I notice that Klumb isn't telling Mississippi State athletics fans to move on.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: tomcat
"The board meets this week and Thames has asked to speak with members about his plans for the future. He said last week that he has requested the discussion be held in closed session, but he isn't sure if it fits the criteria for a closed-door meeting."

Why am I not surprised that SFT wants to speak off-the-record?  What possible reason could he have for wanting to do this if all he wants to do is share his plans for USM?  My guess is that he simply doesn't want to be held publicly accountable for anything he says or have to face the prospect of being questioned or challenged.  If the IHL agrees to let him speak off the record, its own credibility (such as it is) will be even more severely damaged.  Let him say what he has to say out in the open, so he can embarrass himself even further.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: bluegrass professor
"If someone can access this online and email this to the board, that would be nice. After all, we are educators first!"

---

Found it...probably breaking some copywright laws, but here it is (formatting may be weird):

POINT OF VIEW

How Not to Choose a President

Colloquy: Join an online discussion on why college presidents often seem to be on the firing line, why some fail and are fired, and what can be done to avoid such problems.

































Easy-to-print version




E-mail this article




Subscribe









By RITA BORNSTEIN

College presidents seem to be falling like tenpins. National attention among those of us in higher education is now focused on the failed presidential transition at Boston University, where, after a sudden rift with the trustees who had named him president-designate, Daniel S. Goldin did not even take office.

The very public failure diminishes a great university and calls into question the independence and leadership of the governing board, which had undermined the legitimacy of Goldin's appointment by allowing a previous president, John R. Silber, to retain control of the institution, the board, and the appointment of his successors. The board also had conducted a truncated search, which did not allow time to adequately assess the candidate's "fit" with the institutional culture.

Even after a legitimate search-and-selection process, however, presidents are vulnerable. The Chronicle regularly publishes articles about presidents on the firing line or fired. The names change, but the failures are disturbingly familiar. They occur in all sorts of institutions -- large and small, public and private, two-year and four-year -- from coast to coast.

The stories recur because trustees, faculty members, and presidents do not understand how to rescue deteriorating presidencies. Yet they can, and they should. A presidential failure hurts the institution as well as the individual -- costing time and money, damaging reputations, and disrupting momentum in planning, fund raising, and recruitment.

Based on interviews that I conducted with presidents, research on the presidency, and my own experience as a college chief executive officer, I have identified six leading threats to the legitimacy of a sitting president. When legitimacy is lost, the job soon follows.

Cultural misfit. Not long ago, an experienced president was terminated just 15 months into his leadership of a liberal-arts college. Faculty members and students apparently found him arrogant, condescending, confrontational, and paternalistic. Very likely, flush from his success during the search process, when he excited people with his charisma, vision, and bold ideas, the president took office thinking that he had a mandate for change. His failure was in trying to initiate change without first embracing the institution's culture, demonstrating an appreciation for what had been achieved before his arrival, and gathering support for his initiatives.

The mismatch between the president's style and the culture of the institution arose in the period of testing that new presidents undergo almost immediately, when every utterance and action is scrutinized for its meaning: Who is this person? Does the new president appreciate our culture? Is this a good fit?

Two years into his first presidency, Lawrence H. Summers is still in this period of testing. Summers appears to be challenging the traditions and culture of Harvard University before building the relationships and support he needs to create change. The deans and other professors may simply ignore his ideas. He may irritate so many people that his presidency comes to a bad end. Or, if he can generate consensus for change, both curricular and operational, among the institution's traditionally disparate interests, he may become Harvard's greatest leader.

Managerial incompetence. Not all presidents come to their positions with wide-ranging managerial expertise. The higher-education landscape is littered with those who failed because their vision greatly exceeded available resources or they neglected important institutional needs. For example, one president of a public university, in his fourth year on the job, undertook a massive construction project before the money to support it was in hand. A major financial crisis resulted, causing a significant debt burden, a budget deficit, and the loss of philanthropic support for the institution. He was ousted in his seventh year.

Where were the trustees? Why were they not involved in the management and financial issues surrounding the project? Why did the president make major financial decisions on his own? Did an "edifice complex" blind him?

Unfortunately, once a search is complete and a decision announced, busy trustees turn their attention to other matters, assuming that the new president will assemble a strong administrative team and manage effectively. Presidents, meanwhile, are loath to admit management incompetence. The results can be disastrous.

