This morning I read The Chronicle of Higher Education’s coverage of the Maricopa Community Colleges board’s disputes and the allegations of micromanagement. Interestingly, the comments at the end of the article suggested that the real issue is that the board members are publicly elected by residents of the county. I have to disagree.
I worked as an officer of the university for a publicly elected board and I’ve worked for a number of appointed boards. Both formats have their pros and cons, but the reality is that each board needs leadership and needs a strong (and written) set of expectations for their board members.
Trustees and regents are tasked with providing fiduciary and visionary guidance to the leadership of the institution, and they hold responsibility for the hiring, reviewing, and firing of the senior officer. All three of these tasks, including the accompanying expectations for the institution’s senior leadership, have to be documented and reviewed regularly. Again, a leader on the board will ensure this occurs and will hold their fellow board members accountable for upholding the board’s set standards. Again, this leadership role is not dependent on how you got on the board, but instead how well you perform your responsibilities.
The downside of not performing this due diligence or having true leadership on a board is startling, and the effects are detrimental to the institution for years to come. Just ask Maricopa Community Colleges.
