Trustees: More Willing Than Ready

A Chronicle survey finds many board members feel unprepared for the job

advertisement

Related materials

Tables: Where College Trustees Differ: Public vs. Private Colleges

Tables: The Chronicle Survey of Trustees of 4-Year Colleges

Audio: John Maguire, chairman of Maguire Associates, an education-consulting firm, discusses highlights of a survey of college trustees the firm conducted for The Chronicle.

Article: Trustees: More Willing Than Ready

Article: For Trustees, Faith in College Presidents Lies at the Heart of Good Relationships

Article: Trustees Don't Expect to Give as Much Money as Their Colleges Ask

Article: Fiscal Reality

Article: What It's Like to Serve on 2 Boards at Once

Forum: Talk online about what colleges can do to prepare trustees for service.

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums

Three most recent discussions

Re: Superbad jargon Today at 10:04:20 PM by tamiam Re: Lawn Mowing UnDeal Today at 10:03:33 PM by georgia_guy Re: Lawn Mowing UnDeal Today at 10:02:59 PM by figee

By JEFFREY SELINGO

At a time when the public and politicians are demanding more of colleges, many members of governing boards feel ill prepared for the job. Their lack of readiness and knowledge touches almost every corner of a college's operations, like campus politics and fund raising, and is often the source for strained relations with the institution's president, according to an extensive survey of trustees conducted by The Chronicle.

Over all, fewer than 15 percent of trustees considered themselves "very well prepared" for what they faced when they joined a board. Four in 10 board members described themselves as "slightly" or "not at all" prepared. Among those feeling the least prepared were new and somewhat younger board members, a finding that could point to a looming leadership crisis on governing boards as older and more experienced members leave.

Trustees who said they were not ready for their board service were also more likely to feel unfulfilled and less valued and to say they were not interested in serving again. But perhaps the most significant finding about the plight of unprepared board members was this: Just 56 percent reported an excellent relationship with the institution's president, compared with 73 percent of trustees who felt very well prepared.

When matched up against a Chronicle survey of campus chief executives from 2005, the trustee survey gives a few insights into why presidents and trustees do not always see eye to eye.

The two groups, for instance, disagreed on how to rank a set of performance indicators by which to measure a president's success. Presidents gave higher ratings than trustees to such financial benchmarks as having a balanced budget, meeting fund-raising goals, and the quality and size of the freshman class. Trustees, meanwhile, reserved their highest ratings for academic measures, including the quality of educational programs and the faculty.

The biggest disagreement over performance measures between trustees and presidents? Improvement in their institution's U.S. News & World Report rankings. Trustees gave that indicator significantly more importance than did presidents.

The findings on preparation and the gap between trustees and presidents on key issues may be one reason why so many campus chief executives are under fire these days, says John Maguire, chairman of Maguire Associates, an educational-consulting firm in Concord, Mass., that conducted the survey and analyzed the results for The Chronicle.

"The presidents don't communicate with their boards enough, and in some cases, the boards haven't selected the right person to be president," Mr. Maguire says. "Presidents can get in more trouble for not communicating to the board than for not having balanced the budget."

That opinion was echoed by a female trustee at a private nondenominational college in response to an open-ended question in the confidential survey. "A strong, informed board that is clear about its role and responsibilities is one of the most important factors in a president's success," the trustee wrote.

Wealthy White Men

For comparison purposes, The Chronicle's survey covered trustees from the 1,082 institutions or university systems that were part of the 2005 president's survey. Presidents of those institutions forwarded invitations to their trustees to take the 63-question online survey. A total of 1,478 trustees from colleges located in every state and the District of Columbia responded between October 24 and November 29, 2006. (See complete results, Page A19.)

The survey results seem to confirm the portrait that many on college campuses have of trustees: a group of white, wealthy businessmen. Half of trustees in the survey listed their occupation as business. One-fifth make $500,000 or more a year, and an additional 18 percent make between $250,000 and $500,000. Nearly 90 percent are white, and 63 percent are men.

By and large, trustees are satisfied with their service on the board. The source of any frustration that trustees have with the job appears to come from their board's organization rather than the college's president.

When asked to rate their satisfaction with seven board-related issues, trustees ranked highest the quality of information provided by the president, and lowest the size of the board and how their time is used as trustees. When they were asked to rate how well the board performed 12 different tasks, communicating with the president was again No. 1. At the bottom of the list were having good procedures to remove a member, evaluation of trustees, and training new members.

