We are grateful to all the contributors who have agreed to address the complex issues of university governance raised by the passage of HB 229. It is our hope that the articles in this issue will help serve to frame the debate on the fate of the university system during this election year. When he was invited to contribute to this issue of The Montana Professor, we told the governor that we intended to present a "balanced view" of these matters. As contributions were received, it became clear that the majority of opinion was against the referendum he supports. At first glance it would appear we have been disingenuous because the balance of opinion is in nowise equal. However, a careful reading of the articles in this issue will reveal that there is no lack of sympathy and appreciation for the governor's position, and for the role he has played in recent negotiations with the campuses. The opinions of our contributors have been thoughtfully developed, and are based on candid analyses of the way the system seems to be working; there is no partisanship reflected here.
It is difficult to argue with Governor Racicot's assertion that the current system has been working imperfectly. The problems that obtain from the constitutional separation of legislative budget authority and the governance of higher education by the regents are undeniable. The "tug-of-war" analogy suggested by Chancellor Sheila Stearns seems appropriate for describing the historic antagonism between the sides. Eric Feaver and Jim McGarvey present their solution by suggesting that the regents, the governor, and the commissioner remedy this failure by simply implementing the constitutional role of the State Board of Education which was designed to coordinate planning and budget requests for the state's education system. None of the players seem to have confidence that this is a viable solution. It is difficult to imagine how the constituencies represented by the regents and the commissioner, and those represented by the Board of Public Education would allow their positions to be compromised in a horse trade once every two years.
The governor's solution and, in part, the solution proposed by the Governor's Task Force is to create a Department of Education. But, as Martin Burke points out, this represents only a "piecemeal" adoption of the complete recommendation made by the Task Force since HB 228 was not passed. The remaining referendum, HB 229, would remove the constitutional authority for the governance of higher education from the regents and establish a Department of Education, essentially a state agency, to manage the Montana university system. The director of this new agency would be appointed by, and report directly to, the governor. This arrangement, according to the proponents, would lead to greater accountability and efficiency by providing a single locus for policy development and budgetary authority. It would eliminate the historic "tug-of-war"--the antagonistic relationship, which has been characteristic of the dialogue between the regents, the commissioner, and the legislative branch for the last two decades, according to Martin Burke. Finally, it would fulfill the governor's desire for a constitutionally based, statutory authority to ensure there is an "appropriate" link between expenditures and educational policy. HB 229 would, in a crescendo of appeal to populist sentiment, restore authority for and ownership of higher education to the taxpaying public by vesting control of higher education in the hands of the legislature and the governor. Given such apparent benefits, why should we be concerned about HB 229?
To begin with, Martin Burke's insightful article addressing the "agency" status of the future department of education. underscores one of the problems of most concern to university faculty and administration. We believe it is important that the proponents of HB 229 understand that no matter how noble their present intentions may be, the "State v. Brannon" case illustrates the degree to which the legislature could very well interpret the notions of "ownership," "responsibility," and "authority." There are legislators who dismiss out-of-hand the assumption that HB 229 will lead to the elimination of antagonism. The antagonisms will simply be shifted to a new arena where they will be more partisan, more visible, more controversial, and certainly more dramatic. Proponents would risk the establishment of a new environment in which assaults on the academic freedom of faculty and upon the integrity of university programs become legitimized in exchange for the promise of some chimerical peace. The antagonists will remain; but without some measure of autonomy and independent advocacy against the most vindictive and ignoble side of partisan politics, higher education remains defenseless.
The populist rhetoric of restoring authority and ownership for higher education to the people through passage of HB 229 is also a cause for grave concern because it sounds so wonderful. It restores nothing, but it destroys two decades of historic progress leading to the development of a structural framework responsible for creating a first-rate university system and replaces it with the mere promise to create a new state agency, cost projection unknown, which will not even be administered by the current governor. It restores nothing to the people, but it does place authority and ownership in the hands of individual, partisan legislators. This is a dangerous use of rhetoric because the political landscape inevitably changes and there is no guarantee that the current conservative balance will remain forever. Those who would favor the creation of a new system of university governance in the present political climate because they agree with the current direction of change should be aware that they can become victims when new political philosophies change the rules. The current governor of the state enjoys enviable popularity ratings which lend enormous strength to his advocacy of HB 229 and he has been supportive of higher education. These factors create the illusion that a vote in favor of the referendum is a vote in favor of higher education. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The current governor will not be in office when the legislation goes into full effect and it is illusory to assume that all future governors will be as popular or be strong advocates of higher education.
Seen from another perspective, the adversarial relationship which occasionally arises between the regents, the commissioner and the legislature, and the governor should be viewed as positive. It benefits the taxpaying public in the long run. The regents and the commissioner provide a voice of strong, independent advocacy for the professional and educational concerns of university faculty and administrators. The faculty and the administrators of our universities are dedicated to understanding what it takes to provide an education for Montana students which will ensure they can compete with students of other states for jobs, for entrance into medical and professional schools, for graduate programs, and for being successful in a very complex and challenging world. It is the role of the regents and the commissioner to communicate these needs to the legislature and to the governor knowing full well that the needs will often exceed what the legislative spending authority can allow. Therein lies the virtue of the current system; both sides learn about the absolute limits of each other and must reach a compromise. But it is an intelligent compromise because in the process, the interests of students are not ignored.
