Written by Thomas More University Board Chair Judith A. Marlowe Ph.D., and President Joseph L. Chillo, LP.D. This article originally appeared in Trusteeship Magazine, Volume 32, Number 4, July/August 2024. Trusteeship is the publication of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB). Copyright 2024 AGB. Reprinted with permission.

At Thomas More University, the relationship between the university president and chair of the board of trustees created a foundation to enable student success equitably in a big way. The effectiveness of the president-board chair partnership resulted in a student success approach that enabled the board to address specific university concerns immediately, and more importantly, it created an opportunity for change and greater effectiveness for the future.

The landscape of higher education has been changing rapidly over the last five years. Rising costs, shifts in demographics, the global pandemic, and the public’s perception of the value of higher education are just some of the challenges that leaders at colleges and universities confront today.

Thomas More University is no exception. Founded by the Sisters of St. Benedict as Villa Madonna College in 1921 in the aftermath of the worldwide flu pandemic, its original mission was to prepare women religious to teach in area schools. It has transformed itself to meet the challenges and opportunities of changing times ever since. The G.I. Bill at the end of World War II brought a transition to coeducation and soon after that a recognition of the need to relocate from the college’s urban roots to a more suitable campus. That goal was achieved in 1968 and accompanied by a new name, Thomas More College. In 2018, on the 50th anniversary of this radical change in identity and location, Thomas More became a university. Situated in the suburbs of northern Kentucky, minutes away from Cincinnati, Ohio, today Thomas More welcomes students of all faiths. Approximately 30 percent of them are the first in their family to pursue postsecondary studies. Through a Catholic values-based liberal arts curriculum in its three colleges, students are challenged to examine the ultimate meaning of life, their place in the world, and their responsibility to others. Although students are now taught by lay faculty, professors continue to be known not only for their dedication to excellence but also for their personalized focus on student welfare and future success.

Despite the university having adapted to a changing world for more than a century, current conditions support ongoing self-evaluation and transformation. We live in a time when institutions overcome by enrollment challenges and financial difficulties continue to reach the difficult decision to close their doors. We know the importance that strategic enrollment management, fundraising, endowment performance, and controlling financial aid discounting and operational expenses all play in shaping an institution’s health. Today’s environment also requires an institution to be agile and innovative to survive and flourish. The president alone cannot address all its challenges and needs simultaneously. Successful institutions must have a strong partnership between the chair of the board of trustees and the president.

Aligning to Achieve Effective Governance

An agile leadership style engages in multiple dimensions to ensure that the success of the institution reflects a dynamic and collaborative process for the benefit of both the institutional mission and student success outcomes.¹ A healthy, productive partnership between the president and the board chair is commonly accepted as an essential ingredient for an institution’s mission fulfillment, stability, and continued advancement. During this period of rapid change in higher education, that partnership is crucial. The alignment between the president and the board chair is what enables an institution to be agile in shaping and defining its future. With this multidimensional alignment in leadership, the president and the board can act in ways that are predictable when dealing with issues that should be routine as well as facilitate their ability to deal with the unexpected. Predictability is essential so that faculty and staff have reasonable expectations about how decisions are made and how they align with the institution’s mission. This multidimensional relationship between the president and the board chair proved especially valuable in our small liberal arts university set to do the most important work of achieving equity in student success.

This relationship did not happen by chance. The institution was fully aware that welcoming a new president created the opportunity for transformative change. With guidance from AGB Search, the board of trustees identified the qualities that it wanted in its next president.

Planning is the golden opportunity to prepare for successful leadership, first during a time of executive transition and then throughout the presidential tenure. Yet the time available for first steps may not be as generous as the governing board may wish. In fact, with the ever-diminishing length of presidential terms of service, it is not unlikely that an institution may find itself facing an unanticipated, unbudgeted presidential search and transition, perhaps even one that is shorter and “off-cycle” compared with more typical runways to such change. As the Chronicle of Higher Education pointed out in “Portrait of the Presidency” in 2023, the average president now serves for less than six years.²

For an institution looking for strategic and transformative change from its CEO, it will be difficult to achieve without the support and direction of the board of trustees. Without a strong partnership between the president and the board chair, too many institutions will make incremental change rather than the type of transformational change that is necessary to confront today’s challenges.

