in

money raising to assure a genuine leadership role in

moving a seminary towards its greatest potential.153

The trustees must take on the role of creative leader-
ship. They cannot settle for presiding over a maintenance
role. Greenleaf restated his contention that there exists
a hierarchy of institutions of which seminaries are of the
highest order.

A seminary has the potential to be not merely a

school for training clergy and a field for scholar-

ship in support, but a germinating ground for seminal

ideas, for the over archin views that give unity of

vision in a chaotic world. 54

Greenleaf argued that this role, for which the seminary
has been called, is yet to be fulfilled. This failure is
not the seminaries alone, it belongs to the churches. Two
critical areas which have contributed to this situation
are: (l) the lack of understanding of the theology of
these institutions and how the church's ministry could be
greatly supported by this understanding, and (2) the lack

of prophetic vision that will allow the churches to take a

leadership role in society. These elements must be tied

 

153Robert K. Greenleaf, ”Trustee Traditions and Expec-
tations," p. 129.

1541616.

118
to the mission of the institution and form a partnership
of theological schools and churches.
The source of the seminary's complexity can be traced
back to its character as a hybrid institution. It
belongs simultaneously to two worlds, the spheres of
the church and of higher education in the United
States. Very few colleges or universities attempt to
maintain this kind of dual citizenship. . . . This
peculiar institution has always been something more
than a professional school, akin to the medical or
law schools . . . the crucial margin of difference
between the American seminary and its sister insti-
tutions lies in its nature as a form of the church
. . . (it) has become a significant extra-congre-
gational ecclesiastical form. Indeed, of all these
extra-congregational manifestations of the church's
life, the seminary may well be the one with the most
in common with the congregation.155
Donald W. Shriver, Jr., suggested that theological
education can take place in seminaries only if the seminary
provides a sense of church, the living reality of a people's
faith. In Shriver's view, there must be an integration of
scholarship and the life experience of a faithful people.
This relationship between institutions of theological edu-
cation and the church is critical to the fulfillment of

the mission of these institutions.

SUMMARY
Governing boards have an obligation to work with and
through national and local church bodies to insure that

the students of their institutions not only have the

 

155Donald W. Shriver, Jr., "The Accountability of Theo-
logical Education to the Mission of the Church," Theological
Education 17 (Autumn 1980): P. 59.

 

119
academic and practical tools they will need for service to
the church, but that they also have a vision of the church
through a relationship with a community of faith. The
responsibilities incumbent upon a governing board of a
theological school or seminary are all those incumbent
upon any governing board of an institution of higher
education and more. The unique mission of these institutions
of theological education transcends the concerns of the
academic community and rests within the context of faith.
The governing boards of these institutions would be remiss
in fulfilling their legal and moral obligations if they
did not execute their responsibilities as guardians of
institutions of theological education with a commitment to
the principles and faith of the ecclesiastical traditions

and communities upon which these institutions were built.»

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to investigate and
describe trusteeship as it is exercised by the governing
boards of theological schools and seminaries in the United
States. This chapter contains a description of the popu-
lation studied; the research methodology, including the
assignment of the institutions under study to subgroups;
the construction and pretesting of the data-collection
instrument; data coding; and the statistical and descrip-

tive treatment of the study.

POPULATION OF THE STUDY

The institutions of theological education chosen for
this study are a representative sample of the theological
schools and seminaries in the United States. These insti-
tutions were selected because of their membership in the
Association of Theological Schools of the United States
and Canada, which is the primary--but not the sole--ac-
crediting agency of institutions of theological education.
The institutions selected for this study were assumed
to be a representative sample of all theological schools

120

121
and seminaries in the United States. This study is concerned
only with those institutions of theological education that
fall within the geographical boundaries of the United States
and its territories. Therefore, Canadian institutions were
eliminated from the population.

Since this study was designed to investigate the
governing boards of theological schools and seminaries,
theological departments or schools of a college or university
have been eliminated. Under the stated limitations, the
institutions to be examined were selected from the 1283
ATS Bulletin published by the Association of Theological
Schools of the United States and Canada.

As a result of this selection, the population for
this study contains all the post-baccalaureate institutions
of theological education as defined, representing forty-three
separate denominations. Of these institutions, 134 are
operated or sponsored by a specific denomination and fifteen
are described as interdenominational or nondenominational.
The total number of institutions surveyed was 149.

The chief executive officers of these institutions were
chosen to participate in this study because they were
expected to readily possess the requested information.

Since these individuals were assumed to be employed on
campus, they should have been able to respond to the survey
instrument with little inconvenience, thus contributing

to an increased response rate.

122

ASSIGNMENT TO SUBGROUPS
Each institution under consideration was assigned to
one of twelve subgroups as determined by the institution's
denominational affiliation. The denominational classi-

fication is contained in the 1984 ATS Bulletin. For the

 

purpose of this study, subdenominations were classified
under the heading of the principal denomination. For
example, the American Baptist Convention, the Baptist
General Conference and the Southern Baptist Convention
are all classified under the heading: Baptist. (See
Appendix E.)

Furthermore, denominations with three or fewer theo-
logical schools or seminaries have been combined into
Groups One and Two in order to facilitate data analysis.
Group One contains those institutions that are the sole
institutions of theological education for their respective
denominations. Group Two consists of those denominations
that have two or three theological schools or seminaries.
Groups Three through Eleven comprise those principal denom-
inations that sponsor or operate four or more institutions
of theological education. Institutions that are classified
as interdenominational or nondenominational were placed
together in Group Twelve. (See Appendix E for a complete

listing of subgroups.)

123

SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Due to the lack of documentation about the character-
istics, composition, and role of the governing boards of
institutions of theological education in the United States,
a descriptive methodology was employed for this study.
Descriptive Survey Research is a recognized methodology
. . . for the purpose of making descriptive assertions
about some population: discovering the distribution of
certain traits or attributes. In this regard, the re-
searcher is not concerned with why the observed
disiribution exists, but merely what that distribution
is.
As a foundational study, the methodology must document
and describe the existing characteristics, composition,
and role of the governing boards of these institutions.
It is expected that once an understanding of these attri-
butes exists, hypotheses may be formulated that may lead

to a more indepth study of the characteristics, compo-

sitions, and roles of these boards.

SURVEY INSTRUMENT CONSTRUCTION AND DATA COLLECTION
Information for this study has been gathered by use
of a thirty-five item questionnaire (see Appendix D) that
was developed as a result of an extensive review of the

literature, as reported in Chapter II, and consultation

 

1Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods (Belmont, Ca.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 57-58.

124
with individuals who are familiar with the various areas
of interest represented by this study. In addition, the
survey instruments of two previously conducted studies
were reviewed, and portions were adapted to the needs
and purpose of this study. This study employed an instru-
ment used by the Council of American Higher Education in
1976 for its study entitled, "Composition of College and
University Governing Boards".2 This was done to permit
comparisons to be made between the demographic
characteristics of American colleges and universities as
compared with those of theological schools and seminaries.
In addition, an unpublished study entitled, ”Trustee Edu-
cational Development," recently conducted by Research
Associates and sponsored by the Lilly Endowment, was helpful
in drafting the survey instrument used in this study because
it sought to measure the ongoing educational activities
of the governing boards of theological schools and
seminaries. Because of the information gathered by the
Research Associates study, the questionnaire developed
for the use in this study contained only three questions
concerning orientation, ongoing education and self-eval-

uation of the governing boards under consideration.

 

2Irene L. Gomberg and Frank J. Atelsek, "Composition of
College and University Governing Boards," Higher Education
Panel Reports, no. 35. American Council on Education,
Washington, D.C., August 1977, p. 17-18.

125

An initial draft of the questionnaire and prospectus

of this study were sent to a test/review group, which

included the following individuals who were asked to review

the survey instrument for clarity and accuracy:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Two former chief executive officers of theological
schools, who represent two different denomi—
nations;

A chief executive officer of a private college
with a religious affiliation; (The chief executive
officers were chosen because of their experience
with governing boards and because of the parallel
positions they held with chief executive officers
of institutions that were under consideration

and who would be the respondents in this study.)

A faculty member of the Department of Educational
Administration of Michigan State University;

The Executive Vice President of the Association

of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,
because of his expertise in the area of governing
boards;

The Senior Vice President of the Religion Division
and a Senior Program Officer of the Lilly En-
dowment, because of their interest and expertise
in the area of theological education;

The vice-chair of the governing board of a private

college, who also is the director of a graduate

126
theology program, because of his expertise in
theological education and experience on a
governing board;

(7) A bishop of a large metropolitan Roman Catholic
diocese who serves on the governing boards of

, several institutions of higher education, in-
cluding a diocesan seminary;

(8) A research consultant at Michigan State Univer-
sity, because of his expertise in the development
of survey instruments.

Excluding (3) and (8) above, the listed members of the
review group were selected because of their experience and
knowledge of governing boards of higher education and/or
the organization and governance of the institutions of
theological education in the United States.

The comments and suggestions of this group were re-
ceived and incorporated in the revisions of the instrument.
A final draft of the survey instruments was prepared and
presented to the dissertation committee overseeing the
design and execution of this study. With minor revisions,
the proposed survey instrument was approved by the dis-
sertation committee.

The survey instrument was typeset and printed by a
professional printer, with the expectation that a neat,
professionally-printed questionnaire would increase the

response rate .

127

On November 20, 1984, a packet containing a letter of
transmittal (see Appendix D), a copy of the survey in-
strument, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope was
sent to the chief executive officers of each of the 149
institutions under consideration. (See Appendix E.)

From this initial mailing, forty-nine responses were re-
ceived, which represented a 32.88 per cent response rate.

A follow-up letter (see Appendix C), which contained an
additional copy of the survey instrument and a self-
addressed stamped, envelope was sent to the 100 non-
respondents on December 3, 1984. This second mailing
produced an additional sixty-three respondents. Because of
the holiday mail and intervening term break, all question-
naires postmarked before January 11, 1985 were accepted as
respondents.

As a result of these procedures and activities and the
generosity of the chief executive officers of the insti-
tutions being examined, 112 of the 149 survey instruments
initially mailed were returned constituting a 75.16 per
cent response rate. According to Babbie:

. . . a response rate of at least 50 percent is ade-

quate for analysis and reporting. A response rate

of at least 60 percent is good. And a response rate

of 70 percent or more is very good. The reader should

bear in mind, however, that these are only rough
guides, they have no statistical basis, and a demon-

strated lack of response bias is far more important
than a high response rate.3

 

3Babbie, Survey Research Methods, p. 165.

 

128

Therefore, the response rate of 75.16 per cent for this

study was judged to be sufficient for analysis.

DATA CODING

The information collected from the 112 survey in-
struments was transferred to ”mark sense” data.forms.

Each item of the survey instrument was translated into a
code that would permit computer analysis of the data.

To quantitatively format the information collected
from the survey instruments, a codebook was developed. A
codebook, according to Babbie, is the document that de-
scribes the location of variables in the survey data file.
The codebook serves two functions: (1) it is the primary
guide to coders as they prepare the data for analysis;
and (2) it is the researcher's guide to locating variables
in the data file during analysis.4 The codebook developed
for this study was constructed by this investigator with
the assistance of a research consultant.

To achieve a high degree of consistency and reli-
ability, the coding was done by the principal investigator.
The coded data reflected the frequency of occurrence of each
response. A copy of the codebook is located in

Appendix F.

 

4Ibid., p. 195.

129
DATA ANALYSIS
Quantitative analysis of the coded data was done on the
Michigan State University Cyber 170/750 computer using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.5

 

Frequency distributions were computed for each coded
response for the total sample. The frequency distributions
were checked and compared with the "mark sense" forms and
the original questionnaires. Misscans and miscoded infor-
mation were corrected.

Following an examination of the frequency distributions
for each of the responses, cross-tabulation analyses were
undertaken to examine the responses by denominational
classification. No tests to determine statistical signif-
icance were considered in the cross-tabulation due to the
descriptive nature of the data and the original purpose of
this study.

Responses for denominational groups for each of the
items in the research instrument were computed into per-
centages and organized into tables. These tables are
presented in Chapter IV of this study and comprise the
major results of the data analysis.

In addition, the coded data were organized into three

subgroups for special analysis. These subgroups are:

 

 

5Norman E. Nie, et al., Statistical Packa e for the
Social Sciences, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw HiIl, 1975).

 

130
Catholic; Denominations other than Catholic; and Inter/non-
denominational. These subgroups were organized and ana-
lyzed to determine whether the governing boards of Catholic,
inter/nondenominational and/or denominations other than
Catholic institutions differ in their characteristics,
composition and role.

Analysis of variance was used to analyze those ques-
tions that could be interpreted as having interval-level
data for their responses. Analysis of variance is a sta-
tistical tool used to test for significance of differences
between several means. When the probability of the obtained
F ratio is equal to or less than the determined significance
level, it can be concluded that the obtained differences
between the sample means was not due to chance at the
established significance level.5 Differences which have a
statistical significance must be examined to determine
whether practical differences exist.

The analysis of variance for this study was conducted
at the .05 level of significance. The .05 level of signif-
icance, a commonly accepted level,7 was chosen because

of the foundational nature of this study.

 

6Walter R. Borg and Meredith Damien Gall, Educational
Research: An Introduction, 3d ed. (New York: Longman,
1979): PP-426-30.

 

 

7Ibid., pp. 424-25.

131

The chi-square test also was employed in the data
analyses of this study, and was performed on those items
measured at a nominal level. This test is used to determine
whether the distribution of frequencies in a crosstabulation
of two variables differs significantly from that expected
by chance. "The chi-square test is commonly used when the
research data are in the form of frequency counts rather
than interval scores.'3 The chi-square tests were performed
at the .05 level of statistical significance.

Statistical significance at the .01 level as well as
at the .05 level was reported in order that subsequent
investigators would have this additional information

available to them.

SUMMARY
The purpose of this study was to investigate and

describe trusteeship as it is exercised by the governing
boards of theological schools and seminaries in the United
States. The research methodology was chosen to provide a
foundational base by which the governing boards of these
institutions could be examined. It is expected that a
replication of this study will track any trends that may
develop in the evolution and development of the governing

boards of these institutions as a group and will highlight

 

3Ibid., p. 429.

132
denominational differences. A detailed presentation of

the data obtained by this study is presented in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA

INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains a detailed presentation of the
data obtained for this study through the use of a survey
instrument and is organized and presented through the use
of tables. The narrative that accompanies these tables
will highlight and profile the characteristics, composition
and activities of the governing boards of theological

schools and seminaries in the United States.

SURVEY RESPONSE RATE

The overall response rate of this study was 75.16
per cent. Table l is a presentation of the response
rate by denominational groups. Upon examination of the
112 survey instruments that were returned, 104 were deter-
mined to possess sufficient information for analysis. There-
fore, the overall net response rate was 69.8 per cent.
Several of the respondents failed to complete the entire
questionnaire. As a result, the response rate for the
individual items of the survey instrument of this study

range from 66.44 per cent to 69.80 per cent.

fl- .- —_—-

—‘ ___

133

1234

 

 

 

c.cx N. w.em Md ma ficccflusc_50cocc02.ocsc_
A... no o.~. so no 6_chzao
cozy Cocuc mcCLLcc_Etc
c.cr SN o.m> «m av o__c:LeC
c.ca NL w.wm mg m~ ~mcc_ucc_eccotcoz\souc_
c.cm v c.cm v m zusszu cou_::
..cs ow a... NM L. o_sc;.6o
o.om m o.or h o~ ~oaccmLL:
¢.~o - w.~o 4 Ad NA co_swu>cmzca
c.c¢ c o.cc o as zm_p85zpz
c.cm m c.mr m v ouchcccz
m.~m o a.co cfl LL cocozusa
c.cs . m o.o¢ n m cozsgo c613m182o
p.34 2 A... Z S 32:16:
m.vm o m.vm o dfi mcCLDmCLECccS
Bosccm conch .c :39
c.mw m o.mr o m mchuocLEcccc ~co:om cdoch
$.38 .01 ._.m. NIL ass 163:8
.mconscoocom c_. .moooucmouoa cLC mcflocommom ow>w>ssm
dung omccomom noncommom mama mCOLuauLumcn mco_u:u_umc_
so: r_~o> omccamom mmoso 90 Conan: no Locssz masouc anc_umcwec:c:

 

 

 

uflultlmllm 08¢ aAOOlua

J¢UuUOJOfllP no mfil¢On QI~IIU>OO "IF Bah
mmDOBU d‘IOuF‘IuIOIflO an IF‘I autoaafll hlwlbflhmln un>¢=m

u IAG‘P

 

 

135

Examination of Table 1 will disclose a denominational
response rate ranging from a.low of 50.0 per cent to a
high of 91.6 per cent. However, the three subgroups that
have been established for analysis of variance reflect a much
tighter spread. The overall range between these three
denominational subgroups was only 12.3 percentage points.

Individually, all denominational groups had a response
rate of 50 per cent or more. As indicated in Chapter III
of this study, a 50 per cent response rate is adequate for
analysis and reporting. The response rate for the three
subgroups established for variance analysis ranged between
67.7 per cent and 80.0 per cent. According to Babbie,
'. . . a response rate of at least 60 per cent is good.
And a response rate of 70 per cent or more is very good."1
Therefore, the investigator considered the sample to be

representative of the population.

SIZE AND OCCUPANCY LEVEL OF THE GOVERNING BOARDS
Table 2 is a presentation of the current size and
occupancy level of the governing boards of this study (104
boards are represented). There were 2,838 trustee seats

available on these 104 boards. The mean size of these

boards was 27.2 available positions. The smallest board

 

1Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods (Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973), p. 165.

 

1136

 

do. w a .osuom-u .

"ouoz .

 

 

 

o... ~.-. ..L. . and NA-sw A... .N. as Locoluacseocupcoz\.msc_
~.L. Ls-k ~.k~ . .LAL Ls-s o..~ arms no ozsozzao
can» Congo ucouuoc«10coo
~._c .N-k o..~ . an. o.-. n.cs cmm a~ W ussogupo
L
o... N.-. .._m was uk-Lu A.mn .~. «L LacoLLacsnoc pcoz\.puc_
c.ss mn-ks A..~ ALL on-.~ m.on «NB . so ago posse:
_._o .-. m..s cm. oa-k n.o~ onm «N assessao
a... L.-.~ ...~ A.” sm-LN n.8n so. m Lamoomzmm
a... .n-NN o..~ GNM m.-.~ s.mm Lbs LL c._.pusnmp.s
L.n. o.-.~ o... ~o~ ms-mN L.on ks~ G uazpoguo:
o.oo~ NL-OL o.LL - «L-os c.ss NN ~ oLLcoccmx
a.poL om-k o.o~ so“ Gm-. o.o~ was . couoeuaq
..mo m-ms s.o~ «G m-ms o.- no A nousgo cuzsmz.zo
~.o. Nm-ms ..on o." os-ms a... A.” LL .msscsm
..A. ss-Ls m.sm mod Lo-LL ~.~n mas o mcosuacseocco
«oozom means no 03%
8.0. .n-NL ..L~ .«s m.-n~ m.m~ ~.~ s acosuucseocoo
doozom odoc_m
m... NA-k m..~ an.” o.-. ~.A~ omm~ .cs sauce
oo_aaooo muuom oo_msuoo commauoo nunom o~noauc>< uuuum o~n-uo>< acauuomom
mumom ooumssh ooumsooo muuom muuom o~na~Ln>< wouusya no uuuom oounsuh nounon uo sonsaz
mo omnucoouom uo cocoa Lanes: coo: mo sunfisz uo aunts: Cools: :00: ac sonic:

0:» no «menu

 

 

alufltlullm 93‘ NJOOIUQ d‘UnDOaOIIh to OGI¢O¢
elm-IIDDO hO an>ld NUI4QBUUO Ilh BI4 Inna HEP

N Mdldh

 

 

137
contained seven positions while the largest board had
ninety-eight available positions. Of the 2,838 positions
available, 89.5 per cent or 2,533 were occupied. The mean
size of sitting boards was 24.3 members, with a range of
seven to seventy-two members.

Table 2 illustrates the size and occupancy levels of
the sample by denomination. The three subgroups are I
listed and statistical significance is indicated.

Catholic institutions had 530 trustee seats available
with 430 of those positions presently occupied, resulting
in a 81.1 per cent occupancy rate. The mean size of the
governing boards of Catholic institutions was 18.3 members,
while the mean size of the sitting Catholic boards was 14.8
members. The range of available seats was from seven to
ninety-eight, and the mean size of sitting boards was much
tighter--only seven to twenty-nine.

Denominations other than Catholic had 1,879 trustee
positions available. Of these 1,714 were occupied, resulting
in a 91.2 per cent occupancy rate. The mean size of this
group was 29.8 available positions and 27.2 positions
which were occupied. The range for available and occupied
positions in this group was seven to sixty-one.

The governing boards of interdenominational and/or
nondenominational institutions had 429 trustee seats
available. At the time of the study, 189 positions were

occupied, which resulted in a 44.0 per cent occupancy

138

rate. The mean size of available positions was 35.7 and
the mean size of occupied positions was 31.7. The range of
positions allowed on the governing boards of these insti-
tutions was from twenty-one to seventy-two, while the
range for occupied positions stood at nine to seventy-two.

An analysis of variance was performed on this data to
determine whether any statistical significance existed
between the subgroups. There was statistical significance
at the .01 level for both the variables of size and occu-
pation level. For size F = 8.4860 with degrees of freedom
of 2 and 101 and a significance level of .0004 and for
occupancy level F = 17.4530 with degrees of freedom of 2

and 101 and a significance level of .0000.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Table 3 contains the demographic characteristics of
the voting members of the governing boards of theological
schools and seminaries examined in this study. The data
is presented in percentages of the current voting members
of these governing boards. The characteristics of sex,
religious status, race, educational level and age are
presented for the total group and by denominational groups
as listed in Appendix E.

