QUESTIONS REGARDING COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION* DEAN CHARLES E. BESSEY

Trustee of Doane College

*Read, in the author's absence, by Professor S. A. Forbes, of the University of Illinois. 1. "What should be the real administrative body of a college or university, the faculty or the trustees?

"Should the trustees limit their functions to selecting a faculty and then vest in the latter the actual administration, or should the board itself undertake to administer the institution, either as a body or through its committees?"

In all matters pertaining to and involving the expenditure of money, the trustees should be the administrative body, but in educational matters the faculty and the trustees should both take action. In the latter case, the faculty should first act, and then submit their action to the trustees for approval. It is best that the trustees should delegate the arrangement of details to the faculty.

Since the power to control the expenditure of money must rest with the trustees, it follows that they and not the faculty have final control even in educational matters. It will help to clarify the situation if this fact be well understood at the outset. In all charters with which I am acquainted the trustees are made responsible for the financial management of the institution. In state colleges and universities, this responsibility is emphasized, and trustees are held strictly accountable for every item of expenditure. It is plain, therefore, that the real administrative body is the board of trustees, since by granting or withholding money they can promote or defeat any project. I am not saying what should be the real administrative body; I am merely reciting the facts as they exist, and as they must exist in all state universities, and most private ones as well.

Now, as a matter of expediency, all boards of trustees should at once delegate to the faculties the arrangement of all details of management, and then follow the sound business policy of non-interference in regard to all delegated powers. Elsewhere in society and in politics, there are numberless cases of such delegation of powers, and a successful practice of non-interference, and there is no good reason why it should not be equally feasible in college matters.

In all cases where questions of policy are concerned ultimately involving the expenditure of money, it is manifest that the trustees must take action. Thus, the establishment of new departments and courses of study, while the faculty is the only body capable of formulating the matter, it must be favorably acted upon by the trustees before it can receive the necessary financial support. It is clearly impracticable, and therefore impossible for any board of trustees to allow the faculty to pass finally upon matters which necessitate expenditures of money not yet authorized by the board itself.

A good working scheme is that which recognizes the powers and duties of both bodies. In general, the faculty takes the initiative, and proposes a plan which is then submitted to the trustees for their approval. In case of non-approval, the matter must of necessity be dropped for the present, or so modified as to meet with approval later. In case of approval, the trustees provide for the expense of the project, and should delegate the arrangement of details to the faculty as the body of experts who are supposed to know more about these matters than the members of the governing body. I have known of cases where a progressive board of trustees took the initiative, asking the faculty to prepare and present a plan for the consideration of the trustees. This is quite proper, and under the circumstances. the only thing to do. I have, alas, known of cases where the trustees did not wait for faculty action, but themselves formulated the plan independently of the faculty. I cannot too strongly condemn such action, and while some faculties are no doubt much too slow and conservative, yet in the end the trustees would have done better to have requested previous consideration by the teaching body.

"2. Should the president of the institution be the sole advisory authority to the board of trustees, or should the other administrative officers, or the various faculties be consulted?"

In general, the president should be the adviser of the board of trustees as well as of the faculties, but in difficult or doubtful cases, the board should consult with faculty officers, or even with professors and instructors, but in general, the president should be the only one to carry petitions, applications, recommendations, etc., to the board.

In discussing this question, it is well first of all to agree upon the place of the president in the college. I have found not a little feeling on the part of professors that the president is a more or less high priced figure head, or even a troublesome hindrance to faculty plans, and I may as well confess that at times I have shared in views something like these. Yet I am convinced that the president is a necessary officer in every institution of learning where there are many professors and instructors at work in many departments, and having different duties. The millenium has not yet approached near enough for us to be able to conduct successfully a business as complex as that of a college without an executive head. The president is (or should be) the expert in the business of education who is the executor of the plans duly adopted by the trustees on the one hand and the faculty on the other. Moreover, there falls to him very naturally, the work of planning for improvements, some of which must go to the faculty for further development, while others should be laid before the trustees. Where the scope of the work of the president is fully understood by faculty, trustees and the president himself, there should be no jealousy or fear in regard to the rights and limits of any one. From his

position, the president is the natural adviser of trustees and faculty. It would soon result in confusion if trustees were to undertake the work of adviser, collectively or individually, for the professors, and in like manner, it would lead to confusion if every professor were to regard it as his duty to act the part of advisor to the trustees upon all kinds of questions as they arise. The morale of the institution is best maintained where suggestions of professors are first discussed in open faculty meetings, and the results transmitted to the president and trustees. Yet here, the fact that the president is the president, and not a mere clerk must be borne in mind, and he must not be required to lay before the trustees without comment any action of the faculty which he does not approve In fact, every action of the faculty should be freely discussed with the president, and unless it receives the practically unanimous approval of the faculty, his disapproval should be final. I suggest that a veto power should be accorded the president, and also the power of reversing the veto by a three-fourths or four-fifths vote of all members of the faculty (not of a mere quorum). The troubles which have arisen between faculties and presidents have often been due to the fact that the proper relations have not been understood or observed.

