Turmoil at UVA

[62Indian]

There is turmoil at the University of Virginia, our sister state university. The UVA Board of Visitors has accepted the resignation of the current UVA President, Teresa Sullivan, who has been on the job for only two years. The "resignation" was billed as a "mutual" decision but word is the BOV had enough members willing to fire Ms Sullivan if she did not resign. Ms Sullivan stated that "the BOV and she have a philosophical difference of opinion" - whatever that may mean.

Subsequently, the UVA faculty has voted overwhelmingly in support of Ms Sullivan and are attempting to have her reinstated.

This appears to be a stronger action by the BOV than in the case of W&M's Gene Nichol, who "resigned" because his contract was not going to be renewed.

The real issue may be UVA's out-of-control budget and the decline in state financial support. The annual operating budget at UVA ballooned from $678 Million per year in 1990 to $2.58 Billion per year in 2010. And, of course, like at W&M, state aid has declined.

Looks like UVA has more than it's Greecian architecture in common with the Greeks.

[ttgwm02]

What is so interesting to me is that the three to four members of the board involved in the removal have a distinct view of how 2007-2008 have changed the financial landscape of the United States than the rest.

Its also interesting that the views of those four are extremely aligned with the current Virginia governor - who has absolutely no interest in increasing contributions by the state to state universities.

I find it convenient when people use phrases like "crisis" and "new economic reality" as a justification for implementing policies that are, in reality, more an expression of political views than a response to economic realities.

[ttgwm02]

Dragas and her colleagues appear to have determined that the views of the current administration are, in fact, a permanent shift in how Virginia will approach funding higher education. I find such an approach naive and short sighted, but not uncommon among MBAs who saw their entire belief structure collapse in 2007-2008.

[wanm65]

What is so interesting to me is that the three to four members of the board involved in the removal have a distinct view of how 2007-2008 have changed the financial landscape of the United States than the rest.

Its also interesting that the views of those four are extremely aligned with the current Virginia governor - who has absolutely no interest in increasing contributions by the state to state universities.

I find it convenient when people use phrases like "crisis" and "new economic reality" as a justification for implementing policies that are, in reality, more an expression of political views than a response to economic realities.

Schapiro: What a governor can – and can't – do at U.Va.

The governance system for higher education aims to preserve the independence of an institution and its trustees' freedom to act in what they believe is its best interest. Rector Helen Dragas and the vice rector, Mark Kington, suggest the U.Va. board did that in standing firm in its disagreement with Sullivan, the school's first woman president, over long-term planning and funding. That forced her resignation after two years, triggering a search for her successor.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/v...-a-ar-1993227/

Oh and Rector Dragas was appointed by Tim Kaine

[ttgwm02]

The comparison is flawed. Ignoring the fact that this editorial is a barely disguised whitewash for the mess that Dragas and her colleagues have created at my second alma mater (W+M undergrad), the author failed to point out that Wilder, Baliles, and Darden all confronted Universities that were on the brink of catastrophe. Darden found UVA to be fast approaching the status of the University of Mississippi; Baliles and Wilder confronted internal chaos at state universities over which they were responsible.

None of the above situations bears any similarity to the situation at Virginia.

First, Virginia's President is among THE most highly qualified and highly regarded individuals in American higher education. Sullivan oversaw the University of Michigan and the University of Texas at Austin, and was heavily involved in guiding Michigan through state budget woes that were real and permanent, not merely overstated by state politicians to justify the implementation of asinine tax and social policy.

Second, Virginia's fund raising has increased significantly on Sullivan's watch, and Sullivan's greatest sin since becoming President appears to be seeking to balance the desire of Dragas and other board members to radically reshape UVa's strategic objectives with the need to a) consult with and manage relationships among powerful stakeholders, and b) preserve academic programs at the University that, if not profitable, nonetheless constitute valuable parts of Virginia's academic curriculum. The statements Dragas has released regarding the decision are heavy on corporate jargon and light on substance, and Dragas's reference to online education and health care suggest that the members of the board who sought to replace Sullivan sought to move UVA in a direction that many constituencies at UVA would find highly objectionable. (In particular, the establishment by UVA of a branding relationship for the distribution of online classes through a private company in which Goldman Sachs recently acquired a controlling interest).

Third, Dragas and her colleagues acted unilaterally. Members of the Board known to support President Sullivan were bypassed completely throughout Dragas's discussions on confronting Sullivan, while the Governor was kept informed throughout. That fact alone destroys the premise of this article - which attempts to frame Dragas' conduct as keeping within the best traditions of board governance in virginia's public universities. Further, Dragas called a meeting of the executive committee of the Board at Virginia for the sole purpose of getting approval to present Sullivan with an ultimatum, despite knowing in advance that two of the five members of the committee, both of whom supported Sullivan, would be unable to attend.

