SACSCOC Off-site Committee’s Response

Non-Compliance

The functions and responsibilities of the Board of Supervisors are clearly outlined in two Louisiana Revised Statutes (17:3351 and 17:3352). One of these Revised Statutes (17:3551) further clarifies that the board bylaws should differentiate between the responsibilities of the board, the administration and the faculty. Within this legal framework, the Bylaws and Regulations of the Board of Supervisors outline the rights, duties and responsibilities of the various administrative offices of the institution (Article VII) and the academic staff (Article VIII). Policy Statement 50 is based on the Board’s Bylaws; it further expands the description of the responsibilities of the administration and the faculty and provides much more detail. Finally, the LSU Faculty Handbook and LSU Staff Handbook are consistent with the Board Bylaws and the institution’s Policy Statement providing even more details regarding the rights, duties and responsibilities of faculty and staff members.

The institution’s report provides several examples of actions taken either by the board or by the administration and the faculty in an effort to demonstrate the distinction in practice between the functions of the different groups. The most important of these examples include contractual and employment agreements approved by the Board and scholarship and admission policies and standards approved in succession by the faculty and the Board. All the examples shown indicate that there is indeed a distinction in the functions of the different groups and that in all cases appropriate action was taken by the corresponding group.

However, the Bylaws and Regulations of the Board of Supervisors indicate that there are campus administrative officers who are holding positions at the pleasure of the Board (Bylaws; Article VII, 4d). Although a list of these individuals was not provided in the report, it appears that they include everyone at the level of the Dean and above, since the same document indicates that termination of all positions of Dean or equivalent or above must be approved by the Board (Regulations; Chapter II, 2-5.1 A8). This arrangement does not provide clear and appropriate distinction between the policy-making functions of the governing board and the responsibility of the administration to manage.

LSU A&M’s Response

The SACSCOC Offsite Committee’s review reported substantial information evidencing a proper board/administration distinction. 

The functions and responsibilities of the Board of Supervisors are clearly outlined in two Louisiana Revised Statutes (17:3351 and 17:3352). One of these Revised Statutes (17:3551) further clarifies that the board bylaws should differentiate between the responsibilities of the board, the administration and the faculty. Within this legal framework, the Bylaws and Regulations of the Board of Supervisors outline the rights, duties and responsibilities of the various administrative offices of the institution (Article VII) and the academic staff (Article VIII).

Nonetheless, the committee made the following finding of non-compliance:

However, the Bylaws and Regulation of the Board of Supervisors indicate that there are campus administrative officers who are holding positions at the pleasure of the Board (Bylaws: Article VII, 4d).  Although a list of these individuals was not provided in the report, it appears that they include everyone at the level of the Dean and above since the same document indicates that termination of all positions of Dean or equivalent or above must be approved by the Board (Regulations; Chapter II, 2-5.1 A8). This arrangement does not provide clear and appropriate distinction between the policy-making functions of the governing board and the responsibility of the administration to manage.”

Administrative Appointments

The phrase “pleasure of the Board” is the customary expression at LSU to describe “at will” appointments.  Except in rare circumstances, all administrative appointments are “at will.”  The holder of an administrative position often has academic tenure so that only the administrative appointment is “at will.” 

The Bylaws and Regulations of the LSU Board of Supervisors set forth the process by which employment decisions are made.  That process requires that all employment actions receive appropriate administrative and academic consideration before they are submitted for final approval to the LSU Board.  That process does not permit unilateral or arbitrary Board action and maintains an appropriate board/administration distinction.

The relevant Bylaws in Article VII provide:

“Section 2(c):  The President shall make all nominations for appointments, suspensions, and dismissals of all administrative officers holding positions at the pleasure of the Board, after consultation with the appropriate academic and/or administrative staff concerned. . . .

“Section 4(d):  The Chancellor, after consultation with the appropriate academic and/or administrative staff, shall make recommendations to the President for appointments, suspensions and dismissal of all campus administrative officers holding positions at the pleasure of the Board;" [1]

The Bylaws of this Board thus require that appointments, suspensions and termination of all administrative officers holding positions at the pleasure of the Board be made only after the Board receives input from the chancellors and the president, who must in turn have consulted with the appropriate academic and administrative staff.  These Bylaw requirements are further implemented by Chapter II of the LSU Regulations [2]. The Regulations require Board action only for the more significant employment actions, and the Board acts only after appropriate administrative review and recommendation. 

Under the Regulations, most employment decisions are final with approval of a chancellor or the president.  For personnel action requiring Board approval under the Regulations, the Board has a routine procedure.  At each meeting, the Board is presented with a list of “Interim Personnel Actions” which the Board routinely approves in globo.  As an example, the in globo list presented to the Board at its April 2013 and October 2013 meetings, respectively, are indicated within the minutes relating to that Board action [3] [4]. These interim personnel actions were approved without question or comment by unanimous vote. Thus, even with personnel actions requiring Board approval, the Board routinely relies on the recommendations of the chancellors, which have been reviewed by the president for compliance with University policies.