Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

SMU’s Board of Secrecy

Published: Thursday, April 15, 2010

Updated: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 17:11

ernstandyoung

Michael Danser/ The Daily Campus

The SMU Board of Trustees sits behind closed doors in the Ernst and Young Gallery inside of the Fincher Building on February 26.


 

Editor's Note: The following is Part 3 in our "Hidden on the Hilltop: SMU's Culture of Secrecy" series, which examines the secretive nature of various operations at SMU.

For the rest of the series: Part 1Part 2aPart 2b

 

 

"The management and direction of all affairs and interests of the University shall be vested in the Board of Trustees."

– SMU Bylaws

 

The Ernst & Young Gallery is aptly named.

 

Four large arched windows frame the east side, filling the spacious room with sunlight when the blinds are raised. The entrance, on the west side of the Fincher Building, features double doors with glass panes that allow a sweeping view of the gallery.

 

The room, housed in the original home of the Cox School of Business, seems a fitting place for SMU's stated mission: "The University is dedicated to the values of academic freedom and open inquiry and to its United Methodist heritage."

 

On the morning of Friday, Feb. 26, the SMU Board of Trustees conducted its first meeting of 2010 in the Ernst & Young Gallery. The window blinds were closed. Partitions were placed next to the double doors inside the room to prevent anyone from peering in. Doors were locked.

 

This too is fitting.

 

The board of trustees is the most powerful group at SMU. Its members have final say over every important decision on campus from the budget to the Bush Library. They make these decisions behind closed doors. The board treats its records like classified documents.

Every agenda, vote, resolution and contract is hidden from public view. Trustees are equally vigilant in shielding the minutes of its meetings. The board provides no list of the reports it receives, much less their contents.

 

On the SMU Web site, there is a single page devoted to the board of trustees. It lists the names of the 42 members and little else. There is a phone number for "The Secretary."

That person is Mary Anne Rogers, associate secretary in SMU Legal Affairs. Rogers said the limited information on the trustees is designed to protect their privacy.

 

"We try to protect our board members as much as possible," she said. "You can understand. They are CEOs of big companies and are very important people."

 

Ray Hunt is a VIP. A billionaire. Number 261 on Forbes 2009 list of the world's richest people. President George W. Bush twice appointed him to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Hunt has been a member of the SMU Board of Trustees since 1976. SMU's Articles of Incorporation  limit the maximum length of service to 12 consecutive years. The Daily Campus wanted to ask Hunt how he's managed to stay on the board for 34 years. Hunt declined to be interviewed.

 

He was not alone. The Daily Campus contacted more than half of the 42 trustees. Three of every four refused.

 

For the trustees, there cannot be too much secrecy. Each year, the trustees solemnly promise  never to make public what they discuss in their meetings.

 

 "At the first of the year, we all pledge to one another that this is a private discussion, that this should not be shared with anyone else," said Caren Prothro, a trustee for at least 17 years.

 

The handful of trustees who did grant interviews said confidentiality is good for the board and beneficial for SMU. They see no reason to explain their decisions. And they have no intention of changing how they do business.

 

According to Linda Pitts Custard, a trustee since 2000, questioning the board is a waste of time.

 

"Students need to focus on class and getting A's," she said. "As long as the school functions well, students need to not worry about how the board is run."

 

Many SMU students said that given the stakes involved, it would be foolish for them to be unconcerned.

 

"I wholeheartedly disagree" with Custard's view, said Drew Konow, a junior from Baton Rouge majoring in religious studies and foreign language and literature. "That's espousing an opinion that somehow students aren't affected by decisions and the decisions aren't relative to our future."

 

Alex Vazquez, a senior from Dallas majoring in Spanish and psychology, echoes Konow's view.  "[The board members] deal with the outward perspective…It's like they're looking at a picture and saying, ‘Oh, it looks so pretty.'  But they don't see the inside, the nuts and bolts."

 

There is a student trustee on the board. Fred Olness, president of the Faculty Senate, and other trustees proudly point to this as evidence that they are in touch with students and their concerns.

 

"SMU is rather unique in the sense that it has a student representative to the board of trustees and also the committees," he said.

 

However, American University and Duke University—both private Methodist colleges recognized by SMU as peer schools—may see this as less impressive. American has three student representatives on its 32-member board, said Maria Pahigiannis, the board's assistant secretary. Duke has four student trustees on its 36-member board, according to Christine Collins, the board's executive assistant.

