By Alan Geiger, Ph.D.
Assistant to the President, Secretary to the Board of Trustees
Legislative Liaison at Ohio University
By Alan Geiger, Ph.D.
Assistant to the President, Secretary to the Board of Trustees
Legislative Liaison at Ohio University
Introduction
The Presidency
Assistant to the President
Federal Government and Local Interests
Accreditation Agencies
State Government
State Oversight Boards
University Board of Trustees
The great German-American theologian and journalist, Reinhold Niebuhr, pretty much summed up my work when he wrote, “Life has no meaning except in terms of responsibility” (Faith and Hope, 1949). My philosophy is to work with those in authority no matter how difficult or undesirable this might be. That’s a heavy but necessary responsibility. But it explains why I want to be inside the decision-making circle as much as possible. While I’m willing to fight, if responsibility demands that, I prefer to influence, cajole, lobby or just plain beg if necessary.
With that said, permit me to begin.
Dagmar Weiler has asked that I speak generally about “administrative matters” within the United States Higher Education System. She suggested this presentation include information about structure, governance and legal issues. During our e-mail correspondence, Dr. Weiler shared with me contents of her presentation, entitled “Changing Patterns of Governance and Funding in Germany Higher Education: A Report from the Battlefield.” I must admit I felt challenged to develop a similar thought provoking title. However, I did not. I could entitle this piece: “Responsibility: Initiating Action During Transitional Paradigms of Importance.” But a title like that, in my state of Ohio, would challenge those in authority and, for want of a better term, would place me in the lower rungs of the political ladder.
In the United States, in many ways, education is fraught with politics. I suspect the same is true in Germany. How then, do these political interests interact for us in the State of Ohio and are we different from the other 50 states? The picture I’ll paint for you will probably seem unclear, maybe unfocused – but true.
I’ll begin by outlining the various elements of higher education in our states, their roles and something about the players. These include and begin with the federal government and extend to national or regional accreditation agencies, state government, state controlling or coordinating boards, boards of trustees and in some cases some form of local or community interests.
My responsibility entails dealing with these entities. I want to spend my time today discussing the areas I most personally interact with, i.e., state government, state boards and boards of trustees. These are the areas where the greatest differences are between the two educational systems represented here today. But, before I begin that discussion, there are two other contributing aspects to this matter you should know.
First is that of the university presidency. Let me broadly describe the presidency, as I know it, and then discuss how in the case of Ohio University, the president engages the aforementioned elements of our higher education system. And, secondly, I’ll cover my role and responsibilities as Assistant to the President, Secretary to the Board of Trustees, and Legislative Liaison.
When one considers governance and legal matters in our higher education system the focus is often on the president. Some would say the successful president has as key advisors, an attorney, a lobbyist and a media relation’s person – all responsible for keeping them out of “trouble.” In presenting the roles of our board of trustees later you will note their most critical role is the appointment or dismissal of the president. Likewise, the president knows and understands the presidential appointment is at the discretion of the Board of Trustees. From a corporate sense, the president’s decisions become our university “law” and may trigger other legal issues. This results in a myriad of policies and procedures by which we operate. These vary from how appointments are made to how sick leave and vacation time may be taken to matters of business data processing, administration, development and planning and student issues.
The notion of student matters deserves more attention. We have what I call a quasi-legal system in place called the Student Code of Conduct under which two levels of offenses may be charged. The judicial process adjuncts about 2,000 cases a year. Most are of a minor nature, including property damage, alcohol and other similar type abuse, primarily a student against student issue. A handful of more serious offenses do occur annually and these trouble us deeply. Sanctions vary depending upon the offense and finding and in the most serious of cases appeals are permitted directly to the president. Our university system is independent of civil or criminal proceedings. They or we may take action first depending on the nature of the offense. It goes without saying there is some controversy in this type of system. However, most universities have similar ones in place. My opinion is that we will probably see over time modifications to this system bringing it more in line with our systems of laws and courts.
