ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, October 2, 1996 TAG: 9610020020
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MATTHEW J. FRANCK
YOU REPORTED on Sept. 11 (news story, ``Report urges presidents of colleges to be assertive'') the results of a nationwide study conducted for the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges by a commission chaired by former Virginia Gov. Gerald Baliles. It concluded that ``the academic presidency has become weak,'' beleaguered by ``trustees, faculty members and political leaders'' who act in various ways to hamstring presidential leadership, block change and cause inefficient decision-making.
It seems college and university presidents must take risks, wield their legitimate power confidently, and ``yield less to the whims'' of competing centers of power on and off campus.
As for boards of trustees (called visitors in Virginia), the commission expressed concern that, across the nation, their members (in this newspaper's words) ``too often serve political interests and sometimes don't have enough knowledge of higher education issues.'' They ought, it concluded, to be appointed by public officials only after the review of nominees by an independent screening panel.
That's sound advice, but until and unless the General Assembly changes the laws governing visitors' appointments (currently made unilaterally by governors), we who work and study at Virginia's universities are at the mercy of our board members' fairness, common sense and self-restraint. In short, their integrity.
At Radford University, we will have an opportunity to put our board of visitors' integrity to the test. For the first time anyone can recall, a formal evaluation of the university's president will be conducted and the results may become the basis for a decision whether to retain President Douglas Covington. It's important this precedent-setting process be conducted in an appropriate manner.
What follows is a ``study guide'' to assist those board members who are interested in passing the integrity test. Much of the advice is drawn from recommendations regarding evaluations of administrators made by the American Association of University Professors.
Principles of the process. In a narrow legal sense, a Virginia university's board of visitors has near-total discretion over the conditions of presidential employment. But ethically, each board has the interests of students, faculty, staff and administrators to consider, and ultimately represents the people of Virginia's interest in high-quality higher education. Therefore, any evaluation of a university's highest administrator should be: apolitical rather than partisan, professional rather than personal, an orderly and institutionalized process rather than ad hoc, open to the involvement of concerned constituencies rather than closed and insular, public in the standards to be used (beforehand) and the results reached (afterward) rather than secretive, deliberately paced rather than rushed, and improvement-oriented rather than punitive in spirit.
The process in action. From these principles, certain practical requirements follow:
First, an evaluation process should begin with a plainly stated understanding between a president and his board regarding the time frame during which his performance will be evaluated, a set of agreed-upon goals and expectations against which his leadership will be judged, and his rights to offer a self-assessment and to respond to the report of those evaluating him on behalf of the board.
Second, an evaluation committee should be constituted by the board to make a report to it, with (in the AAUP's words) ``different constituencies represented according to their legitimate interest in the result.'' Students, faculty and appropriate administrators should serve on such a committee.
Third, the evaluation committee should consider the president's self-assessment of his performance, examine objective data on the state of the university under his leadership, and interview persons in all his constituencies, all in light of the agreed-upon evaluation criteria. It should refuse to consider anonymous communications praising or condemning the president. Its report and recommendations to the board, except in cases of a president who is an abject failure, should be made in the spirit of helping to improve his future performance.
Fourth, the board of visitors should receive the evaluation committee's report in a spirit of confidence in the committee, trusting in the work that only it has done. In the same spirit, it should also welcome the president's accompanying comments on the report. The AAUP recommends the board ``accept the recommendations of the review committee, except in extraordinary circumstances and for reasons communicated to the committee with an opportunity for response by the concerned parties prior to a final decision.''
Finally, the evaluation committee's report and related materials, such as the president's response and any official board action, should be made public to the fullest extent possible. The letter of the law regarding confidentiality of personnel actions must be respected, but shouldn't become an excuse for a largely closed process. The aim is to dispel any aura of mystery and arbitrariness and to cultivate the widest possible acceptance and understanding of board actions so vital to the university.
The ugly alternative. The imagination doesn't have to work very hard to come up with a hypothetical parade of horribles that could occur if an orderly and open process is not followed. Partisan politics may rule the day, or intra-board factionalism may lead to struggles in which a president becomes a pawn and ultimately a victim. Secret enemies, the envious and the disgruntled, may ``get to'' a board and attempt a president's unjust destruction. The views of faculty, students and other concerned constituencies may be disregarded by boards who have, or believe they have, reason to be unhappy with certain groups on campus.
Presidents could be scapegoated for not miraculously solving all of a university's problems with a snap of their fingers, and this without any manageable expectations having been stated up front. In the worst-case scenario, mere prejudice regarding a president's race, gender, religion or his fashion sense can become the de facto cause of his undoing.
We at Radford University have no reason to fear such corruptions of integrity as our board prepares to evaluate President Covington. But to us and the public whom they represent, our board of visitors now has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the best that we can expect: fair notice, due process, representation, careful deliberation and public openness.
Matthew J. Franck is an associate professor and chairman of the political science department at Radford University.
LENGTH: Long : 113 linesby CNB