Having experienced the challenges of unanticipated new leadership and the need for transformative change as well as the disruption of an unexpected global pandemic within the first year of the new president’s term, we know that the advantages of a well-executed transition and the launch of the president and board chair partnership cannot be overstated. The possibility of achieving this partnership successfully under less-than-ideal circumstances is not beyond hope. Indeed, a retrospective analysis at Thomas More University identified several keys to our success.

Finding Leadership and Forming a Partnership

Following a time-sensitive search executed in less than four months with AGB consultants Shannon McCambridge and Melissa Trotta, the board’s unanimous choice was selected and accepted the offer to serve as president on April 13, 2019, and arrived on campus to begin his term only 48 days later, June 1, 2019. As chair of the search committee as well as incoming chair of the board, Judith Marlowe got a head start on relevant conversations during the finalist stage of the search process, especially during the campus visit and stakeholder interviews. These conversations were critically important in establishing and confirming that the board and the preferred candidate, Joseph Chillo, were in alignment with one another.

After assuming our positions as president-elect and board chair, we intentionally engaged in frequent and thoughtful exchanges on the most important initiatives and issues confronting the university. The board chair’s long-term relationship with the university before serving as board chair made it possible for her to recount the institution’s history, challenges, and opportunities before the president-elect began his official duties. These discussions also helped the president-elect to develop a 90-day plan to guide the initial work of the new administration. It quickly became apparent that our concepts of leadership, mission alignment, vision for the university, and communication style were well synchronized. That synchronicity provided insights that not only supported a smooth transition but also set the stage for early implementation of several important changes and laid the foundation of trust essential to our president-board chair partnership, based on “no surprises, only complete candor.” This trust continues to characterize our working relationship while demonstrating to the rest of the board what would become the hallmark of this presidential administration, laying the foundation for engagement, collaboration, and transparency.

The partnership and friendship that emerged during this early period set the university on a new and transformative path with positive results that came at a rapid pace. Our relationship was built on a strong commitment of trust and mutual respect that was evident to both the campus community and external stakeholders. We attended key internal and external events together to demonstrate that our bond was to the university, its mission, and its institutional success. We both attended every board committee meeting, not only to participate in conversations but also to listen to and facilitate them. Building awareness across the various constituencies that the university serves was important to demonstrate the teamwork between us and to focus on key strategic initiatives, including equitable student success.

We discovered that working together requires consistent transparency and a collaborative style to build a high level of trust and engagement. Our communication is characterized by frequency, quality, and candor. We operate under the simple principle of “no surprises.” Rather than scheduled meetings at prearranged intervals, we connect (in person, by telephone, and by email) as needed to keep each other informed. We make certain that conversations are shaped around the outcomes of the strategic plan and that data are used to benchmark performance, which provides an opportunity for both of us to understand the issues and the data necessary for making decisions. We also check in with one another after each board committee meeting and board meeting to ensure that we appropriately address questions and concerns that trustees have raised. Importantly, we also make it a point to observe body language and discuss what unspoken concerns we might have detected. This debrief allows us to create follow up communications with trustees to ensure there is a high level of understanding and cooperation. And most importantly, it creates an opportunity to respond to lingering questions without the possibility of doubt or confusion.

Other trustees and university staff were welcoming and involved in supporting the professional and personal aspects of onboarding and the earliest days of this administration. During the transition, the advantage of maintaining consistent close contact between the president and board chair rather than “outsourcing” the transition to others became clear. It paid off handsomely when the pandemic required a dizzying sequence of pivots, which were well executed by the leadership team. They not only kept the university functioning, but also allowed us to move forward with some planned changes designed to invigorate policies and procedures:

• Launching a new strategic plan, “Lighting the Way,” with three outcomes: (1) student success, (2) academic excellence and innovation, and (3) responsible stewardship.
• Restructuring board committees to align each one with key themes and strategic objectives articulated in that plan.
• Initiating the quiet phase of the largest capital campaign in the university’s history, designed to fund transformative opportunities as we marked our centennial and looked ahead to our second century.

