Chief Academic Affairs Officers, College and University
CHIEF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS OFFICERS, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY
A college's chief academic affairs officer, often referred to as the chief academic officer (CAO), fulfills the essential role of ensuring that an institution's educational mission is achieved. Successful completion of this overarching goal involves work across multiple constituencies and the use of a number of measures, such as personnel and budgetary decisions, to influence educational outcomes. Despite the important role that the CAO plays in the educational endeavor, there is little empirical knowledge about the position. Current knowledge comes from a handful of empirical works and multiple personal reflections on what a chief academic officer should be engaged in doing, as well as how they should be doing it. Three main issues related to the CAO are examined: varying titles, typical career path, and the main roles of chief academic officers.
One of the difficulties in understanding the nature of the work of the CAO is the litany of various terms for the position. The two most common terms in current parlance are provost and chief academic officer. However, at least nine different terms have been used to refer to the position. One reason for the numerous titles is that CAOs are expected to complete many different roles within different institutions. Furthermore, as colleges and universities have grown, the way in which responsibility for the academic life of educational institutions is handled has also changed. This growth has coincided with a transformation in the titles applied to those in charge of academic affairs.
The role of the CAO evolved as colleges became more complex. Initially, colleges required little more administrative representation than that of a president. Until 1950 the role of chief academic officer was embodied within the presidency. But as institutions grew and diversified, it became necessary to establish the position of dean, then to create multiple deanships. These deans either oversaw individual colleges or were responsible for a specific dimension of institutional functioning, such as the dean of research or the dean of students. In this manner, the role of CAO became more clearly delineated, as deans of instruction or deans of faculties (two of the several terms used to refer to the CAO) presided over campus academic issues. Other terms include academic dean, the title most commonly found in small liberal arts colleges; academic vice president, vice president for academic affairs, and vice presidentinstructor are used when an institution utilizes the vice president moniker for its administrative leaders. Otherwise, the title of provost is often used. In some instances, both the terms provost and vice president of academic affairs are incorporated to indicate the role of the individual as the second-in-command to the president as well as the head of institutional educational concerns. The title of vice chancellor is alsosometimes used.
Typical Career Path
The typical career path of a CAO begins with a prolonged stint as a faculty member. During their time as faculty members, CAOs generally serve on many campus administrative committees, and often on the faculty senate. CAOs also tend to have prior experience as both chair and dean. In their current role, CAOs frequently serve as the second-in-command within their institutions, reporting directly to the president or chancellor.
The tenure of individuals in the role of CAO tends to be fairly abbreviated. A 1987 study by Gary Moden et al. found that the mean length of service of the CAO was 5.3 years. After serving in the CAO role, individual career paths go in varied directions. Moden and his colleagues found that 37 percent of CAOs aspired to a presidential position, while 35 percent viewed the CAO position as a final one, contemplating retirement at the end of their positional tenure or shifting to a similar position at another institution. Only 14 percent desired to return to teaching in their initial discipline. Women were underrepresented at the CAO level, with males making up 81 percent of the respondents in the Moden study; the report does not include the racial/ethnic composition of their sample.
Role Of The Chief Academic Officer
While they support the president's needs, the central role of most CAOs is to maintain an inward vigilance lance toward the fulfillment of an institution's educational mission. The CAO therefore works closely with various constituencies on campus to enact that mission. By virtue of their position as second-in-command to the president, CAOs usually have jurisdiction over all academic deans, admissions, librarian, chief researcher, and all other academic officers. Therefore, the CAO generally has the power of approving all faculty appointments, as well as all college or departmental budgets and academic expenditures. CAOs are thus viewed as providing the internal focus of the administration, while the president provides the external vision and connection to community. While they may feel as if they are "on call" to the president, CAOs also have a great deal of power in their own right.
The CAO's internal focus may be conceived as having two elements: the development and implementation of academic goals for the institution and the allocation of resources to various departments and support services on campus to support those academic goals. As a result of this internal focus, CAOs frequently seek to balance competing needs across units within an institution to achieve the best outcomes for the institution as a whole. This often requires the CAO to act as negotiator and mediator, attempting to balance and accurately represent the interests of faculty and deans to the president and board of trustees–and vice versa.
