What Criteria Are We Looking For In University Board Members?

by James A. BaconA

s Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin selects cabinet members and other key members of his administration, he has more pressing concerns to occupy his attention at this moment than replacing members on Virginia’s public university boards whose terms don’t expire until June 30. But as soon as he has the opportunity to do so, he needs to give serious thought to the criteria he will use to select these new board members.

I argued recently that Youngkin should look for individuals willing to support academic freedom and oppose the excesses of the “social justice” movement in Virginia’s system of higher education. He needs pugnacious advocates willing to endure controversy, hostility and ostracism to change campus cultures that are evolving into intellectual monocultures harmful to free inquiry, free speech, and free expression.

Since posting that column, I have received feedback that I thought was worth sharing from a prominent board member of a Virginia university. He made the case that Virginia has a system in place to take some of the politics out of the selection process. With the caveat that colleges and universities have become so politicized that appointing “non-political” board members itself has the political implication of maintaining the status quo, I think my correspondent has a point. Enthusiasm for reforming a decadent academic culture is not, in and of itself, sufficient to qualify someone for a board seat.

My correspondent’s thoughts follow. He shared them privately in the hope that they would better inform me in my writing on the topic. These comments were so cogently stated that I cannot in good conscience present them as my own. I have made minor edits to make them suitable for publication. 

Once you’ve “been in the room where it happened,” it’s easy to see the impossibility of any governor building strong governing boards with no one to rely upon except the Secretary of the Commonwealth (who is invariably someone from the campaign’s fund-raising staff with zero board room experience). Whether it’s a flagship university that really needs a public company CFO to chair the finance committee, a seasoned investor to serve on an endowment committee, or a doctor to serve on the health system board; or whether it’s an historically black university that has >50% of its dorm rooms empty (yes we have that) which needs business marketing talent or cost accounting expertise, the problem is the same. The Secretary of the Commonwealth doesn’t have time to hunt for those skills, the Governor doesn’t even know they’re needed, and they’re both operating in a daily fog of influence seeking from major campaign donors. The common practice is destined to result in second-rate boards.

B

y way of background, the Code of Virginia provides for a Virginia Commission on Higher Education Board Appointments with the mission of evaluating potential appointees to college/university boards and the State Council for Higher Education for Virginia.

The purpose of the Commission on Higher Education Board Appointments was to short circuit this ad hoc crap game by creating a disciplined nominating process that used wise and experienced people who would go out and search for and recruit the talent that the taxpayers deserve. When properly utilized the CHEBA can give the Governor three highly qualified names for each vacancy, and the Secretary can be there, in the room, to assure that each name is from the Governor’s party and otherwise politically palatable. The Governor appoints the Commission; the Governor chooses candidates from the lists they give him, and the number of political hacks, ideologues, and rabid sports fans appointed is greatly diminished.

When recent governors ignored the commission they lost a very valuable political tool. Without the Commission there are certain very large early donors who are virtually impossible to deny. With the Commission as a screen the Governor can defer to the Code, encourage that donor to apply through the regular channels, and promise an appointment if the donor makes it through the screening process. If not, the Governor has a ready-made rationale for a lesser appointment, a dinner at the mansion or some other pay back, short of cluttering the board room of a  highly complex business where dollars and lives are at stake.

I like what I’ve seen of Youngkin, and I sincerely wish that those close to him would encourage him to treat the board appointments as he did boards at companies that Carlyle invested in. In business we recognize that every board member has deep responsibilities. These positions are never treated as simple political pawns when your own money is at stake. … You can only build great boards by announcing standards and a process to screen for them. Fortunately, state law gives Youngkin a ready made tool, if he will use it.

