A recent report released by the National Commission on College and University Board Governance described the risks that American higher education will face if outdated and inept governing structures are kept in place.
According to the report, if governing bodies are not reformed, colleges and universities risk losing “accessibility and degree attainment for current and future students, institutional fiscal sustainability, educational quality, economic development and social equity, service to communities and knowledge creation.”
The Commission made seven recommendations, including calls to improve public trust, a greater focus on affordability, more engagement with institution faculty and administration, improved board functional capacity and improved accountability for outcomes.
The Commission is comprised of 26 individuals with extensive experience in governance within higher education, including former University President John Casteen.
Casteen said various issues have necessitated this change in governing structures.
“It has been something like 35 years since the last major look at governance of colleges and universities,” he said in an email. “During that time, changes in laws, in fiduciary principles, in the kinds of issues confronted by these boards, have occurred. From time to time, systems of governance need tuning, whether they are mandatory or voluntary.”
In addition, public boards have faced heavy political pressure in the past years due to increased factionalism, Casteen said. According to the report, these pressures have led to polarized boards, rapid presidential turnover and heightened scrutiny from accreditors.
“Leadership for change is more important than ever, and the choices ahead are more urgent and complex than those in the past,” the report stated. “In this demanding environment, the structure of governance itself should not be an additional risk factor for the sector. Yet, too often it is.”
Casteen said the commission’s goal in releasing the report was to help boards prepare for future challenges.
“Trustees generally want better preparation, deeper knowledge, before crises come," he said. "[Good boards] do not wait for a catastrophe, then learn how to do their jobs.”
Casteen cited the ouster and reinstatement of University President Teresa Sullivan in the summer of 2012 as a crisis of leadership which underscores several of the issues raised in the report. He said the incident gave the University’s Board of Visitors its own critics for the first time that he can remember.
University spokesperson Anthony de Bruyn said the Board of Visitors has instituted several changes related to governance in recent years, including amending the Board Manual in November 2012 and August 2013.
“The Manual now states that amending the contract of a president will require a publicly noticed board meeting and a majority vote of the full Board of Visitors,” de Bruyn said in an email. “The Board also modified the process of evaluating presidents, and the Board passed a resolution that provides for more direct involvement by faculty in Board committee meetings. The resolution calls for the appointment of a faculty member to serve as a consulting member of each standing committee that does not already have faculty representation.”
Casteen emphasized that the report was not based on the University, but was meant to apply to governing boards more broadly. He said the University has had certain issues at times, but they do not always match the problems at other universities.
“In the future, higher education must be reconfigured to recognize new student populations, altered educational delivery methods, basic changes in financing and rising expectations from the public,” the report read. “Boards must be at the forefront of those changes, because their fiduciary role requires them to focus on strategic long-term issues and the intersection of internal and public interests. Presidents and faculty will not be able to lead such changes on their own.”
Read More
Administrators and faculty paint conflicting pictures of May 4 encampment clearing
By Cecilia Mould | YesterdayThe details contested between the town halls included the clarity of the University’s tent policy and the presence of suspicious individuals at the encampment.
Faculty Senate calls for an external review of May 4 clearing of encampment
By Priya Kommu | YesterdaySenators had questions about the lack of direct communication between University administrators and the students and faculty present at the encampment.
University's last minute update to EHS tent regulations document creates confusion, frustration
By Arshiya Pant | YesterdayRyan said that he did not believe there was confusion among protesters about the permissibility of tents due to warnings from University officials on several occasions to remove tents.
