He is not qualified at all and he is great friends with that crazy preacher that did that left wing speech at graduation this year!

Should say Petersen, not Peterson

Guy can't seem to keep a job either.

Prolly gave some money somewhere or the base amount and knew somebody for the recommendation. At least Slover was voted in over the 2 left wing women for the alumni-elected regent.

He is past president of the Baylor Bear Foundation and has served on the Hankamer School of Business Advisory Board and the board of the Baylor Alumni Association.

Baylor grad, wife & 2 children Baylor grads


Unless there is great deal more the OP is not telling us ???????

Keyser Soze said:

---

He is past president of the Baylor Bear Foundation and has served on the Hankamer School of Business Advisory Board and the board of the Baylor Alumni Association.

Baylor grad, wife & 2 children Baylor grads


Unless there is great deal more the OP is not telling us ???????

---

Seemed personal. We have no information.

Looks like the old Sloanista's are scared now of the new direction that they are finally being moved out and folks with different world views are coming in. This is good news.

is he an arby's man?

PA.

- UL

I'm not a sloanista. Just don't know why some guy like him is a regent. He hasn't made any big donations that I am aware of.

What do you think a resume should look like?

Past President of the Baylor Bear Foundation means he had donated huge amounts of time to Baylor and Baylor Athletics. Two other board positions - alumni association and B school .... I really don't know him at all, but what do you expect?

Longstreet said:

---

He is not qualified at all and he is great friends with that crazy preacher that did that left wing speech at graduation this year!

Should say Petersen, not Peterson

Guy can't seem to keep a job either.

---

Maybe a Baylor Regency isn't in your plans
But don't mess around with an Arby's roast beef man.......

- BUmma

The BBF has a position on the BOR that they nominate and control without influence. He is the BBF Regent for a two year term I believe.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

Based on what I have heard and seen, the BOR is making strides away from oligarchical control of the past while instituting needed corrections toward becoming the effective and competent governance board needed. Livingstone is directly involved in those efforts as is Allison. Time will tell if this plays out well but the indicators are in place. There are some good new people on board. Hopefully, they have the wherewithal to withstand manipulation and a possess a frame of reference for good governance principles. That said, a board of 40 is twice the size needed but it does dilute individual influence. The new chair and Livingstone have a lot of work to do.

Keyser Soze said:

---

He is past president of the Baylor Bear Foundation and has served on the Hankamer School of Business Advisory Board and the board of the Baylor Alumni Association.

Baylor grad, wife & 2 children Baylor grads


Unless there is great deal more the OP is not telling us ???????

---

Yeah, I must be missing something the OP knows but is not telling.

Being friends with the pastor who pulled the ill-advised graduation prayer stunt isn't much of a condemning attribute IMO.

witchmo said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

Based on what I have heard and seen, the BOR is making strides away from oligarchical control of the past while instituting needed corrections toward becoming the effective and competent governance board needed. Livingstone is directly involved in those efforts as is Allison. Time will tell if this plays out well but the indicators are in place. There are some good new people on board. Hopefully, they have the wherewithal to withstand manipulation and a possess a frame of reference for good governance principles. That said, a board of 40 is twice the size needed but it does dilute individual influence. The new chair and Livingstone have a lot of work to do.

---

Agree

Have seen plenty that the most productive and efficient BOR size is smaller - that said larger sure helps prevent concentration of power. While I am the opposite of the conspiracy theorist around here, it is a heck of a lot harder to keep nefarious secretes with a larger group. You want more transparency - a larger BOR is good for that.

Keyser Soze said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

Based on what I have heard and seen, the BOR is making strides away from oligarchical control of the past while instituting needed corrections toward becoming the effective and competent governance board needed. Livingstone is directly involved in those efforts as is Allison. Time will tell if this plays out well but the indicators are in place. There are some good new people on board. Hopefully, they have the wherewithal to withstand manipulation and a possess a frame of reference for good governance principles. That said, a board of 40 is twice the size needed but it does dilute individual influence. The new chair and Livingstone have a lot of work to do.

