"Apparent authority is not actual authority at all; the term is used to describe the situation where someone acting for the institution induces a belief in other persons that authority exists when in fact it does not. Administrators should avoid this appearance of authority and should not rely on apparent authority as a basis for acting, because the institution may be held liable, under the doctrine of "estoppel," for resultant harm to persons who rely to their detriment on an appearance of authority" (Kaplin, 1986, 41).
"For public institutions... unauthorized acts may be invalidated in courts or administrative agencies under the ultra vires doctrine of administrative law (a doctrine applied to acts that are beyond the delegated authority of a public body or official)" (Kaplin, 1986, 42).
"When the unauthorized act is a failure to follow institutional regulations and the institution is public courts will sometimes hold that the act violated procedural due process" (Kaplin, 1986, 42):
Escobar v. State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, 427 F.Supp. 850 (E.D.N.Y. 1977)..."..it is a denial of due process of law for the chief administrative officer to step in, conduct his own in camera review of the student's record, and impose a different punishment without complying with any of the procedures which have been formally established for the college. Here the president simply brushed aside the college's formal regulations and procedures and, without specific authority, imposed a punishment of greater severity... [427 F.Supp. at 858]."
"For both public and private institutions, an unauthorized act violating institutional regulations may also be invalidated as a breach of an express or implied contract with students or the faculty" (Kaplin, 1986, 43). see Lyons v. Salve Regina College, 422 F.Supp. 1354 (D.R.I. 1976).
"The institution's tort liability may depend on whether the officer or employee committing the tort was acting within the scope of his authority" (Kaplin, 1986, 43).
"The institution's contract liability may depend on whether the officer or employee entering the contract was authorized to do so" (Kaplin, 1986, 43).
"...under the estoppel doctrine, both the institution and the individual may be liable when the institution or individual had apparent authority to act" (Kaplin, 1986, 43).
"In public institution the authority of trustees is defined and limited by the state statutes..." (Kaplin, 1986, 44).
"The authority of the highest ranking officers and administrators of postsecondary institutions.. derive.. from subdelegation by the institution's board of trustees" (Kaplin, 1986, 50-51).
"Even when an institutional officer or administrator acts beyond the scope of his delegated power, so that the act is unauthorized, the board of trustees may subsequently 'ratify' the act if that act was within the scope of the board's own authority. Ratification converts the initially unauthorized act into an authorized act" (Kaplin, 1986, 51)... see Silverman v. University of Colorado, 555 P.2d 1155 (Colo. 1976); see also Tuskegee Institute v. May Refrigeration Co., 344 So.2d 156 (Ala. 1977).
"Public institutions can sometimes escape tort liability by asserting sovereign or governmental immunity. The availability of this defense varies greatly from state to state... the doctrine has been abrogated or modified in many states by judicial decisions..." (Kaplin, 1986, 56). (for cases, see 33 A.L.R.3d 703 (1970 & periodic supp.)).
"One of the most important defenses against a defamation action is the conditional privilege of fair comment and criticism" (Kaplin, 1986, 61):
Greenya v. George Washington University, 512 F2d 556 (D.C.Cir.1975)... "It is well accepted that officers and faculty members of educational organizations enjoy a qualified privilege to discuss the qualification and character of fellow officers and faculty members if the matter communicated is pertinent to the functioning of the educational institution... For a plaintiff to overcome the privilege, he must prove [that] the publication occurred outside normal channels or that the normal manner of handling such information resulted in an unreasonable degree of publication in light of the purposes of the privilege or that publication was made with malicious intent [512 F.2d at 563]."
"Another conditional privilege that is important for administators in state institutions is the privilege afforded to executive and administrative officers of government" (Kaplin, 1986, 61).
Shearer v. Lambert, 547 P.2d 98 (Or.1976)... "..the privilege is designed to free public officials from intimidation in the discharge of their duties... [This qualified privilege is available, however, only where the defendent] publishes the defamatory matter in the performance of his official duties."
Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan.279, 540 P.2d 66 (1975): "To determine whether the record establishes an agency by agreement, it must be examined to ascertain if the party sought to be charged as principal had delegated authority to the alleged agent by words which expressly authorize the agent to do the delegated act. If there is evidence of that character, the authority of the agent is express. If no express authorization is found, then the evidence must be considered to determine whether the alleged agent possesses implied powers. The test utilized by this court to determine if the alleged agent possesses implied powers is whether, from the facts and circumstances of the particular case, it appears there was an implied intention to create an agency, in which event the relation may be held to exist, notwithstanding either a denial by the alleged principal, or whether the parties understood it to be an agency.
"...An ostensible or apparent agent is one whom the principal has intentionally or by want of ordinary care induced and permitted third persons to believe to be his agent...
"Upon acquiring knowledge of his agent's unauthorized act, the principal should promptly repudiate the act; otherwise it will be presumed that he has ratified and affirmed the act [540 P.2d at 74-75]."
"Each year, when it is determined that satisfactory effort has been made to comply with these standards... the commissioner of education will certify to the proper officials that the institution is entitled to receive its allocated apportionment..." (THECB, 1983, Subchapter D, sect. 9.61).
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). (1993, January 22). Rules and regulations of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board: Chapter 9, Public junior colleges. Austin: Author.