The president, acting within his capacity to see that the institute is well managed and within the scope of his responsibilities, is normally indemnified for university resultant suits and ultimately individually dismissed. The same holds true for our trustees. The myriad of legal issues President Glidden deals with run the gamut and consume a significant portion of the president’s time. Involved are federal courts to local common pleas court, Ohio Court of Claims, unemployment compensation claims, collection suits, environmental claims, suits involving our medical center, complaints to the Inspector General and Ethics Commission, discrimination claims, labor matters, patents and licensing, trademarks and logo licensing, federal communication matters and real estate issues. This list is long, but the good news is that there are limited numbers of cases associated with each area and our potential financial exposure is about $6 million (U.S.), much of which will be funded from our university sources.
Dr. Weiler wants hard facts. I’ll cite a few in a moment but, first, I want you to know, if you don’t know now, that litigation takes away from the time the president might spend on more productive matters like being responsible for viable, thoughtful and inspiring leadership. The nature of our legal suits include a student suing us for expulsion citing denial of constitutional rights, sex discrimination cases, malpractice cases against our medical residents and physicians, complaints filed by faculty alleging a violation of ethics laws or discrimination, salary issues, labor matters involving worker’s compensation claims, arbitration, discipline, removal and classification matters, contesting with a younger school to our north about the use of our name “Ohio” and purchasing and leasing of real estate.
You can see why life, even for President Glidden, is defined by responsibility.
The Assistant to the President, et. al.
My role and responsibilities as Assistant to the President, Secretary to the Board of Trustees and Legislative Liaison are somewhat unique to our higher education administrative structure. Unique in terms of responsibilities held but collectively important and reinforcing in terms that each roles success and relationship has to the others. It’s the best position in our university and I am grateful for the opportunity to serve the institution and its president, Robert Glidden.
Let’s begin in the simplest fashion. The assistant to the president is not the second in command of the university. Rather, I do what the President says or doesn’t want to do. As Secretary to the Board of Trustees I help guide the trustees and serve as a go-between between the trustees and president. With my legislative hat on I attempt to anticipate statewide issues and keep the president out front on them with no surprises. Working for and with a man like Bob Glidden makes all this easy.
As it relates to our subject matter, today this combination does several things. First, it provides almost instant credibility since the assumption is made you probably know what the president and trustees are thinking. Second, it creates a sense of trust and confidence in you personally since the institution’s faith is placed in you. And third, it signals to others, that maybe competitors, that you have the strength of the institution behind you. Finally, all this marshals alumni of your institution that are somehow involved with state government to support both you and their institution.
So while my responsibilities may be great, I count my blessings of support. Again, I’ll quote from Niebuhr, who writes: “Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope.”
Often, I am saved by hope, especially when dealing with government entities.
Federal Government and Local Interests
I’m very much aware that we do live and function in isolation. Particularly in relationship to government and legal issues. These entities help frame what we do and I want to only identify these for my purposes today.
While not a direct responsibility of the federal government, higher education is impacted on several fronts, all of which are important to us. For example, most student financial aid programs evolve at the federal level and they are the major sources of financial aid for students and most recently are now providing income tax under certain circumstances, from college and university costs. Sponsored and contract research support is important to most all institutions of higher education. In Ohio University’s case, federal support is in the neighborhood of $35 million annually, which is about 10% of our annual total budget. The Federal Government and its agencies affect us as well by affirmative action initiatives, minimum wage requirements, requirements for the care of research animals and cost of postage just to mention a few.
On the other end of the broad government continuum is local government. The small community in which the university is located is called Athens and is in fact a namesake for the former Greek City of Athens. We are a town of slightly over 25,000 whose population independent of the students, faculty and staff is less than 5,000 persons. We are a company town whose business is education. We are the economic base of the community and region and are often criticized by the citizenry and local government as being heavy handed and insensitive to business and other issues. All this comes with the territory. My responsibility is to work behind the scenes to make issues appear to be going naturally. Sometimes, they even do.
The government and legal issues for us and our city officials are quite different than those at the macro federal level. And by the way, we are exempted by state law from local codes and ordinance. Here our concerns deal with more mundane matters, such as does the water flow in and the sewage out; if needed, can fire protection be provided; and are other services being provided that provide for the well-being of all inhabitants of our fair city.
