Search News


Browse Archives

News

From Mayor to (College) President?

February 9, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

If familiarity and name recognition trump all else in Westfield State College’s presidential search, Richard K. Sullivan Jr. has the winning hand.

Sullivan is in his 14th year as mayor of Westfield, Mass., and is well acquainted with the big names in town. He is billing himself as a known commodity and a candidate who can bring stability to the college, which has had several presidents during his tenure in city hall.

“The skill set I have as mayor, which is dealing with 1,100 employees and the general public, running a $110 million-a-year budget and working in public administration, fits well with the requirements of a president," Sullivan said. "A lot comes down to fund raising, which is an ever-increasing part of a college president's job."  

The college released a statement saying that Sullivan was selected as a semifinalist because of his leadership skills, experience in public management and fund raising.

But amid questions about how he made it into the running, skeptics wonder whether Sullivan's lack of higher education experience other than being a student makes him a viable candidate for the presidency. The mayor has an undergraduate degree from Bates College and a law degree from Western New England College, but lacks a Ph.D and has never worked at a college.

Julian F. Fleron, a mathematics professor at Westfield, said from his conversations with students and faculty, an overwhelming number of them object to Sullivan's candidacy.

“He has zero academic experience at any level," Fleron said. "It says in the job description that there are minimal requirements. You can’t even teach here with just a J.D. It seems strange to me that at the oldest co-ed teachers' college in the country, someone who can't teach here passes a test to be considered for the presidency."

Added Stephen Adams, a professor of English: “I’d like to see someone come in who has extensive experience in higher education, so my bent is toward someone who can work with outside constituencies and be familiar with the college itself."  

Of the five semifinalists, Sullivan is the only one with a nonacademic background. The three other remaining candidates are Roger W. Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors and a former president of the State University of New York at New Paltz; Nancy Kleniewski, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Bridgewater State College; and Rod D. Smith, former president of Ramapo College of New Jersey and recent chief executive of the College of the Bahamas. (A fifth candidate, who is president of Northern State University, in South Dakota, dropped out of the running.)

“I’ve been branded as the nontraditional candidate, and it has caused healthy discussion and debate," Sullivan said.

Adams researched the backgrounds of presidents at 10 colleges that Westfield considers to be peer institutions and found that each had academic administrative experience. Prior university management appears nowhere in the job requirements that the Westfield presidential search committee released.

"Quite honestly, and I’ve said this publicly, if the search committee was looking for someone to revamp the curriculum and be from the field of academia, I would not be the right candidate," Sullivan said. "Clearly in the qualifications list it says that the candidate needs to have a terminal degree -- and I have a J.D., which meets that requirement."  

Some of the controversy surrounding the mayor's entry into the field of candidates involves issues of timing. Sullivan said he entered his name into the running early in the search process. But Fleron, the Westfield professor, said that based on conversations with faculty leaders, it's clear to him that the mayor's name was added only after an outside search firm made its recommendations.

That company declined to comment on the search. Neither the chair of Westfield's presidential search committee nor the chair of the college's Board of Trustees could be reached on Thursday.

The search committee will meet next week to consider public feedback before forwarding three finalists to trustees. The college plans for a new president to be in place by July 1.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on From Mayor to (College) President?

  • Posted by Larry on February 9, 2007 at 7:35am EST
  • Oh wow! I always new people didn’t respect JDs, but this is pretty blatant. I think they really are angry about the fact that this guy 1) has his JD from a law school outside the top tem; and 2) doesn’t appear to have done trendy things (such as maintain a blog) as a lawyer. Now, I don’t know the guy, but if this he can fund-raise, he is probably the best thing that the faculty of a small public university can hope for because 1) he is less likely to view the school with the derision that ivy-league types view such small colleges; 2) most lawyers I know have a healthy respect for liberal-arts disciplines, so I don’t think he will be proposing cutting physics and philosophy to make way for a home ec program any time soon; and 3) having a lawyer manage all of the small disputes regarding academic freedom, and nasty students is much easier than having to repair the damage.

  • Posted by Marion on February 9, 2007 at 8:00am EST
  • Another good thing this candidate can add is managing town-gown relationships. In our small city, these are often a sort point. The townies and the college people often have very different and opposing perspectives. Ditto your comments Larry and thanks too! By the way, JDs can and do teach at our small state university, in the business and economics departments, some as adjuncts, and some full time with tenure. (They are probably even called Dr. by their students.)