I may say in passing, that in all institutions (possibly excepting the very small colleges where the president is also a professor with full work) the chief executive officer, whether called president or chancellor, should not be a voting member of the faculty. His votes should be wholly reserved for final approval or disapproval.

"3. Should the faculty be authorized to nominate men to the board for vacancies, or should that be done by the president or by committees or by members of the board?"

In some cases, a faculty should be asked by the board to make nomination, but in general, the nomination should be made by the president upon recommendations made by the professors in nearly allied departments. Where there are several faculties, the dean of the faculty in which the vacancy occurs, should have a voice in the recommendation, unless it be a minor one in the department.

That nominations should be made by the most competent body in the college, needs no argument. What is that most competent body? In the case of a vacancy in a minor position it is clear that the head professor is the one most competent to make a nomination, and he should be asked to do so. In case of a vacancy in the head professorship, the president should be the most competent to make a nomination, since it is his business to know who are the successful professors in many lines of work in the colleges of the country. It will help him to make a careful selection if he takes counsel of the head professors of allied departments, and the deans of the colleges or departments in which the vacancy occurs. I know of one case where an instructor

had made such a fine record as a teacher and investigator that the faculty took action unanimously recommending him to the trustees for election to a full professorship. This action of the faculty was ratified by the trustees with the happiest results, and I have never known a better appointment.

4.

How should trustees be selected? (a) By coöptation? (b) By the Alumni? (c) By outside authority?

1. In case of private institutions, by the church or other

2.

body?

In case of state institutions,

(a) Appointed by the Governor?

(b) Elected by the people?

(c) or ex-officio, e. g., Governor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, etc.?

(1.) In private institutions: by election by the board itself for part of the trustees and by election by the alumni for the remainder.

(2.) In state institutions: by election by the people at large; i. e., all the people of the state to vote for candidates for all of the vacancies. This is far better than appointment by the governor, or election by the Legislature, or ex-officio. The latter is the worst of all.

I have nothing further to say in regard to the election of trustees of private institutions. In state universities, appointment by the gov ernor is certain, sooner or later, to be used for selfish or political purposes. Nearly every man elected to the governorship is under such obligations to certain men that he feels compelled to listen to their requests in regard to this or that appointment, and thus it happens that men become trustees for the purpose of carrying out the wishes of a particular politician. I know of a case where in this way a governor in a western state "packed" the board of trustees with appointees who were pledged to dismiss two professors who had offended certain politicians. And in due time, the pledge was carried out, and the professors summarily kicked out of the college.

The same objection does not hold with respect to those who are trustees ex-officio, for they are always elected for some other purpose. The objection to such trustees is that they have been selected on account of especial fitness for other duties, or political expediency, and they quite naturally look upon their trusteeship as entirely secondary, or as an opportunity of securing a little more "patronage." In one case, the trustee's duties are neglected; in the other, the office is too often made the occasion of political favoritism, or something worse.

Where trustees are elected "at large" for long terms of service, at one of the general elections, the best results have been reached. Of course, the trustees secured in this way are not either angels or educational experts, but they are usually honest men who honor their office. They were nominated in open state convention, and elected

by the votes of all the people in the state, so that they are not indebted to a small body of men for their positions. As a consequence, they are not particularly bound to any set of men and are free to act as they think best. In Nebraska, where this has been the method of electing the trustees of a state university for the past thirty years, there has never been a case of political appointment in the faculty, or a dismissal on account of political reasons. I have seen narrow party men elected to the board, but whose election left them so wholly free and unpledged that they forgot party lines when in board meetings. Even when the fusion party Populist, Silver Republicans, and Democrats) elected a majority of the trustees in Nebraska, not a professor, not an instructor, not an employe was disturbed on account of his political affiliations. This was because these men came into office untrammeled and unpledged.

5. Should the trustees assume entire control of the financial administration, or should they allow the faculties to have a representation also, by allowing them to submit a budget either by departments or as a whole?"

A budget should be prepared by the president or finance committee, based upon estimates and requests formally made by the heads of all the departments. With this budget before them, the trustees must then assume the financial responsibility of ordering expenditures.

As I have shown in discussing the first question, the trustees of the college actually control its expenditures. The professors know their own needs better than the trustees, in fact the latter may, and probably do have only a very general idea of departmental needs. It must be conceded, however, by every professor that the trustees know better than the professors what are the aggregate needs, as well as what are the available funds. Here is where the president may help both trustees and faculty, by making himself as fully acquainted as possible with the financial resources on the one hand, and the needs on the other. The business way of managing such a matter as this, is for the president to receive the estimates of the professors, and after conferences with members of the faculty on the one hand, and members of the board of trustees on the other, to propose such a budget as will be a fair compromise between requests and resources.

Should the trustees, if they reserve the financial authority, undertake to determine the budget in all its details, or should they simply distribute by departments and leave it to the individual departments to make the detailed distribution?

In providing for the expenses of departments, the details must be left to the heads of departments, who should make orders and purchases through the steward or proper purchasing officer of the college.

In the management of a department of any considerable size or complexity, it is quite impossible for the head professor to anticipate