As the academic year drew to a close this month, two of Washington’s finest universities found themselves grappling with crises in governance, both of which offer vital lessons for American higher education.
American University is nearing closure on a set of reforms prompted by last fall’s scandal over profligate spending by an out-of-touch president, and Gallaudet University is attempting to ease resistance among some students and faculty toward the board’s selection of Jane K. Fernandes to succeed President I. King Jordan.
Both cases dramatize the centrality of effective board governance and the heightened demand for accountability that pressures today’s trustees, who volunteer their time to an endeavor that is mysterious to many who feel its impact.
At AU, the board is about to implement several structural reforms that the higher education community and the public should welcome. Improvements have been hammered out over 18 special committee meetings, six months of anguished self-evaluation, and with advice from nationally recognized experts (including the former president of the Association of Governing Boards).
The AU reforms include a new presidential compensation policy and process that involves the full board (not just a few trustees, as was the case in the Benjamin Ladner era), regular reviews of the president’s performance and his or her spending, a more rigorous conflict-of-interest policy with greater oversight and a clear whistle-blower protection policy. What’s more, all trustees will be asked to sign a document that holds them accountable for specific commitments and responsibilities. Taken together, the reforms represent frank acknowledgment that the AU board has taken responsibility for the damage to the institution.
Additionally, the AU plan calls for the appointment of nonvoting faculty and student trustees and faculty representation on most standing committees of the board. Most institutions do not follow this practice, not only because faculty and student trusteeships can produce conflicting allegiances but because such appointments imply that boards should be composed of representatives of specific constituencies, as are legislatures. Though some institutions are re-examining this perspective, the A.U. reforms address these concerns by explicitly disqualifying faculty and students from certain deliberations.
Similarly against the grain, the AU board plans to hire a professional staff member, in consultation with the president, who would report directly to the board. This may look healthy on paper, but in practice it may lead toconflicting loyalties, strained management coordination and ineffective governance. Rarely do governing boards have their own staffs. Nonetheless, the AU board has sent a clear and positive signal that it wishes to conduct its affairs as independently as possible.
On the whole, the AU reforms reflect an aggressive, inclusive and transparent process that could end up as a national model for board self-assessment. The trustees’ courage and dedication shows that college and university boards are capable of tapping their own resources to recover from a crisis. Consequently, proposed federal remedies aimed at the congressionally chartered AU are unnecessary and could inappropriately affect the wider nonprofit world.
At Gallaudet, the current clamor is over the board’s presidential search process, which seemed destined to be contentious regardless of the board’s choice of a new leader. Choosing the president is among the board’s core responsibilities, and successful execution of this task depends on a thorough vetting of candidates, sound judgment of their capabilities and perhaps most important, a sensitized understanding of the climate and current needs of the institution. The Gallaudet board appears to have conducted a fair and reflective search; barring the emergence of some new information that would disqualify Fernandes, the board must stick by its choice.
The Gallaudet community will not heal and proceed to a vital transition if trustees renege on a decision that, under long-standing principles of academic governance, is the board’s to make. At AU, board members have shown they are willing to hold themselves accountable, and a healthy transition is under way.
Richard D. Legon is president of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