Of the 2,533 voting members represented in this
study, 84.7 per cent were men, 14.2 per cent were women,
89.4 per cent were white and only 7.8 per cent were listed

as racial minorities. Of these voting members, 89.6 per

139

 

 

TABLE 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF mus mus 0F GOVERNIN BOARDS

(in percentages)

OF "MICAL scuoou AID SMINAIIH

 

 

 

 

'90
~12 . _ C: 0‘an Tool-cola omNNor-QNC was cocooc
x.- - o pNCC .. --.-..... ........
org: or cr— c :23: 22:" :52 CCOt‘muw-mc cram—mmfic
UCCu " - .. '_:_ "'m —"'C ~N— V:
c a) " —<
~86?
ammo
'26 . . . . c—u-o. 'mcfa‘No 0"!” .— oaoe mm—ale‘oc
.- Vanna ~m~o mvco .
11.. Inc: CN—dwmcw
...: : m—nNS (yo-«v: No MM.— g cm: :m c
c: .- _ c
DU
0
...
,3 9 oc mmoo h¢~MOO or- ovvwoo Nmmmoooo
.c o o c wear-no oONOOO o coca-n r- m m .
., ~ c M... . o 1..-: 8 ° :2: °s
u v —- —. ._- .- .-
U
ml!) .........
__o‘ 2 @262 omNo wmoooo ooov-r-momo o now—acme
0‘0 .—- a: ... v o o M HNO ~Mr~4 No
MO "' —‘ -- .4
:L: ovcc mono omacco ova hmmoo mNoh—u—avo
no w r~~oo Nmmo p1fiéé”"""l"nw'
GO OOOI-v—amoa Nm v—aw
a: 2 r-m o ””040 0 o FNMA—1 c EON 23
mar A d "‘ "" -‘
9...-
la 7- oo n—uoo ~OOOOO coo uhvcc ovo—‘mvno
.... .... ...... ......... ........
5: N w—noc awvo v—cNNOo omooowmmo unfit-acumen:
0'0 0 b o AHQO (xv—o o nN—a we ...-“N do
:0 N —n a-fl .... ... ,_.
” v-ooo
u . NCO vomo—o omo m we own 04°00
'_‘ ... .... ...... ......... ........
at (‘4 names amoo movooc ovonwnnv
00 N D~ a so 0 ch 1: Mud—1 O O'zamcog
I: "' u-q .... F.
=
S o oo mmmo weave-co ovm won—mo o’o come
.... .... ...... ......... . ...
0 so romeo Nacho five-40° 0v . . . .
anvhooo ow—ocvomo
fi :3 r-N o vn—oo .- o v—c o nun—a No
5 fl F1 I-l A
..l
l .c munoo 101-no cNoooo OVOMOMVOO chcowOo
mu .... .... ...... ...-... ........
...-:3.- N mwoo Nt-oo wmoooo owowovwoo OMr-w—u-«oo
nu: w o 0 Monte o 0 mm o NQN o
can —4 v-d an A .4
uvU
S: QNOO NOQO endear-co o—co—nmvmoo OMNMNMQO
_‘ .... .... ...... ......... ........
u o Amoco Whoa wncooo ovovchmoc or- maniac
Q, Q o o 'M—OD o o Nun-4 o N mg
I“ M u-d a-i 0.. H a"
m
lw mmoo wow-o cube-not: cocoons-toe wOoooooo
...... ......... ........
‘- """‘C 0- oooo (~th F—‘OOOO ON—urovwmo ~mccwomoc
001050 a: a o Mmmo o o nun—4 o qu o
COCO“ -- —- —- —4 -4 -c
MECU
£0 4)
gkmgc
l
O—l-ng v co homo Neoooo own In as mv v-vvmo
1.050 .... ......... ........
(TOO-- o m—too m—«Nc o-oooco omnummooo ~m~omwo~nc
:cCU N 33.- o MONO ch c N —- o ...-H No
mow,“ -- —- .- .—- —-
unmet
:- Ao wr-r-o vNoomo chow-Ho so C 0v vwmo
Z - vv~o raw—c: mmNONO GNON-occnnao o OQFMFC
u m m—4 c Amt-ac a 9 (NM—... 0 NM.— no
0 W —4 I-t 9-4 1.! '4
E" N u
. 0
«I O0 '0
E . .g .—
0 >89: 0
.. v-l .— a
I O. G g 'O‘O'O’CN
‘ a >. .... . ~ gum—...o
u m u H ~13 I -, #0000
“-1__. ‘ g ._ o Gd 0 ‘U
a O . a . 1 ,, h o... ..g mmmm‘
I 40 W 0 £0 - - '5': WNHMHO
u: E C “UCUIU’lm-C uflflfifl
H W I U-~ :m: ~ - -<n~—- «1010010161
0 1' m = o »--:-7- c Luz-=1: mm a;>~>.>.>...o~
u :—< O>~ c~ c c— azm ~mc—v >~ vac—4
0 tr c-‘u ~m>~--RJ marsh-o um ----o--o Genoa-war:
. c 41.-mu any-nu "yuan-(nu law-g - - -2~.-Inu omvmxo>~mu
in ~-' "CEUJC ~0~mc I’m-64021110 U:a~<<<-cmc "f‘lllx mo
. u ”wc._i_ ...,_.,5_.[_. 02""‘U‘F‘ 5 .... . . .£_._(— 0 oococ~~£~
6 g gSSI gU-JZ 535310: Ev=<mzmaz SVMv-nvnnz

 

 

140
cent had received a baccalaureate degree and 67.3 per cent
had post-baccalaureate degrees. Over 75 per cent of the
voting members were over the age of forty, with the largest
single group (34.0 per cent) being between fifty to fifty-
nine years old.

The religious status of the voting members of these
boards could not be determined with any level of confi-
dence, because 31.7 per cent of the data was missing; that
is, the respondents failed to complete this section of the
survey questionnaire. Such failure may have resulted
because of the ambiguous nature of this item in the survey
instrument.

The voting members of Catholic governing boards (430)
were 90.0 per cent male and 96.7 per cent white, 96.3
per cent held at least a bachelor's degree with 85.4
per cent having received a post-baccalaureate degree.

In the age category, 94.0 per cent were over forty years
of age, with 42.8 per cent between the ages of fifty and
fifty-nine years.

Characteristics of voting members of denominations
other than Catholic indicated that 82.7 per cent of the
1,714 voting members were male and 92.7 per cent were white.
The level of education was high, with 88.5 per cent being
college educated and 61.3 per cent of the voting members
having some type of graduate degree. Of these individuals

76.3 were over forty years old and 34.8 per cent were between

141
fifty and fifty-nine years old. However, it must be noted
that the age of 17.7 per cent of the voting members of
this group was unknown.

Interdenominational and nondenominational boards were
comprised of 87.4 per cent men and 66.3 per cent were white.
Racial information for 11.2 per cent of this group was
unreported. Also absent was the educational data of 35.2
per cent of this group. However, it was known that 64.2 per
cent of these individuals had baccalaureate degrees and
that 51 per cent had post-baccalaureate degrees. Of the
voting members of the group, 54.8 per cent of them were
over forty years old and, as in the case of the other
groups, the largest known age group was fifty to fifty-nine
years old (21.0 per cent). Care must be exercised in
interpreting the age of this group because 41.6 per cent
of the individuals in this group were unclassified in
respect to age.

The data found in Table 3 was analyzed for variance
and the results of this analysis are presented in Table
3A. The analysis of variance of the three subgroups
indicated that statistical significance existed in a number
of areas as indicated in Table 3A.

The relationship between sex and denominational
subgroups was found to be significant, (men: F = 12.9780-
df = 2,100, p $_.0000; and women, F = 9.3283, df = 2.99,

p g .0002) at p g .01. The missing data was relatively

1442

 

 

 

 

 

p.89. c.oo_ s.oe~ o.co. usages
- G... A... o.o a... c....:
_c. v a .c_..x-n .. ... o.. o.“ ¢.n .opso .6 use a...» a.
. a... ~..s o.L~ ...L use ....» .p-co
um. . Iv Q .0— Q I ”0 CC comm Oo'fi QoNQ Oo'n UMO .HQU Own-Om
c .z a u . so: . a... ..°~ ~.A~ 5.6“ pso ....» ..-c.
. s.~ o.m a.m ..m use ...oa on-OM
o.o L.c ~.o o.o use a...» on v
.00:
o.oos o.co~ o.so~ o.oos «nape
N... o.o °.n ... saunas:
.. ...L o.- o.- u.- .ouoaa Angolan-sous
... ...“ ..mm L..~ .a.pu ..a.e.m ..a.:s
s.o~ n.Ln ..om ..." ...o.: ..m.: ..a.:
.. ~.ms ~.h~ o.o~ n.- .m.n ..<.n
~.o ~.~ o.o ..o .m.¢ ..<.<
.. «.8 8.. ..o ..~ a-osazp Loose. cos:
o.o o.o o.a e.o Loogou gas: v
uBOnUIOSQI
o.ooL c.oo~ o.oo_ °.oo~ gauge
~.LL ..L o.o o.~ oesouuz
o.s o.o «.8 8.: szzzoc.z .oguo
.. ... ..o L.~ 8.“ o‘conosz
.. s.mL ... ..o «.m goose
.. .... ..~. A... .... ...:3
“00.8
o.co~ c.ocs o.oo~ o.oc~ sauna
a... ...~ 6.8m ..Ln wasps“:
.. ”.9. o.». m.m~ ...” sagas
. o..~ a... m... o..« so.o~o
..suaum .so.u«~.8
a.poL a.po3 a.pos o.oc~ sauce
o.o c.s o.o ..s o:«m.«:
.c w.- n.m~ o.o~ N.Q~ :0E03
.. .... ..uo o.oo A... no:
“Mon
so. .sks on. nnm~ ..opeo: ocLuo>
uncoquC«EOCOO UmaOzuoU Ouaonuou anuDP IOuUIuHOHOIHIBU

ICOZ\uwuc~

cuzu nocuo
acouuuc.lo:oo

 

 

 

.uomuueoouoa :_.

alufltlulflu 33¢ uJOOIUD d‘UnDOdOIIP 50
mfil‘Ofl DIuI1l>DO no alflnlll Gluhcb ho QU~FD~IMFURI¢IU

lib hO numud¢l¢ d¢IO~F¢I~IOIID

(n ldflflh

 

 

143
small (only 1.1 per cent). Therefore, it was reasonable
to conclude that this analysis is valid.

The missing data for the determination of religious
status was 31.7 per cent overall and was as high as 54.8 per
cent for the inter/nondenominational subgroup. The statisti-
cal significance for clergy and laity status must be
questioned. The clergy classification for the three
subgroups was significant at the .05 level (F = 4.6603,
df = 2.93, p‘g .0118) and at the .01 level for the laity
classification (F = 13.1434, df = 2.92, p $_.0000).

The racial classifications by subgroups shows statis-
tical significance at the .01 level for the variables of
white (F = 11.0060, df = 2.99, P.S .0000); black (F =
9.6644, df = 2.99, p g .0001); and Hispanic (F = 6.2035, df
= 2.98, p g_.0029). The overall percentage of missing
information about the racial background of the governing
board members was 2.8 per cent; however, the information on
11.2 per cent of the members of the inter/nondenominational
group was missing.

The relationship of education level and denominational
affiliation also indicated statistical significance at the
.01 level for the variables. High school diploma (F =
6.3444, df = 2.92, p g .0026); baccalaureate degrees (F =
13.0574, df = 2.92, p g .0000); and professional degrees (F

= 6.77371, df = 2.92, p g .0019).

144
The age of the voting members of the subgroups, when
analyzed for variance, showed statistical significance for
several age groups. The accuracy of this information
must be questioned because 41.6 per cent of the members of
the inter/nondenominational subgroups were not classified

by age due to missing information.

THE PRIMARY OCCUPATION

The primary occupation of the voting members of
governing boards of theological schools and seminaries was
determined and catalogued in one of six major occupation
classifications (see Table 4). The largest single occupation
classification was church occupations. The primary occu-
pation of 41.8 per cent of the voting members of the
governing boards reporting was church related. This
percentage ranged from a low of 28.5 per cent for the
trustees of institutions of the two or three school denomi-
national subgroups to a high of 51.1 per cent for the
members of Catholic institutions. When organized into the
three subgroups of Catholic, denominations other than
Catholic, and inter/nondenominational, the range was from
a low of 34.8 per cent to a high of 51.1 per cent (see
Table 4A). There was statistical significance at the .05
level. Analysis variance performed on the data of the three
subgroups for this occupation classification resulted in

the following data: F = 3.1364, df = 2.109, p g .0474.

145

 

Inter’
denomi-
national
389
13.6
17.2

Non-

United
Church
111
13.5
1503

Catholic
430
31.8
10.2

Epis-

copal

147
21.7

Presby-

terian

326
27.6
34.0

Meth-
12.8
19.3

nonite odist
202

Men-
22

Lutheran
186

TABLE 4
tian
Church

62

(in percentages)
Chris-

Baptist
340

PRIMARY OCCUPATION 0' THE VOTING MEMBERS
0' GOVERNING BOARDS OF THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND SEMINARIES

School

Denomi-

nations
189

Three

“mar

Single
School
Denomi-
nations
129

43.4

 

Total
2533
15.3

Executive

Denominational or Church
Pastoral minister

Special ministry

Number of voting members
Other Church

Primary Occupation

Church:

 

 

 

 

Total Church

QVNWQ mo r-MMN om IDQMOINO‘
I . O . a . a . g . . . . . 0 O D . . .
v bmhvv um omdo cw OWNOOO
F N
\D mmmchc 01¢. momm 00 Furnaces:
o QQMCF cm gé~~ co Nvmooo
f" A N -.
-4 NNoxoo v0 cot-o "C‘ "V‘G‘V‘NN
. . . . . I . . g g . . l O 9 9 0
CI! \DHNOO mm qvoo om dmOOOO
on 0.4 N
O NMOOM FF whoa O? FN'DOM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A o~o~vc>m c3v -c:c>c on~ c>o-c:oav
m A d H
MMQNQ InN NFOO \DN 01thle
. . a . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Ammo-4v ...—4 Aha—4.4 CO OWNOOO
d N
H v-oc3c>m uwo cacaoca c>m caococacca
. . . . . . . . . . . . . I O I O I .
v OMhHa-d .-o.-¢ ”...-:9 on O'a-ION'"
m dd
O OOO mo omom om IDIflIhOOID
O N O O O O O I 0 O O O O O I O O O O O
... MOVOO '0 0'0. ON 'C'OOM
.-0 N A
h le‘ma—o ID" O'O' OO IflOOOOM
O O I O O O O O O O O o O O I O C O I O
O @MNOO ON OVDOO v-‘F O'MHOF
In o-o .—o
N
t~oac~ovw «no c:o<:c» or» f't139~e':
. . . . . . . . . . . o . °
0 OMQHN MO coco um d0~¢flfi
M N
v «Mace o0 ammo 0N Qfififif.
. . . . . . . . . o . . 9 '
o mason ow o~~~ oo "NNOOF
v d u
m OMOOF #0 QQ~~ O0 TNfiOOO
. . . . . . . . g . o . . . ° '
¢ dunuworv new nohanv -*M °"'“"°'*
N d N N fl
'NNOQ NO mnmh FF “fine".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
whoubcr- HBO aoNeuc: can -‘°iN¢=00¢
H d
NOOHN BO hdnm 0'30 OO—‘MFO
. ..... .. .... 0‘ '0...
ovouo NN unud O: HVNOOO
N
n
h .0
u c a I MOO
GOG %\ H u 00“
0‘90. no; u .a .x~n>
CC! no a u u>u
“GO :0 H ONO
0C0 dd 0 N 3 30m
3“ I~ > I o m
and go a g a a A
I" no c D mum
and Su\~ « cyan:
00M mu >\C>O : D MMOCO
000 n 00 HUQHOCO u ‘00“
““ "a 000050“ 8 Hanan
uuuuo nu con-uau o=\wfl
UHOO: oO «Madman cgumo
00 cu uuammma no u u wflu
9“" GOUOO “>03 qu\uuo
O00“: ”nu—no.) ~58 scmcoou
~>>uam Buuullluoa QQQOHA
ran-«on onuuxxuo'o unu\-u-an.
.uuu a «uuouuuuc d .CNDO d
manna. acc>~~|m0um Nflflfinufl
BOUQOH NwfiwflfldOUOU OO>MOQU
“00050 OIICUO~30£8 H03>~>~£O
luau»? 9235mm58nu oogzuub
guano a ELL 0 :( mmo

 

 

146

 

Inter/
Non-
denomi-
national
389

111

United
Church

Catholic
430

Epis-
copal
147

Presby-
terian
326

odist

Meth-
202

nonite

Men-
22

Lutheran
186

(in percentages)

Christian

TABLE 4 (continued)
Church

Baptist
340

PRIMARY OCCUPATION OP TIE VOTING MEMBERS
0? GOVERNING BOARDS OP THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND SEMINARIES

Two or
School
Denomi-
nations
189

Three

nations
129

Single
School
Denomi-

3
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
14.

l
0
1
0
0
0
6
1
0
10.4

0.0
4.5

ONNON
Onmom

14.4

OOOOOMOV‘
NOOONOOU‘

 

2533

Total

Number of voting members

Primary Occupation

 

Other

 

 

 

'F‘Q“H.Ifl'ho
o

O
HOOOOOMOOF

C

R!

an
I) OH
> "‘0
at man
u—o =0
30 E“
own \U
000 H)“
“was we u
mun U 03
way-«u J:
acumHCt-a a.)
w ~xm-3 an; O
Hon—3\E¥
C>O wvuiac m d
nuncwueoufl
moan-~mwmmu
coc=u>ec£o
g~mouogau9
m¢n<o no

 

100.0

100.0

100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0

100.0

100.0

3.2
100.0

100.0

2.0
100.0

3.0
11.4
100.0

1.6
5.8
2.1
100.0

Minister

Professional SerVices
Corporate/financial
Other

Total Retired
Missing Data:

Retired:

Total

 

147

The second largest occupation category is the business
classification. This classification accounted for 20.2 per
cent of the voting members of the entire sample, which is
less than half of the church occupation classification of
41.8 per cent.

The institutions of the United Church had the largest
percentage (27.0) of any denomination in this study of
voting members whose primary occupation was in the field of
business. The Catholic institutions had the smallest per-
centage (10.0) of business people on their boards. The
subgroups Catholic, denominations other than Catholic, and
inter/nondenominational revealed a significant difference
in the level of representation by the business community
on the governing boards of their perspective institutions
(F = 12.6579, df = 2.109, p g .0000).

The field of education accounted for 13.6 per cent of
the members of governing boards membership's primary
occupation. The largest single occupation in this general
classification was faculty member of a college or university
(3.1 per cent). Catholic institutions had more voting
members on their governing boards involved in education as
their primary occupation (25.3 per cent) than any other
single denomination. Even when denominations were combined
to form the three subgroups for analysis, Catholic insti-
tutions had more than twice the percentage of either of

the other two groups involved in education (Catholic--

148
25.3 per cent, other denominations--ll.8 per cent, and
inter/nondenominational--8.8 per cent). There was no
significant statistical difference at the .05 level for
this variable.

The percentage of voting members of the governing
boards of theological schools and seminaries listed as
being members of the professional services occupation
classification was 8.9 per cent. Lawyers constituted the
profession with the largest single percentage of represen-
tation (4.8 per cent). There was no statistical significance
in the relationship between denominational subgroups and
membership in the professional services.

Other primary occupations were grouped for analysis
and constituted 7.6 per cent of the total sample. The
occupation of homemaker comprised 3.5 per cent of the
total number of voting members in the sample. 0f the
thirty-two occupations listed in this study, the homemaker
ranked as the eighth most representated occupation on the
governing boards of these institutions. Catholic insti-
tutions had fewer members involved in occupations in this
classification (3.4 per cent) than denominations other
than Catholic (8.5 per cent) or inter/nondenominational
institutions (6.8 per cent). There was a statistical
difference in the relationship of denominational affiliation
and having a primary occupation in this category,

(F = 9.6756, df = 2.109, p g .0001).

149

 

IABLE 4A

DIIONIIATIOIAL ANALYSIS 0! TB!
PRINART OCCUPATION OP TIE VOTING NEIDIRS
OP GOVERNING BOARDS OP TBIOBOGICAL SCBOOLS AID SENIIARIES
(in percentages)

 

Denominations
other than Inter/non-
Primary Occupation Tbtal Catholic Catholic Denominational

 

 

Number of voting members 2533 430 1714 389

 

Church:
Denominational or Church Executive 15
Pastoral minister 22
Special ministry 3
Other Church 1
Total Church 41

Business:
Executive officer-business 8 2
Executive officer-finance 4 8
Proprietor of small company 6.0
Other Business 1.1
0 2

Total Business 2 ..

OONr-‘G‘
OO‘ONN

Education:
Administrator of seminary
Administrator of college/university
Faculty-seminary
Faculty-college/university
Pull-time student
Educator primary/secondary school
Other Education
Total Education

wOr-r-wr-‘NN
I I I I I I I I
mmmqumq
UIOOOOO-Uim
I I I I I III
wQOflGbOb
HQNF‘NF‘NP‘
OmOwar-‘O‘
“OOHNONF‘
I I I I I I II
OONwwqmm

y..-

N
F

Professional Services:

Accountant 1
Lawyer/partner in law firm 4
Physician/Dentist 2
Psychologist/social worker 0
Other Professional Services 0
Total Professional Services 8

000493:—
0...
wCDw‘b‘Jr-G

Other:
Nonprofit executive
Elected official
Rancher/farmer
Journalist
Artist/writer/musician
Government official
Homemaker
Judge
Other

Total Other

as e
...

ea
wmAth-‘Nr-‘r-‘w
ee 0

a see.
mqfimbHle-‘b
a see
bNNHNN‘NO‘O
se a see s

as 0 see

OOOHHOOOON

\JOOWOOOOOH
II
MOOHOOOOOO
OI
(DODJLOOOr-Or-o
mmwaONONw
I
e

Retired:
Minister
ProfeSSLonal Services
Corporate'financial
Other
Total Retired

C)
e

mr—‘P—‘r—‘H
O. O.
mr4mw$
tJOr-‘Q
I. I I
OU‘HIJN
J\r-4'4r-r4
. I C I I
erO-JJ‘
Jlr-‘IJQN
N
~JI‘JQ 303

I.

Missing Data: 2.1 0.0 1.5 9.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 :

Note: ' F-Ratin, p x .05; '* F-Ratio, p c .01

 

 

150

Of the voting members of these institutions, 5.8 per
cent were retired. Catholic institutions had fewer retired
members than other denominational institutions or inter/non—
denominational institutions. There was statistical signifi-
cance in this relationship at the .05 level, (F = 5.6414,
df = 2.109, p i .0047).

Church occupations accounted for 41.8 per cent or 1,059
individual members of the governing boards represented in
this study. This was a substantially higher percentage
than any combination of any other two occupation classifi-
cations. For all classifications, only 2.1 per cent of the

total number of voting members were unclassified.

