Board and Critical Issues

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucjc20

Community College Journal of Research and Practice

ISSN: 1066-8926 (Print) 1521-0413 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees

Terry O'Banion

To cite this article: Terry O'Banion (2009) Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33:10, 823-850, DOI: 10.1080/10668920902973347

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920902973347

Published online: 08 Sep 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 227

View related articles

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH ROGUE TRUSTEES

Terry O’Banion

Community College Leadership Program, Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

In the two previous articles in this three-part series the author reported on the motivations and damage caused by rogue trustees. The articles are based on a study of 59 community college CEOs from 16 different states. In this final article the author addresses the strategies that presidents and their board chairs have used to curtail the activities and correct the damage of rogue trustees. The strategies range from obvious advice to create policies and involve the rogue trustee in trustee development programs, to more hard-ball strategies that include political pressure and public censure.

This article is the third in a series of three articles on the rogue trustee. The following definition of a rogue trustee was created for this study:

Rogue trustees run roughshod over the norms and standards of behavior expected of public officials appointed or elected to office. They tend to trample over the ideas and cautions of the CEO, the trustee chair, and member trustees. They place their self-interests over the interests of the college. They violate written and unwritten codes

Terry O’Banion is president emeritus and senior league fellow for the League for Innovation

in the Community College at Walden University. He is also director of the Community College

Leadership Program.

This paper is based on Terry O’Banion’s The Rogue Trustee (2009) published by the League

for Innovation in the Community College. It is the final article in a three-article series. The

Rogue Trustee: The Elephant in the Room by Terry O’Banion is available from the League for

Innovation. Order online at www.league.org/store or contact Judy Greenfield, Greenfield@

league.org or (480) 705-8200. Contact Terry O’Banion at [email protected].

Address correspondence to Terry O’Banion, 36319 Artisan Way, Cathedral City, CA

92234. E-mail: [email protected]

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33: 823–850, 2009

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1066-8926 print=1521-0413 online

DOI: 10.1080/10668920902973347

823

of conduct. They often make inappropriate alliances with faculty and staff and other trustees. They recommend and support policies that are not in the best interests of the institution. They consume an inordinate amount of staff and meeting time. They know how to get attention, to appeal to the base elements in others, and to manipulate individuals and situations to their advantage. Most rogue trustees are quite bright and articulate; some are mentally unba- lanced. They are sometimes loners, exiled from the herd, but they also create alliances with others to carry out their agenda. They are high maintenance. They can cause enormous damage. In short, they tend to poison the culture of the college. Instead of helping create a sense of community, collaboration, innovation, and common values they become the catalyst for increased defensiveness, paranoia, subterfuge, and fear. The rogue trustee is the elephant in the room, creating an ever-widening circle of frustration and destruction for anything in its path.

The previous articles, published in the June and July issues of Community College Journal of Research and Practice, discussed the motivations of the rogue trustee and the damage that could be done by him or her. This article will focus on strategies to help deal with the rogue trustee.

STRATEGIES SUGGESTED BY PRESIDENTS AND CHANCELLORS

The good news is that in about half the cases reported in this study, actions were taken that changed the behavior of the rogue trustee or resulted in the trustee resigning from the board. The bad news is that in about half the cases reported in this study the actions taken to change the behavior of the rogue trustee or to get the trustee to resign from the board failed. We are used to ending articles and studies on a positive note summarizing the steps or strategies that the intended audience should consider and implement to address the challenge under consideration. To end this review in that way is to play the role of Pollyanna; the rogue trustee is too tough a customer to be dealt with in the usual approach. Some presidents in this study indicated there are no strategies or solutions for dealing with a rogue trustee:

Boards are weak and powerless in dealing with a rogue trustee. They

don’t know what to do and live in constant fear of their own public

embarrassment. They attempt to fix the problem behind closed doors,

and it never works. They send the rogue to ‘‘charm school,’’ and that

824 T. O’Banion

works for one or two board meetings. I don’t really see any significant

action that can turn the ship around. One of my cynical reactions is

there is no cure for rogues. The chromosomes and genes of rogues

won’t allow resolution to occur.

Neither policies, good practices, laws, or the enticements of collegial

teamwork have dissuaded this person from pursuing his own personal

agendas. Unfortunately, the board has not been willing to do more

than mildly sanction his actions. I attempted to engage this trustee

by accommodating his personality and personally orienting him to

the protocols of the trustee’s roles and responsibilities. When that

failed I tried to get the board chair and the other trustees to help man- age him; but that failed, too. I finally employed an attorney to review

the illegal actions he championed. But when the board was not willing

to confront him, and the public was unwilling to unseat him, he was

emboldened to continue doing what he had always done. He is still

at the college creating havoc for everyone.

My experience tells me, after trying everything there was to try, that the damage can be repaired only after the person is gone. I have seen

other colleges repair quickly in that case. While the rogue trustee is

still on the board I don’t think it can happen. Other trustees, the chair,

and I worked together to bring about change in the rogue—to no avail. We tried all the usual stuff: workshops, frank talks, confronta-

tion, ‘‘How can we help you?’’ talks, trying to get an opposition can-

didate to run against him. Nothing worked, and nine years later the

trustee is still on the board.

In these three cases, the president solved the personal dilemma by resigning or retiring. And in all three cases the rogue trustee continues to damage these colleges and their constituencies as an active member of the board.

But there is also good news in examples of strategies implemented by presidents, board chairs, and other trustees that have worked to limit or change the behavior of rogue trustees. There are no easy solu- tions for, as defined in this study, the rogue trustee is an extreme example of an individual who uses his or her position to create havoc, violate the rules, and cause severe damage. Many of them are immune to the usual expectations and pressures social organizations exert on individuals to create a civil society. The strategies summar- ized in the following section are all taken from the real experiences of the presidents who participated in this study. Both successes and failures are reported to provide a realistic picture. Every case of a

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 825

rogue trustee is idiosyncratic to the culture, the players, and the opportunities in a specific college. Presidents and trustees will have to examine these strategies carefully to determine which ones will apply to their situation.