In maintaining a focus on an institution's educational mission, the CAO is responsible for creating the principal connection between student progress and overall implementation of new programs. The CAO influences college values and outcomes, such as student progress through personnel, program, and budgetary decisions. Through a selective distribution of resources, the CAO may choose to reward or sanction programs that either meet or defy expectations. For instance, the CAO may provide increased funds for those departments with proven success or growing student enrollments, while paring down funds or faculty lines for those departments that show lower levels of educational outcomes or that no longer contribute strongly enough to the institutional mission. By hiring faculty who meet certain qualifications or supporting specific budget initiatives, the CAO may also seek to shape consensus or realize a vision for the institution's educational attainment.
The future of the CAO role is clouded in complexity. While CAOs may retain an inward focus and target the educational outcomes of an institution, the role of the CAO may be changing. As institutions continue to grow in complexity, the role of the CAO may shift from managing the academic enterprise directly to supervising and facilitating the actions of deans, who will begin to exercise greater control on the direction of academic issues within an institution.
See also: Board of Trustees, College and University; Colleges and Universities, Organizational Structure of; Faculty Senates, College and University; Governance and Decision-making in Colleges and Universities; Presidency, College and University.
Astin, Alexander W., and Scherrei, Rita A. 1980. Maximizing Leadership Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Austensen, Roy A. 1997. "Faculty Relations and Professional Development: Best Practices for the Chief Academic Officer." In First Among Equals: The Role of the Chief Academic Officer, ed. James Martin, James E. Samels, et al. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Coffman, James R. 1997. "Leveraging Resources to Enhance Quality: Curriculum Development and Educational Technologies. In First Among Equals: The Role of the Chief Academic Officer, ed. James Martin, James E. Samels, et al. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Edelstein, Mark G. 1997. "Academic Governance: The Art of Herding Cats." In First Among Equals: The Role of the Chief Academic Officer, ed. James Martin, James E. Samels, et al. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Ehrle, Elwood B., and Bennett, John B. 1988. Managing the Academic Enterprise: Case Studies for Deans and Provosts. New York: Macmillan.
Knowles, Asa S. 1970. Handbook of College and University Administration: Academic. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Martin, James, and Samels, James E. 1997. "First Among Equals: The Current Roles of the Chief Academic Officer." In First Among Equals: The Role of the Chief Academic Officer, ed. James Martin, James E. Samels, et al. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Moden, Gary O.; Miller, Richard I.; and Willi-ford, A. M. 1987. The Role, Scope, and Functions of the Chief Academic Officer. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association of Institutional Research; ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 441.
Weingartner, Rudolph H. 1996. Fitting Form to Function: A Primer on the Organization of Academic Institutions. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Wolverton, Robert E. 1984. "The Chief Academic Officer: Argus on Campus." In Leadership Roles of Chief Academic Officers, ed. David G. Brown. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 47, Vol. XII, No. 3, pp. 7–18. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nathaniel J. Bray
Presidency, College and University
PRESIDENCY, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY
The chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in the United States is commonly known as president. There are some campuses, however, which use the titles of chancellor, dean, or chief executive officer in lieu of president. The diversity of higher education institutions in the United States has resulted in chief executive officers at U.S. colleges and universities with a wide variety of background characteristics and job responsibilities.
Historically, college presidents have been over-whelmingly white, Protestant, and male. By the late 1990s more than 19 percent of college presidents were women and 11 percent were members of other minority groups. The average age for presidents was 57.6 years, with 30 percent never having served as a full-time faculty member. More than 80 percent hold an earned doctorate, with the single largest field of study being education. Most college and university presidents are members of their institution's governing board, although not all have voting rights. The average length of service for a president is seven years.
