Should there be public viewings of university governance failing?

Today, I pose a question. If your organization’s leader was doing something that the rest of the staff and/or administration thought were wrong, should it be out for the whole world to see before staff and administration could come to terms with it? Is this airing your own laundry in the streets?

The Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education stated that they would not renew President David B. Ashley’s contract at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.

As the Chronicle of Higher Education and The Las Vegas Sun discussed the reasons for his dismissal, it seemed that the president was outspoken; lacked communication; had no control over his wife; had no support for the university. Apparently, some staff said that his wife had been bothering them.

Was he too outspoken? Was he being punished for his freedom of speech? Was he being punished for the actions of his wife? As a leader of a state run institution, how far can a president speak as a citizen and not a representative of the university?

Well I guess it did not help President Ashely's case to be known as publicly attacking the state's governor, Gov. James Gibbons, for budget cuts. The Las Vegas Sun called it a "public campaign" the president waged against the governor.

The president of any organization, I would say, represents the mission, the vision, the goals, the values and the embodiment of the institution. So if they decide to say something that the press can hear it could be seen as a statement coming from the institution but when can a president just be a person, a citizen who can freely talk about what "he" thinks is right and wrong?

It would seem that the Board started to think that way. They decided to give him a faculty position instead of complete separation from the university.