Whether dealing with federal or local government, politics prevail. On the other hand, so much of what I do when it matters involves perception. Perception is an occupational necessity in an assistant to the President. Some would see government as a challenge. I view it as opportunity.
Opportunity also involves another such entity, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institution of Higher Education. In 1993, this association visited, reviewed a self-study and granted (renewed) Ohio University’s status as mature doctoral granting institution, district wide to include its regional campus. Such an accreditation, in this case every ten years, looks at a host of factors initiating governance, planning, financial resources, internal and external review and accreditation, assessment of student satisfactions and outcomes, degree granting units, etc.
In addition to this university-wide type accreditation there are a numerous ones – evaluating departments, colleges and so on. The broad purposes of such efforts in North Central Ohio Association is to:
1. To develop accreditation processes which encourage quality and educational excellence.
2. To stimulate improvement of educational programs and effectiveness of instruction, with concern for freedom to teach and learn.
3. To establish policies and procedures, by which the activities of the Commission shall be carried out, including the selection of officers and committees for the Commission.
4. To establish criteria which, when met, entitle educational institutions to receive the status of accreditation, and to establish procedures by which the determination of accreditation is made.
5. To establish criteria which, when met, entitle educational institutions to be affiliated with the Association in ways other than membership, and to establish procedures by which the determination of such affiliation is made.
6. To assess dues and fees to be paid by member and other affiliated institutions, to receive such dues and fees, and after reasonable notice to withdraw accreditation or other affiliation for non-payment of such dues and fees.
Higher Education in the United States is seen, for the most part, as the responsibility of individual states and in turn is a product of history, political whim and the cultures of each of the 50 states. In our state of Ohio, government’s role is to provide broad oversight, financial support, laws and regulations to function by and in some rare cases, to deal with individual quirks of legislative members. The General Assembly, our House and Senate, hold our well-being in their hands, and though we try to shake their hands, we also lobby them to do right by us.
For reference, Ohio’s State Government contains three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The State’s web page describes them thusly:
The Executive Branch includes the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General, Treasurer of State, State Board of Education and the Governor’s Cabinet. The Cabinet members serve as directors for the many state agencies and are appointed by the Governor. The executive branch is overall responsible for the setting of higher education policy in the state. Unfortunately, and in Ohio’s case there is no cabinet level position for higher education and thus policy, depending on the issue, may or may not find support. I am going to discuss the Ohio Board of Regents later, but you see their only a recommending/coordinating board. Thus, persuasion becomes the vehicle for influence. It does not hurt our interests that the recent two-term Governor is a graduate, or that many key administrative officers are graduates and has children in attendance. On the other hand I do sometimes wonder if this connection does not limit their support for fear of being partisan. The important factor here is that we do have ready access to these leaders and I believe, some influence, in matters important to us.
The Legislative Branch consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Together, these bodies are referred to as “The General Assembly.” Ohio’s House of Representatives has 99 members; the Senate has 33. The Legislative Service Commission, a staff of trained legal experts and personnel, drafts proposals for new laws and law changes, is one of several legislative agencies that are also part of the Legislative branch of Ohio’s state government.
The legislative branch is where most of the political action occurs and it’s there that our fate is decided. As with the executive branch, we are fortunate to have established relationships with individual members and their collective leadership. Several have or have had their sons and daughters at our university. We also have long-standing support from key staffers, many of whom form the “Ohio University Mafia.” This group of 120 or so individuals keeps the president and me informed, before many of our colleagues, of critical issues, their timing and chances for success. Without this type of support the university would probably need a full-time lobbying effort in Columbus as opposed to my being there part-time. You cannot have too many good friends.
The Judicial Branch comprises the Ohio Supreme Court; numerous judiciary bodies – including 12 courts of appeals, courts of common pleas in each county, municipal courts, and many county courts; and the Court of Claims.