MULTIPLE BOARD MEMBERSHIP

The expertise of the individuals who comprised the
voting members of the boards of these institutions appeared
to be in demand. The data revealed that a number of these
individuals served on more than one governing board (see
Tables 5 and 5A). Nine per cent of the voting members of
Catholic governing boards served on more than one governing
board of a theological school or seminary. The members of
inter/ nondenominational boards (2.6 per cent) and other
denominations (1.8 per cent) had a smaller number of
individuals serving on more than one theological school
and/or seminary governing board than did the members of

Catholic boards (see Table 5A). However, upon analysis of

1551

 

h.a~

~.m

co‘uesomuou

o no neuduuo
ocssouwao amaze
so aeofluuo
assuauuuu Cacao
.uaozu <

comucsoauoo n
no canon on»
:0 magnumneo:

zuuuuosmc: no
ammuqou m we

canon on» :0

n.5msooeo:

docson
deouoo~0uzu
doggone no
canon was no
manusoneo:

 

Ono

bod

NN

om~

no ovm

mag

nmmm

nuances ocduo>
uo noses:

 

Accowumc
ICEOcoc
uccz

swucu

~

cussed
cmu_c:

o_eogsao

fimdou
nm_mm

cm.uou
u>nmoum

uomvo
lane:

euOcOc
0:02

couocusa

:Ouazu uuuumom
cod»

I¢«u£U

couuoc
uueocon
Hoosum
vouch
so 039

couumc
naeoceo
soocom
museum

 

moan?

macauOAIOI

 

 

QBIIIII nl¢On ho mulullfllfll GI¢OI Idhuhaol

Ansoneo: canon uo oomuceouem.
annficluluu ant neocloa d¢u~uoaafilh to

m fldlfih

 

 

152

 

TABLE 5A

DENOMINATION ANALYSIS OF THE
MULPITLE BOARD MEMBERSHIP OF THE MEMBERS
OF GOVERNING BOARDS OP THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND SEMINARIES
(in percentages)

 

 

 

Denomi- Inter/
national non-
other than Denomi-

Membership Catholic Catholic national

Number of

voting members 430 1714 389

Membership

on the board

of another

theological

school 9.0 1.8 2.6

Membership

on the board

of a college

or university 19.5 11.8 6.4

Membership on

the board of

a corporation 19.7 11.9 8.7

A Chair,

Chief Executive

Officer or

Chief Operating

Officer of a

corporation 10.2 6.9 6.9

 

 

153

variance no statistical significance was found at the .05
level.

An examination of Table 5 reveals that 12.3 per cent
of the members of these governing boards also served as
members of the governing boards of a college or university
and 12.7 per cent served as members on the board of a
corporation. Seven and one-half per cent of the individuals
who were voting members of theological schools and/or
serve on governing boards were the chief executive officer,
chief executive operating officer or chairman of the board
of a corporation. Catholic boards had a larger percentage
of their members in each of the above categories than
institutions of other denominations or inter/nondenomi-
national institutions. However, no statistical significance

existed at the .05 level.

DENOMINATIONAL FUNDING AND FUND-RAISING ACTIVITIES
The fund-raising activities of governing boards of
theological schools and seminaries were related to the
percentage of funding provided to these institutions from
denominational sources. Comparisons reported in Table 6
are the average percentage of funding from denominational
sources and the percentage of boards that have a history
of being involved with fund-raising activities. The data
is presented for each of the denominational groups of the
“—“‘“study as well—a3*for the three subgroups used for the

analysis of variance.

1554

 

so. v a .osasomnago .. “ma. w a .o_ss¢-u . “osoz

 

 

.. o.cc~ . a.~ Am ~mcofiumcweo:occoz\ueu:_
a.pw v.n~ do ouuo:umu can» mango decouuacmeo:oo
c.~m m.hv ow canesumu
c.oo~ a.~ dd decowuecwe0copc02\uou:~
o.cm h.om v zuusgu owuaca
c.~m m.hc am nanozumu
o.o« ~.~ m amQOOmudm
o.oo ~.h~ RA cm_uo»>nuoum
o.oo~ w.mN o Deucesuw!
o.oo~ o.mn ~ mchOccet
p.55 b.o~ a esuozusa
w.ow m.m m nouszo cmmuuduzu
9; «.2 2 3:93
o.oo~ a.o~ m cowumcueo:eo doo:om poses no 039
~.nm ~.m~ o cowumcfieoceo floccum odocdm
a.mw o.o~ Hod deuce

mw_u_>_uu< ocumfimm moodsom decouumcEIOceo ocuuuomuz

ucczu uo >u0um_= cu“:
mcucom uo womuceusoa

cauu ocupesu no
accessesom oomse><

acumom uo Boned:

 

 

.uuommsm no oomuceOEom.
aflultlnlum 63¢ mAOOIUa atonanOfllh hO

ma~h~>~h0¢ Gluuutfl Blah n81 alunlah A‘IOuh‘l—IOBIG

o Idl‘h

 

 

155

The Catholic institutions received a larger percentage
of their funds from denominational sources (47.5 per cent)
than any other single denominations or for the subgroups
or denominations other than Catholic (23.4 per cent) and
inter/nondenominational (1.9 per cent). A significant
relationship existed at the .05 level between denominational
affiliation and the percentage of denominational funding
(F = 3.7267, df = 2.97, p g .0276).

Inter/nondenominational institutions reported a 100.0
per cent involvement by their governing boards in fund-
raising activities. Catholic boards were the least active
'of all denominations in fund-raising activities. Overall,
68.9 per cent of the 101 boards reporting indicated partici-
pation in the fund-raising activities of the institution.
The range was from a low of 31.0 per cent for Catholics to
100.0 per cent for the institutions in four of the twelve
denominational groups.

Analysis of the relationship between denominational
affiliation and participation in fund raising activities
was significant at the .01 level (chi-square = 28.6567,

df = 2, p g .0000).

ELECTION AND SELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS
Three basic processes for election and/or selection
of board members of theological schools and seminaries are

presented in Tables 7 and 7A.

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c.oc_ c.ocN o.cc~ o.ch o.ooN o.ocN o.oo_ o.ocN c.oo~ o.coN o.co~ o.ch o.oo~ Noyce
c.c c.o o.m_ o.om c.o o.om c.o N.NN o.ooN o.c o.o m.mn c.- sueuo
c.c o.om N.NN c.o o.o o.cm o.om o.o o.c o.o o.o N.NN m.N~ .6..on co.0_s-ozs.
. >coc sounded
snoo- mumumaom
c.cm o.om _.o o.om c.oo~ o.c o.om o.oo o.o o.oo~ o.cm v.00 ~.om co.uc0>cou
No p0c>m choN
noon .0 choNuoz
c.c o.c N.NN c.o a.c o.c o.o o.o o.o o.c o.o o.o N.N soon maaao_~os
ocNNOchQm uo paw;
m>NumsuaN:_Ec<
c.cm c.o N.p~ c.c o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o o.om o.o m.~N coNuchEOcoc
ocNNCmcomm no paw;
m>_um.umNchc<
N N NN N a N N a N o . o no oc.u.oam.
acumen No Nunez:

.uceom ocNucuoame cam: noseon No ommuchBem.
Deva: ocuusaoaac
o.ooN o.oo~ o.oo~ o.ooN o.oo~ o.ooN o.oo~ o.oo~ o.ocN o.oo~ o.co~ o.oo~ o.oo~ Nmucb
N.o c.c o.am o.o n.on o.eN o.om c.oo~ m.nm m.vm o.om o.om ~.om uceerc_ommm
>9 daemswnewe
canoe No COfiuuonm
_.o c.om c.m~ o.om m.om o.o~ c.om o.o o.o ~.m~ o.o~ o.cm m.n~ scoLDcNOQQm
can :o_uuo~e
No cONNocNoeou
m >0 dmzmuwnewe
canon No co_uooNow
¢.Nc c.cm c.v~ c.cm v.n~ n.9o c.c c.o o.oo m.>~ m.mm o.o n.mn >002
o:_um:uomueaiuNum
NE a aN . NN a N a N SN a a NoN ocesuoao.
acumen no sense:
_nco_umc couacu oNNOnuou deoo compo» umupo nudge: case zonazo uuNudmm coNumc couumc Nauoe ameooua
uNEOcec cvSNc: -mNQm uxnmoam azuoz use: Isuzu eeNu INEOceo uNeo:eo ccauoe~u\couuue~om
ucoz unuuzu NOOzum NOOzum
.souc~ munch egocqm
so 03?

 

 

.ocNuNOQQz «canon no ooeucoouem.
flannel—Rum 98¢ neocluu A<U~00doaah so
ass-ems emcee so moarumamaxcouaosau

h laugh

 

 

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ne. w d .ocmacm-_zo . "wuoz o.ooN o.coN o.oo~ o.ooN Noyce
o.o o.oN o.MN o.NN sozuo
o.o v.2 CNN «.2 823 6803-03.

. >poa .eumsom
uuou. oueumdom
. o.cm m.mm N.o ~.mm cofluco>cou
so pOc>m NocoN
oven .0 Nmeouumz
. o.o o.o m.s~ a.» >602 mooNoNNe.
ocNHOncOQm no one:
usNumsumucNEp<
o.cm n.m m.h~ m.~N coNucheOcoc
OCNNOmcomm no one:
usNueuuuNcNecc
N .N NN S 9.3.2::
acumen No .unsaz
Nucoom ocNucuommm :uNs ucsoon No caduceuuem.
use? 9.3389.

o.ooN o.oo~ o.coN o.aoN Nmuoe
N.o «.mv o.om «.0n acoeucmomam
an QNeaueneee
canon No couuueNom
N.o w.m~ o.mm m.h~ uceeucmommm
can co_uuu~o
no coNuchneou
m an musasoneue
peace «0 coNuuwNom
. 6.; 92 0.: 73 soon
ocNueauoaueauuNew
NN No an moN ocuuuomus
acumen No Nessa:
EncomuocNEchc UNNOnumu Dadozueu Noun? umoOOum
icczxuoucn can» Nozuo souuoenu\couuueuem

ncoNuecNEOceo

 

 

 

Nocmusoamm mcumom no ooeuceUNoa.
nun-clutuu 93¢ maoouua ecu-uoaonlh NO mineral
cacao no souhonaum\lc~90flau nah no a~uu4¢l¢ aslo~h¢l~:0lun

<h IAI¢F

 

 

158

One—third of the governing boards reported that they
were self-perpetuating bodies. The range was from no single
school denominations having self—perpetuating boards to
81.8 per cent of the inter/nondenominational boards being
self-perpetuating. The chi-square test performed to test
the significance of the relationship between affiliation
and self-perpetuating boards revealed significance at the
.01 level (chi-square = 13.256, df = 2, p g .0013).

Of the reporting boards, 27.5 per cent indicated that
individuals became members of their boards through a
combination of appointment of some individuals to the
board by an appointing agent and election of some members
to the board by the board itself. The most common process
by which an individual became a member of the governing
board of a theological school or seminary was through
appointment (39.2 per cent) by an appointing agent or
agency.

Two-thirds of the boards had appointed members.

Of the individuals appointed by a governing board, more
than half of them (56.2 per cent) were appointed by a
national or regional synod or convention. For Catholics,
only 9.1 per cent were appointed by a synod or convention,
while other denominations reported that 58.5 per cent of
those appointed to the position of trustee were appointed
by a synod or convention (see Table 7A). There was a

significant relationship between the denominational

159
affiliation and appointment to a governing board by a
national or regional synod or convention (chi-square =
27.954, df = 2, p $_.0000). The appointment of a member
to a board by the administrative level of the sponsoring
religious body also was sensitive to denominational affili-
ation and was likewise significant at the .01 level (chi-
square = 13.234, df = 2, p g .0013). However, it should
be noted that this appointing agency was only reported by
Catholic boards. Catholics also have the highest percentage
of two-tiered governance structures (22.7 per cent) as
appointing agents.

The administrative head of the sponsoring denomination,
--the president or bishop of the convention or diocese--was
the appointing agent for 12.5 per cent of the boards that
have appointing agents. Again, the appointment of a
member by the administrative head of the denomination
was more frequently found in Catholic institutions than in

institutions of other affiliations.

LENGTH AND LIMITATION OF BOARD TERMS
A term of three years was the norm for 58.4 per cent
of the governing boards represented in this study (see
Table 8). Terms of one or two years represented a combined
total of 0.3 per cent of the boards. Fifteen point eight
per cent of the boards had terms of four years and 22.8
per cent of the boards had terms of five or more years*in ""

length. Table 8 also contains a breakdown of the length

160

 

 

 

mo. w a .ouummnm a "muoz

. c.c c.c ~.m_ ..a o.c ~.~n ~.oN ~.o~ o.nw 9.0 0.0 NN NccoNumCNEOcoo
ucoz\.wucN
c.c N.~ m._m ¢.~v w.N ~.Nm o.v~ o.mN ~.om m.» o.o No uNNozumu cane
segue chNuchEOcoo
q.N v.” a.pN ~.NN a.o n.mm h.c~ n.oq o.mo o.o v.n aw UNNocumu
c.o c.c ~.¢N ~.o o.o h.~h ~.m~ ~.o~ w.no o.o o.o NN NacoNuchEOcmc
-cozxuoucs
:.c c.c o.cm c.mm o.o o.m~ o.o o.m~ o.mn o.o o.o v couscu coNNc:
Q.N a." m.m_ n.5N o.o m.mm n.o~ m.cN o.mo o.o v.n ow oNNOcumu
ca c.c cam CNN oé cam 0.? O... o.mN ca o5 . Nnaoomam
c.c N.o ”.mq m.h~ c.o ~.m_ N.o n.h~ o.mo o.o o.c NN coNMouanmeum
c.c w.m_ N.Nm m.mm o.o m.w~ o.o o.om o.om o.o o.c o umNpo:uoz
c.: c.c c.o c.co_ c.o o.o o.o o.om o.om c.o o.o m oLNcoccm:
:.o c.c c.c ¢.mm o.o ~.NN v.vv ~.N~ c.vv o.o 0.0 o ceuacuaq
c.c c.c «.mm N.mm c.o m.mm n.mm o.o w.oo 0.0 0.0 m couszu cuNNmNuzu
c.o C... To ”.3 To 9.2 C; o.o 93 ad ad 2 33%..
c.c c.c c.on o.c~ o.c o.oo o.o o.o o.oo o.o~ o.o m mcowumc
-NEOcoo NOOcom
mecca so 03%
c.o C... as T: as 0.3 o.o T: cam 0...: o.o ... 203.5528
NOOzom ONOch
c._ c.m m.c~ r.~m o.m m.mv o.- w.m~ c.om ~.o ~.c Nan ~m»O&

c_at» mecca w meson m messy N Esau N NNENN mums» muse» v mama» m mumw> N New» N mcmuuoawm

cute .3 m oz ouoe .o m mosmom

. No sagas:

mNNENN Esme w>Nuaoomcou snob euocwm e No sauces

 

 

 

 

ufl~l¢lullm 98¢ mJOOlUm d‘UuOOJOfiIF LO 09846. DI~IIH>OO LO

Aoc_uuoawm obsmom no momucoUNoa.

ID~>¢flm NO atlflb HIP ho GIO~F¢F~I~A Dl¢ IOFIfld

. laugh

 

161
of the term of the governing boards by denominational
grouping and by the three subgroups. No statistical
significance was found for a relationship between length
of term and denominational affiliation.

As shown in Table 8, 43.5 per cent of the boards did
not have a limit on the number of consecutive terms an
individual could serve as a voting member of the governing
board. Two consecutive terms was the limit imposed by 31.7
per cent of the boards. Of the remaining 24.8 per cent,
18.8 per cent had a three-term limit, a restriction of
four consecutive terms were requirements of 3.0 per cent of
the boards, and 1.0 per cent of the boards allowed five or
more consecutive terms. Statistical significance was
found at the .05 level for the relationship between denomi-
national affiliation and the limitation on the number of
consecutive terms allowed (F 2 3.348, df = 2.95, p g .0393).

Institutional requirements for the chief executive
officer and the chair of the governing board are summarized
in Table 9. Slightly less than half (49.5 per cent) of
all the theological schools and seminaries in this study
required that the chief executive officer of the institution
be a member of the clergy of the sponsoring denomination.
The majority of Catholic institutions (89.6 per cent) had
this requirement as compared with only 39.3 per cent of other

denominational schools. A significant difference at the

162

 

 

 

 

Na. w a .osmavmudnu a «ouoz

. NE NocoNuchEOcmc

a <..z a <.2 v we a (\2 1:02\u0uc~

. . . .om Nc UNN02umo easy

1 a m o m h. n Nozuo mcoNuecNeocuo

¢.m~ q.~> v.~s o.oc mu UNNOzuou

. (\2 NE Nocouumcue0cuc

<.z <.z v mv Ic02\umuc—

c.c c.o c.om o.om v coussu puuuca

«.ms v.~s v.- o.¢m om UNNOcumU

CAN SAN ...? ...: a 2.3023

c4, c.o NNN ..m. 2 ...—.2333:

c.c o.c o.mo «.mm m umNco:umz

c.c c.om o.om o.o N o-c0ccez

c.c o.c ~.~N v.vv a cmuecuaa

c.c c.c n.mm o.o m cusszu cm.um_s20

c.o c.o m.vm ~.~N “a unaummm

. . . .om m mcoNuocNEOcmo noesom

c c c o~ o 0' o couch so 039

.. . . . o o eONch.eo:oo

c c_ N N» o coN o m NOCzum oNocNm

b.vm h.o~ v.vm m.av nod acuOP
cCNDmCNEchc ccduchEOcmc ocNEOm canon ocwcHesoo cONuecNIOcep ocNCOmcomm oeNDNOQe.
chEOmcoom -coam ecu No xouwNu on» No sense: ocNuo> on» up >ouoNu on» no acumen
tee No .mUNNNo cm use No senses a Nana m on ou puuNauuu assess a on o» ceuusoou No .0963:

we ob assuage. on o» cmu_svou .uuNuuo osNuaoexm ueNcu nouNuuo esuusuuxm ueunu
Cchu canon CNmzu ounce

 

 

 

NocNuEOQom acumom no eunucoUNem.
uuunczulua GI:
«Joanna ecu—OOJOIIF 80L nhlllll~90fll can u xn<uu clean

a MAI‘F

 

 

163
.01 level was determined (chi-square = 32.005, df = 2,
p g_.0000). This requirement, however, was not applicable
to the inter/nondenominational subgroup of institutions.

No statistical significance at the .05 level was
determined for the relationship between affiliation and the
requirement of the chief executive officer to be a full
voting member of the governing board. Catholics had this
requirement in 72.4 per cent of their institutions while
denominations other than Catholic (47.5 per cent) and inter/
nondenominational institutions (45.4 per cent) required this
in less than half of their institutions. (See Table 9.)

Approximately one-quarter of the governing boards had
requirements concerning the status of the board chair.

The responses indicated that 26.7 per cent of the boards
prescribed that the chair be a member of the clergy of the
sponsoring denomination and 24.7 per cent required the
chair to be an officer of the sponsoring denomination or
religious body. Catholic institutions maintained these
requirements in about three-quarters of the institutions.
The majority (72.4 per cent) of the Catholic institutions
required the chair to be a clergyman of the sponsoring
denomination as compared with 9.8 per cent of other
denominations. A statistical difference existed at the .01
level (chi-square = 43.802, df = 2, p g .0000). Likewise,
75.8 per cent of the Catholic institutions required that

the chair of the governing board be an officer of the

164
sponsoring religious body or denomination, with statistical
significance at the .01 level (chi-square = 57.174, df =
2, p g_.0000). Denominational requirements were not appli-
cable to the nondenominational-inter/nondenominational

institutions.

STANDING COMMITTEES

Ninety-nine chief executive officers responded to the
question about the presence of standing committees in the
structure of their governing boards. Of the fourteen
committees listed, the Executive Committee (86.9 per cent),
and the Budget/Finance Committee (85.8 per cent), were the
two most frequently found committees on the governing
boards of theological schools and seminaries. A Committee
on Denomination/Church Relations was the least frequently
found committee (4.0 per cent).

Table 10 is a presentation by denominational groups
of the presence of these standing committees on the governing
boards of the institutions in this study. The committees
were tested for denominational-affiliation sensitivity. A
presentation of the percentages of institutions in each of
the three subgroups (Catholic, denominations other than
Catholic, and inter/nondenominational) and the statistical
significance are found in Table 10A. .

Seven of the fourteen committees listed showed some

level of statistical significance at the .05 or .01 levels.

165

 

 

~.m_ o.m~ m.vN o.m~ o.c o.oN o.o m.- c.o v.on o.o~ o.o «.mN muouuueeou bongo

o.cc~ c.oo~ p.00 o.co~ o.ooN o.oo~ o.om m.nm o.oo~ °.ocN o.oc~ o.oo~ o.oa omuuNeeou oswusooxm

w.pc c.om n.v~ o.om «.mv o.oo~ 0.0m m.sm w.ow o.mo c.om o.oa m.ov mwuuweeou ucosommcm:

uccum Nmumm>cm

~.mN o.o m.m o.mm m.m~ o.om o.o o.o o.o v.wm m.nm c.c~ ~.oN ooDDNEeou

couumuceuuo moumsue

v.o~ o.mn ~.oN o.om «.mv c.om o.om m.>n n.nm ~.o~ m.mn o.o m.a~ wwuuweeou .mucum

\>a~:omm. NoccOmsua

..oo o.mn v.wv o.m~ o.ooN «.mm o.oo~ m.~o o.oo ~.om o.oo o.oo s.oo wouu_eeou

>om~om comumoapm

~.m~ o.c N.~ o.o o.o o.mw o.o m.- m.mm ~.o o.m~ o.c ~.- wouuweeou m3m~>m

—.o o.m~ o.o o.mm o.o o.o o.o m.~N m.mm ~.o n.mn o.c N.o meuuNEEou mu0c0=

m.Nm o.ocN o.N~ o.oo~ FJNF m.mm o.o o.o n.nn v.om o.om c.o~ m.mv wouuuseou mcoNuecNeoz

«.mv c.o m." o.om ~.w~ o.om o.o o.o c.o ~.o~ o.om c.c~ ~.a~ mouumeeoo uupa<

N.e o.o o.o o.c N.a o.o~ o.o o.o o.c ~.o o.c c.c c.v wouuweeou mcomumgmx

cou:;U\coNuch20cuo

m.Nm o.oo~ o.~v o.mn n.~h o.oo~ o.om m.~m m.nm h.~h n.mm o.co o.mo wouugeeou ocqnumupcsm

~.mN o.c n.oN 0.0m ~.- o.m~ o.om c.o o.o n.h~ n.mn o.c ~.- mouumeeou mcuccmdm

m.vm o.cm «.mm o.ms v.om o.om o.om o.om m.nn v.mv n.mm o.co v.vv wouuNeeou

>omdom acepaum

c.ch c.ocN m.vo o.oo~ o.ooN o.ooN o.co~ o.mh o.ww c.oc~ o.ooN o.om, m.mo oouuqeeou

wocmcmm\uempsm

NE v an e NN o N m m AN 0 m on ocmuuomwz

moumon No doped:

Nnchumc zosazu UNNOLumu Nndoo cnmumu umdpo ouNcOc case nuuasu umflummm couumc sodas: Noyce mucosa-IOU
nNeoccc cwu_c: nmNQm nanmmum ices: ace: unusa coma nNEOceo nNEOceo
-coz nmuucu Noozom Neceum
saucN couch DNOcNm

Do 039

 

 

 

.wsauUSNNu euuuweeoo ocwuuoaeu ecucon uo eunucoouom.
alulclulum 98¢ naooaua J¢O~OOJOIIB no
nouccn azal¢n>00 nah no unlhhullou alunlchu

an

Inns!