  • Posted by TBD on February 9, 2007 at 8:50am EST
  • Most of the time, appointing the local person to a presidency is a local political sop. Pataki did this in New York more than once in New York, passing up great national candidates for mediocre local candidates.

    If you are interested in poor college presidents with JDs, you need look no further than Boston University.

  • TOWN-GOWN LINKS?
  • Posted by Bobby , TOWN-GOWN LINKS? on February 9, 2007 at 9:05am EST
  • When Mayor Sullivan closed the main road into Westfield on the day of the College's largest prospective student visitation day, Mayor Sullivan did NOT announce the closure to the College, the number one employer in "his" City. All faculty and students were delayed by two hours on that day, wrecking all schedules. ***

    When this was brought to his attention, Mayor Sullivan said "Making an announcement shouldn't be that hard, since there are members of the College Board of Trustees in the City government, and vice versa." In other words, the Mayor's friends on the Board of Trustees ALSO failed to announce this to the College. ***

    Is this a Town-Gown relationship? Yes, but it seems to me it is one in which faculty, staff and students don't exist. I'm not at all surprised that the Board is supporting the Mayor's candidacy. Nor am I surprised that the Mayor is getting local press coverage (or promotion) favoring him for the job. Incidentally, if anyone reading this were to step foot into the City of Westfield, you might immediately suspect that the Mayor is asleep at the wheel. I for one would not want this City on MY resume. ***

    This isn't about degrees. It's about corruption.

  • Posted by Washington, DC on February 9, 2007 at 9:25am EST
  • Higher Education needs to wake up!There are many talented professionals in the corporate industry and government whose experience would be an asset to higher education administration. Some of these individuals even have the requisite education and are making career changes. However, they are overlooked due to hiring practices requiring academic experience. Luckily, government and business do not have such bias practices. As we move into the 21st century and a global economy academe would be wise to rethink such practices.

  • How does having a PhD make one a better university president?
  • Posted by Larry Jackson on February 9, 2007 at 9:31am EST
  • It doesn't make one a better teacher, so why would it make one a better administrator?

  • Posted by Bob Cleeland , VP of Advancement on February 9, 2007 at 9:35am EST
  • The University of North Florida seems to be doing quite well after hiring the mayor from their city....Jacksonville. This usually proves to be an advantage for the development efforts while probably a disadvantage for some other areas.

  • Patronage
  • Posted by PS on February 9, 2007 at 10:40am EST
  • Whenever you see an unqualified local politician selected as a presidential finalist or as the actual president, you know there is some political horse-trading behind the scenes between the Board and the new president. (Although it is more prevalent in public community colleges).

    These type of presidents always see their role as "resource development" and think that by spending their time with legislators and local business-types they can bring more money to the college. But with little experience in and understanding of the postsecondary environment and its major issues, this is an unrealistic position and one that is bound to fail.

    These people also realistically see colleges as just another political entity, thinking that working at a college is just like working in any other political area or unit. What they can't understand is that one simply cannot function as a president without understanding the academic and learning issues that are the heart of a college. As a consequence, these individuals are usually not very perceptive and, regardless of what degree they hold, are not very bright.

    So, if the mayor is elected president, what can the college expect? Here is a short list:

    *Other local politicians and business people in administrative positions. The good people will be forced out in exchange.
    *People selected as Department Chairs, with no prior academic or teaching experience.
    *A bloated and over-staffed physical plant, maintenance, food service, and continuing education units, at the expense of the academic side.
    *An out of touch president who is never around and does just as good a job of fundraising and getting external dollars as any other president would.
    *Former Board members mysteriously selected for local political positions.

    It is a shame the Board and the Mayor have taken this route, using the college as a vehicle to meet their own political agendas. How sad.

  • Posted by R2 on February 9, 2007 at 10:45am EST
  • Having a PhD may not necessarily make someone a better teacher, but having academic experience most certainly does make one a better academic leader. I know it’s popular to equate education with business, but it’s a faulty analogy, one with pernicious consequences. If Sullivan brings management skills and fund-raising ability as his “gifts,” find a position for him in the development office. Don’t put him at the top of the academic food chain.

    When I was an undergraduate at Westfield more than thirty years ago, the board and the administration displayed nothing but contempt for the students and the faculty. Apparently that hasn’t changed, and it’s a shame. Westfield produces a significant percentage of the educators in Massachusetts and New England. To be shown that anybody can be a college president is demoralizing. Horace Mann must be spinning in his grave fast enough to drill his way out.

