In an effort to leave nothing on this campus that has not been reorganized, restructured, revamped and reconstituted, the Board of Trustees at The University of Toledo is currently considering revisions to its bylaws, including a new preamble with the following statement:
"Compliance with the principles delineated here will enable the board to serve and govern The University of Toledo ensuring due diligence, a culture of constructive inquiry and open discussion, a climate of respective University leadership and an intense focus on a strategic plan. This conduct will promote academic soundness, intellectual growth, and a means to develop the whole person as a contributing member of society. It will enable the nurturing of individual and collective prosperity in an ever changing world." This is certainly a noble statement with lofty goals, loftier than some of the subsequent additions and revisions.
For instance, the Board is charged with "maintain[ing] an environment where students, faculty and staff are not exempt from the consequences of their own actions or inactions, but where maximum freedom of scholastic inquiry and action is assured." While I'm sure we all believe that there are consequences to our actions, administrators are not included in this clause.
Has the board overstepped its boundaries so much so that it must be reminded to "concern itself with the strategic opportunities of paramount importance to the University and keep attention to operational matters to a minimum except those necessary to fulfill the board's fiduciary duties"? And yet, a few pages later, the proposed draft of revisions to the bylaws states: "The board retains the ultimate authority to approve and/or initiate: the administrative structure of the University; the educational programs and academic requirements of the University; the appointment, compensation and removal of all University personnel; the fiscal policies of the University; and University policies." Some of these actions may not fall under the rubric of the fiduciary duties of a university board of trustees.
There are other contradictory expectations regarding trustee behavior: "The president reports to the board as a whole and NOT to individual trustees. Any concerns pertinent to the president expressed by board members should be addressed to the board chair. It is also essential that trustees develop a comfortable working relationship with the president. They should interact one-on-one as needed to share information, concerns, or to give advice, but trustees should make it clear that they do not speak for the board." Obviously, the president answers to the board and not to individual members; but why are individual board members, on the one hand, required to address their concerns to the president through the chair, and two sentences later, encouraged to speak individually to the president about their concerns?
There is a new section proposed for the bylaws with explicit delineations of acceptable comportment for BOT members: they must try to attend meetings and complete assigned readings, responsibilities that one does not expect to have to articulate for business professionals. One wonders if there have been disagreements and disputes among board members since they are now enjoined to "expect and accord to every other board member civil and respectful treatment even when at odds over disparate opinions."
There is a new proposed tithe requiring "every board member [to] support the University philanthropically, commensurate with one's means as an expression of personal commitment to the University's wellbeing." Will this help offset the predicted budget shortfall of more than $16 million in FY2013?
What has led to the section that dictates BOT behavior toward the president? What kind of confusion has led to the necessity of explaining that every member of the board [must recognize] the president as the University's Chief Executive Officer"? Why must board members be instructed NOT to "criticize the president on any matter"?
It will be interesting to see if the Board of Trustees will vote to include the new eleventh commandment: thou shalt not criticize thy president. It will be equally interesting to see if the BOT is willing to sign away its First Amendment rights.
