FAMU Trustees Highlight Leadership and Chair Concerns in New Self-Evaluation

Florida A&M University’s Board of Trustees Faces Internal Challenges

Florida A&M University’s Board of Trustees has recently released a detailed self-evaluation, shedding light on internal challenges that have impacted the institution's governance. The document outlines several areas where the board feels it needs improvement, particularly in leadership, communication, and its relationship with the former interim president.

The self-evaluation was made public, revealing that the board scored itself lower across most categories compared to the previous year. One of the most significant concerns was related to governance and leadership, where the board received an average score of 2.1 out of 5. This low rating suggests that the board members felt their operations lacked cohesion and a shared vision. Most members rated their responses as “below average” for this statement.

Among the five statements assessing the board’s effectiveness, only one category—participation in the decision-making process—received a higher average score. Other areas, such as working with clear responsibilities, maintaining independence from outside stakeholders, and the chair’s leadership, were all rated lower than expected.

The evaluation also pointed out that FAMU faculty have been systematically excluded from key decisions. This issue is believed to be exacerbated by the chair’s leadership style. The board expressed concerns that its current model does not reflect the inclusive, transparent, and principled governance that the university deserves. It emphasized that faculty are committed to advocating for fairness and shared governance, urging the board to do the same.

“The leadership model currently in place is not reflective of the inclusive, transparent, and principled governance that our University deserves,” the evaluation stated. “Faculty remain committed to advocating for fairness, shared governance, and the betterment of our institution, and we call upon the Board to do the same.”

The document further criticized the board for functioning at a low level due to poor leadership, which hinders the university’s progress. Members gave low scores for policy implementation, approach, and institutional sustainability. Additionally, they pointed out a lack of accountability among administrators, which they attributed to the chair’s failure to improve relations between board members.

Despite these criticisms, the board acknowledged some positive aspects of its work. These included the selection of a new president and a successful budgetary process. However, the evaluation revealed mixed reviews regarding the past year’s interim president, Timothy J. Beard.

Trustee Kristin Harper praised Beard for creating a culture of trust, mutual respect, and accountability, especially among senior leadership. In contrast, Vice Chair Deveron Gibbons strongly disagreed, calling Beard “a complete embarrassment” and “the most ineffective leader I have seen in a long time.”

The board also subtly addressed concerns about the presidential search process, which led to rumors about external political pressures influencing board decisions. The appointment of Marva Johnson, who has the support of Florida’s MAGA-affiliated leadership, sparked backlash within the HBCU community.

“There has been ongoing concern and hearsay regarding the influence of external political pressures on how certain Board members cast their votes. If these claims are unfounded, it's important that we remain transparent and unified to dispel any misconceptions.”

Faced with growing mistrust, the board has recognized the need to course-correct and assure stakeholders, faculty, and students that it is acting in the best interest of FAMU. It added, “However, if there is truth to them, we must address it directly and take steps to ensure that our decision-making remains rooted solely in what is best for the university and those we are here to serve. We need to address the issue of trust, with each other, and with key stakeholders.”

The board’s self-evaluation highlights the complex challenges it faces and the urgent need for reform to restore confidence and ensure effective governance moving forward.