It will not surprise you to learn that many, if not most, people who make a career at the top administrative levels of higher and secondary education—College and University Presidents and Heads of Independent Schools—are genuinely idealistic about their work. They care deeply for their schools, their students, faculty and other employees, their donors and their own reputations as stewards of America’s educational institutions, perhaps our country’s greatest contribution to the world economy.
This caring is what makes them successful as leaders and fundraisers.
However, when it comes to self care, our experience as legal counsel for these educational executives is that they are not nearly so good for themselves. They rarely allow even serious health issues to interrupt a scheduled cross-country journey to speak with alumni. Despite their contractual entitlement to a minimum of four weeks of annual vacation, they routinely take less, sometimes meaningfully less. When a search firm calls on Thursday morning to inquire about their openness to alternative (and possibly more lucrative) employment, they are too busy to take the call.
As a result, one of our frequent challenges is to persuade these educational executives to take better care of themselves!
In the best of circumstances, they have almost impossible jobs. Those jobs start with a genuine “24/7” accountability (the reason that term became a cliché is that it was true). Critics and often faculty complain that the President or Head receives a significantly higher level of compensation, while ignoring the far greater duties, responsibilities and stresses of the top job, which are literally never ending.
A former, extremely well-respected and successful President of the University of Virginia was preparing to step down after decades of service, and a host of well-deserved celebrations of his accomplishments had been planned. A month before his departure, a student murdered his girlfriend. All the festivities scheduled in his honor were cancelled and replaced by candlelight vigils across campus. Perhaps this is an extreme example of how institutional caring replaces self care, but not one which is wholly unknown.
This makes it even more important that the employment contracts which we handle for these Presidents or Heads “bake in” as many key protections for them as possible.
Some of these protections are common to executive employment agreements in a commercial as well as an educational or “not for profit” context: a strict definition of “Cause” for termination; an explicit opportunity to “cure” conflicts with the Board of Trustees; generous severance in the event of a termination “without Cause”. Additionally, there should be one or more specific “Good Reasons” which would allow the President to step down voluntarily from his or her leadership role and still receive severance and/or other types of monetary compensation (one principal “Good Reason” is a good faith, irreconcilable conflict with the Board over the direction in which the institution is headed; another—more common than you might think—is whether the President or Head was misled about the financial resources or wherewithal of the school when hired).
Other important contractual protections are geared to the educational model of executive employment: benefits concerning housing or equivalent allowances; contributions to the different types of tax deferred retirement accounts; and so-called “Retreat Rights” to the College or University faculty.
We consistently argue that these protections are a minimum consideration given the burden of these types of jobs.
Lisa, Theresa and I wish our friends, clients and readers a sunny (and increasingly warmer) Spring after a hard winter in many areas of the country.