On the subject of the process for appointing board members, it is also worth noting an approach recommended by Virginia Military Institute alumni Carmen Villani, Henry Rogers, and Forrest Marion in a letter to Youngkin — allow alumni to have input into the selection. Here are excerpts:

During [a pre-election] interview [with Matt Daniel, chairman of the Spirit of VMI PAC], you stated that one of the first things you would do in regard to VMI would be to “assemble a group of VMI cadets and VMI alumni to sit down to hear our views.” …

We request that your review panel consist of those alumni who believe that the leadership at VMI has embarked on a course that deviates from the time-tested citizen-soldier concept based upon “content of character” and replacing it with diversity, equity, and inclusion, (DEI). Such concern focuses on protecting the VMI Experience, namely the Honor System, Class System, Regimental System and Ratline; the BOV; the negative impact CRT is more than likely having on the Corps of Cadets under the guise of DEI; the right of free speech; the necessity for a chief diversity officer; preserving a history that speaks to character, courage, leadership, and perseverance. A search for alumni to participate in such a review has already been initiated.

As for the cadet contingent, we believe the President of the Honor Court, Regimental Commander, First Class President, Rat Disciplinary Committee President, and Cadet Newspaper editor would be a great asset to the panel. In closing, we pray that under your leadership that VMI will remain VMI because as Matt Daniel so succinctly put it – “VMI IS GOOD!”


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

24 responses to “What Criteria Are We Looking For In University Board Members?”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Cravenness.

  2. DJRippert Avatar

    Don’t I recall that the head of the CHEBA under then Gov Kaine was reappointed to that position after allowing the newly elected governor to use his private Caribbean island for a free vacay? I think the estimated tab was $18,000 for a week in the Sun. Unless the CHEBA is independent what is the point? Hacks recommending hacks.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    re: ” With the caveat that colleges and universities have become so politicized that appointing “non-political” board members itself has the political implications of maintaining the status quo,”

    Well…. there are CLAIMS that they have become politicized from some folks but not much proof that they really are nor have been appointed that way either.

    The “politicization” seems to be coming from folks who object to how Higher Ed has been working. They disagree and want change and advocate appointments that ARE overtly political to effect that change.

    I’m not sure it will work and not sure we really want the governance of Univerisites to swing back and forth depending who is Governor and some may be disappointed with Youngkin…

  4. Lawrence Hincker Avatar
    Lawrence Hincker

    Jim, your board member correspondent has it largely right. I recall when the Commission was formed. Paul Torgersen, then VA Tech’s president, presented the concept to Gov. Warner in response to some of the truly awful board appointments made by Jim Gilmore. Many can be best described as low-level political operatives, some of whom had no governance experience of any kind.

    Moreover, many of us were surprised that some were our own alumni who had, up to that point, zero interaction with the university before their gubernatorial appointment. That’s a strong indication that they didn’t have much affinity or passion for the school or higher education. They often came to the table with petty demands. Recall, all the angst over teaching American History? Kids at UVA, VT, W&M, etc., who had a gazillion AP credits, including Amer.History, would have been forced to study it all over again, because it was a dominant conservative meme at that point.

    The vetting process truly looks at the background of the potential board members looking at their prior interest, experiences, and commitment to higher education. Unsaid in your correspondent’s comments is that names are also volunteered by the universities. Some individuals are being groomed for donations, for sure. But some will have been on other university boards and committee, giving them an inside track to institutional goals and institutional processes. (Want a lesson in byzantine finance? Try understanding a public university balance sheet.)

    Yes, I think some will argue that prior experience makes these nominees tainted. But it also demonstrates commitment to the organization and a desire to see it succeed. The vetting process adds an element of professionalism to board appointments that the prior strictly political process lacked.

    I certainly don’t disagree with your premise that board members need to get deeply involved and have the backbone to speak up. An organizational culture takes a long time to develop and takes an even longer time to change. Some of the issues you have covered in your columns will take a very very long time….

    Oh, one more thing. Interesting factoid: Ask any former Secretary of Administration the most requested board posts…UVA, Virginia Tech, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board, top the list.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Sounds like a blog post from you would have been informative and useful. You ought to consider it.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        He just did. James could simply “promote ” it.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Extra dollops are needed for antidotal purposes.

