The rumors were hot for a time: The South Carolina State Board of Trustees that was again amid a change of leadership and membership would oust president George Cooper. On June 15, a divided board did just that, voting 7-4 not to renew Cooper’s contract when it expires June 30.

The decision may be more about board politics than Cooper’s performance, though determining just what did not meet the approval of a majority of trustees may never be truly understood. All discussion of the president’s performance was held behind closed doors and there is no statement from the board on the decision, just an unexplained public vote.

S.C. State stakeholders and the citizens of the state deserve an explanation. The board’s ouster of five presidents in 15 years is not the norm. Why is there so much discord among trustees, who are presently in the process of changing leaders and seeing two newly elected trustees gain seats?

Board politics may yet change the equation.

Lumus Byrd and Earl Bridges voted to remove Cooper. They will leave their seats effective July 1, to be replaced by Robert L. Waldrep Jr. and Patricia Lott. Trustee Matthew Richardson says he will call for a new vote on Cooper when the new members take their seats, an action he can precipitate because he voted with the majority to oust Cooper even though he says he favors keeping the president. ...

The board already has been warned by the accrediting agency Southern Association of Colleges and Schools not to overstep its authority. Critics say the panel continues to involve itself too much in operation of the school — the responsibility of the administration.

Just how well or how poorly Cooper was doing as president remains a mystery. Board members are in clear disagreement, and only those willing to defend Cooper are speaking. They say the president should be retained. They contend the issue is not finished.

During his two years as president, Cooper has faced some of the toughest budgetary times ever seen by S.C. public colleges and universities. If he has not been the leader that board members wanted, they should explain why to all of us left shaking our heads about another shake-up at a university that desperately needs some stability. Answers are overdue.

The (Orangeburg) Times and Democrat