    I’d like to hear from the faculty or students from the University of North Florida.

  • Posted by Larry on February 9, 2007 at 10:46am EST
  • Who are you talking about at BU? Silber didn’t have a JD. I am not saying that having a JD means that someone WILL be a good president, but lord knows there have been plenty of duds with PhDs.

  • Posted by David on February 9, 2007 at 10:46am EST
  • Washington DC suggests that institutions of higher ed. should wake up and open their doors to those from industry and government. Further DC states "Luckily, government and business do not have such bias practices." It would be fascinating to see the list of those with NO business background being chosen to run fortune 500 corporations. I'd be far more open to the concept of no bias if such a list could be produced.

  • My two cents
  • Posted by Martin on February 9, 2007 at 11:45am EST
  • I have mixed emotions where higher education is concerned. We stress degrees more that experience, giving posts to people who have spent more time in a classroom than a boardroom or doing the actual job. I have been passed over for promotions in the past because someone had a higher sheep skin than I did, but no where near the experience. I usually end up training these persons and building up a large amount of resentment toward the entire process. I see no reason why a college president should have academic experience at all. He is certainly NOT the chief academic officer at most colleges. A good president knows his limitations and hires solid and independent thinkers and doers who have the experience. M. Maceo Nance, one of the finest presidents at South Carolina State University in South Carolina, never worked in the classroom, did not hold a terminal degree, but was one of the most politically connected men of his time. He served the University during the Civil Rights movements of the late 1960's and led with style and understanding. I suppose it all boils down to the individual needs of the college and how one candidate "fits" as opposed to another.

  • No Ph.D. necessary
  • Posted by Professor at OU on February 9, 2007 at 11:55am EST
  • What is so odd about a politician becoming a college president? There are plenty of former senators and governors who have done so. Here at the University of Oklahoma, David Boren (who ONLY has a JD and an MA) assumed the presidency after leaving the Senate and serving as governor, and he's done a fine job. In fact, as president of a public university, Boren's political background is an asset, as the University has to lobby the legislature on an annual basis.

    There are plenty of other politicians who have done the same -- Tom Kean in NJ; Bob Kerrey at New School, etc. Perhaps, the problem is that Sullivan was ONLY a mayor and not a U.S. Senator.

  • Timely, informative debate
  • Posted by KED , College President on February 9, 2007 at 12:15pm EST
  • As a college president now far away from western MA but quite familiar with Westfield State and the City, this is a fascinating dialogue not only for WSC but for the larger debate on who should lead our colleges and universities. Many former politicians (Bartley and Bulger to name just 2) have quite successfully led colleges in Massachusetts (and elsewhere) while others have quickly flamed out, just as can be said of academics with PhDs.

    While the JD is not a typical terminal credential, historically many college presidents have come from the JD ranks (though in spite of its name the JD is not considered to be a doctoral degree even in the legal field where the SJD is the doctorate).

    The college presidency--quite unfortunately--is no longer primarily and academic post. Primus inter parus is gone but not forgotten by a good president. It is an administrative post almost entirely now, consequently those with good administrative experience outside of higher ed can and do beome successful in the role, as both State Representative Bartley (HCC president) and State Senator Bulger (UMASS president) proved.

    If, however, a candidate is being chosen for his/her political ties over their skills as an administrator and leader, such candidates generally will flame out in a short period of time if ramrodded into office. Hopefully Westfield's board is bigger than this and is putting the college's interests first and foremost, as all boards should both ethically and legally.

  • Posted by kgotthardt on February 9, 2007 at 2:55pm EST
  • Larry writes, "Oh wow! I always new people didn’t respect JDs, but this is pretty blatant."

    What?? I never knew people didn't respect JDs. I thought they didn't respect lawyers.

    We must have a different world view.

  • reply to KED
  • Posted by Larry on February 9, 2007 at 2:55pm EST
  • Ked, In all fairness, the nobody quite knows what the SJD is these days. JD means “Juris Doctorate” and “SJD” refers to “Doctor of the Science of Law” or something thereabouts in Latin. By no means is an SJD (or even an LL.M.) required to each at a law school. Whatever the case, there is considerable debate at law schools about what the “idea” legal academic credential is. Most people seem to think it is a JD and something else, but this might be because of “credential creep.”