The path to the college presidency was historically pursued by ordained ministers. This held true especially for those institutions created to educate future religious leaders. As institutions began to educate beyond theology and law, presidents with educational backgrounds in the arts and sciences became predominant. These academic presidents still constitute the single largest type of all college presidents, particularly at four-year institutions. In the latter half of the twentieth century great changes occurred in higher education, shifting the role of the U.S. college president. Two-year public community college systems were created in most states as a means to provide greater access to higher education, and a number of four-year institutions were founded to accommodate the rising number of students going on to college. This exponential growth required the addition of many presidential positions. Many of those named to the presidency of the two-year colleges came from the ranks of professional educators, in particular from the staff of local school systems. Selection of presidents at four-year institutions shifted from academic ranks to mostly those from administrative positions at a college or university.
Increasingly, more chief executive officers are arriving at the presidency from areas other than the traditional vice president of academic affairs position. These nontraditional presidents are typically individuals who have worked in other areas of college or university administration, such as finance, institutional advancement, or student affairs. Some institutions have even gone to the business community for individuals to fill the presidency. This shift stems from the need of higher education institutions to run more like a business and to use skills of management and finance that are not as prevalent in academe.
Even with these changes in a president's educational and experiential background, it is still uncommon for college presidents to shift between different types of institutions. Individuals who have worked at two-year colleges typically remain at two-year institutions. The same is true for doctorate-granting, comprehensive, baccalaureate, and specialized institutions. For all institutional types, presidents are usually hired from another institution rather than from within the same institution. Due to the extensive nature of the position, the search process to select a college or university president often involves a number of individuals with a vested interest and often takes an entire year.
Roles and Responsibilities
The college president is typically responsible to a governing board for the successful operation of the institution. Some presidents lead an institution affiliated with a church denomination or a state system, and may therefore report to the chief executive officer of that particular organization. The president's relationship with the institution's board of trustees is critical. One of the board's primary duties is to hire and fire the president, and thus it is important for the president to be attentive to the needs and desires of the board.
Many presidents gain the full trust and support of their boards, which allows them to establish and carry out a vision for the institution. The construction of a vision for an institution by the president is critical because it tells the story of where an institution has been and provides direction for where the institution is headed. "This vision, if believed in by the faculty, administrators, staff and students, has the potential to transform an institution. The degree to which the president is respected and admired by the faculty will be the extent to which he or she is able to inspire trust and confidence, the extent to which he or she is believable, and can deliver" (Fisher, p. 101). Although the president is the voice for the vision, the president does not usually create this vision alone. The college or university president must identify, and be attentive to, the strengths and weaknesses of the institution. Understanding the capacity of those who work for the college or university and how the institution fits within the larger higher education sector allows the president to determine what the institution can achieve. The president must craft this vision, with members of the college community taking ownership in its development. Once the vision is crafted, the president must share it at every opportunity.
A significant aspect of the college president's role is symbolic in nature. Whether it is leading the opening convocation, dedicating a new facility, or presiding over commencement ceremonies, the president represents the institution. Within the college community, the president can use the influence derived from the symbolic nature of his or her position to move the institution in a given direction. Out in the greater community the president's role is often more prominent. Individuals not directly involved with the college typically believe a college or university president has authority and control over more than he or she really does. As a result, presidents may find themselves under greater pressure from external constituents than internal constituents. The resulting role for many presidents becomes one of mediator, facilitator, and consensus maker for issues both internal and external to the institution.
Internally, a college president is responsible for the effective operation of the institution. Most presidents have an advisory cabinet composed of vice presidents and potentially one or two other key individuals who help the president ensure that the goals and vision are being implemented in a positive fashion. The president's broad areas of responsibility include academic affairs, which encompasses development of the curriculum and new educational programs; oversight and maintenance of facilities; fund-raising and communicating the image of the institution through institutional advancement; enrollment management, which tracks graduation, admission rates, and financial aid to ensure stable student enrollment; the finances of the institution; and finally, the management of out-of-classroom issues in student affairs, such as judicial hearings, residence life, and health services. Although there are countless variations in the organizational structure and scope of responsibilities, these areas, in most instances, are overseen by a vice president. For example, many institutions combine facilities and finance into one functional area. The organizational structure of the president's cabinet reflects institutional as well as presidential values and goals.
