[Vision2020] Idaho Legislators, Faculty Protest Higher Ed Policy Changes

[Tom Hansen]

Courtesy of the Lewiston Tribune at:

http://www.lmtribune.com/breaking-news/1239/

------------------------------------------------------

Idaho legislators, faculty protest higher ed policy changes

BOISE - Lawmakers joined faculty from Idaho universities in protesting a
plan to change state Board of Education policies, giving presidents of the
institutions broad power to make cuts during tough times.

Reps. Tom Trail, R-Moscow, Liz Chavez, R-Lewiston, and Shirley Ringo,
D-Moscow, cautioned the board today against adopting the policy changes,
which would allow university presidents to make permanent salary
reductions - regardless of contracts with tenured and nontenured
professors and some staff members.

The proposed changes would also allow the university presidents facing
financial challenges to temporarily reduce wages through furloughs,
according to faculty, who have criticized their lack of involvement in the
plan.

Trail told board members, scheduled to consider the measure later in the
meeting, that the process raises serious concerns about potential
violations of the law, such as the right to due process.

-------------

Commentary/Testimony presented to the state Board of Education courtesy of
Rep. Tom Trail:

"MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS—DURING THE PAST 9 MONTHS A NUMBER OF
LEGISLATORS HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY UNIVERSITY FACULTY WITH SERIOUS
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED HUMAN RELATIONS RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE UP
FOR THE SECOND READING IN TODAY’S MEETING.   HISTORICALLY IN THE PAST
UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS HAVE WORKED COOPERATIVELY WITH FACULTY AND STAFF TO
RESOLVE FINANCIAL MATTERS IN TIME OF ECONOMIC STRESS.   THIS TEAM AND
DEMOCRATIC APPROACH HAS BEEN NOT ONLY PRODUCTIVE BUT HAS RESULTED IN
OUTCOMES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DEVASTATING TO MORALE.

HOWEVER, IT NOW APPEARS THAT THIS DEMOCRATIC AND TEAMWORK APPROACH HAS
DISINTEGRATED INTO A DRACONIAN ATTEMPT BY THE BOARD TO GRANT UNIVERSITY
PRESIDENTS TOTAL CONTROL IN MAKING DECISIONS REGARDING CONTRACTS,
FURLOUGH, TENURE AND OTHER FINANCIAL MATTERS IN TIMES OF ECONOMIC
DOWNTURN.  THE PROCESS UTILIZED BY THE BOARD RAISES SERIOUS LEGAL
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FROM FACULTY, THE PUBLIC AND THE LEGISLATURE.

LET’S REVIEW, FOR EXAMPLE,  THE PROCESS UTILIZED BY THE BOARD TO WHERE WE
ARE AT THE POINT OF GRANTING UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS ALMOST DICTATORIAL
POWERS RELATING TO FINANCIAL MATTERS.

1.  LAST SPRING UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PRESIDENT KUSTRA,  COUNSEL BRIAN
SATTERLY, AND COUNSEL NELSON OF THE UI, A DECISION WAS MADE WITH THE BOARD
TO AMEND FACULTY CONTRACTS AT BSU AND THE UI WITH THE INSERTION OF A
STATEMENT IN EACH CONTRACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD AUTHORITY TO MAKE
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THAT CONTRACT RELATING TO A SERIES OF FINANCIAL
MATTERS.   I HAVE A COPY OF SUCH A STATEMENT IN A FACULTY CONTRACT.

2.  THE TROUBLING POINT HERE IS THAT THE OSBE HAD NOT YET OFFICIALLY
ADOPTED  (NOR HAVE THEY YET) GRANTED THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE
PRESIDENTS TO MAKE THESE CHANGES AND DECISIONS.  THERE IS THE QUESTION OF
WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL ACTION BY THE BOARD AND A VIOLATION OF
THE 10TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION CONCERNING PROTECTION OF
CONTRACTS.   HERE WE HAVE THE OLD STORY OF THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.  
THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE THAT THE BOARD CALLED IN AN OUTSIDE LEGAL
COUNSEL WITH EXPERTIZE IN CONTRACT LAW TO PROVIDE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE
BOARD’S ACTION.