    I am not sure whether or not it is fortunate or unfortunate for the college presidency to be an academic post. For the most part, most college presidents are not practicing academics the way most people think of them. They are listed as teaching classes, but they are usually “co-taught” by someone that does all the work. Most of their written works are “co-written” by someone who, in all the cases I know, does all the work. But, they do other things, namely: 1) handle very messy political situations; 2) raise money; and 3) manage.

    I don’t think this guy has the kind of political ties that would overwhelm any other deficiencies. After all, being mayor of a town just isn’t the same as being a senator or governor.

    Now, I don’t know much about this gentleman, so I am not opining on his candidacy. However, many lawyers have the skills necessary to run a universities efficiency. At the same time, lawyers are generally appreciative of other disciplines, and likely will not exhibit complete distaste for one because they didn’t get a PhD in it themselves.

  • Posted by Daryl Delabbio , County Administrator at County of Kent, Mi on February 9, 2007 at 7:00pm EST
  • Having just completed a PhD in higher education leadership, with my dissertation topic being non-taditional presidents, one can argue that a person coming into the presidency of a college or university without having benefit of having come up through the traditional route (professor, dean, Provost/AVP, president) can be successful. What I found in my research is that those who were hired outside of academe did have prior affiliation with the schools they now lead (or did lead). While they did regret not having some background working in the academic setting, they all thrived on being challenged and all had a strong affinity with both the institution and its mission. Regardless of backgound, being a "non-traditional" president can work, but "fit" is extremely important.

  • prejudices on parade
  • Posted by Larry on February 10, 2007 at 12:31pm EST
  • Daryl, Can you explain what this “fit” is you are referring to. Around these parts it refers to “people with cultural backgrounds like myself” and allows people to only hire people that talk about 1) sports (if the office is male-dominated); or 2) knitting.

    kgotthardt, I feel sort of odd telling you the prejudices that people have, but here goes. Many lawyers suffer an inferior complex, in which they think that their doctorate, the JD, is somehow less than the PhD. Personally I think that their inferiority complex is misplaced, because law schools have managed to make many things more efficient than many PhD programs, and the fact that they don’t let people hang around for decades should be viewed as a good thing. But, like all things, I think that the JD can be improved. I think it should be at least 3.5 years, and I think it should have a required thesis.

    As to lawyers (most, but not all, have JDs), although there are probably more lawyer jokes than English professor jokes, I attribute the amount of jokes per million to simply the fact that 1) there are more lawyers English professors; 2) lawyers can and do exist in most communities resulting in more frequent contact by jokesters with lawyers; and 3) the fact that our society runs on laws resulting in most people having some compelling contact with lawyers that are not necessarily on their side. Compare this with English professors, which live entirely in academe, and rarely have any contact with people outside universities, because it simply isn’t compelled by society.

    Strangely, there is no shortage of people that would do anything to get into a English PhD program or law school.

  • Larry is on target
  • Posted by KED , College President on February 10, 2007 at 1:01pm EST
  • Larry: I wholeheartedly agree that JDs with relevatnt administrative and/or academic experience can and do make good presidents. Sorry I did not make that clear.

    Trachtenberg at both U Har and GW is but one excellent example of a successful president with "only" the JD (however his career was in higher ed). There are many JDs in the college presidency currently and many more who have held presidencies who have been successful as Trachtenberg was.

    While at non-law schools those with the JD are occasionally referred to as "doctor" so-and-so, at law schools only those with the SJD or another doctorate (PhD, EdD, etc.) are referred to as "doctor." I've spent a fair amount of time at law schools during a long academic career and my best buddy has taught at several law schools via visitorships while long having tenure at his home university. He has an SJD. (Btw, I have the PhD and I am a career higher ed administrator/teacher but I did not come up the traditional route).

  • JD is NOT a terminal degree
  • Posted by Jimmy on February 10, 2007 at 6:10pm EST
  • While I think that a mayor, governor, senator or any other politician may be a successful college president. The qualifications clealy state that a terminal degree is necessary. The JD dgree is NOT a terminal degree - even if the term "doctorate" is in the name. The JD is the first law degree a person can earn - it's equivalent is the MA or MS. Period.

    From the Wake Forest Law School website (Notice it used to be called "Bachelor of Law" before it was changed to seem the equal to earned doctorates (PhD, EdD, etc.):

    LLM is Latin for Legum Magister, signifying Master of Laws. Our Master of Laws (LLM) Program in American Law is a one-year graduate program. Foreign law graduates who successfully complete the program are awarded the degree "LLM in American Law."

