The question [of passage of C-30] is irrelevant. The Montana University System can be run well by Regents and a Commissioner - it can be run well by the Legislature and a Department Director. Unfortunately, it can also be run poorly by either agency. Like the issue of faculty workloads, the question trivializes a significant issue, and provides a Band-Aid so that legislators, regents, and voters can say: "There - I've done my part to improve our Universities." However, as with the workload issue, the Band-Aid soon peels off exposing the wound, which my have healed buy may also have become infected when ignored.

In the case of governance of the U-system, the wound is either a willful or ignorant misunderstanding of the purpose of a University. Proclamation of the direct economic benefits of a university (community cashflow, increased earnings potential) puts the cart before the horse. The primary purpose of a university is to educate its students. It is not to provide local jobs or high salaries at graduation. Why do university graduates command those higher salaries? Because they have (presumably) been educated. Why are the jobs necessary? Because the process of education is as efficient as possible. (Note that the production of a Ferrari may be as efficient as the production of a Toyota - efficiency in this context only implies that the best possible product is produced for the cost). The recent history of the Commissioner and Regents has not been impressive in that regard. The switch to semesters is a good example - it can only be termed efficient if faculty time has no value. It does, however, give the impression of oversight and control. Would the Legislature do any better? Highly doubtful.

There are some ways in which either the Regent system or a legislative Education Committee could be implemented so as to improve the result. Most importantly, no one should serve in the oversight body if they have a personal or financial stake in any of the counties, cities and towns which host units of the U-system. Those conflicts of interest have helped to build the fragmented, inefficient U-system we now have. Secondly, the oversight body should have a non-voting representation by both students and educators. It seems clear that the regents are somewhat unaware of the consequences of their actions. A Board of Regents without a conflict of interest might manage to make decisions in the best interests of the entire state, rather than a limited constituency. An Education Committee in the legislature without conflict of interest would likely be prone to trade off votes on University issues for votes on other issues, thus could not be expected to manage the U-system effectively. As a primary purse-holder, however, it might have more power for positive change than would the Regents.

The proposed constitutional amendment is unlikely to materially improve the Montana University System, regardless of its passage or failure.

William Locke
Professor of Geology
MSU-Bozeman