Moos and Rourke, who share this
opinion, suggest that one reason why
the appointive system works best is that
meddling in higher education is not
"good politics,"10 and governors, more
often than legislatures, have refrained
from throwing it into the hopper of
politics. "To avoid giving any appear-
ance of political interference," they say,
"governors sometime go to great
lengths to make conspicuously non-
political appointments to governing
boards."11
The ex officio method of selection
deserves special note. In recent years
its use has declined.1- The state of
Georgia, for example, in 1946 by consti-
tutional amendment removed their gov-
ernor from membership on the Regents
of the University System of Georgia.
This fact is particularly interesting since
the constitutional amendment invali-
dated an act of 1931 and another in
1937, both of which had made the gov-
ernor an ex officio regent.
Many students of the trustee system
view this tendency to reduce ex officio
members as a desirable one. The value
of the governor (the most common ex
officio member on state institutional
boards) as an ex officio member on any
board, not just trustee boards, was ques-
tioned by Leslie Lipson in his book,
the american governor from fig-
urehead to leader. He states:
10 But note the tragic situation which de-
veloped in Mississippi when Governor Ross
Barnett attempted to "stack" the board for
political, racist reasons.
11 Moos & rourke, supra note 8, at 301.
But see quote from an Arizona regent: "Al-
though we give lip service to the idea that
appointments are not 'political,' in effect they
are. It is rare for a governor to appoint a
member from a party other than his own
unless that individual has aided his cam-
paign." Ibid.
12 Id. at 243.
284
|
"Such requirements that the gov-
ernor himself directly participate in
administrative minutiae are of mani-
fest futility. They defeat their own
ends. The governor has so much to
do that he cannot give time to all the
boards. If, however, he does attend,
either he is frittering away his energy
on henhouses and piggeries or he has
to secure a majority vote on impor-
tant matters by "trading" with the
other members. In neither case can
there be effective overall supervision
of general administrative policy."13
Another study stated categorically that
the "number of ex officio members
should be kept to the minimum allowed
by law."14 Still another survey reported
the revealing fact that boards which
have ex officio membership are divided
as to their contribution to the system,
while boards without ex officio member-
ship expressed a strong preference to
have none.15
It appears, therefore, that the writers
on the subject favor a limitation or an
exclusion of the ex officio member. It
should be remembered, however, that
the technique of selection is but a tech-
nique. The appointive system, if it be
the best, can and has failed. A board
can succeed only where public opinion
in the community "insists upon putting
the affairs of higher education in the
most capable hands."16
SIZE OF BOARD
The Board of Trustees of the Univer-
sity of North Carolina is labeled by
13 L. lipson, the american governor
from figurehead to leaders 37 (1939).
14 martorana & hollis, supra note 4, at
29.
15 moos & rourke, supra note 8, at 305.
16 Id. at 304.
|
