Board Research

8/10/2019 Board Research

1/18

Understanding Governance Trends in American

Universities: Results of a Study of Members of the

Association of American Universities

Abby Arbutina

Lindsey Colven

Kevin Jolly

Eli Kariv

Brock Klinger

Danielle Robertson

Executive Summary

Through scholarly research, we have created a tool for analyzing the composition of

governing boards in terms of their transparency and structure. We collected

information from the governing documents included on the websites of 52 member

universities of the Association of American Universities. Drawing from literature

written by doctors Richard Chait and John Carver, personal testimony from Donald

Hambrick, and the 2012 Corporate Board Index compiled by Spencer Stuart Inc., we

established criteria to rate their governance practices. Empirical evidence fromconstitutions, bylaws, and charters were categorized as either a corporate-like

structural component of the governing board or a disclosure component which we

call transparency. These groups were used as axes to plot university board

composition on a matrix measuring their performance on these axes. We have also

provided background on the literature, interviews, Corporate Board Index, and the

foundations of our board matrix.


2/18

The Matrix: How Corporate is Your Board

The matrix depicts a snapshot of university governance within the Association of

American universities*. It plots their performance on two main axes: transparency

and structure. The matrix is broken down into four quadrants, they include, La-La

Land, Spec-Ops, Independent Study, and Corporate Land. Each quadrant represents

a different combination of structure and transparency, which gives insight to

different university styles of governance, composition, policies, and governmental

compliance. In no way does this research attempt to favor one quadrant, or prove

one is more effective than another. It does, however, identify those universities that

have instituted policies and structures to more efficiently transmit their actions to

the public sphere and match their format to those of public corporations.

The Criteria

All possible points and weights are based on trends seen in corporate boards today.

The transparency criteria were chosen using Spencer Stuarts 2012Corporate Board

Index while the structure criteria came from our own research on observable trends

in corporate governance. A criterion may be worth 1, .5 , or .25 points. Higher

weights imply a stronger trend among corporate boards. One point denotes at least

70% of boards exhibit that criteria. One-half point and one-quarter point minimums

were determined on a case-by-case basis, but were always based on characteristics

that less than 70% of boards exhibit. See Appendix I for the individual criteria.

La-La Land

When a university scores less than half the points available in both categories of

transparency and structure, it lands in La-La-Land. The three most notable

universities in this quadrant are NYU, Carnegie Mellon, and Princeton. All three are

private universities, and may not have to comply with governmental disclosure like

most public universities. The most common reasons for universities ending up in

La-La Land are a lack of mandatory retirement policies, explicitly stated mandate for

annual assessment of the universitys president, and oversized boardson the

structure axis and lack of lack of access to the university charter and failure to host

public meetings from the transparency aspect.

Spec-Ops

This quadrant is the least populated with only 5 of the 52 universities landing here.

To be considered Spec-ops the university scored more than half the points possible

for structure, and less than half the points possible for transparency. These

universities shared similar structure to corporate boards, but showed very little


3/18

transparency. 100% of the universities that land in this quadrant are private. While

they structure their boards in a corporate manner, they still may not have to comply

to certain disclose laws within their state, being that they are private universities.

Independent Study

The independent study quadrant is the most heavily populated. 19 out of the 52

universities land in this quadrant. 12 are public institutions, and 7 are private.

Landing here shows that a university scored more than half the points possible for

the transparency section, and less than half the points possible for structure;

essentially showing these boards have very similar transparency traits to corporate

boards, but structure themselves in a wide array of ways. No patterns exist in this

quadrant for structure; results for number of members, committees, and types of

committees vary considerably. Because the majority of the schools in this quadrant

are public institutions, they may experience higher transparency scores because of

governmental disclosure policies.

Corporate Land

Universities landing in corporate land scored more than half the points possible for

both transparency and structure. These boards are most closely related to the

governing boards of US public companies. 13 of 52 universities land in Corporate

Land. Though no one school stood out as a clear top-performer, Duke took the top

spot in terms of structure while the University of Minnesota stood out as having

both highly corporate structure and a high degree of transparency.

