Leadership in Adventist Higher Education Series:

Richard Osborn, PhD, retired in 2019 after 49 years of K-12 and higher-education service, almost entirely in the faith-based education sector. From 2001 until 2009, he served as the 20th president of Pacific Union College (Angwin, California, U.S.A.), and from October 2023 to June 2024, came out of retirement to serve as interim president of La Sierra University (Riverside, California). An educator and educational administrator by profession, Osborn taught and held K-12 and higher education administrative roles within the Seventh-day Adventist system. He served as principal of Takoma Academy (Takoma Park, Maryland, U.S.A.), superintendent of education for the Potomac Conference (Staunton, Virginia), vice president for education of the Columbia Union Conference (Columbia, Maryland), and vice president for education for the North American Division (Columbia, Maryland).

Osborn has held administrative roles in faith-based and secular educational agencies, such as a vice president of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), which serves as the regional accreditation association for California, Hawaii, and several international institutions; president and treasurer of the Council for American Private Education (CAPE), a national organization to which 80 percent of private elementary and secondary schools in the United States belong. He also volunteered as chairman of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, advocating for private higher education in California. Other roles include co-chair of Denominational Executives in Church-related Higher Education, the first president of the Association of Adventist Colleges and Universities, and on several boards, such as Kettering Medical Center and Kettering College (Kettering, Ohio), Loma Linda University Health (Loma Linda, California), Los Angeles Pacific University (San Dimas, California), Pacifica Graduate Institute (Carpinteria, California), The Chicago School (Chicago, Illinois), and United States University (San Diego, California). A recipient of the Charles Elliott Weniger Award for Excellence in 2009, he currently serves as president of the Charles E. Weniger Foundation and was a member of the North American Division Higher Education Collaboration Task Force. In retirement, he has served as a paid consultant to 27 universities and helped Qatar set up its first higher education accreditation agency, the National Committee for Qualifications and Academic Accreditation (NCQAA).

Bordes Henry Saturné (BHS): Please tell us how you became president of Pacific Union College (PUC).

Richard Osborn (RO): I had a career mainly at the K-12 level. In that capacity, I moved up through the various levels of administration. I started as an elementary school teacher, then a principal, an academy teacher-principal, then a conference superintendent, and then the vice president for education at Columbia Union, and vice president for education of the North American Division. I had the privilege of serving on college boards during that time.

After getting a Master’s degree in history at the University of Maryland, I also had to decide where I would get my doctorate. At one point, I thought I would get an EdD, but I decided to get an academic PhD in history, which meant it took me much longer. I was in my doctoral program for 13 years. That was my background.

Malcolm Maxwell was the first PUC alum to serve as its president. He was an iconic president and a highly beloved leader in our church education system. When he retired, the board looked at and focused on a couple of people. They decided to offer the job first to another person who was already a college president. When he declined, they came my way. I had made presentations to the PUC board that were visionary, broadly framed, and focused on [potential] trends of the future, so they were familiar with me and comfortable with who I was.

They also had a job for my wife, one of the first [modern] female pastors in the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the first of three women to be ordained at Sligo church. So, those two things made it very attractive for us. I had never wanted to be a college president. I loved my work at the division, and I was a perfect fit for that job; I had all the skills at K-12 and higher education levels and the academic pedigree for that position.

BHS: Why did you say you never wanted to be a college president?

RO: That was because of my job at the North American Division (NAD) was so fulfilling. I was the first vice president for education at the division. It had always been a director position, but it became a VP position under Al McClure, when he was division president. When I was called to go to the NAD, it was initially anticipated that I would work with K-12 schools. However, they also needed to find somebody to work with higher education. None of the [college and university] presidents wanted that position, primarily because it didn’t have the responsibilities that they were used to. So, the presidents themselves suggested that I be asked to do it. I told Elder McClure that if a vice-presidential position that combined K-12 and higher education would be made, it would be easier [for the job recipient] to function at that administrative level.

BHS: Do you think you were well prepared for the role of college president?

