|
Last Updated: May 30, 2008 - 10:18:01 AM |
Profile of Women Trustees at Land Grant Institutions:
Roles, Responsibilities, and Reflections
Darla J. Twale
Professor of Education
University of Dayton
JoAnne E. Burley
Chief Campus Officer Retired
Pennsylvania State University-McKeesport
Abstract
A study of 49 women trustees at land grant universities showed that
they were well educated and highly involved in civic and professional
affairs. As trustees, they were heavily involved in the life of the
campus and were making substantial sacrifices to do so. The data
indicated women were being selected for subcommittees but not
necessarily the most powerful ones. While some women accepted the
position to represent the female perspective, their comments urged
women to be cautious if they want to be an effective voice.
Introduction
As public institutions
of higher education grow larger and more complex, governing them
internally and externally becomes ever more cumbersome. Boards of
trustees have a tremendous responsibility to attend to the long term
stability, current mission, and future advancement of the institution
for the benefit of all citizens within the state (Taylor, 1987;
Zwingle, 1980, 1984) "without compromising the community of learning" (
The control of the campus,
p.72). Traditionally, however, boards have remained homogeneous in
nature, attracting white males from the clergy, faculty, business, law,
and politics (Kerr & Gade, 1989; Martorana, 1963; Taylor, 1987).
Especially among the public universities, women are over-represented as
students, but under-represented as trustees, administrators, and
faculty (Muller, 1978; Scollay, Bratt, & Tickameyer, 1997; Twale
& Shannon, 1996). Because board composition is done predominantly
by appointment or popular election, women are less likely than men to
be active (Nason, 1974-75; Paltridge, Hurst, & Morgan, 1973; Rauh,
1969; Taylor, 1986).
Trustee
is a role into which women are neither socialized nor trained, nor have
many role models to follow or mentors to observe (Bernard, 1964;
Kanter, 1977). These factors preclude women from penetrating the 'inner
circle'. Thus, their unique perspective is absent from trustee bodies,
not only curtailing the female voice on the board, but also women's
influence in education within their state (Gilligan, 1982; Gleazer,
1985; Hall & Sandler, 1984; Korhammer, 1985; Nason, 1974-75).
Contrary to this fact, women indicate their willingness to serve their
state and higher education institutions, and be a representative voice
for women (Smith, 1976; Taylor, 1987).
The purposes of this
exploratory study are: (a) to develop a current profile of women
trustees at public land grant institutions; (b) to gain insight into
the role these women play on boards; and (c) to gather the reflections
of these women on their position and offer their guidance to other
women contemplating the role of trustee.
Review of Literature
Historically, higher
education boards of trustees were labeled aristocratic, elitist,
nonacademic, self-perpetuating, and influential (Howard, 1984; Kerr
& Gade, 1989). Prerequisites for service included knowledge of
higher education, fund raising, marketing, legal issues, strategic
planning, physical plant management, public or community service, and
an affinity for and commitment to the particular institution (Gale,
1980; Heilbron, 1973; Martorana, 1963; Rauh, 1969; Steinbach &
Pelesh, 1999
; The control of the campus,
1982; Young & Williams, 1998). Boards have been vested with
significant responsibilities including oversight of the following:
accreditation and admission standards, affirmative action, campus size,
collective bargaining, curricular standards, enrollment stability,
faculty issues, fund raising, investments, lobbying, maintenance,
mission, planning, policy formation, presidential search, public and
media relations, research policy, state politics, stewardship, students
rights, and tuition levels (Burrows, 1999; Fisher, 1991; Gale, 1980;
Heilbron, 1973; Ingram,1980; Michael & Schwartz, 1999; Nason,
1974-75; Schick, 1996).
