Editorial Columns

The Structure of Public Boards Does Matter

Declining appropriations, meddlesome legislation, and changing demographics all compete for the attention of the trustees of public colleges and universities. But with the gaze of higher education leaders focused on these external forces, it's been considered taboo to talk about the structure and composition of our public university governing boards and the growing politicization that may breed in this context.

The responsibilities of university presidents and board chairs have evolved significantly from the early days of public higher education. There was a time when the power of the board was absolute. Boards decided who would be admitted to the college, what would be in the curriculum, where and how it would be taught, and by whom. Trustees didn't just hire the president, they hired everyone else.  No detail escaped their scrutiny.

Those days are long gone. As higher education officials adapted over the years to deal with changing strategic, financial, and academic demands, it is an open question whether the structures of public boards have kept pace with the complex social organizations these boards oversee. Today, most public boards are composed of governors' political appointees, but some states have other approaches. In North Carolina and Minnesota, for example, appointments are made by the legislature. In Michigan, regents are elected in statewide races. In Nebraska, regents are elected regionally. 

Our own institution, Penn State, has a board structure that many believe is uniquely effective because it draws its members from so many different sectors. We have six members appointed by the governor, nine elected by the alumni, six representing business and industry selected through a process of nomination and board election, six elected by the state's agricultural societies, and five voting members who serve by virtue of their position (they are the university president, the governor, and three of his cabinet members). The advantages of this larger, more pluralistic model are discussed below.

The point that should concern us all, however, is that many of the structures currently in place at public institutions lend themselves to decision making by boards that too often is guided less by the merits of the issues than by gubernatorial philosophy, political obligations, or special-interest commitments.

Strength in Numbers. Many public boards today are too small, too political, or too monolithic in outlook to deal adequately with the complex challenges their institutions face. Size and diversity matter in a board's composition, and without those elements, board members can find themselves overworked, underinformed, and lacking the perspective necessary to make certain decisions affecting the future of their institution.

The size of a governing board can play a particularly critical role in the effectiveness of its members. AGB President Tom Ingram asserts that "boards should be sufficiently large--at least 15 members--so members can share the workload through a sensible committee structure."

The late Clark Kerr, legendary president of the University of California, produced research showing that size and composition matter greatly. "We found far more difficulty with boards that are too small than with boards that are too large," he and Marian L. Gade wrote in their 1989 book The Guardians. "A very small board can be a disaster. A single person can become too dominant or too disruptive; it is difficult to get all the needed skills and to develop a good committee structure; and the replacement of a single member can change the direction or conduct of the board and the political situation of the president."

"There is safety in numbers," Kerr and Gade continued. "A big board can tolerate a few poor members; a small board can tolerate none."

It is the nature of public university boards that they generally come to the public's attention only in times of crisis or controversy. When tuition rises steeply or an athletics scandal erupts, a board that previously may have enjoyed near anonymity will find itself under public scrutiny.

A larger, more broadly constituted board is much more likely to deal with--and successfully weather--public controversy because it is less likely to be held hostage to a single perspective or political view. In fact, a more broadly constituted board can help allay fears of those on the "losing" side of an issue who worry that their voices are not heard or respected.

Broadening Narrow Agendas. A broadly representative board does not, however, necessarily make things easier for a president; it takes more effort to win all sides to the administration's point of view. The upside of this, of course, is that it forces the administration to articulate more clearly its vision for the university and present a compelling argument for the direction it should be moving in.

A board that is entirely appointed by the governor may seem more predictable, and the president may be tempted to concentrate on issues that seem likely to meet the least resistance, as judged by the board's assumed perspective. For example, boards might have politically-motivated mandates or inclinations to press for certain policies on collective bargaining, women's health services, diversity, outsourcing, or publicly versus privately-sponsored financial aid.

