Should Michigan governor appoint university boards? It could backfire, some say

A fresh effort is underway to have the governor appoint members of the U-M, MSU and Wayne State boards — following another controversy
Proponents say a governor can best choose leaders with credentials to oversee multimillion-dollar institutions and ensure a balance of alumni and non-alumni members
Experts say a change could result in different problems, is partly motivated by politics and voters want their voices to be heard

In Virginia, a George Mason University governing board member authored the education chapter of the controversial Project 2025, prompting an unsuccessful call for her removal.

In Georgia, the university system board changed its post-tenure review, citing accountability and performance for professors — but opponents say it will make it easier to dismiss faculty.

At New College of Florida, the appointment of six new governing board members led to removal of the president, denial of tenure to faculty members, abolishment of the gender studies program and more, prompting the departure of dozens of faculty members.

What do these situations have in common? All involved university boards appointed by governors — rather than elected by voters — the same structure that Michigan officials are debating (again) for the state’s three largest universities in the wake of another controversy.

Such a move could result in candidates with better credentials and more accountability, experts say. But others say controversies can erupt no matter how university officials are seated and voters should have a say in representation.

“It’s the politicization of these governing boards that is the problem,” said Jim Finkelstein, a professor emeritus of George Mason University.

Related:

For decades, Michigan voters have elected members to the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University governing boards. For nearly as long, some have lobbied to change the process to a government-appointed system, which is embraced by most states.

A legislative effort failed last week, but another plan has already emerged, with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and former governors calling for changes.

Chief among the arguments for change is that elections do not typically result in members with a diversity of strengths, and some may not fully understand their role, potentially creating issues. Many voters also do not always know the candidates, and straight ticket voting and a leading candidate at the top of the ticket can help unknown candidates.

A governor can appoint members by looking at strengths and weaknesses of existing board members and identify if there is a need for members skilled in financial oversight or other credentials needed to run a multimillion-dollar university, said Eric Lupher, president of Citizens Research Council, a Michigan nonprofit public affairs research organization. A governor can also balance a university governing board with alumni and non-alumni representatives.

“It’s more a methodical way of selecting the board members,” said Lupher.

Michigan’s governor already appoints members to the 10 other public university boards.

Those who win elections to the U-M, MSU and WSU university boards,“are very well-intentioned and want to do their best,” Lupher said. “It just creates a different dynamic: the perception of their powers, the perception of the power of their voice.”

Michigan needs to examine changing how it seats university board members, Lupher said, especially after MSU President Kevin Guskiewicz last month announced an early departure and implied that some governing board members played a role in his decision.

Guskiewicz’s announcement came as scores of state leaders gathered for the annual policy conference on Mackinac Island. Many sat on the porch of the Grand Hotel lamenting the loss of more than a dozen university presidents between MSU, U-M, WSU over the past five years, Lupher said.

“Something’s not working right,” Lupher said. “While the independent election of these board members gives people a voice, it’s not giving us the results we need: stability, strong leadership, making these schools among the leading public institutions in America.”

But some elected board members, all Republicans, say that elections should continue to avoid the “reward of the well-connected, the well-funded and the politically useful.”

Underpinning the arguments for changing university board seating is politics. It could lead to more Republican representation, said longtime political analyst Bill Ballenger.

Under Michigan’s 1908 constitution, voters elected university board members during a special statewide election in the spring, along with other officials, Ballenger said. Republican representation was better on university boards then, because the GOP dominated Michigan politics from 1908 to the 1930s and even after that because Republicans generally could get voters to come out more during special elections, Ballenger added.

But Democrats have had the majority of representation on the boards of U-M, MSU and WSU for more than 50 years, after voters approved a new state constitution in 1964. That constitution moved the election of the board members from spring to the fall general election ballot, Ballenger said.

Since then, Democratic candidates represented the majority of the boards of U-M and MSU. Over the years, Republicans had narrow, short-lived majorities on the U-M and MSU boards. But GOP candidates have never represented the majority of the WSU board, Ballenger said.

“Democrats got control of these university boards under the new constitution, and they have been able to maintain control most of the time ever since,” Ballenger said. “So Democrats have a natural desire to maintain the control on these boards. The last thing they want to see is a Republican governor get in (office) and wipe out a bunch of Democrats and replace them with Republicans.”