Given the criteria,
conservative white males secured board positions as a result of their
positions in their communities, business acumen, placement in upper
socioeconomic sectors, and knowledge of the significant
responsibilities (Association of Governing Boards, 1986; Heilbron,
1973; Rauh, 1969). Weaver (1978) and Gale (1980) contended that women
lacked the requisite skills, especially in financial, real estate, and
plant management, associated with sustaining an institution. Tradition,
more than ability, also explained the disproportion of men to women
trustee appointees. The paucity of professional women on boards may be
attributed to their status and recognition within the professional
fields from which women are drawn (Gomberg & Atelsek, 1977). By the
mid -1980s, increases were expected as women's achievements and
professional success became known (Wood, 1985). In fact, 32% of women
trustees had advanced degrees, over 66% were age 50 or over, and 34%
were business and industry executives (Korhammer, 1985; Scollay, et al,
1997; Zwingle, 1980).
Boards should consist
of a variety of demographic backgrounds and individual talents to
maintain a balance representative of the state citizenry and student
body, as well as to encourage turnover to recreate themselves (Gale,
1980). Studies showed that women have more representation on boards of
private colleges [20%-23%] than on boards of public universities
[15%-20%] (Gomberg & Atelsek, 1977; Grigsby & Galloway, 1996;
Michael & Schwartz, 1999; Rauh, 1969; Zwingle, 1980). Unlike the
private colleges, land grant institutions have a broader selection of
alumni from which to choose a more diverse group of trustees (Davis
& Batchelor, 1974; Nason, 1974-74; Taylor, 1987; Zwingle &
Mayville, 1974). This diversity will subsequently influence agenda
items, decision-making, and institutional direction (Paltridge, Hurst,
& Morgan, 1973; Taylor, 1987). Unfortunately, these public boards
remain small, consisting of 9 to12 members, compared to 20 to 25 at
private colleges (Kerr & Gade, 1989). Therefore, the number of
opportunities for appointment is limited.
Furthermore,
understanding the role of trustee begins during the orientation with
campus tours, presentation of institutional history and university
documents, and conferences and workshops (Chait, Holland, & Taylor,
1991; Rauh, 1959, 1969). Michael and Schwartz (1999) found in a study
of Ohio trustees that interpreting institutional policy, media and
public relations, fund raising, developing an educational vision, and
academic leadership were viewed by women as significantly more
important duties to be learned than were viewed by male trustees.
Women need to master
"the unwritten tradition, where the power really lies" (Howard, 1984,
p. 31). Therefore, Gale (1980) encouraged boards to involve women in a
variety of areas which utilizes their strengths but, at the same time,
shores their weaknesses through appointment to the influential
committees such as finance and presidential search, rather than placing
women on the less powerful committees such as public relations and
student issues (see also Hall & Sandler, 1984; Sandler & Hall,
1986; Sevier, 1999). Women trustees who were not alumni described
themselves as outsiders, both isolated and patronized. This group also
needed more careful attention to acknowledge its contributions (Wood,
1985).
This study addressed
three research questions: (a) What are the personal and professional
characteristics of women trustees serving land grant institutions? (b)
What are their role expectations? (c) Based on their trustee
experiences, what suggestions do these trustees have for women?
Methodology
Instrumentation
The
46-item survey instrument was developed from an extensive review of the
literature and research studies on college and university trustees.
First, demographic information was sought including age, race, marital
status, current occupation, educational background, and personal and
professional involvement in civic, political, business, religious, and
educational organizations. This information provided a profile of women
trustees as well as established a career path (Chait, Holland, &
Taylor, 1991; Davis & Batchelor, 1974; Rauh, 1969). Second, five
open- and closed-ended questions gathered information about university
and board specifics such as size, composition, and whether the board
composition reflected the student body (Rauh, 1969; Taylor, 1987;
Trustees and troubled times,
1992). Third, trustee service on the boards covered 11 items including
term of office, nature of appointment, years served, reasons for
accepting the appointment, preparation for meetings and other
university activities, time commitment, and agenda items suggested
(Davis & Batchelor, 1974; Gale, 1980; Ingram, 1980; Rauh, 1959,
1969).