 

There is a unique aspect to SMU's student trustee. At American and Duke, the student body elects those who will represent them on the board of trustees. At SMU, any full-time student who has completed at least 36 hours with a GPA of 3.0 or higher can apply for the student trustee's position.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

11 comments Log in to Comment

Anonymous
Sat May 8 2010 06:56
Terrific and insightful reporting! You have to ask yourself why Turner and the boys need so much privacy when the boards of legitimately respectable institutions that are nationally regarded -- Duke and Emory are just two examples here -- run top-flight research universities with a transparency that respects students, alumni, staff and faculty, the peons charged with actually fulfilling the mission of the school. Then again, the students must not be that integral to SMU's purpose, or so it seems. They aren't the "CEOs of big companies and ...very important people.” Thanks to the Board for that regal wording. I could not make it up!
Anonymous
Sat Apr 17 2010 00:09
Saying that we need to "accept" that SMU is always going to be rich, white, and republican is exactly what is wrong with this university.

Way to progress the stereotype of SMU to its greatest proportions. I wish you had left your name so I could send you a personal letter of disgust.

Anonymous
Fri Apr 16 2010 13:49
Way to plug yourself for the position Cornwell. Shameless much?
Anonymous
Fri Apr 16 2010 11:12
this is a ridiculous article. maybe most of the students here chose SMU because it consists of and is ran by mostly white, rich, republicans. there is nothing wrong with that. minority students here on scholarship, who probably didnt have much of a choice of what university to attend, need to shut up and accept that SMU is and always will be majority white, rich, and Republican.
Steve Edwards, SMU Professor
Fri Apr 16 2010 09:33
I loved the article. Great reporting on a subject of interest to all at SMU.

As a faculty member, I must say that closed meetings do not bother me. I encourage the administration to lead, to be bold, and to make strategic and business decisions that further the mission of the university. Therefore, we need to separate openness of process from the openness of inquiry.

As a comment above addresses, consumers, employees, and shareholders would not expect to participate in a business meeting about how Einstein Bagels selects its toasters, yet interested parties in higher education sometimes feel we should all be represented in such decisions.

Leadership by consensus results in slow and poor decisions, will stifle innovation, and will result in “average” outcomes. Let me give you two examples. I teach consumer behavior and the first thing I share with my students is that products should not try to be all things to all people. Back to the bagel example... design a new bagel for everyone. It will be bland and okay, but not exciting or different. The same thing applies to businesses, decision-making and universities. If a program or school or fundraising campaign must meet everyone’s goals, it will not be exciting to anyone.

Second, the ability of SMU administrators to make decisions without extreme bureaucracy is a FABULOUS advantage over large state schools that do have extreme transparency, as it allows for flexibility, innovation and speed! I proposed a social media marketing course and was told go ahead during the summer of 2008. Social media were exploding, but SMU was way ahead of the curve. When working at a large state university for 8 years before joining SMU, it took months (if not years) to get new courses approved. I sat in on meetings where faculty would edit the language in syllabi, change course titles, and ultimately reject proposals because decisions were made by consensus.

My main point is that SMU must maintain its flexibility and ability to innovate, and that may mean giving our leaders the ability to lead (without transparency).

However, when leadership is making decisions that no longer serve the best interests of the university community, there should be means by which interested parties can voice their dissatisfaction. The board of Trustees must have a mechanism by which they can hear the concerns of the relevant publics with interests in the policies at SMU, but I have to admit that I have never had an inclination to go to a Board of Trustees meeting, have you?

Anonymous
Thu Apr 15 2010 19:03
This is what journalism is all about! Great job!!
Anonymous
Thu Apr 15 2010 18:06
Just because people may not agree with the trustees does not mean that they don't like SMU. As part of the SMU community it is every student’s, faculty member’s, and alumni’s responsibility to know how our school is being run. I am not saying that I don’t like what the trustees have done for SMU but I feel that it would be wrong for all of us to turn a blind eye to what is happening behind those doors. How much of a voice can we have in making our school the best it can be if we don’t know what the trustees are doing?
Andrew Conwell
Thu Apr 15 2010 17:11
I am applying to be the Student Trustee, and trust that the people interviewing me can make a good decision about who should be chosen. The person chosen should be someone who has been heavily involved at SMU and knows how things run. The point of the Student Trustee is not to fight back, but rather to offer opinions and information from a student's perspective. The meetings are kept private just like any other large company. Not everyone knows what is going on during top management meetings, but you must trust in what they are doing.
Anonymous
Thu Apr 15 2010 16:17
To me, this was a waste of time. If you don't like SMU or the way the the trustees run it, go enroll somewhere else.
Anonymous
Thu Apr 15 2010 14:02
I agree, this is a great report on our trustees, and my thanks go out to those who put the information together. This is something that should have people questioning the system- why are we so different from our 'comparable' universities? It won't be something that will be changed, quite frankly, but it's good to hear about it.
Anonymous
Thu Apr 15 2010 12:40
This is an amazing story that is incredibly thought provoking. The people who worked on this story obviously put a lot of effort into it and deserve to be congratulated for their effort in providing the SMU community with such vital information.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In