* - The Association of American Universities had 62 members at the time of this writing. We

complied data for the governing bodies of all member universities. As some universities share

governing bodies, certain schools were consolidated under their common board.

Spencer Stuart as a Source of Criteria

Spencer Stuart was founded in 1956. It is one of the leading executive search firms

in the world, and has access to many of the leading executives. It provides guidance

and counsel for some of the largest companies in the world, as well as medium-sized

companies, and smaller entrepreneurial ventures, and its more than 300

consultants are supported by premier researchers. The focus of our research is on

the Board and Governance Category, specifically the Spencer Stuart US Board Index

2012.

Spencer Stuart Board Index 2012


4/18

The Spencer Stuart Board Index is an annual study, which examines the state of

corporate governance among S&P 500 companies. According to the index, 73% of

S&P 500 boards had 9-12 members on their boards, 13% had eight or fewer, and

14% had thirteen or more. Therefore, there was 1 point allotted for a board with 9-

12 members, and 0.5 points were allotted for a board with 7- 14 members to allow

for some variance.

Next, the index shows that the average number of meetings per year of a corporate

board in 2012 was 8.3 times. It is shown that 51% of boards met 6-9 times per year,

and that 20% met 5 times or fewer. When added together, it is found that 71% of

boards met 1-9 times per year, so 1 point is allotted for boards that had a number of

meetings within this range.


5/18

The index then provides that 73% of the S&P 500 boards set an annual retirement

age for directors. Therefore, university boards that adhere to a mandatory

retirement age receive 1 point.

Additionally, the index shows that 97% of S&P 500 boards assess the CEO

performance on an annual basis, according to their corporate governance

guidelines. Each university which evaluates is president annually receives 1 point. If

the president is regularly assessed, but not annually, it receives 0.5 points, and if the

president is assessed more than once a year it receives 0.5 points on the scale.

The two committees that are most prominent on the S&P 500 boards are Audit,which 100% of boards have, and Nominating/Governance, which 77% have. If a

university board have a Nominating/Governance committee it receives 0.5 points. If

it has an Audit committee it receives 1 point. The Compensation/HR committee,

which 100% the corporate boards also have, is excluded because it is not applicable

to university boards.


6/18

Finally, 86% of boards have 3-5 committees in total. University boards whose

number of committees falls into this range receive .5 points.


7/18

Leading Scholars on Governance

We summarized three dominant sources of publications on governance and

leadership: doctors Richard Chait, John Carver, and Donald Hambrick. Their works

are universally recognized in the worlds of corporate and nonprofit governance and

serve as the basis for our understanding of effective governing bodies.

Dr. Richard Chait

Dr. Richard Chait has studied nonprofit and board governance for over 20 years. He

is a leading expert on affirmative action, higher education administration and

politics of school structure and governance. Dr. Chait earned his Ph.D at University

of Wisconsin. He is currently a professor at the Harvard Graduate School for

Education, recently being named one of Harvard Universitys outstanding

teachers. Over the years, Dr. Chait has served as a professor at the University of

Maryland, and the Mandel Professor of Non-Profit Management at Case Western

Reserve University and Associate Provost of Pennsylvania State University. Not only

has Dr. Chait written several articles and books on the subject of governance, he has

consulted for hundreds of boards and executives of nonprofit organizations.

Recently, Dr. Chait consulted for the Board of Trustees of Ohio State University to

define the structures and work processes that will allow the board to become even

more efficient and productive.

Governance as Leadership

Governance as Leadership, written by Dr. Richard Chait, William Ryan and BarbaraTaylor, describes a new framework by which boards of nonprofit organizations can

maximize their effectiveness. The authors advocate for more macro-governance in

exchange for less micromanaging.

The principles of governance are four ideas that are the basis that underlie the

arguments made by the three authors. The four main principles of governance

include: managers must be leaders, trustees are now managers, the three modes of

governance are fiduciary, strategic and generative and finally all 3 modes are better

than 2 or 1. By understanding the main principles, readers can then begin to

understand the arguments laid out in the reset of the book, including where the

three modes of governance stem from.

The authors look at the differences between problems boards and board problems.

