Creating Effective Nominating Committees

Governors and legislators play crucial roles in the governance of public colleges and universities. Governors' duties include selecting and appointing the citizen volunteers who help steer the policy course for these complex organizations. Legislators make important contributions through the confirmation process--and in many cases through less formal communications with the appointing authority regarding potential candidates. The executive and legislative branches also work together to provide the statutory framework within which these decisions are made.

Nonpartisan advisory or nominating committees to recruit, screen, and recommend board candidates are an important new tool in ensuring that the best candidates are considered for these important governance positions.

Several states have had success establishing advisory or nominating committees through executive order or legislation. The committees recommend candidates to the appointing authority for each vacancy that occurs on state institutional, multicampus, or coordinating boards. The best of these advisory committees are guided by detailed, written qualifications for prospective members that are tailored to each board.

The most effective trustees and regents have the knowledge base--and the leadership and listening skills--to craft effective policy in a rapidly evolving environment.

Accordingly, state leaders should promote board orientation and education programs both at the institutional and state level that bring together regents and trustees to discuss their basic responsibilities and to attain a full understanding of state level issues and funding priorities.

Nominating Committee Duties and Responsibilities

The authorizing legislation or executive order should charge the committee with recommending candidates to the appointing authority (governor or legislature) for each vacancy that occurs. The language should be comprehensive, encompassing the state higher education coordinating board; each state college, university or multicampus governing board; and any community or technical college board that is not locally elected or appointed.

The committee should recommend two or three candidates for each board vacancy, including a vacancy resulting from a board member's resignation. If the appointing authority does not choose one of the recommended candidates, the committee should recommend a new set of candidates.

The authorizing legislation or executive order should include:

Explicit, written qualifications for prospective board members. The criteria should be tailored to each institution, multicampus system, or coordinating agency, and be consistent with a written set of responsibilities of each board (from existing statutes, and as elaborated by the council).

A fair, open, and non-partisan process through which prospective board members can be considered by the committee for nomination, including the possibility of face-to-face interviews.

A process for active recruitment of prospective board candidates, including those of varied background, experience, occupation, gender and ethnicity.

Consideration of the needs of each institution, multicampus system, or coordinating agency before recommending candidates for appointment.

Provisions discouraging committee members from lobbying the appointing authority on behalf of any recommended candidates.

A process that ensures timely appointments so that vacancies do not go unfilled.

Language authorizing the committee to select its own chair and other officers, and removing committee members from consideration for board vacancies while serving on the panel.

Consistent with a state's constitutional and legal framework, policymakers should consider exempting from the state's open meeting laws the portion of the committee's meetings devoted to discussions of candidates for board appointment. Candid and confidential deliberations can lead to better decisions--and candidates should not be exposed to public embarrassment of any kind.

Committee Membership and Management

Committee members' terms should not be less than six years, and vacancies should be staggered to occur at a minimum of two-year intervals in order to ensure continuity and leadership. Members should be eligible for re-appointment.

Seven to fifteen committee members should provide sufficient scope and depth. Members should be broadly representative of the state, and balanced to reflect gender and racial/ethnic diversity. If the legislation provides for representation by congressional or judicial districts--or for other geographical designations--it also should include at-large members, to ensure that statewide interests prevail over narrow regional or private interests.

The governor should seek advice and recommendations on appointments to the committee from a broad cross-section of individuals and organizations, including the legislature, faculty and student groups, college presidents, state boards for elementary and secondary education, and the business community. The legislative confirming authority also should consult widely.

Committee members must value citizen governance and understand the unique role that public higher education governing boards perform, how multicampus boards function differently from single campus boards, and how the processes of statewide coordination and institutional governance differ. They also should have knowledge of the current issues facing higher education. At least some of the committee's members should have experience in the governance or administration of public higher education.

If the governor appoints the advisory committee, the state senate (or full legislature) may confirm the appointments as required by state constitution or statute for other executive appointments.

The act or executive order creating an advisory committee should specify how the committee is staffed and funded (for administrative costs and reimbursement of council member travel expenses), including provisions for a separate appropriation if necessary.

Trustee Education and Board Development

In addition to creating an advisory committee for trustee selection, the legislation should assure that there are provisions for orientation of new trustees and for on-going in-service education separate from institutionally sponsored programs. The advisory committee should have input on the design and content of the programs, with logistical and administrative support assigned to the state agency for higher education.

An annual or bi-annual state education program--particularly in states with multiple higher education boards--can strengthen communication and understanding, clarify responsibilities, and contribute to board cohesion and general effectiveness. Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Texas have implemented legislation mandating statewide trustee orientation and education.