The Enemy Outside and Within: Grendel and His MotherThe Enemy Outside and Within: Grendel and His MotherIntroductionThe most powerful members of any higher educational institution seem to be the governing board. The board creates and maintains the final authority of the institution. The board holds the definitive accountability for the educational institution. They have the authority to employ, evaluate, and dismiss all presidents and other administrative heads; however, what factors influence that process (AGB, 1998)?
The board delegates a certain amount of authority, however limited, to the president. The president of an institution’s job is to manage the institution, and his or her role is supported by the needs of the board and faculty. The president is responsible to the board, the students, and the faculty. Unfortunately, the length of the term held by many presidents has declined. Very important reasons that have been related to this fact are the demands from the faculty, and students, the politics of the boards, and budgetary issues. All of these reasons seemingly played a part in the case that I have chosen to examine.
The threat to institutional autonomy is at stake. If a university’s ultimate authority can be challenged, this creates an unstable chain of command, or an unclear set of checks and balances. If all university regulations can be challenged, then what are the “set” rules for policies at the institution?
Some questions I will address throughout the course of this paper are what political power must one have to challenge the board? What factors influence the process of the board’s authority to employ, evaluate, and dismiss all presidents and administrative heads? What are some of the causes of the limited presidential terms?
Statement of PurposeI intend to explore this topic through a review of literature. I will use this literature to create a background of the issue explaining the incidents that led to my topic. I will also analyze the similar case that I have found in my literature review section. Once I have explored my issue through my background of my issue, and my literature review, I will then assess the database that I have used for this paper. After I have explored the issue, and assessed it, I will then cite my major conclusions and findings. Finally, I will give the conclusions that I have drawn from my research.
Literature ReviewInstitutional AutonomyThere were other factors that contributed to the unfolding of the institutional event. Dr. Jefferson was a former governing board member, and her husband is a congressman. Dr. Bouie was a member of the faculty before accepting the position as chancellor of the university. Each actor had their own team of support. Assumedly, Dr. Jefferson had the support of the board. Conversely, Dr. Bouie had the support of the faulty and staff at SUNO. Their power bases were different, and extremely influential to the outcome of the event.
One’s power base was local, the other was regional. In order to connect the underlying suggestions of the event, one would infer that Dr. Jefferson’s power and influence were utilized to conquer her initial goal- to oust Dr. Bouie and keep her job. A major assumption of this political analysis is that Dr. Jefferson used her assets, and political skill to exert influence upon a university’s decision. Although she did pay a price; she ultimately conquered in the resolution to this event. However, the decision-making members of the institution were not able to govern without outside controls. The assumption is that standard protocol was not followed due to a power struggle between these two administrators, more specifically, the political influence of these two actors. The significant conclusion is that institutional autonomy was compromised.
[block:f04f35c]
The University of Michigan and the university in general have two diametrically opposed positions on issues of governance, a relationship that has been strained over the past 30 years in Michigan. [l]n. I was working in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Finance in March of 2006 to implement the national fiscal responsibility program known as the Balanced Budget Reconciliation (BBR), which I had written with the President to discuss the importance of increasing the size of federal financial contributions. In doing so, I proposed that the new budget proposal should be based on a budget that was budgeted to take into account two main factors: the need to reduce federal and state spending in order to reduce federal deficit. In other words, to do so, the President made an effort to reduce the federal fiscal deficit by 10 percent per year, for 20 years. On the other hand, the BBR does not address the need to eliminate federal spending in the budget. A BBR would be set to increase federal programs within 30-year limits which would then be adjusted over these short or long terms. However, as I read the BBR, it appeared that a large number of areas remained the same, such as healthcare funding, education funding, public safety funding, and economic development funding. In some cases, the reduction in funding of those areas through a BBR appears to have resulted in substantial reductions in federal funding, despite the fact that a large portion of it still resided in states. This fact left many areas open—including the federal deficit. While it is consistent with this view, I am not certain that it is what the BBR calls for as the overall goal of the budget, which is to increase federal spending relative to its size. If there is to be a reduction of federal budgets in this way, the number required for funding the federal government is going to be higher. Thus, under the BBR, I proposed that the federal government contribute to federal expenditures and to local programs within the budget year that are currently in place. However, as a result of my work in that budget year, I was able to gain clarity on the role federal spending and the size of programs were taking on in Michigan. [block:f05f5c5a]