Many times a board will be labeled as a troubled board without ever attempting to

define the problem. A question of performance may really be a question of purpose.

The authors contend that many board members are ineffectual not because they are


8/18

confused about their role on the board, but because they are dissatisfied with their

role. It is argued that board members do not do their jobs well because their jobs do

not strike them as worth doing well. From here, the authors describe the three

modes of governance that should be practiced on each board. Each mode of

governance is looked at as being essential to efficiency.

The first mode of governance is fiduciary. The goals of fiduciary governance are to

prevent theft, waste, misuse of resources, ensure resources are deployed effectively

and efficiently, safeguard the mission against unintentional drift and unauthorized

shifts in purpose and require that the trustees operate solely in the best interests of

the organization. The fiduciary mode is seen as the main type of governance found

on most boards, sometimes the only type of governance found within the board.

The second mode of governance is strategic. The strategic mode intends to shift the

board from a monitoring system to a partner with management. In partnership with

management, the board should be determining what matters most to the long-term

future of the organization. In order to accomplish this, the book suggests some

major changes, including: making committees adaptable to the strategic priorities

by creating task forces and making meetings more meaningful and consequential by

getting rid of the show and tell meeting.

Finally the third mode of governance is generative. This mode is the least practiced

but is able to provide a sense of the problems and opportunities within an

organization. Boards should be thinking retrospectively in order to provide

leadership for the organization. A board must work in tandem with management.

The board should be initiating the creative process, rather than simply overseeing it.

Boards are in the perfect position to govern effectively, but their working capital is

not always taken advantage of. Once a board understands the three modes of

governance they can truly take advantage of their position and govern effectively.

Trustees hold four main types of capital that can all contribute to governing well. A

trustee possesses intellectual, reputational, political and social capital in their

arsenal and should harness each aspect in their governance practices. The authors

claim:

In fact, if boards launched campaigns to cultivate and deploy the

trustees intellectual reputational, political and social capital that were

roughly comparable to efforts to garner trustees financial resources,

the results could yield substantial dividends. Both the organization and

the board would be smarter, more respected, more influential and

better equipped to perceive and handle generative challenges. In short,

the organization would be better governed (Dr. Chait, 2005, 161).


9/18

The authors lay out diagnostic tools to help boards capitalize on the resources of

their members and get a better understanding of how to move forward. The authors

stress the importance of working in all three modes.

If an organization reframes governance as leadership, the board will become more

than a fiduciary asset or managements strategic partner. The board becomes acrucial source for generative thinking and leadership for the organization. This is

the point at which the board can tackle their problem and purpose and begin to

successfully govern.

Leadership as Governance provided an insightful background into the theories of

board governance. While our research was not attempting to necessarily transform

boards, understanding the framework under which trustees work is crucial to

providing boards with effective, responsible, well-managed and innovative

governance.

Dr. John Carver

Dr. John Carver is an author, theorist, and consultant noted for his development of

the policy model of board governance known as Policy Governance. He earned the

B.S. degree in business and economics and the M.Ed. degree in educational

psychology at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He earned his Ph.D. in

psychology at Emory University in 1968. Dr. Carver has worked as a business officer

in small manufacturing, as a CEO for various public service organizations, and as an

adjunct professor at the University of Georgia Institute for Nonprofit Organizations.

Policy Governance

The registered and trademarked term Policy Governance refers to Dr. John

Carvers model for effective board governance. Boards That Make a Difference, Dr.

Carvers most widely known book, was the focal point of our research. In it, Dr.

Carver advocates for his universal model of governance in place of various,

inadequate, problem-based prescriptions for improvement. His Policy Governance

paradigm is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather a set of principles within

which to organize the thoughts, activities, structure and relationships of governing

bodies. This model works to resolve issues that currently plague most boards, andestablishes a novel framework of policies that every board should utilize.

Issues

In developing his model of Policy Governance, Dr. Carver noticed a number of

shortcomings of governing bodies. Board members often wonder where the line

distinguishing the boards responsibilities from those of the CEO lies. Boards are


10/18

often reactive; they stumble between rubber-stamping and meddling. They can get

lost in administrative details and waste time invading the territory best left to

management. Unlike management, which works for a well-defined superior, boards

usually work for a group that is vaguely defined or difficult to communicate with.

