Will a smaller, more dedicated board cure what ails North Dakota’s embattled higher-education system? The state’s voters will get a chance to decide on Tuesday.
The State Board of Higher Education, which oversees North Dakota’s 11 public colleges and universities, has eight part-time members appointed by the governor. But a ballot measure would cut the board to just three appointed members, who would serve full time.
If sparse polling is any indication, the measure is a long shot. But the state’s Measure 3 is arguably the most substantive of a series of referenda that could have real implications for several states’ higher-education systems.
North Dakota has a long history of skirmishes between lawmakers, system administrators, and faculty members. Momentum for the referendum has been building since last summer, when board members voted to buy out the contract of the system’s chancellor, Hamid A. Shirvani, after only 11 months on the job. During his tumultuous tenure, Mr. Shirvani clashed with professors and students, received a vote of no confidence from the faculty of Minot State University, and drew criticism from the state’s attorney general, who cited the board for two violations of the state’s open-meetings law.
In response, a coalition of Republican lawmakers proposed the changes in the board. They hope that having three full-time members will foster more direct communication between legislators and the heads of the state’s university system. That communication had broken down during Mr. Shirvani’s tenure, the Republicans say.
“We found that this model is not working,” said State Sen. David J. Hogue, one of the bill’s sponsors.
Under the proposed changes, one member would be appointed from the private sector, one would come from a higher-education background, and a third would fill an “at large” slot. The new full-time members would be supported by a volunteer advisory board, including a student member.
“We’ve just had good experiences with three-member commissions,” said Mr. Hogue, a Republican whose district includes Minot State.
A shift to paid full-timers would cut against the grain: Volunteer boards make up a majority of higher-education governing organizations, and North Dakota has maintained a part-time board since 1938.
A Question of Autonomy
But while Mr. Hogue pitches the measure as a way to keep the university system accountable, detractors—including current members of the board—say the plan would undermine the board’s autonomy.
Under the lawmakers’ proposal, they argue, the new board members would be fully accountable to the state legislature and governor for their jobs.
That would give lawmakers too much influence over board members, especially those without prior experience in higher education, said Kirsten Diederich, who became board chair last August, just after the board voted to oust Mr. Shirvani.
“It’s very appropriate for them to ask the hard questions about money matters, but I would like to keep it to that,” Ms. Diederich said. “What I’m concerned about is that legislators will start to get into ‘Which majors do you offer?’”
So far, potential voters appear to agree. In a poll commissioned early last month by the Forum Communications Company, 47 percent of likely voters said they would vote against the measure, while 21 percent said they would support it. The other 32 percent remained undecided.
Officials at the Higher Learning Commission, the regional accreditor with authority over nearly all of the state’s colleges and universities, have also raised concerns about the independence of the proposed three-member board.
While nothing in the measure violates accreditation standards, agency representatives wrote in a report to Larry C. Skogen, the university system’s interim chancellor, “the team is concerned that there are many details related to the implementation of the measure that, if not handled properly, could place the system’s accreditation status at risk.”
Ms. Diederich acknowledged that there was room for improvement in the relationship between the state’s legislature and its higher-education board. “Maybe higher education has to tell our stories better, tell them what we do, how we’re doing it, and show how we’re accountable,” she said. “But we will not jump ship on this.”
Elsewhere …
Ballot measures before voters in other states concerning higher-education issues include student scholarships and privately owned dormitories.
Oregon voters will decide whether to authorize the state legislature to use income from state-funded general-obligation bonds to provide scholarships and grants to college students.
The proposal, spearheaded by Ted Wheeler, the state treasurer and a Democrat, is on the ballot as Measure 86. It would supplement the existing need-based Oregon Opportunity Grants—which, according to Mr. Wheeler, have not kept pace with rising tuition costs.
The new fund would be available to students at public and private colleges.
A catch in Mr. Wheeler’s proposal: During a lean year, the state’s bonds could generate no income—and no funding for student grants.
If Measure 86 passes, Mr. Wheeler has said, he will ask the legislature to invest $100-million in the fund, with 5 percent of the income set aside for scholarships.
In Wyoming, voters will decide whether to allow people who do not live in the state to serve as trustees of the University of Wyoming under Constitutional Amendment A. Nonresident trustees, who are appointed by the governor with input from the State Senate, could not make up more than 20 percent of the board, which has 13 members.
Georgia voters will decide whether private owners of student dorms and parking facilities should pay property taxes on those buildings. The ballot measure, Referendum 1, was proposed as part of a larger legislative effort to allow private companies to buy and operate dorms at public universities across the state to reduce the university system’s debt.
In New Mexico, voters will decide whether to allow Northern New Mexico College to appoint one student member to serve as a regent for a two-year term.