---

Agree

Have seen plenty that the most productive and efficient BOR size is smaller - that said larger sure helps prevent concentration of power. While I am the opposite of the conspiracy theorist around here, it is a heck of a lot harder to keep nefarious secretes with a larger group. You want more transparency - a larger BOR is good for that.

---

There is a saying in business...."if a board of governance can't share a large pizza it is to big"

Most professional big state schools have maybe 10-15 members.

Some I have seen have as few as 7 members.

But Baylor... like TCU and other private schools..... has to let lots of alumni on because its a way to reward those who give money or who share ideological views.

How do you think a non-baptist like Clifton Robinson got on there? reward for lots of money given.

Also, at private schools like ours the leaders want to get their long time personal friends, professional relations, sunday school classmates, ex-KOT frat brothers, etc on the Board to serve with them or after them.

These means we have a massive Board of Regents.....with many factions on it.

Its just the way it is.

My problem is that for whatever reason TCU seems to be able to have leaders who grow the campus, grow the endowment, rise in the rankings, not fight with their alumni association, win Rose bowls in football, and not have a major scandal every 8 years.

Our Regents keep screwing up.

Something is very wrong with the culture of the Regents.

william said:

---

Longstreet said:

---

He is not qualified at all and he is great friends with that crazy preacher that did that left wing speech at graduation this year!

Should say Petersen, not Peterson

Guy can't seem to keep a job either.

---

Maybe a Baylor Regency isn't in your plans
But don't mess around with an Arby's roast beef man.......

- BUmma

---

Your shtick is such an unfunny beating.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

Based on what I have heard and seen, the BOR is making strides away from oligarchical control of the past while instituting needed corrections toward becoming the effective and competent governance board needed. Livingstone is directly involved in those efforts as is Allison. Time will tell if this plays out well but the indicators are in place. There are some good new people on board. Hopefully, they have the wherewithal to withstand manipulation and a possess a frame of reference for good governance principles. That said, a board of 40 is twice the size needed but it does dilute individual influence. The new chair and Livingstone have a lot of work to do.

---

Agree

Have seen plenty that the most productive and efficient BOR size is smaller - that said larger sure helps prevent concentration of power. While I am the opposite of the conspiracy theorist around here, it is a heck of a lot harder to keep nefarious secretes with a larger group. You want more transparency - a larger BOR is good for that.

---

There is a saying in business...."if a board of governance can't share a large pizza it is to big"

Most professional big state schools have maybe 10-15 members.

Some I have seen have as few as 7 members.

But Baylor... like TCU and other private schools..... has to let lots of alumni on because its a way to reward those who give money or who share ideological views.

How do you think a non-baptist like Clifton Robinson got on there? reward for lots of money given.

Also, at private schools like ours the leaders want to get their long time personal friends, professional relations, sunday school classmates, ex-KOT frat brothers, etc on the Board to serve with them or after them.

These means we have a massive Board of Regents.....with many factions on it.

Its just the way it is.




My problem is that for whatever reason TCU seems to be able to have leaders who grow the campus, grow the endowment, rise in the rankings, not fight with their alumni association, win Rose bowls in football, and not have a major scandal every 8 years.

Our Regents keep screwing up.

Something is very wrong with the culture of the Regents.

---

Good points, redbrick, and I agree with you in the main. Your final comment is key and it is here that much change is not only needed but has been put into play.

I don't agree that it is inevitable that BU has a huge board but to cull that to 15-25 would require some fundamental overhaul of the board and that will take time to accomplish and would not occur until the board is functioning smoothly and effectively.

No doubt some folks should never have been on that board. This should remind us all that it is WHO we put on that board that matters. That ought to be the first lesson taught by the past decade or so. We forgot, for whatever the reason, that the purpose of any governance board is to find and employ the CEO/Prez; set institutional policy including development/fundraising; and produce a budget. It is the Prez (Livingstone) and her administration responsibility to "run" the university per board policy, and the Prez and the Provost in concert with the faculty to manage the academy.

We went way past that!