RO: Although I had an academic PhD, I had never taught [in higher education]. Even at the K-12 level, I only taught for five years at the 7th- and 8th-grade level and then at the academy level for four years. I had gone into administration early on. So, I was primarily administratively oriented. My résumé would have been stronger if I had been a professor, a department chair, an academic dean, or a provost, but I did not have those [positions] in my background.

I had a lot of political connections because my father was an officer of the General Conference; I knew church leaders very well. I was able to articulate where we needed to go. So, I felt well-prepared on the political side of things. Getting an academic PhD also enhanced my understanding of the higher education arena. These are things that some presidents wouldn’t have in terms of K-12 background and working at all the levels of church governance—as compared to being in a college situation and advancing through the ranks from being a lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor, et cetera. The most considerable lack in my résumé was academic experience in the classroom [at the higher education level].

When I talk with search committees looking for a president, my advice is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate, and make sure you have people who can [offset] the weaknesses. If the candidate says they have no weaknesses, you should look elsewhere because everyone has weaknesses, and you must ensure you have a team. If you have someone who is not an academic, make sure you have a strong academic dean. If you have someone who needs to be more assertive with finance, get a strong finance person—and you can go through the whole list like that. The president doesn’t have to be an expert in all those areas.

BHS: What could be done in the Adventist system to better prepare future college and university executives?

RO: If you are looking within the higher ed ranks, you will give opportunities to star teachers or individuals who show administrative abilities by giving them increasing responsibilities, committee assignments, projects, department chair roles, etc.

One problem is that we often don’t want people who rock the boat. Some of the brightest people (who can be very aggressive in their views) are sometimes overlooked because they threaten how we have always done things. They are scuttled early in their careers and often leave because it is so discouraging to them. We must create an atmosphere where these young, bright minds can function and be respected for their ideas.

We had a North American Division Higher Ed Task Force that I was privileged to be asked to serve on even after I retired. [Former] Andrews University president Andrea Luxton appointed to the task force Anthony Bosman, a young math professor—a Stanford graduate. I’d never heard of him because he had yet to come through the administration system. Significantly, Luxton was the only one who appointed somebody like that to be on this task force, which looked at collaboration overall in North America.

We need to identify individuals like this early on, foster and cultivate their careers, and give them opportunities to show their abilities. And even if they are independent-minded thinkers, don’t put them aside because you want people who think like everybody else.

BHS: What could be the role of former college and university presidents in the Adventist system?

RO: Once they retire, these individuals are often neglected, but there are roles that they can play. Retirees, in general, need to be addressed by asking for [their] advice. I have suggested that presidents stay in touch with their predecessors, even if they don’t need counsel. It will make them feel they are still essential and provide a nice transition. As interim president of La Sierra University, I had a regular monthly Zoom call with two of my predecessors, Larry Geraty and Randal Wisbey, and stayed in contact with many former La Sierra administrators to get advice. And this applies to all levels of church leadership where we haven’t taken advantage of these individuals.

I have the privilege of serving on the Loma Linda University Health Board [of Trustees], which is a combined health/university board. That’s a way of utilizing my background, and I serve on four other university boards (none of which are Adventist boards). There are many other retirees who have continued to provide support—Gordon Bietz worked at the NAD coordinating higher education, and Andrea Luxton, recent president of Andrews University, has taken on this role since retiring. Larry Geraty was hired to continue fundraising for La Sierra University, and Niels-Erik Andreasen is another example of someone who continued after retirement to help raise funds for the institution where he worked [Andrews University].¹ Some of these are volunteer positions, and others are paid positions. We must not try to take advantage of these individuals by not giving them any compensation for their work.

So, there are ways of doing this—having them participate on committees, seeking their ideas, and bringing them in to give their advice and counsel. Former presidents, however, also have to remember that there are new teams in charge, these are different times, and there are new ways of doing business. There does come a time when institutions need to move on and seek younger leadership to help build the institution and keep it strong.

BHS: How do Adventist colleges and universities contribute to the mission of the church? And how can they do that more effectively?

RO: These institutions were started to provide church workers for the denomination. Many decades ago, there weren’t enough jobs in the church to hire all those graduates, so it became a matter of training young people who could carry the church’s mission into the world. These institutions no longer serve as just a church hiring agency. It’s now much broader than that. And so, you want to make sure that these individuals are witnessing in different ways, some very overtly, and others in quieter ways, through the testimony of their lives. And that they bring back the skills they gained as active laypersons to the church.

