In search of reasons why people who
have studied and worked with state
institutional boards prefer them small,
Martorana and Hollis advance several
ideas. First, large numbers create cum-
bersome, unwieldy units for the trans-
action of business. Secondly, as the
number increases the tendency of fac-
tional splitting also increases. Thirdly,
conflicts of dates for meetings are more
probable in a large group. And fourthly,
the expense of travel and per diem costs
increases with size. For these reasons,
augmented by the political scientist's
rule of thumb that nine is a maximum
number for optimum board or commis-
sion operation, Martorana and Hollis
categorically state that "ideally, boards
should have an uneven number of
members, not fewer than 9 nor more
than 15."24
LENGTH AND OVERLAPPING OF TERMS
The average term for all twenty-two
boards is 6.7 years. This term is the
same for both the governing boards and
governing-coordinating boards and is
only slightly higher, seven years, for the
six Southern boards. This figure is also
close to the national average of 6.1
years25 and ranges from a low of three
years for the University of Indiana,
Purdue University, and Pennsylvania
State University boards to sixteen years
for the University of California board.
The members of all twenty-two uni-
versity boards serve overlapping terms.
Overlapping terms and terms of long
length can be viewed in a similar light.
They both promote the same desirable
goals. As Moos and Rourke note, stag-
24 martorana & hollis, supra note 4, at
29.
25 council of state governments,
higher education in the forty-eight
states 127 (1952).
286
|
gered, long terms minimize political in-
terference and serve to "sustain a spirit
of independence by a governing
board."26 Trustees of the North Caro-
lina board serve eight-year, overlapping
terms, twenty-five trustees being elected
every two years.27
The effect of a long term in achieving
these goals is more apparent than that
of overlapping terms. With respect to
the overlapping term it can be noted
that it encourages these objectives in
several ways. It provides continuity in
the board and assures it, at a time of
turnover, of members with prior experi-
ence and (presumably) expertise in
board matters. It also serves to limit
the influence of the appointive author-
ity on those boards selected by the gov-
ernor and to minimize the impact of
a particular — perhaps temporary — issue
when the board is selected by any
method. Furthermore, in the case of
election by the state legislature or by a
special group, the control of the elec-
toral body by a particular political party
at the time of selection would probably
produce a board of similar partisan
views. This possibility is also minimized
by overlapping terms.
'SUCCESSIVE TERMS
On all but one of the twenty-two
boards examined, members can succeed
themselves. In the case of the Board of
Trustees of the Ohio State University,
the Ohio Code states "No person who
has served a full nine-year term or more
26 Moos & rourke, supra note 8, at 305.
27 See N.C. gen stat. §116-4 (1966).
Although the statutory term is eight years, the
average length of service of the currently
elected 99 trustees (there is one unfilled
trustee position) is 8.72 years. The six honorary
members have served an average term of 12.8
years, and the average length of service for
all 105 members (ninty-nine elected and six
honorary) is 8.93 years.
|
