Excerpts from Sounding Boards:
Advisory Councils in Higher Education
By Michael J. Worth, School of Public Policy and Public Administration,
The George Washington University

Excerpts on this page include:

• Types of boards and councils
• Advisory boards and councils
• The question of liability
• Relationships among boards
• Key findings from the 2006 AGB survey

Types of boards and councils

Governing boards

• Independent colleges and universities
• Single-campus public colleges and universities
• Statewide systems of colleges and universities

Institutionally related foundation boards

• State university systems
• Single campus of a multicampus university
• College or school within a university
• Specific programs, such as athletics

Alumni association boards

• Independent alumni associations
• Dependent alumni associations (unincorporated)
• Interdependent alumni associations

Advisory boards and councils

• Institution or campus (for example, President’s Council, President’s Advisory Board)
• College or school within a university (for example, Dean’s Council, Dean’s Board of Advisors)
• Department, program, discipline

Donor recognition societies

• Automatic “membership” to recognize donor giving at specific levels (for example, “President’s Council,” “Dean’s Circle,” and so forth)
• Informal, not truly “organizations”

Advisory boards and councils

The groups this book focuses on are advisory boards and councils that are associated with an entire institution or with a specific college or professional school within a university. Although there are wide variations in practice, these boards or councils have the following characteristics:

• They are external. Some may include faculty or other internal members, but their membership primarily comprises individuals from outside the campus.
• Membership is selective. Members are elected or appointed through some process. Membership is not automatic as a result of making a gift, although it is common for major donors to be selected for service.
• They do not have governing authority. They may exist to provide advice, advocacy, fundraising assistance, and other services to the institution. Some have formal bylaws and operate in a highly structured way. Some may have influence and be quasi-governing. However, they are not the governing boards of their institutions, nor do they have legal responsibility for a foundation or an incorporated alumni association.
• They serve an entire institution or a college or professional school within a university. College and university campuses host multiple advisory groups; the only ones included in the AGB survey were those that provide high-level advice directly to the president or dean. Those related to academic departments or disciplines, sometimes called “program committees,” were not included. Nevertheless, the findings and management practices recommended in this book may prove useful to them. Another advisory group excluded from the survey was the internal advisory board or council that represents staff, students, or faculty and that provides advice to the president or dean. While the dynamics of such groups may be similar to those of the councils discussed in this book, they are inherently different, because they encompass individuals who are employees of the institution and generally do not have external roles. Finally, donor recognition clubs or societies—often called the “President’s (or Dean’s) Council” or something similar, even using the term “advisory”—are not included in this book, as membership is given automatically to donors at a specified giving level.

More than one-third of the presidents responding to the AGB survey have an advisory group at the institution-wide level, with about the same percentage in independent and public institutions. The vast majority of deans surveyed—73 percent at independent universities and 78 percent at public universities—reported having an advisory group associated with their college or school, not including those groups that may pertain to specific academic departments, programs, centers, and other units. In total, participants described 482 different advisory groups, likely a fraction of all that exist throughout higher education.

It seems logical that presidents find less need for advisory groups than deans do, as presidents have direct access to their governing boards and, at many public institutions, the board of an institutionally related foundation. At some public institutions, the foundation board likely plays a role similar to that of an advisory board or council. (The survey specifically directed presidents to exclude foundation boards from their responses.) Deans are likely to have less contact with the institution’s governing or foundation boards and thus may find it more useful to have an advisory council associated directly with their schools.

The advisory groups go by a variety of names. The most common (42 percent of all the groups reported) includes the word “council,” for example, the President’s Council or the Dean’s Council. Another 38 percent are called “boards,” such as Dean’s Board of Advisors, President’s Advisory Board, and the like. Six percent are called the Board of Visitors, which is also the name of the governing board at some institutions. The remainder are known by various titles, including President’s Roundtable, Board of Associates, President’s or Dean’s Circle, Advocates, and Counselors.

The variations in terminology can be confusing. For example, while the Board of Visitors is the legal governing board of the University of Virginia, the Board of Visitors at private Davidson College is an advisory group; Davidson’s governing board is its Board of Trustees. A Board of Regents governs the University of California system, but the Board of Regents at private Georgetown University is not the principal governing board. That responsibility is held by a smaller group, called the President and Directors of Georgetown College. While the Board of Overseers at Harvard has a role in governing, the Overseers at the Tuck School of Dartmouth University “are responsible for advising the dean on the strategic direction and mission of the institution.”