There is an aspect of higher ed that I don’t know that we as a church have taken advantage of or used effectively: the concept of a think tank for the Adventist Church. I think this is where higher ed is crucial.

I became good friends with Albert J. Myer, the head of the Mennonite Board of Higher Education. He often talked to me about how the Mennonites viewed their seminaries as the think tank for the church and was surprised that the Adventist Church didn’t do that more than we do. We had the opportunity to offer a board workshop at Andrews when I was working at NAD. Al had done a lot of governance work, so he understood Andrews well.

So, I think our colleges should also be seen as the Adventist Church’s think tank. It’s a threat sometimes to church leaders because academics don’t always think the same as the leaders have always thought and believed. There’s this thought that we have everything we need within the church; if we just read Ellen White and the Bible, we have everything we need to look at these exciting issues out there.

Let’s take one example: Artificial Intelligence. This is an area that the denomination would want to look to academics to form a think tank. It’s incredible what’s happening. My wife and I watched a 60 Minutes interview with the founder of AI,² and he talked about how AI is developing so fast, it would have its own mind and intelligence, not just something computers had programmed. It’s a terrifying thought that this technology could come together to surpass the human mind. Is that something the church should be thinking about?

BHS: What are the most critical challenges facing higher education in North America, and what can good leaders do to mitigate them?

RO: Enrollment is number one. Enrollment drives the finances, and you can only do something if you have the money. And so that’s the biggest challenge.

Number two is finances. How do students finance their education? How much debt are they going to take on? How well can universities help mitigate that debt by creating more efficiencies?

Let me add another one. We have too many institutions for such a small denomination in North America. Having this large number of universities means the quality gets reduced. We could have fewer institutions or more collaboration between them. That was my big push when I was at the North American Division.

BHS: Would you consider the issues associated with diversity a severe threat to the unity of the Adventist Church and education system? And what would you suggest to our church leaders to alleviate them?

RO: We’ve done very well with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. In the U.S. News [& World Report] rankings, Andrews, La Sierra, and PUC have been ranked highly for their diversity. We have done an excellent job of diversifying our student bodies. In some cases, they reflect the constituency where they’re located. Walla Walla University will always have a problem with diversity numbers because that region is not very diverse, although they have done much better in recent years. Obviously, Oakwood University is an HBCU [Historically Black Colleges and Universities). We have the three healthcare institutions (AdventHealth University, Kettering, and Loma Linda), which are also demographically different. I think that the diversity numbers at Southern Adventist University are much better integrated and substantial today.

Where we have the challenge is matching that in administration, staffing, and faculty, and in board representation. It’s mainly a challenge in the western U.S., where Latinos are the dominant number of students in our institutions. We also have solid Asian numbers, but neither [group] has substantial faculty numbers. We see people pursue study in specific academic fields but not others. Some of that is also limited opportunities. For example, “We could never get that degree because we’re from a family that doesn’t speak English,” or “We’re the first in our generation to go to college, and no one we know has studied that.” So, it’s not because of a lack of intelligence or ability; sometimes, it’s a lack of opportunities that are made available. So hiring African American, Latino, and Asian faculty, administrators, and staff is a huge issue.

It would be best if we consciously worked, especially with administrators, in having a diverse pool at the top administration level. I think it’s essential that we also not just characterize certain positions as being ethnic positions.

Our board representation is also feeble in terms of ethnic diversity. You have to work at that to make sure that you have a broad group. Again, my concern is that our biggest problem has been Latino and Asian representation, given the significant numbers of students [from those ethnic groups].

Those are some of my concerns about DEI. I know that it’s become very unpopular in some parts of the country. The positions are being banned, and the officers are prohibited from functioning. I like to talk about the role of DEI offices. When I worked with DEI efforts, I observed that those offices were focused on narrowing academic achievement gaps between ethnic groups and improving retention and graduation rates. These offices address questions such as, “Are there differences between various ethnic groups and genders in terms of staying on and graduating and in terms of actual outcomes and learning outcome performance? What are the differences, and what can we do to narrow the achievement gaps between these groups as an institution?”