When we find ourselves before a branch of judiciary we are usually disadvantaged or seen as the big bully. State universities are limited in how they can defend themselves. Much of the disadvantage comes from the political nature of counsel assignments and the sympathy of some courts or judges to the perceived so-called underdog. While we enjoy some legal authority due to being state created, the university uses this authority carefully and conservatively. As you suspect, we have many, many more suits against as opposed to those we file.
There are two matters to note here as state government impacts our university. The first is term limits. A limit of eight consecutive years of House or Senate service went into effect in 1992. As you might imagine, our long-time friends are mostly gone or will be by the year 2000. To me, this is the real Y-2K problem! Higher education’s agenda takes time to develop and for one to build a sense of trust and confidence with political leaders. With term limits the traditional style of leadership is gone. Members now have their own agenda, and little time to accomplish it. The fallout for this is that status of individuals like myself have the opportunity for more influence that we enjoyed in the past. The second matter is support for higher education in the state budget. Ohio’s budget is annually about $36 billion biannually. Over the past decade higher education’s share has dropped from over 13% to 11%. We find ourselves below the priorities of health and welfare, prisons and elementary and secondary education. You should know too that elementary and secondary education has sued the state seeking more funding, alleging an unequal funding formula, and should this suit be successful, more funding from an already strong state economy will go there. Our biggest fear with budget matters is the loss of priority and possibility that more and more state funding will be earmarked all to the detriment of higher education. We are becoming a state where the discretionary portion of the state’s budget is shrinking and this does not bode well for us.
But that situation also heightens my sense of responsibility to act when it matters. It matters every day.
The major oversight board in our state is the Ohio Board of Regents. This board is a recommendation and coordinating board as opposed to other U.S. State systems where more control and authority rest at the central level. We are fortunate at Ohio University to enjoy so much university autonomy. I suspect this is one of the reasons Bob Glidden is here.
The Regents’ web page describes them thusly:
The Ohio Board of Regents is an eleven-member public body created by the state in 1963 to:
The Governor appoints the nine voting members of the Board who serve 9-year terms. The chairs of the General Assembly’s Education Committees serve as non-voting ex-officio members of the Board. The Regents appoint a Chancellor to serve as their chief administrative officer. At the moment two former university trustees sit as Regents; something we had a little to do with, but by and large, these appointments more traditionally are political ones or favor contributors.
Ohio’s system of higher education is composed of more than 100 colleges and universities, including 38 separately governed state-assisted colleges and universities. In the fall of 1998, Ohio’s public colleges and universities enrolled 411,446 students. Independent colleges and universities enrolled 114,476 students.
Our individual and institutional relationship with them are tops in the state and we serve as a sounding board for many of their initiatives. Examples of such interaction include President Glidden’s serving on the state funding commission, participating in early review of revised funding formulas and proposed policies, testifying to promoting support of state issues, and working closely with the legislative staff … to name a few.
And then there’s university governance.
With regard to university governance, the greatest difference between our United States systems, both public and private institutions, is the concept of trusteeship. Our trustees, a body of nine with two non-voting student trustees is the politic body for Ohio University. These individuals are appointed to nine-year terms by the governor and confirmed by the State Senate. John W. Nason, in his book “The Nature of Trusteeship” describes 13 responsibilities of individual trustees and their boards.
1. To maintain the integrity of the Trust.
2. To appoint the President.
3. To make certain that the institution is well managed.
4. To approve the budget
5. To raise money.
6. To manage the Endowment.
7. To assure adequate physical facilities.
8. To oversee the Educational Program.
9. To approve long range plans.
10. To serve as bridge and buffer between campus and community.
11. To preserve institutional autonomy.
12. To serve as court of appeal.
13. To be informed.
For me, this list is both practical and comprehensive. To me, all this is simply another way of describing stewardship. On that note, let me quote one more time from Reinhold Niebuhr, who perhaps is best known for his serenity poem, asking for courage to know the things that can and cannot be change and the wisdom to know the difference. That, in essence, is what I am asked to do as assistant to the President of Ohio University, a responsibility I treasure, because of the good that comes out of daily opportunities.
