Un pensamiento para empezar el día

24 DE MARZO DE 2025 | ALEX USHER

1) Las juntas directivas tienen descripciones de trabajo complicadas

Formalmente, el rol de las Juntas Directivas es bastante claro. Seleccionan al liderazgo institucional, establecen (o al menos aprueban) las prioridades institucionales y, esto es lo más importante, supervisan las finanzas institucionales para garantizar que sean equitativas y se utilicen para servir al interés público. La razón por la que tenemos miembros laicos en las Juntas Directivas es porque representan al público, no al gobierno.

Sin embargo, los miembros de la Junta también desempeñan dos funciones no oficiales, y si bien no entran en conflicto entre sí, constituyen un delicado equilibrio. La primera es que se espera que las Juntas actúen como canal de información  de  la comunidad  a  la universidad. No solo representan una supervisión sustituta del gobierno en asuntos financieros, sino que son la voz de la comunidad en la Junta, una vía para que una amplia gama de aportaciones comunitarias se incorpore directamente a la toma de decisiones institucionales. La segunda es que deben actuar como embajadores institucionales  de  la universidad  ante  la comunidad, especialmente en lo que respecta a la recaudación de fondos.

Hacer todo esto bien, simultáneamente, requiere destreza. No se puede esperar que todos la posean. El universo de posibles miembros de la Junta Directiva capaces de hacer todo esto bien es bastante reducido.

2) Las universidades y los colegios se han vuelto mucho más difíciles de gestionar en las últimas dos décadas.

It’s not just that institutions are becoming bigger and more complicated, requiring more sophisticated financial, property and human resource strategies to keep everything afloat. It’s not simply that as institutions have been increasingly exposed to the market (a deliberate government policy almost everywhere in Canada), institutional risk exposure is increased; or that higher rates of labour militancy have meant that university Boards are constantly involved in complex labour negotiations (something that hospital Boards, for instance, do not need to worry about). It is that amongst all this change, Board positions and support for Board training and decision-making haven’t changed much at all. That’s a recipe for trouble.

3) Boards of governors are extremely part-time, volunteer jobs.

Board membership is nothing close to a full-time job. It’s maybe the equivalent of five to ten eight-hour days a year. For free. Yes, I know this is the way most non-corporate Boards work: hospital Boards, for instance, are run on more or less the same basis, though as noted above, hospital Boards don’t have to deal with labour issues the same way, and also they are much clearer about roles in the sense that they are much more “fundraisers” than “voices of the community.” But maybe—given the complicated nature of university and college operations—their Boards need something different in order to work effectively. Especially when lay members—while chosen to some degree for their affinity to the institution—almost by definition don’t necessarily have a strong grasp on the institution’s overall operating environment.

First, Boards on the whole need to be smaller than they are. In Canada boards of 25 and larger are not uncommon and I know of a couple which are over 40. We do this partially because we expect Boards to play three roles: “oversight and governance,” “listening to the community,” and “cheerleading for the university.” But if we want strong governance in particular, maybe it would be a good idea to split up these roles.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan, universities have “Senates” made up of alumni (not to be confused with the academic bodies of the same name at eastern universities, which in AB/BC go under names like “General Faculties Council”); Queen’s has a “University Council” that serves more or less the same purpose. To some degree, these bodies take some of the pressure off Boards with respect to both the fundraising and the listening roles. At other institutions, the fundraising role is effectively kept separate from governance by the President inviting the financial heavy-hitters on a “campaign cabinet” separate from the Board. More institutions could and probably should experiment with bodies like these or other things like it. For instance, why not create something like “Community Councils” which would act as a permanent way to interact with local interests and take some of that burden off Boards? Increasing the number of bodies to deal with issues would enable smaller, more focused and probably more effective governing boards.

Second, separating the community representation and fundraising, raises the possibility of upgrading the Board’s skills level, particularly if the institution goes outside its own alumni base to select Board members. It would probably be a great idea for more Boards to have former university Presidents (from other universities, obviously) to provide an external perspective on quality. In some countries, it is a rule that top universities have higher education experts from other countries on their boards to make sure that the institution has a sense of whether it is up to snuff with global practice. Having more people with experience dealing with government, or in running complex non-governmental organizations (especially hospitals) would probably benefit a lot of Boards as well.

And third: maybe we should consider paying Board members. I know, I know, voluntarism is a core principle of non-profit Board governance. It’s not something we should throw away lightly. But the complexity of modern universities and colleges—large ones, anyway—requires governing boards to have a lot of highly talented lay people working long hours in a field that is not their own in a role that carries some serious fiduciary responsibility. Maybe, just maybe, to get people to acquire the skills and put in more hours, some remuneration might not go amiss. Nothing huge, but enough to respect people’s time and skills.

Food for thought, anyway.