The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Stetson Departure | Pressure on Gutmann absent after resignation

The departure of former Dean of Admissions Lee Stetson has shown how much power Penn President Amy Gutmann wields, raising questions about the role of the Board of Trustees in checking the president's power.

Since Stetson resigned abruptly and without explanation at the beginning of the semester, Gutmann has refused to comment publicly about the departure, only saying that it is in the "best interests" of both Penn and Stetson.

However, Gutmann's reticence to release the details of Stetson's resignation has been greeted with a profound silence on the part of the Board of Trustees - Penn's top governing body - and other high-level figures.

No trustee or upper-level administrator has publicly criticized Gutmann's handling of the departure.

Indeed, most trustees contacted throughout the semester by The Daily Pennsylvanian said they knew nothing about the reasons behind the resignation - and many said they were OK with that.

"As a trustee, I hold [Gutmann] responsible for the operation of the University day-to-day," said Robert Gleason, a trustee on the external affairs committee. "I'm not even concerned about the reasons why anybody leaves."

This opinion was echoed by James Kim, a trustee emeritus - who said he trusts Gutmann to handle the situation - as well as other trustees, who said they accepted the administration's assurance that it was handling the departure properly.

The trustees said they felt it was not their place to get publicly involved in managing personnel decisions.

The way in which these trustees view their responsibility to the University - which affords Gutmann wide latitude in decision-making - stands in contrast with expectations of members of corporate boards.

In the wake of a series of corporate scandals like Enron's collapse and the subsequent passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, private-sector board members are expected to take a more active role in managing their companies and providing a check on the powers of upper-level management.

While there is no such statutory obligation for trustees of nonprofit organizations like Penn, the way in which university presidents should be held accountable for their actions is a debated issue.

Though advocates for nonprofit reform said personnel issues are usually handled by a college president without input from the board, they did say transparency is an important part of accountability and keeping trustees informed about sensitive issues is vital.

"When the situation turns into an intrigue like this . it would make sense if the president of the university would chat with the board and give some explanation of what happened," said Outi Flynn of BoardSource, a consulting firm for nonprofits. "In principle, the board is the independent body for the organization."

But there can be dangers in affording a college president too much power.

"When a board perceives a president as an indispensable heroic leader, then trustees disengage from governance or accord the CEO undue deference," wrote Richard Chait, a professor at Harvard's Graduate School of Education, in The Chronicle of Higher Education in February 2006.

"The board [then] becomes less a source of leadership and intellectual capital and more a source of technical assistance and financial support," he wrote.

Staff writer Albert Sun contributed reporting for this article.

Comments (17)

[QUOTE id="9fba9336-a639-4917-9cee-a9bd1b2e42b1"]So you are convinced it was a personal scandal (sexual misconduct or whatever) rather than professional malfeasance? The only thing that seems clear is that whatever it was surfaced very quickly and had him out on his ear almost instantly.[/QUOTE] I suspect that it was something personal. If it had involved professional malfeasance and/or the integrity of the admissions process, it seems to me that there would be a great risk of the story leaking, which Penn would want to get out in front of and neutralize as much as possible through its own disclosure (Public Relations 101). A personal "issue," on the other hand, presumably would involve only a limited number of people who might reach an accomodation requiring confidentiality, similar to confidentiality agreements common in lawsuit settlements.

So you are convinced it was a personal scandal (sexual misconduct or whatever) rather than professional malfeasance? The only thing that seems clear is that whatever it was surfaced very quickly and had him out on his ear almost instantly.

[QUOTE id="b1e11673-9824-4279-96c2-f30652d64516"]The "class size" numbers and the "faculty resources" numbers should be examined closely.[/QUOTE] Only if those numbers from peer schools are similarly scrutinized. But back to the main point, Stetson wasn't even responsible for reporting those numbers.

The "class size" numbers and the "faculty resources" numbers should be examined closely.

[QUOTE id="96fb5bd6-e9f5-48cf-afe5-ec0509926df0"]An avenue to explore in re Stetson: 1. In the 2006 USNews, Penn rose to 4th. 2. In the 2007 USNews, Penn "fell" to 7th (resulting in a worried article in the DP). 3. In the 2008 USNews, Penn jumped two spots to 5th, with the issue released one week before Stetson's resignation. 4. Penn has, it must be admitted, been accused of "manipulating" data submitted to USNews to fuel its ranking rise, although nothing has ever been proven. Question: Did somebody spot something in the numbers submitted for the 2008 rankings that raised suspicion, contact the Penn administration, and caused an investigation leading to a discovery that data submitted for the latest rankings HAD been fudged in some way?[/QUOTE] Penn has been ranked 4-7 by US News every year for the past 11 years, including 3 years at #4: http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/ Under these circumstances, it's rather doubtful that some sort of "fudging" of data suddenly turned up for the latest (2008) ranking.