Erosion of social capital. Relationships of trust, cooperation, and mutual influence are essential for a successful presidency. At its best, social capital can be replenished, like money in the bank. Presidents can draw on it when they need it, and later replace it to maintain a balance. But a college can reach a "tipping point" after an accumulation of unpopular decisions and frayed relationships, when so many people are dissatisfied with the president that the institution is paralyzed. Often, disaffected faculty and staff members begin to focus on the president's habits, speech patterns, administrative style, or emotional intelligence. Within the past several years, the presidents of a large public university, a private university, and a women's college have been forced out after long -- and what many would describe as successful -- tenures because of a loss of social capital.

Inattentiveness. Many presidents are called upon for leadership in civic affairs, economic-development projects, and state- and federal-policy initiatives. They serve on nonprofit and corporate boards, regional accreditation teams, and various higher-education committees. Such involvements can distract from the day-to-day management of a college, leaving decisions unmade, finances uncontrolled, administrators unsupervised, and campus needs ignored.

A much-admired president who served for 23 years at a private college had to resign after close to two-thirds of a very small endowment had been rapidly spent for capital purposes. Active on the state and national higher-education scene, he may have been inattentive to the daily management of the institution.

Grandiosity. Long-term, successful presidents may begin to find the traditional processes of shared governance and consultation burdensome. That stems from the notion, based on years of experience, that they know what is best for their institutions. An inattentive board, which over a long and successful presidential tenure comes to trust the administration to act wisely and according to established policy, can compound the tendency.

A 14-year president took it upon himself to risk more than $10-million of his small private college's endowment without following required procedures for approval. What was he thinking? The investment failed, the money was lost, and a good presidency came to a bad end.

Misconduct. Although the academic presidency is often thought of as a higher calling, campus CEO's appear no less prone to misconduct than business, government, and religious leaders do. That is unfortunate, because college presidents have a special responsibility to exhibit ethical behavior to others on the campus -- in particular, the students.

Recent presidential misdeeds include fudging a résumé, cronyism, conflicts of interest, an improper relationship with a staff member, assault, unauthorized spending, sexual harassment, condoning or committing violations of college-athletics rules, and drug possession and trafficking. Such actions cannot be attributed to outside pressure or stupid mistakes but arise from hubris, or the single-minded pursuit of top rankings at any cost.

What can trustees and faculty members do to keep those threats from undermining a presidency?

First, trustees must recognize that the choice of a president is the most important decision they will make. They should assure legitimacy from the start by conducting a search that includes all key stakeholders, casts a wide net for candidates, avoids undue political influences, and takes sufficient time with the finalists. In addition:

• Faculty members and trustees should avoid being seduced by charisma and should spend time evaluating each top candidate's managerial style, ability to build relationships, and interest in the institutional culture. Similarly, new presidents should resist the temptation to initiate major changes before immersing themselves in the institutional culture and building important relationships.
  
  
  
• Trustees, with faculty and administrative input, should develop an assimilation plan for the new president. Early on, they should be tolerant of errors and provide useful feedback.
  
  
  
• Trustees should view themselves as tutors and buffers for a new president, and be available for nonintrusive consultation. If things get off to a rocky start, they should encourage their president to enlist a mentor or a coach.
  
  
  
• Administrators, faculty members, and trustees should encourage the president to spend time building relationships with internal and external constituents. A store of social capital -- which must be continually replenished -- can facilitate new initiatives and mute discontent.
  
  
  
• Trustees should remain attentive and engaged, particularly regarding financial policy and ethical decisions. They should monitor how well the president manages and performs administrative functions.
  
  
  
• Trustees should insist that presidents uphold ethical behavior. When ethically murky issues arise, presidents should discuss them with trustees and key faculty members.
  
  
  
• If a presidency seems hopeless or ineffective, trustees should find a humane way to signal to the president that it is time to move on. A humiliating conclusion to a presidency sullies the institution's reputation and makes it more difficult to attract good candidates.
  

A failed presidency is a tumultuous event for the entire college. Unless a presidency is irremediable -- as some are -- everyone should work actively to prevent a failure. Avoiding the threats and adhering to the principles that I've outlined, presidents, trustees, and faculty members can have a long and productive relationship.

Rita Bornstein is president of Rollins College and author of Legitimacy in the Academic Presidency: From Entrance to Exit, published this month by ACE/Praeger.