Policies, Codes of Ethics, Handbooks, Guidelines

Most community colleges, usually under the leadership of the president, have created written policies or guidelines regarding trustee effectiveness. There are excellent examples of codes of ethics and handbooks, some developed by national trustee organizations such as the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT) and the Association of Governing Boards (AGB). Some colleges have developed special statements of values, principles, and practices for trustees. Accrediting standards also address the appropriate roles of governing boards.

One president felt that a statement of values and principles ‘‘was effective in isolating the behavior of the rogue trustee and was helpful in empowering other trustees to intervene.’’ A number of presidents felt that policies and guidelines helped identify areas of concern and provided a framework in which issues and violations could be discussed. Some of the written documents available are too general to be effective in addressing the behavior of rogue trustees. Many presidents recommended that written documents were more helpful when they addressed specific issues of board behavior, such as the following:

. Place time limits on speaking during board meetings.

. Establish attendance requirements for board meetings.

. Require that reports be prepared only when two or more board members make a request.

. Agree not to respond to anonymous letters and e-mails.

. Prohibit trustees from making direct requests or demands to staff; all requests go through the president or the board chair.

. Establish processes for a consent agenda.

. Establish criteria and a process for removing a board member from office.

All colleges should, at a minimum, create policies, codes, and guidelines that identify the appropriate roles and responsibilities of trustees in governing the college. It is much easier for an effective board to create these documents before a rogue trustee appears. Such

826 T. O’Banion

documents help effective boards become even more effective; they can be very useful in contending with a rogue trustee.

While there are many good examples of documents available that focus on roles and responsibilities of trustees, one is cited here that is exceptional and could be easily duplicated. The New Jersey Council of County Colleges is the legally created state organiza- tion for community colleges in New Jersey. In 2005, the Council created a one-page document, Eight Key Principles for Community College Trustees (see the Appendix), that addresses the primary roles of trustees. It is left to local presidents and trustees to promote these principles as they wish. A number of the colleges ask their trustees to sign this document each year, providing an opportunity for trustees to review and even evaluate their roles as an annual event.

An annual evaluation of the trustees and of the president’s role in relationship to the trustees can be a very effective strategy for surfacing rogue behavior. Effective trustee boards tend to participate in such evaluations as a matter of good practice. Some colleges include participation by vice presidents, other key admin- istrators, and faculty leaders. Evaluation protocols are available throughout the literature with special forms available from ACCT and AGB.

Unfortunately, solid guidelines, annual evaluations, and stringent codes of ethics do not always influence the behavior of trustees; some rogue trustees are not constrained at all by these established standards, as reported by presidents in the following examples:

Largely out of the actions of a rogue trustee, the board adopted an

ethics policy that included provision for enforcement. These provi-

sions were not effective in changing behavior because board members

were reluctant to police one another.

The rogue stated that the policies, regulations, and procedures do not

apply to board members unless specifically stated. He also indicated

that anything is permissible if there is no specific language prohibiting

action.

He made it clear he had no regard for the bylaws.

Board members were totally opposed to any policy regarding their

role. Since the trustees are elected, they felt it was up to the electorate

and not the board to deal with inappropriate behavior.

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 827

Policies, guidelines, codes, and handbooks can provide bench- marks and a framework for review and evaluation; but for the rogue trustee who does not abide by the norms accepted by others, different strategies must be considered.

Trustee Development: Orientation, Work Sessions, Retreats, and Conferences

The written documents noted previously often provide the content for trustee development programs. Most colleges attempt some kind of orientation for new trustees in which these documents are quite useful. Orientation might include special sessions with the president and the board chair, mentoring by another board member, and sessions with selected staff. Trustee conferences, both at the state and national level, provide orientation sessions for new trustees.

When colleges want to address key issues and opportunities in the college, work sessions are a popular venue. Retreats provide an extended and often informal environment for examining more complex problems. Consultants are often invited to lead retreats to improve board relationships; some are scheduled specifically to deal with the issue of a rogue trustee but often disguised under the banner of ‘‘improving communications’’ for all.

A number of presidents report success with trustee development programs as a method of preventing the emergence of a rogue trustee. One president used the New Jersey Eight Key Principles for Commu- nity College Trustees as a launching point. The board adopted the principles and focused its efforts on implementing a number of the principles over a period of time. External consultants facilitated a retreat that helped board members focus their energy on applying the principles to the achievement of college goals, rather than focusing on the personal agenda of any particular trustee. The use of a comprehensive trustee development program seems to hold promise as a tool for avoiding the rogue trustee situation.

Another president had been coping with a rogue trustee for some years, and the problem eventually resulted in an official accrediting agency warning about the board’s behavior. The president used the warning as a trigger to create a strategic plan to address the problem of the rogue trustee. The president worked with the board officers to help them understand the long-term damage to the college because of the official warning, and their responsibility to ensure the board acts as a single entity. An agreement was reached to have an external facilitator conduct orientation and training for all trustees, with a particular emphasis on policy governance principles. A review of all

828 T. O’Banion

board policies followed and included strengthening the policy regarding trustee ethics and expectations. In addition, an annual plan was developed to maintain a board focus on strategic planning and on effectiveness and accountability measures. Additional trustee retreats, development opportunities, and resources were created as part of an ongoing focus on having trustees work with the president to advance the mission of the institution. The president reported that the rogue trustee has changed her behavior and now operates as an effective member of the board.

Even so, there are some cases where trustee development did not prove to be effective. One president reported that her rogue trustee refused to attend board retreats. Another president with experience in four different colleges said, ‘‘A rogue trustee does not learn to be a better trustee from trustee meetings and workshops; they learn how to use and exploit the culture, the terminology, and the protocols. The more trustee workshops they attend, the better they are at being a rogue trustee.’’

External Consultants

There are a number of consultants with expertise in working with trustees in the community college environment. They can trouble- shoot on specific issues, review and evaluate policies and practices, and facilitate retreats and workshops. The Association of Commu- nity College Trustees provides a consulting service that is widely used, and there are individual consultants who are nationally known for their expertise, including Cindra Smith, Wayne Newton, and George Potter.

One president had tried to work with a rogue trustee for several years and had very little support from the various board chairs. Finally, a chair was selected who would confront the issue of the rogue trustee, and in concert with the president a board retreat was planned with assistance from ACCT. As a result of the retreat, the president reported that the trustee became more aware of how his behavior reflected on the college and how his behavior was viewed by other trustees and the community. He began to operate as an effective board member and several years later was elected to chair the board, where he served the college well.