Boards elected by popular vote have special characteristics because their composition often is affected by the necessity of candidates running expensive political campaigns that require stipulating a party affiliation. Or candidates may have campaigned on reform platforms perceived as adversarial to the university.

But playing to narrow agendas is hardly a glorious route for the future of the university and contributes to greater politicization of institutional governance, a most unhealthy development. Keeping a board away from easy political choices and focused on the long-term good of the institution is a key component of a president's job.

University presidents want trustees to succeed. Theirs should not be an adversarial relationship. Presidents want boards willing to tackle tough issues and sufficiently informed to see through the smokescreens that inevitably develop in the public arena. But popularly elected trustees and members of small boards are more vulnerable to political and special-interest pressures that can divert them from the broader view.

Handling Political Pressure. It is difficult for many elected board members to focus vigilantly on the broad goals of the institution and refrain from being too heavily influenced by special-interest groups. The Glion Declaration, issued in 2000 by an international collection of scholars and published by AGB, had this to say: "The function of a governing board is always twofold: It serves, on the one hand, to ensure the public responsibility and accountability of the university and, on the other hand, to defend the autonomy and integrity of the institution against erosion or attack, both from without and within."

Just as it is true that elected trustees can find themselves in awkward positions, politically appointed members may find their effectiveness questioned. James J. Duderstadt, the former president of the University of Michigan (an institution with an elected board), has written: "In many public institutions, politically selected board members tend to view themselves more as governors or legislators rather than trustees, responsible to particular constituencies rather than simply for the welfare of their institution. Instead of buffering the university from various political forces, they sometimes bring their politics into the boardroom and focus it on the activities of the institution."

Whether one thinks of running a university as "herding cats" or as "organizational anarchy" (both common characterizations), our institutions are complex and difficult to manage. They have unique rhythms, cultures, customs, and language. Thus, it would be naive to expect that members of the governing board would bring to their lay posts a deep level of understanding of the intricacies and arcana of university governance. Indeed, many from the corporate world are absolutely flummoxed by the supposed collegial traditions of our institutions.

This is where larger boards able to form standing committees have advantages, as they allow members to explore at a deeper level a wider array of the university's important operations. When board selection comes from multiple sources, as is the case at Penn State, the large size also can keep any one individual or faction from dominating debate. Broadly diverse boards are far more likely to be able to reach a compromise on contentious issues by bringing different insights and experiences to the debate. This is critical in the collegial environment of higher education.

Public university boards of all sizes have the added pressure of having to do their work in accordance with open-meeting and records laws. These sunshine laws have important value to our society, but they can make the lives of public trustees difficult, because any utterance at a public meeting can become the next day's headline. This sometimes can stifle frank discussion.

Sunshine laws make candid communication with the administration critical, so that trustees come to meetings with a clear understanding of the issues and what is at stake. It is the job of the president and board professional staff member to prepare the board fully before major meetings.

• Tips for Board Success. Trustee effectiveness in serving their institutions can depend heavily on the board's structure. The following aspects of the board's structure are worth considering:

• Bigger is better. Public boards should have no fewer than 12 members; 18-24 is ideal; more than 32 is unworkable.

• Diversity of constituencies helps balance a board's perspective (some elected, some appointed; some in-state, some out-of-state).

• Diversity of academic backgrounds, occupational histories, political interests, and demographic characteristics improves a board's ability to govern.

• Defined terms of service, while allowing for reappointment or reelection, can keep the board vital.

• Allowing for emeritus status is a great plus. This keeps successful board members connected and allows them to contribute to board issues. It also encourages new leaders to emerge and, occasionally, for veterans to exit gracefully.

• Finally, a clear understanding by all board members of their roles and responsibilities is critical.

Although the university administration has an obligation to orient all new board members to the traditions and cultures of their campuses and the expectations of the trusteeship, trustees should be certain they understand the structure of their board and institution--as well as the limits of their duties. With such preparation, trustees--however they were selected--can do the best possible job of being their institution's long-term stewards.