 

 

166

 

.c. v a .m.o:7muNzu ..

 

 

 

- N.mN o.m~ n..N N.mN momsuNeeoo Nacho
"we. v a .¢.aavmuwzu . «muoz

.. o.coN w.wo h.oo m.wc waNNIEOU e>Nuaooxm

.. m..o N.wm n.vN m.oo wwuuseeou scoeooacnz

uceua Neomuana

«.mN o.- m.n ~.o~ eouuNseou

:ONNmucoNuo ooDnSEB

c v.wm w.om n.o~ n.o~ oouuwslou .uucum

\>uN=uem. descendam

.. N.co w.w~ v.0. s.aw oeuuNeeou

>uauon couueospm

N.NN N.Ne N.p N.NN moguls-cu uaoNNm

_.a o.NN o.o N.c ueuDNIIOU muoco=

.. m.~w o.om v.- m.mv owDLNEIOU ecoquecNIOZ

.. v.mv o.- n.n u.o~ sound-Goo uuoac

N.o m.c o.o c.v eouuNeeou acouumNem

cusseU\coNumeNe0ceo

o.~m c.oh o.N. o.No wasuNeaoo ucsmaosocaa

N.NN N.oN F.oN N.NN ouss_c¢oo acaccaNa

m.«m o.ov s.mn o.ve uwuuueeou

>oudom acepaum

.. o.ooN n.no m.vo o.ma oeuugeeou

mocmcum\uo003m

NN ow ow om ocauuomoz

moumon No wanes:

NacoNuchEOcoo 0NN02uou oNNozueu deuce aeeuuulinu
ocozxsuucN cog» sozuo
Necouuocueocoo

 

 

 

.moomuceONod cu.

minutiulla 08¢ ndOOluu J¢ULOOJOflIh LO afifldOl Ol~l¢fl>Ou LO
ufllhhullOU OIuOI‘Bn LIP LO Duuhddflt AleuhdlulctflO

‘9‘ Idldh

 

 

167
The chi-square for the seven committees having statistical
significance are:
(l) Budget/Finance (chi-square = 15.305, df = 2,
p £_.0005
(2) Adult (chi-square = 9.534, df = 2, p < .0085)
(3) Nominations (chi-square = 12.885, df = 2,
p i .0016)
(4) Education Policy (chi-square = 10.901, df = 2,
pp: .0043)
(5) Personnel (chi-square = 6.506, df = 2, p i .0386)
(6) Physical Plant (chi-square = 16.257, df = 2,
p g .0003)
(7) Executive (chi-square = 23.503, df = 2, 9.2 .0000)
It is interesting to note that of all the committees
which have a significant statistical sensitivity to deno-
minational affiliation, the Catholic subgroup consistently
had the smallest percentage of institutions with these

committees in their governance structure.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Catholic institutions had fewer governing boards
with Executive Committees than other denominational insti-
tutions or institutions which were inter/nondenominational
in nature (see Table 10A). Catholic institutions with
Executive Committees tended to have a smaller committee than
institutions of other denominations (see Table 11). The

size of the Executive Committee appeared to be sensitive to

168

 

no. v a .eumsvuiucu «ouoz

 

 

 

v.mv o.o ~.mN N.o ~.o~ N.o o.o m.cm ~.a ~.m m.n~ « v.a NN cho_uec.socap
1:02\.ouc~
m.N. N.~ ..NN a.oN o.NN N.N ..N o.o. A.N N.~N o.NN N.” am oNNossno cogs
bongo acouuchEOcoo
v.~v m.m v.m~ o.nN o.m o.o o.o o.on n.- o.w~ n.- o.v AN UNNo:umu
«.mv o.o «.oN N.o ~.cN ~.o 9.0 m.vm ~.a N.a n.>~ c.o NN choNum:NEOcop
ic02\uoucN
c.om o.o c.o o.m~ o.m~ c.o o.c o.om o.o c.om o.o o.o o scuszu poems:
v.Nc m.m v.¢~ w.hN m.m o.o o.c o.mm n.- o.o~ n.- m.v 5N UNNOzumu
o.om o.o o.m~ c.m~ o.o o.o °.o c.o o.c c.om o.om m.h v NmQOUmNQQ
N.NN 0.9 N.on N.NN N.a c.o c.o m.m. o.o o.a m.m. o.o NN cuesussnmuaa
o.om o.o o.o m.nm o.m~ o.o o.o o.ow o.c o.c n.nn o.oN w umNpoeuuz
o.cc~ o.o o.o o.o o.o o.o c.c o.o o.c 0.: o.oo~ 6.. N euNCOccot
m.o~ o.o m.o~ o.~v o.o o.c o.o a.~v o.c m.on m.o~ v.w A cauunusq
o.mm o.o n.nn o.o o.o o.o o.o o.oo m.nn c.o c.o e.o m gouazo cmNumNueu
v.mv N.a n.s~ N.o o.o N.o ~.o e.on o.o ~.n~ ~.n~ ~.o NH Suwanee
m.w~ o.o n.nn o.o o.cm o.o o.w~ o.ow o.o o.o o.oN o.n o mcomumcueo:wo Noozom
means so 039
o.om o.o o.o o.o~ o.o~ o.o o.o c.oo o.o o.o c.9v v.@ m mcouumcmeo:oo
Neanom mNoc_m
m.Nv m.~ ~.m~ c.o~ o.NN m.~ n.~ o.mv o.o N.o~ c.o~ m.h on Noyce

cacao >NNmacc< >~Nmscce xNumu ageueo: >Ncucoe sucuo puuoeNm paucNomac oNoNuuo um couuouw exam cue: ocuuuoaez

uNeem ..th0 ram a .ummc .ssoo .uuum acumen

cause: no dunes:

nunsoo

.ocNuuomos cannon uo couscouuom.
mocNNoo: ouuuNseou u>Nu=uoxm no aucosouuu

 

No:.uuomou upweon uo eunuceUHem.
coNuoeNemuneoNuooNu

 

 

anufldiulla OI‘ udOOBUB d¢U~OOJOIIF LO
nfllhhullOO fl>~hOUflxI LO nouhnulflrudltlu

Ad IAI‘F

 

 

169

denominational affiliation (F = 11.917, df = 2.83,
p i .0000) at the .01 level. The overall mean size of an
Executive Committee for theological schools and seminaries
was 7.5 members; for Catholic institutions, 4.8 members;
8.1 members for Executive Committees of institutions of
denominations other than Catholic and 9.4 members for inter/
nondenominational institutions.

There was no significant difference in the process of
selection or election to an Executive Committee nor the
frequency of Executive Committee meetings among the insti-

tutions of the three subgroups (see Table 11).

COMMITTEE AND BOARD ACTIVITIES

The frequency of board meetings, the average length
of a board meeting, committee meetings outside of board
meetings, continuing education and orientation of trustees
are the activities presented in Table 12.

The information that is noteworthy in this table is
found in the section of subgroup analyses. The Catholic
institutions on the average tended to meet for a shorter
period of time than the institutions of the other subgroups
(F = 15.655, df = 2.96, p): .0000). This difference was
significant at the .01 level.

There also was a statistically significant difference
by denomination for the activities of Continuing Education

and Trustee Orientation. (Continuing Education--

170

 

 

 

No. w a .o_uam-a .. "osoz

c.c c.c ..¢N N.o ..oN N.NN N.a v.wN ..on N.NN o.o NN Nuco_sacleocmc
1:02\swucN
c.c c.¢ N.NN o.cN o.NN .. o._ o.~ N.No w.oN w.oN m.N oo 0NNozsoo cogs
uwnuo mcofiuocufiophoo
¢.N c.c c.o N.CN N.NN N..o N.NN o.oN N.NN N.mm o.N mN uaNogsoo
c.c c.c v.0, N.o ..om N.oN N.o v.oN ..oN N.NN o.o NN Nacoauaceeocwc
uc02\uoucN
c.c c.c o.o o.cm o.mN o.mN o.o o.mN o.mN o.om o.o q cousgu cusses
c.N o.o o.o N.oN ..NN N..o N..N o.oN N.NN N.mN o.o NN oNNogsao
c.c c.c o.om o.mN o.mN o.o o.o °.mN o.om o.mN o.c . Naaoomsam
c.c c.c ..mv ..op N.NN o.o N.o N.NN N.a N.o o.o NN cuasouanmmaa
c.c o.c c.o N.NN o.om o.oN o.o o.om o.oN N.NN 0.0 a smNoOzsmz
c.c c.c o.cm o.om o.o o.o o.o o.om c.o o.cm o.c N uchOccux
o.c m.NN m.No o.mN o.o o.o o.o m.No o.o o.mN m.NN a cauocsaa
c.c o.c o.c N.NN N.NN N.NN o.o N.NN o.wo o.o o.c N couazo coNNmaaco
c.c ..o N.NN ..oN N.NN N.o o.o N.NN N.o N.a o.o NN NNNNQom
c.c o.o~ o.om c.0N o.oN o.o o.o o.ooN o.o o.o o.o a acoNsocaaocwo
~OO£Om Owns? ...O 039
c.c o.cN c.cN o.o c.0N o.ov o.o o.co o.o. o.o o.o m acoauucaeocwo
NOOcum ech_m
c._ _.. N.NN N.NN N.NN N.¢N o.¢ m.om N.oN N.NN c.N as Noses

.ozuc wNac N A mxuc N m>mo N‘N-N Nae N Nun an NNNoscc< NNNmsccs door < NNumusmso use» < chDNOQom

uNeom uoeNh n moswa o acumen

no Noneaz

moc_umo: canom No guocmu momuosc nocNueo: assoc no Nocoaoesm

 

 

 

 

Nocuuuoams mnemoo No omeucouuoa.

alufl¢lullm 98¢ “JOOIUM dtU—UOJONIF LO

ul~h~>~h0¢ OldOfl OI‘ Iflhk~llOU

Nu Idndfi

 

 

171

 

 

 

Ne. w 9 .oumsvmuN:o 4 Nova:

o.om c.o o.o o.oN o.ov . o.oo . o.on o.om NN NocouuchEOeoc
n:02\uoucN
o._m N.mN o.N o.o o.oN o.mn o.mo N.Nv om UNNOzumu ems»
uozuo acoNuchIOeeo
o.mc m.oN ¢.o o.o N.NN o.Nn N.oN o.ve oN ONNOgunu
c.cm o.o o.o o.oN o.ov o.oo o.ON o.om NN NocouuocNEOeoo
icoz\uou=N
o.mN o.mN o.o o.o c.om o.mN o.mN o.mh v souszu pouNca
o.om N.oN o.o o.o N.NN c.Nn N.oN c..e oN oNNo:umu
cam 98 o6 o.o OS 92. 9% 93 . Noaooflam
0.2.. N.NN N... o.o o6 N.NN. N.NN ....N... 2 52333....
N.NN o.om o.o o.o o.cN N.NN m.na N.No o uuN902uoz
o.cc~ o.o o.o o.o 9.9 0.92 9.9 9.2: N euacoccm:
m.nm o.o m.NN o.o o.om m.>c o.ms m.NN o cmuozusa
o.oc_ o.o o.o o.o o.o w.ow N.NN o.o m eonszu cmNumNusu
4...; N4: N.NN o.o N.NN 92: ...; Tom 2 0232.
c.0c o.o o.w~ o.o o.oN o.ow o.cm o.o w acONDncNeoeoo
Noocom ounce so 039
m.m¢ c.o o.oN o.o o.oN N.NN N.NN N.NN m acoNuocNeocoo
Noo;om oNOcNM
o.om o.vN N.o o.N o.oN e.Nw m.Nm v.av am ‘ Noses

codum: uwzuo muse» n mumox N NNNascc< couuoucuNuo couueusca nocauouz canon um ocuuuoaoz .

:Nm>m oz Num>m >u~>m moansab ocuscNucou can» segue noeNu um acumen
ooamsue «causes: oeuuNeeou uo Nunez:
coNuuaNmsonNNom oNaOm

 

 

 

 

.ocNuNOQuu upseon No emeuceONea.
ununclullm 99¢ 9990909 Adanuoaoalh LO
mauhnbuhuc 93:99 9" IIhHNIIOO

aposcuucoo. Nu IAIGF

 

 

172

chi-square 16.755, df

2, p g_.0002 and Orientation--

chi—square 17.580, df 2, p < .0002).

Overall, about half (50.5 per cent) of the governing
boards met semiannually. There seemed to be a fairly even
split over the average length of a board meeting with
about one—quarter of the boards averaging each of one-half
day meetings (26.3 per cent), one day meetings (23.2 per
cent), one and one-half day meetings (22.2 per cent), and
two day meetings (23.2 per cent). Almost half (49.4 per
cent) of the boards had committee meetings at times other
than when the full board is scheduled to meet. Of all
boards of theological schools, 52.5 per cent were engaged
in some form of continuing education program for trustees,
while 62.6 per cent had special orientation programs for
new board members. Catholic institutions had fewer boards
that provide continuing education and orientation programs
for their board members than the institutions in the other
two subgroups.

It should be noted that more than half (56.6 per
cent) of all boards did not engage in self-evaluation.
This was a variable that was not sensitive to denominational

affiliation.

BOARD PARTICIPATION
The survey instrument listed thirty-one activities,
and the respondents were asked to check those activities

for which their governing boards had a history of active

173

 

 

N.NN c.mN a.pm 0.9m v.om o.c_ c.om N.NN N.NN m.vm o.om o.om m.mv mowuooc so.
moc_~e1_:o 3w_>cm
m._m c.om m.qv o.om o.Nm o.om o.oo~ o.om o.oo o.oa N.NN m.nm c.mw ESNSUNNESD
on» No No>cszm<
o.co o.mN N.mm o.om N.NN N.NN 9.0m o.oo~ w.oo o.no o.om N.Nm a.o> asNaoN..:u
was No so_>oz
unnumuu< Duloveuc
c.cc~ c.om c.Nm o.cv o.om o.ooN c.ooN N.NN o.oo o.oo o.co~ N.NN a.mo m¢NNN>Nuoa
ocNm_nuccsu
c.coN o.oo~ o.No o.cm o.ooN N.NN o.om m.mm o.oo~ a.oa c.cc~ N.NN m.mm mecsmcua
ocNmNcutcsu m>osma<
c.co~ o.mN m.oN o.om o.oo~ N.NN o.oo~ m.mm o.co~ o.ocN o.oo~ N.NN m.om meacocud
ocNmNchczu 3w_>ez
m.Nx o.co~ m.mo o.ooN o.ooN o.ooN o.ooN N.NN o.co~ o.oa c.ch o.cc~ v.mm >uuwdcua .0 onm so
co_u_m_=qom o>csam<
o.ocN o.oo~ o.mo o.ocN m.~m o.oo~ o.ooN o.co~ o.ooN N.NN w.wo o.ocN v.9m mcoNNa>0cmN
ucmNm Nnowm>cm
m.Nm c.oc~ o.NN o.cm N.NN o.ooN o.om N.NN w.wo N.NN N.NN c.mo o.oo meNONNoa acme
cumc>:N No Nm>ouda<
m.Nm c.ooN m.vm o.ooN N.NN N.Nm c.0oN N.Nr o.wo o.oa w.eo m.mc o.¢o chc_Noa News
. numo>:_ NC scN>mm
c.oc_ o.ocN m.oo o.ch o.oo_ o.oo~ o.ooN o.coN o.oo~ o.oc~ c.ch o.oc— c.om Decca; No Nm>cumac
o.cc~ o.mN m.o¢ o.oo~ o.oa N.Nm o.ooN o.oc~ o.oo~ o.oo N.NN o.ch N.vm Deccan No Imm>om
Nuuamuu<
Neuucmcqm\uuopsn
Ne v oN m NN o N o N NN e w NcN oc_s.caom
meant: No sense:
Noco_umc gouazu UNNOLDmu deoo :MNqu umdpo wu_c0c case zouszu ammummm cCNNm: CONDmc Noyce cc_uma_c.usma
)_Echc waNc: umNQm nmnmosa uzuox ucoz Ices; com» uNEcceo -Neocca m>NNcn No csooms a
(:02 nm_ucu doesom NOOzum w>mz acumen o:_cst>cv
\ucucu amaze wNOcNm co_:3 c_ mc_u_>_uu<
No 03%

 

 

 

.ocmucoaeu acumen No oomucoouwav

mflufltlutflm alt mJOOIOu d‘U—OOJOBIF LO
mO¢¢On 02~I¢fl>OO HIP in IOnh‘LnUuhl‘L fl>u90¢ LO ruchmuu flab

flu Mandi

 

 

1'74

 

 

o.co o.oc~ N.mv o.ow . . . . . . a o.om n.no o.NN couumspmua sou
o oo o ooN 9 cm m mm o ooN o c moumpmccmo o>oN99<
N.NN o.mN N.NN o.o N.oN o.wN o.o N.NN 9.9 v.wn o.ee c.om N.NN coNumapmuo Non
mwumcwccmo sousez
o.o o.c o.o . . . . . . .a c.c o.oN o.. =o_socso.o soc
o c o o o c o o N NN o o N nouocwpcmu usoumm<
c.e o.o ..N o.o o.o o.o o.o N.NN o.c N.a a.sN 0.9N ¢.m coasascmeuo sou
muumcmpcmo stsez
N.NN o.om N.mm o.os N. N N. . o . . . o.om c.e°N N.Nm mosukNoa
N mm o o N N Nb m an n NN ucepaum o>oumm<
m.~m o.mN o.No o.cm o.Na c.0s o.om N.NN N.NN m..m o.coN N.NN o.os aoNoNNoa
acupaum season
Nauamuuc unspeaa
o.co o.mp N.om o.oo N.NN N.NN o.om N.NN o.ow N.NN o.coN N.NN m.NN :oNsou
uNcosooo sou nmuooum
ecu cu coNueaNumuumm
o.mo o.cm «.mv c.oo o.no o.wo o.ooN . . . N.NN w.oo n.cm newsman you mocNN
o oo o coN m em nocNao No Nc>WN99<
Aconcaucoo.
Nau‘euuc 0. event
.1 . oN m NN o N a N NN o o NON ocssuoaoa
«canon No Dunes:
NecCNDmc cosanu oNNo;umu Namoo ca_uou umuco ouNcoc cube nunszu umuummm CONDec coNuoc Noyce couquNoNuNum
-_Eo:oc chNc: nmNQm uxnmwsm uzuwz new: issue cmNu umeoceo nNIOcoo e>Nuoo no puoouu m
ucoz (mango Neceom Acacum use: upsmon ochuosom
rsmucN mouse eNocNm cums: cm meNDN>Nu04
No 039

 

 

 

.ocNuNOQe. upseon no eunuceUNoQ.
nuuzclutfia 9I< 9300909 econoOaORIh LO

mnfldOn Olnlflfl>OO Huh ra IO~N¢L~U~FI<L I>~fi0¢ LO VKOFONI Ink

.eoachcoo. NN semen

 

 

17S

 

 

c.ccd o.oc~ n.c~ c.cm o.oo~ o.oo~ o.ooa 0.00 o.oo~ o.oo~ n.n0 m.n0 o.mh Mango cuuom uuu~m
0.~0 c.om 0.m# c.oo~ 0.00 «.mm o.om 0.00 0.00 0.n0 m.m0 0.00 v.~m uuauucoo

0.0000000 o>uusuwxm

0w‘zo 00 ~u>oummn
can comuafiuomoz

o.co o.oo~ v.0. o.co~ 0.m0 o.oo~ o.co~ o.oo~ m.nn 0.0a o.om m.n0 0.nh vocasuouuum

n.0ao.0uo

w>_u:ooxm 000:0
0:0 00 ucwemmonm<

c.cc# c.oc~ fi.na o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ o.Om 0.00 c.oo~ a.co o.co~ m.m0 ~.v« nooguuo

u>wuauvxm 00030

00 ucoaucuommo

can :o_uoo~0m

0.m0 o.oo~ 0.00 0.00 m.em n.mm o.oo~ 0.00 0.00 0.n0 m.mn 0.00 0.00 soonvccz
>uaaomu o>oumm<

0.m0 o.om 0.00 o.o0 o.mv n.nn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.cm 0.00 «.00 sooncco:
>ufiaou0 30a>u¢

0.m0 o.mn o.~m o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ o.co~ 0.~0 o.co~ n.n0 0.05 mcoquEOHQ
>unaoa0 o>ouam<

m.qm o.mh n.~v o.om 0.m0 0.00 o.om o.oo~ 0.00 r.- o.oo~ 0.00 ~.m0 mcouuoeoum
>u~30¢0 30.:0:

o.cc~ o.oc~ 0.00 o.co~ o.cc~ o.oo~ c.oo~ o.oo~ o.co~ c.co~ 0.n0 o.co~ m.m0 mucoaucuommu
auusunu o>0unn<

o.oo o.m~ s.~m o.om 0.n0 o.om o.om o.oo~ 0.00 h.~s o.oo~ 0.00 0.50 muc~20cuommo
>u~auo0 zua>om
unuuauut unaccounn
2 v 2 m 2 0 N a n S o 0 2: 9.2.2:...
acumen 00 gonna:
~uco_unc couazu ouaocuou dumoo co.uwu unwoo auucoc coum couazu uuuumum cofiuac couuac deuce coauumaoquuom
udEOCmc nwu~ca um_am u>nmcum usuu: new: :2034 and» -060cvo -020cvo u>muou 00 @0000. a
nccz uwuunu docsum acacom u>az acumen ocucuo>Om
mouse «docum 50.53 c_ mo_um>‘uo<

no 039

 

 

 

.ocfiuuoamu uvuaon 00 «unaccouon.
«laud-ulfla and neoclua J¢U~QOJOIIB no
nadcon aluldn>oo nah um IO~h<a~u~hI¢m lbthC no unchunn nah

Acmscuucou. nu Idldfi

 

 

176

 

 

m.co o.ms 0.05 o.oo— a.oo o.co~ o.om N.- m.nn 0.vm m.m0 o.¢m 0.~h ucw50_:uomu mmumsub
o.oc~ o.oo~ n.~m o.oo~ $.00 o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ c.cc~ o.oo~ o.co~ ~.vo mco~Q
wmcuunocod o>oumm<
o.oc~ 0.05 v.~n o.oo~ 0.~0 n.m0 o.om o.oo~ n.nn o.oo c.ooH o.oc~ 0.00 mcaum
oocaunocou Jum>om
o.oo~ o.oo~ 0.00 o.om o.oo~ «.mm o.oo~ 0.00 0.00” o.oo~ 0.00 n.m0 m.~a mumoo can
cowmm_l u>oqu<
o.oo~ o.ms m.o~ o.co~ h.~> n.m0 c.om 0.00 0.0 a.oo m.m0 m.n0 0.~0 m~ooo can
comma“: 00 300>o¢
o.om o.oo~ ~.00 o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ o.oo~ 0.00 o.co~ o.oo c.oo~ 0.00 n.0a cowuaudumcm 0:» new
fiasco as» 00 mzodxn
cu mwocaco o>ouam<
«unencumbou
: v 2 m 2 0 N a n 2 ... ... 2: 9.3.2.2.
mvuuom 00 .00232
~nco_umc couscu um~ocumu ~omou couuuu undue ou.coc cuua gausnu umaumum coupe: couumc dauOE comummgowuuum
-2656 votes -....Em 33mm; -52. new: -53 ca: ..Eocwo $19.8 2,32. 00 0.83 a
:50: unuusu floccum deanom w>mc mcuaon o:_ch>oo
\hwucm wwu;e ouocwm :u_:3 cw mmwu.>.uo<
no 039

 

 

 

nocuuuoaou acumen 00 coaucoUHoa.
«must-utuu and udoouoa acuuuoaoalh no

mnztcn Olullfl>00 ll? rn l0~h¢m~0~hl¢h l’nhbl DO thfiuun Huh

Avwacuucouv nu IAQ‘F

 

 

177

participation. One hundred and three boards responded
to this question and the results of their responses have been
organized into five categories, which are presented in
Tables 13 and 13A. .The categories are: Budget/Financial
Affairs, Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Personnel
Affairs and Governance. Seventeen of the activities
listed were sensitive to denominational affiliation at the
.05 or .01 level of statistical significance (see Table 13a).