In another case, the president brought in a consultant for a board retreat that began as a disaster when the rogue trustee immediately attacked the consultant and questioned his authority and ideas. The session exploded into hostile attacks on the president by the trustee, who left the room with another trustee who sometimes

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 829

supported him. The consultant worked with the trustees left in the room and helped them understand they needed to ‘‘circle the wagons’’ to protect the college and themselves from the hostility cre- ated by the rogue trustee. While the session was dramatic and intense, the outcome was quite positive. The board members in the room called the president after the retreat and pledged their support; from that point, the board operated more efficiently and effectively, and the rogue trustee was isolated.

With some rogue trustees, external consultants are impotent to assist. Over a period of several years a rogue trustee in one college had created a great deal of mistrust and discord between the admin- istration and the board of trustees. She then became the champion of addressing this ‘‘communication problem’’ and suggested a series of board and administrator retreats. A consultant was engaged who recommended a process in which trustees and senior administrators would identify problems to be addressed in a series of Saturday work- shops. The first couple of workshops went smoothly until the rogue trustee began to deliberately stall the process by repeatedly asking the same questions of the consultant. The process deteriorated rapidly until the consultant conceded that the workshops were not helping, and they were abandoned.

Consultants, however, can be very effective in confronting a rogue trustee directly when others are too intimidated to do so. Most consultants have dealt with rogue trustees and dysfunctional boards, and they can bring this experience to bear on the problems at hand. When the consultant is part of a strategic plan that involves the creation or revision of documents on trustee effectiveness and a sustained program of trustee development, the opportunities for successful outcomes are increased.

Accreditation

Full and laudatory accreditation is the gold standard for all institutions of higher education. If the accreditation process places the college on probation, there is a plan for recovery; but if accredita- tion is lost, the college is out of business. In some cases, accrediting agencies are brought in by college leaders to address significant issues in the financial or governance arena. In this study, presidents cited monitoring reports, warnings, and probation from the accrediting commissions regarding dysfunctional boards and the rogue trustees that operate on those boards. Full accreditation is the one external source that helps guarantee the college’s integrity and reputation within the state, regional, and national education community. Thus,

830 T. O’Banion

accreditation provides significant leverage for managing the behavior of rogue trustees.

Colleges dread the kind of national attention that can come with warnings from the regional accrediting associations regarding their accreditation status. Community College Week (Halcom, 2008) reported on an ongoing problem at Oakland Community College in Michigan with the headline, ‘‘Trustee Turmoil at Michigan College Putting Accreditation at Risk.’’ The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools cited the board as a recurring trouble spot and admonished the board to ‘‘learn how to argue, debate, and disagree intellectually.’’ The opening sentence of the article sounded the alarm, ‘‘The Board of Trustees at Michigan’s largest community college is on notice to bury the hatchet on long-running political discord or risk the college’s accreditation status.’’

By the time accrediting commissions are involved in addressing issues related to rogue trustees, these issues have been around for some time, and the damage is probably severe and systemic. While rogue trustees may dismiss accreditation as an issue, usually the board as a whole will respond and try to address the problem. There are a num- ber of cases cited by presidents in this study of colleges placed on pro- bation with monitoring reports and revisits to track progress. However, because presidents and colleges are so sensitive to the role of the accrediting agency and the negative press that follows an inter- vention, there was no interest on the part of presidents in this study in sharing specific stories and allowing them to be cited.

In recent years, in recognition of the increasing problems related to board governance and, indirectly, of problems created by rogue trustees, accrediting commissions have expanded their standards regarding governance and college management. One president reports that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools now has a revised standard (3.2.6) that opens the door for external support in dealing with a rogue trustee. A monitoring report from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education regarding an issue related to micromanagement and political interference by the board in a community college cites a series of relevant standards from Characteristics for Excellence in Higher Education: Eligibility Requirements and Standards for Accreditation (Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2006):

. . .the governing body is ultimately accountable. . . however, it should not manage, micromanage, or interfere in the day-to-day operation

of the institution. . . . Always the advocate, and when necessary the

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 831

defender of the institution, the governing body is responsible for the

institution’s integrity and quality. (pp. 12–13)

Governing body members, regardless of how appointed, have

primary responsibility to the accredited institution and should not

allow political or other influences to interfere with governing body

duties. (p. 13) Members of the governing body act with authority only as a collective

entity. (p. 13)

. . .the governing body should assist the executive officers by helping them resist pressures from individuals or groups outside the established

governance structure of the institution that threaten to impede the

fulfillment of institutional mission and goals. (p.14)

Other accrediting commissions have focused on the importance of a code of ethics for trustees. The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges has created an excellent set of standards regard- ing board and administrative organization that includes a specific standard related to appropriate board behavior: ‘‘The governing board has a code of ethics that includes a clearly defined policy for dealing with behavior that violates its code’’ (The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 2002, Standard IV.B.l.h.). A number of California community colleges have been targeted by the commission for not addressing the trustees who violate the code of ethics.

There is a major risk involved for presidents who engage the accrediting commissions in examining governance issues in their institutions. Not only will their colleges be exposed locally and nationally for the problems, there could be retributions from the rogue trustee and his or her allies. In one case reported here, a college was placed on probation by the accrediting commission for political interference by board members and the county sponsors. The presi- dent who made this happen was warned by the visiting team, ‘‘You might win the battle but ultimately lose the war.’’ This meant that the local politicians involved might blame him for the intervention. In any case, accrediting commissions can play a powerful and effective role in corralling the behavior of a rogue trustee when all other strategies have failed. Accreditation standards on governance and leadership should be incorporated in the college documents on board policies, codes of ethics, statements of principle, and handbooks. Doing so will help set the stage for effective board prac- tice and, hopefully, prevent the need for more direct intervention by the accrediting commissions.

832 T. O’Banion

The staff members who serve accrediting commissions are a great resource for presidents who have to deal with a rogue trustee. Key staff at the accrediting commission are aware of the colleges in their region that have rogue trustees and dysfunctional boards, and they can be helpful in referring a president to colleagues in the field for support and advice.

