Ben Novak on Trusteeship and Shared Governance

Former PSU trustee Dr. Ben Novak joins Andy Nash for an insightful look at the historical and current role of trustees in higher education. He contrasts how the relationship of governance between students, faculty and administration has changed, as well as vis-a-vis trustees. With virtually all power now concentrated in university administrations, Dr. Ben Novak reveals the challenges for modern-day trustees – the ultimate governing body legally responsible for their institutions.

Key Take-Aways

• 1:30  A board of trustees, as an executor of a trust (1 min 45 sec)
• 4:45  A new Standing Order: 60′s radicals and the demise of tripartite government (6 min 15 sec)
• 11:05  Trustees vest all power in the university administration president (1 min)
• 13:25  The control of what information trustees receive (1 min 45 sec)
• 15:20  The admin as middle-man between trustees and the university (3 min 30 sec)
• 18:50  Their own liaison with faculty and students independent of the admin? (45 sec)

Andy’s Show Notes

In our third interview with Dr. Ben Novak, we look at how governance had existed and changed in higher education, again spotlighting Penn State as the example.  This time the focus is on the Board of Trustees – the ultimate governing body of a university.  In today’s consumer-focused paradigm of modern education, many have drawn the analogy of a university’s president, or chancellor to that of a company’s CEO, with his cadre of administrators as subordinate corporate managers, while likening boards of trustees or regents to that of an executive board of share holders who can vote only on major decisions and to replace the CEO.  Functionally this makes sense on the surface, until we examine the purpose of such governing bodies and boards.

Having practiced law for decades in Pennsylvania and having served four consecutive terms on Penn State’s own board of trustees from 1988-2000, Ben Novak explains the duty and role of such a board as that of one who is held in trust to carry out the mission articulated in the school’s founding charter – such as an executor of a will.  As with any executor, he may delegate responsibilities to hired managers and administrators, just as a board of share holders delegates in a for-profit business corporation.  However, unlike a board of share holders, university trustees cannot decide to do whatever they want merely to increase greater revenues, and least of all to change the very basic mission and scope of their institutions.  They are bound and limited by their charter and founding mission.

But to better understand the role of the board, we need to look at its relationship to internal university governance.  Thus Ben first revisits the role of faculty and student leadership from our previous interview.  Here he explains how the faculty was sovereign over curricular affairs, and how student leadership set the conduct of the student body.  In the early 20th century strikes at Penn State, disputes between students and faculty were settled by administrative mediation only if and when they were invited by students or faculty.

However, as at many schools, the turbulence of the late 1960′s was replete with radical campus political activism, rallies, protests, marches and demonstrations that converged on the administration’s doorstep.  Many faculty members siding with the political movements, and student leaders abdicating responsibility for the behaviors only served to undermine and erode the traditional duties and responsibilities of both the faculty and the student body leadership.  Thus as Ben explains, and as the current Standing Orders (S-12 – S-13) of Penn State’s Board of Trustees reveal, the trustees explicitly delegate all authority to the administration president.  Specifically, they allow policies in curricular and student affairs made or consulted by faculty and students only “as appropriately organized” and to be all subject to the orders of the president.  The president appoints academic deans, is Chief Policy Officer, and powers of the faculty over curriculum are delegated via the president.

In this context, one begins to see a structure not of tripartite or shared governance in which administrative authority was exercised only upon invitation as arbitrator; but rather one of corporate governance in which the CEO dictates to his employees (faculty and staff) what will be run and how.  Students, reduced to the idea of mere customers, may likewise defer to administrative ambitions regarding a host of collegiate, academic, policy and fiscal matters with their only real recourse being to vote with their feet and their pocket books.

Moreover, as the current standing orders show, the president consults faculty on student matters, students on policy matters, and the trustees on virtually all matters.  “Official student communication to the Board of Trustees shall be made through the President”.  While this may be sensible and approriate in so many cases, all of this still leaves trustees in a precarious position of making decisions relying heavily or virtually entirely on information as presented by the administration.  However, to the administration, as Ben says, “they (the administration) are the parent of every success, and every failure is an orphan”.

So the question becomes how can trustees really know what is going on, and what is working and not working so well?  How can they obtain reliable and accurate information independent of the administration; and as non-share holders what incentive do they really have to investigate anything?  Thus, we see that merely pointing to a lack of incentive for a university board of trustees to be concerned with a bottom line – otherwise essential for a business corporation’s board of stake holders – is not particularly useful in investigating any insufficient transparency or accountability. 

The board nonetheless has a distinct responsibility to determine and assess if and to what extent, and at what cost the institution is in fact continuing to achieve its founding public mission.  Institutional missions can be vague and broad, and since Penn State also has one of the broadest with all of its expanded enterprises and undertakings, the duty of its trustees to be actively and thoroughly informed from multiple levels is even greater than those of most other schools.

Can trustees take a more active role in bringing about greater transparency and accountability in higher education and restoring shared governance?  Find out in our interview with Ben Novak on Inside Academia.