The needs of Montana students and of the faculty and universities that serve them are certainly ignored when the central concern that dictates educational policy becomes "efficiency." Proponents argue that HB 229 will make higher education "efficient" because the same people that spend the money will determine educational policy. Such a philosophy of education leads to the assumption that the university training available to Montana students should be dictated by the amount of money the legislature is willing to allocate. It leads to the wrong-headed notion that the only measure of the effectiveness of educational programs is their fiscal "efficiency." Montana parents and the students they send to our universities are not likely to be seduced by such simplistic logic. They need to understand that, while efficiency is one measure of "producing" an educated young man or woman, it does not suffice to ensure that we have quality educational programs and appropriate support for a quality faculty. It is in their best interest to support the current system, which ensures that the needs of our universities will continue to be represented by advocates who, however imperfectly, represent the concerns of higher education to their elected representatives.
The most legitimate issue the governor raises, and it is an important one, is that of the role of his office in the governance of higher education. Aside from an ex officio role on the problematic Board of Education, the governor is also an ex officio member of the Board of Regents. He does not perceive his position on the Board of Regents as sufficient to truly have a sense of being able to coordinate policy with expenditures. Nowhere is there a constitutionally based "direct line of accountability" to the governor's office. Aside from the question of whether or not this kind of control should exist, any program manager can sympathize with his position. Perhaps the answer to this problem lies in making an attempt to capitalize on the remarkable events of this past year, when the governor discarded convention, and became directly involved in the collaborative negotiations on the campuses. Even the governor has given faint praise to the process, pointing out that while signifying a "new direction," such negotiations would not ensure the efficient use of tax dollars nor quality. Martin Burke, on the other hand, suggests that perhaps we are "coming of age," citing the recent efforts of the commissioner, the regents, and the leadership exercised by the governor as positive developments. Richard Barrett suggests that HB 229 proposes to accomplish one of the goals already realized through collaborative negotiations by providing a more direct link of accountability between the university system and the legislature. It has accomplished this while, at the same time, preserving the role of the commissioner and the regents--which is to provide an independent voice for the real needs of the faculty. One may argue about the effectiveness of their advocacy, but at least the opportunity was there. No one is satisfied, nor will all parties to such complex negotiations ever be satisfied. But it is a beginning. This issue of The Montana Professor contains articles written by faculty members directly involved in the recent negotiations: Eversman/Scarrah-MSU, and Richard Barrett-UM. Each of these articles provides an analysis of the roles of all the parties involved in the negotiations. Maybe we can learn something that will help us make the current system work.
While the outcomes are important, what is perhaps more important is that a new process has evolved since the 1972 Constitutional Convention which may have promise for the future. It has brought the faculty, the governor, the commissioner, the regents, and the legislature together in a unique working relationship which may be worth preserving. This is a question we would like to pose to the readership of The Montana Professor: Would it be worthwhile to convene a meeting of the campus participants in the recent collaborative bargaining processes and try to capitalize on what has been accomplished? If the referendum fails, it is likely that collaborative bargaining will gain official stature as the operational mode of doing business. We need to be prepared to make the process more responsive to our needs. We will also need to find ways to better communicate the needs of the faculty and of our universities to those who will continue to be our only constitutionally based voices of advocacy: the commissioner and the regents.
Our heartiest congratulations and warmest thanks go to lack Jelinski for the excellent work he has done as Guest Editor of this issue. Jack has secured contributions from an array of distinguished authors, all of whom are players in one way or another in the issue of changing the governance structure of the Montana University System. He then worked with these authors on their contributions and shepherded them to a timely conclusion. Given that all of them are very busy people and not easily threatened or cajoled, Jack had to be both exquisitely diplomatic and at the same time firm. Then he led the issue off with an outstanding editorial which not only introduces the reader to the contents but also sets a tone of professionalism which we are pleased to note is maintained through all the articles. And he capped this fine editorial with an excellent suggestion which we intend to pursue with vigor and hope we are joined by others.
Our thanks also to the contributors themselves, who took time from their own busy schedules to help this journal in its effort to explicate the issue. Whatever the outcome of the election, the State of Montana and the Montana University System have been well served by your efforts.
The reader will notice that the contributors refer to HB 229 which is the right and proper thing to do, since that is the correct designation of the bill that introduced this matter into the 1995 legislature. And since they began writing their contribution when HB 229 was the only designation there was, they have all made frequent reference to it. But to be sure there is no confusion, when the matter appears on the ballot it will be labeled C-30.
Because the editors see this issue as an excellent compilation of the arguments on and the materials relevant to the issue of whether or not the Board of Regents and the Commissioner's office should be abolished, we would like to make it possible for interested parties to purchase additional copies.
If we order in lots of at least 200, we can make them available at a cost of $2.50 for printing, postage, and handling. MFT is willing to compile orders, arrange for printing and mailing.
Inquiries about additional copies should be made to:
Montana Federation of Teachers
P.O. Box 6169
Helena, MT 59604
Telephone: (406) 442-2123
Fax (406) 442-8355