Accrediting commissions do not usually target an individual in an institution as the source of problems and are not ever likely to identify a specific rogue trustee as the issue. The approach of the commissions is to address more generic issues such as a ‘‘dysfunctional board’’ or a ‘‘breakdown in communications between the board and the administra- tion.’’ Under these banners, the team review can unearth the problems and make recommendations for action. While most stakeholders in the institution will understand that the real problem is the rogue trustee, it is possible that the rogue trustee will be oblivious to this process or will choose to ignore the outcomes. It is quite possible that most reports from accrediting commissions that focus on trustee problems are really reports on problems caused by a rogue trustee or two.

Legal Controls

Although this study did not involve a review of legal controls available to presidents and boards, some presidents commented on the issue. There are apparently major differences among the states. A Florida president indicated that state and local policies were more than adequate in dealing with a rogue trustee. A California president said, ‘‘There is no recourse in California that I was ever able to find to stem the actions of a board member who is up to no good—unless, of course, they are engaging in illegal activity.’’ A Michigan president noted that ‘‘state law severely limits the actions that can be taken against an elected official.’’

Except where a trustee is engaged in clearly illegal actions, there are very few policies in place for curtailing the behavior of or remov- ing a rogue trustee. They are as protected as state and nationally elected officials: impeachment, after all, is the only recourse for removing a U.S. president from office.

A number of states have enacted sunshine laws to ensure that elected and appointed officials make their decisions in the open. The Brown Act was enacted in California in 1953 to ensure that the public could obtain access to and participate in local government meetings and deliberations. Although they vary from state to state, conflict-of-interest laws are among the most effective laws that govern the behavior of publicly elected officials.

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 833

The challenge of using these acts and any local or state policies to address the issue of the rogue trustee has to do with enforcement. Most are not specific enough to apply to the problems created by the rogue trustee, and if they were, there would still be the problem of how to enforce the law. While some of the problems created by rogue trustees are in the realm of illegal acts, most of the problems have to do with personality dysfunction and a meanness of spirit that fall outside of the legal arena.

A recall campaign is one legal step colleges can take to address specifically the issue of a rogue trustee. But as one president reported, ‘‘While the attorneys agreed there were grounds for his recall, the process could be more contentious than coping with the trustee, and it could be quite damaging to the college.’’ Several presidents indicated that recall campaigns had been attempted or were in process in their colleges, but there was no way to determine in this study whether or not they were effective in removing the trustee. Unseating an appointed trustee may be easier than unseating an elected trustee; it all depends on how well connected the college presi- dent, board chair, and other trustees are to the appointing authority.

One president reported that his college had established a process by which an external investigator is hired to investigate selected problem issues that need objective analysis. An investigator was hired to review numerous grievances from staff and administrators regard- ing the treatment they had received from a rogue trustee. The presi- dent thought the report of the case with recommendations helped the trustee better understand her role and the impact of her behavior on the staff and the college.

The legal counsel employed by the college is a resource on legal issues that should be used extensively. The counsel plays a major role in the creation of policies, statements, and guidelines related to trustee effectiveness. The counsel should be used in orientation sessions, retreats, workshops, and work sessions to review and interpret existing local and state policies. One president reported, ‘‘The general counsel was engaged to provide update sessions on laws concerning open meetings, bid and contract procedures, conflicts of interest, etc. for the entire board aimed primarily at warning the rogue trustee of the boundaries and equipping the rest of the board to enforce them.’’

Role of the Board Chair

In ideal situations, with a strong and competent leader serving as the chair of the board of trustees, the board chair plays the pivotal role in managing the behavior of the rogue trustee. When a highly

834 T. O’Banion

competent and respected board chair is joined by competent and supportive members of the board, the rogue trustee may never hatch or, if he or she does, cannot thrive. One president was absolutely clear about responsibility for dealing with a rogue trustee: ‘‘A board problem is a board problem, not a CEO problem.’’

A number of presidents reported that they worked closely with excellent board chairs to deal with a rogue trustee. In one case a new president was aware of the problems on the board with a rogue trustee when he took the job, and he raised the issue with the board chair. The chair committed to serving as the board chair for two years to give the president time to establish support, and he agreed to keep the rogue trustee off his back during that time so the president could do his job. The chair kept his commitments.

In another case, the president and the chair built a close alliance to deal with the rogue trustee. They kept each other informed of her actions, and they planned ahead on issues she would support or not support in the formal meetings of the board. As the president said, ‘‘An unwavering ‘team effort’ of a strong and highly respected board chair and a strong and effective president can control, or remove, a rogue trustee.’’

Unfortunately, a number of presidents reported that their board chairs were neither highly competent nor well respected, and they were totally ineffective in working with their presidents to address issues related to rogue trustees:

The board chair was weak, inarticulate, and not very smart; he was

impotent in managing the rogue trustee.

The first chair was completely intimidated by the rogue trustee; the

next chair was willing to take the rogue on but lacked the respect of the entire board to be of much help.

I worked with two board chairs and neither was strong enough to rein

her in. One tried to be her buddy for a while, and she just devoured him.

The board chair was absolutely no help. It took me two or three

meetings with him to realize that he would immediately share with

others our private conversations. Initially, he would support my posi-

tion and then change completely to support the rogue’s position.

These examples of poor board chairs beg for a change in how col- leges select their chairs. An incompetent board chair is not only use- less in addressing the problems of the rogue trustee. The college also

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 835

loses the support and leadership of a significant person who needs to be involved in helping guide the college to achieve its mission and goals in the community and the nation. It has often been said that the most important job of the board is to select a highly competent president; the second most important job of the board is to select a highly competent chair. And there is a strategy that has proven very effective in a number of colleges: abandon the traditional policy of rotating the chair annually, create criteria for a quality chair, select the most competent person on the board to be the chair, and reelect that chair as long as he or she performs effectively. Colleges that create policies to reelect board chairs may want to place term limits of three to six years on the service of a board chair.

