Tag Archives: new partnership plan

Sorry, I mean for an independent UO board. Betsy Hammond has the story in the Oregonian. Meanwhile, Phil Knight’s Oregonians For Higher Education Excellence PAC is still sitting on its $450K. But why should the legislators sell their votes for that kind of money, when they can take the state for millions? 2/7/2013.

From Kevin Kiley at IHE:

A group of influential Vermont leaders thinks $40 million shouldn’t buy a majority stake on the University of Vermont’s governing board. 

That’s roughly how much the state appropriates to the university every year. But the group says that’s not enough. These days, state appropriations make up less than 10 percent of the university’s overall revenue, while tuition makes up about half. 

In a report released last month, an advisory group convened by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin to study the relationship between the University of Vermont and the state recommended that the state alter the university’s governing board composition to include more members who are not appointed by politicians, a shift they say would help the university when it comes to raising money and creating partnerships with outside entities. 

The current board structure, put in place in the 1950s, has 25 trustees: Nine appointed by the legislature, three appointed by the governor, nine private trustees who elect their replacements, two students, and two ex-officio members (the governor of Vermont and the university president). That means political appointments outnumber “private trustees,” which the report says is a problem for the university. “This structure is out of balance in relation to that state appropriation and does not reflect the interest of the university or the true relationship to the state,” the report states. “Further, the limiting size and make up of the board hinders UVM’s ability to raise its profile within the state and nationally, raise needed dollars and recruit future trustees and supporters.”

 The OUS proposal lets the state appoint all members, including the token faculty and student members. 7/25/2012.

6/25/2012: From the Daily Progress:

“I think the whole process by which people are appointed needs to be revisited,” said House Minority Leader David Toscano, D-Charlottesville. “I think there’s probably a role for having a designated slot for someone who has a lot of background in academia, perhaps a faculty member or retired faculty member, someone who understands higher education from the inside out.”

Del. Robert Tata, R-Virginia Beach, chairman of the House Education Committee, said lawmakers are waiting to see how the situation plays out, but it’s likely to become an issue for the General Assembly.

“A lot of times, board members are appointed according to the amount of money they give the university. Sometimes they don’t have the best interests of the university at heart. They have other axes to grind or whatever,” Tata said. “But it’s going to raise a lot of hackles when we get back in session next year, as to why this happened, how it happened and who were the major players.”

6/23/2012: From back in fall 2009. The first part is the usual Oregon higher ed is in trouble stuff. The second part is considerably more aggressive regarding the rights of independent university boards than anything I’ve seen lately from OUS or anyone else. Pdf here, 2009 RG story here. The ironic part is that Pernsteiner paid Frohnmayer to write it, as part of his golden parachute retirement deal.