Two Boards Proposed for State's Universities

PHOENIX (By Judd Slivka, Arizona Republic) July 30, 2004 - A new alternative for redesigning the university system would create two governing boards for higher education under a plan submitted Thursday to the state Board of Regents.

The proposal has star power behind it: It's endorsed by two former governors (Raul Castro and Fife Symington), two former presidents of Northern Arizona University (Gene Hughes and Clara Lovett) and a handful of state legislators and former regents.

If it were adopted, it would ensure NAU a central role in the future development of the state's university system, and would make the Flagstaff-based university a big fish in a small pond.

"NAU should have co-status with its sister universities," said Eddie Basha, Valley grocery magnate, former regent and one of the plan's signatories. "For too long it's been ignored and treated badly."

Last year, he suggested setting up a board of directors for each of the state's three universities.

The latest plan is a reaction to a university redesign proposal introduced in May that would have made NAU an undergraduate-focused institution, along with two newly created universities.

Nearly 10 alternatives to that plan have been submitted so far, but the one released Thursday is by far the most radical departure and has the most powerful and credible group of backers.

A working group will be studying the plans over the next year.

"I think maybe we do need a second board of trustees," said state Sen. Robert Blendu, R-Litchfield Park, who signed the proposal. "If these people want to redesign things, I don't think they should be able to dictate how it's going to go.

"Have you tried to get a four-year degree in four years from UA or ASU? It's almost impossible. We need to get back to educating students, not research. I'm not saying doing research is bad, but our primary mission should be education."

Fundamentals of the plan include:

• Two separate governing boards for public universities in the state - one to manage UA and ASU, the other to manage every other school, including NAU, the former ASU-West and the state's community colleges.

• NAU would offer expanded undergraduate and graduate offerings through community colleges.

• ASU-West would become a free-standing institution and be allowed to continue its research mission.

• The second board to be created would include the governor, a representative of the Legislature, student and faculty representatives and eight political appointees who would serve six-year terms. It would oversee NAU

The question that the new proposal doesn't answer is the basic question that has ASU-West and NAU faculty wondering what's to become of them: Will they become perceived as second-tier schools?

And how does a plan that creates a second board actually leave NAU on par with UA and ASU, vastly larger schools that bring in exponentially more research money?

"I don't believe a second system in the state means a second tier," said Rhian Evans, the vice president of the NAU Alumni Association and one of the authors of the proposal. "I actually think that creating a second board of trustees gives NAU an opportunity to shine."

That's the "big fish in a small pond" theory. In addition to breaking NAU and ASU-West off to be on the second board, the proposal pushes for a " . . . board of trustees, focused on a system of higher education (rather than just universities) will enable NAU and community colleges to focus their attention on issues . . . as opposed to worrying about who might be encroaching on whose turf."

But there can be problems with that structure. One is pointed out by John Haeger, NAU's president.

"As I've said in the past, the original plan was a starting point for discussion, and I welcome input from all stakeholders," Haeger said. " . . . While I haven't had the opportunity to study the proposal, I do have a concern with the recommendation of a separate board of trustees, which could divorce NAU from its research colleagues and diminish its stature in the university system."

Another problem is pointed out by Bill Simmons, the president of ASU-West's academic senate, who read the proposal and wonders about competition. In a state like Arizona, where the Legislature has underfunded the university system for most of the past four decades, most all of the education money comes out of the same general fund pot.

"Two governing boards would inevitably compete against each other for state appropriations and would undermine the excellent work the current board of regents has done in working with the Legislature," he said. " . . . The plan would limit the research mission of the lower-tiered institutions, limit their influence, and limit minority access to high quality education while creating more bureaucracy and in-state rivalries."

Even one of the plan's signers has his own doubts about a two-board system. State Rep. Jim Carruthers, R-Yuma, is a former president of Arizona Western College in Yuma, the community college district that serves Yuma and LaPaz counties.

"My worry, and I don't say it can't work, but my worry is that if the Board of Regents has both the university and the regional or teaching universities, when they have to go to battle for funds, they'll fight harder for the whole system," Carruthers said. "If there are two boards, my worry is that if times are tight, the second board won't get the money."

Two Boards Proposed for State Universities