Kirkwood Community College (KCC) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa has had only three board chairs in 42 years. Bud Jensen, the founding chair, served 19 years as chair; Wayne Newton served as vice chair for 12 years and then as chair for 18 years; the current chair, Lois Bartelme, has served since 2003, following Wayne Newton’s retire- ment. Under this arrangement, Kirkwood has become one of the most outstanding community colleges in the U.S. with numerous state and national awards to verify its flagship status. Bud Jensen and Wayne Newton were both honored with the Dale Ensign Award for being the outstanding trustee nationally, and both served as chair of the board for the Association of Community College Trustees. In 2001, Norman Nielsen, president of Kirkwood during Wayne Newton’s tenure as chair, was named the outstanding CEO in the nation with the Marie Martin Award.

Nielsen, now retired as president of Kirkwood, offered the follow- ing advice about the continuity of chairs:

The secret of a healthy working relationship between the board chair

and CEO is for the board to select a chair who is a very capable leader

and allow that person to continue to serve in that capacity indefinitely

if the system is operating smoothly and the working relationship of the

chair, board, and president remains positive and is serving the best interests of the institution. There are many, many capable trustees

throughout the U.S., but not all of them are capable of serving in

the position of board chair. When you select one who is, stay with it

for the good of the institution. (N. Nielsen, personal communication,

October 13, 2008)

Kirkwood’s policy regarding the continuity of board chairs is straightforward: ‘‘Since the Board does not practice any rotational

836 T. O’Banion

system of the board chair or vice chair, any member may nominate, and any member may serve.’’ A special culture has evolved over the four decades this policy has been in effect that reduces competition for the chair position; every board member at Kirkwood feels deeply connected to, and involved in, the college, and they take great pride in working as a team to advocate for Kirkwood. Wayne Newton has pointed out, ‘‘If I could point to one thing that makes the KCC system work, it is [that] the chair is evaluated along with the board each year’’ (W. Newton, personal communication, October 12, 2008). The evaluations provide an opportunity for all board members to review the work of the chair and their own work, and for over four decades they have all been satisfied with the arrangement.

One president in this study is a strong advocate for a continuing chair. He said:

The board chair should always be the acknowledged strongest leader

of the board. And he or she should continue to be re-elected until he

or she leaves the board or is replaced by another trustee with even

stronger leadership capabilities.

He suggested that once the president earns the respect and full support of the board, the president should carefully enlist the support of several former board chairs to change the policy from rotation to continuity. Problems may surface with the continuity policy as well if trustees do not agree on criteria for the board chair position and if they fail to elect the most competent leader. Board members can violate the spirit of any policy by reverting to politics as usual. But if they support and adhere to the values and goals of the new policy, boards may operate more effectively, trustees will enjoy their tenure, rogue trustees may be kept at bay, and the college will prosper.

Role of Other Trustees

Other trustees are like the board chair; some are good and some are not so good. Some will take on the rogue trustee; some will avoid such confrontations at all costs. The trustees on the board, however, have a major stake in this issue because the rogue trustee can, and often does, make their service on the board a miserable experience. Unless they are aligned with the rogue for their own personal or political benefit, they are a formidable resource for the board chair and the president if they can be rallied to the cause.

In some cases, the rogue trustee wears out his or her welcome, and the trustees naturally gravitate to a strategy that isolates the rogue.

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 837

Several presidents report that they have actually orchestrated this process as the only defense. In one college, the trustees have agreed to allow the rogue to make his point in a board meeting, and then he is totally ignored as the board moves on to its business. The board helped make this approach work better by placing limits on the time a board member could speak in meetings.

The board still listens to his requests but gives them no credence. He

has lost his credibility with not only the board but the staff. Everyone

tolerates him, but no one responds to his wild requests or critical com- ments. He has been rendered impotent.

Increasingly, the board members ignored and isolated the rogue trus-

tee. When he spoke at board meetings, typically no one responded. I

noticed that board members seldom talked with him informally before

or after meetings.

The other board members tired of his behavior and didn’t pay attention

to him; they, in effect, ostracized him. He stopped coming to board

meetings and did not run again when his term ended.

Peer pressure is a powerful force, and when it is exerted by powerful people in public forums, it can be one of the most effective strategies available for dealing with rogue trustees. Presidents in this study reported a number of instances where peer pressure was used in board meetings and behind the scenes.

Feedback I received privately from some board members indicated that conversations between board members and the rogue trustee

helped persuade her to buy into the new plan. Since the vast majority

of the members adopted the plan, the peer pressure on the trustee

mounted.

I confronted the rogue trustee about the situation he had created, and

with the help of another trustee it was resolved—but not without a great deal of stress and anxiety on my part.

Several other board members began taking the hint and periodically

intervened to distract or diffuse the rogue trustee. This was most

often done with humor but at times was very direct though never

confrontational.

838 T. O’Banion

In several of the cases reported by presidents, trustees played active roles in unseating a rogue trustee. In one case, the trustees worked behind the scenes to persuade the appointing agency not to reappoint the trustee. In another case, the majority of the board actively and publically campaigned against the trustee for reelection and endorsed his opponent.

Members of the board, however, cannot always be counted on for support. Trustees come to the board with very diverse agendas and with varying amounts of experience. The great majority are motivated by values of public service and understand their role as advocates of the college. A few are motivated by political ambition and self-interest; these board members may not be useful in bringing peer pressure to bear on the rogue trustee, and some of them are allies with the rogue trustee. Several presidents report on these open and hidden alliances:

The board refused to sanction the rogue trustee because they per-

ceived it would cast a negative light on all trustees, most of whom

were either running for or preparing to run for the city council or

the state legislature.

I admit that maybe other board members also had unspoken agendas

and allowed his to take over so that theirs could also be acted on.

Volunteers who serve on nonprofit boards do not usually antici- pate that the experience will be unpleasant. They want to make a dif- ference; they want to give their best; they want to be proud of their work. Participating in the governance of a college to help students learn is a perfect arena in which they can exercise their altruistic values. They are often unprepared for the abuse that is sometimes part of the arsenal of the rogue trustee.

He lashed out at the other trustees when they did not support him,

calling them wimps and incompetents.

The other trustees did not want to take on the rogue. They found it

easier just to let him have his way and run the board. They deferred

to him.

The policy was clear, but the will of the board to take action was not

there. Threats, intimidation, and the support the rogue trustee had

from the faculty stymied the board. Some of it had to do with ongoing

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 839

litigation and a potential strike; the board was just too frightened to

do anything.

