June 2008

FSU TRUSTEES, PRESIDENT RESPOND TO BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPOSAL ON BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ POWERS AND DUTIES

The Florida State University Board of Trustees has done an excellent job of managing the university during dire budget times, FSU President T.K. Wetherell said today, and needs to be allowed to continue doing so without undue interference from the Board of Governors.

FSU Board of Trustees Chairman Jim Smith sent a letter June 9 to Carolyn Roberts, chairman of the Florida Board of Governors, asking her to use her authority to delay any BOG action on a proposed regulation regarding BOT powers and duties until the university administrators and boards of trustees have had an opportunity to study the proposal and coordinate a response. The BOG will consider the proposed change at its meeting June 19 on the University of Central Florida campus.

Chairman Smith’s letter was followed by one on June 13 from Wetherell to Chancellor Mark Rosenberg making a side-by-side comparison of the Jan. 7, 2003 resolution, Florida statutes related to boards of trustees; the new proposed regulation; and the community college authority. Wetherell outlined several areas of concern, stating that the resolution would be a detriment to efficient operation of the universities.

The purpose of the resolution should be to clarify the relationship between the boards, “not merely be concerned with regulation, control and accountability but also facilitate the efficient operation of the universities, encourage their involvement in the state, promote their performance and provide the Boards of Trustees with meaningful roles in order to encourage the ongoing active participation of the best possible individuals in the affairs of the universities,” Wetherell wrote.

May 30, Rosenberg had asked the university boards of trustees to comment on the proposed regulation that codifies -- and revises -- the powers and duties initially delegated to the university boards of trustees in 2003.

Smith responded: “It is our view that several of the revisions reflect a serious departure and retreat from the concept of devolution that has existed since the 2003 reorganization of higher education in the State of Florida. These revisions reflect an unfortunate, needless micromanagement and interference with several of the university board’s most important powers and duties.”

In his response, Smith said the proposed involvement of the BOG in the selection and evaluation of a university president far exceeds the oversight role of a governing body. Furthermore, a university board of trustees is in a much better position to evaluate the president’s performance.

“By becoming involved in the evaluation of the president, the Board of Governors blurs the lines of authority between the board(s) of trustees and the Board of Governors,” Smith wrote.

In addition, the proposed BOG regulation calls for university boards of trustees to obtain approval from the Board of Governors prior to acquiring real property to be used for instructional or research sites. Smith questioned the legal authority of the BOG to involve itself in the approval of real property transactions by direct support organizations (DSOs). As independent, not-for-profit corporations, each DSO exercises separate independent legal authority to consummate real property transactions by purchase, donation or gift.

In his letter, Wetherell cited additional concerns, saying the proposed regulation would result in:

• A loss of flexibility -- Removal of local control and decision-making would cause well-functioning boards of trustees to lose all autonomy over previously delegated authority to approve most degree programs, set fees, approve a campus master plan and rent or lease parking facilities.
• Inconsistencies across higher education in the state and inefficient distinctions -- Community college boards can appoint, suspend or remove a president, can conduct annual evaluations of presidents and can establish certain fees, for example.
• Circumstances in which state law is at odds with the regulation proposed by the BOG or unclear, resulting in confusion and inefficiencies.

Wetherell and Smith noted that the trustees must have time to fully examine all the proposed revisions to the regulation.

“We believe that action by the Board of Governors to adopt the regulation is wholly premature,” Smith wrote. “The university boards of trustees have operated under the present Resolution of January 7, 2003, for more than five years. To give us a mere two weeks to comment on such an important regulation with significant revisions is totally unacceptable.”

# # #