Redbrickbear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

Based on what I have heard and seen, the BOR is making strides away from oligarchical control of the past while instituting needed corrections toward becoming the effective and competent governance board needed. Livingstone is directly involved in those efforts as is Allison. Time will tell if this plays out well but the indicators are in place. There are some good new people on board. Hopefully, they have the wherewithal to withstand manipulation and a possess a frame of reference for good governance principles. That said, a board of 40 is twice the size needed but it does dilute individual influence. The new chair and Livingstone have a lot of work to do.

---

Agree

Have seen plenty that the most productive and efficient BOR size is smaller - that said larger sure helps prevent concentration of power. While I am the opposite of the conspiracy theorist around here, it is a heck of a lot harder to keep nefarious secretes with a larger group. You want more transparency - a larger BOR is good for that.

---

There is a saying in business...."if a board of governance can't share a large pizza it is to big"

Most professional big state schools have maybe 10-15 members.

Some I have seen have as few as 7 members.

But Baylor... like TCU and other private schools..... has to let lots of alumni on because its a way to reward those who give money or who share ideological views.

How do you think a non-baptist like Clifton Robinson got on there? reward for lots of money given.

Also, at private schools like ours the leaders want to get their long time personal friends, professional relations, sunday school classmates, ex-KOT frat brothers, etc on the Board to serve with them or after them.

These means we have a massive Board of Regents.....with many factions on it.

Its just the way it is.

My problem is that for whatever reason TCU seems to be able to have leaders who grow the campus, grow the endowment, rise in the rankings, not fight with their alumni association, win Rose bowls in football, and not have a major scandal every 8 years.

Our Regents keep screwing up.

Something is very wrong with the culture of the Regents.

---

Agree. Something is wrong with regents' culture (a sex toy salesman, a bank robber, a ceo that pencil whipped his expense reports, etc.) but we won't see if it's been fixed for several more years based on decisions made now. TCU, however, does not have our problems because they don't maintain a "Christian Mission" (yes, I used that term loosely) pretentious attitude that we do.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

8-10 seems like a good number.

tommie said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

8-10 seems like a good number.

---

Based on what parameters?

witchmo said:

---

tommie said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

8-10 seems like a good number.

---

Based on what parameters?

---

University of Texas has 9 on their board.

The parameters are based on donations and political connections, I suspect.

witchmo said:

---

tommie said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

8-10 seems like a good number.

---

Based on what parameters?

---

My belief that too many makes the board ineffective. I believe you need experts and leaders, not cheerleaders.

Can you name an effective organization with a 40 person board of directors?

BaylorBJM said:

---

william said:

---

Longstreet said:

---

He is n....

---

.... such an unfunny beating.

---

---

tommie said:

---

witchmo said:

---

tommie said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

8-10 seems like a good number.

---

Based on what parameters?

---

My belief that too many makes the board ineffective. I believe you need experts and leaders, not cheerleaders.

Can you name an effective organization with a 40 person board of directors?

---

I was merely asking your reasons for that small a board. Your "need experts and leaders" resonates because it is fact, but I have to ask "experts and leaders in what fields"? Not playing the old rhetorical game here: specifics are required with such a small board. And a small board requires a well-run administration and academy.

Like you, I don't know of a well-run corporation with a huge board, though thery may well exist. As I said before, it's WHO one puts on the board that matters along with who leads that board.

While I think BU's board should be much smaller, I think it unrealistic to shoot for 8-10 due to the requirement for BGCT appointees. While some have objected to them, those folks have served Baylor well historically. Add expertise in business and finance, leadership, development, important ties outside academia....numbers add up pretty quickly.

But you are dead right IMO: 40 is unwieldy in that it extends all decision-making timelines and processes. There is also the potential for multiple "power cliques" to form outside leadership, the opposite of the oligarchic potential of too small a board.

Stranger said:

---

witchmo said:

---

tommie said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

8-10 seems like a good number.

---

Based on what parameters?

---

University of Texas has 9 on their board.

The parameters are based on donations and political connections, I suspect.

---

Their Regents are committed to running an outstanding university and are held accountable by the legislature, AG and "citizens of Texas". Big difference from us!