In my work at WSCUC [Western Association of Schools and Colleges], I encountered fantastic examples of public universities that, through sheer effort and financial commitment, had narrowed the achievement gaps to almost nothing. The support systems that enabled that were inspiring because I hadn’t seen anything similar among Adventist institutions. Our institutions are small in comparison to public universities, so I needed to see the kind of concerted effort I have seen at these public institutions of explicitly looking at, “How is the Asian student doing compared to the black student and the Hispanic student a Caucasian student? How are men and women doing compared to each other? How about those who come from lower financial backgrounds? What can we do to narrow those gaps that we find? What specific programs can we put in place? Who can we hire to help these individuals achieve those [goals]?”

DEI is a very valid effort, and I’ve been upset at the denigration of it in some states in the U.S. and some universities getting rid of it. Colleges and universities are there to enable every student to succeed, find ways for them to grow regardless of their background, and graduate with the learning outcomes needed to perform jobs in society. I also support changing the terminology of DEI if it is too politically fraught. There are ways to achieve the same goals using different language. For example, one institution on whose board I serve does not have a VP for DEI but a VP for People, Belonging, and Culture.

This would be a significant effort by the Adventist Church because we look at the whole issue of equality and help young people achieve their dreams. The Adventist Church is relatively young. However, Adventists have always believed that every student should have a chance to attend college. Every student should be able to achieve. So, we have produced far more college graduates than would ever be anticipated for this kind of denomination just because it’s been one of the emphases. And I see a relationship between that and DEI, which is the same goal of DEI efforts.

BHS: Let’s talk briefly about the board of trustees when you were president. How did you work with the board? And how often did they evaluate you, or did they?

RO: The board [at PUC] only evaluated me once, and they asked me to leave. There were no formal evaluations up to that time.

Board training has been a problem, not just in the Adventist Church but also in a broader context. As someone said, it’s like hiring a bunch of quarterbacks to try to help run an institution. There needs to be adequate training. Many of these are very successful people who must learn how higher education functions and understand that they’re dealing with academics at a very high level, not a lower level of nitty gritty. You hire administration to do that.

Some of our boards need to be held accountable more. There must be much more excellent work without their getting involved in the nitty-gritty areas. Most of our boards operate through committees. The committees do the hard work of the board. Then, the committees bring reports to the full board meeting.

So, these are very well-meaning people, but they often lack understanding or skill in dealing with the higher ed market. For some, serving on a board is just seen as a glorious, honorary position. These board members do not take the time to learn the issues—barely reading the materials sent out in advance. I’m not saying everybody’s like this; many are reading current literature in higher ed. One of the things I tell board members, and I’ve done this outside the denomination as well, is to subscribe to the The Chronicle of Higher Education and sign up for Inside Higher Ed, a newsletter with excellent coverage that comes every day (available online with signup). Try to stay up to date with the trends and what is happening in higher ed. It is an obligation of your board membership. And also, make a financial contribution. No matter how big or small the amount, every board member ought to make a financial contribution so the institution can say that 100 percent of the board members made a donation, which gives more credibility when others are being asked to contribute.

Unfortunately, there’s been a lack of accountability on the part of many boards. Board training and evaluation are essential and must occur regularly. Bringing in outside experts to provide workshops on what a good board does is also necessary and should be required. Another problem is that the boards are all chaired by church leaders. These church leaders are skilled in running the church but may not be that skilled in running a higher ed board.

BHS: If you had to give three pieces of advice to a new college or university president, what would you say?

RO: The first would be to hire a mentor, not just a volunteer mentor, but a successful person who’s been a president. I’ve recommended this both in and out of the church. If it’s not paid, then it’s a casual kind of thing. An actual mentor is one of the essential things I suggest.

The second is to stay in touch with and involve your predecessor.

The third is that we recognize that higher ed is a collaborative venture that stresses the importance of shared governance. You can only build up a team through successful collaborative efforts, not only among your administrative team but also among the faculty, the staff, and the board, so all those areas function together effectively.