[QUOTE id="2a673d15-f2e0-49f6-abce-145ee0519576"]We need a Sarbanes-Oxley act for non-profits, to make sure that non-profit boards are doing their job properly by holding management accountable for their decisions, judgment, and actions. Penn is no exception - the Trustees need to wake up and get with the program because there have been way too many public embarrassments concerning Penn as of late.[/QUOTE] Has it occurred to anyone that the trustees were fully briefed on what happened but that everyone has agreed to say that they are in the dark? Clearly there is potential for embarrassment on both sides, which would mean it was in Gutmann and the trustees' best interests to keep with this party line.

Penn's trustees have long been little more than a source of financial assistance, at least since I started attending the meetings in the late '90s. You don't get on the Board of Trustees without donating a lot of money to the school, and even then it's more of an honorific and a nice title that keeps wealthy white donors engaged, even if they are treated like bumbling old men. And it's great that they are engaged and donating money, but they're not on that Board for the fun of governing a $2B corporation. The substance of the meetings--when the Trustees actually turn up--is generally ratification of previously-made decisions like approving retirements, acquiring land, and raising tuition yet again. Judy ruled Penn--her word was the law--and so does Amy. We shouldn't be surprised that Penn's governance is so poor. It's been that way since 1993.

We need a Sarbanes-Oxley act for non-profits, to make sure that non-profit boards are doing their job properly by holding management accountable for their decisions, judgment, and actions. Penn is no exception - the Trustees need to wake up and get with the program because there have been way too many public embarrassments concerning Penn as of late.

A DP reporter should wait outside the presidential mansion every morning and ask her to stop being such a hater of the truth. Also, you should steal the tactics of the 911 conspiracy theorists: use bullhorns and huge neon-rainbow placcards outside her house, and burn Stersons if effigy. Let's remember that she isn't "really" a president, since she wasn't elected by the people: in truth, she should be called Generalissimo Gutman, or even better, Amy the Terrible. We should hold a farewell party for Stetson on his scheduled retirement date to raise awareness of the coverup. It would basically be a parody of the Makings History kickoff: everyone would wear Stetson masks and Stetson hats. Someone should go on a juice strike until Amy comes clean. It would look really bad if a student died. The DP started this: it's your duty to finish it. Here's your chance to do something really important, and to get the administration into a real fukkis.

Penn in the 70's and 80's certainly was'nt the slick glossy machine it is now. I miss it though. Now, they keep secrets better than the CIA. God knows how many staff/department heads have been paid off to keep quiet in the last few years. No one even challenged the joke that was Rambo's resignation as UPPD chief. The man was doing a great job one day and the next was looking for work in security in the boonies. He must have really pissed off Rush by having a backbone. As for Stetson, it must be nice to walk away with a shit load of cash after grabbing some ass.

This is not a news article. This is an editorial.

Why can't the DP do its own investigative journalism? Contact all of the admissions staff that worked with the former Dean over the past 10 years. Ask them if they have any comment.

Keeping secrets is a sure way to erode the support of the alumni(at least the sober ones.) Hey, is that why the booze flows like a river at every alumni function I've attended? Just come clean. We already have a wife-killing prof. What's another nasty scandal?

[QUOTE id="7bf50078-8352-4a83-8e0b-a44a3340a473"]Penn in the 70's and 80's certainly was'nt the slick glossy machine it is now. I miss it though. Now, they keep secrets better than the CIA. God knows how many staff/department heads have been paid off to keep quiet in the last few years. No one even challenged the joke that was Rambo's resignation as UPPD chief. The man was doing a great job one day and the next was looking for work in security in the boonies. He must have really pissed off Rush by having a backbone. As for Stetson, it must be nice to walk away with a shit load of cash after grabbing some ass.[/QUOTE] Gosh I love listening to a wacko conspiracy theorist every now and then. Thanks. I wonder what it's like to live in your world sometimes.

I see you are a real suck up, and quite sexually confused. What is in your closet?

Why is the DP so desperate to MAKE this into a news story? It reported on a mysterious, then reported on the lack of information about it, then reported about the lack of interest due to the lack of information due to the mysterious departure. The issue seems cut and dry. He did something bad. It probably was sexual and consensual with a student. The university does not want to smear him or the student for publicity and honor's sake as well as legal reasons. If they said it in a formal release, it would generate lots of PR, destroy a great former employee and current student, and maybe et sued by both those people and lose or settle for a huge financial settlement that comes out of the endowment. For what good? They are being tight lipped. There is no wronged party that wants this to be public. Let it go DP---this is not watergate.

An avenue to explore in re Stetson: 1. In the 2006 USNews, Penn rose to 4th. 2. In the 2007 USNews, Penn "fell" to 7th (resulting in a worried article in the DP). 3. In the 2008 USNews, Penn jumped two spots to 5th, with the issue released one week before Stetson's resignation. 4. Penn has, it must be admitted, been accused of "manipulating" data submitted to USNews to fuel its ranking rise, although nothing has ever been proven. Question: Did somebody spot something in the numbers submitted for the 2008 rankings that raised suspicion, contact the Penn administration, and caused an investigation leading to a discovery that data submitted for the latest rankings HAD been fudged in some way?

Comments are closed for this item.