Theoretically, higher education professionals agree that public trusteeship matters, yet little attention is given to the influence trustees have on the performance of public higher education. This study examines the relationship between selection and appointment processes and state higher education performance. Findings show that top-performing states use appointment processes that use restrictions, requisite qualifications, and methods to scrutinize the appropriateness of potential candidates. There is no evidence of clear qualifications or scrutiny among the bottom-performing states.
American Association of University Professors. ( 1966). Statement on government of colleges and universities . Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/Govern.htm
2.
American Council of Trustees & Alumni. ( 2005). Accountability in higher education: Governors provide leadership [Monograph]. (Available from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 802, Washington, DC 20036)
3.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities & Colleges. (1998). Bridging the gap between state government and higher education. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities & Colleges.
4.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities & Colleges. (2003). Merit screening of citizens for gubernatorial appointment to public colleges and university trusteeship. Washington, DC: Commission on the Academic Presidency, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
5.
Baldridge, J.V. (1982). Shared governance: A fable about the lost magic kingdom. Academe, 68(1), 12-15.
6.
Birnbaum, R. (1991). Faculty in governance: The role of senates and joint committees in academic decision making [Special issue]. New Directions for Higher Education, 1991(75).
7.
Burke, J. (Ed.). (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Business-Higher Education Forum. (2004). Public accountability for student learning in higher education: Issues and options. Washington, DC: Author . (Available from http://www.bhef.com/solutions/accountability.asp)
9.
Center for Higher Education & Policy Analysis. (2004a). Governance structures: A 50 state comparison [CD-ROM]. (Available from the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, the University of Southern California , WPH 701, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031)
10.
Center for Higher Education & Policy Analysis. (2004b). Selection and appointment of public trustees to public colleges and universities boards [Policy brief]. (Available from the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, the University of Southern California, WPH 701, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031)
11.
Chait, R.P., Holland, T.P., & Taylor, B.E. (1991). The effective board of trustees. New York: American Council on Education & MacMillan .
12.
Chait, R.P., Holland, T.P., & Taylor, B.E. (1996). Improving the performance of governing boards . Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education & Oryx Press.
13.
Clark, B.R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organizations in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Dika, S.L., & Janosik, S.M. (2003). The role of selection, orientation, and training in improving the quality of public college and university boards of trustees in the United States. Quality in Higher Education, 9, 273-285.
15.
Duderstadt, J.J. (2001). A university for the twenty-first century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16.
Freedman, J.O. (2004). Presidents and trustees. In Ronald G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Governing academia (pp. 9-26). New York: Cornell University Press.
17.
General Laws of Massachusetts, Part 1, Title II, ch. 6, § 18B. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/6-18b.htm
18.
Hatch, J.A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings . Albany: State University of New York Press.
19.
Heller, D. (Ed.). (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
20.
Hermalin, B.E. (2004). Higher education boards of trustees. In Ronald G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Governing academia (pp. 28-48). New York: Columbia University Press.
21.
Hern, J.C., & Griswold, C.P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. postsecondary education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 161-190.
22.
Ikenberry, S.O. (1971). Restructuring college and university organization and governance: An introduction. Journal of Higher Education , 42, 421-429.
23.
Ingram, R.T. (1993). Governing public colleges and universities: A handbook for trustees, chief executives, and other campus leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Jones, G.A., & Skolnik, N.I. (1997). Governing boards in Canadian universities. The Review of Higher Education, 20, 277-295.
25.
Kerr, C., & Gade, M. (1989). The guardians. Boards of trustees of American colleges and universities: What they do and how well they do it. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities & Colleges.
26.
Kezar, A. (2006). Rethinking public higher education governing boards performance: Results of a national study of governing boards in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 968-1008
27.
Massey, W.F. (2003). Honoring the trust: Quality and cost containment in higher education. Boston: Anker .
28.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
29.
McLendon, M., Heller, D., & Young, S. (2005). State postsecondary policy innovation: Politics, competition, and the interstate migration of policy ideas. Journal of Higher Education76, 365-400.
Mortimer, K. (1971). The dilemmas in new campus governance structures . Journal of Higher Education, 42, 467-483.
32.
National Center for Public Policy & Higher Education. (2004). Measuring up: A national report on higher education . (Available from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 152 North Third Street, Suite 705, San Jose, CA 95112; http://measuringup.highereducation.org/default.cfm)
33.
National Center for Public Policy & Higher Education. (2005, November). Income of US workforce projected to decline if education doesn't improve [Policy Alert]. (Available from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 152 North Third Street, Suite 705, San Jose, CA 95112)
34.
Ruppert, S.S. (1994). Charting higher education accountability: A sourcebook on state level performance indicators. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
35.
Schuster, J., & Miller, L. (1989). Governing tomorrow's campus: Perspectives and agendas. New York: American Council on Education & MacMillan.
36.
Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (2004). Competing conceptions of academic governance: Negotiating the perfect storm . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37.
Trustee Candidate Advisory Council. (n.d.). Criteria for MNSCU trustees. Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/tcac/tcaccriteria.htm
38.
University of Louisiana System. (2003, February). Louisiana legislative auditor report highlights (Audit Control No. 02902231). Retrieved November 2, 2007, from http://app1.lla.state.la.us/PublicReports.nsf/6E3538A5A2143A808625700C0058C31B/$FILE/03101726.PDF
39.
Weary, W. (1999). Assessing the performance of presidents and boards . Trusteeship, 7(2), 34-35
40.
Zumeta, W. (2001). Accountability challenges for higher education . In The NEA 2000 Almanac of Higher Education (pp. 57-71). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