BHS: How did your presidency affect your family?

RO: My wife loved working at PUC and appreciated the role of being the president’s wife.

Even though she had a professional career as a pastor, she enjoyed this part of her life, the involvement in student activities, and the hospitality we extended to the campus. We did a lot of entertaining; we probably averaged about 1,600 people a year who came to the president’s home for meals—students, faculty, staff, campus guests, various groups—you name it.

In terms of our kids, they were grown up. I became president the day that our daughter graduated from PUC. Our son stayed in Maryland to complete his education, and he would come out and visit once in a while. And, that gets to that whole idea of “home.” How do you define home? For him, home was where we [had always] lived, and that was Maryland. And when we moved to California, it was a place to visit. So that changed for him dramatically. When I lost my job at PUC, that was pretty traumatic for all of us, but after I found fulfilling employment, that lessened some of the shock.

BHS: What was the issue with the board that they asked you to leave?

RO: The institution’s finances needed to be studied. I forced the study of the college’s finances over the objections of one of the other administrators and appointed a top-flight committee to handle it. The committee came back with many recommendations in the financial area, and board members focused some of them on me as the problem. And so, they took a no-confidence vote and said I should leave. I resigned without anything in place but finished out the year.

Thankfully, I had a job within about two months outside the denomination and spent 10.5 of the happiest years of my career working with accreditation. Looking back, I think they [the board] blamed me for all the issues listed in that report and felt they needed a new president.

BHS: Do you feel that you were treated fairly by the board?

RO: No, because I was never evaluated. I was never assessed and told, “These are the areas you need to improve.” None of that happened. It did not feel fair then, but it all worked out eventually. Taking it in perspective, I’m glad it happened because I ended up in a beautiful place to end my career. And then, in retirement, I was able to continue utilizing some of the skills I had learned in the Adventist system, where I worked for almost 40 years, and then the 10.5 years at WASC. I have experienced amazing consulting possibilities and service on boards that would never have happened if I hadn’t left denominational employment.

BHS: God has a way of blessing His children. When you’re a president, did you have a chance to take your vacation, or to go to the doctor regularly?

RO: I developed diabetes. I didn’t know that I had it; it showed up in a physical. I was very regular about seeing the doctor. I’ve done a lot better with that, in terms of having a regular time to exercise. I did walk, which is my primary exercise because I have a torn meniscus in my knee. So, I tried, but the job could be more relaxed. It just never ends. It’s 24/7. So, it takes its toll on you.

BHS: How did you support campus employees’ health, life, and work-life balance?

RO: By talking about it and modeling it. You can’t force people to do this. I think it’s also important to ensure that your policies are adequate, your medical policies are good, and your medical-leave policies are in place. As I noted previously, I have diabetes; I would talk about it openly. I didn’t try to hide it. I hoped my sharing might encourage others to get tested and try to maintain their blood sugar levels at an appropriate level, if possible.

BHS: What was the role of personal devotion or spirituality during your life as president?

RO: Probably not as good as it should have been. I probably relied more on Sabbath school and church than almost anything. There was a long-time Sabbath school class that was held in the choir room of the music hall at PUC. It had been going on for several decades when I got there. That was my spiritual home. I always attended that class. If I could, I went there every Sabbath. That’s where I got my spiritual nourishment. I tried to have a regular reading life related to spirituality during the week, but the job sometimes just consumed me.

So, I would say that much of this was more related to formal activities, such as Sabbath school and church, which has always been the most essential part of my spiritual journey.

BHS: According to Selingo et al.,³ the college president should be an academic, an intellectual leader, a storyteller, a strategist, and a communicator. Could that be a fair description of your presidency?

RO: I think there are elements of each of these that are my strengths and maybe some areas that weren’t as strong. Because I didn’t have a background in teaching [in higher ed], perhaps the academic would be less so—even though I had a PhD in history, which was a solid academic degree. I tried to read and study and articulate theoretical views, but perhaps I didn’t have as much direct personal experience beyond my interests in that area. Regarding intellectual leadership, I have always enjoyed articulating big ideas, reading, and sharing what I read with others—building this broader learning community through sharing things. I like to tell stories too much, and the older I get, maybe more than I should. The strategist is vital to being a president. It’s crucial.

