Regarding the controversy at Suffolk University: Higher-education accreditors can conduct a focused evaluation of a college or university by sending an advisory visiting team to a school facing governance issues, after a warning letter has been sent to the institution’s leadership. While rarely used, this stabilizing support goes beyond assuring that fiduciary responsibilities are addressed, to explore governance’s willingness to address board training, restructuring, evaluative procedures and policies, overreaching into daily management, and the removal of perceived conflicts of interest.

College presidents cannot be successful managers and fund-raisers when boards interfere in daily operations, and when their jobs are put at risk due to governance inattentiveness to how the boards themselves operate transparently and fairly. The long-term well-being of the college, its students and faculty, and its ability to serve the public are jeopardized when board members substitute their prerogatives for the skills of seasoned higher-education administrators.

Board members are policy-making trustees, not day-to-day managers of the institution, and accreditors hold trustees accountable for achieving the educational mission of the school.

Ted Landsmark

Jamaica Plain

The writer is past president of the National Architectural Accrediting Board.