Fewer than a third of respondents said they had ever been on a board that was dissatisfied with the college's president. Still, when compared with The Chronicle's survey of presidents, the findings from the trustee survey reveal plenty of differences between the two groups.

Across the board, with one exception, presidents expressed more concern than trustees about 21 issues facing their institutions related to faculty, students, finances, and enrollment. The lone exception: Trustees are more worried than presidents about competition from for-profit colleges.

Trustees also disagreed with presidents on what role race and ethnicity should play in admissions. Of a list of seven criteria that should be considered after taking academic qualifications into account, board members ranked race and ethnicity fourth, after talent in the arts, low socioeconomic status, and ability to pay full tuition. Presidents ranked race and ethnicity second on the same list, following only low socioeconomic status.

Board members were also more likely than presidents to say that college campuses are more accepting of diverse points of view than in the past. Forty-six percent of trustees agreed that campuses are more open, compared with just 31 percent of presidents.

Coming at a time when many conservatives have complained of a liberal orthodoxy on college campuses, that finding is surprising because trustees tend to lean to the right politically. Of the survey's respondents, 42 percent said they were registered Republicans, and 28 percent said they were Democrats. (Among presidents, it's basically the opposite: 41 percent Democrats and 19 percent Republicans.) And almost twice as many trustees as presidents voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

Even so, 48 percent of trustees who still think college campuses are no more accepting, or less accepting, of diverse views than in the past. Yet they may not always speak up about it.

"Standing up for academic freedom can sometimes undermine public relations and development efforts," wrote a male trustee at a private nondenominational college.

Complex Operations

Like a similar question on the president's survey in 2005, the open-ended question at the end of the trustee survey — "Is there anything else you would like to tell us concerning serving on a college or university board or issues facing colleges and universities today?" — generated comments on a variety of topics.

Trustees wrote about how students needed to be held more responsible for their own education and behavior. Some listed their worries: the institution's finances, the high cost of tuition, and their inability to raise necessary funds from private sources. Others complained about the organization of their boards or about how they or others were not prepared for the job.

A male trustee at a public university wrote that membership "requires more and more preparation for each board meeting, as issues become more and more complex." A male trustee at a private nondenominational college wrote in all capital letters: "Need attention to board training — preparation for service is very poor."

When asked about how ready they were to deal with a list of a dozen issues facing boards, the biggest difference of opinion between trustees who felt prepared and those who did not was on faculty issues, enrollment, and the amount of work that was expected of them. Unprepared members also gave lower marks to how their time was used and were more likely to report that the institution had unrealistically high expectations of donations from board members.

Harold W. Pote, a trustee at Drexel University, says boards need to recruit younger members "and let them learn by being there."

"You have to do succession planning for your board the same way you do for management," he says. "People join boards thinking they are prepared and then they see the magnitude of the responsibility that an overseer has."

One reason better-prepared board members may feel more satisfied is that they spend more hours per month working on board business and attend more meetings than unprepared members do. A male trustee at a public university suggested in his response to an open-ended question that new board members be given "a professional prepared booklet" that explains enrollment, budgets, shared governance, and other higher-education topics, "as most private citizens are not familiar with these important issues."

But at least one trustee seems to believe that no level of preparation will ever suffice for some board members. "The fact that most members are from the business community is a real problem on our board, as they have no comprehension of academic issues or the 'culture' of academia," wrote a female trustee at a private nondenominational institution. "It is not a question of preparation; it would be hard to give people the background needed."

WHERE COLLEGE TRUSTEES DIFFER: PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE COLLEGES Tenure on board have been on the board 11+ years. Public 9% Private, nondenominational 26% Private, religious 23% Alumni status are alumni of the institution on whose board they sit. Public 51% Private, nondenominational 66% Private, religious 54% Working relationship with president report an excellent relationship with the president. Public 56% Private, nondenominational 64% Private, religious 64% say they have contact with the president at least monthly. Public 46% Private, nondenominational 28% Private, religious 23% Athletics say big-time athletics programs are more of a liability than an asset. Public 22% Private, nondenominational 43% Private, religious 37% Accountability say colleges should be held more accountable for what their students learn. Public 86% Private, nondenominational 73% Private, religious 79% Demographics are black. Public 11% Private, nondenominational 6% have annual incomes of $500,000 or more. Public 15% Private, nondenominational 28% Private, religious 16% Fund raising sit on boards with required annual donations. Public 2% Private, nondenominational 19% Private, religious 18% Time committment said they work 16+ hours per month on board business. Public 23% Private, nondenominational 9% Private, religious 6% SOURCE: The Chronicle's Survey of College Trustees