Despite the necessary limitations on personal contact during the pandemic, solid relationships were forged with campus and external communities. They yielded impressive results, including the achievement of capital campaign milestones two years ahead of schedule and the transformation of the student center back to its original recreational function after temporarily accommodating administrative offices. The reputation and profile of the university have been elevated and recognized publicly through the president’s consistent emphasis on student success, academic excellence, and community service, characterized by his personal, hands-on approach and close contact with students. In fact, at each commencement since his arrival, the number of students who voiced their appreciation (“thanks for your support and advice that helped me so much when we talked”) of that support as they received their diplomas and are congratulated by both of us is striking.

Building this strong partnership between the president and the board chair so early in the presidency enabled the institution to tackle one of the most challenging issues (beyond the COVID-19 pandemic) that most colleges and universities confront, which is how to do a better job in retaining and graduating students. We understood that mission fulfillment required a different approach to create a university that truly is positioned for today’s student population.

Introducing the First Important Change to Board Structure and Focus

As at most institutions, the board of trustees spent an enormous amount of time focused on student recruitment: the number of applications, acceptances, deposits, yield, and financial aid discounts were regularly discussed at each board meeting. In reviewing the minutes of board meetings for the previous five years, we found that the board had spent little time on the student experience, student success, student retention, and student graduation rates. With an enrollment of about 2,000 and retention and graduation rates below those of peer and aspirant institutions, it was time for a change in the conversation.

As Chait, Ryan, and Taylor remind us, “governance as leadership” is a necessary combination for institutional effectiveness.³ Working in tandem, we understood that if the institution was going to be successful in achieving student success, it needed to change the governance structure of the board of trustees. Aligning the board committees with the outcomes of the new strategic plan was the first step in reshaping the conversation of the trustees from transactional business to transformational and strategic oversight. In assessing the committees, we concluded that two—the longstanding Academic Affairs Committee and the Enrollment and Student Affairs Committee—were not able to address the issues and strategies that would optimize student success. We observed firsthand that key data and contexts were not always available to facilitate discussions and decisions within the traditional structure of the committees. Each committee focused on an important aspect of the issues separately, but lacked the full context that could move them from discussion to decision-making and then to strategy. By consolidating these two committees, they could now access all the elements necessary for understanding the complex interactions that must be considered holistically: academic, student, and institutional policies; programs; and practices aimed at student success. As a result, trustee service is more productive and satisfying, with a more realistic appreciation for the challenges that administration, faculty, and students face.

But it was not just a matter of reorganizing the board committee structure. We continued our work and were intentional in proceeding to align best practices with the university’s needs, to ensure not only that initiatives related to student success were not just the responsibility of the new Enrollment, Academic, and Student Affairs Committee, but also that issues of student finances, student debt, and return on investment were the responsibility of the Finance, Business and Capital Planning Committee. By creating cross-functional teams among trustees, the board began to have strategic conversations regarding the causes of student attrition and appropriate strategies to improve not only enrollment but more importantly retention and graduation rates. As we all know, there is no silver bullet for fixing student attrition and no single factor causing it. The necessary conversation needed to be broader in context to ensure that solving one issue did not create another that would prevent the university from measuring and achieving its institutional effectiveness in student retention.

We then turned our attention to the board agenda to ensure that meeting items were not transactional endeavors but strategically aligned with the outcomes of the strategic plan. It was critically important to transform the actions of the board into measurable strategic initiatives and to have the right board-level information to support board deliberations. The board began to utilize key performance indicators to measure progress, ranging from the percentage of first-generation persistence and retention to overall graduation rates. A dashboard created for each board committee linked these key indicators to the strategic plan and provided the opportunity for regular review. The ability to link the data with the key outcomes of the strategic plan enabled the board to have different conversations on why students did not persist in attending the university. It also enabled the trustees to synthesize the outcomes of the strategic plan and align the context of equitable student success with the goals of student success, academic excellence and innovation, and responsible stewardship.