Nonprofit and public organizations especially suffer from the trials of a muted

market; they lack the foundation that would enable them to define success and

failure. Without market forces, nonprofit boards must define the purpose and

meaning of success of the organization. Encompassing all of these issues is

governing boards lack of understanding of its own purpose. Dr. Carvers model of

Policy Governance enables the board to truly be leaders by controlling the big

picture, the long term and the value-laden while empowering those who carry out

the work of the organization to the maximum extent that is consistent with

maintaining the boards own accountability (Dr. Carver 6). This is done by leading

by policies.

Leadership by Policies

Policy leadership clarifies, inspires, and sets a tone of discourse that stimulates

leadership in followers (41). Boards must shift away from reactive and event-

specific decision-making toward proactively broadcasting its values via clearly

stated governing policies. A board should be more concerned with effective policy

development than all the various details of policy implementation. All board policies

fall into one of four categories; the first and most important is Ends, while the

other three, Executive Limitations, Board-Management Delegation, and

Governance Process, are means the board and CEO employ to reach those ends.

Ends

Ends are policies that deal with the organizations relationship with the world. They

answer the question: what human needs are to be met, for whom, and at what cost?

They are a set of values about the organizations intended impact and are at the root

of its reason for existence. The board employs these policies to fulfill its primary

obligation: to decide, enunciate, and enforce the organizational mission. Ends are

about what an organization isfor, not about what it does. The following categories,

all of which are defined as means, include policies that govern organizational effortsto meet the ends as defined by the board.

Executive Limitations

Executive limitations are policies about staff means that represent the boards

values about methods and conduct as the staff pursues organizational ends. Policies

regarding prudence and ethics are concerned with howresults are achieved in


11/18

accordance with board values. A board should exercise only as much oversight of

staff means as is necessary; executive limitations policies should constrain executive

latitude while enabling staff to make decisions in line with the values that the

policies represent. Examples of executive limitations include policies regarding

budgets, asset protection, and vendor relations. Explicitly defined executive

limitations policies ensure that the boards standards serve as an anchor for all staff

actions.

Board-Management Delegation

Policies in this category determine how authority is passed to the CEO or staff and

the way in which performance using that authority is reported and assessed. The

function of the board and CEO roles should be simply and clearly defined. The CEO is

responsible to the board on behalf of him or herself as well as on behalf of the entire

staff. The board must preemptively set criteria to monitor the CEO. Monitoring is

always the comparison of reality to policy. In assessing the CEO, the board should

monitor compliance with ends and executive limitations policies.

Governance Process

A board must explicitly define its purpose and job description so it can discipline its

time and action. Boards have a moral (and sometimes legal) obligation of

trusteeship; moral ownership is the basis on which a board determines its

accountability to various stakeholders. The board is responsible for its own

development, its own job design, its own discipline, and its own performance (189).

Construction of Governance Process policies begins with consideration of theboards overall reason for existence, because the ultimate test of process is whether

this reason is fulfilled. Governance process policies determine how a board will

carry out its leadership and allow the board to enforce upon itself whatever

discipline is needed to govern with excellence.

Leadership through explicit policies offers the opportunity to think big and lead

others to think big (41). When boards enact the right policies, the practice of

approving budgets, plans, and other administrative material a process that

cripples strategic management - becomes unnecessary. Policy Governance allows

boards to define and inspire staff to fulfill the organizations overall mission.

Dr. Donald Hambrick

Dr. Hambrick holds degrees from the University of Colorado (B.S.), Harvard

University (M.B.A.), and The Pennsylvania State University (Ph.D.) and is currently

an Evan Pugh Professor and Smeal Chaired Professor of Management at The


12/18

Pennsylvania State University. He has had several of his works on board related

research published in places such as the Oxford University Press and the Strategic

Management Journal. He has also consulted on this issue with top companies such as

Pfizer, Merck, Pepsico, and McKinsey. We have used both Hambrick's published

articles, as well as our meetings with him on two separate occasions--detailed

below--to create a foundation for our findings.

