Dr. Erin Lynch
A new president had just been selected by the sitting board, so I was joining at the ground floor with the newest leader after a series of leadership changes and bad press. I was hopeful. I was enthusiastic. I was engaged, until I was asked (as a “neutral member”) to investigate an internal board complaint against the board chair from another board member, and then everything devolved.
While the fledgling president, who was also a former board member, was trying to build and re-build relationships with local stakeholders and potential financial partners in this new role, the board members fought amongst themselves about by-laws interpretations, entertained hearsay and gossip from alumni that seeped into board decision-making, and indiscriminately used Roberts Rules of Order (12th Edition), despite formal training on its use. Within a year of the board appointing the new president, the board chair resigned, the vice chair became chair, alumni association became vice chair, and the alumni majority of the board dismissed the president without cause or completion of the contractually mandated annual evaluation. Together the two senior board leaders commandeered access to the financial accounts of the institution. I resigned shortly thereafter.
My commitment to HBCUs and vow to do no harm has always driven my public comment on HBCU laundry. But, the most recent dismissal of Dr. Kevin James from Morris Brown, who demonstrated nothing less than a storybook plot of overcoming challenges and success, triggered for me the same anger and disappointment I had with the HBCU board on which I served briefly. From the outside looking in I saw the same trends, a charismatic leader with strategic vision, and evidence of progress, being unexpectedly dismissed at a turning point of stability for an institution that has been without it. There is more harm in not speaking up.
In 2024 I conducted a study exploring the “HBCU Presidential Crisis” (Lynch, 2024) and not only did the data conclude that the turnover rates for HBCU presidents were not at crisis level because they were at the lowest they had been in a years, but it also implicated there was limited accountability for the boards that were contributing to presidential turnover. A few months later, researchers Drs. Trina Fletcher, currently at the University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, and Lesia Crumpton-Young, former president of Texas Southern University, currently of the National Science Foundation, facilitated a national convening regarding this very national topic. While the loosely discussed topic regarding board accountability and adverse impact emerged, no solutions were created. The greatest minds from current and former HBCU leadership, non-profits, independent consultants with years of service to the HBCU community, and even representatives of national associations of board governance could not come to a consensus on a problem we all acknowledged.
Around the time of the convening several public incidences occurred. There was the sudden presidential change of Dr. Jaffus Hardrick at Florida Memorial University during a time of growth and funding stability. He was replaced by a board member. Then there was the presidential change of Dr. Marcus Burgess at St. Augustine’s after the negotiation of a real estate partnership to bring unprecedented financial resources to the university. And now the dismissal of Dr. James at Morris Brown College, despite the Cinderella story of its comeback, its unprecedented growth, and its national celebration as to what visionary leadership can look like for an HBCU when it is consistent. James was also replaced by a board member.
This open letter comes in response: Dear Boards, it’s y’all. Those of us in the academy are familiar with the work of Dr. Felicia Commodore, which tells us how significant effective governance is for our institutions. We know, for HBCUs who have always carried a heavier burden for this country, ineffective governance has more adverse impact on our long-term abilities to grow. We know, board inconsistency impacts our institutional reputation. We know, it steers would-be effective leaders from schools with the most need. We know, it decreases our likelihood of rallying external supports for fundraising because risk-adverse potential donors avoid the volatility of these boards. Despite what we know and the examples of highly effective board-president relationships (Wiley University, Benedict College, Paul Quinn, among others), there is no respite for the executive leaders who must suffer in silence with these toxic and hard fast board compositions. Rather, the nation turns its sharp tongue and pointed fingers to the executive leaders and question their abilities, while there is limited accountability for the boards.
