Auburn University: A Case Study in the Need for Sunshine

For the last several years, Auburn University has been at the center of controversy over its governance practices. In April 2001, soon after the board of trustees abruptly fired popular president William V. Muse, representatives of the University Senate, the Student Government Association, and the A...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Academe 2005-05, Vol.91 (3), p.32-33
Main Author: Gerber, Larry G.
Format: Magazinearticle
Language:English
Subjects:
Accreditation
Administration
Alabama
Boards of trustees
Case Studies
College trustees
Colleges & universities
Colleges and universities
Decision Making
Educational Administration
Governance
Governing Boards
Litigation
McLendon, Michael
Meetings
Open meeting laws
Policy Formation
Public meetings
School administration
School boards
State Legislation
United States
Universities
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:For the last several years, Auburn University has been at the center of controversy over its governance practices. In April 2001, soon after the board of trustees abruptly fired popular president William V. Muse, representatives of the University Senate, the Student Government Association, and the Alumni Association jointly filed a complaint with Auburn's accrediting body, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The complainants took issue with what they regarded as inappropriate board "micromanagement" of the university over many years. In December 2003, after two years of legal wrangling and an investigation of the charges by a court-appointed attorney, SACS imposed its strongest sanction short of withdrawal of accreditation: it placed Auburn on probation. Among the charges cited in the complaint was the trustees' frequent violation of Alabama's open-meetings law. Although a federal judge excluded this charge from final consideration by SACS, Auburn's recent experience starkly demonstrates how excessive secrecy and lack of transparent decision making can contribute to problematic governance. Auburn's recent experience demonstrates the importance of open-meetings laws. The possibility of minority control of the board increases greatly when decisions are made behind closed doors. Similarly, when little meaningful debate occurs in public about proposed policies, speculation as to the underlying motives of board members in supporting any given policy will likely occur.
ISSN:0190-2946
2162-5247
DOI:10.2307/40252783