Although the president has vice presidents and their staffs to carry out each functional role, the president will be involved at varying levels at different times, depending on the issue at hand. A president may serve as the final arbiter for a student judicial hearing, determine whether a faculty member receives tenure, or assist in the detailed development of a new facility for the campus. However, it is a rare campus where the president has developed authority in a top-down fashion. The president relies on the expertise and experience of his or her staff to accomplish the details of the institutional vision.
For most presidents their power is derived through their influence with the various campus and community constituents. In working with the curriculum and other components of the educational programs, the president typically encourages faculty to take the lead and reserves specific input for those items that are absolutely critical for the fulfillment of the institution's vision. As the college or university representative, the president's views typically carry significant weight. This significance allows for the opinion of the president to steer decisions in a manner perceived as beneficial to the college or university.
From the vision comes the task of strategic planning to enable an institution to achieve its goals. The president must look beyond next year's class size, the goal for the upcoming annual fund, and other short-term concerns of the institution to see beyond the horizon and craft a path for the college or university on its way to fulfilling the vision. Crafting a long-range plan constitutes one of the major areas of time spent by a president. He or she must also spend considerable time on and off campus raising money for the institution, visiting with alumni in areas with significant numbers, and meeting with key individuals who may have the ability to support the institution.
See also: Board of Trustees, College and University; Colleges and Universities, Organizational Structure of; Faculty Senates, College and University; Governance and Decision-Making in Colleges and Universities.
Cohen, Michael D., and March, James G. 1974. Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fisher, James L. 1984. Power of the Presidency. New York: Macmillan.
Fisher, James L., and Koch, James V. 1996. Presidential Leadership: Making a Difference. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Kerr, Clark, and Gade, Marian. L. 1986. The Many Lives of Academic Presidents: Time, Place and Character. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards.
Murphy, Mary Kay, ed. 1997. The Advancement President and the Academy: Profiles in Institutional Leadership. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Ross, Marlene, and Green, Madeline F. 2000. The American College President: 2000 Edition. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Alan P. Duesterhaus
Faculty Senates, College and University
FACULTY SENATES, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY
Since the 1960s the concept of shared governance has both blossomed and withered. Founded on the principals of western European worker-participation models, the practice of instituting faculty senates at universities and colleges throughout America was intended to alleviate the growing pains of the higher education system brought about by the influx of baby boomers (persons who were born between the years of 1946 and 1964, and who enrolled as traditional college students between the years of 1964 and 1987). The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) first suggested formalized shared governance schemes in the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities. As a result, many institutions began to experiment with various shared governance arrangements, primarily in the form of faculty senates.
According to Barbara Lee, the ebb and flow of shared governance has been guided by two driving forces: politics and economics. Valerie Collins, however, contends that during the 1960s and 1970s a unique set of political factors, including the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War, converged on American campuses. In response to the unrest and mistrust this politically ripe time instilled in students, faculties began using senates to ensure their influence over decisions that would affect an increasingly large portion of campus life for both students and faculty. A third interpretation, as expressed in William Tierney and Richard Rhodes's work on faculty socialization, addresses the effect of culture: the culture of the discipline, of the institution, and of the profession. They argue that the culture of the profession engendered a need for faculty service roles in the institution and that this need created a condition that allowed for the inception of faculty senates.
Faculty senates have shared responsibilities, ranging from a limited role in program approval and review of tenure decisions to a more comprehensive role that includes budget review and allocation, senior administrative recruitment, and strategic planning. Faculty senates have been studied to show their effect on participation and influence of faculty members and to critique their inabilities to meet with campus financial constraints. As a result, they have met with both praise and criticism.
The majority of faculty senates operate under a mission statement. These mission statements give the senates guidelines and provide them with an outline of their areas of authority. Jack Blendiger and colleagues list six strengths of academic senates, stating that they provide the means for: (1) determining short-and long-range interests and needs of faculty;(2) articulating expectations of faculty, staff, and students; (3) developing goals and planning strategies; (4) establishing standards and procedures for the review and evaluation of proposed administrative action dealing with curricula offerings, budgetary practices, and faculty recruitment and retention;(5) increasing knowledge and understanding of issues in departments and units; and (6) allocating resources equitably.
