IHL Meeting: Full Report - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 17, 2005

IHL Meeting: Full Report

Date: Mar 17, 2005

AFter the usual call to order (Ms. Newton, presiding), there were several awards of recognition for Black History month. Then there were reports from committees (academic affairs, budget and financial, building, legal, etc) and then Ms. Newton reported on the commissioner search which included a vote by the board on their new governance model.

The Governance model is a DRAFT that needs to be incorporated into their bylaws before it is fully effective.

I will transcribe some of that document. But my dinner is simmering and I may not get through all of it.

During the past several months, the Board of Trustees has been discussing system governance and how to make our management more effective through the role of the Commissioner. Our vision is to move the Board's work up to the policy level while allowing our higher education professionals to manage and operate the institutions. Although we've explored how to be a better, more effective board in the past, weve never discussed the structural modifications necessary to provide the framework for true behavioral change. Our assessment of other governance models has led us to the conclusion that we should move toward a more effective structure.

The Board of Trustees will adopt operating principles which include the following:

Focus on policies, goals, and strategic direction, resisting all steps to micromanage and direct involvement at the operational level of the universities.

Let higher education professionals (the Instutional Executive Officers and the Commissioner) perform their leadership responsibilities and hold them accountable for attaining agreed upon goals.

Approach all decisions from the perspective of what is best for the State of Mississippi and the students of our universities.

Ensure that all Board members set aside institutional loyalties and allegiance.

Maintain trust, respect and open dialog among Board members.

Make changes in the Board's structure and agenda so that Board meetings are less chaotic and more effective.

Bring clarity in roles, responsibilities, and relationships among Board members, the Insitutional Executive Officers, and the Commissioner.

Therefore, the Board of Trustees proposes the follwing reporting relationships and operational procedures.

1. The Instiitutional Executive Officers will report directly to the Commissioner of Higher Education, who reports to the Board of Trustees.

2. The Board of Truestees will elect a President and Vice President for one-uear terms. Officers may succeed themselves for no more than one additional year. The Board President will appoint a nominating committee (using former Board Presidents where possible) to bring forward nominees for President and Vice President. The President will continue (along with the Commissioner) to serve as the spokesperson for the Board of Truestees. Board members will defer tothe President as the person in charge of the Board meetings, without sacrificing the ability to challenge the rulings of the President or to speak on matters of policy or principle. The President of the Board will take a leadership role in ensuring that the Board's Code of Conduct is followed. The President will appoint all committee chairs and committees. TheVice President will stand in for the President when the President is unavailable and will assist the President as called upon. The Vice President may be elected President in subsequent years. Note: This election process will begin no sooner than the election of a Vice President to serveduring Dr. Magee's term as President.

more later (someone else can take this up, too)

Date: Mar 17, 2005

Thanks, Amy. Bon appetit.

JL

Date: Mar 17, 2005

Amy,

Thanks for taking the time to do this; it's greatly appreciated.

Date: Mar 17, 2005

The Board of Trustees will adopt operating principles which include the following:

Focus on policies, goals, and strategic direction, resisting all steps to micromanage and direct involvement at the operational level of the universities.

Let higher education professionals (the Instutional Executive Officers and the Commissioner) perform their leadership responsibilities and hold them accountable for attaining agreed upon goals. . . .

Ensure that all Board members set aside institutional loyalties and allegiance.

Maintain trust, respect and open dialog among Board members.

Wow. These principles, especially the phrases I've put in bold, sound like direct responses to the kinds of issues that have been raised repeatedly on this board.

I am beginning to understand why Klumb wasn't there. These principles sound almost like a direct rebuke to him and to the way he has presided. It would be nice if both Shelby AND Roy wind up with egg on their faces by the time this whole thing ends.

Date: Mar 17, 2005

Just got in to the office and I have a lot of work to do -- needed to get a few hours of snooze. But I think we were very heartened by the meeting and its tone. Virginia ran it extremely well -- very much in control. The usual alliances within the board did not seem quite as apparent -- and the sense of the board beginning to have a core of unity much stronger. Newton and Crofts seemed to have a pretty good relationship and Crofts seems in his short time to have gotten the respect of the Board members.

