Maricopa Community College Trustee Disaster

One of the largest community college systems in the country, the Phoenix-based Maricopa County Community College district is overseen by a five-member board of trustees whose elected members serve six year terms.

Following an anonymous complaint filed with the Higher Learning Commission (a regional accrediting body) about the “role and behavior of the board and the integrity of the organization,” an independent investigating commission looked at the board and its practices. The commission’s report found a pattern among trustees of incivility, belligerency, micromanagement, lack of understanding of their job, inability of the board leadership to handle controversy and deal with “rogue” members, and general ineptness. The report makes for fascinating reading, and its recommendations for trustee conduct – self monitoring, respectful communication, civil behavior, appropriate delegation, accountability, respect for process and authority – should apply to all higher education governing boards. (A summary of the issues surrounding the Maricopa trustees can be found in Scott Jaschik’s report in Inside Higher Education)

The dismal Maricopa trustee situation follows on the heels of the resignation this past summer of the scandal-rocked Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, following a disclosure by the Chicago Tribune of inappropriate political pressure and trustee interference in the university’s admissions process. The fallout from the scandal resulted in the university system president’s resignation in July and, today, the resignation of respected Urbana-Champaign Chancellor, Richard Herman.

The two cases highlight growing concerns among academics about problematic governing boards in public higher education generally, and particularly the way they are chosen.

Particularly worrisome are elected governing boards, as is the case for the Maricopa Community College system. The resumés of the five board members suggest they are all fine people, with a commendable interest in volunteer work and public service, but with scant professional experience either in higher education or handling board-level responsibilities. (The president of the board is 26 years old and board members' employment includes military service, project management in an organization that promotes sexual abstinence, substance abuse counseling, Republican party committee membership, and health education consulting, among other activities.)

Elected governing boards can attract single-issue crusaders, ideologues, social activists, aspiring politicians who see the position as a stepping stone to higher office, and self-styled education reformers. Such boards are often fractious and politicized, and since experience and knowledge is not a prerequisite for the job, their members frequently lack the qualifications and nuanced understanding of higher education that the position really calls for.

The thirteen University of Illinois trustees are mostly gubernatorial appointees (two student members are elected), and this mechanism carries its own problems. During my years as a university professor and administrator in Ohio, I watched governors appoint as trustees their friends, campaign contributors, family members, spouses of colleagues, former coworkers, and sports fans wanting to influence coach selection. To be blunt, many of these people, some of whom had not set foot on a college campus since their undergraduate days, were simply unqualified for their oversight responsibilities, either by temperament, experience, or knowledge. Furthermore, as James Duderstadt, former president of the University of Michigan, has observed, there is generally no mechanism for removing board members, even for cases of gross incompetence or misconduct.

In this century, public higher education trustees must deal with daunting social and educational problems, not to mention expenditures of many millions of dollars. Board members should be thoughtful and open-minded, should have balanced judgment and good interpersonal skills, and should come to their positions without prior agendas. They should be able to frame complex issues in context, assess objectively the merits of academic proposals, be familiar with strategic planning, be able to read balance sheets, and understand the culture of academia.

In my opinion, the key to obtaining competent governing boards, whether elected or appointed, is to review more stringently the desired professional credentials of candidates. One way to ensure competency would be through the pre-screening of candidates by an objective, expert, and non-partisan review committee. In states or communities where trustees are elected, this could be an election committee, charged with presenting qualified candidates to the electorate. For appointed governing boards, such a committee would merely make recommendations to the governor or other appointing authority.

There may be other workable mechanisms. One way or the other, however, there must be more attention given to the professional qualifications of public higher education trustees. Anything less shortchanges institutions of the oversight they need in this troubling new environment.