Overall, the percentage of boards involved in budgetary
or financial affairs was higher than for any of the other
five categories. The activities listed under the category
of Student Affairs seemed to have a smaller percentage of
boards actively participating. The governing boards of
theological schools and seminaries had a history of fairly
active involvement in the governance of the institution
and the development of the institutional mission and
goals. The activities listed in the Governance category
had a 94.2 per cent to a 71.8 per cent rate of
participation. This was the second most active category in
the list of activities.

Of the Seventeen activities listed as being sensitive
to denominational affiliation (see Table 13A), six of
these activities were found in the Budget/Financial Affairs

listing.

178

 

 

 

 

I ~.- ~.o. o.~n m.o. moo.ooc .o.
_c. v a .oeoaumnazo .c u0c0~ocw=o 30.:02
I 0.~m v.- a... . I: so unau
“mo. v a .wuaaumu_:u . ”muoz . o 00 as» 00-0M0unm<
. o.oa 0..» ~.mm o.os sumaomuuau
one 00 3o0>ox
.nuaouuc o~uoeau¢
.. o.oo~ o.om o.~m o.o0 nogum>uuoo
ocumwouccam
o.oo~ m.oa c.~0 m.mo aaa.ooua
ocumuuuccau o>ouma<
o.oo~ o.~a n.an n.a0 muouuouq
ocuuuouoeau toa>o¢
.. 0.00 «.mm 0.00 v.00 xuuamoua 0o «dun no
couuuuqsvuo «>0umo4
. o.co~ 0.00 o.c0 v.00 acouua>ocou
acoua ~oo_u>sm
.. ¢.~0 o.co 0.n~ 0.00 moauuaoo use:
numo>:« no ~a>0uaa<
.. 0.00 ~.cm n.0n o.o0 wowoudoa acme
uuuo>cw 00 3ou>o¢
o.oo~ c.oo~ m.0¢ o.aa uoooan 0o ~u>otmm<
. o.oos o.~o m.0a «..o uumcan .o sumac:
.Ium-uuc
~n.oea=.m\uouoan
as no on nos ac_u.oaue
wouoom 00 Hanna:
dacofiuocMEOcov ou~0nuou u.~o:uau nuuofi couuaaaumuuam
ucozxumuc~ can» .0200 u>0uoo 00 above. a
ucofiuoc.locoo «so: «canon oc~c~o>oa
200:3 c. am_uw>~uo<

 

 

 

.oc.uuonou acumen uo ououcoOHOQ.
un~l¢lulflm 93¢ neoclua AtquOJOBlh no
mn¢¢cn ulnlflfl>ao Ink no lO—h‘hnunhitm I>nhu¢ .0 unabuul air
so a~ana¢l¢ A¢I0~h1I~IOlIa

‘nn Idl‘h

 

 

 

a .ccmavmu0zu .«

a .mtaaom-czu . ”wuoz o.oo o.o0 «.0. 0.- co.aa=cn.o .oe
muunowccao 0>oumm<

 

 

1'79

«.00 0.0~ 0.n~ m.m~ 0000000000 000
mouo0_0eou ao0>om

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000000000 .00
. mouocwccuo v>ouam<

0.0 0.n 0.n 0.0 comuaucuMuo 000
0000000000 rwm>m¢

N.NB 5.00 0.00 «.am uo_oasoa
ucocaum 0>ounm<

m._a 0.00 c.~o a.00 au0000om
acocaum 300>wm

«000.00: acocau0
0.00 0.00 «.00 0.m0 cofiuou
umvouoon .00 0000000

on» :. 0000000000000

0.m0 . 0.00 0.00 n.00 0000000 000 00:00
nocuao 00 ~u>oumm<

.0000000000
”and-00¢ Guinean:

 

#0 m0 a~ n00 ocguuomum
00.000 00 000502

~ocowumcweococ 00005000 00~Ozuuo deuce cowuoa_uwu.mm
scoz.umuc~ can» .0000 0:000» 00 above“ a
acomuucfleOcoQ o>mn mcuuon ocflcua>oo

‘00:: ca no.u_>_»o<

 

 

.mcuuuoao. 000000 00 oooucuUHoav
00000.0:00 084 0000000 AdUuuoaoulh no
000060 0I~I¢I>OO 000 pa Icahcmuu~hutm u>~0u< 0O ~0090~0 000
no 0~0u442< a130~0<IuIOlnn

.cwDCuucouv ‘nu Idndk

 

 

 

180

 

0 .000=00-0;o ..

m .000000n050 a 00002

 

cc O.oo~

00 0.n0

00 0.00

0.00~

cc 0.m0

cc 0.00

c. o.0o~

ad

0.n0 h.0~
~.00 0.n~

m0 0w

~0~

ham—0U Uuflom uuwum

00000000
0.0000000 0>00ao0xm
00000 00 ~0>00000
0:0 00000000002

00002000000
0.0000000
0:00:0000 00000
020 00 000300000<

0000000
0>00ao0x0 00050
00 0:020:00000
0:0 000000000

0000000;
>0~=u00 0>0000<

0002000;
>0~0000 300>00

0000005000
>0—so00 0>0000<

0000005000
>000000 300>00

000050000000
>0gso00 0>o000<

000050000000
>000000 300>00

0000000< 000000000

000000000
000000 00 0002::

 

~0co0000020:00
ccozx00uc~

00000000 u0~osuuo
00:0 00:00
0:0000c050c00

 

unuOE

0000000000000

0>0uu0 00 000000 0
0>0z 000000 000:00>00
200:: :0 00000>00o<

 

 

0000000000 000000 00 0000000000.
0u~l¢l~lfl0 02¢ 0000000 a¢0~0000000 00

008‘00 Olullfl>00 Iflh kn IOuh‘huDuhldm I>~PU¢ hO rlDbuuu lab

00 m~mra¢l¢ A‘IONFCIuIOIfln

.0000000000 ‘nd laugh

 

 

 

V

VI

0 .00asumu0no ..

0 .000000-000 c 00002

 

 

1E3].

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 00050000000 0000009

.. 0.000 0.00 5.«0 «.00 000—0
00:00:000~ 0>0000<

0.000 0.50 v.«5 0.00 00000
00:00:0000 300>0m

0.00a 0.00 0.00 m.~0 00000 000
0000006 0>o000<

0.000 0.05 0.05 0.00 0~000 000
000000: 00 300>0m

0.00 0.m0 «.00 0.00 00000000000 000 0:0
00000 000 00 030~>0
:0 0000000 0>0000<

 

00000000000
00 m0 0« 000 000000000

. 000000 00 000002
00000000050c00 00000000 00000000 00009 0000000000000
ucoz\000c~ :00» 00000 0>0000 00 000000 0
0000000020000 0>00 000000 000000>00

000;: :0 00000>00o¢

 

 

 

.000000000 000000 00 0000000000.
0d~¢<l~lfl0 01‘ 0400000 ddUuUOJOflIB no
000400 alulllbbe Ink #0 lOuh‘hnUuhI‘h I>~BQ¢ ho NBOFOMB ink
00 0~0u0¢l¢ d4lOnk¢lulOlfln

0005:00coo. 0mg 04049

 

 

They are:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

182

Review of investment policies (chi-square = 24.094,
df = 2, p i .0000)

Approval of investment policies (chi-square =
26.580, df = 2, p g .0000)

Physical plant renovation (chi-square = 8.272,
df = 2, p g .0160)

Acquisition or sale of property (chi-square =
14.063. df = 2, p £.°°008)

Approve fund raising programs (chi-square =
14.063. df = 2, p i .0009)

Fund-raising activities (chi-square = 28.656.

df = 2, p g .0000)

Seven of the seventeen were found in the Personnel

category:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Review faculty appointments (chi-square = 6.519.
df = 2, p‘g .0384)

Approve faculty appointments (chi-square =
43.812, df = 2, p g .0000)

Review faculty promotions (chi-square = 9.802.
df 2, p13 .0074)

Approve faculty promotions (chi-square = 33.479,
df = 2, p g .0000)

Assessment of the Chief Executive Officer (chi-

square = 13.920, df = 2, p i .0009)

(6)

(7)

183

Negotiation and approval of Chief Executive

Officer's Contract (chi—square = 24.236, df 2,
p g .0000)
Elect the Board Chair (chi-square = 59.030,

df = 2, p‘g .0000)

The remaining activities are scattered among the

other three categories--two in Academic Affairs and one in

both Student Affairs and Governance.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Review curriculum (chi-square = 6.026, df = 2,

p g .0491)

Approve curriculum (chi-square = 7.704. df 2,
p g .0212)

Approve candidate for graduation (chi-square =
12.748. df = 2, p'i .0017)

Approve long-range plans (chi-square = 9.632:

df 3 2' p S- 00081)

It is important to note that of all the activities

listed in Table 13a that are sensitive to denominational

affiliation, the governing boards of Catholic institutions

report a smaller proportion of their boards actively involved

in these activities than either the institutions of denomi—

nations other than Catholic or of institutions which are

interdenominational or nondenominational.

SUMMARY

The data, which was collected through a survey instru-

ment specifically designed for this study (see Appendix D),

184
was organized and presented in the form of tables. The
narrative which accompanied these tables highlighted the
significant findings of this study.

The overall survey response rate was 75.16 per cent
while the net response rate was 69.80 per cent. This rate
was judged adequate for analysis. The responses to the
survey instrument were reported for individual denominational
groups and for three denominational subgroups, Catholic,
denominations other than Catholic and inter/nondenominational
institutions.

The size and occupancy level of the institutions were
noted for each denomination and for the three subgroups.
Statistical significance for the size and occupancy level
of the governing board was reported.

The demographic characteristics of the voting members
of the governing boards of these institutions were organized
to profile a typical member of one of these boards..
Likewise, a demographic profile was developed for each of
the subgroups and differences were noted.

Tables 4, 4A and the accompanying narrative contained
data concerning the primary occupations of the voting
members of the governing boards. The narrative highlighted
the significant findings of the study with regard to this
variable as well as denominational differences.

It was noted that some of the voting members of these

governing boards served on the governing boards of other

185
institutions and on the boards of corporations. A presen-
tation regarding multiple board membership was made in
Tables 5 and 5A.

The relationship between denominational funding and
fund-raising activities was the subject of Table 6 and its
accompanying narrative. In addition,the election and
selection process of board members was presented and
discussed, with denominational differences being noted.

No statistically significant differences were found to
exist between denominational subgroups for neither the
length nor the limitations of board membership.

The board committee structure, the activities of these
committees and the board itself were presented and illus-
trated in a number of tables, (see Tables lO-l3A).

Throughout this chapter, the investigator presented
detailed tables containing the data collected for this
investigation and highlighted the significant findings of

this study.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION

This study was designed and executed to investigate
and characterize trusteeship as it is exercised by the
governing boards of accredited theological schools and
seminaries in the United States.

An extensive review of literature pertinent to the
topic was conducted and presented in Chapter II of this
study. The review of the literature provided the framework
around which the study was developed. Three major topical
areas were covered in this review: the governance of
institutions of American higher education; theological
education; and the trusteeship of theological schools and
seminaries in the United States.

From the review of the literature emerged evidence
that there was a noticeable lack of documentation of the
existing characteristics, structures and activities of the
governing boards of these institutions. As a result, this
study was designed to be foundational and descriptive.
Specifically, this study was aimed at developing a represen-

tative profile of governing boards of accredited institutions

186

187
of theological education in this country. The data obtained
through the use of a survey instrument was organized by
denominational groups so that comparisons could be made by
denominational affiliation. The chief executive officers
of these institutions reported on the characteristics,
structures and actions of their governing boards.

Prior to this investigation, several specialized and
limited studies had been conducted; however, none of them
provided the foundational information that is contained in
this study.

Thus, the significance of this study lies in that it
was foundational in nature and provided the basic information
necessary for future research.

A survey methodology was chosen to collect the infor-
mation needed to provide the necessary documentation of‘
the characteristics, structures and activities of the
governing boards of institutions of theological education
(see Chapter III for complete details).

The survey instrument was developed to investigate
the following research questions:

(1) Is the institution free standing; does it have

an independent governing board?

(2) What is the relationship of the institution to

the sponsoring body/denomination?

(3) What is the composition of the membership of

188
the governing board of theological education
(occupation, level of education, etc.)?

(4) Who are the trustees; how are they chosen; and

how long may they serve as members of the board?

(5) What is the size of the governing board, and how

often does it meet?

(6) What structures exist to facilitate the governing

board's trusteeship, (i.e., does the board
employ a committee system)?

(7) In what activities does the governing board

participate, (i.e., policy formation, election
of board members, appointment of the president,
etc.)?

The chief executive officers from 134 post-baccalaureate
theological schools and seminaries, representing forty-three ‘
denominations, plus the chief executive officers of fifteen
inter/nondenominational institutions constituted the
population of this study. The institutions in the population

of this study were selected from the 1984 ATS Bulletin,

 

which is the directory of theological institutions accredited
by the Association of Theological Schools in the United
States and Canada.

The survey instrument was mailed on November 20, 1984,
to the chief executive officers of the institutions included

in this study. All survey instruments that were returned

189
to the investigator on or before January 11, 1985, consti-
tuted the total response group.

Of the 149 institutions contained in the study's
population, 112 chief executive officers of these insti-
tutions responded to the survey instrument. Of the 112
instruments returned, 104 (69.8 per cent) contained
sufficient information for analysis.

The data was organized according to denominational
groups and three denominational subgroups: Catholic,
denominations other than Catholic and inter/nondenominational
institutions. The responses were analyzed on the Michigan
State University Cyber 170/750 computer using the Statistical

Package for the Social Science.1

 

The study was conducted under the following limitations:
(1) The investigation was designed as a study of
the issues of educational governance in insti-
tutions of theological education and not as a study
of theological issues;
(2) The study was concerned with the character-
istics, structures and activities of the governing
board of theological schools and seminaries and,
therefore, was limited in its ability to report
on the rationale and theology that underpins the

mission of these institutions.

 

m ——-—
1*— ..-

1Norman E. Nie, et. al., Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences, 2d ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975).

 

190
(3) The study was a descriptive study and not
designed to report on the quality or efficiency
of the boards of the stated institutions.
Noted in this study, however, is the influence that the
traditions and practices of individual denominations
may have on the characteristics, structures and activities
of the theological institutions of a particular denomination.
The data collected from the survey instrument was
presented in Chapter IV through the use of tables and
discussion. The significant findings were highlighted by
the narrative that accompanied each of the tables. The
major findings, conclusions and implications of this study

are discussed in the following section.

MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this investigation are discussed
below under the headings of the research questions which
were used to develop this study.
Question 1: Is the institution free standing; does it

have an independent governing board?

The survey instrument, designed for this study, included
an item that requested the respondents to indicate whether
or not their institutions were governed by either a Board
of Trustees or a Board of Directors. Of the 112 institutions
responding, 105 answered this item in the affirmative,
seven failed to respond, and none of the respondents

answered negatively to this question. Given that there

191
were no exceptions and that the response rate for this
question was relatively high (70.5 per cent), a conclusion
can be reached that the theological schools and seminaries
of this study are free-standing institutions and are
governed by an independent governing board as defined in
Chapter I of this study. Futhermore, if one accepts that
the population of this study was a representative sample
of the accredited theological schools and seminaries of
this country, then one can conclude that the majority of
accredited free-standing institutions of theological
education in this country are governed by independent
governing boards.
Question 2: What is the relationship of the institution to
the sponsoring body/denomination?

A number of items included in the survey instrument were
designed to elicit information to answer this question.
In Tables 4 and 4A of Chapter IV, the primary occupation of
41.8 per cent of the voting members of the governing
boards of these institutions was reported to be church-
related. This is an indication of denominational involvement
in these institutions. However, there is insufficient data
to conclude that a direct relationship existed between a
voting member of the governing board having a primary
occupation in church-related work and a denominational/
institutional relationship. A board member who was reported

as having a primary occupation in church work could be

192
employed by one denomination and serve on the board of a
theological school or seminary for another denomination.

The election/selection process by which an individual
becomes a member of a governing board of a theological
school or seminary was reported in Chapter IV in Tables 7
and 7A. Two-thirds of the governing boards reported that
some, if not all of their members, were appointed to the
governing boards by an appointing agent from outside the
institution.

An indication of denominational influence and control
of theological schools and seminaries was evident in the
data collected regarding this process of election/selection.
The majority of Catholic governing boards, surveyed in
this study, contained members who were appointed to serve
on the board by an agent from outside the institution,
rather than by the board itself. The predominant appointing
agent for Catholic boards was either the bishop of the
diocese or the religious superior of the sponsoring
community. A real difference existed in this regard
between Catholic institutions and inter/nondenominational
institutions which reported that 81.8 per cent of their
institutional governing boards were self-perpetuating.

The national or regional synod or convention played
an important role in appointing individuals to serve as

members of the governing boards of institutions in the

— .——... ~

 

.. _

subgroup of denominations other than Catholic. The regional

193
or national synod or convention was not reported as an
important element in the election/selection process of
board members for either of the other two groups.

The reported requirements for the chief executive
officers and the board chairs gave additional information
regarding the relationship of denominations to the insti-
tutions in question. The majority of Catholic institutions
had requirements mandating that the chief executive officer
and the chair of the board be members of the clergy of the
sponsoring denomination or officers of the denomination
(see Table 9 in Chapter IV).

Another indication of denominational influence and
control is manifested in the findings on the funding of
these institutions. In general, Catholic institutions had
a greater reliance on denominational subsidies than did
other institutions in this study. As presented in Table 6
of Chapter IV, Catholic institutions received 47.5 per
cent of their funds from denominational sources while
institutions of denominations other than Catholic received
23.4 per cent and inter/denominational institutions received
1.9 per cent of funds from denominational subsidies. This
is one more indicator of the type of relationship that
exists between denominations and the institutions they
sponsor.

There are a number of indications in the findings of

this study that lead to the conclusion that despite the

194
fact that the majority of the institutions in this study
are governed by independent boards, the relationship that
exists between an institution of theological education and
its sponsoring denomination is one of influence and control.
The denominations influence the boards by having as members
on the board those who work for the church or are officers
of the church and by requiring that the board chair or
chief executive officer be a member of the clergy and/or
an officer of the sponsoring denomination. Denominations
also exercise control over the institutions by the process
of selection/election of new board members and by determining
the amount of denominational subsidy that an institution
will receive.
Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that the Catholic

Church exercises a greater degree of control and influence
over its seminaries and theological schools than did other
denominations over their institutions of theological
education. This conclusion can be supported by the fact
that the Catholic Church controls a greater amount of the
financial resources of its institutions, appointed members
of the governing boards of these institutions, had more
institutions with denominational requirements for their
board chairs and chief executive officers, and had more
board members working for the church than did other denom-

inations.

195
Question 3: What is the current composition of the governing
boards of theological education?

Through the findings of this study, a profile was
determined of a typical member of the governing boards of
the theological schools and seminaries surveyed in this
study. General characteristics include: white, male,
college educated and over forty years old.

This trustee profile is similar to the general trustee
profile that was reported in 1977 by Irene Gomberg and
Frank Astelsek for members of the governing boards of
American colleges and universities. Gomberg and Atelsek
found that 85 per cent of the trustees of American institu—
tions of higher education were male, 93 per cent were
white, 90 per cent were over forty years old, and 90 per
cent of all trustees were reported to hold at least a
baccalaureate degree.2

In general, the composition of governing boards for
inter/nondenominational institutions contained more females
and minorities than could be found on governing boards of
either Catholic institutions or institutions with other
denominational affiliations. Real differences, as well as

differences with statistical significance, existed in the

 

2Irene L. Gomberg and Frank J. Atelsek, Composition of
College and University Governing Boards, Higher Education
Panel Reports, no. 35 (Washington, D.C.: American Council
on Education, 1977), p. 4.

 

196

racial composition of the governing boards of the institu-
tions in this study when compared by denominational affil-
iation. For example, Catholic boards reported that 96.7
per cent of their members were white compared with 66.3
per cent for inter/nondenominational boards, and 92.7 per
cent for institutions of denominations other than Catholic.

Only 14.2 per cent of the members of the governing
boards examined in this study were female. Lutheran
institutions had the highest percentage of women serving
on their boards (22.0 per cent) and institutions of the
Christian Church had the smallest percentage of women
serving (6.5 per cent). Overall, Catholic institutions
tended to have a smaller percentage of women serving as
governing board members than did institutions of denomi-
nations other than Catholic or inter/nondenominational
institutions. While a statistical significance was reported,
and it seems unlikely that the reported difference was by
chance, there did not seem to be a real difference in the
number of females serving as board members among the three
denominational subgroups.' The level of participation by
females in the board structures of these institutions was
low for all the institutions included in this study.