Being a communicator, you have to transmit the institution's vision not only to potential [and current] students but also to donors, to the broader constituency, to the church leadership, to your board, and all of those elements. It’s a highly complex job.

BHS: How did your leadership influence student life on campus?

RO: I modeled [this on] my brother-in-law, Larry Geraty [former president of Atlantic Union College and La Sierra University], who showed up at everything. I tried to be a presence at everything I could. If I was on campus, I was at almost every function, just to be visible. Whether that was on Friday nights, whether it was recitals, academic presentations by students, athletic events, you name it, I was there. Modeling was important.

We also had a lot of students coming through our house for meals. Our house had an open-door policy. I stayed in very close contact with the student association president. We met every two or three weeks, but the meetings were not always in my office. Every other meeting was in the office of the student leader. I wanted them to see and visualize that they were essential and only sometimes had to appear in my office.

A student visited my office when I became president, probably the first week. The receptionist said, “Somebody wants to see you.” So, Jason Decena came in and sat down, and we started talking and comparing notes. And finally, I said, “Why did you come?” He said, “I came to pray with you.” He was the pastor of the student body. For the rest of that year, we had an appointment to pray together every two weeks. Jason is now the chaplain of La Sierra University. That’s a beautiful story.

BHS: Do you feel that you owe an apology to anyone because of what happened during your presidency? A decision that you made or failed to make?

RO: One of the VPs wanted us to drop one of her employees, a very charismatic person who was loved in the community. I tried to back up my vice presidents with their recommendations, and I did. I apologized to that employee. I said, “I didn’t treat you right.” That’s an example of someone I’ve apologized to but let me broaden this a bit. I’ve been in a situation where I needed to apologize for actions taken by presidents before me. And in doing that, I hope that if I have done something, a new president would feel comfortable apologizing on behalf of the institution.

One example is Ray Cottrell, editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and associate editor of the The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Before these appointments, he was a professor at PUC. The administration refused to send him to get a PhD, even though he had been accepted to the University of Chicago for doctoral study.

F. D. Nichol rescued him and brought him to Washington, D.C., where he spent much of the rest of his career editing the 10 volumes of the Commentary and as associate editor of The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. Still, he always felt terrible that he had never gotten a doctorate. One Saturday night, a professor at Loma Linda called me in tears. Ray was on his deathbed. The professor wanted to know if anything could be done at that particular moment. I said, “I’ll fly down and apologize.”

So, I wrote a letter, flew down to southern California, and I read it to Ray Cottrell. In the letter, I apologized for the prior administration’s actions in not sending him to graduate school. Of course, I also said that if he had gone and gotten a PhD at the University of Chicago, he would have been in a narrow academic area and teaching in a limited area. Instead, he impacted the entire Adventist Church through the SDA Bible Commentary and his writings. Nevertheless, it still wasn’t right. Although he was almost non-communicative, he knew what I was doing. He died two days later after I was able to make that appearance.

Another example is Ted Benedict, a professor in communications at PUC. As a PUC student, he had dreamed of being the chair of the Communication Department, which he achieved. After a falling out with the administration, he and several prominent and influential teachers at PUC were fired.

Benedict went to San Jose State, where he worked for 30 years. When he retired, he was named an emeritus professor and held a high administrative role, but remained a loyal Adventist—even serving on the La Sierra University board. But he had not been treated right. So, I met with him for breakfast one morning with our wives. I read a letter of apology to him for what a prior president had done. He took the letter and said, “I’m going to sleep on this overnight, and I’ll get back to you.” A few days later, he wrote, “I accept your apology.” He was a photographer who had a lot of expensive photography equipment and donated all that equipment to PUC.

So, my point from this is that if I’ve done similar things to people, [I hope] a president in the future will be willing to apologize on behalf of the institution.

BHS: How did you provide support or professional development for yourself, your faculty, and your staff?

RO: We had a budget. I can’t remember what it was for faculty, but they could accumulate it and put two years together to go to professional meetings. From the minute I started teaching, I have been involved with professional development. I believed in it, modeled it, and supported faculty, especially if they would be making a presentation. Sometimes, people say it was only one good session today. But that’s my goal. Show up, and get one new idea a day at a professional workshop.