A Unique Opportunity and Catalyst for Change

By being a student-ready university, we strive to ensure student success through initiatives like the success center. The success center is an intentional space that offers academic and co-curricular programs designed to foster student persistence towards graduation and academic and lifelong success. The center’s institutes and offices that support academics, advising, accessibility, and career development needs were important resources showing our commitment to student success. We believe that enrollees deserve full integration into the student experience, and we put that belief into practice. With the initial changes in board structure and function in place, our commitment to this objective became most evident when the university decided to accept the invitation to participate in the Governing Board Equity in Student Success Academy, which is jointly sponsored by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) and the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education (Gardner Institute). The theory of change proposed by John Gardner as the rationale for this innovative approach is clear: “Presidents and institutions will be more successful in realizing student success outcomes—especially for students of color, students from rural backgrounds, and students experiencing poverty—by actively working with boards to create and appropriately oversee equitable student success goals.”⁴

For three years, as board chair, as president, and as trustees, we have engaged the entire university community in the work that is necessary to improve student retention and graduation by identifying variables that prevent student success. As we did a deep dive into examining the factors affecting first-year retention, student retention overall, and graduation rates, as board chair and president we could have easily focused on the “why” and held individuals and departments accountable for the institution’s performance in student success (or lack thereof) over the years. Rather than looking backward, however, we established an ecosystem that allowed faculty and staff to examine the data and the factors contributing to student attrition without pointing fingers. We wanted to find problems that could lead to solutions. This ecosystem required trust and supported the ability of the community to speak freely so that we were truly holding our mission and students at the forefront of this work. In addition, it created opportunities for the board to engage directly with faculty and staff working on the goal of enhancing student success day in and day out at the university.

This opportunity to collaborate with AGB and the Gardner Institute initiative further demonstrated to the board and the university community the significance of the Governing Board Equity in Student Success Academy and the importance that it would play in reshaping the conversation from recruitment and retention to strategic enrollment management and student success. Once the board better understood the factors that were barriers to equitable student success, we then turned our attention to building a cross-functional team to work with the faculty and staff on removing them. Two key members of this team were the board chair and the chair of the Enrollment, Academic, and Student Affairs Committee. Both attended AGB and Gardner Institute meetings at various locations in Kentucky. In addition, both engaged fully with the president and members of the cabinet to review reports and recommendations. They were truly active participants and part of the president’s team studying the factors that prevented the institution from achieving equitable student success. The AGB and Gardner Institute meetings also enabled both board chair and committee chair to engage in conversations with trustees, faculty, and staff from other public and private institutions. What they soon realized was that this challenge—and the work needed for improvement—was not unique to our institution.

As the team studied the factors contributing to student attrition, the president, board, and cabinet began to model new initiatives that would remove barriers, to enhance the probability of student success. The team identified five major areas that were preventing student success: (1) financial aid, (2) academic progress, (3) mental health, (4) athletics, and (5) personal issues. Each was studied and assigned to a vice president and dean, who were to lead members of the university community in reviewing the problem, the data, and potential solutions. As one might have imagined, some of the issues required better institutional policies and procedures. Some also required faculty to reconsider high-impact practices, including the new student orientation program, the first-year experience, and the university’s core curriculum, to create more opportunities for students to double major, develop a minor, or study abroad. Developing new partnerships with an area hospital allowed the university to expand its mental health counseling services. We reduced the football roster and began to build a profile of what an academically successful student athlete looked like, as we realized that large athletic rosters were leading to higher student attrition rates. Although we were using athletics to build enrollment, that had an adverse effect on student success and institutional net revenue. We also found that too many of our student athletes were enrolling in just 13 credit hours per semester, thus requiring almost an additional year to complete their undergraduate studies. When we dug deeper, we noticed that a number of students were struggling with food insecurity after the pandemic. A new “Saints Essentials” plan was introduced to provide every student, including commuters, with a meal program. This ensured that every student had at least one meal per day as part of their university tuition.

This student success approach allowed the board to address concerns immediately, and more importantly, it created an opportunity for change and greater effectiveness. Our trustees were able to see the impact of their work and its relationship to mission fulfillment in real time. This work also demonstrated to all key constituencies that we had a shared responsibility to student success and institutional effectiveness.

It is important to emphasize that our laser focus on these two governance responsibilities has altered both our trustee recruitment and our onboarding practices. Identifying candidates who have a strong affinity for the institution has proven to be a reliable indicator of their performance as a trustee, but this does not restrict our candidate pool to alumni. It has, however, enabled us to diversify the board to include members who understand and support the concept of equity and its critical role in mission fulfillment and who can view their fiduciary responsibilities holistically. In initial meetings with candidates, we clearly explain what equity and student success mean at Thomas More and then factor their response into our decision on whether to issue an invitation. Furthermore, when we meet with new trustees for their orientation session, we weave the theme of equity in student success throughout the discussion of each committee, and specifically describe our work with the AGB and Gardner Institute project to engage and prepare each new trustee to embrace this objective from the very beginning of their service. We are determined to build an ongoing student success-centered board culture that hopefully will persist beyond our years of service.