Nancy Axelrod, who has written for BoardSource on the role of advisory groups in nonprofit organizations, suggests that it would be best to distinguish “boards” from “councils,” using the former only for groups that have legal governing authority and reserving the latter for purely advisory groups. While there is much to recommend Axelrod’s suggestion, the reality is that both terms are widely used in higher education. Interestingly, more than 67 percent of the independent institution presidents who responded to the survey and have an advisory group said their groups are known as “councils,” perhaps to distinguish them from the governing boards with which they directly work. However, deans—both in public and independent institutions—were somewhat more likely to identify their advisory groups as “boards,” perhaps because their affiliation with a specific college or school is sufficient to distinguish them from the institution’s governing board.

As discussed previously, advisory boards and councils are positioned across a governance continuum. Some are purely advisory; others have more formalized roles. Some have specific responsibilities delegated by the governing board and are considered quasi-governing. Boards with quasi-governing powers are sometimes found at campus-affiliated adjunct enterprises, such as radio and television stations, museums, and medical research centers. In addition, a number of public institutions that are part of systems (and campuses within multicampus institutions) have local boards that may participate in governance-type activities, including evaluation of the president and presidential searches. Some local boards of public campuses exist in statute, or in the bylaws of the system’s governing board, and some have members who are politically appointed. Others are more informal and are appointed by the president or chancellor of the campus; even then, some may have influence on certain decisions and may participate in activities that are quasi-governing in nature.

Advisory boards and councils may have some influence in searches and other decisions even at independent institutions. Points along the governance continuum are often quite close together, and the distinctions among advising, influencing, and quasi-governing can be minimal.

The question of liability

Some see the potential for legal liability associated with governing board service as one reason for the increasing numbers of advisory councils. Although there has been no research, some speculate that individuals may prefer to serve on advisory councils, where they can help with fundraising and benefit the institution with their expertise without the legal risks that come with fiduciary responsibility.

However, Ingram and Axelrod, who have both written about advisory councils, agree that advisory council members do face some risk. The more quasi-governing the advisory council is—and especially if it plays a role in personnel decisions—the greater the personal exposure its members may have. Ingram advises council members to adhere to the same duties of care, diligence, loyalty, prudence, and ethics as would apply if they were on the governing board. Also, institutions should cover their council members under the same liability insurance they provide for their governing board members.

Relationships among boards

Relationships among an institution’s various boards and councils can be complex and sometimes sensitive. This has been particularly visible in some celebrated cases of institutionally related foundation boards that have come into conflict with the governing boards of their host institutions. The boundaries among the various board and council roles may not always be clear. For example, some presidents at public campuses undoubtedly turn to their foundation or alumni association boards as a source of advice, so they are “advisory boards” as well as the governing boards of the foundation or alumni association.

Membership among various boards and councils may overlap; that is, some individuals may serve the institution in multiple capacities. Having overlapping membership among the various groups may help improve communication and avoid tension. However, if individuals fail to distinguish their roles when serving in various capacities, the overlap can be confusing. This point will be discussed further below.

On some campuses, alumni association boards, advisory councils, and governing boards are linked by having members of one serve ex-officio on others. For example, the chair of Georgetown’s Board of Regents serves as an ex-officio member of its Board of Directors. Wartburg College, in Waverly, Iowa, has national advisory boards associated with its academic programs and departments, including the Iowa Broadcasting Archives, the business department, the communication arts department, diversity programs, the leadership program, the library, Pathways Center, the social work department, and the vocations program. The advisory boards are linked to the governing Board of Regents through a President’s Advisory Council. Wartburg’s Web site explains:

The advisory boards have a direct reporting link to the Board of Regents through the President’s Advisory Council (PAC), which serves as an oversight group to review recommendations of the advisory boards and act as a sounding board on issues that are central to the entire campus. The chair of the PAC serves as a member of the Board of Regents. Membership on the PAC is comprised of chairpersons of each national advisory council and “at large” members who represent a wide range of expertise and disciplines.¹

The AGB survey asked presidents and deans at public institutions about membership overlaps between institutionally related foundation boards and advisory boards or councils. (Most independent institutions do not have such foundations.) Close to all—96 percent—of the presidents reported having a related foundation. Of those who have both a foundation and an advisory council, 73 percent said that the memberships of the two groups are completely separate, while 13 percent said there is some overlap. Of the deans who responded, only 36 percent have a foundation that serves only their individual school or college. While 52 percent said there is no overlap at all, 31 percent reported some overlap, and 6 percent said the overlap is significant.

