Mexmustang wrote:Guys, its great everyone has an opinion about RGT's performance. That is what the board if for.
But, consider this, TCU's endowment was lower than SMU's. During RGT's term, TCU has had three Presidents. Their endowment is now larger, or about the same, It is that close. Consistency is obviously not a factor.
TCU is now the local college of choice at HPHS. Doesn't seem important, but a great deal of our significant alumni went to HPHS. Worse, it is our hometown HS, the school of Doak Walker. If SMU is now second tier we need to know why. This came from their College Placement Counselor two years ago. You might say well that is to be expected, so close to home etc., but formerly it wasn't the case.
I realize it is difficult to compare, but TCU's rankings have rapidly moved up, while we have been static in ratings. We are still ahead, but given we are 30-35% more expensive than TCU, we are vulnerable. How can they be so more efficient? We know we reached our borrowing limits and were downgraded by the rating agencies, but why? Why is RGT reported to be the fifth or so highest paid college executive; when the school ranks in the mid-50's amongst universities and over 100 when all colleges and universities are ranked together. Why did the board re elect a man for another 5 years that will be almost 80 when his current contract matures?
It is simply bad business, to have any CEO for over 12 years. Ours will exceed 30! Even if they do a great job. New blood is simply necessary to keep ideas fresh and quite frankly weed out those executives that are simply there because of their relationship with the CEO or decisions are pre-empted by the status quo. Every great Dallas public company changes CEO's to keep fresh blood and young executives moving upward. Great CEO's such as Eric Johnson self-retire for the good the company. I notice we have no board members now from one of Dallas' great public companies. (For those of you who don't recall Mr. Johnson, he was one of the founders of TI, retired at his request, became mayor of Dallas, set the annual planning structure referred to as " the Goals for Dallas", personally conceived of DFW Airport was the first head of the airport board, united minorities and Fort Worth and Dallas behind his vision). Where is Halliburton, TI, American Airlines? We used to have the majority of our board members from these great local companies. They knew about governance, they knew about succession planning. We don't.
Any of you in business, having worked or working in a large organization know this to be true.
But, in a non-profit having the sole board member and CEO as the organizations only paid professional on the board is just dangerous. The board only hears what the CEO wants it to hear. In SMU's case the board has practically all been selected by the President. The by-laws of the university were changed during the Pye years, such that the President doesn't report to the board, but the board reports to the President. I asked two of my former board members why hadn't they amended the by-laws and their response is it takes a 2/3rds vote to change the by-laws and we can't even bring it to a vote.
We quite frankly don't have an effective governing board. First, we now have a board of over 40 people. This isn't a board its a private social club! Second, RGT because of his tenor, has all but personally selected 40 of them. Third, many board members are not independent. For instance the President of the Alumni Association is on the board. Who elects that person? As alumni have you ever seen a ballot? Last time I checked Turner was on 13 boards, many of which share memberships with our (his) board members, or in the case of at least two, they are the CEO's.
The FBI was saddled with J. Edgar for far too long, Now there is a 12 year term limit. The Red Cross scandal was the result of a single entrenched professional. Even large church denominations have found it necessary to move the senior pastors after informal term limits. It is just good business.
SMU is now an organization where decisions are made simply on the basis of what upper and middle management interpret as "what would Gerald want", not sounding out new ideas or debate. I asked one of our recently departed coaches about SMU, their honest answer was simply, "No one on this campus can even fart without Gerald Turner's permission.
I don't care about defending Gerald's record, good or bad, form your own opinion about that, but at least learn about corpoorate governance, succession planning, efffective managment of non-profit organizations, study how successful businesses transition leadership, then you just might get what I'm trying to say.
I've been a member of four public companies, three on the NYSE, been COO of one, CFO of another, been on the Pye Board, know many of our board members, and I've told each one them how vulnerable they are as board members for failing to do their duties as independent board members. I don't suspect any financial fraud, but I do feel the numbers have been manipulated and key information kept from this board because they simply don't take the responsibility to ask!
Very well written summary of Turner's power. Regardless of his job performance , it is well past time for RGT
to go. The power structure also needs to be tweaked , especially the unwieldy size of the BOT.