Jessica Beardsley did a great service to the university community by drawing attention to the unnerving policies set forth in the Board of Trustees' Statement of Expectations to be considered at this week's board meeting. After reviewing the proposed resolution myself, I would like to expand on her concerns.
In her Jan. 15 letter Proposal would deny freedom of speech for student trustees Jessica Beardsley did a great service to the university community by drawing attention to the unnerving policies set forth in the Board of Trustees' Statement of Expectations to be considered at this week's board meeting. After reviewing the proposed resolution myself, I would like to expand on her concerns.
Not only does the resolution prohibit trustees from publicly criticizing the president or the board, it also prohibits them from providing comment on an issue of institutional concern. Furthermore, the resolution requires the board to speak with a single voice and calls upon trustees to publicly support [a] decision even if they held a contrary view during board deliberations. In addition to limiting trustees' free speech, the rules will also consolidate the power of the Board Chair and President Roderick McDavis. The Statement of Expectations requires that all information about the university and its operations provided to the individual trustees flow through the president and the chair.
I hope that this language gives serious pause to any democratically-minded person. These rules will seriously constrict the transparency and public discussion of board decisions. They will lead to stagnation of opinion and of policies and destroy the primary benefit of having a multi-member board: diversity of thought. The requirement that trustees speak alike will likely have the unfortunate side-effect that they will think alike, too.
Indeed, dissenting board members, be they student trustees or not, have a unique understanding of decisions made and so play a vital role in the public discussion about them. This public discussion and dissent is vital to the renewing of debate that leads to the improvement of future decisions. However, the board apparently feels that even though it is the governing body of a public institution, it has no duty to publicly justify its action in response to criticisms from its own members. I ask you, when a governing body no longer feels the need to answer to criticism of its decisions, what will happen to the quality of those decisions?
The provisions in the Statement of Expectations will be damaging to the university as a whole in that they will seriously deteriorate the quality of deliberation surrounding the Board of Trustees' decisions. But, to reinforce Ms. Beardsley's point, these rules are especially detrimental to the student trustees.
The provisions would eviscerate the only power our two student trustees have. They have no vote, and as such are mostly (if not completely) ignored in committee and full board meetings. They may be able to publicly register their dissent during the open session of board meetings, but few have time to attend or read the dense minutes. The only power and influence student trustees have, then, is the power of publicity, gained by exercising public dissent. If students are to have any say in the governance of our university, these rule changes must be stopped.
For these reasons, I hope you will join me in writing letters to the Board of Trustees encouraging them to reject or modify the provisions that would weaken the public dialogue about decisions affecting the entire university community. You can find the Statement of Expectations on page 217 of the PDF located at http://www.ohio.edu/trustees/agendas/upload/BOT_Agenda-1-23-09.pdf.
Luke Myers is a senior studying political science and a roommate of Post staff writer Dave Hendricks.
4
Opinion
Letter to the Editor