The debate about the worth and ultimate viability of faculty senates lies in these senates' missions. In cases where so-called corporate mentalities have infiltrated campuses, the fault has often been in the shortsightedness of the faculty senates' missions. Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie describe a case at San Diego State University when the administration attempted to lay off more than 130 tenured faculty members (the layoff ultimately did not go through); the faculty senate was up in arms yet was powerless to act because their mission had left them devoid of power in financial situations. Conversely, in some situations the university administration may have no ability to adjust faculty levels and program existence due to lack of authority or shared authority and may be perceived as weak by the public and by its board of trust.
As the baby-boomer enrollment gave way to the baby bust (individuals who were born between 1970 and 1985, and who have been enrolled in colleges as traditional students since 1988 and will continue to be enrolled through 2007), many colleges and universities began to feel the economic effects of declining enrollment. The shortages of students brought about an era in which streamline, retrench, and economize were common words spoken at most campuses, and in which all aspects of campus governance began to come into question.
Faculty senates and the institution of shared governance remain a vital part of academia. While it is true that universities must maintain financial solvency, they exist in their own microcosm that allows for adherence to cultural artifacts, regardless of their economic efficiency. As Robert Birnbaum has suggested, academic senates may not always work, but they will not go away.
See also: Academic Dean, The; Board of Trustees, College and University; Chief Academic Affairs Officers, College and University; Colleges and Universities, Organizational Structure of; Governance and Decision-making in Colleges and Universities; Presidency, College and University.
Bendiger, Jack; Cornelious, Linda; and McGrath, Vincent. 1998. "Faculty Governance: The Key to Actualizing Professionalism." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, Louisiana, February.
Benjamin, Roger. 1994. The Redesign of Governance in Higher Education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Bess, James L. 1982. University Organization: A Matrix Analysis of the Academic Profession. New York: Human Sciences Press.
Bess, James L. 1988. Collegiality and Bureaucracy in the Modern University: The Influence of Information and Power in Decision Making Structures. New York: Teachers College Press.
Birnbaum, Robert. 1989. "The Latent Organizational Functions of the Academic Senate: Why Senates Do Not Work but Will Not Go Away." Journal of Higher Education 60 (4):423–442.
Collings, Valerie H. 1996. The Faculty Role in Governance: A Historical Analysis of the Influence of the American Association of University Professors and the Middle States Association on Academic Decision Making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Memphis, Tennessee.
Douglas, Joel M. 1995. "An Investigation of Employee Involvement Schemes and Governance Structures in Professional Employment." National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions Newsletter 23 (4).
Lee, Barbara A. 1979. "Governance at the Unionized Four-Year College: Effects on Decision Making Structures." Journal of Higher Education 50 (5):565–585.
Millett, John D. 1978. New Structures of Campus Power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ridgely, Julia. 1983. "Faculty Senates and the Fiscal Crisis." Academe 79 (6):7–11.
Tierney, William G., and Rhoads, Richard A.
1993. "Enhancing Promotion, Tenure, and Beyond: Faculty Socialization as a Cultural Process." AHSE-ERIC Education Report 93 (6).
Williams, Don; Olswang, Gary; and Hargett,
Gary. 1986. "A Matter of Degree: Faculty Morale as a Function of the Involvement in Institutional Decisions during Times of Financial Distress." Review of Higher Education 9 (3):287–301.
Steven P. Young
Board of Trustees, College and University
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY
Independent, nonprofit, and public colleges and universities utilize a board format for their governing structure. These boards are often referred to as a board of trustees (similar terms include board of regents or board of visitors ), and they act as the legal agent or "owner" of the institution. As a collective body, the trustees hold the authority and responsibility to ensure the fulfillment of an institution's mission. They are also ultimately responsible for the fiscal health of the college or university. The board of trustees' governing role is typically limited to selection of the president and policy approval, with the daily operations and management of the institution vested in the president.