Next, participants were
asked to discuss their role as trustee beginning with orientation
activities, how they learned their role, rewards they had received,
what types of interactions they had with campus constituents and other
trustees, as well as leadership roles taken. They were asked to note if
their board prepared both men and women for these roles (Chait,
Holland, & Taylor, 1991; Gale, 1980; Ingram, 1980a; Kerr &
Gade, 1989; Nason, 1974-75). Fifth, women addressed eight questions
concerning the committees on which they serve or have served, including
those for which they perceived they had expertise, whether the
assignments utilized their expertise, if they received a briefing on
committee activities, how involved they became with committee work, and
on what committees they were interested in serving (Gale, 1980; Ingram,
1980b, 1988; Paltridge Hurst, & Morgan, 1973; Rauh, 1959; Taylor,
1987). Lastly, two open-ended questions asked women trustees to discuss
at length what they felt it took to be a trustee and what advice they
would give women interested in pursuing the trusteeship (Chait,
Holland, & Taylor, 1991; Rauh, 1969; Taylor, 1987).
Population
There are 67
predominantly white and historically black land grant universities in
the United States. After searching university catalogs and web sites,
45 institutions were found to have one or more women serving on their
board of trustees. A total of 148 women were then identified. After two
mailings, 49 usable surveys were returned representing all regions of
the country. The unusable surveys that were returned indicated these
women were no longer trustees or were board secretaries and not
trustees. While the response rate initially appeared disappointing, it
may be that some nonrespondents were also ineligible and simply
declined to identify themselves by returning the instrument.
Data Analysis
Because of the
exploratory nature of this study and the low response rate, frequencies
were performed to categorize the closed-ended questions. Content
analysis was performed on all but two of the open-ended questions. For
the last two questions, information was categorized and predominant
themes were noted. Personal responses for open-ended questions were
excerpted to enrich the descriptive data.
Results
Personal and professional characteristics
Sixty-four percent of
the respondents were 50 years of age or older, 82% were married, and
78% were white. As shown in Table 1, 67% of the respondents held an
advanced or professional degree working typically in business (20%),
government (16%), and education (16%); 18% had retired. The women
trustees held a variety of roles in civic, educational, political,
religious, or business organizations and associations.
Among the respondents,
approximately half had served five or more years as a trustee; 22% were
new appointees (see Table 2). Participants felt their respective boards
were more representative of their campus' racial composition (46%) than
of campus gender composition (40%). Fifty-eight percent indicated they
hold/held other leadership roles on their campus, particularly advisory
councils and alumni associations. Boards were apt to meet monthly (47%)
or bimonthly (32%). Being appointed by the governor (39%), and/or
requiring legislative approval (18%) constituted the primary avenues to
a seat on a board of trustees.
Trustee Role Expectations
Respondents
indicated in Table 3 a variety of ways in which they became oriented to
their institutions. Information packets (90%), meetings (80%), and
campus tours (76%), were more common than retreats (53%) or conferences
(45%). Eighty-four percent of the respondents perceived male trustees
were groomed for leadership positions compared to 62% who believed
females were being groomed for those posts. In fact, only 8% of the
women reported having a mentor. Eighty-two percent indicted they had
volunteered for board roles and responsibilities, in addition to
devoting considerable time to board meetings, committee work, and just
representing the university. Involvement in university life was
illustrated by trustee attendance at ceremonies and events (100%) and
interaction with fellow trustees (98%).
Women trustees
indicated by the time spent the extent of their dedication and the
sacrifices they made to assume the role. The most often stated
sacrifice was time away from work and family. Perhaps a compelling
indication of dedication was the woman who wrote, "I have been taking
chemo...and I set up treatments so that they will not interfere with my
Board obligations." This was offset by the fact that 79% received
awards for being a trustee. While the key rewards included personal
satisfaction and recognition, as well as social benefits and travel,
one respondent said of the benefits, "[key administrators] are
recognizing my talent and sincere desire to make a difference and focus
on the product --students' education, research, and excellence."