It definitely felt as though there was a certain lifting of the curtain -- the heavy, oppressive tension of past board meetings that I have been too seemed much allayed.

Gotta run. Press releases, calendars, etc. to do.

I think it was good for us to go up and get a sense of how things are moving.

Date: Mar 17, 2005

Stephen,

Thanks for making the trip and (in that way) making the presence of all of us felt. We really appreciate the commitment you have made.

Date: Mar 17, 2005

Other than the excellent news delivered a'la Newton and Crofts about the restructuring, the best thing about the trip was Amy and LVN and I having lunch at Hal and Mals!

Date: Mar 17, 2005

Is it too early to become optimistic?

From what I have read, it seems like the tide might be turning. Won't it be nice not to have to bail water for a bit and maybe just find the drain to the swamp? (Old military saying)

But, I do have a question, and its unrelated to the topic. IF you survive probation, then you have to go thru this again? Only this time the accrediating body looks at EVERYTHING that deals with the university. Did I understand that right? From how staff/faculty are hired, to shared governance, to raises etc?

Date: Mar 17, 2005

Patti,

My understanding is that on the next accreditation cycle, SACS will be looking at much more than they're looking at now.

At that point, the little dialogue that appeared a few days ago ont this board (SACS visitor: How you do this? Faculty: Here is how we do it, except when the President rips up the rule book and does whatever he wants instead) will become apropos.

Robert Campbell

Date: Mar 17, 2005

Thank you Robert. I appreciate the information.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

This is very good news from the Board Meeting. Adoption of the principles outlined should never have been necessary, it should have been understood. I guess some of the members take a while to learn (maybe another vacation in Point Clear would help).

As for the local business people their only concern is that Hattiesburg and the retail center adjacent to Hattiesburg should be seen as a peaceful friendly place to spend money. They regard controversy, even for a just and righteous cause, as bad for business since people talk about that instead of the products available to buy. They have no concept that underlying problems must be solved to really make things better. Maybe the manager of the Coke plant can provide them with glasses to improve their vision.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Eagle
"
This is very good news from the Board Meeting. Adoption of the principles outlined should never have been necessary, it should have been understood. "

I think we should note, however, that they presently have a set of bylaws in place and that some of these principles are already enumerated in those. The matter of institutional loyalty struck me when I saw the draft, but someone else told me that it was already supposed to be one of their governing principles. Supposed to be is the operative word. The biggies here are the annual review and the strengthened position of the Commissioner.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

maybe some of the changes were directed at not only klumb but ross as well. as someone pointed out a few days ago, ross was involved in trying to fire the ad at msu last year and now his involvement at usm. obviously ihl board members should and do have influence in the operation of state universities, but it is very clear ross has stepped over the line.

in the past, other board members have tried to become power brokers, but ross and klumb have been so outspoken maybe sacs was reviewing the ihl actions.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

Strengthing the role of the commish is also a way to create another level of blame when things go poorly. Instead of the IHL absorbing the bad publicity, the commisioner becomes a convenient scapegoat, like a USM provost or dean has become. Perhaps this reorganization at the top also portends a reorginaziation of the universities that is coming in these tougher financial times.

Big question: who selects the Commisioner? How does he/she get evaluated? How long will his/her contract be? Won't the board still be all poweful? How will this work? What are the checks and balances? I just don't know enough to know what it all means.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

I'm not sure, but I think the board itself selects the Commissioner. Also, you have a point as far as the board distancing itself a step from "bad" stuff. It looks like they are going to a Georgia/ North Carolina model so we could look that direction to see how the details play out. They are also distancing themselves from a lot of the dissension and micromanagement, which is probably why Ross is unhappy.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cynical Thinking and Other Questions
"Strengthing the role of the commish is also a way to create another level of blame when things go poorly. Instead of the IHL absorbing the bad publicity, the commisioner becomes a convenient scapegoat, like a USM provost or dean has become. Perhaps this reorganization at the top also portends a reorginaziation of the universities that is coming in these tougher financial times. Big question: who selects the Commisioner? How does he/she get evaluated? How long will his/her contract be? Won't the board still be all poweful? How will this work? What are the checks and balances? I just don't know enough to know what it all means. "

It was very clear t me yesterday within the Board had devolved away from Shelby specifically and to the flaws in the IHL process that our situation, coupled with a few other events, had revealed.