The other trustees were reluctant to go against the rogue because he was a bully and would challenge and embarrass them verbally at

meetings.

In cases in which it is clear that a rogue trustee is continuing to cause mistrust and discord and is rendering the board and the college ineffective, the president and the board chair should care- fully consider how they can enlist the other members of the board to participate in addressing the problem. They will need to plan with great caution to ensure that the selected members will under- stand and support the effort; those tired of the abuse and intimida- tion are good candidates. Sunshine laws regarding meetings between board members must be observed. The board chair, rather than the president, should make the initial contacts with other trustee members on an individual basis. Specific actions related to isolation and peer pressure should be identified and implemented by all participating trustees.

Sometimes these approaches unfold as a natural outcome in response to a problem; in other cases, the approach can be encour- aged. Presidents who engage in such efforts walk a thin line and must be very careful to guard their credibility. In extreme cases, the strat- egy may be worth the risk; one frustrated president in this study went so far as to campaign publicly against the reelection of a member of his board, so some presidents are willing to take significant risks in trying to address the problems of the rogue trustee.

Role of the President

Regardless of the strategies used to address the issue of a rogue trustee, the president will be a central player and many times the only central player. If the board chair is sufficiently competent and is perceived as effective by the other trustees, the president’s first strat- egy is to build a strong alliance with the board chair based on mutual trust and respect. An effective board chair and an effective president present a formidable front to the attacks of a rogue trustee. When the board chair rotates every year, it makes it difficult for the president to create a sustaining alliance with the chair. The changing of the style and culture of the board on an annual basis opens up opportunities for the rogue.

840 T. O’Banion

In this study, a number of presidents described the alliances they made with the board chair to prevent the rogue trustee from creating problems:

I enlisted the assistance of the board chair, and he told the rogue trus- tee that if he persisted in his behavior he would be publicly censured;

that seemed to work.

The board chair and I worked to isolate the disruptive behavior. We

always reviewed the monthly agenda ahead of time to anticipate

how the chair could prepare for the rogue’s actions.

With the support of the board chair I kept him busy dealing with leg-

islative matters so he would not have time to micromanage the college.

There was an interesting division in this study regarding the strategy to accommodate or not accommodate the needs and agendas of the rogue trustee. A number of presidents felt it was important to try and work with the rogue trustee even when they knew this would be a challenge. Other presidents, often in retrospect, felt that accommodation had been a mistake and just delayed the inevitable confrontation.

In several cases cited in this study, presidents tried to channel the time and energies of a rogue trustee by making the trustee chair of a committee reflecting his or her interests. One trustee who had never voted in favor of new construction and new buildings was made chair of the building committee and began to champion and vote for new buildings. Another trustee who created havoc on the board with her endless questions regarding the budget and college finances was made chair of the finance committee. The president and staff then spent a great deal of time reviewing the budget and financial reports with the trustee in private before board meetings to address her concerns; from that point on she did not raise any questions about college finances in public. Such strategies may require that the president and staff spend more time preparing and working with the trustee on specific college issues, but it may be time well spent and may result in a change of general behavior on the part of the rogue trustee.

In another case, community leaders warned the president that an incoming board member had been a problem on previous community boards, but the president vowed to work closely with the new board member to make him feel welcome. The president spent a great deal of time with the new board member and asked staff to accommodate his needs. Staff bent over backwards to provide information and

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 841

access, granting special requests and providing special services. After several years of accommodation the president reported that the trustee continued to violate all standards of appropriate behavior and had become even more aggressive and demanding. In this case, accommodation had just made the behavior worse.

Several presidents made strong cases for not accommodating a rogue trustee and recommended that rogues be confronted directly and quickly:

In retrospect, the biggest mistake the chair and I made was in not

confronting him directly and forcefully from the very beginning. I

am now convinced that, since we did not confront him forcefully

and let him know how things would operate, he assumed that we

did not have the strength or resolve or courage to do so. It was a ter- rible mistake and one that I believe convinced him that he could dom-

inate the board and become my ‘‘boss.’’

Perhaps the best lesson is that accommodating such individuals and

not managing to control them is the worst mistake. Presidents or

chancellors have a terrible time with these people because board

members too often refuse to assert their authority, which by law is very limited, to bring these persons under control. They leave it to

the CEO to handle it, which is nearly impossible. . . . The CEO tries to be supportive of the rogue and gain a supporter in return to main-

tain progress and to retain one’s position. The CEO’s tenure, however,

can be shortened by accommodation. It’s best, I have learned, to

make every effort to control this individual quickly and decisively

for not doing so will result in a short tenure anyway.

Most of the presidents in this study advocated shining a light on the behavior of the rogue trustee as one of the most effective strate- gies. These presidents try to keep all transactions with the rogue trustee in the public eye, as they do all transactions with board members. Every request of the rogue trustee was shared with all board members. Copies of responses to e-mails, letters, and phone calls from the rogue trustee were sent to all board members. In some cases, any meeting with an individual trustee was reported in writing to all members of the board. One president documented everything, including the costs of staff time to accommodate the many requests of the rogue, and shared copies with all board members. Orchestrat- ing these responses takes time from the staff and the president, but establishing transparency in all interactions with board members as a basic operating principle sends a message to board members

842 T. O’Banion

who do not play by the rules. Transparency also creates clarity and trust for the faculty, staff, and community. Presidents testify to the effectiveness of these strategies:

Everything a rogue does needs to find sunshine. Sunshine is the most effective strategy to contain a rogue. Deal with the trouble up front

and hold the trouble up for the whole world to see. Everyone knows

a rogue when they see one, so let them see one up close.

We threatened to ‘‘out’’ his behavior in an open board meeting.

The most effective strategy was to keep the behavior, requests, and

actions in the public eye. Make sure that the other board members

see what is going on. Make sure that opinion leaders in the community

understand what is going on. Make sure that the faculty and staff are

aware of the actions of the rogue trustee.

