The February meeting of our board of trustees starts this evening, and so this afternoon we held an orientation session for two incoming members of the board. As part of this orientation, I give a presentation on academic freedom, the tenure-and-promotion process, and other matters in which the work of the board is likely to intersect with that of the faculty.
We have a pretty small board—fewer than 25 members. Several of them are prominent local citizens, though a larger number come from some distance for meetings. We meet on the campus, so the board members know the town and the university’s physical layout very well.
One interesting question asked by a new trustee was about faculty-trustee interaction. I haven’t been here that long (this is my fifth board meeting), so I don’t know all the ins and outs of the relationships between faculty members and board members. The board does provide many opportunities for interaction: for example, the chair of our faculty senate attends all of the board meetings, and we often have social events that faculty members attend. We invite early-arriving trustees to sit in on classes, and we have a faculty presentation or more at every meeting.
One notable thing about our board members is their genuine respect and affection for the faculty and the educational enterprise. In my role in academic affairs, the stance of the board is a wonderful breath of fresh air. In short, I think we—particularly my predecessors—have done a good job of fostering a positive relationship between the faculty and the board.
However, it’s also becoming clear to me that things could be even better if each group understood the other more thoroughly. What I don’t know is how to help make this happen. So I’m curious about how other institutions manage faculty-board relationships to bring positive energy to their mutual support of the academic enterprise of the institution. What’s worked for you?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
5 Responses to Faculty Relations With the Governing Board
lpettit - February 5, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Don’t overdo it, or you will encourage Board members to interact directly with faculty without the president’s knowledge, and you surely will enable faculty to go around the president, directly to the board. Worse, it won’t necessarily be the chair of the board, but individual members who may have personal agendas. The board acts only as a body, through its chair. The president is the only person who should report directly to the board. You have to be extremely careful in encouraging a free-ranging camaraderie among faculty and board members. The inevitable result is to undermine the presidency. The board as a body and the faculty as a body should be advised in how to develop and sustain respect for each other’s legitimate role, and to understand the other’s perspective. But don’t leave the president unprotected and unarmed in the political maelstrom of the university.
hmallon - February 5, 2010 at 7:57 pm
We suggest that you may have crossed the line as noted in Lpettit’s comments. You need to repsective the design of the partnership between the board and the president. As noted by my mentor – there are “A Line in the Sand” which delieates the roles and activities performed by the board and the president in order to maintain clarity in the relationship. The board’s role is the set policies and strategies in regards to the mission, survival and leadership of the university/college. In this role the board may seek the president’s advice. The role of the president is operational – assuring the functional, operational and financial success of the university/college. The president may seek the board’s input. Finally, there is a middle ground partnership where certain decisions are shared.Involving faculty with the any formal relationship with the board, other than on a casual at a event will create a free-ranging (as note in lpettit’s comments) which undermines the presidency and has driven strong presidents to other institutions which have an establsihed chain of command.
bmcnutt - February 5, 2010 at 10:39 pm
We, here at Accredium, acknowledge that both the question and the two comments posted thus far affirm the importance surrounding the Governance issues cited. In fact, the top four challenges of educational institutions and their accrediting agencies list Governance as number 2, right behind “an ongoing plan of assessment.” (The top four: 1. Ongoing plan of assessment, 2. Governance, 3. Financial, 4. Faculty compliance, i.e. credetials and teaching wihin discipline)Identifying what is too much interaction and what is not enough can be tricky. With a healthy respect to the two posts (lpettit and hmallon) and their warnings, each school and their circumstances ought to be understood before fences are built between any constituencies of an institution. Clearly identifying the roles and protocol for interaction during initial accreditation is an easier task than trying to redefine the boundaries after someone(s) has stepped over the line.Neverthess, the warnings above should be taken seriously. A workshop conducted by a third part could head off a stampede before it gets started.
david_r_evans - February 5, 2010 at 10:43 pm
As usual, I guess, this issue is deeply institution-specific. Our president is in his 15th year in office, and it is in fact his initiative to make sure that the facuty and the board know each other and have positive interaction.There’s not a question of understanding the “appropriate role” of each constituency here. One of the reasons for that is that this is the first board I’ve worked with at all that truly understands and respects the role of the faculty, and in return, the faculty respect the work of the board. But I don’t think that the faculty really know what the board does, and that’s an unfortunate lacuna in our operations. A faculty member who went “around” the president to the board, or for that matter a faculty member who went “around” ME to the board, would be in serious trouble. I’d be in serious trouble if I went around the president to the board, and it would never in a million years occur to me to do so. But other VPs and I play golf with board members, meet on occasion with them without the president present, and have pretty extensive meetings with our committees without the president as well. I’m all for respecting the roles of each portion of the university. I do think, though, that an obsession with “chain of command” that is uninflected with a knowledge of the relationships of honor and trust that really ought to subsist between institutional constituencies, doesn’t seem very productive to me. And I also think that the kind of end-runs envisioned by the comments here are likelier to result from a rigid, hierarchical and untrusting paradigm of board relations with other members of the university community than they are from one that realistically recognizes the humanity and very strong mutual interests that underly those relationships in a properly functioning institution.
david_r_evans - February 5, 2010 at 10:43 pm
As usual, I guess, this issue is deeply institution-specific. Our president is in his 15th year in office, and it is in fact his initiative to make sure that the facuty and the board know each other and have positive interaction.There’s not a question of understanding the “appropriate role” of each constituency here. One of the reasons for that is that this is the first board I’ve worked with at all that truly understands and respects the role of the faculty, and in return, the faculty respect the work of the board. But I don’t think that the faculty really know what the board does, and that’s an unfortunate lacuna in our operations. A faculty member who went “around” the president to the board, or for that matter a faculty member who went “around” ME to the board, would be in serious trouble. I’d be in serious trouble if I went around the president to the board, and it would never in a million years occur to me to do so. But other VPs and I play golf with board members, meet on occasion with them without the president present, and have pretty extensive meetings with our committees without the president as well. I’m all for respecting the roles of each portion of the university. I do think, though, that an obsession with “chain of command” that is uninflected with a knowledge of the relationships of honor and trust that really ought to subsist between institutional constituencies, doesn’t seem very productive to me. And I also think that the kind of end-runs envisioned by the comments here are likelier to result from a rigid, hierarchical and untrusting paradigm of board relations with other members of the university community than they are from one that realistically recognizes the humanity and very strong mutual interests that underly those relationships in a properly functioning institution.