While I think a small board is best as a general rule. I agree that Baylor's should be big at this time. We need more folks like we are getting now who seem to be realists about what it is going to take to be a top research university in America or "private version" of University of Texas and who are realistic about what it takes to run a top notch athletic side of a university and who can out vote the same old type of voices who have run the show since the mid 90s, "almost into the ground at times". Then those folks can reform the board in terms of size. I think we are finally starting to get on the right path Regent wise. Livingston will turn out to be a very transformative president if as reported she is involved in all of this.

YoakDaddy said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Keyser Soze said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Regardless, 40 is an absurd size for a board at a university. It should be less than half the size it is currently.

---

Based on what I have heard and seen, the BOR is making strides away from oligarchical control of the past while instituting needed corrections toward becoming the effective and competent governance board needed. Livingstone is directly involved in those efforts as is Allison. Time will tell if this plays out well but the indicators are in place. There are some good new people on board. Hopefully, they have the wherewithal to withstand manipulation and a possess a frame of reference for good governance principles. That said, a board of 40 is twice the size needed but it does dilute individual influence. The new chair and Livingstone have a lot of work to do.

---

Agree

Have seen plenty that the most productive and efficient BOR size is smaller - that said larger sure helps prevent concentration of power. While I am the opposite of the conspiracy theorist around here, it is a heck of a lot harder to keep nefarious secretes with a larger group. You want more transparency - a larger BOR is good for that.

---

There is a saying in business...."if a board of governance can't share a large pizza it is to big"

Most professional big state schools have maybe 10-15 members.

Some I have seen have as few as 7 members.

But Baylor... like TCU and other private schools..... has to let lots of alumni on because its a way to reward those who give money or who share ideological views.

How do you think a non-baptist like Clifton Robinson got on there? reward for lots of money given.

Also, at private schools like ours the leaders want to get their long time personal friends, professional relations, sunday school classmates, ex-KOT frat brothers, etc on the Board to serve with them or after them.

These means we have a massive Board of Regents.....with many factions on it.

Its just the way it is.

My problem is that for whatever reason TCU seems to be able to have leaders who grow the campus, grow the endowment, rise in the rankings, not fight with their alumni association, win Rose bowls in football, and not have a major scandal every 8 years.

Our Regents keep screwing up.

Something is very wrong with the culture of the Regents.

---

Agree. Something is wrong with regents' culture (a sex toy salesman, a bank robber, a ceo that pencil whipped his expense reports, etc.) but we won't see if it's been fixed for several more years based on decisions made now. TCU, however, does not have our problems because they don't maintain a "Christian Mission" (yes, I used that term loosely) pretentious attitude that we do.

---

I do think there is something in the "priesthood of the believer" mixed with Texan culture that causes massive dysfunction. Baptists and Texans do not do great with "get along, go along, compromise."

Baylor's problem for decades has been a lack of a clear vision and mission. I'm not an expert by any means, but it felt like before Sloan Baylor's mission had been to provide Baptist students with a strong university education. That was the objective, and everything else was part of that. Practically that meant:
1. Baptists always have been poor compared to their mainline brothers, so there was an emphasis on middle class affordability
2. A Texas Baptist sentiment, so we want to be religious but we respect individuality and freedom and did not really give a crap about what others thought
3. A strong, well rounded academic mission - not a true liberal arts school but one that appreciated the liberal arts

I think every since the Sloan regime, Baylor has not really figured out what it wants to be and has fumbled on just about every aspect trying to be poor replicas of other schools

4 or 5 years ago I acksed for a comparo between Bay ND Rice SMU TCU - maybe WF - and maybe a Trinity or an Austin College on the size of their BORs.

TIA.

- KKM

william said:

---

4 or 5 years ago I acksed for a comparo between Bay ND Rice SMU TCU - maybe WF - and maybe a Trinity or an Austin College on the size of their BORs.

TIA.

- KKM

---

TCU 48 - abt 2/3 are alums
SMU 42
WF 44
Rice 26
Trinity 25

these all are Board of Trustees