Prior to meeting with President Erickson, we met with Hambrick to solidify our

proposed research topics. At this meeting, Hambrick suggested that boards have

four major functions: helping the organization access resources, providing advice

and counsel, management and fiduciary oversight, and fulfilling a symbolic and

ceremonial role for representing the organization. Hambrick claimed that these four

principals were fundamental pieces in determining an answer to our original thesis

question, "What makes an effective board?". We were able to use these four areas to

categorize our initial findings on activities that current university boards wereinvolved with. Hambrick also discussed with us the contributions made by Dr. Chait

and Dr. Carver that we had not yet researched including how their research applied

to our current topics and what their research said about different taxonomies such

as nonprofit boards, corporate boards, and higher education boards. Hambrick also

suggested that we look at correlations between different factors of boards such as

board size, donation sizes, idea-related contributions (albeit a hard to quantify

variable), and more. Finally in our meeting, Hambrick helped us refine our overall

questions and gave us resources and guidance in moving forward.

Our second meeting with Hambrick was conducted six months later. In our meeting

we discussed with him the scale that we created to answer our new thesis question,

"Are university boards transitioning to a more corporate model of governance in

response to increased financial means, stricter oversight, and public relations

crises?In our meeting we discussed each component of our scale--this included

pieces such as whether it was fair to assess transparency based on how available a

university's charter was, whether it was important to have an audit committee, and

how to accurately quantify the scores universities would receive based on certain

amounts of members in our board. Hambrick at no point input his own variables or

deleted ours based on his personal findings and opinions, but rather acted as asounding board for us to ask our questions and help us clarify our purpose and

syntax. This meeting with Hambrick focused mostly on the specifics of our scale

rather than general principles that we discussed in our first meeting. Additionally,

we discussed general ideas such as how we can remove bias from our findings and

how we can structure our results in a way that is easy to follow from a reader's

perspective (ie. creating graph, discussing correlations, etc.). Our meeting ended


13/18

with Hambrick asserting that our scale was both useful and defendable to the field

of research and then connecting us to more resources that could help us further

substantiate our findings.

Conclusion

Our findings show little correlation among land-grant, public or private, or state

university status and placement on the matrix. Therefore, university scores should

be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is, however, intended to be used as a self-

assessment tool, so identifying aspirant schools on the matrix may be useful.

Though some institutions may not aspire to be particularly corporate, the majority

would say that the increased transparency and coherence of structure that typifies

corporate boards would benefit their groups. The criteria contained in Appendix I

should serve as a guide to improving an institutions score.


14/18


15/18

Appendix I

The criteria for transparency includes:

Constitution Available Online 1 pt

Constitution on University

Website

.5 pt

Bylaws Available Online 1 pt

Bylaws on University Website .5 pt

Charter Available Online 1 pt

Charter on University Website .5 pt

Meeting Minutes Available 1 pt

Some Meetings are Public 1 pt

Public Meetings Occur >

Annually

.5 pt

The criteria for structure includes:

President is Member of Board 1 pt

President is Chair of Board .25

pt

7-14 Members on Board .5

pt

9-12 Members on Board 1 pt

1-9 Meetings Per Year 1 pt

Adhere to Retirement Age .5

pt

University President is

Regularly Assessed

.5

pt

University President is Annually

Assessed

1 pt

University President is

Assessed > Annually

.5

pt

Board has

Nominating/Governance

Committee

.5

pt

Board has Audit Committee .5

pt

3-5 Total Committees .5

pt


16/18

Works Cited

Dr. Carver, John. Boards that Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.

Print.

Dr. Chait, R. P., Ryan, W. P., & Taylor, B. E. (2005). Governance as Leadership:

Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Donald C. Hambrick. (2013, February 28). Retrieved from

http://www.personal.psu.edu/dch14/vitae.html

Faculty Detail: Dr. Richard Chait. (2012). Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Educational. Retrieved February 24, 2013, from

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/directory/faculty/faculty-

detail/?fc=312&flt=c&sub=all

Finkelstein, S., D.C. Hambrick, and A. Cannella, Strategic Leadership: Theory and

Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards, Oxford

University Press, 2009.

