The Board of Visitors will vote this week on changes to its manual. One of the changes, proposed by current Rector George Martin, would allow other board members to remove the rector by a two-thirds vote. University Spokesperson McGregor McCance said Martin intends this to be a “change that will contribute to good governance overall.”
In our first editorial of the fall semester, we lauded the Board’s changes to its Statement of Expectations which allowed for public dissent, and we argued that even though Board members are not elected officials, they should act as elected officials do by responding to public opinion and disclosing their views to their constituents. This new rector removal clause increases the Board’s ability to be accountable to the people it serves. The fact that the current rector has introduced this proposal indicates that he values good governance more than his own personal stake in his power, as any public office holder should.
The rector is elected by the Board from its own members, and first serves a two-year term as vice rector and then a two-year term as rector. The election of the vice rector is by simple majority, while the removal of the rector would require two-thirds of Visitors at a regular meeting. This standard ensures the balance of power cannot be disrupted too easily, but the Visitors still have a way of replacing the rector if they believe he or she is not adequately fulfilling his or her duties.
There was a huge public outcry against then-Rector Helen Dragas following University President Teresa Sullivan’s removal in 2012 and during her subsequent reinstatement. Though the public has no power to remove a rector or Board member, the Board members could have heeded public opinion and removed Dragas had they possessed the power to do so. Other changes were necessary in order to ensure a crisis like this does not occur again, such as restructuring the process for firing a president. But there is an argument to be made that individual actors are equally important or more important than policy changes, and though Dragas still remains on the Board, many faculty, alumni and students would have felt more confident in their University had she been removed.
The new removal clause could be complemented by a revision that removes the direct line of succession from the vice rector to the rector position. Presumably, a vice rector is elected and automatically becomes rector at the end of a two-year term so that the person can become familiar with the job and be ready to ascend into the position, and this line of succession can still exist informally. But in case the members of the Board, or even the public, feel the current vice rector should not advance, the position should be formally open to other candidates.
The Board of Visitors is improving, and we hope to see more improvements going forward. This week’s upcoming meetings will hopefully usher in positive change, and we eagerly await more good news.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | YesterdayOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
