The Story

BOV Members Visit Campus

Feb. 22, 2008 | By Rebecca Hamfeldt, DSJ Co-Editor in Chief, and Stacey Marin, DSJ Executive Editor

Members of the Board of Visitors came to campus today to address the College community on issues regarding Gene Nichol's presidency.

The BOV stressed that its decision not to renew Nichol’s contract is unrelated to the Wren cross or the Sex Workers' Art Show controversies. Rather, they say the decision was based on Nichol's inability, overall, to meet the necessary obligations of a president at The College.

The BOV sessions began this morning with an executive meeting, which was open to the public, but allowed no opportunity for public comment. The members met with College staff at 1 p.m., with faculty at 2:30 p.m. and with students at 5:45 p.m. All meetings were public and held in the UC Commonwealth Auditorium. There was a live video feed in the UC Chesapeake, and the sessions were broadcast over WCWM, the College's radio station.

During the meeting with staff members, Rector Michael K. Powell and other BOV members fielded questions from the audience. These questions ranged in topic from Nichol’s presidency to the future of the College to a staff representative position on the BOV.

During the session with College staff, Powell said a College president’s role is extremely difficult but �"there are critical aspects of running an institution that cannot be compromised.”

�"In some ways [Nichol was] the best president we've ever seen” Powell said in reference to Nichol's visions for the College. However, the BOV had �"concern about [his] strategic and management planning.”

�"No one wanted to see Nichol succeed more than the BOV,” said Suzann W. Matthews, Secretary of the BOV. "We hired him ... and we did everything we could to make his Presidency a success."

The Board was questioned about Robert Blair's decision Tuesday to resign from the Board, which called into question Powell's statements that the Board's decision was unanimous.

In response, Powell said two or three Board members initially wanted to vote for renewal. During their decision-making process, he said a consensus was built not to renew. At that point, no Board member actively objected to the final decision.

Board member John Charles Thomas also inferred that Blair supported the way in which the nonrenewal announcement would be made to the College community.

The staff session was extended beyond 2 p.m. for an additional 15 minutes of questioning.

Before the subsequent session, faculty members formed a line around the UC lobby and outside the building to the UC steps. The faculty session began just after 2:30 p.m.

One faculty member asked what the criteria for review was as opposed to what Nichol’s file specifically looked like. �"[We] always believe the process can be better, but I believe it’s better than we’re being given credit for,” Powell said.

The Board said that they worked with Nichol in every way possible to make his presidency effective. After three years, however, several members stated that "it just wasn't working."

Another faculty member received a rousing applause after stating "in addition to love and affection for a great man, many of us feel that the future of the College has been harmed [by the decision not to renew], and we feel that deeply."

BOV member Anita Poston ('74) was offended that Nichol included in his statement that the BOV "tried to buy his silence" and asserted that this was not the case. Discussion of the use of severance packages followed, which the Board asserted is commonplace in these situations and was not meant as hush money.

Later, Powell said that the Board only asked that Nichol work with them in order to announce the non-renewal in a way that would do the least damage to the College reputation. No stipulations were made as to what he could or could not say about the decision.

In both sessions this afternoon, Powell also stressed that President Nichol and the BOV agreed on the review process that Nichol underwent. The BOV was not involved in this review, a practice which is commonly conducted at many universities. The review process made no suggestion for or against renewal.

Powell stated that Nichol and the BOV agreed on the categorical style of the review as well, which included leadership, leadership style, management, decision making, internal and external communication, and faculty, staff, local and General Assembly relations.

Criticism surfaced at the meetings that the Board caved to right-wing political forces beyond the College. But Board members fervently asserted that they were not "pushed around" by anyone. The Board said some outsiders have "claimed victory" in the decision not to renew, which the Board feels is inaccurate.

"There are aspects of the General Assembly that I find reprehensible," Powell said. Those who claim Nichol's resignation as victory acted in a way that was "uncharitable, deplorable, vicious and very un-William and Mary ... We cannot stand that small community of William and Mary."

"It is one of the oldest legislative tricks that someone tries to take credit for something that they didn't do," Powell said.

During the student session, eight pre-written questions were presented to the Board. After Board member responses, students were able to ask follow-up questions. Board members also broke into smaller discussion groups with students following the forum.

The first of these questions focused on the use of the word "unanimous" regarding the decision not to renew Nichol's contract, particularly in light of Blair's resignation. According to Powell, the Board had a conversation to represent themselves with one unanimous voice, which faced no objection from any Board members.

Student questions echoed those that the staff and faculty had already asked: how the decision not to renew was reached, how the next president search will be conducted and what Presidential characteristics the Board finds to be paramount. "You can disagree with our decision, but this [decision] is what we found was best," Powell said.

"The whole world is watching," Powell said, "to see how the College community comes together after this decision ... They want to see if we just say that we are a Tribe or whether we mean it, whether we mean that we are a community."