Spencer Stuart. "About Us." Spencer Stuart. N.p., 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.

Spencer Stuart. "Research & Insight." Spencer Stuart. N.p., 2013. Web. 01 Mar. 2013.

Spencer Stuart. Spencer Stuart US Board Index 2012. Rep. Spencer Stuart, Nov. 2012.

Web. 1 Mar. 2013.
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/directory/faculty/faculty-detail/?fc=312&flt=c&sub=allhttp://www.gse.harvard.edu/directory/faculty/faculty-detail/?fc=312&flt=c&sub=allhttp://www.gse.harvard.edu/directory/faculty/faculty-detail/?fc=312&flt=c&sub=allhttp://www.gse.harvard.edu/directory/faculty/faculty-detail/?fc=312&flt=c&sub=allhttp://www.gse.harvard.edu/directory/faculty/faculty-detail/?fc=312&flt=c&sub=all


17/18

Matrix information retrieved from the following websites:

1.

http://about.usc.edu/administration/board-of-trustees/

2. http://boardoftrustees.wustl.edu/composition.html

3.

http://brown.edu/about/administration/corporation/

4.

http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/

5.

http://governingboards.rutgers.edu/

6. http://professor.rice.edu/professor/Board_of_Trustees.asp

7.

http://regents.umich.edu/

8. http://secretary.columbia.edu/trustees-columbia-university

9.

http://trustees.duke.edu/

10.

http://trustees.jhu.edu/

11.

http://trustees.msu.edu/

12.http://trustees.osu.edu/

13.http://trustees.uchicago.edu/

14.

http://trustees.ufl.edu/15.http://tulane.edu/administration/board.cfm

16.

http://web.mit.edu/corporation/

17.http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/board-of-trustees/

18.

http://www.azregents.edu/

19.http://www.bot.uillinois.edu/

20.

http://www.brandeis.edu/trustees/

21.

http://www.bu.edu/trustees/

22.http://www.case.edu/bot/

23.

http://www.chancellor.pitt.edu/staff/trustees

24.

http://www.cmu.edu/about/leadership/trustees.shtml

25.

http://www.emory.edu/secretary/board_of_trustees/index.html26.http://www.foundation.umd.edu/foundation/index.php?option=com_conten

t&view=article&id=55&Itemid=54

27.http://www.harvard.edu/board-overseers

28.

http://www.indiana.edu/leadership/trustees.shtml

29.

http://www.kansasregents.org/

30.

http://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-university-administration.html

31.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/about/governance/

32.http://www.psu.edu/trustees/

33.

http://www.purdue.edu/bot/

34.http://www.regents.iowa.gov/

35.

http://www.rochester.edu/aboutus/trustees.html36.http://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/

37.

http://www.supportuw.org/about-us/board-of-directors/

38.http://www.tamus.edu/regents/

39.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~our/opmanual/i/01.htm

40.http://www.unc.edu/depts/trustees/

41.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/

42.

