Boards, Boundaries and Financial Exegencies

Holly Hall's blog post in the Chronicle of Philanthropy calls attention to a trend toward more program-involved governing boards that we are following in both independent and higher education.  In Hall's example of CompassPoint in San Francisco, as with Centenary College in Louisiana (see Chronicle of Higher Education article here), the board's program interest is in paring back on activities that are neither mission-centric or revenue enhancing.  

Program review, done openly and honestly, seems like a great idea to me.  Every program a governing board authorizes and funds ought to have outcomes that can be measured (e.g., impact on mission fulfillment), and any that consistently fail to add value should be fixed or ended.  But, as with most things, the devil is in the details, and the demon I fear most is that once engaged the board will habitually over-reach by entering operational areas best left up to the administrators.  

The antidote isn't an impermeable wall between governance and operations--acute financial pressure alone will persuade most boards to cross that boundary--but rather a proactive stance by presidents and heads of school toward tapping board wisdom about program sustainability.  It is the rare university president or school head that hasn't lamented starting more new initiatives than are sunset.  Maybe this is an opportunity to garner board backing for finally making some tough decisions about limiting what is on offer.