When asked to list
their areas of expertise, women selected management areas, faculty
affairs, student affairs, and academic affairs (see Table 4). They felt
less familiar with personnel, real estate, fund raising, and plant
management functions. Respondents' committee assignments included
academic affairs (65%), executive committee (47%), budget and finance
(39%), and the presidential search (37%). Sixty-nine percent felt they
were assigned to committees for which they had the expertise.
Seventy-eight percent
recognized that they were quickly involved on board subcommittees
through "open discussion of previously disseminated materials" and by
personal briefings. Of the 22% who were not involved, two said "staff
manipulates the agenda" and "there's little help or encouragement."
While most respondents listed a variety of board activities for which
they have volunteered, only a few reported no opportunities to
volunteer and one lamented she was "always turned down [as chair of
educational polities committee] even though [she] had more
qualifications than appointed males." Women indicated they would like
to serve on finance, fund raising, and executive committees during
their board tenure. Recalling agenda items they suggested for meetings,
women mentioned gender and diversity related items, but no more than
the other issues they offered such as academic standards, athletics,
and faculty affairs.
Reflections and Suggestions
Women sought a
trusteeship at a land grant university for several reasons: "a desire
to serve"; "to improve educational opportunities for all"; "to make a
difference for women by representing our view"; and a "personal
challenge." They indicated their presence on the board was a means to
ensure gender equity as they would probably be the only ones to
initiate such issues. Becoming a trustee involved some degree of
visibility, that is, "becoming active in university matters especially
alumni committees" and being "known in the political or business
area,"and developing "leadership qualities in civic affairs" where
"political experience and connections are helpful." Extensive knowledge
of the institution was significant to success, so one should "learn,
read, [and] visit", but to fully participate, they stressed the need to
"know" the institution, its mission, goals, faculty, students, and
culture.
Discussion
Characteristics
According to the data
presented in this study, the profile of current women trustees at land
grant universities parallels those from previous studies (Korhammer,
1985; Michael & Schwartz, 1999; Scollay, et al.,1997).
Under-representation of women trustees continues despite the desire to
serve, possession of advanced degrees, lucrative careers, and
professional and civic work (Weaver, 1978). However, if time
constraints result in sacrifices of family and work obligations, women
may be less inclined to pursue trustee positions until later in life.
Furthermore, the qualities listed by these women as important to the
role show that experience in broad areas is necessary before entering
the arena (Howard, 1984). As one woman aptly stated, it takes time to
know where all the "land mines are buried."
Trustee Role Expectations
Although institutions
offer various forms of trustee orientation, learning the role of
trustee appears challenging given the volumes of information that need
to be absorbed. Help from mentors would be welcomed but few women have
them. In addition, women perceived that men were more likely to be
groomed for leadership roles, placing women at a decided disadvantage.
Perhaps they feel this way because, although many were involved quickly
in committee matters, the type of committee may not have been their
first choice.
Committee assignments
in some instances matched trustee expertise, but in others, they did
not. Gale (1980) advocated women be placed on committees to learn about
an unfamiliar area. While women recognized their need to be on the more
powerful committees, such as finance, they are currently
under-represented on financially related committees. Ironically, advice
to other women, for the most part, failed specifically to stress
acquiring prior expertise in this critical area or how to get this
appointment once on board. Even though the data indicate that knowledge
does not always guarantee appointment on any committee, some prior
familiarity would not seem to be detrimental.
Prevalent in the
responses are the sacrifices some women made. They also indicate their
desire to make a difference in or contribution to the university they
serve. Their willingness to serve actively is supported in the Michael
and Schwartz (1999) study, but their indication is a desire to
participate on the key committees that have previously been male
domains.
Reasons why these women
sought the trusteeship largely support the work of Smith (1976), with
the addition in this study of more far reaching goals, such as
improving higher education in their state. But how far does the female
voice carry when only a few women are selected who can address issues
pertinent to their constituents? Their numbers may need to be more
concentrated on boards as opposed to being tokens. Appointment to a
land grant university challenges women beyond degree and career
pursuits to become more visible in the state and university. Because
most appointments come from the governor's office, visibility across a
broader realm is critical. Ironically, however, only one woman spoke to
that in her comments.