http://www.uoregon.edu/leadership
http://about.usc.edu/administration/board-of-trustees/http://about.usc.edu/administration/board-of-trustees/http://boardoftrustees.wustl.edu/composition.htmlhttp://boardoftrustees.wustl.edu/composition.htmlhttp://brown.edu/about/administration/corporation/http://brown.edu/about/administration/corporation/http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/http://governingboards.rutgers.edu/http://governingboards.rutgers.edu/http://professor.rice.edu/professor/Board_of_Trustees.asphttp://professor.rice.edu/professor/Board_of_Trustees.asphttp://regents.umich.edu/http://regents.umich.edu/http://secretary.columbia.edu/trustees-columbia-universityhttp://secretary.columbia.edu/trustees-columbia-universityhttp://trustees.duke.edu/http://trustees.duke.edu/http://trustees.jhu.edu/http://trustees.jhu.edu/http://trustees.jhu.edu/http://trustees.msu.edu/http://trustees.msu.edu/http://trustees.msu.edu/http://trustees.osu.edu/http://trustees.osu.edu/http://trustees.osu.edu/http://trustees.uchicago.edu/http://trustees.uchicago.edu/http://trustees.uchicago.edu/http://trustees.ufl.edu/http://trustees.ufl.edu/http://trustees.ufl.edu/http://tulane.edu/administration/board.cfmhttp://tulane.edu/administration/board.cfmhttp://tulane.edu/administration/board.cfmhttp://web.mit.edu/corporation/http://web.mit.edu/corporation/http://web.mit.edu/corporation/http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/board-of-trustees/http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/board-of-trustees/http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/board-of-trustees/http://www.azregents.edu/http://www.azregents.edu/http://www.azregents.edu/http://www.bot.uillinois.edu/http://www.bot.uillinois.edu/http://www.bot.uillinois.edu/http://www.brandeis.edu/trustees/http://www.brandeis.edu/trustees/http://www.brandeis.edu/trustees/http://www.bu.edu/trustees/http://www.bu.edu/trustees/http://www.bu.edu/trustees/http://www.case.edu/bot/http://www.case.edu/bot/http://www.case.edu/bot/http://www.chancellor.pitt.edu/staff/trusteeshttp://www.chancellor.pitt.edu/staff/trusteeshttp://www.chancellor.pitt.edu/staff/trusteeshttp://www.cmu.edu/about/leadership/trustees.shtmlhttp://www.cmu.edu/about/leadership/trustees.shtmlhttp://www.cmu.edu/about/leadership/trustees.shtmlhttp://www.emory.edu/secretary/board_of_trustees/index.htmlhttp://www.emory.edu/secretary/board_of_trustees/index.htmlhttp://www.emory.edu/secretary/board_of_trustees/index.htmlhttp://www.foundation.umd.edu/foundation/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=54http://www.foundation.umd.edu/foundation/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=54http://www.foundation.umd.edu/foundation/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=54http://www.foundation.umd.edu/foundation/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=54http://www.foundation.umd.edu/foundation/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=54http://www.harvard.edu/board-overseershttp://www.harvard.edu/board-overseershttp://www.harvard.edu/board-overseershttp://www.indiana.edu/leadership/trustees.shtmlhttp://www.indiana.edu/leadership/trustees.shtmlhttp://www.indiana.edu/leadership/trustees.shtmlhttp://www.kansasregents.org/http://www.kansasregents.org/http://www.kansasregents.org/http://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-university-administration.htmlhttp://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-university-administration.htmlhttp://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-university-administration.htmlhttp://www.princeton.edu/main/about/governance/http://www.princeton.edu/main/about/governance/http://www.princeton.edu/main/about/governance/http://www.psu.edu/trustees/http://www.psu.edu/trustees/http://www.psu.edu/trustees/http://www.purdue.edu/bot/http://www.purdue.edu/bot/http://www.purdue.edu/bot/http://www.regents.iowa.gov/http://www.regents.iowa.gov/http://www.regents.iowa.gov/http://www.rochester.edu/aboutus/trustees.htmlhttp://www.rochester.edu/aboutus/trustees.htmlhttp://www.rochester.edu/aboutus/trustees.htmlhttp://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/http://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/http://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/http://www.supportuw.org/about-us/board-of-directors/http://www.supportuw.org/about-us/board-of-directors/http://www.supportuw.org/about-us/board-of-directors/http://www.tamus.edu/regents/http://www.tamus.edu/regents/http://www.tamus.edu/regents/http://www.uiowa.edu/~our/opmanual/i/01.htmhttp://www.uiowa.edu/~our/opmanual/i/01.htmhttp://www.uiowa.edu/~our/opmanual/i/01.htmhttp://www.unc.edu/depts/trustees/http://www.unc.edu/depts/trustees/http://www.unc.edu/depts/trustees/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/http://www.uoregon.edu/leadershiphttp://www.uoregon.edu/leadershiphttp://www.uoregon.edu/leadershiphttp://www.uoregon.edu/leadershiphttp://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/http://www.unc.edu/depts/trustees/http://www.uiowa.edu/~our/opmanual/i/01.htmhttp://www.tamus.edu/regents/http://www.supportuw.org/about-us/board-of-directors/http://www.suny.edu/Board_of_Trustees/http://www.rochester.edu/aboutus/trustees.htmlhttp://www.regents.iowa.gov/http://www.purdue.edu/bot/http://www.psu.edu/trustees/http://www.princeton.edu/main/about/governance/http://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-university-administration.htmlhttp://www.kansasregents.org/http://www.indiana.edu/leadership/trustees.shtmlhttp://www.harvard.edu/board-overseershttp://www.foundation.umd.edu/foundation/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=54http://www.foundation.umd.edu/foundation/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=54http://www.emory.edu/secretary/board_of_trustees/index.htmlhttp://www.cmu.edu/about/leadership/trustees.shtmlhttp://www.chancellor.pitt.edu/staff/trusteeshttp://www.case.edu/bot/http://www.bu.edu/trustees/http://www.brandeis.edu/trustees/http://www.bot.uillinois.edu/http://www.azregents.edu/http://www.adminplan.northwestern.edu/board-of-trustees/http://web.mit.edu/corporation/http://tulane.edu/administration/board.cfmhttp://trustees.ufl.edu/http://trustees.uchicago.edu/http://trustees.osu.edu/http://trustees.msu.edu/http://trustees.jhu.edu/http://trustees.duke.edu/http://secretary.columbia.edu/trustees-columbia-universityhttp://regents.umich.edu/http://professor.rice.edu/professor/Board_of_Trustees.asphttp://governingboards.rutgers.edu/http://facts.stanford.edu/administration/http://brown.edu/about/administration/corporation/http://boardoftrustees.wustl.edu/composition.htmlhttp://about.usc.edu/administration/board-of-trustees/