Several presidents felt that keeping the focus on the big picture of the college’s mission helped thwart rogue trustees who wanted to focus on specific areas of finance or the physical plant—areas in which they feel more comfortable. One president featured items related to student success and student learning on the board agenda, noting that trustees do not usually profess to be knowledgeable in instruction, curriculum, and assessment of learning outcomes—so all trustees are on the same page. The president said, ‘‘It provided a deeper context for decisions that related to the physical and fiscal issues of the college and helped all of us to focus on student learning as our major business.’’

With a consent agenda for managing the business side of the college, it is possible to use board-meeting time to engage trustees in the deeper business of the college—improving and expanding student learning. Faculty and staff can be involved in reporting on innovations and experiments in student success, and students can participate as well. Most trustees sign on for service because they have a profound commitment to serving students; when they can discuss, review, and share their values regarding education in a public forum, they can rally around larger issues and take pride in their contributions. Rogue trustees do not thrive in this environment.

Sometimes, usually as a last resort, presidents report they have no other option but to directly and personally confront the rogue trustee. One president said, ‘‘I found that open confrontation with her seemed to be the only thing that worked. She would back down

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 843

only when she was challenged openly, directly, and firmly.’’ Another president indicated that the rogue trustee seemed to expect that he would be confronted on some of his most bizarre actions and seemed to welcome such confrontations as an external control on behavior that perhaps he felt he could not manage.

In one case, an experienced board chair urged the president to confront the rogue trustee privately in the same manner the rogue trustee always confronted the president. With the board chair’s support, the president asked the rogue trustee to meet him in his office, and the president assailed him with all the venom, anger, and profanity he had been storing up; the trustee was startled, but from that point on he did not use profanity when dealing with the president, and the president reported that he became an effective and supportive member of the board.

In another case the president delivered what he called a ‘‘two-by- four between the eyes’’ to a rogue trustee. He said to the trustee, ‘‘If you continue in this line of action I will be compelled to put the question to the board immediately. You can make your case and I will make mine. I think I know where they will come down, but rest assured I am willing to go all the way on this issue.’’

These personal confrontations take immense courage on the part of the president. The president’s job is at stake if the confrontation fails to achieve its purpose. But some presidents who have tried all the other strategies are willing to take this risk rather than continue to work in an impossible situation created by a rogue trustee.

Political Pressure

Applying political pressure to achieve goals is a well-honed strategy deeply ingrained in the human psyche and universally practiced. It thrives in the educational environment as it does in all institutions. Presidents are constantly under political pressure from the faculty, from their trustees, from community leaders, from local and state office holders, and sometimes from student groups. As a result, presidents are not naı̈ve about the power and effect of political pres- sure. They have learned to apply political pressure themselves but usually in rare circumstances. And they are aware of the inherent dangers in playing in this arena.

Where political pressure was used in this study as a strategy to cope with a rogue trustee, the pressure came primarily from other board members who were savvy in the use of this power. Many trustees are well connected to, and aligned with, a political party,

844 T. O’Banion

and they can use those connections to get action. Presidents cited half a dozen cases in which their trustees worked behind the scenes with their political counterparts in the appointing agency to make sure that a rogue trustee was not reappointed to the board. In some of these cases the party leaders did not want to be embarrassed by their appointments; in others, they were returning favors to their allies. In any case, political pressure is an effective strategy for addressing problems created by a rogue trustee. It is a strategy presidents can encourage and support when appropriate—and perhaps it is a strategy of last resort.

One president believes that local political organizations will discipline their own if they are aware of the problems. ‘‘I have tried to make a trustee’s inappropriate behavior obvious to other trustees and to the local appointing authority. It has been a slow but effective process. The appointing authority knows that I will not embarrass them if they appoint a jackass, and they know I will give them an opportunity to fix the situation.’’

Another president was not quite so positive about working with the local appointing authority. He said, ‘‘The system is broken; it all starts with politics, and there is no process in place to remove a trustee.’’ At his institution, he and the board had to ask for assistance from the accrediting association because of the political interference from the local appointing authority. He recommended that presidents work through their state community college association to establish statewide policies regarding the appointment of trustees. Such policies would include criteria for board membership, term limits, and a removal process. A state association of community college presidents working with a state association of community college trustees might accomplish such a goal.

One president in this study was quite sure that rogue trustees could not operate in states with appointed boards. He assumed that the political process used to appoint trustees would also be applied to control and dismiss trustees who tended to become roguish. Another president in another state where trustees are appointed also hinted that this might be the case in her state. This became an intriguing issue, and I reached out to presidents in states with appointed boards to determine if they had dealt with rogue trustees. Of the 59 presi- dents who provided reports for this study, 36 were from nine states with elected boards and 23 were from seven states with appointed boards. In my view, rogue trustees prosper equally whether they are elected or appointed. A more extensive review couched in a traditional research design might prove me wrong, but it is quite clear that rogue trustees exist in states where they are appointed.

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 845

Role of the Press

Some rogue trustees become adept at using the media to support their antics. In one case cited by a president in this study, the rogue trustee held his own press conference following every board meeting to complain about, and make false charges against, the college. In two cases, rogue trustees threatened press conferences with local TV stations and the local press if they could not get their way. And in one special case, a rogue trustee had established a personal alliance with a local editor who reported negatively about college business based on claims from the trustee.

Presidents also know how to use the local media to make their case, and most colleges work hard to establish open and positive lines of communication. Most colleges employ a public relations officer whose duties include serving as a liaison with local radio, TV, and newspaper agencies. Presidents who have established good relation- ships with the local media can turn to these sources when a rogue trustee begins to create problems. Presidents make sure the local press is represented at board meetings so reporters can see for themselves the actions of the rogue trustee. The established role of the press is to cast light on unseemly behavior, and presidents can play a role in orchestrating opportunities for such events. One president, with support from his board chair, arranged for all board meetings to be televised on the local cable channel. In this way, the rogue trustee was exposed to a much wider community.

In one community college, a local reporter became intrigued with the behavior of a rogue trustee and began to follow her actions over a period of time. After a series of stories appeared in the local newspa- per, the trustee began to modify her behavior. The student newspaper is also a resource that should be encouraged to investigate rogue trustees. In several cases in this study, stories on rogue trustees have appeared in national educational newspapers such as The Chronicle of Higher Education and Community College Week.