Early Benefits of a Work in Progress

Since changing our approach, our trustees have had a higher degree of engagement and have sought more opportunities, including philanthropic ones, to be involved in helping the president and cabinet with the most challenging issues. But they do so without micromanaging. The board chair plays a critical role in ensuring that trustees are engaged and diligent in their governance policy duties but not overly engaged or intrusive in matters related to university operations.

In working with AGB and the Gardner Institute, the university has developed a new strategic approach to equitable student success. This work has also led to a comprehensive Retention Performance Management report that we have shared with the trustees and the various committees for their input and recommendations. The ability to share responsibility for this work has started to change the institutional culture, allowing the administration and faculty to focus on student success and ways to remove the barriers that are preventing student persistence and retention. As the university transforms itself by becoming a student-ready institution for today’s generation, it will require a strong strategic partnership among the president, board chair, the board of trustees, faculty, and staff to ensure institutional and student success in the years ahead.

Working with AGB and the Gardner Institute has been invaluable for Thomas More University. The focus on equitable student success has created a more transparent and outcomes-oriented environment. Trustees are now more engaged in the important work of achieving institutional and mission effectiveness.

Though we conclude our meetings with AGB and the Gardner Institute this year, the work continues. This process has enabled public and private institutions, from large Research 1 to small, private tuition-driven ones, to transform the relationship between administration and faculty and the board of trustees to focus on a singular strategic endeavor—the ability to build an equitable student success model that improves the opportunity for every student to achieve their dream of earning a college degree.

The AGB and Gardner project also reminds all of us that every student should have the opportunity to attend and graduate from college, though we may need to reimagine our policies, procedures, and institutional outcomes. We agree with John Gardner that our colleges and universities need to produce graduates who can contribute effectively to our democracy “in the third decade of the 21^st century.”⁵ Although there might be voices questioning the value of higher education, colleges and universities are well positioned to ensure that our democracy remains vibrant and relevant in a global society. But we must address those key barriers that prevent our students from graduating and that leave them with sizable personal debt.

We all have a shared responsibility to improve student access and degree attainability. The work of our boards, presidents, faculty, staff, and many others who contribute must continually focus on student success. We all know that our mission matters in how we educate students, but we must continue the hard work of ensuring that every student we admit has the opportunity and the self-responsibility to graduate. Our work with the AGB and Gardner Institute also reminds us that even though our students may assume this responsibility for their education, they still need our help and guidance to achieve it. Clearly, the innovative approach of engaging with the governing board, capitalizing on the president-board chair partnership to engage stakeholders, and activating this critical transformation university-wide offers a new and unique opportunity to meet the challenges facing higher education in a manner that benefits not only institutions of higher learning but also the very graduates that our society will depend upon in the future.

Judith A. Marlowe, Ph.D., is a Thomas More graduate in her fifth year serving as chair of the board of trustees and her tenth year as a trustee. Her professional experience includes cofounding and leading international and regional nonprofits, serving on national and international boards, and bearing worldwide responsibilities in medical device corporate leadership in the medical device industry.

Joseph L. Chillo, LP.D., is the 15th president of Thomas More University. Under his leadership, the university has raised more than $37 million for its capital campaign, developed a new strategic plan, expanded the footprint of the campus through real estate acquisitions, and grew total net assets by more than $20 million.

---

1. Richard P. Chait, William P. Ryan, and Barbara E. Taylor, Governance as Leadership: Reframing the Work of Nonprofit Boards (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2005).

2. David Jess, “Portrait of the Presidency,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 14, 2023.

3. Chait, Ryan, and Taylor, Governance as Leadership, Preface XVII.

4. John N. Gardner, Launching the First-Year Experience Movement (Virginia: Stylus Publishing, 2023).

5. Henry Stoever and Drew Koch, Overview of the Governing Board Equity in Student Success Project, AGB and the Gardner Institute.