Recommendations
The results of this
exploratory study add to the knowledge base in that women are holding
their places on boards of trustees. Their focus seems to be on how to
break into the trustee ranks through campus visibility, networking,
political connections, and related leadership experiences. These women
are devoting inordinate amounts of time and energy to the enterprise
and trying to make significant contributions. Women are expected to be
superwomen; that is, be effective, make a difference, improve
standards, be heard and be taken seriously. Yet in so doing they feel
they must "not rock the boat" or lose the "credibility and respect of
others." Balance was mentioned to encourage women trustees not to show
gender favoritism or carry women's rights into every board issue or
decision.
In the trustee boards
where women are under-represented, mentoring new trustees, networking
with others, and guiding the careers of promising trustee candidates
are key. For example, if women desire to become familiar with and seek
appointment to a specific committee, perhaps shadowing those campus
constituents who oversee that function would prove beneficial. Relying
on the campus documents provided during orientation may not be enough.
Grooming women and men in equal numbers for leadership should be the
norm. Demystifying the role of trustee is needed so that women know
more about trustee expectations in terms of time and energy, rewards
and sacrifices, and develop the savvy needed to succeed in the 'board
room.' Before and after their appointments, women should become
familiar with the political side of the role that outsiders rarely see
so that they are poised to "make a difference."
The literature cited
for the most part is from the late 60s through the mid 1980s. A few
pieces have been added in the 1990s. Results support the existing
profile of women trustees. While this study lends some insight into the
current trustee role for women, further study is needed to fill the
gaps surrounding the internal workings of the board, including how
women are received and treated by fellow trustees, how their ideas are
received and acted upon, and what specific contributions women are
making to the institution and the state. Research on women trustees
needs to go beyond focusing on the numbers of females present on boards
and, instead, examine the effectiveness of the women who are there.
References
Association of
Governing Boards. (1986). Composition of governing boards 1985.
Washington, DC: Author.
Bernard, J. (1964).
Academic women. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Contemporary Education, 70(4), 5-10.
[http://wilsonxt.hhwilson.com/pdfhtml/03715/1P72U/RS7.htm]
Burrows, J. (1999).
Going beyond labels: A framework for profiling institutional
stakeholders.
Chait, R., Holland, T.,
& Taylor, B. (1991). The effective board of trustees. New York:
Macmillan.
Davis,
J., & Batchelor, S. (1974). The effective college and university
board: A report of a national survey of trustees and presidents.
Research Triangle Park: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.
Fisher, J. (1991). The board and the president. New York: Macmillan.
Gale, R. (1980a).
Building a more effective board. Washington, DC: Association of
Governing Boards.
Gale, R. (1980b).
Selecting and deploying trustees. In R. Ingram (Ed.) and Associates,
Handbook of college and university trusteeship, pp. 47-62. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In
a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gomberg, I., &
Atelsek, F. (1977). Composition of college and university governing
boards. Higher Education Panel Reports #35. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Grigsby, J., &
Galloway, S. (1996). Recruiting minority trustees to independent
college and university governing boards. Special report. Washington,
DC: Association of Governing Boards. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 412 802)
Hall, R., &
Sandler, B. (1984). Out of the classroom: A chilly climate for women?
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, Project on the Status
and Education of Women.
Heilbron, L. (1973).
The college and university trustee: A view from the board room. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howard, J. (1984).
Women trustees and educational equity. Women Studies Quarterly, 12(3),
30-31.
Ingram, R. (1980a).
Assuring trustee orientation and development. In R. Ingram (Ed.) and
Associates, Handbook of college and university trusteeship, pp. 87-100.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Ingram, R. (1980b).