What about governing board members who also serve on a separate advisory board or council? Both independent and public institution presidents—25 percent and 27 percent, respectively—reported some governing board members serve on their advisory councils. However, responses from independent university deans significantly differed from those at public universities. Almost 34 percent of deans at independent universities reported their school advisory councils included at least some members of the institution’s governing board, but only 16 percent of the deans at public campuses have governing board members on their advisory councils.

There may be some real advantages to a college or professional school having governing board members serve on its council. It facilitates communication between the governing board and advisory council. It may also help to enhance the prestige of the advisory council, making it easier to recruit strong, new members. Also, it may help develop the advisory council as a “farm club” for the governing board, enabling council members to demonstrate their skill and commitment while providing the governing board with a source of strong candidates to join its ranks.

Despite the advantages mentioned above, overlap among the membership of boards and councils also can be challenging. Conflicts of interest may arise if trustees serving as advisory council members begin to advocate for a particular college or school. They would be neglecting their fiduciary responsibility to the overall institution, which could lead to serious governance issues for the president and the university. Also, if a president or dean wishes to engage more people as the institution’s advocates, it does not make sense to repeatedly ask the same people to serve on multiple boards and councils.

Key findings from the 2006 AGB survey

The following list provides an overview of key findings from the AGB survey.

• More than one-third of the presidents responding to the survey have an advisory group at the institution-wide level, with about the same percentage in independent and public institutions. The vast majority of deans surveyed—73 percent at independent universities and 78 percent at public universities—reported having an advisory group associated with their college or school, not including additional groups that may be related to specific academic departments, programs, centers, and other units.
• Seventy-eight percent of presidents and 81 percent of deans said their advisory councils are helpful to the university, college, or school.
• Forty-two percent of the groups include the word “council” in their names—for example, the President’s Council or the Dean’s Council. Another 38 percent are called “boards,” such as Dean’s Board of Advisors and President’s Advisory Board. Another 6 percent are called the Board of Visitors, and the remainder go by various other designations.
• Most advisory councils have 11 to 30 members.
• The most common constituencies represented on the vast majority of advisory councils are alumni, donors and prospects other than alumni, corporate executives, and local community leaders.
• Almost two-thirds of advisory councils have formal bylaws and/or formal job descriptions that specify their responsibilities, membership, and terms of service.
• The typical job description for advisory council members includes the following responsibilities: serving as advocates and ambassadors for the institution; increasing the institution’s visibility and reputation; providing advice to the president or dean; providing nonfinancial assistance, such as career counseling for students; and making and helping to secure gifts.
• Presidents most value their councils as a way to try out new people as future members of the governing board, for their fundraising help, and as a way to improve external relationships with people other than donors. Deans rank advice, external relationships, and fundraising as the three most valuable purposes of their councils.
• Fundraising is an important purpose of many councils, but most do not require a minimum annual gift of members.
• In more than 60 percent of cases, the president or dean appoints members of advisory councils. In some cases, the president appoints college or school advisory councils upon the dean’s recommendation.
• Sixty-four percent of institution-wide advisory councils and 73 percent of college or school advisory boards have a chair. In about half the cases, the president or dean selects the chair and about one-third are elected by council members.
• Most advisory councils do not have fixed terms of service or term limits. Those that do typically have two- or three-year terms, renewable two or three times.
• Most institution-wide advisory councils receive staff support from the advancement or development office. A member of the dean’s staff supports the college and school councils in most cases, although some are supported by the school’s advancement office.
• The president’s office budget funds most institution-wide council activities, while the dean’s budget funds most college and school councils.
• Most council meetings include presentations on the institution’s programs, discussions about the institution’s strategic issues, and social activities. Discussion of fundraising goals and prospects is sometimes on the agenda.
• In offering advice on starting or working with an advisory council, presidents and deans emphasize defining clearly the council’s purpose; maintaining clear understanding of the distinction between advising and governing; selecting the right people to serve; and engaging in discussion and dialogue rather than just making presentations to the council.

Comments? We would like to hear from you. Email the editor at feedback@agbonline.org.

AGB | 1133 20th St. N.W., Suite 300 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.296.8400; 800.356.6317