Here’s the lesson that Portland State University students are learning from those at the very top of their institution: Credible allegations of bullying, complaints of unethical behavior and signs of dishonesty will be amply rewarded with a fat check and a promise to help thwart scrutiny.
It’s difficult to view the generous resignation agreement negotiated between PSU’s Board of Trustees and President Rahmat Shoureshi with any less cynicism. Members of PSU’s Board of Trustees have known since last fall of complaints against Shoureshi so severe that the chairwoman warned the president he could be fired. Despite putting him on an improvement plan, concerns persisted – particularly after The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Jeff Manning made public the allegations against Shoureshi – prompting the board to commission investigations into his financial management and employee relations. By May, the trustees wanted Shoureshi gone, as the terms of the once-confidential resignation agreement make clear.
But nevermind the board’s authority to fire him. The trustees, a volunteer group of business executives, PSU community members and other gubernatorial appointees, instead put a happy face on Shoureshi’s departure after only 21 months in the role. Not only did they issue a statement lauding his tenure, but they agreed to pay him a package worth more than $850,000, including health insurance into 2021 and $35,000 to cover his legal fees. And to top it off, the trustees have agreed to mislead the public and future potential employers of Shoureshi by not discussing the circumstances surrounding his resignation. Rather, they promised to stick to the tenor of PSU’s public statement and keep confidential the investigative reports and resignation agreement unless legally forced to release them.
It’s quite the soft landing for a president who was accused by the board chair six months earlier of deceiving trustees with his request for a raise, treating staff unprofessionally and putting his own financial self-interest ahead of the university’s. Gale Castillo, who chairs the board of trustees, defended the agreement in an email to The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board, noting that negotiating a “fair settlement” is standard. “PSU’s ethical and legal responsibility is to reach the best terms possible for the university, students and Oregon taxpayers,” she wrote. While the generous payout for Shoureshi is not what’s driving the 11 percent tuition increase approved by trustees last week, many students bearing the increase may question the trustees’ definition of “fair.” It remains to be seen whether the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, which must approve PSU’s tuition hike, will also signal any doubts.
Arguably, this may ultimately be the best solution to a bad situation. A resignation settlement helps achieve the trustees’ goal of getting Shoureshi immediately off campus without the costs or uncertainty of a protracted, expensive legal fight. And certainly, there’s some value to that.
But it’s important to remember that the trustees are the ones who brought him on campus in the first place and who were responsible for overseeing him. And conveniently, PSU’s confidentiality pledge helps shield not only Shoureshi but the trustees themselves. Because while Manning’s reporting has described Shoureshi’s ethically questionable decisions and management deficiencies, questions remain about whether the trustees acted promptly, responsibly and accountably.
Unfortunately, the board has said very little about what, if anything, it would do different. Yet there’s much they should answer for. How rigorous was the hiring process? Did they overlook any red flags? When did they first hear of concerns regarding his leadership? How closely did they monitor him in the months after putting him on an improvement plan? Why did they wait until after allegations were publicized in The Oregonian/OregonLive to launch investigations? What were the results of those investigations? Why not fire Shoureshi outright? And why promise confidentiality over and over when the trustees’ duty is to students and the public? Transparency should be a guiding principle from which trustees and other public officials never waver. Instead, they treat it as a bargaining chip to be traded away at the drop of a hat – as if the public interest in reports paid for with public dollars is up to them to determine. And while golden parachutes may be common in the corporate world, public institutions must consider more than just legal risk in their calculus of what’s best.
The Oregon Government Ethics Commission is to decide this month whether to investigate Shoureshi’s actions as president. It should do so with a wide-ranging look at not only Shoureshi but also at what types of controls did or did not come into play. While the board is not the target of such an inquiry, the ethics commission can help shed light on whether there are gaps or flaws in PSU’s processes for preventing, catching and correcting unethical behavior.
And to the board’s credit, Castillo acknowledged that it may be time for the board to “engage in a deep assessment and training process” regarding trustees’ roles and responsibilities. She noted that it’s been five years since PSU – and Oregon’s other public universities – began operating under their own independent boards, which were intended to help provide some business expertise in university administration. The Shoureshi debacle is as good a time as any for them to reacquaint themselves with the basic principles of governance, the transparency and prudence necessary for a public institution and the central mission of a university. To educate ethical and courageous leaders of tomorrow, they need to be ethical and courageous leaders today.
-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board