A CSU Trustee Access and Public Accountability Standard

Strengthening direct public, student and faculty access to the CSU Board of Trustees.

To: California legislators, CSU trustees, the Chancellor, CSSA, ASCSU, faculty organizations, staff organizations and campus community groups
From: Thomas J. Norman, Ph.D., Professor of Management, California State University, Dominguez Hills (views my own)

Purpose

The CSU Board of Trustees has formal public-access procedures. Members of the public may attend meetings, watch online, submit written comments and speak for one minute.

Those channels are necessary. They are not sufficient.

The Board governs curriculum, facilities, property, fiscal policy and human resources for the CSU. Its decisions affect students, employees, campuses and surrounding communities. The public should have a reliable way to provide information before major decisions are made, receive answers after questions are raised and understand whether public input changed anything.

This proposal would create a more accessible and accountable trustee system without weakening Board authority or replacing formal governance processes.

Current baseline

The CSU Board currently has 25 voting trustees. Sixteen are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. The Board also includes alumni, faculty and student trustees.

The CSU permits public comment in person, through Zoom and in writing. Written comments are distributed to trustees. Public speakers generally receive one minute, and questions are normally referred to staff.

The Board's own construction discussions demonstrate why stronger access is needed. In its 2026 student-housing cost discussion, Trustee Jack McGrory noted that previous cost discussions often lacked sufficient data. Trustees asked for cost-per-square-foot benchmarks, schedule benchmarks and clearer analysis of cost drivers.

The problem is not simply whether a meeting is technically open. The problem is whether information reaches trustees through more than one controlled channel.

Proposed standard

1. Adopt a Trustee Access Charter

Within 90 days, the Board should adopt a public Trustee Access Charter covering:

• Direct contact procedures.
• Public listening sessions.
• Campus visits.
• Student and faculty briefings.
• Public questions and responses.
• Publication of follow-up actions.

The charter should apply to trustees, the Chancellor's Office and campus hosts.

2. Establish regular public listening sessions

Each standing committee should hold at least one public listening session each quarter. Sessions should be available in person and online.

The sessions should include:

• Students.
• Faculty.
• Staff.
• Alumni.
• Local elected officials.
• Community organizations.
• Labor representatives.
• Campus neighbors.

The purpose would be to gather information, not to create a second Board meeting. Staff should prepare a public summary identifying recurring concerns, unanswered questions and matters requiring follow-up.

3. Create an independent campus-visit protocol

Campus visits should not function solely as executive briefings controlled by the Chancellor, president or campus communications staff.

At least 15 days before a trustee visit, the CSU should publish:

• The purpose of the visit.
• The schedule.
• Participating offices and organizations.
• Public-facing events.
• A method for submitting questions.
• A post-visit report.

Every campus visit should include at least one structured listening session with students and employees. When appropriate, the visit should also include local community, labor and civic representatives.

The post-visit report should state what trustees heard, what information was requested and what actions were assigned.

4. Establish a public trustee question log

The CSU should create a searchable online question log. Members of the public, students and employees should be able to submit questions to the Board or a standing committee.

Each submission should receive:

• A tracking number.
• The responsible office.
• A response deadline.
• A written answer or an explanation of why additional time is required.
• A final disposition.

A reasonable standard would be acknowledgment within five business days and a substantive response within 30 days.

5. Publish pre-vote materials earlier

For major votes involving construction, compensation, tuition, labor policy, student services or campus closures, the CSU should publish decision materials at least 10 business days before the meeting.

Materials should include:

• Staff recommendations.
• Cost estimates.
• Alternatives considered.
• Consultant scopes of work.
• Relevant contracts.
• Equity and student-impact analysis.
• Unresolved questions.
• A plain-language summary.
• Machine-readable tables where practical.

The goal is to give the public time to understand a proposal before the vote, rather than treating public comment as the first opportunity for review.

6. Guarantee student and faculty briefings

Before major votes, the Board or responsible committee should provide a briefing to designated student and faculty representatives.

The briefing should include:

• The proposal.
• The evidence supporting it.
• The risks and tradeoffs.
• The questions trustees are still considering.
• The deadline for written responses.

CSSA and ASCSU should be invited to submit written briefing memoranda. The Board should publish a response matrix showing which concerns were accepted, rejected or deferred.

This would preserve trustee independence while reducing information asymmetry.

7. Improve public comment

The existing one-minute rule should be supplemented with a more useful written-response system.

The CSU should:

• Confirm receipt of written comments.
• Publish comments when legally permissible.
• Provide a short written response to recurring substantive questions.
• Allow longer presentations during designated listening sessions.
• Explain when a large volume of speakers requires reduced time.

Public comment should not be mistaken for dialogue. The public deserves a defined mechanism for receiving answers.

8. Provide direct trustee contact

The central office should remain available for coordination, but it should not be the only practical route to trustees.

Each trustee should have:

• A public email address or contact form.
• Published office hours at least twice each year.
• A current biography and committee assignment.
• A record of public listening sessions.
• A method for requesting accessibility or language assistance.

The system should protect personal safety, privacy and confidential student information. Those safeguards do not require making trustees inaccessible.

9. Publish an annual access report

The Board should publish an annual Trustee Access Report containing:

• Number of listening sessions.
• Attendance by stakeholder category.
• Number of questions received.
• Median response time.
• Number of unanswered questions.
• Campus visits and participants.
• Public comments submitted.
• Issues that changed a recommendation or Board action.
• Barriers identified by students, faculty and community members.

The most important metric is not the number of meetings. It is whether the information path broadened and whether the Board can show what it learned.

Disclosure. I serve on the executive board of the Dominguez Hills chapter of the California Faculty Association. I write here as an individual faculty member.