The legislature should take the lead in providing for evaluation of statewide

boards of higher education.

the view from the legislature

robert graham

In virtually all states the legislature was the initial coordinating board for higher education. The legislature allocated resources among the institutions, mediated controversies, and-to the extent it was done-engaged in planning for the state’s systems of higher education.

In the post-World War I1 years, the increasing size and com- plexity of higher education institutions and systems led most state legislatures to delegate the coordinating function to a board of lay persons with a permanent staff. The specific responsibilities and duties of the state boards vary among the states, in terms of the powers which the boards exercise, ranging from persuasion to direct governance, and the reality of the relationship between the board and other components of higher education decision-making, includ- ing institutions, state departments of education, the office of the governor, and the legislature.

In almost all cases, however, the legislature had at least two general objectives in establishing a state board. First, boards were established t o restrain popular will, serving as a protective shield between the political institution and the academic community. Sec- ond, state boards were to function as a part of the democratic

43

44

process for converting popular will through representative institu- tions into public policy. The protective function of a state board depends primarily upon the relationship of the board and institu- tional governance structures. The public and academic communities in the states with a tradition of independent institutional trustees look to them for an articulation and defense of academic freedoms. Through legislative delegation, or, in limited instances, constitu- tional provision, all state boards are engaged in the democratic process of converting popular will into public policy. The legislature is now asking for a report card on how this responsibility has been discharged.

The context within which this evaluation occurs is that of the state board as one decision-maker within a total structure involved in the establishment and implementation of public, and specifically educational, policy of the state. The legislature was, in most in- stances, the institution which established this structure and has the ongoing responsibility for oversight and the remediation of demon- strated structural weaknesses; thus it has a particular obligation to establish and monitor criteria for the effectiveness of state boards of higher education. Consequently, the legislature which undertakes an examination of a state board of education is in reality also exam- ining its own responsiveness.

responsibilities of state boards

A strategic political determination must be reached as to the relative level of policy decision-making. For instance, which politi- cal agency-state board of higher education, state board of educa- tion, the governor, the legislature-should decide on the scale of state-sponsored research in the university system? Which agency should determine the allocation of resources for research among the various institutions? Which should determine the specific projects to be undertaken within an institution’s resources? In most states, only the legislature has the legal power to allocate levels of respon- sibility for decision-making, since the legislature has the residual power to make all decisions. Thus, in assigning responsibility, the legislature must exercise both wisdom and imposed self-discipline.

Within those responsibilities which have been identified as appropriate t o the state boards of education, how are political influ- ences transmitted from the electorate to the boards? Except in states in which the state board of higher education is itself an elec- tive body, board members are appointed, generally by the governor. In some instances, appointment power is shared either with other

45

statewide elected officials, such as commissioner of education or the legislature (through the confirmation process). The legislature has also a direct method of transmitting its political influence through the budgetary process.

Finally, various forms of informal influences translate popu- lar will, or at least the will of persuasive constituencies within the electorate, into higher education policy. The increasing influence of students and student lobbies is an emerging expression of these informal procedures.

political and administrative ski1 Is

The state board is accountable for how effectively it func- tions t o translate the general policies set by the appointive office, legislative intent through resource allocation, and the informal influence structures into public policy. The necessary political and administrative skills are not unique to higher education; they are required to manage any large and complex governmental insti- tution: (1) Anticipations: How well does the board anticipate issues and develop response strategies? The inability to function in an anticipa- tory way inevitably converts every minor change into a potential crisis. An effective anticipatory response requires a well-tuned sense of the time required t o fashion and implement a response. Most institutions should anticipate their needs within a prospective time frame of five to ten years. An interesting and revealing test to ad- minister to a state board would be to inductively construct its prior- ity agenda of 1970 through a review of board minutes, policy state- ments, and other indications of institutional decision. With the benefit of five years of hindsight, how perceptive was the board? How effective was it in responding to this agenda? (2) Values: What is the source and value system used by the state board to determine substantive policy? When values, such as budget allocations, are set externally, how well does the board assimilate these decisions and implement them within the institutions under its charge? To what degree is the board parochial in its value sys- tem-is it able to rationalize the state university system within the context of other public institutions? ( 3 ) Management: Does the board’s internal management policy equip i t t o discharge its responsibility? Does its information system provide data on which informed managerial decisions can be reached and implemented? (4) Flexibility: Does the decision process of the board encourage a

46

diversity of articulately presented points of view prior t o decision? How effectively has the board structured an advisory process which represents the variety of clientele groups of institutional administra- tion, faculty, students, alumni, and general public, who are con- cerned with legitimate and constructive higher education policy? Is the board sufficiently self-confident to accept criticism and respond in a positive manner? ( 5 ) Politics: How effective is the state board with other political institutions-does i t have primary input in the agenda-setting of other political bodies?

examination time

Public institutions tend to experience a similar process of evolution. During the early years, a protective cocoon is spun around the fragile institution by its supporters. The expression of this cocoon is a reticence by those supporters to engage in any criti- cism, fearful that to do so might do mortal damage to the tyro. The corollary is that the persons who are often in the best position to be constructive commentators are muted while those who are antago- nistic t o the fundamental orientation of the agency dominate with negative, often mindless criticism.

State boards of higher education are ready to emerge from the cocoon and stand the test of reasoned examination from their friends. State legislators who support the goals of quality and acces- sible higher education through intelligent and perceptive planning, coordination, and governance, must be in the vanguard of this examination. For in the final analysis, it is a testing of themselves.

Robert Graham, active in cattle-raising and real estate, has been a member of the Florida House of Representatives since 1966 and the Florida State Senate since 1970. Representing the northwest Dade and South Broward counties, he has been particularly concerned about educational policies, land use, and state fiscal matters.