Structure and Composition
An institution's charter and bylaws dictate its board size. These governing documents are informed by history, tradition, and needs of the institution. A board can range from a small handful of individuals to more than fifty people. Trustees are elected or appointed to the board for a specific term, which may be renewable. Most trustees come from the for-profit corporate world. Many institutions work diligently to assemble a diverse representation of community leaders on their board in an effort to broaden support for the institution. For some state and religiously affiliated institutions the board itself may not select all of the trustees. In the case of public institutions, the governor will usually make the appointments. For religious colleges and universities, the affiliated organization (i.e., a church governing council) will either select or approve the trustees. On occasion, independent colleges and universities will make an individual a life trustee. Life trustees typically have demonstrated an exceptional level of commitment to the institution. Other constituents who may receive a trustee position in an ex officio capacity include alumni, faculty, staff, and students. In some cases these ex officio trustees have full voting rights, while in other cases they are only a representative voice.
By law, the board of trustees is the governing body for an institution. Many states have established coordinating or consolidated boards that oversee institutional boards of public colleges and universities. A coordinating board may function in an advisory or regulatory capacity. The role of an advisory board is limited to review and recommendation, with no legal authority to approve or disapprove institutional actions, while a regulatory-type coordinating board would have program approval. Consolidated boards within a state usually take the form of one single board for all postsecondary institutions, though they may take the form of multiple boards, with each board responsible for one institutional type (e.g., two-year institutions, four-year institutions). It is not uncommon for states to utilize both coordinating and consolidated boards. On most campuses, tradition and higher-education culture dictate some level of shared governance with faculty. On some campuses, shared governance even extends to staff and students.
The authority of a board of trustees is derived from the institution's charter. The charter lays out the initial structure and composition of the board. Once the board is in place, it has the power to modify its own structure and composition as it believes necessary. Authority is given to the board as a whole rather than to individual trustees, and individual trustees have little authority and no ownership of an institution. It is the board, in its entirety, that is recognized as the legal owner of an institution's assets. For some public and religiously affiliated institutions, there may be another board (i.e., a consolidated board) or parent organization (i.e., the church denomination) to which the institutional board is beholden. This will impact, and potentially limit, the board's range of autonomy and authority.
Typically, the board chair is responsible for setting the agenda of the board. Most often this agenda is established in collaboration with the college president. Other board officers, such as the secretary or treasurer, usually have their associated roles completed by institutional staff. The board, as a group, has several basic responsibilities, including setting or reaffirming the institution's mission, acting as the legal owner of the institution, selecting a president, evaluating and supporting the president, setting board policies, and reviewing institutional performance.
Beyond these responsibilities, most boards are involved with institutional fundraising, strategic planning, and ensuring sensible management. The selection of a president can be the greatest influence a board has on an institution. Boards typically relinquish significant amounts of their power and authority to the president. The president usually takes the lead in setting an agenda for the board, and, therefore, for the institution. As an individual, a trustee is typically expected to support the institution financially, either personally or through influence. Trustees also act as ambassadors in their home community to build support for the institution.
Each board determines the number and type of committees they believe will serve the institution best. The following types of committees are typically found at colleges and universities: Academic Affairs oversees curriculum, new educational programs, and approves graduates; Audit is responsible for ensuring institutional financial records are appropriately reviewed by a third party; Buildings and Grounds reviews and recommends capital improvements and maintenance plans for the campus; the Committee on Trustees is charged with developing a list of potential trustees and reviewing the commitment of current trustees; Executive acts on issues of urgency that arise between full board meetings and sets the board agenda in concert with the president; Finance reviews and recommends institutional budgets; Institutional Advancement ensures appropriate plans are in place for alumni relations, fundraising, and public perception of the institution; Investment oversees the long-term assets of the institution, as well as determining how the endowment funds are invested; and Student Affairs is charged with issues concerning the out-of-classroom experience of students–this may include health centers, recreation facilities, residence halls, and student activities.
See also: Colleges and Universities, Organizational Structure of; Faculty Senates, College and University; Governance and Decision-making in Colleges and Universities; Presidency, College and University.
Heilbron, Louis H. 1973. The College and University Trustee. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ingram, Richard T. 1996. Effective Trusteeship: A Guide for Board Members of Public Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Ingram, Richard T. 1997. Trustee Responsibilities: A Basic Guide for Governing Boards of Independent (or Public) Institutions. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. 2002. <www.agb.org>
Alan P. Duesterhaus