↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG ANTIOCH’S BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND
ITS EXECUTIVES CONCERNING EXPECTATIONS
IN COMMUNICATION ANDRESPONSmILITIES
This essay attempts to establish a framework to allow meaningfuldialog among Trustees,
the Board chair, the Chancellor, and ULC members regarding our roles, responsibilities,
and communication expectations. The goal of the discussion is to surface ideas and
preferences from the group regarding operational style, communication patterns, and the
best governance structure that allows the Board and its executive leadership to fulfill its
responsibilities. This discussion will provide the substance that enables the ULC and a
small task force oftrustees to propose to the Board recommendations for guidelines and
structures that foster Antioch University’s success in the 21st Century. These
recommendations and their outcomes will be a crucial part of the strategic planning
process as we move forward to increase the quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of
our educational system and the structure that supports it.
To set the context for the discussion, we must first define the governance structure of the
University and the desired operational style ofthe Board, which then allows us to analyze
how the structures and behaviors influence the responsibilities of the Board. This essay
provides a brief background on the governance structure, offers some observations on
roles, responsibilities, and communications, and poses a good many questions, all
of which, taken together, should help provide the direction for our planning efforts.
Antioch’s Governance System
There are two structures within our governance system that heavily influence Antioch
University’s functionality and communications: it has a single, multi-campus board and it
is a federated model. How these two structures influence the effectiveness of the Board
and its leadership can be either compounded or enhanced by the operational style of the
Board.
Multi-Campus Board
Generally, most governance theorists agree that the justification for a multi-campus
Board is that it can concern itself with university-wide policy and leave managerial
details to the individual campuses. In such a system, the Board usually establishes a chief
systems executive rather than having each campus executive report directly to the Board.
The chief systems executive is usually given relatively extensive authority for reasons of
the complexity of the system, the geographic distance between the individual campuses,
and constraints on time. In the case of Antioch University, the Chancellor serves as the
chief systems executive and Presidents serve as campus executives.
The advantages of having a multi-campus Board and Chancellor are that this model
reduces the reporting burden on the Board and allows the Board to hold one executive
rather than several campus executives responsible for the activities of the institution. It
also impels the campus Presidents to act as a group rather than as individuals and
1
(
r
discourages the Board’s involvement in campus administrative details. The disadvantage
of a singular Board and Chancellor model is that few of the governing Board members
are familiar with the conditions on individual campuses because of the very fact that the
system is so complex.
The norms and expectations in how the Board supports and works with the Chancellor
are challenged with a multi-campus institution. Strictly speaking, the Chancellor has no
constituencies of his/her own. Students, alumni, faculty, and the various communities
primarily identify with the individual campuses and their Presidents. The Board of
Trustees constitutes the Chancellor’s primary constituents; hence, the Chancellor
depends on meaningful communication with and the support of the trustees, a number of
whom may be College or graduate campus alumni or be otherwise closely connected to
the institution and its values. Clearly, then, the relationship between the Chancellor and
the Board and between the Chancellor and the Chair of the Board must be strong and
developed through mutual trust. Therefore, the Chancellor should spend considerable
time on the Board and its development. The Chancellor and the Chair of the Board must
work as a team, and their relationship is critical not only because the Chancellor manages
the institution, but because the Chancellor and Chair together are responsible for its
leadership. The Chancellor in collaboration with the Chair must be actively involved in
the setting of Board agendas, selection of committee members, and recruitment of Board
members.
The Antioch Federated Model
In the Antioch University system, the federated model adds some complexity
to our framework in determining the relationship of the Chancellor and campus
Presidents to the multi-campus Board. In Antioch’s federated model, the
campus Presidents are responsible for the full operation of their campuses, including
revenue generation, governance, fund-raising, hiring and firing of personnel, and
expenditures. Revenue generated by the campuses resides with each campus, and the
overhead to operate the Chancellor’s office and university-wide services is collected from
each campus annually, using an allocation formula. This process differs from non
federated multi-campus systems where revenue generated by the individual campuses
resides with the central administration and is then allocated out to the campuses based on
a variety of factors.
At Antioch, campus Presidents report to the Chancellor. The Chancellor holds
extraordinary and intervening powers when appropriate, but not as a daily norm. In the
Antioch model, the authority for running the University resides with the Chancellor and
the campus Presidents in a mutually beneficial balance that they have negotiated.
