Alternate headline: “A vast majority of the UNC CH Board of Trustees did not respond to our survey, so the few that did, believe the rest of their fellow Board members overstep their authority.” According to the story below, the @The News & Observer sent a survey to the UNC CH Board members. 5 of 14 Board members responded. Of the 5, the story says “a majority” - meaning 3 - felt that in the conduct of the business they are tasked to do under NC Law, they sometimes “overstep their authority.” So, only 3 out of 14 are on record believing that the Board “oversteps” its authority in how it works with the Chancellor. Other than perplexity in how a non-story like this gets assigned and written in the first place, having previously served on a local University Board prior to my service in the Board of Governors, I have a few of my own thoughts on this topic: First, it appears the editor suggested that this reporter send a survey and “ask the Board members if they feel like they overstep their authority.” I’ve not seen the survey, so I cannot say verbatim how it was worded, and the reporter says it was “open-ended” which suggests that 3 of the BOT had something on their chest they wanted to get out there, while 11 others did not. So, the reporter sends it out and got something to work with from 3 people. 11 other people either had differing views from the other 3, or lacked trust in the basis of the reporter’s questions, to begin with. But this much ink devoted to a story like this, is a story itself. But that is another story, IMHO. Second: Here is the truth about how local University Boards operate: They are populated by state and community leaders of varied backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives most with high achievements in degree pursuits, business and life. Most are smart and thoughtful and do their homework so as to be prepared when deciding the things they are tasked to decide. The oath of office they take when they assume these seats are not just ceremonial. They mean something and impart to the oath taker that he/she should engage in the square, be independent, and think of the future. Takeaway: There is a natural and beneficial tension that exists between the BOT’’s and Chancellors. Some believe that BOT members should be ‘cheerleaders’ or “rubber stamps” to the Chancellors. Others define their BOT roles as engaging in due diligence-based questions and vision-setting dialogue to help guide the chancellor’s longterm efforts. In my experience, the Chancellors who lean on these Board members for expertise, advice and counsel, benefit greatly from a ‘kitchen cabinet’ approach. And those chancellors that work against their Board by hand-picking patsies or ignoring thoughtful debate, end up pushing a rock uphill most of their time in office. Of course, it goes without saying that no Board should legally “overstep” its authority. But having watched up close how these BOT’s operate for quite some time now, faculty, students and the public are best-served when BOT’s engage in critical policy debates, challenge the Administration when necessary, and get into the minutia of the Administration’s goals. Higher Ed faces a lot of headwinds and challenges. Newspaper articles that seek to indirectly squelch debate at the Board level on important matters, and that suggest to well-intentioned Board members they should sit quietly and speak only when spoken to, are missing the real value of a Board approach to governing. #ncpol #higherEd

Jul 30

Some UNC-Chapel Hill trustees believe they overstep their authority. What they said newsobserver.com/news/local/edu

@WoodyWhite5

Courtroom Lawyer. Writer. Pug lover. Member, UNC Board of Governors. Changer of things.