Tag: trustee

  • The Trust in “Trustee” (opinion)

    The Trust in “Trustee” (opinion)

    The federal government and some state governments are now wanting to dictate to American colleges and universities what can and can’t be said on campus, what must and must not be taught in the curriculum, which students to admit and which to expel, which faculty to hire and which to fire, and what subjects to research and how.

    Part of this effort at ideological capture of American higher education has been to try to redefine the role of trustees at our institutions, particularly the public ones, as mere partisan operatives who should impose the will of the party in power on the institutions they govern. Trustees are framed as accountable to “the public.” They should be. The problem is that in this context, what is meant by “the public” is only that portion of it that agrees with government officials in charge at the moment, not the broader citizenry.

    Why is this a bad idea? Shouldn’t elected officeholders have some influence on the public campuses that their governments help fund? (Student tuition and donors help fund them, too, of course.) What about influence on private institutions whose students use public financial aid to pay tuition, and so much of whose research is government-funded? These are wholly reasonable expectations. However, when influence turns into direct intervention, when it manifests as heavy-handed government management, we have a problem. Why’s that?

    The genius of American higher education since colonial times has been the absence of a Ministry of Education that controls the operation of colleges and universities. This approach is very much in the American vein. The notion is that those who occupy elected office should not be able to manipulate independent, credible sources of information that might influence whether they get re-elected. (Ironically, many of the people who are pushing direct government control of higher education are at the same time taking apart the federal Department of Education because they say it exercises too much control over educational institutions.)

    The logical conclusion to today’s growing governmental pressure on higher education would be to dismiss all boards of trustees and establish a centralized ministry to govern the sector. Why resist the siren song of my favorite party telling those pointy-headed academics how to run their business without the intermediary layer of these governing boards? I’ll provide here just a few of the reasons.

    First, because Americans don’t like censorship, especially when the government does it. They hate the idea of any government telling them or their kids how to think or what to say. They don’t like political parties determining for them what “the truth” is. Trustees are the border runners between the party in power and government entities on the one hand, and the university on the other. At their best, they act as a conduit to bring public opinion—and sometimes public criticism—into the university, while at the same time buffering it from interference that gets in the way of its always messy search for truth, and its service to the commonwealth that derives from that mission.

    Second, boards in particular can and need to step up to defend America’s researchers in fields such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics as they follow their expertise to discoveries that benefit the health, economic well-being and national security of our citizens. Boards can assist in warding off politically motivated regulations and budget cuts that senselessly damage this vital progress pipeline. An Associated Press/NORC at the University of Chicago poll from May showed that 75 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of Republicans favor maintaining federal funding for scientific and medical research. Governing boards, populated by highly regarded, independent citizens with impressive personal and professional networks, are uniquely positioned to reflect the bipartisan will of the people, regardless of their personal partisan leanings.

    Third, if elected politicians, not trustees and staff, decide who gets hired and fired at colleges and universities, employees will be chosen and dismissed based more on personal and party loyalty than expertise and merit. So much for meritocracy.

    Fourth, boards can and should model for students, staff and the public at large how public-spirited volunteers civilly debate policy issues, without fear or favor, across whatever divisions exist among board members. Has there ever been a time when that would be a greater service by trustees to American democracy?

    Colleges and universities are hardly perfect. For one thing, they have not adequately reflected the diversity of the country—intellectual, economic or ethnic. This and other flaws trustees can identify and help fix. As informed, “loving critics,” they know more about their institution than anybody else who does not work there. Working with their president, they can push their institution to teach the conflicts we live today authentically and objectively, not preach the prevalent party line on campus or in the state house.

    In the current overheated political rhetoric, trustees, especially of public institutions, are presented with a false choice: Do you serve your institution or the citizens of your state? The question is based on the absurd assumption that you cannot serve both. Trustees have a responsibility to serve citizens by protecting the legacy of their institution built by previous generations, improving its quality and reach for today’s population, and ensuring its sustainability for generations to come. They should not be counting down to the next election; they should be taking the long view. That’s what we should be able to trust them to do.

    Kevin P. Reilly is president emeritus and Regent Professor for the University of Wisconsin system and a member of PEN America’s Champions of Higher Education group of former college and university presidents.

    Source link

  • Embattled University of West Florida Trustee Resigns

    Embattled University of West Florida Trustee Resigns

    Scott Yenor, chair of the Board of Trustees at the University of West Florida, resigned Wednesday ahead of a looming fight with lawmakers, The Pensacola News Journal reported.

    Yenor, a political science professor at Boise State University, made national headlines in 2021 when he made misogynistic remarks at the National Conservatism Conference, taking aim at feminism and arguing that women should not pursue certain career fields, such as engineering.

    He also described “independent women” as “medicated, meddlesome and quarrelsome.”

    Yenor and other conservative trustees appointed at UWF in January faced protests from the community. But it was ultimately pressure from state lawmakers over other remarks that seemed to push Yenor out. In a series of social media posts in February, Yenor seemed to imply that only straight white men should be in political leadership posts. Some critics, including Randy Fine, a Republican state senator at the time of the post, read his remarks as exclusionary of Jewish men. (Fine recently won a special election to represent Florida’s First Congressional District.)

    Fine, who is Jewish, subsequently called Yenor a “bigot” and “misogynist.”

    Under Florida law, a trustee appointed by the governor can begin serving immediately, before confirmation by the State Legislature. With the confirmation process underway, Yenor stepped aside amid speculation that lawmakers could refuse to sign off on his appointment.

    “Gov. Ron DeSantis’ higher education reforms are models for the country,” Yenor wrote in a resignation email obtained by The Pensacola News Journal. “I was looking forward to bringing the Governor’s positive vision for higher education to the University of West Florida (UWF) as a member of the Board of Trustees. Opposition to my nomination among a group within Florida’s senate, however, leads me to resign from UWF’s Board of Trustees effectively immediately.”