My professional career was built on showing up. As a 7th- and 8th-grade social studies teacher, I joined the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS), the professional organization for K-12 social studies teachers. When NCSS sent out an invitation for members to participate in committees, I applied to be on the curriculum committee. I argued that I taught for the world’s most extensive faith-based education system. I got appointed and showed up at my first meeting. They needed someone to take minutes, so I volunteered, which enabled me to get to know the chairman of the meeting. He appointed me to chair a subcommittee, and when his term was up, he nominated me to replace him as the chair of that committee. One of my significant jobs was to develop curriculum standards, which needed to be revised. And I chaired that committee to change the social studies standards for the country from NCSS.

From that, I continued and enjoyed being involved in out-of-the-church professional organizations. I have many more examples of showing up and becoming actively involved professionally. That was my way. I’m very committed to professional development and have tried to do that myself.

BHS: How did you prepare the next generation of student leaders to serve the institution?

RO: One of my biggest focuses was on developing student leaders. I had four students as official invitees to the board. I saw this as an excellent leadership opportunity for them. We had our board [seated] in a big circle. I’ve been at many Adventist university boards where the administrators and many student observers sit on the outside edge and are not encouraged to participate in what’s happening. I had a huge circle, and I had students intermingled with board members.

We had a couple of faculty and staff representatives, the VPs were all in that circle, and then the board, and if students did not talk, I would call on them in the board meeting: “What do you think about this?” because I saw that as a fantastic opportunity to develop student leaders. I had done this when I was an academy principal. I had two students on my board. I didn’t kick them out for the most sensitive personnel discussions, even when deciding whether we would fire certain teachers for financial reasons. And I was criticized for that; however, that was my focus—helping students prepare for the future.

I remember those first two students; one was Kendra Haloviak Valentine, now a religion professor at La Sierra, and the other, Ranjit Moses, worked a high level in Europe for such companies as Nestle.

We didn’t have leadership succession plans. PUC had a rotating chair system that would change the department chair every two or three years. That would be a chance for younger faculty to get administrative experience. The academic dean I hired for the last part of my years at PUC was the English Department chair. She had started as an English professor, then chair of the department, and became the academic dean, the second-highest campus administrator. I hope some of the younger faculty are put on critical committees to help develop their leadership potential.

BHS: Do you have any regrets about your presidency?

RO: No significant regrets. There are always things that, looking back, I could have done differently. I don’t like how my presidency ended. I wish I had been better attuned to what was going on with the board. I was doing what I thought was best for the institution in the report that I had made. But you wonder later, “Were there things I could have done differently relating to certain people?” Those are probably the biggest regrets. However, that disappointment led to one of the most exciting parts of my 50-year career in higher education, setting up a very fulfilling retirement.

BHS: Any question that you think I should have asked?

RO: That was pretty comprehensive.

BHS: Thank you for your authenticity, transparency, and willingness to discuss tough questions. This has been an inspiring session, and you have inspired countless current and future leaders.

This interview has been condensed. Minor editing has been done, but the verbal style has been retained.

Bordes Henry Saturné

Bordes Henry Saturné, PhD, serves as Vice President for Strategic Enrollment, Marketing, and Communication and Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. At the time of coordinating this issue, he served as Chair of the Andrews University School of Leadership. An ordained minister, he served in New York as a church pastor, school principal, and conference superintendent of schools. He was Vice President of Atlantic Union College in Massachusetts, U.S.A., and Vice President of Asia-Pacific International University in Thailand. He is a New York State-certified School District Administrator. His research interests focus on leadership development and the challenges and opportunities unique to faith-based educational institutions. He may be reached at [email protected].

Richard (Dick) Osborn

Richard Osborn, PhD, is a retired educator and educational administrator. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in from Columbia Union College (now Washington Adventist University) in Takoma Park, Maryland, U.S.A., and a Master’s degree and doctorate in history from the University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland). He also attended the Institute for Educational Management at Harvard University. He may be reached by e-mail at [email protected].