There are clearly those on the Board (the "Newton" team,) who felt that individuals on the Board have acted unprofessionally, have tried to micromanage selected institutions, have been partisan in their activities both in terms of siding with institutions and perhaps in terms of evaluating the success of university executives. It was equally clear that this move had come after quite a bit of research on the part of the search committee for a new commissioner -- looking for a successful model to improve the one we have which is clearly limping along.

Clearly some on the Board recognize that the Board itself is subject to political influence -- I think this new structure is an attempt to offer a counterweight in the prescence of a strong commissioner. Clearly, a Board composed of political appointees cannot possibly be either truly neutral or have the academic experiise needed to run this system.

I left the document out in my car so I can't answer your specific questions just now regarding the commissioner's term, etc. Clearly the commissioner still answers to the Board, who does the hiring. I don't know how insulated the commissioner is --

But I suggest that the idea of hiring a professional expert is to defuse those members of the Board who support a rogue President in the face of evidence of either ineffectiveness or worse because other political agendas are actually in play. If a powerful academic expert is authorized not only to act, but to use academic reasoning to justify and action, the politics of the Board will, to some extent, be neutralized. Of course, that assumes that the Board itself is balanced enough in composition to neutralize any attempt to fire a strong commissioner. It also presupposes the hiuring of an indepedent and strong commissioner. I believe that the hiring of Crofts should give us confidence that the Newton-led Board will find just such a candidate for the role since they have already experienced the benfit of having such a figure in Crofts.

No system is perfect of course -- and I am sure that some of the discussion yet to be had will fall on the issue of checks and balances, with the Ross-Klumb forces attempting to neutralize the authority of a commissioner as much as possible, and the Newton/Crofts wing attempting to give the commissioner a strong hand.

Newton's constant appeal to the "laymanship" of the Board vs the "expertise" that the Board must rely on not only acknowleged a truth, but tneded to counter the Roy Klumb approach that the Board itself has the expertise to micromanage. Newton;s contention is that this is completely wrong.

It is a major philosophical shift and one which I believe will benefit us in the short run and Higher education in the long run.

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"It is a major philosophical shift and one which I believe will benefit us in the short run and Higher education in the long run."

When the IHL board votes on the governance proposal, is it possible that we'll see the "yeas" & "nays" stack up along fairly predictable lines, or will even the most reactionary trustees be forced to support the proposal because it is reasonable?

As Stephen points out, though, it presupposes that the board would hire a true "expert" as commissioner rather than going with the flow to appoint someone with the right "Mississipppi political pedigree."

Date: Mar 18, 2005

You raise important issues Invictus. We don't know how the search is being conducted, what the criteria are, and who the candidates are. However, I think (somebody else can correct if need be) that the Commissioner by definition has to be someone in higher education. Surely, surely they will see the need to hire an "outsider" --

Also, I hear that Khayat is retiring. I here and now nominate him for interim president of USM, all in favor say "aye" and "praise the Lord."

Date: Mar 18, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Third Witch
"You raise important issues Invictus. We don't know how the search is being conducted, what the criteria are, and who the candidates are. However, I think (somebody else can correct if need be) that the Commissioner by definition has to be someone in higher education. Surely, surely they will see the need to hire an "outsider" -- Also, I hear that Khayat is retiring. I here and now nominate him for interim president of USM, all in favor say "aye" and "praise the Lord.""

Evidence for a legitimate search:

1. Crofts was hired as interim commissioner . . . very clearly a strong commissioner.

2. They like him enough to use him as a principle adivsor in the new search, and in exploring a new model for the commissioner.

3. Member sof the search committe: Newton (Chair), Patterson, Blakeslee.

4. The proposal itself --

5, The models they have worked from (NC and Georgia chiefly) clearly presuppose a higher education expert with strong authority.

I agree there needs to be further definition . . . as Newton herself noted yesterday in her put downof Ross.