Organizing the board. In R. Ingram (Ed.) and Associates, Handbook of
college and university trusteeship, pp. 63-86. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, R. (1980c).
Toward effective trusteeship for the eighties. In R. Ingram (Ed.) and
Associates, Handbook of college and university trusteeship, pp. 1-13.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, R. (1988).
Making trusteeship work: A guide to governing board organization,
policies, and practices. Washington, DC: Association of Governing
Boards.
Kanter, R.,
(1993). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kerr, C., & Gade,
M. (1989). The guardians: Boards of trustees of American colleges and
universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards.
Korhammer, S. (1985).
Characteristics of female trustees. In G. Petty, Active trusteeship for
a changing era, pp. 43-53. New Directions for Community Colleges No.
51. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Martorana, S. (1963).
College boards of trustees. New York: The Center for Applied Research
in Education.
Michael, S., &
Schwartz, M. (1999). Perceived role of trustees: A study of higher
education institutions in Ohio. Journal of Educational Administration,
37, 165-183.
Muller, J. (1978).
Interest and involvement of women in university governance. Journal of
the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 42(1), 10-15.
Nason, J. (1974-75).
The future of the trusteeship: Role and responsibilities of college and
university boards. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards.
Paltridge, J., Hurst,
J., & Morgan, A. (1973). Boards of trustees: Their decision
patterns. Berkeley: University of California, Center for Research and
Development in Higher Education.
Rauh, M. (1959).
College and university trusteeship. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
Rauh, M. (1969). The
trusteeship of colleges and universities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sandler, B., &
Hall, R. (1986). The campus climate revisited: Chilly for women
faculty, administrators, and graduate students. Washington, DC:
Association of American Colleges, Project on the Status and Education
of Women. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282 462)
Schick, E. (1996). The
local board in multi campus systems and universities. Occasional paper
No. 25. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 412 85)
Scollay, S., Bratt, C.,
& Tickameyer, A. (1997, March). Women and issues of gender on
college and university governing boards. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Sevier, R. (1999). How
to be an exceptional follower. Trusteeship, 7(1), 12-17.
Smith, J. (1976). The
challenge of being a female trustee. In V. Dziuba and W. Meardy,
(Eds.), Enhancing trustee effectiveness, pp. 21-25. New Directions for
Community Colleges No. 15. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Steinbach, S., &
Pelesh, M. (1999). Are you telling me I'm personally liable?
Trusteeship, 7(4), 1-17.
Taylor, B. (1987).
Working effectively with trustees: Building cooperative campus
leadership. Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC.
The Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching. (1982). The control of the campus: A
report on the governance of higher education. Washington, DC: Author.
Trustees and troubled
times in higher education. (1992). Report of the Higher Education
Issues Panel. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards for
Universities and Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
357 719)
Twale, D.,
& Shannon, D., (1996). Professional service involvement of
leadership faculty: An assessment of gender, role, and satisfaction.
Sex Roles, 34, 117-126.
Young, J. F., &
Williams, A.H. (1998). The changing role of trustees in planning.
Planning for higher education, 26(4), 69-70.
Weaver, E. (1978).
Implication of giving a women a greater share of academic decision
making. Paper presented at the Conference on Expanding the role of
Women in the Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences.
Wood, M. (1985).
Trusteeship on the private college. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Zwingle, J.
(1980). Evolution of lay governing boards. In R. Ingram, (Ed.) and
Associates, Handbook of college and university trusteeship, pp. 14-26.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zwingle, J. (1984).
Effective trusteeship: Guidelines for board members. Washington, DC:
Association of Governing Boards for Universities and Colleges.
Zwingle, J., &
Mayville, W. (1974). College trustees: A question of legitimacy. Higher
Education Research Report No. 10. Washington, DC: American Association
of Higher Education.
.