As a whole, the educational level of the governing
board members for all institutions surveyed in ths study
was found to be high, yet there were several notable excep-

tions: institutions which were the sole theological school

197
or seminary for a denomination reported that 15.6 per cent
of their members possessed only a high school diploma,
compared with an overall rate of 2.7 per cent for all the
governing board members of this study. Also, a statistical
significance existed in the percentage of board members
who held a baccalaureate degree. There was a real difference
in the number of board members from denominations other
than Catholic who were reported as having obtained a
bachelor of arts or bachelor of science degree than for
the number reported for either Catholic or inter/nondenomi-
national institutions. Denominations other than Catholic
indicated that 27.2 per cent of their members earned
degrees no higher than the baccalaureate level as compared
with 10.9 per cent for Catholic boards and 13.2 per cent
for boards of inter/nondenominational institutions.
Statistical significance also was noted for board members
who were reported as having professional degrees; however,
upon examination, no real difference existed (see Table
3A, Chapter IV).

Overall, 67.3 per cent of the voting members of these
boards had post-baccalaureate degrees. The survey responses
indicated that 85.4 per cent of the members of Catholic
boards had post-baccalaureate degrees compared with 61.3
per cent for the members of the governing boards of institu-
tions of denominations other than Catholic and 51.0 per

cent for members of the governing boards of inter/nondenomi-

198
national institutions. This level of post-graduate education
was substantially higher than the rate of 32 per cent that
was reported by Gomberg and Atelsek in 1977 for the members
of the governing boards of American colleges and
universities.3

As was noted in Chapter IV, the educational level for
35.2 per cent of the members of inter/nondenominational
boards was not reported. Therefore, no conclusions about
the educational level of board members by the comparison
of denominational subgroups are possible.

Statistical significance also was found when the
members of the governing boards were compared by age.
However, upon examination of the data, no real difference
existed. Each of the subgroups used for comparison (see
Table 3A, Chapter IV) reported relatively the same age
distribution. The average age of a member of the governing
boards was reported to be forty years and above. The
largest age group was found to be fifty to fifty-nine years
old for each of the subgroups. Again, no possible conclu-
-sions can be drawn from this data because of the high rate
of incomplete data for the inter/nondenominational subgroup.

Examination of the demographic findings of this
investigation indicated that at the time that this study

was conducted, the composition of the governing boards of

 

3Ibid.

199
these institutions was very homogeneous in regard to race,-
sex, age and educational level.

This finding was contrary to the ideal regarding the
composition of the governing board adovated by Robert Gale
in his work, "Selecting and Deploying Trustees" in the
Handbook of College and University Trusteeship (1980), and
by Dayton Hultgren and Mary Bigelow McMillan in their
chapter contained in The Good Steward: A Guide to Theological
School Trusteeship (1983). The implications of these
findings are discussed in the next section of this chapter.

The primary occupation of board members was presented
in Tables 4 and 4A of Chapter IV. Catholic institutions
had more board members whose primary occupations were
classified as church-related than any other denomination.
When the three subgroups were compared on the number of
members whose primary occupation was reported as church-
related, statistical significance was noted. This statis-
tical significance was an indication of a real difference
in the percentage of board members who work for the church
in the Catholic subgroup as compared with those in the
inter/nondenominational subgroups.

The institutions of denominations other than Catholic
and the inter/nondenominational institutions reported
twice as large a percentage of their board members having
primary occupations described as being in the business

field than those of the Catholic subgroup. This finding

200
could be related to the role that the governing board plays
in securing finances from sources other than from the
sponsoring denomination.

From these findings, it can be concluded that the
overall composition of the governing boards of theological
schools and seminaries was homogeneous in regard to race,
age, gender and level of education; and nearly identical
to the profile of trustees of American colleges and univer-
sities as reported by Gomberg and Atelsek. No conclusions
are posited regarding the primary occupation of the governing
board members.

Question 4: Who are the trustees; how are they chosen; and
how long may they serve as members of the board?

The trustees of the governing boards of these insti-
tutions are chosen to serve in a variety of ways. The
data regarding the process of election/selection was
presented in Chapter IV, Tables 7 and 7A and was discussed
earlier in Question 2 regarding the relationship of the
denomination to theological schools and seminaries.

Table 8 in Chapter IV was a presentation of the
length and limitations of the term of service of governing
boards of theological schools and seminaries. There were
no significant findings in this area and no conclusions to
be drawn. The data gathered to respond to this question
is a simple matter of reporting the facts, which are: that

the average length of a single term was three or more

201
years; and that a two-term limit was the most common
limitation reported for those boards indicating limiting
restrictions on the number of consecutive terms allowed.
Question 5: What is the size of the governing board; and
how often does it meet?

The governing boards of Catholic institutions have
smaller memberships (average of 14.8 members) than the
boards of institutions with either no denominational
affiliation (average of 27.2 members) or a denominational
affiliation other than Catholic. The institutions which
have either no denominational or multidenominational
affiliations reported the largest boards (average of 31.7
members).

No conclusions can be drawn about the size of the
governing board from these facts alone; however, compiled
with several other findings, a conclusion may be suggested.

As reported in the discussion of Question 2, Catholic
institutions have a greater reliance on denominational
subsidies than do institutions which have either no denomi-
national or multidenominational affiliations. In Question
3, the findings of this study regarding the primary
occupation of board members was discussed. It was noted
that inter/nondemoninational institutions had more board
members who were from the field of business than Catholic
institutions, and Catholic institutions had more members

whose primary occupation was church related. Also it

202
should be noted that 100 per cent of the boards of inter/
nondenominational institutions were active in fund-raising
activities compared with 31 per cent of Catholilc boards,
(see Table 6, Chapter IV).

All these findings together begin to suggest the
conclusion that the size of the governing board of an
institution of theological education is related to the
board's responsibilities for securing financial resources
from sources outside the institution and/or the denomination.

As Francis Pray noted in "Trustees Must be Ambas-
sadors,'4 the members of a governing board of any institution
of higher education has an important role to play in the
institution's ability to attract financial support from a
variety of sources which are outside the institution or
sponsoring agency. Therefore, institutions with limited
denominational subsidies have no alternative but to mount
a substantial fund-raising effort. This takes manpower
and expertise. These institutions need larger governing
boards and boards which have a strong representation of
the business community among their membership. Therefore,
it may be reasonably concluded that size of the governing
board was related to sources of funding.

There are no great differences in the frequency of

board meetings when compared by denominational subgroups.

 

,4Francis C. Pray, “Trustees Must be Ambassadors,“ in
Trustees Role in Advancement, see Frantzreb 1981, pp. l3-l6.

203

Catholic boards, however, meet for shorter periods of time

than the boards of the other two subgroups. Of Catholic

boards, 64.3 per cent have meetings that last on an average
of one-half day.

Question 6: What structures exist to facilitate the governing
board's trusteeship, (i.e., does the board
employ a committee system)?

All of the governing boards under examination in this
study reported the existence of a committee structure.

The results of the information gathered regarding committee

structures and activities are reported in Chapter IV, in

Tables 10 through 12 and the accompanying narrative.

Interestingly, in every category listed in Table 10A
of Chapter IV, Catholic institutions reported fewer com-
mittees than did the institutions of either of the other
two subgroups. For instance, only 64.3 per cent of the

Catholic institutions that provided information about

their committee structure reported the presence of a

budget/finance committee on their board as compared with

93.3 per cent of the institutions of denominations other

than Catholic, and 100 per cent of the boards of inter/non—

denominational institutions. Also, the mean size of the
executive committees on Catholic boards was smaller than
for that of the other two subgroups.

About half (52.5 per cent) of all boards reported

having continuing education programs for their board

204
members, and 56.6 per cent of all boards reported they did
not participate in self-evaluation programs. Catholic
boards had a lower percentage of boards with trustee
continuing education programs (20.7 per cent) and a higher
percentage of boards reporting that they did not participate
in any self-evaluation programs (68.9 per cent) than
either of the other two subgroups. Again, the findings
indicate that Catholic boards differ in aspects of their
operations and structures from those of other denominations.

The presence, or lack of, the presence of a committee
within the structure of the governing boards of these
institutions may be related to the institution's and/or to
the sponsoring denomination's understanding of the role of
the governing board. However, the data collected through
this investigation only allows for speculation in this
matter; no conclusions can be drawn from the findings
about committee structures.

However, the lack of trustee continuing education and
board self-evaluation programs is a matter of a different
sort. These findings clearly indicate that there was a
lack in this formative process of trustee and board
development.

The lack of a strong commitment to continuing education
and board self-evaluation programs by institutions of
theological education is similar to the situation that

exists in other types of institutions of American

205

higher education. This fact was noted in the literature

and a discussion of this topic was presented in Chapter II

of this study.

Question 7: In what activities does the governing board
participate, (i.e., policy formation, election
of members, appointment of the president, etc.)?

The history of active participation in the activities
of governance by these boards was presented in Chapter IV
in Tables 13 and 13A.

The role of the governing boards of the three denomi-
national subgroups was investigated and differences of
'statistical significance were found for seventeen out of
thirty-six board activities. In all but one activity, the
boards of Catholic institutions vary in their level of
reported involvement when compared with the governing boards
of the institutions in the other subgroups. For example,
only 65.5 per cent of the Catholic institutions reported that
their boards have had an active role in the process of the
acquisition or the sale of property as compared with 95.2
per cent for the institutions of denominations other than
Catholic and 81.8 per cent for inter/nondenominational
institutions. The reason for the lack of involvement by
Catholic boards in this example could be due to the Catholic
Church's ownership of seminary property. However, this
type of speculation regarding the causes for involvement,

or lack of, involvement by the governing boards of the

206
institutions of this study goes beyond the intent and
scope of the investigation.

All denominations reported a relatively high level of
participation by their governing boards in financial and
personnel activities of the institutions, but a lower
level of participation in the areas of academics and
student affairs. For example, overall, 99 per cent of the
boards of this study indicated their active involvement in
the approval of the institution's budget compared with 65
per cent of the institutions reporting that they approved
the curriculum of the institution, and 59.2 per cent of the
boards of the institutions approved student life policies.
This pattern of participation may be an indication that
the members of the governing boards view their principal
roles as being trustees of the financial resources of an
institution, rather than serving as the stewards of the
mission of the institution.

The findings of this study suggest that the activities,
structure, characteristics, and role of the governing boards
of Catholic institutions of theological education are
unlike those of other theological schools and seminaries.
Furthermore, the understanding and exercising of the role
of the governing board in the life of theological schools
and seminaries in this country has not yet achieved the
level of sophistication and complexity that was outlined

and advocated in the literature reviewed in Chapter II of

207

this study. An indication that this trend will continue

was found in the fact, as discussed in Question 6, that a

small percentage of boards reported active involvement in

evaluation and continuing education programs.

To summarize, the conclusions that can be drawn from

the major findings of this study are:

(l)

(2)

(3)

The relationship that exists between denominations
and institutions of theological education is one
of influence and control and that Catholic
institutions were subject to a greater degree of
denominational control and influence than insti-
tutions of other denominations;

The composition of the governing boards of

the theological schools and seminaries in this
study were found to be demographically homogeneous
and were similar to the characteristics of the
governing boards of American colleges and univer-
sities as reported by Gomberg and Atelsek in

1977.

That the primary occupation of the members of

the governing boards was found to be related

to how the principle role of the governing board
was understood by the institution and the spon-
soring denomination. Institutions with sponsoring
denominations exercising a high degree of denomi-

national influence and control tend to have more

208

board members with primary occupations that are
church-related than institutions with an alternate
view of the primary role of the governing board.
Therefore, the governing boards of these insti-
tutions are different than the governing boards
of institutions of other denominations.

(4) The activities of the governing boards of
these institutions reflected an understanding of
the role of trusteeship that was inconsistent
with the understandings that were advocated by the
authors of the literature reviewed and reported

in Chapter II of this study.

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The composition of the governing boards of theological
schools and seminaries was found to be inconsistent with
the composition of society in general and of the churches
that sponsor these institutions in particular. The
homogeneous nature of the governing boards of these
institutions, it could be argued, biases the decisions and
activities of these boards.

John W. Nason, a noted author on the subject of
institutional trusteeship contends that:

A truly effective board is more likely to be

composed of individuals who bring diverse exper-

iences, talents, and attitudes to the resolution

of institutional problems.

Colleges and universities need trustees with

different professional skills to advise administrative
officers where to turn for sound advice. They need

209

trustees with different experiences and different

backgrounds to hammer out a sensible meeting of

minds. The more complex the institution, the more

important it becomes to distill a collective decision

from the views of people familiar with different

phases of its many operations and understanding of

its different constituencies.5
If one were to agree with Nason, the goal of interested
parties should be to bring about a diversification of the
composition of the governing boards of this country's
theological schools and seminaries. The governing boards
of these institutions should examine their composition and
develop ways by which a more representative body may be
formed.

If one accepts the argument posited by Robert
K. Greenleaf in Seminary as Servant: Essays on Trusteeship
(1983), that theological schools and seminaries have a
role to play in leading and shaping society, and that at
the present time these institutions are failing in their
mission because of a marginal self-image, and that the
initiative for changing this situation rests with the
governing boards of these institutions, then one would

advocate that society must be concerned about the effective-

ness and efficiency of the governing boards of these

 

5John W. Nason, The Nature of Trusteeship: The Role
and Responsibilities of College and University Boards
(Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1982), p. 57.

210
institutions. One way that has been suggested to improve
the effectiveness of these boards is to improve the
diversification of the membership of these boards.
However, diversification alone is no guarantee for improved
effectiveness. Coupled with a diverse viewpoint, commitment
plus an informed understanding of the role of the trustee
in the governance of educational institutions and the
unique mission of theological schools and seminaries are
characteristics necessary for the board members to be
effective in the governance of these institutions.

No judgment is being made concerning the quality of
stewardship that is presently being exercised by these
boards. However, a board which is comprised of like-
minded individuals may not be as sensitive to the needs of
the people the institution should be serving nor be the
dynamic force for leadership that is needed to help these

institutions fulfill their missions.

The primary occupation of the majority of Catholic
board members was, as noted earlier, church-related.
While this arrangement helps to maintain denominational
influence and control, it may not be the best environment
for the development of theological schools and seminaries
as educational institutions. It is recommended that
Catholic boards should not only diversify their membership

by racial and gender characteristics but also accommodate

211

for a variety of occupational backgrounds on their insti-
tutional boards. This could be done relatively easily by
the expansion of the size of the governing boards of
Catholic institutions which, as reported earlier, are
relatively small. This expansion could provide an oppor-
tunity for diversification.

Evidence has been presented in this study that indicates
that the understanding of the role of the governing board
in the life of the institutions of theological education
by members of the boards and the administration of these
institutions is not always consistant with the understanding
advocated in the literature reported in Chapter II of
this study. This coupled with the reported lack of
continuing education and board self-evaluation programs
should be of great concern to both church leaders and
theological educators. Left unattended, this condition
will hamper the development of these institutions, the
fulfillment of the institutions' missions, and manifestation
of the kind of stewardship required of these governing
boards.

There seems to have exist a relationship between
the size of the governing board and the amount of finances
that the institution receives from outside sources. The
size of the governing boards of institutions of theological

education maybe influenced by the institution's dependency

212
on the ability of its board members to attract finances
from sources other than the sponsoring denomination.

As was noted earlier, a prevailing view of the primary
role of the governing board is to serve as the trustees of
the financial resources of these institutions. While
the role of the governing board in assuming the financial
health and stability of an institution should not be
minimized, it should not become an all-consuming role.
Robert Lynn, a noted author in the area of religious
education and vice president of the religious division of
the Lilly Endowment, has written:

Any negligence in attending to these matters [that is,

financial matters] could eventually undermine even

the finest work of a board in meeting other

challenges.6
However, other authors warn of the consequences of becoming
overly concerned with the financial affairs of the insti-
tution to the neglect of the other duties and responsi-
bilities that are encumbent upon governing boards. An
informed and clear understanding of the nature and duties
of trusteeship in theological schools and seminaries is

needed by those who serve as members of the governing

boards of these institutions.

 

6Robert WOod Lynn, "The Responsibilities of Stewardship,”
in The Good Steward: A Guide to Theological School Truste-
eship by the Association ofiGoverning Boards of Universities
Colleges (Washington, D. C.: Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1983.

213

The role of the trustee is of paramount importance in
these institutions and in society. Robert K. Greenleaf
expressed this view when he wrote:

As I see it, there is no other way that as few people

can raise the quality of the whole American society

as far and as fast as can trustees and directors of
our voluntary institutions, using the strength they
now have in the positions they now hold.7

In 1982, the Carnegie Commission called for a renewal
of leadership in our institutions of higher education.
This renewal is impossible unless those in positions of
leadership understand their role, the missions of their
institutions, and the challenges that serve them.

Therefore, each governing board should develop ongoing
educational and self-evaluation programs. This should be
done with the aid of professional consultants, educators and
theologians.

Furthermore, each board must examine its bylaws and
board structures to determine what changes, if any, are
needed to fulfill the role of the governing board as
advocated in the literature concerning the trusteeship of
higher educational institutions. In addition, a deter-
mination must be made by each institution as to what
constitutes denominational requirements, what are outmoded

traditions and structures, and what ways can further improve-

ments in the structures and responsibilities of these

 

7Nason, The Nature of Trusteeship, p. 12.

214
boards be fostered. For example, Catholic institutions must

conform to The Code of Canon Law which is an international

 

body of directives. Therefore, an institution within the
Catholic structure cannot develop a governing board based
simply on the principles that are advocated by educators.
However, church leaders should have an appreciation of the
workings of the governing boards of higher education, and
they should develop accordingly the denominational require-
ments for institutions of theological education.

The substance of the recommendations of this study

can be distilled into the following three statements:

(1) The composition of the governing boards should
be diversified to insure a broader representation
of all constituencies perspective on the issues
and a broader ;

(2) The education of governing board members and
church leaders regarding the role of trustees in
institutions of higher education and the unique
nature and mission of theological schools and
seminaries is essential for the continuing
evolution of these boards;

(3) A critical self-evaluation of the characteristics,
structures and activities of the governing
boards of these institutions and their relationship

to their sponsoring denominations should be under-

215
taken to further the development of these

institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The purpose of this study was to form a foundation

upon which further research could be conducted. To that

end, the following recommendations‘are made to serve as a

basis for future research that:

(1)

(2)

(3)

A replication of this study he conducted in

five years in order to document changes and
trends that may have developed in the evolution
of the governing boards of theological schools and
seminaries. It is further recommended that the
survey instrument be redesigned to clarify some
of the ambigious items, specifically the items
designed to elicit information regarding the
religious status of the members of the governing
boards.

A cross validation of this study be

done through an investigation that would seek
the same information from a random sample of the
members of the governing boards of institutions
that were used in this study.

A study be designed and executed to determine
the attitudes and commitment of the individual
board members of these institutions. Do the

members of these governing boards have the

216
expertise and commitment necessary to fulfill
the obligations and duties encumbent upon the
stewardship of theological education? If not,
why not, and how could this be changed?

(6) The findings presented in this study be compared
and contrasted with the findings of an updated
study version of Gomberg's and Atelsek's 1977
study. (Anticipate the completion of an updated

study to be presented in the Fall of 1985.)

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

This study was the initial step in documentation of
the characteristics, structures and activities of the
governing boards of theological schools and seminaries in
the United States. Continued research is needed to examine
trusteeship of accredited theological schools and seminaries
in the United States--an area of higher education that
deserves further exploration. This was a beginning.

The role of the trustee in institutions of theological
education is one of stewardship. To fulfill the obligations
of this stewardship, trustees, the institutions they serve,
and the churches they represent must work together to
understand and promote the unique mission and nature of
theological institutions of higher education. Although
denominational concerns must, at times, give way to edu-
cational matters, trustees should not lose sight of their

responsibilities to foster educational development. In

217
the same vein, financial concerns cannot be the primary
consumer of a governing board's time. Passive trusteeship
of a seminary or theological school must give way to the
active stewardship, institutional mission and denominational
character.

The survival of an institution and the fulfillment of
its mission will be determined by the collective decisions
and activities of the trustees. Therefore, it is encumbent
upon the members of the governing boards of these insti-
tutions to be adequately prepared and enthusiastic in the
fulfillment of duties of trusteeship. It is hoped that
this presentation will be of assistance in developing and
encouraging trusteeship in the institutions of theological

education in this country.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, S.J., Walter M. The Documents of Vatican II. n.p.:
America Press, 1966.

 

Allen, Elliott B. ”Divinity School Governance Within Univer-
sity Structures: A Private Canadian Perspective.”
Theological Education 12 (Fall 1975): 36-39.

Altbach, Philip G. and Berdahl, Robert 0., eds. Higher
Education in American Society. Buffalo, N.Y.:
Prometheus Books, 1981.

 

American Association of University Personnel. "College and
University Government.“ AAUP (September 1968): 325-56.

Anderson, Charles J. Census of Governing Boards of Four- Year
Colleges and Universities. U. S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. Washington, D. C.: Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1969.
Microfilm.

 

Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Model Bylaws for Independent Colleges. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges, 1977. Microfilm.

. Recommendations for Improving Trustee Selec-
tion in Private Colleges and Universities. A Report
from the National Commission on College and University
Trustee Selection. Washington, D. C.: Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1980.
Microfilm.

. The Board's Role in Accreditation. AGB Pocket
Publications, no. 14. Washington, D.C.: Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1982.

. The Good Steward: A Guide to Theological School
Trusteeship. Washington, D. C.: Assoc1ation of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1983.

 

. Presidents Make a Difference. Strengthening
Leadership in Colleges andiUniversities. Washington,
D. C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges, 1984.

Axelrod, Nancy R. A Guide for New Trustees. AGB Pocket
Publications, no. 9. Washington, D.C.: Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1982.

 

218

219

Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, Ca:
Wadsworth PubliShing Co., 1973.

 

Bailey, Stephen K. "What Price Survival?" AGB Reports.
(November-December 1980): 6-12.

 

Batson, C. Daniel and Wyckoff, D. Campbell. "An Alternative
Model for Ministerial Education. Theological Edu-
cation 9 (Winter 1973): 100-111.

 

Baumgaertner, William L. "Accountability to Church and
State.“ In The Good Steward, by Association of
Governing Boards of'UniverSities and Colleges, 111-119.
Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1983.

 

. ”The Role of Trustees in Seminaries." AGB Reports
(May-June, 1983): 16-19.

 

Bean, Altherton. “The Liberal Arts College Trustee's Next
20 Years.“ AGB Reports 17 (May-June, 1975): 34-43.

 

Bell, Laird. "From the Trustees' Corner.“ Association of
American Colleges Bulletin 42 (1956): 353-61.

 

 

Borg, Walter R. and Gall, Meredith Damien. Educational
Research: An Introduction, 3d ed. New York: Longman,
1979.