Antioch University’s federated model instills another layer of governance by way of the
University Leadership Council (ULC). As pointed out above, one advantage of a multi
campus.Board is that it causes the campus Presidents to function as a group. The ULC is
charged with the operational function of the University in general. It recommends
the policies and procedures needed to run a multi-campus institution; this provides for
some uniformity and equity among campuses while allowing for the individuality of each i,,)
campus as well. A further component of this formula is the delegation ofauthority to
2
other systems administrators in finance, personnel, development, and technology who
interact with campus Presidents and canipus personnel. The complexities of these
relationships among the Chancellor, Presidents, and ULC begs the question for the Board
as to whom they truly hold accountable for the success of the campuses. The issue
becomes extremely important when we talk about the relationship between the Board and
the Chancellor and the Board and the campus Presidents.
The Board’s Operating Style
Given that the relationship among the Board, Board Chair, and Chancellor must be
strong, what then of the relationship and communication with campus Presidents? As
articulated above, the multi-campus board model should entail little Board involvement
in campus administrative details. However, the operational style of a Board andits Chair
influences the reality of that modeL
Miriam Wood, a theorist on trusteeship, identifies three operating styles of Boards:
•Ratifying Boards tend to accept the administrative judgment oftheir chief
executive and act as a “rubber stamp” in the policymaking process. The board
hires a president and lets him/her run the institution.
• Corporate Boards involve themselves in the financial and managerial
matters in the business arena, but expect the chief executive to assume
complete administrative authority for the institution.
•Participatory Boards frequently involve themselves directly in the
administration of the institution, usually out ofa sense of personal
.ownership and responsibility. Often, members of participatory boards of
independent institutions are alumni.
Although a board may see itself in terms of the corporate model, its operational style may
be participatory, which then influences its relationship and communication patterns with
the individual campuses. Participatory boards are more deeply involved in managerial
decisions than in making and approving university policies. The participatory operational
style fosters individual communication not only with campus Presidents but with the
campus stakeholders. In a multi-campus and federated model, a participatory operating
style on the part of the Board or the Chair has implications for the authority ofthe
Chancellor and his/her relationship with the campus Presidents. These potential
implications will receive more attention in the following “questions” sections of this
essay.
Roles and Responsibilities of the Board
When we examine the responsibilities of a Board of Trustees, we ask how a multi
campus board, operating in a federated model, fulfills its duties to both the University and
to each campus for which it is responsible. The following list enumerates (admittedly in
broad strokes) a dozen responsibilities generally agreed to be the domain of Board
activity (it hasbeen slightly tailored to accommodate Antioch’s model of governance):
3
• Set and clarify mission and purpose
• Appoint the Chancellor
• Support the Chancellor
• Monitor the Chancellor’s performance
Ii Assess Board performance
• Insist on strategic planning
• Review educational and public-service programs
• Participate in fund-raising
• Ensure good management
• Preserve institutional independence
• Relate campuses to community and communities to campues
• Serve occasionally as a court of appeals
• Fiscal oversight of the University
• Strategic direction of the University
• Monitor performance standards
Four responsibilities of the Board stand out as potentially ambiguous in our federated,
singular multi-campus Board Antioch system: (1) delegation of authority, (2) fund
raising, (3) relationships with the community, and (4) serving as a court of appeals.
Adding to the potential for confusion are policies still remaining on the books that were
in effect when the President and Chancellor were one and the same person (pre 1997) and
when the Board changed the reporting of the Presidents from “through” the Chancellor to
the Board to the current policy of “to” the Chancellor (2001102). To create a strong
institution of the future with a functional Board and leadership team, it is important for us
to obtain clarity around these responsibilities. The framework for discussing these areas
of ambiguity incorporates a question format suitable for round-table discussions.
AREAS FOR CLARIFICATION
1. Delegation of Authority
The delegation of-authority, as noted, is complex, particularly in a: federated model.
‘. .
– Is authority of and between the Chancellor and Presidents reasonably clear and
demonstrably effective? Has the Board explicitly defined the major areas of delegated
authority? Has it specified to whom the authority is given, the extent ofthe delegation,
and the measure of accountability?
-Whom does the Board hold ultimately accountable for the success of the institution, and
does the delegation of authority reflect that reality?
-Does the Board delegate authority to the Chancellor and the campus Presidents
separately? Does it delegate authority specifically to the Chancellor, who in tum
delegates to the Presidents?
– In what situations should the President of the campus serve as the final court of
appeals? In what situations should, the Chancellor so serve?
4
• What is the obligation of individual campus Presidents to adhere to ULC policy,
procedures, and codes of operation?