18/18

43.

http://www.usg.edu/regents/

44.http://www.vanderbilt.edu/boardoftrust/bylaws/bylaws_procedures.php

45.

http://www.virginia.edu/bov/

46.http://www.washington.edu/regents/

47.

http://www.yale.edu/about/corporation.html

48.

http://www1.umn.edu/regents/index.php49.https://secure.www.upenn.edu/secretary/trustees/

50.

https://trustees.cornell.edu/

51.https://www.cu.edu/regents/

52.

https://www.utexas.edu/about-ut/administration
http://www.usg.edu/regents/http://www.usg.edu/regents/http://www.usg.edu/regents/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/boardoftrust/bylaws/bylaws_procedures.phphttp://www.vanderbilt.edu/boardoftrust/bylaws/bylaws_procedures.phphttp://www.vanderbilt.edu/boardoftrust/bylaws/bylaws_procedures.phphttp://www.virginia.edu/bov/http://www.virginia.edu/bov/http://www.virginia.edu/bov/http://www.yale.edu/about/corporation.htmlhttp://www.yale.edu/about/corporation.htmlhttp://www.yale.edu/about/corporation.htmlhttp://www1.umn.edu/regents/index.phphttp://www1.umn.edu/regents/index.phphttp://www1.umn.edu/regents/index.phphttps://secure.www.upenn.edu/secretary/trustees/https://secure.www.upenn.edu/secretary/trustees/https://secure.www.upenn.edu/secretary/trustees/https://trustees.cornell.edu/https://trustees.cornell.edu/https://trustees.cornell.edu/https://www.cu.edu/regents/https://www.cu.edu/regents/https://www.cu.edu/regents/https://www.utexas.edu/about-ut/administrationhttps://www.utexas.edu/about-ut/administrationhttps://www.utexas.edu/about-ut/administrationhttps://www.utexas.edu/about-ut/administrationhttps://www.cu.edu/regents/https://trustees.cornell.edu/https://secure.www.upenn.edu/secretary/trustees/http://www1.umn.edu/regents/index.phphttp://www.yale.edu/about/corporation.htmlhttp://www.virginia.edu/bov/http://www.vanderbilt.edu/boardoftrust/bylaws/bylaws_procedures.phphttp://www.usg.edu/regents/

Documents

Board Research