By Dave Newport
Transparency. Accountability.
Openness. Diversity. Inclusion. Justice.
Those of us in campus sustainability
say—and use—those words and principles a lot. We teach that these concepts are required
elements of any sustainable project, program, or organization. Even the
Association of Governing Boards (AGB) supports many of these elements as best
practices for boards.
Yet as recent events have reminded
us, few campus boards fold those practices into the machinations of their own
governance processes. For instance, the University of Virginia and Penn State
sagas keynoted a very bad year for the cloistered, elite, and opaque governance
apparatchik typical of college boards.
As an unabashed sustainability
proponent, I wonder how last summer’s news might have played out if those
boards had embraced the principles above. Other colleges tout their
sustainability programs, but can sustainability thrive on campuses when its
central tenets are anathema to academe’s insular governance paradigm? Moreover,
how do most boards measure up to those tenets?
Diversity: Campus leaders frequently talk about
the importance of diversity. However, campus trustees are still predominately
rich old white males.
As The Chronicle (CHE) recently
reported, more than three-quarters of trustees are white, male trustees out
number women two to one, and a vast majority are over 50. Bottom line: trustees
are getting whiter and richer while our nation gets more diverse and poorer, the Chronicle noted.
If colleges are serious about making
their boards more diverse – as they often say they want to – they could
eliminate some of the “old white guy” board slots. This is not about quotas.
It’s about the worldview that dominates governance discussions. Is it solely
the business-centric, white privileged worldview, or can a culturally diverse,
people-centric worldview get in a few words?
Transparency: Transparency is a
foundational principle of sustainability because it builds trust between
organizations and their stakeholders. For today’s boards, seemingly preoccupied
with protecting campus brand, robust transparency should be the default as
trust underpins reputation and brand. Yet recent foibles indicate that boards
have an aversion to transparency that is unrealistic; in a WikiLeaks world,
secrets will surface.
Accountability: Once installed,
trustees can occupy a chair for however long their bylaws or state rules allow.
Rarely is a trustee uninstalled or even publically evaluated. The Chronicle
frequently reports on presidents resigning or getting ousted, but trustees are
rarely vanquished.
AGB and others recommend board
self-evaluations. Yet it is unclear how vigorously boards heed this advice.
Indeed, given their low resignation or termination rates, one might conclude
that either virtually all trustees are performing well—or their accountability
process is ineffective.
Inclusion: If the only trustees at the table are
the elites, decisions are less informed -- and less accepted by stakeholders.
For sustainable outcomes, a range of cultures, communities, and age groups need
a place in the process. Sustainability calls it “active inclusion.”
David Crockett, former sustainability
director for Chattanooga, Tenn., had a “shoe test” for inclusion: At the start
of any meeting, look under the table at the shoes. If they are all wingtips and
oxfords, stop the meeting and also include people who wear work boots,
sneakers, and flip-flops.
Openness: Four states directly elect public
institutions’ trustees in general elections. For remaining states, governors
appoint 77 percent of trustees. Of course, appointees usually come from a
governor’s political party, or have raised money or worked for the state
leader. Patronage is alive and well.
For private institutions, fewer legal
covenants prescribe board composition so a different kind of patronage ensues
-- they call it “self-perpetuating.” New board candidates -- often successful
businessmen or alumni -- have strong campus ties, pockets full of cash, or
wealthy friends. Installation is a private affair in closed meetings.
These secretive, patronage-driven
paths blunt sustainability. A lack of stakeholder involvement in the process limits
perspectives and buy-in. A bias towards the rich and powerful disconnects from
reality. White privilege is self-perpetuated -- and thus board vision remains
insular.
Justice: Historically, perhaps the most
notable social justice advocacy by college boards was in opposition to
apartheid. More than 150 college boards voted to divest of South
African-related investment. However, the routine vetting of campus investment
into socially responsible investment (SRI) has not followed. While the nation’s
SRI industry has grown to over $3-trillion, campuses have not kept up, the Chronicle reports.
Today’s college boards seem to
understand their fiduciary responsibilities as separate from their
social-justice responsibilities.
Reforms: What might open the Ivory Tower’s
doors to full sustainability?
For starters, trustees should be
installed in sunshine, not shadows. That process should include input from knowledgeable,
active, and diverse people from a range of community interests and incomes. Under
an open process (which could tear down town-gown walls), colleges would get
broader perspectives, create more strategic conversations, and foster a sense
of collective responsibility between the campus and its community.
This new openness, focused on more
than just the institutions’ wealthiest patrons, could bolster the colleges’
commitments to socially responsible investment and action – with profound
benefits. The University of Florida and Yale have addressed social justice and
inclusion by, say, supporting low-income housing weatherization and energy
efficiency efforts. They have gotten carbon reductions and good will from the
efforts — all while creating jobs and student-service opportunities.
Finally, management literature amply details
the most profound upside of transparency: Trust. Stakeholders including
students, alumni, and donors trust organizations more when told the truth, warts
and all. Failure to heed this principle devastated the UVa and Penn State
boards.
Jo Ann Gora, the president of Ball
State University, and Robert Koester, a professor of architecture there, have shown
how to nudge boards towards sustainability tenets by keeping them informed of
the latest innovations in sustainability, discussing plans in terms of their
whole-system implications, and “socializing” them in the sustainability culture
of the rest of the campus. As a result, Ball State has emerged as one of the
leading campuses in sustainable practices. Many other writers have detailed
governance reforms. AGB has been trying to gently reshape board governance for
years. The tools and ideas exist.
Visionary leaders have the keys to unlock
Ivory Tower doors to a new governance covenant, one informed by
sustainability’s principles and practices, and thus relevant to the
unprecedented challenges we face on campus—and on the planet.
-30-
DISCLAIMER:
I am an old white guy. I have served on numerous private and public boards for
different organizations over my career. I have never served on a college
board—and after this blog I don’t expect a lot of phone calls. I am currently a
part of the white supermajority on the 14-person AASHE board. I will term limit
off of AASHE’s Board next year. I am decidedly not rich by US standards—but
very wealthy compared to the 80% of the planet’s population that lives on
<$10/day. I understand my white privilege.
NOTE
1: A session at the upcoming AASHE conference in LA will be devoted
to this subject—and will feature some campus presidents, trustees, and AGB
expert. More details here.
NOTE
2: Several trusted colleagues reviewed and suggested changes to this piece
before publication. Helped a lot. You know who you are. Thanks very much.