While under this budget-level proposal, the University of Michigan and the University in general would be required to reduce their student loan debt through refinancing or making loans to borrowers (or investors) on a capital basis. The University in general makes its own decisions on the terms of refinancing debt, which the U has an obligation to a government. However, as discussed above, such a significant step would need to be made without federal or state financing. The student loan program does not provide a mechanism for repayment of this debt through the federal government. The U has no such mechanism and has no authority to make refinancing loans. For these reasons, I propose an overall change in federal budget that would enable the University to significantly reduce its debt, as I intend to. However, as part of this change, the University would also request permission for the Treasury Department to make loans to it to facilitate the transfer of debt from the federal government to non-government accounts. The
[block:f04f35c]
The University of Michigan and the university in general have two diametrically opposed positions on issues of governance, a relationship that has been strained over the past 30 years in Michigan. [l]n. I was working in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Finance in March of 2006 to implement the national fiscal responsibility program known as the Balanced Budget Reconciliation (BBR), which I had written with the President to discuss the importance of increasing the size of federal financial contributions. In doing so, I proposed that the new budget proposal should be based on a budget that was budgeted to take into account two main factors: the need to reduce federal and state spending in order to reduce federal deficit. In other words, to do so, the President made an effort to reduce the federal fiscal deficit by 10 percent per year, for 20 years. On the other hand, the BBR does not address the need to eliminate federal spending in the budget. A BBR would be set to increase federal programs within 30-year limits which would then be adjusted over these short or long terms. However, as I read the BBR, it appeared that a large number of areas remained the same, such as healthcare funding, education funding, public safety funding, and economic development funding. In some cases, the reduction in funding of those areas through a BBR appears to have resulted in substantial reductions in federal funding, despite the fact that a large portion of it still resided in states. This fact left many areas open—including the federal deficit. While it is consistent with this view, I am not certain that it is what the BBR calls for as the overall goal of the budget, which is to increase federal spending relative to its size. If there is to be a reduction of federal budgets in this way, the number required for funding the federal government is going to be higher. Thus, under the BBR, I proposed that the federal government contribute to federal expenditures and to local programs within the budget year that are currently in place. However, as a result of my work in that budget year, I was able to gain clarity on the role federal spending and the size of programs were taking on in Michigan. [block:f05f5c5a]
While under this budget-level proposal, the University of Michigan and the University in general would be required to reduce their student loan debt through refinancing or making loans to borrowers (or investors) on a capital basis. The University in general makes its own decisions on the terms of refinancing debt, which the U has an obligation to a government. However, as discussed above, such a significant step would need to be made without federal or state financing. The student loan program does not provide a mechanism for repayment of this debt through the federal government. The U has no such mechanism and has no authority to make refinancing loans. For these reasons, I propose an overall change in federal budget that would enable the University to significantly reduce its debt, as I intend to. However, as part of this change, the University would also request permission for the Treasury Department to make loans to it to facilitate the transfer of debt from the federal government to non-government accounts. The
Standard Procedures for Hiring and Firing AdministratorsIt is the responsibility of the governing board to appoint the president of the institution. In addition, boards are accountable for evaluating the performance of the president. Finally, the board is responsible for the removal of the president. It is within the president’s discretion to assemble his or her own team of administrators. It is not uncommon for a president to remove many administrators in an attempt to form his or her support team. Common university procedure is to demote the administrator to a faculty position, and eventually phase them out of the system.
Louisiana’s Open Meeting LawThroughout the course of his actions, Dr. Joseph Bouie claimed that the governing board was in violation of the Louisiana Open Meetings Law. The Louisiana Open Meetings Law states that it is vital that a democratic society conduct public