Still reeling from a presidential search that was beset by political maneuvering and partisan bickering, the University of South Carolina on Friday released an independent consultants’ report that describes its Board of Trustees as unduly prone to legislative interference and hamstrung by a “fundamentally misguided governance culture.”
The report was commissioned by Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., whose appointment, in July, as president of the Columbia campus and the system elicited rancor from students, faculty, and alumni. Caslen, a former superintendent and president of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, was perceived by many as ill prepared to run a major public research university. He was, however, the favored applicant of Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, who leaned on trustees to appoint Caslen.
Public records, which have been released in recent months, show the degree to which partisanship ran through South Carolina’s presidential-search process.
The governor’s chief of staff saw the university’s presidency as a political prize to be won, records show, and at least one board member pledged that he wouldn’t buckle under pressure from what he described as members of the “radical left” who were protesting Caslen’s appointment.
The consultants criticized the board as showing a “limited respect for shared governance.”
Those events formed the backdrop for the scathing report, written by two consultants from the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, that the university released on Friday. Richard D. Legon, the immediate past president of the association, and Ellen Chaffee, a senior fellow for the group, pulled no punches in their assessment of the board’s shortcomings.
The consultants criticized the board as showing a “limited respect for shared governance,” and for consuming itself with work that “rarely adds value.” But the “root cause” of concerns for the board, according to the report, is the political approach some trustees bring to the job.
Here are five of the report’s key findings related to political interference and trustee independence:
1. Trustees have “a predilection for political governance,” rather than a broader focus on what is best for the institution. That has threatened the university’s reputation and standing with its regional accrediting agency, which found that the governor had “undue influence” on the presidential-search process.
“The story of a higher-education institution needs to focus on system achievement and vitality,” the consultants wrote. “So when the most high-profile story of an institution is about the failure of board governance — allowing the intrusion of politics into a system that is designed to resist external influence — the reputation of an institution is negatively affected. Institution reputations are fragile; once damaged it takes years of work to restore — if possible — a more positive perception.”
2. Among some board members, the consultants wrote, there is a belief that “trustees report to and are directly accountable to the state legislature, that a trustee owes special responsiveness and loyalty to legislators, and that some legislators expect trustees to respond to their requests for favors.” That culture is “entrenched,” the report continues, because one-third of South Carolina’s trustees have served for more than 12 years, and some more than 30 years. (There are no term limits for South Carolina’s trustees.)
3. The presidential search raised questions about whether trustees gave undue deference to the governor and political considerations. That can’t happen, the consultants wrote. “Perhaps the most precious asset of a university or college is board and trustee independence, both real and perceived,” the report says. “Trustees who cannot or will not put the best interests of the institutions and their missions ahead of all other considerations must recuse themselves or resign.”
4. The current system of trustee selection, which includes 16 members elected by the General Assembly, hasn’t produced a diverse board. Quite the contrary. The board has no shortage of lawyers, the consultants wrote, but its “collective experience is likely extremely limited in areas such as strategic leadership and management of large organizations, communications, technology, academic affairs, and the higher-education sector.”
“Even more concerning,” the report continues, “of the 19 members other than the governor and education secretary, 17 are men and 18 are white. To represent the state’s population, board members would include at least five times as many women and minorities as is currently the case. We cannot overstate the significant real and perceived losses that lack of diversity represents to the board, system, and state.”
5. Giving the governor an ex officio seat on the board, as South Carolina does, is inconsistent with “best practice,” the consultants wrote. South Carolina law, which designates the governor as de facto chair of the board, if he or she attends meetings, is particularly unusual, if not unique, the report says. “We cannot find another example of such gubernatorial influence in any other state,” the consultants wrote. Pending legislation would remove the governor from the board, and the consultants suggested that the board might want to “signal its support for that part of the legislation.”
At a scheduled retreat on Friday, the Board of Trustees will discuss the consultants’ report.
“Whether or not we agree with many of the findings and conclusions in the report, we will take the opportunity during our upcoming retreat to discuss with AGB what led to them,” John C. von Lehe Jr., the board’s chairman, said in a news release.
Describing the highly critical report, von Lehe focused on a couple of positives. The consultants said they were “impressed by board members’ commitment to the university” and applauded Caslen for his work to “establish a new tone.”
“We are proud,” von Lehe wrote, “of AGB’s recognition; it is that commitment that drives our work.”