  5. Jake Spivey Avatar
    Jake Spivey

    As well described above, universities are huge, complex, multi-faceted organizations. Appointing relatively inexperienced indivials to these boards, and by inexperienced I mean people in their 30s (as McMuffin did at VMI), is how and why the universities get themselves in such hot water with their alumni.
    It’s akin to why Naval officers don’t get to command a destroyer after just 8-10 years in the service. They simply don’t have the requisite knowledge and experience. It takes almost 20 years of education, training, and experience to develop the knowledge, skills, and command presence to serve in command.
    University boards, which meet infrequently, become overwhelmed by the razzle-dazzle presentations of the university’s administration. College presidents understand the requirement to control (manipulate) their Boards, so that the liberal/progressive education (indoctrination?) of students can continue. When no one on the Board has a background in university healthcare, finance, endowments, or higher education, then the default posistion of the Boards’ members is to accept the information the president or Superintendent provides.
    Fortunately, the pendulum swing for this kind of Board membership appears to have reached is zenith. Many alumni at the state’s universities have had enough.
    Washington & Lee alumni, having successfully retained their name [applause], have trained their attention onto president Dudley.
    Long-serving university presidents and prospective university Board members should take notice.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      Can BOVs be constituted such that a certain percentage of them must be alumni?

      1. Yes, it is written into Virginia state law to ensure that BoV have a certain number of alumni. In VMI’s case 12 must be alumni and of those 12, 8 must be in-state Virginians.

      2. Carmen Villani Jr Avatar
        Carmen Villani Jr

        Yes. At VMI, there are 16 members to the BOV, of which 12 must be alumnus.

        1. Jake Spivey Avatar
          Jake Spivey

          True, but alumni are not a monolithic group. Rest assured the current VMI BoV members, perhaps not all, but the majority and some recently departed ones, are allegiant to McMuffin and Coonman, not necessarily the Institute or the greater alumni community.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Can Youngkin replace all of them?

          2. Jake Spivey Avatar
            Jake Spivey

            Bottom line: Yes, over the four years of his term as Governor he will have the authority and opportunity. He will replace 10 as their terms expire. He may extend the other six. Or he may change them out for individuals he thinks are more suited to the responsibility of Board service.

          3. Carmen Villani Jr Avatar
            Carmen Villani Jr

            We are on the same page Jake.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar

          is that a VMI-only deal? Not true at other higher ed? Who decides that for a given BOV?

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I have to admit that I have never hear of the CHEBA. Does anyone know the extent to which this body has been used? The Code section says its main duty is to make recommendations for those terms “for which recommendations have been requested to fill vacancies on higher education governing boards.” So, the Governor does not even have to refer vacancies to the Commission for vetting.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I think they are used in Texas to chill reseach.
      https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/22/university-texas-austin-antiracism-preschoolers/

      If you’re curious, start with a google of “ALEC”.

      Or, maybe it’s these guys…
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheba_Hut

  7. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    As a former GOP legislator once said, in defense of his proposed system for formally vetting judicial candidates, “We’ll still be appointing our cronies, but they will be qualified cronies.” He said this in the caucus meeting with no reporters in the room, of course…..(Or did it slip out in debate on the floor? It was long ago…) Do I get three guesses, Jim? Might just take me one.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      It sounds like something Dave Albo would say.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Off by a generation.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Uh yep. That’s about right. All Democrats are different. All Republicans are the same.

  8. Carmen Villani Jr Avatar
    Carmen Villani Jr

    Good article Jim. Thank you for making reference to our letter. We are optimistic that Governor-elect Youngkin will fulfill his campaign commitment to VMI.

  9. Heartening. Almost Machiavellian realism. Or maybe Madisonian, recognizing the inevitable: in politics money talks. You can’t escape that. So we devise a way to let money talk — to the commission. The Governor has plausible deniability: “My hands were tied.”

    I liked Mr. Haner’s quote enough to repeat it: “We’ll still be appointing our cronies, but they will be qualified cronies.” Madison might say as a practical matter, that’s the best you can do.

Leave a Reply