You might say that Hamid A. Shirvani, chancellor of the North Dakota University System, is an overachiever of sorts.
During the first year in office, most new chancellors conduct listening tours, begin to outline new strategic plans, and make nice with their state legislature and governor, the people who decide how much state money their system will receive. The controversies don’t usually start until leaders get a little more comfortable in their role.
Mr. Shirvani, however, already finds himself at the center of several skirmishes and fending off legislation that would encourage his dismissal and overhaul governance of the university system he has led since last July. Although lawmakers have no power to fire Mr. Shirvani, they have revived a bill to abolish the State Board of Higher Education, which does have that power, and are also considering a measure that would make money available to buy out his contract.
What started as minor flaps over proposals to increase the system’s staff and office space have evolved into allegations that the chancellor is trying to amass power and squelch dissent and debate from the presidents, faculty, and students of the system’s 11 universities.
Supporters of Mr. Shirvani have played down the disputes as part of a longstanding power struggle among legislators, the system administration, and the campus leaders. But so far, students have been among the most visible critics of Mr. Shirvani, with a majority of an association that represents the system’s students approving a vote of no confidence in the chancellor last month.
The state board’s media contact did not respond to a request to interview the group’s president. The leadership of the board, however, has expressed continued support of the chancellor.
But there is mounting concern among some board members, past and present, that Mr. Shirvani may not be up to the job.
Robert Vallie, a former student member of the state board, was one of three members of that group who voted against Mr. Shirvani when he was chosen as chancellor last year. Now, Mr. Vallie said, many of his fears are coming true.
In doing some research on Mr. Shirvani, who was previously president of California State University-Stanislaus, “a lot of concerns came up,” Mr. Vallie said. “He was polarizing. People either loved him or hated him.”
Open-Meetings Concerns
The latest problem for Mr. Shirvani is an allegation that he orchestrated efforts by the State Board of Higher Education to evade the state’s open-meetings laws. The current student member of the state board, Sydney L. Hull, has raised questions about whether the chancellor enabled board members to meet in casual settings without proper notice to the public and without assurances that no board business was being conducted at the time.
Mr. Hull backed up his charges with written statements from the system’s former general counsel and the board’s former secretary, among others, who say the chancellor not only ignored legal advice about the meetings but also encouraged system employees to assist him in the effort.
The board took up those allegations at a meeting on Thursday, receiving a report from the system’s current general counsel that concluded there had been “no substantive evidence of willful wrongdoing” resulting from the meetings or several other issues raised by Mr. Hull and others. In one or perhaps two cases, the board will have to post an agenda and minutes of meetings that were not previously available, Claire J. Holloway, the system’s lawyer, said during the meeting.
Ms. Holloway said she had not yet discussed the results of her inquiry with the state attorney general, who is also being asked by a news organization in the state to provide an advisory opinion on whether the board violated open-meeting laws.
The board voted unanimously, including Mr. Hull, to accept the report’s findings, though one member expressed some concern about the appearance of the board’s past actions.
“The mere fact these allegations have been made suggests some may believe decisions are being made behind the scenes,” the board member, Kari Reichert, said in an e-mail response, “and to my knowledge, that has not been the case.”
“So to the extent that perception exists, my point was let’s go the extra mile when we can—beyond what the law requires,” she wrote.
Repercussions
Despite Ms. Holloway’s assurances that no laws or policies were broken, many inside and outside the system are likely to remain disenchanted with the chancellor’s performance and the board’s lack of action on the allegations.
Former system employees refused to speak on the record about Mr. Shirvani, and current employees told The Chronicle that they feared for their jobs.
A letter to the board from six past presidents of universities in the system urges the board to “terminate the current chancellor for cause or by negotiation and then find a new chancellor, noting that truly effective change agents are also trusting and trustworthy.” A state lawmaker provided a copy of the letter to The Chronicle.
Chief among the problems that the chancellor has created, the presidents write, is that a broad new policy on presidential termination has made current campus leaders vulnerable to charges of insubordination for simply stating their opinions. That policy will not only drive away current leaders, they say; it will also make it nearly impossible to attract future presidents to the state.
“All sides are entrenched in their current positions,” the letter continues. “This will only get worse unless someone steps forward with principle and courage to put the students, the institutions, and the future of the state first—very soon.”
