Does University Governance Require the Removal of Gallaudet Trustees?

Does anyone else wonder what's going on with Gallaudet's Board of Trustees?

All indications are that the search process that resulted in the selection of Jane Fernandes was very well conducted. Two-thirds of the Search Committee consisted of non-Trustees, including students, faculty, staff and alumni, a very inclusive group; no major stakeholders were excluded. That Search Committee was responsible for the process that resulted in the selection of Dr. Fernandes.

The search was managed by a major academic search company called Academic Search Consultation Service, one of the premier companies in its field. The lead consultant was Dr. Patricia T. van der Vorm, a very experienced and well-respected academic recruiter.

Once the Search Committee and consultants had completed their efforts, the Board of Trustees UNANIMOUSLY selected Jane Fernandes as Gallaudet's next president. Representatives of students, faculty, staff, and alumni joined Board representatives to grant Dr. Fernandes an overwhelming stamp of approval!

I don't know Jane Fernandes, or any of the other candidates, so I can't comment on the quality of the selection. But the PROCESS was very transparent, and was apparently a good one.

Yet a few short months later, the whole thing unraveled.

The Board reversed itself and rescinded its selection. Had they discovered that the reasons for which they unanimously appointed Dr. Fernandes had evaporated? Had they discovered that she was guilty of some malfeasance that she had successfully hidden from everyone? Did they realize that some previously overlooked candidate was the obvious choice for the job, and decide to withdraw Dr. Fernandes' appointment to allow them to select the superior candidate? The answer to all these questions is, "No."

The Gallaudet Board of Trustees reversed itself because of a protest by a militant faction of students, faculty, staff, and alumni.

The Board revealed no new information that led to the reversed decision, other than the fact that some community members didn't like their selection. In contrast to the search process, the reversal process was closed. It wasn't accessible to the public, so we don't know why the Board chose to abandon prudent University governance.

The meeting at which Dr. Fernandes' appointment was reversed occurred on Sunday, October 29, at a hotel near Dulles Airport. It was no doubt a long, tedious, and exhausting meeting. One would expect that, following the meeting, the Trustees dragged themselves home to try and recover before Monday morning employment demands.

Not so, according to the Washington Post's report (http://tinyurl.com/y94mvd) on what occurred AFTER the Board meeting:

"On Sunday night, some trustees were treated like rock stars when they returned to campus. After talks with protest leaders in the 'war room' inside Fowler Hall, the board members who had pushed for a change emerged one by one through the door as the crowd screamed approval."

What's that? Some of the board members returned to the campus after the vote? That must be an hour's drive, even on a quiet Sunday evening. And they were treated like ROCK STARS? And they met with the students?

I've served on Boards, and one of the first things I learned was to respect the organization's hierarchy. In none of the organizations with which I was involved was it appropriate for a Board member to meet directly with community members, except through official channels. Does Gallaudet discourage such behavior? Do their bylaws address it?

In his Baltimore Sun op/ed piece entitled, "First step in Gallaudet revolution?" Kelby Brick (former director for law and advocacy at the National Association of the Deaf) writes:

"University bylaws prevent the board of trustees from receiving any communication or information from the campus community independent from the president's office."