A trustee seems hellbent on firing the president without seeking a performance evaluation or showing evidence of malfeasance or any other cause. Enamored of a former star player who’s looking for a job, a booster trustee vilifies the current coach, intending to replace him. Yet another board member advocates for a new campus downtown, where he owns vacant property. Those are just a few examples of how trustees might substitute their personal agendas for the best interests of the institutions they are supposed to govern.
Driven by pecuniary ambitions or personal animosities, this type of trustee makes a mockery of good governance, in which the fiduciary or trust obligation should come first. Boards have tools to police such deviant behavior—if they have the courage to use them.
It is important to recognize that some annoying behavior by trustees actually benefits the work of the board. By questioning conventional wisdom and calling attention to issues that other members might choose to ignore, active trustees contribute a lot. Active trustees are deeply engaged in confronting the real problems facing a college. They challenge stale strategies and old ideas, bring fresh thinking to board discussions, and insist on high standards of accountability. The best active trustees demand that the board attend to tough issues, but are courteous in communicating with colleagues and administrators.
The activist trustee, by contrast, does not speak truth to power but pursues a personal, partisan, or ideological agenda. A version of the true believer, the activist is obsessed rather than engaged; prefers ad hominem criticism over thoughtful challenge; substitutes argument for discussion; and remains largely incapable of examining other ideas, proposals, or strategies on their merits. Such behavior poisons rational discussion as trustees waste time combating activists or circumventing them.
The best antidote to such a toxic trustee is prevention. Before their selection (or appointment, in the case of public boards), potential trustees should sign off on a crisp list of their responsibilities. They must learn the fundamental rule that individuals hold no authority independent of the whole board. A strong orientation program emphasizing the fiduciary role of the board can help curb deviant behavior.
Candid and regular assessment of members’ performance, led by the board’s own governance committee, can firm up the self-discipline required of trustees. Clarifying expectations in advance and then reinforcing responsibilities may also check dysfunctional conduct.
For errant trustees who ignore those lessons, these remedies may help:
- A quiet word in private from the chair and a few highly regarded trustees.
- A facilitated discussion of appropriate conduct among all members.
- The development of “rules of engagement” inspired by the voluntarily accepted codes of highly reputable boards.
- The isolation of the errant trustee by other members’ consistently outvoting him or her.
- A decision not to renew the trustee’s appointment, if that lies within the board’s power.
- Removal from the board if policies permit. Otherwise, consultation with the governor or other appointing authority to seek the activist’s censure or removal.