While there have been constant problems on the university boards, Ballenger said, the real question is whether the voters will approve any effort to amend the state’s constitution and change the process.

Polling has been conducted on this issue, and the polls have not favored approving a governor appointment process, Ballenger said.

“Citizens of Michigan prefer to elect people,” Ballenger said. “Any time you say to the citizens, ‘We want to take away your power to elect certain officers and give it to an appointed process,’ the public does not like it.”

If any effort to change the process makes it to the ballot, Ballenger said, “there will have to be a tremendous amount of money spent by the people who want to change the system to an appointed system to get the voters to approve it.”

Perks, controversies

University board members serve as volunteers, without pay, for eight-year terms. A board’s responsibilities include “general supervision of its institution and the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution’s funds” and electing a president, according to the state constitution.

Board members get perks. While those are not publicized, a recent addition to MSU’s board ethics and conduct policy gives a glimpse into some. If MSU board members do not abide by the policy, they can lose complimentary tickets to home and away athletic events, suite access, travel privileges, accommodations, credentials for pre-season, in-season and post-season tournaments, bowl games, honorary degree ceremonies, faculty award dinners, student organization galas, university-managed hospitality areas and more.

Many have long discussed changing the election of the Big Three university board members to appointment by governor.

Changing the process is “always on a low boil when something high profile happens,” said Lupher, and often linked to a university governing board. For instance, it came up nearly a decade ago when many accused MSU of failing to protect young women from serial predator Larry Nassar and the board clashed on how to handle it.

Last month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers proposed a change to university board seating and also changing the nomination process for state attorney general and secretary of state. The move came after voting came under scrutiny at the Democratic Party’s chaotic nominating convention.

Guskiewicz added fuel to the debate when he announced he would depart MSU after serving for just over two years and become president of Clemson University in South Carolina, partly because of challenges with some board members.

The House voted on the proposal that could have been put before voters in the August primary. In spite of being backed by Whitmer, along with former Republican Gov. John Engler and Democratic Gov. Jim Blanchard, it failed.

The following day, Senate Majority Leader Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, offered another proposal. Since it would amend the constitution, any proposal would need approval of two-thirds of both chambers by Sept. 4 for voters to consider it during the November election.

Three ways to pick directors

Michigan is among a handful of states where the public elects board members to university governing boards and the only state to elect those board members statewide.

There are three models for seating governing boards with an elected board being the least common, Finkelstein said. Other models: the governor appoints members and one or both chambers confirms them or the governor appoints some members and the Legislature appoints some members.

Each model has been politicized, he said.

“Some governors are looking to appoint people who act consistent with the agenda and values of the governor as opposed to people who have knowledge and experience that is relevant to higher education,” Finkelstein said.

A solution, Finkelstein said, is legislation that outlines qualifications for university board members, similar to federal legislation passed in 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

For university boards, it would make sense to have one or two members who are qualified as financial experts and have to serve on the audit committee since universities are multimillion-dollar operations, Finkelstein said.

“While there may be a number of corporate executives on university governing boards today, that does not necessarily qualify them with expertise on financial matters,” said Finkelstein.

Many universities require that a certain number of governing board members be alumni because they want people who know something about the university, which seems reasonable, Finkelstein said.

There might also be a requirement for board members to have a background in nonprofit governance.

“A legislative agenda could set up an agenda that identifies a kind of expertise that board members must have,” Finkelstein said. “Corporate governance of publicly traded corporations is regulated to a certain extent. Perhaps there should be something similar for public university boards.”

With less detail, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges channeled a similar sentiment.

In a statement, it said: “The effectiveness of a governing board depends less on how trustees arrive in their position and more on whether they are equipped to fulfill their roles with fidelity to institutional mission.”

Thank you to our Education Watch sponsors

Bridge Michigan Education Watch is made possible by generous financial support from our sponsors. Sponsorship supports our independent journalism mission but does not constitute sponsor endorsement of individual articles or editorial content. Bridge Michigan journalism remains fact- and data-driven and independent at all times.

Please visit the About page for more information and to subscribe to Education Watch. Interested in becoming a sponsor? Contact Emma Carr.