(This commentary appeared previously in The Montana State Collegian. It is printed here with the permission of the author.)
[N.B. The Montana Professor "does not edit expression of individual views on political issues other than for length and possible defamation."]
I cannot support Constitutional Amendment 30. It is aimed at politicizing Montana's higher educational institutions at a time when we need stability and predictability in order to serve our state and our students well.
The amendment replaces an independent citizen Board of Regents with an undefined group whose powers we do now know, because those powers will be determined by the legislature two months after the November election.
It also replaces the Commissioner of Higher Education with a new agency of state government reporting directly to the Governor. We cannot know exactly what this agency will do either because its powers are also left to future legislatures. As citizens, we are always well advised to know what we are voting on when we change our constitution. CA-30 proposes a big change, but gives us little information about the replacement structure.
In 1972, representatives to Montana's Constitutional Convention spent months discussing and debating the twin themes of purpose and control. The majority of the delegates believed that the old constitution as it related to higher education, needed revision. The chairman of the education and public lands committee of the Convention, Rick Champeaux, Kalispell, set the tone for the discussion by noting that direct legislative control, as provided for in the old constitution, had proven to be unworkable. Delegates looked to the model established in the Michigan Constitution, which also came about amid the belief that the legislature had inappropriately intervened in the university by the capricious use of its law-making powers in areas of curriculum and faculty appointments.
Wishing to protect the Montana University System from similar political incursions, delegates wanted relative autonomy for a governing board, but they also realized that a system of checks and balances needed to be present. Their final product which was ratified by the people of Montana, provided a measure of autonomy along with a companion requirement for accountability.
Under the current system our elected legislators maintain control of the purse strings. They decide exactly how much of our precious tax resource can be allocated to higher education and they audit the institutions to make sure every appropriated dollar is accounted for, but there are also checks. For example, the legislature cannot order a campus to get rid of an academic program which it dislikes or institute a program somewhere else that it likes better. It's left to the Regents to deliberate curriculum needs.
The legislature also appropriates student tuition, but to balance the fiscal side, the Board of Regents sets the tuition rate. Historically, tuition and state tax appropriations are closely wedded. When state tax appropriations decline, tuition rises, but neither decision is made in a vacuum. In fact, a committee of legislators and regents work together when the legislature is not in session to keep the lines of communication open and to consider both tuition and tax policy.
The balancing continues with the Governor, who appoints the members of the Board of Regents and is also an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Board. His only constitutional limits are that his appointees must be confirmed by the Montana Senate. Some governors have not taken this seriously. Gov. Marc Racicot, on the other hand, has been an avid participant in board meetings.
The Board hires a commissioner to manage the University System, but the commissioner must bring his budget first before the board and then to the legislature for an appropriation, thus completing the circle of checks and balances. This is not a foolproof system and the Board has certainly made some unpopular decisions in the last 24 years, but on the whole the system works.
Now we are faced with a new ballot issue designed to remove the carefully-tested system of checks and balances that governs Montana's public universities and colleges. The arguments, both pro and con, are important to study, but from my perspective the ballot issue before us fails the first test of a good referendum.
Unlike those who voted for the 1972 constitution and ratified it again in 1992, we really cannot be sure what we are voting on this November. We know that the Board of Regents will be abolished if the amendment passes, but we cannot know what will replace it. That in itself is reason enough to vote against CA-30.