Table 1: Demographic information
N %
Age
Under
40
6 12
40-49 11 22
50-59 18 36
60 and
over 14 28
Race
White 38 78
Minority 11 22
Marital Status
Married 40 82
Single
9 18
Highest degree held
Associate
1
2
BA/BS 15 31
MA/MS/MEd 16 33
JD
6 12
MD
3
6
PhD/EdD
8 16
Occupational area
Law
6 12
Government
8 16
Business 10 20
Education
8 16
Medical
5 10
Retired/Other
9 18
Number of organizations to which they belong
Civic
(1-5) 34 69
Educational
(1-4) 33 67
Professional
(1-4) 33 67
Political
(1-4) 28 57
Religious
(1-4) 25 51
Business
(1-3) 21 43
Other 20 41
Table 2: Board Related Information
N %
Trustee selection process
Legislative
appointment
6 12
Gubernatorial
appointment 19 39
Gubernatorial appt/legislative
approval
9 18
Popular
election
2
4
Faculty, alumni
appointment 13 27
Number of years served
New this
year 11 22
2-4
years 15 31
5-9
years 17 35
10+
years
6 12
How often does board meet
10-12 times per year
[monthly] 22 47
6-9 times per year
[bimonthly] 15 32
4 times per year
[quarterly] 10 21
Is your board representative of campus racial composition
Yes 20 46
No 23 54
Is your board representative of campus gender composition
Yes 17 40
No 25 60
Table 3: Board orientation
N %
Orientation activities in which participants have participated
Read information
packet 44 90
Read information on new educational programs and
curriculum 44 90
Hear briefing on facilities
plans 43 88
Attend meetings with
administration/faculty/students 39 80
Take campus
tour 37 76
Read Chronicle of Higher Education/Black
Issues 36 74
Attend seminars and
workshops 34 70
Read information on institutional
history 34 69
Hear briefing on campus community
activities 29 59
Read information from business, industry, and
government 27 50
Attend
retreat 26 53
Subscribe to AGB
publications 23 47
Attend AGB
conferences 22 45
Get a
mentor
4
8
Do you receive rewards for being a trustee
Yes 37 79
No 10 21
Have you volunteered for board roles and responsibilities
Yes 40 82
No
7 14
Does your board groom persons for leadership?
Groom
men 38 84
Groom
women 30 62
Table 4: Committee assignments
Top three ranked areas of participant's perceived expertise
First
Second Third
Management 7 2 5
Faculty
affairs 6 1 7
Student
affairs 6 7 4
Academic
affairs 5 7 3
Planning 3 2 3
Legal
affairs 3 1 1
Government
relations 3 6 4
Marketing 1 4 4
Budgeting 1 1 4
Public
relations 1 1 2
Personnel 1 1 2
Real
estate 1 1 2
Fund
raising 1 1 0
Plant
management 0 0 1
Committees on which you have served
N %
Academic
affairs 32 65
Executive
committee 23 47
Budget and
finance 19 39
Presidential
search 18 37
Institutional
planning 12 24
Building and
grounds 11 22
Development 11 22
Alumni
8 16
Mission
5 10
Investment
4
8
Faculty
affairs
3
6
Athletics
3
6
Nominating
3
6
Do participants feel they are assigned to committees in which they have expertise
Yes 34 69
No 15 31
Are participants quickly involved on committees
Yes 38 78
No 11 22
Table 5: Time spent on board and campus activities
N %
Do you serve in other campus leadership roles?
Yes 28 58
No 20 42
Are you provided with opportunities to meet with other trustees?
Yes 48 98
No
1
2
How many days per year do you devote to trustee duties?
Less than
20
8 18
20-39 14 33
40-59 14 33
60 or
more
7 16
What percentage of participants' time is spent on university activities?
0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30%+
Board
meetings 14%
18%
68%
Speaking
appearances 46%
42%
11%
Fund
raising
47%
29%
12% 11%
Univ
related functions 20%
41%
28% 11%
Communicating with
university personnel
20%
47%
23% 9%
Representing
the univ 41%
33%
7% 18%
Committee
work
37% 63%
© Copyright 2007 by Academic Leadership
Top of Page
|
