The Enemy Outside and Within: Grendel and His Mother

Introduction

The 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 Purpose

I 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 Review

Institutional Autonomy

There 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.

Standard Procedures for Hiring and Firing Administrators

It 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 Law

Throughout 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 business in an open forum. It also states that citizens must be aware, in advance, of the agenda, date, time, and place of the meeting. The only exceptions would be extreme cases such as emergency due to natural disaster, or a discussion of the character of a person; otherwise, all business must be conducted in public. If a governing entity is in violation of the Open Meetings Law, then it is the responsibility of the attorney general to pursue the issue.

Similar Findings

I researched a related set of circumstances that occurred in 2004 at

Florida A & M, a southern HBCU. Florida A & M fired its president, Fred Gainous regarding several issues. One of the issues was budgetary. It was stated that he intended to use a contract with a broadcasting company to broadcast the school's football games, but the contract fell through. Once the contract fell through, that left a $950,000 deficit in the athletic department. The former president at Florida A & M also fired staff that previously worked in fiscal matters with the university and did not allow a transition for the replacements.

The president then tried to intervene with an alumni-association officer election. The president also lost support of the faculty when attempting to require the faculty to teach at a local community college without first consulting with the faculty. As a result of the president's mismanagement, the board decided to fire him.

Just as in my case study, a president attempted to manage an institution without taking into consideration his stakeholders and support team. Decisions were made that estranged university stakeholders. Another parallel to my case study is that the president was new to his term (less than five years), and tried to make major changes.

Unfortunately, due to high turnovers of administrative officers,