And while I would love to attack this author's implication that Dragas somehow "rose" to pre-eminence from lowly undergrad (Dragas in fact (unlike Sullivan) inherited her construction position and estate through her father, and my own estimate of Darden's academic qualities is so low that I would rather just keep it to myself - Darden students are known for their long nights and short stays at the library)

One thing I do believe here is that this decision - even if it was purely professional - shows both 1) poor judgment, 2) poor public relations acumen, and 3) reinforces every negative stereotype that the name "UVA" conjures in the minds of most Virginians and people across the country.

Finally - Dragas was appointed by Kaine, but she is a McDonnell supporter and McDonnell elevated Dragas to her position as rector. McDonnell appears, however to have recognized a radioactive situation, and is staying far clear.

[ttgwm02]

Further, 65 - look at your own statement: "what they believe is its best interest". The board did not vote unanimously; in fact most of the board was either a) kept in the dark completely regarding the removal of the President, or b) given no opportunity to voice an opinion. Most of the board members learned of Dragas' meeting with Sullivan from the news.

I would submit it was not what the board felt was in the universities best interest, but rather what three individuals on the board, NONE of whom have ANY experience working in either 1) higher education or 2) in any capacity for a state institution or as a state elected official, felt was UVa's best interest. All 3:

1) were elevated in stature on the board by Governor McDonnell,

2) work in privately held companies and possess extreme confidence in their own judgment;

3) share a common view that a) 2008 was a watershed event that will permanently affect the US, b) current fiscal climate in Virginia will only get worse and c) that Governor McDonnell's approach to higher education will be the permanent policy of the Commonwealth (despite significant evidence to the contrary)

4) have NO professional experience working in either higher education OR as a state elected official

That, to me, is the absolute opposite of good University governance.

[NCTribe]

State universities are in tough shape, and it isn't just because state governments have cut back on founding. They have allowed their costs to rise out of control and the only thing that lets students pay the higher tuition and fees are the government subsidized loans, and that gravy train will end someday as well. So, do you really think that the best people to run universities are folks with government back grounds or administrators from other universities?

I get tired of being solicited by my three alma maters. Fix your spending problems and I'll open my checkbook.

[wanm65]

Further, 65 - look at your own statement: "what they believe is its best interest". The board did not vote unanimously; in fact most of the board was either a) kept in the dark completely regarding the removal of the President, or b) given no opportunity to voice an opinion. Most of the board members learned of Dragas' meeting with Sullivan from the news.

I would submit it was not what the board felt was in the universities best interest, but rather what three individuals on the board, NONE of whom have ANY experience working in either 1) higher education or 2) in any capacity for a state institution or as a state elected official, felt was UVa's best interest. All 3:

1) were elevated in stature on the board by Governor McDonnell,

2) work in privately held companies and possess extreme confidence in their own judgment;

3) share a common view that a) 2008 was a watershed event that will permanently affect the US, b) current fiscal climate in Virginia will only get worse and c) that Governor McDonnell's approach to higher education will be the permanent policy of the Commonwealth (despite significant evidence to the contrary)

4) have NO professional experience working in either higher education OR as a state elected official

That, to me, is the absolute opposite of good University governance.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I made no statement. I just put the article out there.

And it would be constructive if you had your facts in order. The governor does NOT appoint a rector or vice-rector. The rector/vice-rector are elected by his/her fellow board members.

[billymac]

The decision, right or wrong, has been assailed far and wide over the past two days, with bad publicity raining down on the University. Obviously, those in charge did not quite figure this kind of national reaction.

[wanm65]

Darden is regularly ranked as being among the Top 15 business schools in the U.S. and Top 25 in the world. Its current rankings (updated November 2011) are as follows:
MBA Rankings

#3 (North America) - The Economist 2011[9]
#4 (Global) - The Economist 2011[9]
#9 - Forbes 2011[10]

MBA Specialty Rankings

#1 Education Experience - The Economist 2011[9]
#1 Student Satisfaction - Bloomberg Businessweek 2010[11]
#1 General Management - Financial Times 2011[12]
#1 Best Faculty - The Princeton Review 2011[13]
#3 Corporate Social Responsibility - Financial Times 2011[12]
#3 Entrepreneurship - The Princeton Review for Entrepreneur magazine 2011[14]
#5 Placement Success - Financial Times 2011[12]