Despite considerable international literature acknowledging issues associated with the effectiveness of university academic boards (also known as academic senates or faculty senates), there is little current empirical research exploring why difficulties might exist and what (if anything) might be done about them. This article reports the findings of case study research conducted in Australian universities, which examined fulfilment of academic board terms of reference and perceived academic board strengths and weaknesses. Based on the data, the article then considers the characteristics of one particular "effective" academic board. It concludes by highlighting some potential implications of the research for those universities seeking to enhance the future role and function of their academic board, which include discussing the apparent importance of latent or tacit functions of university academic boards, versus those functions or responsibilities which are formally documented, and the building of intellectual and symbolic capital for their respective universities through a focus on the substantive quality of core academic programmes.