3.  DISCUSSIONS ON THE MATTER CONTINUED THROUGH THE SUMMER AND ALSO VIA A
CONFERENCE CALL IN AUGUST.    AS IN MANY OF THE DISCUSSION NO FACULTY
PARTICIPATED IN THE DISCUSSIONS.    THESE DISCUSSIONS CONTINUED THROUGH
THE FALL WITH A GREAT DEAL OF PRESS COVERAGE WITH COMMENTS FROM FACULTY
AND LEGISLATORS—THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS INDICATED NOT ONLY WAS THE
BOARD MAKING A POOR DECISION IN  DELEGATING/ABDICATING THEIR POWERS TO THE
 PRESIDENTS BUT THAT THE PROCESS RAISED SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT POTENTIAL
VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

4.  ON DECEMBER 10TH DURING THE BOARDS 1ST READING THE BOARD ASKED THEIR
LAWYERS CONCERNING THE APPROPRIATENESS AND LEGALITIES OF THE ISSUES RAISED
BY THE POLICIES THAT HAD BEEN INVESTED.  THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE
RESOLUTION’S LANGUAGE AND NO FOLLOWUP REPORT FROM THEIR LAWYERS HAS BEEN
NOTED.

5.  EVEN ONE OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT’S TESTIFYING BEFORE THE SENATE
EDUCATION COMMITTEE COMMENTED THAT THE “FURLOUGH LANGUAGE STATED IN THE
RESOLUTION IS ILLEGAL” AND THAT IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY HARMFUL TO
INSTITUTONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN IDAHO.    THIS PRESIDENT FIRMLY STATED
HE WANTS TO STICK WITH ANNUAL CONTRACTS AND NOT ATTEMPT TO COME IN AND
CHANGE EMPLOYEES CONTRACTS MID-YEAR.

6.  THE BOARD ALSO TRIED TO ANOTHER TACTIC.   THE BOARD INTRODUCED HB400
WHICH IF PASSED WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS THE SAME POWER
AS OUTLINED IN THE RESOLUTION UNDER DISCUSSION TODAY. HB 400 WAS KILLED IN
THE SENATE BUT A NEW BILL IS BEING CRAFTED TO TRY AND DO EXACTLY THE SAME
THING.  IF SUCH LEGISLATION PASSED THEN THE BOARD COULD TURN TO UNIVERSITY
FACULTY AND POINT THE FINGER OF GUILT AT THE LEGISLATURE.

7.  IF THIS RESOLUTION IS APPROVED THERE WILL, NO DOUBT, BE SOME SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES:

     A.  THE COLLEGE OF N. IDAHO IS ALREADY UNDER CENSURE.

     B.  THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS WOULD CENSURE
AND ALSO BLACK LIST ALL HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE
STATE.

     C.  LITIGATION FROM SEVERAL SOURCES WOULD TAKE PLACE.

     D.  THE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION WAS TO BE A NEGATIVE RECRUITING
TOOL FOR NEW FACULTY.

8.  A GROUP OF LEGISLATORS ARE PREPARED TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION  IS
THE BOARD DOES NOT RECONSIDER IT’S POSITION ON THIS RESOLUTION.

     A.  THESE LEGISLATORS WILL ASK THE IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BOARD’S ACTION CONCERNING POTENTIAL VIOLATION
OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT (PROTECTION OF CONTRACT RIGHTS,   VIOLATION OF
THE 14TH AMENDMENT (DUE PROCESS),  AND OTHER ISSUES INCLUDING THE
LEGALITY OF IMPLEMENTING POLICY BEFORE ACTUALLY MAKING IT OFFICIAL
POLICY.

     B.  LEGISLATION HAS BEEN DRAFTED WITH A NUMBER OF CO-SPONSORS WHICH
WOULD PROVIDE FOR A LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL CRISIS REVIEW PANEL IN SUCH
CASES AS THE BOARD IN NOW CONFRONTING.

THE BOARD SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THEIR DECISION TODAY AND THE POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTION.    FINANCIAL EXIQUENCY MAY STILL BE ONE
ALTERNATIVE TO CONSIDER, BUT IT IS APPARENT THAT NOT ALL OF IDAHO’S
UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS FEEL THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION IN LEGAL AND IT
CERTAINLY THE RESOLUTION AND PROCESS AT ARRIVING AT THE MOMENT OF DECISION
INDICATES AT BEST A FLAWED PROCESS AND RAISES SERIOUS LEGAL QUESTIONS AND
CONCERNS."

------------------------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown