Presidents and boards of trustees often respond to a financial crisis with a destructive contest in which a board resists the presidents for greater authority. President’s takes the lead because they believe that an effective response cannot take place unless they have more authority to make changes through all levels of the college. The board pulls back from the president’s request because they fear that the college will lose its historic identify and not be able to deliver on its mission.
Here are examples of the push-pull over authority between presidents and boards of trustees.
- The most obtuse case in the push-pull of authority is where the board does not include in its by-laws that it retains final authority over all decisions.
- A particularly annoying case for presidents is when a board prior to the crisis relinquishes its authority over academic programs and decisions on hiring, reassigning and dismissing members of the faculty.
- For president’s the most troubling authority transfer to the faculty is when the board permits the faculty to determine the conditions for tenure, the number of tenure positions, and the procedures for reviewing tenure.
- Another short-sighted decision by a board is when they expand board membership to include members of the faculty. The ostensible reason given by in some instances is to improve communications between the board and the faculty. Granting membership to the faculty for this reason is a clear statement that they do not trust the president. Here are several other problems with placing faculty on the board:
- Faculty are self-interested members at a time, when the board needs to be disinterested in the outcomes of its decisions.
- The faculty become privy to personnel action that may affect a member of a colleague.
- The faculty members could carry back to colleagues; sensitive information about strategic options and personnel changes. Under this circumstance, a cautious board could forfeit open discussion.
- Even more debilitating is when a general uproar in the college results in leaks to the press. The danger with leaks to the press is that governmental agencies and accrediting bodies may become involved prematurely in options that are only under consideration.
- Disagreement between the board and president over the degree of authority to grant the president during a financial crisis may not be resolvable. Nevertheless, the board’s decision on granting additional authority can be critical, if the president has a credible strategy to end the financial crisis. Not granting the necessary authority can doom the possibility of stemming a financial crisis. In a deep financial crisis, time is of the essence.
In summary, the problem with authority boils down to the makeup of the board. For an interim president, the board is inherited and nothing can be done to change its makeup. In these cases, a president faces a conundrum similar to what a former Secretary of Defense said about armies and war. In war, in particular, a short-war, you use the army that you have not the army that you wished you had.