 

Bottoms, Robert G. “The Seminary Board and Fund Raising.”
In The Good Steward, by Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 77-84. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges 1983.

Brealey, Richard and Myers, Stewart. Principles of Corporate
Finance, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.

Burns, Gerald P., ed. Administrators in Higher Education:
Their Functions and CoordinatiOn. New York: Harper and
Row, 1962.

 

. Trustees in Higher Education: Their_Functions and
Coordination. n.p.: Independent Cdllege Funds of
America, 1966.

 

Cameron, Kim. "Strategic Responses to Conditions of Decline:
Higher Education and the Private Sector.” Journal of
Higher Education 54 (July-August, 1983): 359-80.

 

 

220

Canon Law Society of America. Code of Canon Law. Latin-
English Edition. Washington, D.C.: Canon Law Soc1ety
of America, 1983.

Carman, Harry J. "Boards of Trustees and Regents.” In
Administrators in Higher Education, edited by
GeraId P. Burns, 79-98. New Yofk: Harper and Row,
1962.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 223
Control of the Campus: A Report on the Governance
gf Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1982.

Chait, Richard P. ”Setting Tenure and Personnel Policies.”
In Handbook of College and University Trgsteeship, by
Ric ar T. Ingram et aid, 210-244. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1980.

Chait, Richard P. and Ford, Andrew T. The Tenure Issgg.
AGB Pocket Publications, no. 7. Washington, D.C.:
Assaciation of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 1977.

 

Cleary, Robert E. l‘Institutional Factors Affecting Trustee-
President Authority Relations." Paper Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study
of Higher Education, Washington, D.C., March 1980.

Corson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960 .

Cowley, W. H. Presidents, Professors and Trustees.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. -

Deem, Warren H. "Evaluation Criteria for Seminary Governing
Boards.“ Theological Education 10 (Winter 1974): 73-78.

Delworth, Ursula; Hanson, Gary R. and Assoc. Student Ser-
vices: A Handbook for the Profession. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1981.

 

Dillard, Badgett. ”Financial and Physical Asset Manage-
ment." In The Good Steward, by Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 101-108.
Washington D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1983.

Dorsey, Rhoda M. "Engaging in Institutional Planning."
hiHandbook of College and University Trusteeship,
by Richard T. Ingram et al., 145-72. San
Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1980.

221

. Institutional Planning. AGB Pocket Publications,
no. 11. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1984.

Duke University. The Board of Trustees Interim Report of
the Commissionl on University Governance. Bethesda, Md.:
ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 040 655, 1970.

 

 

Ebben, James A. ”Institutional Vitality: Up Against the
Eighties.” Occasional Papers 5 (Summer 1979): 30-32.

Fisher, Ben C. ”Summary of Findings on Organization of
Boards of Trustees of Accredited Theological Seminaries
in the United States and Canada." Wake Forest, N.C.:
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1981.

Fox, Sr. Marie. Changes in Relationships Between Governin
Boards of Cathol1c Colleges and Universities and T
Sponsoring Religious Bodies. Ph.D. diss., Florida
State University, 1974.

 

 

 

Frantzreb, Arthur C. "Secret Ingredients of.a Chairperson."
AGB Reports 18 (September-October 1976): 48.

. "Advancement is Seldom Accidental." In Trustees
Role in Advancement, by Arthur C. Frantzreb, ed.,
49-60. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.

, ed. Trustee's Role in Adgancement. New Directions
for Institutional Advancement Series, no. 14. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.

Froyd, Milton C. “What's Happening Among Governing Boards
of Theological Schools." Theological Education 9
(Winter 1972): 137-45.

 

Gale, Robert L. Building a More Effective Board. AGB Pocket
Publications, no. 10. Washington, D.C.: Association
of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1980.

. "Selecting and Deploying Trustees." In Handbook
of College and UniversityT rusteeship, by Richard

Ingram et al., 47- 62. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1980.

Gomberg, Irene L. and Atelsek, Frank J. Composition of
College and University Governing Boards. H1g er
Education Panel Reports, no. 35. Amer1can Council on
Education, Washington, D. C., August 1977. Microfilm.

222

Greenfield, Larry L. "Trusteeship and Administration.“ In
The Good Steward, by Association of Governing Boards
ofiUniversities and Colleges, 11-29. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges, 1983.

 

Greenleaf, Robert K. Seminary as Servant: Essays on
Trusteeship. Petersborough, N.H.: Windy Row Press,
1983.

 

. "Trustee Traditions and Expectations." In The
Good Steward, by Association of Governing Boards 5?—
Universities and Colleges, 129-35. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Govering Boards of Universities
and Colleges, 1983.

Grindel, John A. "Purpose in Roman Catholic Seminaries: In
a Diocesan Seminary." Theological Education (Spring
1978): 74-78.

 

Guardo, Carol J. ”Defining the Mission of a University.“
Case Currents (September 1982): 24-27.

Gummere, John F. "Tasks of Today's Trustees.” Independent
School Bulletin 32 (October 1972): 57-60.

 

Hayes, Edward L. "Educational Strategies in Theological
Education.“ Theological Education 15 (Autumn 1978):
33-47.

Hesburgh, C.S.C., Theodore. “Preparing for the Millennium."
Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education 3 (Winter
1983): 10-14.

Hough, Joseph C., Jr. ”The Education of Practical Theo-
logians.“ Theological Education 20 (Spring 1984): 55-84.

Houle, Cyril O. The Effective Board. New York: Association
Press, 1966. -

Hofstadter, Richard and Smith, Wilson, eds. American Higher
Education: A Documentary History. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1961.

 

Hruby, Norbert J. "What You Need to Know About Public Re-
lations." In The Good Steward, by Association of
Governing Boardsof Universities and Colleges, 121-26.
Washington D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1983.

223

Hultgren, Dayton and McMillan, Mary Bigelow. "Trustee
Selection, Recruitment, Development and Assessment."
In The Good Steward, by Association of Governing
Boards of Un1vers1ties and Colleges, 47-56. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges, 1983.

Ingram, Richard T. "Assuring Trustee Orientation and
Development." In Handbook of College and University
Trusteeship, by Richard T. Ingram, et al., 87-100.
San Franc1sco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

. "Toward Effective Trusteeship for the Eighties.”
In Handbgok of College and University Trusteeship, by
Richard T. Ingram, et al., 1-13. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1980.

. ”Ahead for the Church-Related College.”
AGB Reports 23 (July-August 1981): 33-36.

. Trustee Orientation and Development Programs.
AGB Pocket Publications, no. 2. Washington, D.C.:
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 1981.

. "Trusteeship in the Church-Related College in
the 80's.“ Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education
2 (Summer 1981): 32-37.

Ingram, Richard T., et al. Handbook of Colle e and Uni-
versity Trusteeship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I980.
Jones, Lawrence N. 'A Reflection on Theological Education

for the Whole Church.“ Theological Education 14 (Spring
1978): 93-99.

 

 

Keller, George. "A Change in Plans: The View From Four Col-
leges.” Change (March 1983): 34-43.

Kerr, Clark. "Trustee Job Assignments." AGB Reports 16
(1974): 2.

Lynn, Robert W. "The Responsibilities of Stewardship." In
The Good Steward, by Association of Governing Boards
Of Universities and Colleges, 1-9. Washington,
D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of Universities
and Colleges, 1983.

 

McCord, James I. ”The Understanding of Purpose in a Seminary
Closely Related to the Church.” Theological Education
14 (Spring 1978): 59-66.

224

. “The Seminary Enterprise: An Appraisal.“ Theo-
logical Education 17 (Autumn 1980): 53-58.

McElvaney, William K. “Multilateral Brokerage in Gov-
ernance.“ Theological Education 12 (Fall 1975): 7-13.

Martin, Harold C. “Trustees and Academic Policy.“ AGB
Reports 17 (1974): 10-20.

Meyerson, Martin. “Overseeing Academic Programs.“ In
Handbook of College and Uniyersity Trusteeship, by
R1chard T. Ingram et al., 173-88. San Franc1sco:
Jossey-Bass, 1980.

Miller, William Charles. The Governancegf Theological
Education: A Case Study of Nazarene Theological
Seminary, 1945-1976. P .D. diss., Kent State
University, 1983.

Mortimer, Kenneth P. and McConnell, T. R. Sharin Authority
Effectively. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I978.

 

 

Muller, Steven. “The Purposes of the Independent Insti-
tution.“ Educational Record 56 (Summer 1975): 145-48.

Munitz, Barry. “Measuring a President's Performance.“ AGB
Reports 18 (January-February 1976): 36-40.

. “Strengthening Institutional Leadership.“ New
Directions for Higher Education 22 (1978): 11-21.

Nason, John W. “Responsibilities of the Governing Board.“
In Handbook of College and University Trusteeship, by
Richard T. Ingram et al., 27-46. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1980.

 

. “Selecting the Chief Executive.“ In Handbook
of College and University Trusteeship, by Richard
T. Ingram et al., 118-144. San Franc1sco: Jossey-
Bass, 1980.

. The Nature of Trusteeship: The§ole and Respon-
sibilities of College and University Boards.
Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1982.

. Trustee Responsibilities. AGB Pocket Pub-
l1cations, no. 1. Washington, D.C.: Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1984.

 

225

Nelson, Charles A. “Managing Resources.“ In Handbook of
College and University Trusteeship, by Richard T. Ingram
et al., 330-62. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

. Trustees and Resource Management. AGB Pocket
Publications, no. 6. Washington, D.C.: Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1982.

 

Nelson, Charles A. and Turk, Frederick J. “Some Facts About
Trustees.“ AGB Reports 16 (April 1974): 3-9.

 

Newman, Mary Elizabeth. Trustee-Corporation Colloquium: A
Communication Model. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document
Reproduction Servide, ED 180 478, 1979.

 

 

 

 

Nie, Norman E., et a1. Statistical Package for The Social
Sciences, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,ii975.

 

Niebuhr, H. Richard. The Purpose of the Church and its
Ministry: Reflection on the Aims of Theological Edu-
cation. New York: Harper and Row, 1956.

 

 

 

O'Neill, Joseph P. and Barnett, Samuel. Colleges and Cor-
porate Change: Merger, Bankruptcy, and Closure.
Princeton, N.J.: Conference-University Press, 1980.

 

. “Check Your College's Vital Signs.“ AGB Reports
23 (May-June 1981): 36-41.

 

Pacala, Leon. “Reflection on the State of Theological
Education in the 19805.“ Theological Education 18
(Autumn 1981): 9-42.

 

. “ATS and the Corporate Imperatives of Theological
Education.“ Theological Education 19 (Autumn 1982):
62-720

 

Painter, Gerald L. and Brown, Raymond Bryan. “Student Power
and Governance.“ Theological Education 12 (Autumn
1970): 47-48.

 

Palmer, Parker J. To Know We Are Known: A Spirituality of
Education. San Francisco: Harper and Row,’l983.

 

 

Paltridge, James Gilbert. “Studying Board Effectiveness.“
In Handbook of College and UniyersityTEusteeship, by
Richard T. Ingram et al., 363-76. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1980.

 

Parks, Sharon. “Contemporary Challenges to Issues of Voca-
tional Preparation.“ Theological Education 19 (Autumn
1982): 99-107.

 

226

Perlman, Daniel H. College and University Governing
Boards in the United States. Bethesda, Md.: ERIC
Document Reproduction Service, ED 067 063, 1972.

 

 

 

Peterson, Walter F. “Effects of Faculty Unionization on
Seminary Governance as Seen by a President.“ Theo-
logical Education 12 (Fall 1975): 24-27.

Pocock, John W. “Reporting Finances.“ In Handbookg£
College and University Trusteeship, by Richard T.
Ingram et al., 304-29. San Franc1sco: Jossey-Bass,
1980.

 

 

. The Board Chairperson and the President. AGB
Pocket Publications, no. 8. Washington, D.C.: Asso-
ciation of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 1981.

 

Potter, Robert E. The University of Hawaii Board of Regents,
1907-1982: Its Composition and Roles Compared With
Other Boards Goverping Public Universities. Bethesda,
Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 227 811,
1982.

 

Pray, Francis C. “Trustees Must be Ambassadors.“ In
Trustees Role in Advancement, edited by Arthur C.
Frantzreb, 13-20. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.

Radcock, Michael and Jacobson, Harvey K. “Securing Re-
sources.“ In Handbook of College and University Trustee-
ship, by Richard T. Ingram et al., 264-305. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.

Ringenberg, William C. The Christian College: A Histor of
Protestant Higher Education in America. St. Paul,

MN: Christian College Consortium, 1984.

 

 

 

Rohlfs, Carl W. “Reflections on Student Participation in
Governance.“ Theological Education 12 (Fall 1975):
14-170

 

Romney, Leonard C. “Productivity Assessment: A Study of
Faculty, Administrator and Trustee Performances.“ Paper
presented to the American College Personnel Association
Convention, Denver, March 27-30, 1977. Microfilm.

Roper, Melinda. “Ecclesiastical Imperatives in Theological
Education.“ Theological Education 19 (Autumn 1982):
108-18.

 

227

Rowntree, Derek. Statistics Without Teags: A Primer for Non-
Mathematicians. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons,
1981.

 

 

Rudolph, Federick. The American College and University: A
History. New Yofk: Vintage Books, 1962.

 

Sanford, Nevitt, ed. The American College: A Psychological
and Social InterpretaEion of the Higher Learning. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.

 

 

Savage, S.J., Thomas J. “The Board's Role in Maintaining
Institutional Identity.“ Current Issues in Catholic
Higher Education 4 (Winter 1984): 3-6.

 

 

Scheaffer, Richard; Mendenhall, William and Ott, Lyman.
Elementary Survey Sampiing, 2d ed. North Scituate,
MA: Duxbury Press, 1979.

 

Scott, Robert W. “Trustee Selection: Private Colleges and
Universities.“ AGB Reports 22 (NOvember-December
1980): 13-16.

Sherrill, Henry W. “Organization of the Board.“ In The Good
Steward, by Association of Governing Boards, 31-45.
Washington, D.C.: ASsociation of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1983.

Shockley, Grant S. “National Church Bodies and Inter-
denominational Theological Education.“ Theological
Education 15 (Spring 1979): 155-61.

Shriver, Donald W., Jr. “The Accountability of Theological
Education to the Mission of the Church.“ Theological
Education 17 (Autumn 1980): 59-73.

 

 

Skinner, Gail Marie. Governing Boards of American Colleges
and Universities: A Study of Roles and Role Conflidt.
Ph.D. diss., University of Madison-Wisconsin, 1980.

 

 

Stackhouse, Reginald. “The Place of the Theological College
in the University.“ Theological Education 13 (Winter
1977): 101-06.

 

Stamm, Martin J. “Catholic Education's New Lay Trustees.“
AGB Reports (September-October 1979): 19-24.

 

. The New Guardians of American Catholic Higher
Egucation: An Examination of Lay Participation on the
Governing Boards of Roman Catholic-Affiliated Colleges
and Universities. Ph.d. diss., University of
Pennsylvania, 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

228

Stendahl, Krister. “Divinity School Governance Within
University Structures: A Private U.S. University Per-
spective.“ Theological Education 12 (Fall 1975): 40-43.

 

Stevenson, Dwight E. “Models of Governance.“ Theological
Education 12 (Fall 1975): 29-35. .

 

 

Stewart, Campbell. “The Place of Higher Education in a
Changing Society.“ In The American ColTege: A Psycho-
logical and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning
by Nevitt Sanford, ed., 894-939. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1966.

Thompson, Hugh L. and Miller, John Edgar. “A Board Self
Improvement Tool.“ AGB Reports (March-April 1979):
44-470

 

Tietjen, John H. “Planning, Mission Goals, Programs.“ In
The Good Steward, by Association of Governing Boards,
67-74. WaShington D.C.: Association of Governing Boards
of Universities and Colleges, 1983.

 

Trotter, F. Thomas. “The Seminary as the Church's School.“
Theological Education 15 (Spring 1979): 105-08.

. “Trustees and Academic Affairs.“ In The Good
Steward, by Association of Governing Boards, 87-98.
Washington D.C.: Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1983.

van Beeck, S.J., Franz Jozef. “The Role of Colleges and
Universities in Preparing Leadership and Ministries in
the Church.“ Occasional Papers on Catholic Higher
Education 4 (Summer 1978): 4-10.

 

 

Wagoner, Walter D. The Seminary: Protestant and Catholic.
New York: Sheed and Ward, 1966. '

 

Warren, Jonathan R. “Types of University Governing Boards.“
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1974.
Microfilm.

Weeks, Kent M. Trustees and Preventive Lay. AGB Pocket
Publications, no. 4. Washington, D.C.: Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1980.

 

Williams, Colin. “Purpose in a University Divinity School.“
Theological Education 14 (Spring 1978): 67-73.

229

Wilson, Logan. “External Governance in Higher Education:
Bane or Boon.“ AGB Reports 17 (March-April 1975):

 

Woods, Geraldine P. and Nason, John W. “Student-Faculty
Trusteeship: A Short Debate.“ AGB Reports 19 (March-
April 1977): 12-14.

 

Ziegler, Jesse H. “Key Issues Facing AATS in 1972.“
Theological Education 9 (Autumn 1972): 25-32.

. “Indications of Crisis in Theological Education.“
Theological Education 9 (Autumn 1976): 40-43.

 

. “Future Pressures in Accrediting Affecting ATS.“
Theological Education 14 (Autumn 1977): 43-51.

 

. “Trustee Conduct.“ In The Good Steward, by
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 57-65. Washington, D.C.: Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1983.

Zwingle, J. L. “Build a Better Board.“ AGB Reports 18
(1976): 32-36.

 

. Effective Trusteeship: Guidelines for Board
Members. Washington, D.C.: Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges, 1982.

 

APPENDICES

230

Appendix A

TIMETABLE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE STUDY

 

November 12, 1984

November 20, 1984

December 4, 1984

November - December, 1984

December 20, 1984

December, 1984 - January, 1985

January - February, 1985

April, 1985

May, 1985

June, 1985

Committee meeting to
approve proposal

Mail questionnaire to
participants

Send follow-up letter-
to nonrespondents

Complete draft of
Chapters II and III

Tabulate Final response
rate to questionnaire

Analyze data Complete
draft of Chapter IV

Complete draft of
Chapter V

Defense of dissertation
Complete revisions and
administrative re-

quirements for grad-
uation

Commencement

231

Appendix B
November 20, 1984

Dear

We are writing to request your assistance with a research
project supported by the Department of Educational
Administration at Michigan State University. The purpose
of this project is to examine and describe the structure
and nature of the governing boards of theological schools
and seminaries in the United States.

Your role as chief executive officer of (name of insti-
tution) provides you with the perspective, insight,
authority, and level of responsibility that makes your
participation in this research project critical to its
success. We are confident that the results of this
project will be instructive to you and your colleagues
across the country as you plan to meet the future chal-
lenges of theological education.

 

We would greatly appreciate your taking a few minutes out
of your busy schedule to complete the enclosed survey
instrument and return it in the enclosed self-addressed
envelope by 4 December 1984. All responses will be kept
strictly confidential; the survey instrument is coded for
follow-up purposes only.

This study is being conducted with the knowledge and
intrest of the Association of Governing Boards and the
Lilly Endowment. The results of this study will be
forwarded to both organizations.

Thank you for your time and cooperation in assisting us
with this study. We are confident the results of this
study will provide important and meaningful information to
you and your colleagues across the country.

Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas F. x. Hoar, S.S.E. Louis C. Stamatakos,Ph.D.
Principal Investigator Professor
Department of Educational
Administration

bas

232

Appendix C

December 4, 1984

Dear

On November 20, 1984, you were sent a survey instrument to
complete in support of a research study designed to examine
and describe the structure and nature of the governing
boards of theological schools and seminaries in the United
States.

According to our records, we have not yet received a completed
survey instrument from you. For your convenience, we are
enclosing a second survey instrument. Please take a few
minutes out of your busy schedule to complete it and

return it in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope

by December 20, 1984.

We very much appreciate your time and your assistance in
helping us complete this research study. We will be more
than happy to provide you with the results of this study
for your future use.

We are grateful for your help. We look forward to receiving
your response by December 20th.

Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas F. x. Hoar, S.S.E. Louis C. Stamatakos, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator Professor
Department of Educational
Administration
has

Enclosures

 

Appendix D -)(-Code Number

THE GOVERNING BOARDS
OF THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS AND SEMINARIES
IN THE UNITED STATES

Section I. Institutional Characteristics and Governing Board Composition.

1. What percentage of your current operating budget is
provided by your sponsoring denomination/ body? We

2. Is your theological school or seminary governed by a Board of
Trustees or Board of Directors? yes no

3. How many voting members are authorized for the board?

 

4. How many positions are actually filled at this time?

 

5. How many board members must come from designated
constituencies (e.g.. sponsoring church organization. industry.
faculty. alumni)? Please indicate below:

Number Number
required now serving

a. Memberls) of the clergy of
sponsoring denomination

 

 

b. Memberlsl of sponsoring
religious community

 

 

c. Memberisl of the laity

 

 

 

 

d. Memberlsl of your faculty

e. Memberls) of your student
body

 

 

 

 

f. Alumni of your institution

9. Other (please specify)

 

 

 

6. Please describe the voting board members according to the following:

a. Sex. How many are: D. Race. How many are:
Men __ White
Women __ Black
Hispanic
Other Minority

233

234

7. Please indicate the age and educational background of your board members.

 

 

How many have: (highest degree) How many are:
Less than high school diploma Under 30 years old
__ High school diploma/ equivalency __ 30-39 years old
._ Associate’s degree (A.A.. AS.) _ 40-49 years old
_ Bachelor’s degree (BA. 85.) __ 50-59 years old
_ Master's degree (MA. M.Div.) -_ 80-69 years old
_. Doctorate degree (Ph.D.. S.T.D.) __ 70 years old or older

__ Professional degree (M.D.. D.D.S.. D.Min.. J.D.. LLB.)

B. Primary occupation. How many board members are involved in each of the following
primary vocations? (Count each board member only once):

Church

__ Denominational or church executive

_ Pastoral minister (i.e.. parish)

_. Specialized ministry (i.e., hospital chaplain. etc.)

Other (please specify)

 

 

Business
_ Executive/ administrative officer of a large business

Executive/ administrative officer of a financial or insurance firm

 

__ Proprietor or owner of a small company

Dther (please specify)

 

 

Education

__ foicer/ administrator of a theological school or seminary
_ foicer/ administrator of a college or university

_ Faculty member of a theological school or seminary

Faculty member of a college or university

 

Full-time student

 

__ Teacher/ administrator of a primary/ secondary school

Other (please specify)

 

 

(Question 8: continued next page)

235

Primary Occupation: (continued)

Secdonll

10.