    Students who wish to pursue a three-year degree entitling them to apply for admission to the bar in all fifty states should consider our Juris Doctor (JD) Degree. The JD degree is generally the first degree in law for those graduating from law schools in the United States. Law schools throughout the United States have changed the nomenclature of this first degree from the long used LLB (Bachelor of Laws) to the JD (Juris Doctor.)

    Wake Forest does not offer a Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) degree. The SJD degree is an earned postgraduate degree in law indicating completion of two years of formal legal study beyond the receipt of the first degree of law (JD) or the second postgraduate degree in law (LLM). The SJD degree is most often attained by those law graduates who wish to teach law.

  • Jimmy is incorrect (and here is proof)
  • Posted by Larry on February 10, 2007 at 10:00pm EST
  • Jimmy, That simply is not true. A very small minority of law professors have the SJD. Not a single law school in the country considers the SJD a requirement for teaching positions. The result is that most law school faculty have JDs. Many have degrees in other fields, but I don’t think that is the question you are asking.

    The LL.M. serves various purposes namely: 1) a degree obtained after completion of a fellowship; 2) a series of specialized courses; or 3) a degree awarded to foreign lawyers after the completion of one year of law school credit. A large number of law school professors have LL.M.s, but still not the majority (outside tax).

    This goes for all law schools, no matter what their rank.

    Here are the statistics on this from the American Association of Law Schools which shows that Jimmy was incorrect.

    http://www.aals.org/statistics/0405/html/0405_T9B_ADV_sch.html

  • JD as terminal?
  • Posted by KED , College President on February 10, 2007 at 11:25pm EST
  • Most academic circles consider the JD a terminal degree in much the same way an MFA is considered a terminal degree in the specififc field, even though one can earn a doctorate beyond any otherwise terminal professional post-baccalaureate degree. MBAs were once considered terminal but DBAs and PhDs now fill that bill because business degrees have proliferated. A JD is legitimately beyond the typical master's because it requires 3 years of graduate study, something I believe only the MFA requires for the master's. What the JD is short is the research component most dortorates requiire, but then many EdDs do not require traditional research.

  • terminal degree
  • Posted by slim on February 11, 2007 at 9:05am EST
  • JD is a terminal degree in the same sense that MD is. Both are first professional degrees in their fields, but both are accepted in many academic institutions for teaching or administration. They differ from the Ph.D. in that they do not require a dissertation, but the experience of writing a dissertation may not be as useful to a President as the practice of law, particularly in the field of higher education.

  • Posted by Daryl Delabbio on February 12, 2007 at 8:10pm EST
  • Larry,

    "Fit" in my mind means buying into the mission of the institution and into the institution's values, not exactly being "one of us." Two of the presidents I studied that "fit" wanted to return their respective insitution to what they believed to be its core mission, which concerned some of the institutions internal and external constituencies. They flourished as leaders (one was at the univeristy for 11 years before retiring; the other is still going strong after 12 years).

  • Several Reactions
  • Posted by Holmes on February 13, 2007 at 5:36am EST
  • Interesting discussion. Larry is right about S.J.D.s: they are not required to teach at American law schools. In fact, unless you graduated from a foreign law school, the only people who tend to get them are those who received their JD from 'lesser' (according to US News & World Report rankings) law schools--they then go back and get an S.J.D. at a top school (the only ones who offer them) so that they can find a spot on a law faculty (or secure a spot if they have a temporary one).

    Also, on the topic of LL.M.s...in addition to the reasons that Larry points out as to why they are obtained, I would add one reason as to why programs for them exist: they are cash cows for law schools, pure and simple. 1 year, 20-30k, little to no faculty oversight, and all the students have to do is occupy space in a classroom. Easy.

    A note on the J.D. I agree with Larry's suggestion to make the program 3.5 years, and to add a thesis requirement, so as to end discussions of this sort as to 'is it terminal or not.' However, I would add that many students choose to write 'notes' for law reviews or journals in their second- and third-years of law school. These 'notes,' if published, are often 40-70 pages in length, and the best ones each year will go on to be discussed or cited by legal academics in articles and even judges in court decisions. That is the say, a good number of them may be more important than the vast lot of Ph.D. dissertations that are seldom read by more than twenty people the world over.

    Finally, when discussing the long list of college presidents with 'just' a J.D., one should note the Collge of William & Mary, an institution of very high caliber, where the last three presidents (over the interval 1985 to present) have 'just' had a J.D.