    The potential rejection would mark a rare break between DeSantis and Florida’s Republican-dominated Legislature, which has largely supported the governor’s agenda during his time in office. Earlier this year, the Senate Appropriations Committee did not confirm Adam Kissel, another UWF board appointee, though there is still a path for him to be confirmed anyway. In 2023, the Florida Senate rejected another DeSantis pick and bumped Eddie Speir from the New College of Florida board simply by not taking action on the confirmation rather than rejecting it.

    Source link

  • Penn State blocks embattled trustee from re-election

    Penn State blocks embattled trustee from re-election

    Embattled Pennsylvania State University trustee Barry Fenchak’s time on the board may be nearing an end: A subcommittee voted Wednesday that he was “unqualified and ineligible” to run again.

    Fenchak is one of nine trustees on the 36-member board who are elected by alumni. His term is set to expire at the end of June. But Fenchak—who is already locked in litigation with Penn State over what he considers its lack of fiscal transparency—plans to fight the decision.

    “This is completely in line with Penn State’s long-standing pattern with regard to trying to maintain their secrecy, and myself and our legal team will be evaluating these recent actions by Penn State and taking the appropriate actions in the court,” Fenchak told Inside Higher Ed.

    The outspoken trustee has been at the center of controversy for nearly a year as he has sought to obtain more details on the university’s rising endowment management fees, even filing a lawsuit for that information. Penn State initially refused to provide the financial details that Fenchak, an investment adviser, said he needed to perform his fiduciary duties; he argued that endowment management fees inexplicably climbed from 0.62 percent in 2013–14 to 2.49 percent by 2018–19. Eventually, as a result of his litigation, he was able to obtain the requested documents, he told Inside Higher Ed.

    His lawsuit is one of two brought against the university last year by trustees alleging a lack of transparency by the board. A local media outlet has also sued for alleged violations of open meetings laws.

    Efforts to Remove Fenchak

    Fellow trustees previously tried to boot Fenchak from the board last fall after he made a crude joke to a female staff member. Paraphrasing the PG-rated Tom Hanks movie A League of Their Own, Fenchak—who is bald and had just received a Penn State baseball cap as a gift at a university event—joked that it made him look like “a penis with a hat on,” according to court records.

    Fenchak’s remark prompted the board to call a meeting in October in an effort to remove him. However, a judge intervened, halting the board’s attempt to oust Fenchak.

    In his opinion granting the preliminary injunction, Centre County Court Judge Brian J. Marshall wrote that while he “is not suggesting that plaintiff should not be sanctioned,” the court had been “presented with credible and, in many instances uncontroverted, evidence that Plaintiff has been subject to ongoing retaliation by Defendants.”

    The judge also noted that Fenchak had sued Penn State just three days before the remark that the board used as justification for his removal.

    Now, months later, the board landed on a new tactic to remove Fenchak: The nine-member nominating subcommittee voted 8 to 1 last week to bar him from running for re-election.

    Daniel Delligatti, vice chair of the subcommittee, argued that Fenchak had been warned multiple times about “inappropriate behavior” and that he failed to live up to the board’s code of conduct.

    Fenchak’s attempt at humor made staff members feel uncomfortable, Delligatti said, and his candidacy for a second term was not in “alignment with Penn State’s mission and values.”

    Trustee Jay Paterno was the sole dissenting vote. He argued that “the process” as he understood it was “outside the scope of our review.”

    Fenchak attended the virtual meeting but was denied an opportunity to speak on his own behalf.

    Deliberations on blocking Fenchak from running for re-election were largely confined to a closed executive session meeting of the nominating subcommittee, which preceded the deciding vote.

    A Legal Fight

    Though a judge halted Penn State’s initial efforts to remove Fenchak, the board and the university’s legal team are again trying to oust him. The same day that the nominating subcommittee shot down Fenchak’s re-election bid, the university filed a motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction that allowed Fenchak to remain on the board as his lawsuit proceeded.

    Fenchak alleges the motion was filed mere minutes after the subcommittee’s decision, which would prevent him from finishing his current term as well as serving another one.

    Penn State officials did not provide a comment on the situation.

    In response to a request for an interview with trustees, Shannon Harvey, assistant vice president and secretary for the board, referred Inside Higher Ed to a video of the subcommittee’s virtual meeting.

    As of publication, Fenchak had not filed a legal response. But he noted one is coming. Beyond the impact on him personally, he also has broader concerns about the board’s process to bar trustees from re-election, which was adopted over the last year as he pressured the university to release financial documents.

    “Forget about my specific situation. This process disenfranchises and essentially steals the vote from our alumni,” Fenchak said. “That’s a right our alumni have had for 150 years, and now we are telling those alumni who they can and who they cannot vote for to represent them on the board. Frankly, that’s unconscionable. As a Penn Stater, it’s heartbreaking.”

    Changes to the way alumni trustees are elected have also caught the attention of state lawmakers.

    At a Feb. 20 Pennsylvania House Appropriations Committee hearing, Republican representative Marla Brown questioned Penn State president Neeli Bendapudi about the change. Brown said she had fielded complaints from constituents and seemed skeptical about the new processes.

    “I can tell you that people are not happy about it, and the optics on it are not good. As I’m sure you’re aware, it looks like a conflict of interest that the board is mainly concerned with picking and choosing the muscle in which the candidates will be serving on the board,” Brown said.

    Asked why Penn State made the change, Bendapudi noted it was a board decision.

    “Did you support the change?” Brown asked.

    “I report to them and I have no say in it one way or the other,” Bendapudi answered.

    Source link