Public Censure

To be admonished and censured by a higher authority or by one’s peers in public would appear to be one of the most extreme and embarrassing acts that could occur in the life of a human being. It is the modern version of being stoned. Oddly, one president reported that after the board had publicly sanctioned one of its members, she was even more emboldened to continue her behavior. In another case, a president reported that public censure was worn as a badge of merit

846 T. O’Banion

by the offending trustee. These responses reflect the complex nature of rogue trustees.

Public censure, however, can be an effective strategy in corralling the behavior of rogue trustees. Several presidents referred to public sanctions by an accrediting commission and by the board of trustees as effective but were reluctant to provide details. Public censure places the college’s problems in the spotlight. And while such acts might work to alleviate the problems with the rogue trustee, they can create negative perceptions in the community, the faculty, and the student body that presidents would like to avoid.

If an accrediting commission is involved, the college can be warned or placed on probation; these actions are clearly public censure in the educational community. It is unlikely that a specific rogue trustee would be named in such action, but a specific rogue trustee might be the primary source of a warning or probation. Accrediting commissions, as pointed out before, usually couch their warnings in terms of problems related to poor communication or to ineffective governance when it comes to trustees. Nevertheless, these interven- tions by an accrediting association can be used as leverage by the president and the board to make necessary changes.

The sitting board is a powerful force when its members choose to apply pressure on another member. Censure in an executive session can be effective with threats that a public censure will follow if the behavior is not changed. Board members can also work with commu- nity leaders to encourage censure by a group of concerned citizens; recall campaigns by concerned citizens is a clear form of public censure. Academic senates and faculty unions can also create a vote of no confidence in a rogue trustee—a strategy used fairly often against some presidents.

Public censure is a tricky issue for all involved. Trustees feel uncomfortable about policing their own ranks and worry about being tainted by the rotten apple in the barrel. Community leaders don’t like to see their elected or appointed officials charged with the respon- sibility for governing their much prized community college involved in public scandals. Faculty and students can become demoralized and cynical when the problem requires such extreme measures for solution. Presidents are caught in a very special bind. They want to protect the reputation of the college, they want to ensure the continu- ing support of the community, they want to know they have the continuing support and respect of the board, and they want to protect the faculty and staff and maintain a sense of shared values as educators. But public censure of any kind visibly shines a light on the elephant in the room. And in some cases, it may be the only

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 847

effective strategy in dealing with a rogue trustee who has become a rogue elephant running roughshod over the standards expected of public officials—especially those charged with governing such an important and precious commodity as the educational enterprise. In the final analysis, public censure is a brave and powerful act of a group of stakeholders who want to protect the college.

SUMMARY

In summary, presidents and trustees can use the following strategies, sometimes alone and sometimes in combination, to lessen the influence of or remove a rogue trustee:

1. Create a code of ethics with teeth that includes a procedure for removing a trustee.

2. Establish policies and guidelines for trustee behavior that include such items as board attendance, time limits on speak- ing, requests for staff reports, etc.

3. Require a thorough orientation for all new board members. 4. Establish a trustee development program that includes work

sessions, retreats, and conferences. 5. Bring in external consultants and accreditation teams when

necessary. 6. Use the college’s legal counsel to provide an annual update on

laws concerning open meetings, bid and contract procedures, conflicts of interest, etc.

7. Create criteria for the board chair position and establish a board policy that allows for the reelection of the board chair.

8. Create an annual evaluation process for board chair perfor- mance, trustee member performance, and CEO performance related to the board; and examine the results in an annual retreat or special work session.

9. Establish polices and procedures for a consent agenda for much of the board’s work.

10. Work with the board chair as the most appropriate officer to address the problems of the rogue trustee.

11. Work with the board chair to enlist the support of the other members of the board in addressing the problems of the rogue trustee.

12. Consider channeling the energies and time of the rogue trustee into special projects or committees that reflect his or her interest.

848 T. O’Banion

13. Let the sunshine in; keep all transactions with individual board members in the public domain.

14. Encourage the local press to attend board meetings and examine issues and problems created by a rogue trustee.

15. Carefully orchestrate political and peer pressure in appropri- ate ways.

16. As a last resort consider a variety of ways to create public censure.

REFERENCES

Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. (2002). Accrediting

standards. IV.B.1.h.

Chait, R., Ryan, W., & Taylor, B. (2005). Governance as leadership: Reframing the

work of nonprofit boards. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Diehl, J. (2006). Boing boing: A directory of wonderful things. http://www.boing

boing.net/2006/10/27/rogue-elephants-in-n.html.

Halcom, C. (2008, September 1). Trustee turmoil at Michigan college putting

accreditation at risk. Community College Week, 21(1), 1–3.

Mellow, G., & Heelan, C. (2008). Minding the dream: The process and practice of the

American community college. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2006). Characteristics for excel-

lence in higher education: Eligibility requirements and standards for accreditation.

Philadelphia: Author.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

O’Banion, T. (2009). The rogue trustee: The elephant in the room. Phoenix, AZ:

League for Innovation in the Community College.

Smith, C., Piland, B., & Boggs, G. (2001) The political nature of community college

trusteeship. Washington, DC: Association of Community College Trustees.

APPENDIX

EIGHT KEY PRINCIPLES FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRUSTEES

1. The most important job of the community college trustee is the selection and support of the college president.

2. It is essential that community college trustees advocate for the college and its budget.

3. Community college boards of trustees must manage them- selves and ensure that members are fulfilling their roles and participating in an appropriate manner.

Strategies for Dealing with Rogue Trustees 849

4. The community college board of trustees governs the college through broad policies, while the president and his=her staff are responsible for operations.

5. Community college trustees should consult the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (www.msche.org) accredit- ing standards on the importance of good trusteeship.

6. The community college board of trustees is an independent body governing the community college and, by law, the trustees’ responsibility is to protect the best interests of the college.

7. Key community college trustee responsibilities, by law, include defining the mission of the college, hiring the presi- dent, setting tuition, and approving budgets, new programs, and facilities plans.

8. Community college trustees should abide by the ‘‘Institutional Code of Ethics’’ approved by the NJ Commission on Higher Education (www.state.nj.us/highereducation) as well as their own institution’s code of ethics.

Endorsed by the New Jersey Council of County Colleges, April 18, 2005.

850 T. O’Banion