11.

Professional Services
_ Accountant
_ Lawyer/ partner in a law firm

__ Other (please specify)

_ Physician/ Dentist

Psychologist/ social worker

 

 

 

Other

_ Administrative officer/ executive
of a nonprofit organization

Elected official

 

_ Flancher/ farmer

Journalist

 

__ Other (please specify)

Artist/ writer/ musician .

 

_ Government official
__ Homemaker

Judge

 

 

Retired
_ Minister
_ Professional services

_ Other (please specify)

_ Corporate or financial officer

 

How many board members are also:

a. A member of the board of another theological school

b. A member of the board of a college or university

c. A member of the board of a corporation

 

 

 

d. The chairman. chief executive officer or

 

chief operating officer of a corporation

Election, Selection of Board Members and Officers.

Is your governing board a self-perpetuating body he. the

board selects its own members)?

yes no _

 

Are members of your board chosen by a combination of
election by the board for some and appointment of some by

another authority?

00—

 

yes

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

 

236

Are members of your board appointed by a church or

denominational officer or a group other than the board? yes no _

 

If yes. please indicate who has the power to appoint by
checking the appropriate itemls) below.

__ Administrative head of sponsoring denomination
(i.e., Bishop of Diocese; President of Church. etc.)

__ Administrative head of sponsoring religious body
(i.e., Religious Superior. Provincial Council. etc.)

__ National or regional synod or convention
_ Separate “corporate" body as part of a two-tiered board arrangement

__ Other (please specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If questions 1 1 or 1 2 do not accurately describe how individuals become members of your
governing board. please briefly describe the procedure for trustee selection.

What is the length of a single term for members of your governing board? Please check
below.

_ 1 year 2 years _ 3 years _ 4 years _ 5 years or more
Is there a limitation on the number of consecutive terms? yes no _
If yes. please check below.

_ 1 term __ 2 terms _ 3 terms 4 terms 5 terms or more
Is the Chief Executive Officer of your institution required to

be a member of the clergy of the sponsoring denomination? yes no __
Is the Chief Executive Officer of your institution a full. voting

member of the governing board? yes no ....
Is the Chair of your governing board required to be a

member of the clergy of the sponsoring denomination? yes_ no _
Is it required that the Chair of your governing board be an

officer of the sponsoring denomination or religious body?

(i.e.. Bishop of the diocese. President of the Church. etc.) yes no _

237

Section III. Board Structure.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

How often do you hold regular meetings of your board?
(i.e., monthly. quarterly. annually)

 

What is the average length of your board meetings? (Check)

'/2 day _ 1 day __ 1%» days __ 2 days more than 2 days

 

 

Does your board have a committee structure? yes no _

 

If yes. please check below the names of the permanent standing committees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Budget/ Finance Audit __ Educational Policy

Student Policy ._ Nomination Personnel (faculty. staff)
_. Planning __ Honors . ._ Trustee Orientation

Fund Raising _. Bylaws _ Physical Plant Management
_ Denomination/ Church Relations __ Other (specify)
Does your board have an executive committee? yes no _

 

If you answered no to question (23). go to question (29 on the next page): if yes. continue
with question (24).

How often did the executive committee meet during the past 12 months?

__ Bimonthly _ Monthly Quarterly __ Semiannually

 

Annually __ Other (specify)

 

 

How many members serve on the executive committee? .—

Please indicate. by checking the appropriate itemts) below. the method for selecting the
members of the executive committee.

elected by board _ appointed by board chair

 

__ by virtue of office held _. combination of election. appointment and ex-
officio membersls)

Other (please specify)

 

 

238

27. What powers are reserved for the full board? (Briefly describe)

 

 

 

28. What powers are reserved (if any) for the executive committee? (Describe)

 

 

 

 

29. If you have a two-tiered governance arrangement. please describe the powers reserved

for the board which is separate from the board of trustees.

 

 

 

30. Is it general practice for standing committees to meet at
times other than regularly scheduled board meetings?

Section IV. Board Activities.

31. Does your board participate in an ongoing educational
program regarding the role of the governing board?

32. Do you have a special orientation program for new trustees?

33. Does your board periodically participate in a process to
review its performance?

If yes. how often? (please check)

Annually Once every two years

 

 

 

yes_ no __..

yes_. no—
yes_... no—
yes_— no—

Once every three years

 

__ Other (specify)

239

34. Please indicate the activities in which your governing board has a record of active
participation. (Check as many as apply).

__ Review of the Budget

_ Approval of the Budget

__ Review of investment policies

__ Approval of investment policies

_ Review of the curriculum

_ Approval of the curriculum

_ Physical plant renovation decisions

_ Review faculty appointments

__ Approve faculty appointments

_ Review faculty promotions

__ Approval of faculty promotions

_ Review faculty handbook

__ Approval of faculty handbook

__ Selection and appointment of the Chief Executive Officer
__ Formal assessment of the Chief Executive Officer's performance
__ Negotiation and approval of Chief Executive Officer's contract
_ Election of the Chair of the Board

__ Approve acquisition or sale of property

__ Review guidelines for degrees

_ Approval of guidelines for degrees

__ Participate in the process of accreditation

__ Review policies affecting the student body

_ Approval of policies affecting the student body

_ Review candidates for ordination

_ Approve candidates for ordination

_ Review candidates for graduation

_ Approve candidates for graduation

__ Review fundraising programs

(Question 34: continued next page)

240

Board Activities: (continued)

35.

36.

_ Approve fund raising programs

Fund raising activities

 

_ Approve changes in the bylaws of the institution and governing board

Review statement of mission and goals

 

__ Approve statement of mission and goals
__ Review long-range plans
_ Approve long-range plans

_ Trustee recruitment

Please list your board’s three most time consuming activities over the past two years.

 

b.

 

C.

 

Please check if you would like a copy of the results of this

study. yes no __

 

Thank you for your assistance in completing this questionnaire. All materials will be kept in
strict confidence. Please return the completed questionnaire by 4 December 1984 to:

Rev. Thomas EX. Hoar. S.S.E.

419 B Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing. Michigan 48824-1034

Code Number

-:- Questionnaire coded for follow-up purposes only.

241

Appendix E

COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION

GROUP l--Denominations with One Theological School or

Seminary
DENOMINATION
ASSEMBLIES OF GOD
CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY
ALLIANCE ‘
CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE
EVANGELICAL CONGREGATIONAL
CHURCH

EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF
AMERICA

FRIENDS, RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF

MORAVIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA

NEW JERUSALEM, CHURCH OF

GROUP 2--Denominations with Two or
Schools or Seminaries

DENOMINATION

BRETHREN
Brethren Church (Ashland
Ohio)

Church of the Brethren
CHURCHES OF GOD
Church of God (Anderson,

Indiana)

Churches of God, General
Conference

I

INSTITUTION

Assemblies of God Graduate
School

Alliance Theological
Seminary

Nazarene Theological
Seminary

Evangelical School of
Theology

Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School

Earlham School of Religion

Moravian Theological
Seminary

Swedenborg School of
Religion

Three Theological
INSTITUTION

Ashland TheolOgical
Seminary

Bethany Theological
Seminary

Anderson College School
of Theology

Winebrenner Theolological
Seminary

242
DENOMINATION
EASTERN CHURCHES
Greek Orthodox Church in
America

Russian Orthodox Greek
Catholic Church

REFORMED
Christian Reformed Church

Reformed Church in America

UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST
ASSOCIATION

INSTITUTION

Holy Cross Greek Orthodox
School of Theology

St. Vladimir's Orthodox
Theological Seminary

Calvin Theological
Seminary

New Brunswick Theological
Seminary

Western Theological
Seminary

Meadville/Lombard
Theological Seminary

Starr King School for
the Ministry

GROUPS 3-ll--Denominations with Four or More Theological

Schools or Seminaries

DENOMINATION
Group 3

~BAPTIST
American Baptist Convention

INSTITUTION

American Baptist seminary
of the West

Andover Newton Theolo-
gical School

Central Baptist Theolo-
logical Seminary

Eastern Baptist Theolo-
gical Seminary

Northern Baptist Theolo-
gical Seminary

Virginia Union University
School of Theology

243

DENOMINATION
Group 3 Baptist (Continued)
Baptist General Conference

Baptist Missionary Asso-
ciation of America

Conservative Baptist Asso-
ciation of America
Independent Baptist

North American Baptist
Conference

Southern Baptist Convention

Group 4

CHRISTIAN
Christian Churches and
Churches of Christ

INSTITUTION

Bethel Theological
Seminary

Baptist Missionary
Association Theological
Seminary

Denver Conservative
Baptist Seminary

Liberty Baptist Seminary

North American Baptist
Seminary

Golden Gate Baptist
Theological Seminary

Midwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary

New Orleans Baptist
Seminary

Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary

Southern Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary

Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary

Cincinatti Christian
Seminary

Emmanuel School of
Religion

Lincoln Christian
Seminary

244
DENOMINATION
Group 4 Christian (Continued)

Christian Church (Disciples
of Christ)

Group 5
LUTHERAN

The American Lutheran
Church

Association of Evangelical
Lutheran Churches

Lutheran Church in America

The Lutheran Church-
Missouri Synod

Group 6

MENNONITE
General Conference
Mennonite Church

Mennonite Brethren Church
in North America

INSTITUTION

Christian Theological
Seminary

Lexington Theological
Seminary

Lutheran Northwestern
Seminary

Pacific Lutheran Theolo-
gical Seminary

Wartburg Theological
Seminary

Christ Seminary-Seminex
Lutheran School of Theo-
logy at Chicago

Lutheran Theological
Seminary at Gettysburg

Lutheran Theological Semi-
nnary at Philadelphia

Lutheran Theological

Southern Seminary

Concordia Seminary

(St. Louis)

Concordia Theological

Seminary (Fort Wayne)

Mennonite Biblical

Seminary

Mennonite Brethren

Seminary

245
DENOMINATION
Group 6 Mennonite (Continued)

Mennonite Church

Group 7

METHODIST
African Methodist Episcopal

African Methodist Episcopal
Zion

United Methodist Church

Group 8

PRESBYTERIAN
Associate Reformed
Presbyterian Church

Cumberland Presbyterian
Church

Presbyterian Church in
America

INSTITUTION

Eastern Mennonite
Seminary

Goshen Biblical Seminary

Payne Theological Seminary

Hood Theological Seminary

(Claremont) School of
Theology

Garrett-Evangelical
Theological Seminary

Iliff School of Theology

Methodist Theological
School in Ohio

Saint Paul School of
Theology

Scarritt College
United Theological Seminary

Wesley Theological Seminary

Erskine Theological
Seminary

Memphis Theological
Seminary

Covenant Theological
Seminary

246
DENOMINATION
Group 8 PRESBYTERIAN (continued)

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Group 9

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH

INSTITUTION

Austin Presbyterian
Theological Seminary

Columbia Theological
Seminary

Louisville Presbyterian
Theological Seminary

McCormick Theological
Seminary

Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary

Presbyterian School of
Christian Education

Princeton Theological
Seminary

San Francisco Theological
Seminary

Union Theological
Seminary in Virginia

Bexley Hall

Church Divinity School
of the Pacific

Episcopal Divinity School

Episcopal Theological
Seminary of the
Southwest

General Theological
Seminary

Nashotah House

Seabury-Western Theolo-
logical Seminary

247
DENOMINATION

Group 9 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL
CHURCH (Continued)

Group 10

ROMAN CATHOLIC

INSTITUTION

Trinity Episcopal School
for Ministry

University of the South
School of TheolOgy

(Virginia) Protestant

Episcopal Theological
Seminary

Aquinas Institute
Athenaeum of Ohio

Catholic Theological
Union

Christ the King Seminary

DeSales School of
Theology

Dominican House of
Studies

Dominican School of
Philosophy and Theology

Franciscan School of
Theology

Immaculate Conception
Seminary

Jesuit School of Theology
at Berkeley

Mary Immaculate Seminary
Maryknoll Seminary
Mount Angel Seminary

Mount St. Alphonsus
Seminary

Mt. St. Mary's Seminary

DENOMINATION

Group 10 ROMAN CATHOLIC
(Continued)

248

INSTITUTION
Oblate College
Oblate School of Theology

Pontifical College
Josephinum

Pope John XXIII National
Seminary

Sacred Heart School of
Theology

St. Anthony-on-Hudson
Seminary

St. Bernard's Institute

St. Charles Borromeo
Seminary

St. Francis Seminary

St. John's Provincial
Seminary

St. John's Seminary
(Brighton)

St. John's Seminary
(Camarillo)

St. Joseph's Seminary

St. Mary Seminary

St. Mary's Seminary and
University School of

Theology

St. Meinrad School of
Theology

St. Patrick's Seminary
St. Paul Seminary

St. Thomas Seminary

DENOMINATION

Group 10 ROMAN CATHOLIC
(Continued)

Group 11

UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

Group 12

INTERDENOMINATIONAL OR
NONDENOMINATIONAL

249

INSTITUTION
St. Vincent Seminary

Seminary of the
Immaculate Conception

Seminary of St. Vincent
de Paul

SS. Cyril and Methodius
Seminary

Washington Theological
Union

Weston School of Theology

Bangor Theological
Seminary

Chicago Theological
Seminary

Eden Theological Seminary

Lancaster Theological
Seminary

United Theological Semi-
nary Of the Twin Cities

Asbury Theological
Seminary

Colgate/Bexley/Crozer

Columbia Graduate School
of Bible and Mission

Evangelical Seminary of
Puerto Rico

Fuller Theological
Seminary

Gordon-Conwell Theolo-
gical Seminary

 

DENOMINATION

OR NONDENOMINATIONAL
(Continued)

250

Group 12 INTERDENOMINATIONAL

INSTITUTION

Graduate Theological
Union

Hartford Seminary

Interdenominational
Theological

New York Theological
Seminary

Pacific School of
Religion

Reformed Theological
Seminary

Talbot Theological
Seminary

Union Theological
Seminary

Western Evangelical
Seminary

VARIABLE #

5A1

5A2

SBl

5B2

5C1

5C2

SDl

SD2

SE1

251

Appendix F
MASTER CODE BOOK

OPTION # NAME RANGE DESCRIPTION

1-2 Group 01—12 Denomination

3-4 School 01-44

5-7 V-l 000-100 Percentage
999-missing

8 V-2 O=no G. Board?
l=yes
9=missing

9-10 V-3 00-98 # on Board
99=missing

11—12 V-4 00-98 # now on
99=missing Board

l3-14 V-SAl 00-98 Clergy Req.

- 99=missing

15-16 V-5A2 00-98 Clergy Serv.
99=missing

17-18 V-SBZ 00-98 Relig. Req.
99=missing

19-20 V-SBZ 00-98 Relig. Serv.
99=missing

21-22 V—SCl 00-98 Laity Reg.
99=missing

23-24 V-5C2 00-98 Laity Serv.
99-missing

25-26 V-SDl 00-98 Faculty Req.
99=missing

27-28 V-5D2 00-98 Faculty Serv.
99=missing

29-30 V-SEl 00-98 Student Reg.

99=missing

 

VARIABLE I

5E2
5F1
5F2
5G1
5G2
6A1
6A2
681
682
633
684
7A

7B

7C

70

7E

OPTION I

31-32

33-34

35-36

37-38

39-40

41-42

43-44

45-46

47-48

49-50

51-52

53-54

55-56

57-58

59-60

61-62

252

NAME

V-5E2

V-SFl

V-5F2

V-SGl

V-5G2

V-6Al

V-6A2

V-GBl

V-GBZ

V-GB3

V-684

V-7A

V-7B

V-7C

V-7D

V-7E

RANGE

00-98
99-missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

DESCRIPTION

Student Serv.

Alum Reg.

Alum.

Other

Other

# Men

Serv.

Reg.

Serv.

# Women

5 White

5 Black

# Hispanic

# Minority

<H.S.

VARIABLE f

7F

7G

7H

7I

7J

7K

7L

7M

8A

BB

8C

8D

8E

8F

86

BB

81

OPTION #

63-64

65-66

67-68

69-70

71-72

73-74

75-76

77-78

79-80

81-82

83-84

85-86

87-88

89-90

91-92

93-94

95-96

253

NAME

V-7F

V-7G

V-7H

V-7I

V-7J

V-7K

V-7L

V-7M

V-8A

V-8B

V-8C

V-BD

V-8E

V-8F

V-8G

V-8H

V-8I

RANGE

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

DESCRIPTION

Ph.D.

Profess.

<30

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

>70

Denom Ex.

Pastoral

Special Min.

Other

Bus. Ex.

Bus. Ins.

Owner

Other

Ed. Sem.

VARIABLE Q

8J

8K

8L

8M

8N

80

8P

80

BR

88

8T

8U

8V

8W _

8X

8Y

82

OPTION }

97-98

99-100

101-102

103-104

105-106

107-108

109-110

111-112

113-114

115-116

117-118

119-120

121-122

123-124

125-126

127-128

129-130

254

NAME

V-8J

V-8K

V-8L

V-8M

V-8N

V-8O

V-8P

V-SQ

V-8R

V-BS

V-8T

V-8U

V-8V

V-8W

V-8X

V-8Y

V-BZ

RANGE

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

DESCRIPTION

Ed. Univ.

Fac. Sem.

Fac. Univ.

Student

Teacher

Other

Acct.

Lawyer

Phys.

Psych.

Other

Admin.

Elected Off.

Farmer

Journalist

Artist

Government

VARIABLE I

8AA

8BB

8CC

8DD

8EE

8FF

8GG

9A

9B

9C

9D

10

11

12A

12B

OPTION 5

131-132

133-134

135-136

137-138

139-140

141-142

143-144

145-146

147-148

149-150

151-152

153-154

154

155

156

255
NAME

V-8AA

V-8BB

V-8CC

V-8DD

V-8EE

V-8FF

V-8GG

V-9A

V-9B

V-9C

V-9D

V-10

V-ll

V-12A

V-lZB

RANGE

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98

'99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

00-98
99=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes

““9=missing

DESCRIPTION

Homemaker
Judge

Other

Ret. Min.

Ret. Profess.
Ret. Corp. Off.
Ret. Other
Other T. Board
College Board
Corp. Board
CEO

Self—Pert.
Elect. and
Appointed

APP.

Bish.

VARIABLE #

12C

12D

12E

12F

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

OPTION i

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

256

V-12/c

V-12D

V-12E

V-12F

V-13

V-14

V-15

V-16

V-17

V-18

V-19

RANGE

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

0=blank
l=response

121 year
2=2 years
3=3 uears
4:4 years
5=5+ years
9=missing

O=no

121 term
2=2 terms
3.3 terms
424 terms
525+ terms
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
95missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

DESCRIPTION

Sup.

Nat.

Corp.

Other

Alter.

Term on Board

Consecutive

Terms

CEO/Clergy

CEO/voting

Chair/Clergy

Chair/Officer

VARIABLE {

20

21

22A

228

22C

22D

22E

22F

22G

22H

257

OPTION 1 NAME

168 V-20

169 V-21

170 V-22A
171 V-ZZB
172 V-22C
173 V-ZZD
174 V-22E
175 V-22F
176 V-22G
177 V-ZZH

RANGE DESCRIPTION
0=bimonth1y
l=monthly
2=every 2 mos.
3=1/4 monthly
4=semi-annual
5=annually
6=other
9=missing

Meetings of
Board

O=l/2 day
1=1 day

2=1 1/2 days
3:2 days
4=2+ days
5=other
9=missing

Length of Br.

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

Budget

O=no Student Pol.
1=yes
9=missing
O=no Planning
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

Fund Raising

O=no Denomination
1=yes
9=missing
O=no Audit
1=yes
9=missing
O=no Nominations
1=yes
9=missing
O=no Honors
1=yes
9=missing

VARIABLE 3

221

22J

22K

22L

22M

22N

23

OPTION #

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

258

NAME

V-22I

V-22J

V-22K

V-22L

V-22M

V-22N

V-23

RANGE

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

If no, go to option # 191. question i 29.

24

25

26

185

186-187

188

V-24

V-25

V-26

0=bimonthly
lsmonthly
Zaguarterly
3=semiannual
4=annually
5=other
9=missing

00-98
99=missing

0=elected
l=office
2=appt.
3=combo
4=other
9=missing

DESCRIPTION

Bylaws

Ed. Policy

Personnel

Trustee

Plant Mgt.

Other

Exec. Comm.

Exec. Meeting

# on Exec.
Committee

Select. Exec.
Committee

VARIABLE §

27 and 28

29

30

31

32

33

34A

34B

34C

34D

34E

34F

34G

34H

OPTION #

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

259
NAME

V-27B

V-29

V-30

V-31

V-32

V-33

V-34A

V-34B

V-34C

V-34D

V-34E

V-34F

V-34G

V-34H

RANGE

0=blank
l=27 only
2:28 only
3=both

0=blank
l=response

O=no

.l=yes

9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
1=yes
9=missing

O=no
l=annually

2=every 2 yrs.
3=every 3 yrs.

4=other
9=missing

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

DESCRIPTION

Power of:
Full Board
and Exec.
Committee

Two-tiered

Standing Comm.

Cont.

Ed.

Orientation

Self—eval.

Review Budget

Approve Budget

Rev.

App .

Rev.

App .

Phy.

Rev.

Invest.

Invest.

Curr.

Curr.

Plant

Fac. Appt.

VARIABLE {

341

34J

34K

34L

34M

34N

340

34?

340

34R

34S

34T

34U

34V

34W

34X

34Y

OPTION I

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

260
NAME

V-34I

V-34J

V-34K

V-34L

V-34M

V-34N

V-34O

V-34P

V-34Q

V-34R

V-34S

V-34T

V-34U

V-34V

V-34W

V-34X

V-34Y

RANGE

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

DESCRIPTION

App. Fac. Appt.

Rev. Fac. Prom.

App. Fac. Prom.

Rev. Fac. Hand.

App. Fac. Hand.

Select./Apt.

CEO

Assess CEO

CEO contract

Elect Chair

App. Property

Rev. Degree

App. Degree

Accreditation

Rev. Student

App. Student

Rev. Ordin.

App. Ordin.

 

VARIABLE {

34Z

34AA

34BB

34CC

34DD

34EE

34FF

34GG

34HH

3411

34JJ

OPTION {

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

261
NAME

V-34Z

V-34AA

V-34BB

V-34CC

V-34DD

V-34EE

V-34FF

V-34GG

V-34HH

V-3411

V-34JJ

RANGE

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
l=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

0=blank
1=yes

DESCRIPTION

Rev. Grads

App. Grads

Rev. Fund-
raising

App. Fund-
raising
Fundraising
App. Bylaws
Rev. Mission
App. Mission
Rev. Long Plan

App. Long Plan

Trustee Rect.