CSCU committee asks chancellor to nominate prioritized designees in new succession policy

The Connecticut State Colleges and Universities Governance & Nominations Committee on Feb. 9 asked staff to draft a single succession policy that would formalize how the system and campus leadership would be covered during planned and unplanned absences.

The committee’s chair said the goal was to have a clear, legally compliant plan that preserves ‘unity of command’ and avoids creating ambiguous arrangements that split ultimate responsibility. The discussion centered on three drafted options: (1) the chancellor designates individuals by name, (2) a specified position (for example, a chief financial officer) is named, or (3) a hybrid list of positions. Committee members largely favored a model in which the chancellor recommends and prioritizes a short list of designees each year.

Karen, a staff member who presented the draft policy language, defined the absence categories that the draft would use. “Short term absence I defined as 30 days or less,” she said, and she described long-term absence as roughly 30–90 days and extended absence as more than 90 days. The draft contemplates an annual July 1 letter from the chancellor listing who is authorized to act during short absences and updates if circumstances change.

Regents raised three recurring concerns: that titles and organizational structures can change (making a position-based approach brittle); that designees should be internal senior leaders qualified to sign contracts and make operational decisions; and that one person should be ultimately accountable. “I think there needs to be one person ultimately responsible,” said Regent Ira Bloom, pressing for clarity about who would make final calls when executive responsibilities overlap.

Chancellor John Maduco urged the committee to reference existing incapacity and management policies and employment agreements, noting those documents already provide some authority in emergencies. “If I’m incapacitated, that’s when the board steps in,” he said, adding that the board chair might also have a role in activating emergency measures.

Committee members asked Karen to produce a single consolidated policy that preserves flexibility (allowing the board to choose from a pool of senior administrators rather than being tied to titles), formalizes the annual designee notification, and specifies that the Board will step in if an absence extends beyond 90 days. The committee expects to review the revised draft at a future meeting and, if ready, forward it to the full Board.

The committee also noted that fitness-for-duty and other employment-contract issues are governed by separate rules and should not be folded into the succession policy itself; existing contract provisions and fitness-for-duty examinations could apply when return-to-work capability is disputed.

The committee voted to have staff return with the revised draft for further review and possible referral to the full board.