Presentation to the University of Florida Faculty Senate Called into Emergency Session Carleton Auditorium 1 
December, 2000, 1400 hours to 1700 hours

1. Why are we called into Emergency Session ?

• Elimination of the BOR;

Why does this matter ?

• History of the creation of the BOR
• Political manipulation of the then 3-campus SUS by the highest levels of state government
• Growing state with no higher educational coordination
• Need to govern SUS from a state, rather than regional, perspective
• Need to maximize benefits gained from the spending of state resources on higher education [ie, minimize redundant programs, maximize systemic planning]
• Transition Committee Decision to be made December 5/6 during Miami meeting
• Multiple calm and respectful attempts by serious academics, administrators, and politicians to influence and educate Transition Committee appear to have fallen upon deaf ears

2. History of the Legislation to Eliminate the BOR [from Letter to Governor Jeb Bush by Chancellor Emeritus ET York]:

• This legislative governance plan [HB 2263] was endorsed by the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate the day it was introduced in the Legislature--with little or no opportunity for public input before it was pushed through the Legislature by its leadership.
• During the legislative session there was unanimous opposition to the plan by the ten Florida university presidents. More recently, some of the presidents and the universities appear to have accepted the apparent inevitability of this legislation and have begun to act accordingly.
• Most Floridians who know anything about university governance are concerned about the legislation that would abolish the regents. They believe that this legislation grows out of reaction to appropriate and prudent action by the regents which antagonized key legislative leaders (action related to opposing a new college of medicine at FSU, and the colleges of law at FAMU and FIU, plus the opposition to the plan of a prominent senator to establish several new universities, etc.).
• Major newspapers in the state have been universally opposed to this legislation in their editorials.
• Retired university educators, former regents, and many civic and business leaders throughout the state have expressed strong opposition to this legislation.
• System-wide student government and faculty Senate leaders have also expressed concern about the legislation.
• When the Task Force failed to secure input concerning this legislation from nationally recognized university leaders, the Board of Regents at its most recent meeting invited such leaders from North Carolina, Virginia and Kentucky for their evaluation. The Tallahassee Democrat, the day after the Regents meeting, carried a story under the heading "Educators Skeptical of a Super Board." The article indicated that "Out of state higher education experts warned the Board of Regents on Thursday that Florida's plan for a super board to govern education from kindergarten through graduate school could cripple the system." I have taken the time to discuss the legislative plan with a number of nationally recognized university leaders and not one has had a positive word about it.
• A recent summary of the higher education governance structure in the 50 states indicated that if this plan is implemented, Florida would be the only state in the nation without some form of statewide governing or coordinating body.
• Senator Bob Graham plans to appear before the Task Force Meeting in Miami in early December to express his concern over the governance structure passed by the Legislature. Senator Graham is recognized as one of Florida's greatest governors in recent history and is considered to be a strong "education" governor.

3. Areas of concern related to the transition team's proposals

• State Board of Education
• K through 20 "seamless" educational planning and administration
• Problem 1: Primary, middle, high school, and community college education are relatively different processes that that which occurs in university, graduate, and professional schools. This is related principally to the generation of new knowledge rather than learning what is "known". Further, administrative competencies related to K through 12 or perhaps K through 14 are essentially unrelated to those in university, graduate, and professional schools.
• Problem 2: Discovery [research generated new knowledge] requires a mindset that calls into question everything we assume to be true. This is as true in the social sciences as it is in the biological and natural sciences. The process of discovery entails processes that are greater than the state or nation; they are international processes. These are carried out by multidisciplinary investigative teams that do not easily fit into K through 12 pigeonholes. Trying to limit these individuals administratively, a likely- even if unintended- result of this "seamless" reform process may result in our SUS losing its' best students and faculty.
• Problem 3: System planning is likely to be more politicized than it has been. While the BOR was an imperfect creation, which logged mistakes as well as successes, it was a serious organizational structure which erred most grievously in its' political, not strategic, decision making. As a result, it is now being abolished. Planning for the SUS, both financial and programmatic, must be carried out in as non-partisan manner as possible. This is true because our SUS is not a regional, or even merely a state, resource. Rather, the SUS is a state, national, and international resource. Decisions that impact this gem in our State's crown must be made so as to strengthen the system, rather than any one component at the expense of the whole. The positioning of decision making for the SUS in the State Board of Education risks turning the process of strategic planning for the SUS into chaos at best, and a political circus at worst. This is not in the best interest of the Governor, the Legislature, or the people of our State and country.
• Problem 4: This "seamless" educational reform process will limit and minimize the appropriate and important influence that the executive and legislative arms of state government should have in educational policy. Because the process of educational reform has been so aggressively politicized, because the most well-known and serious educators in our state and nation have seen their opinions minimized or ignored, the process of reform is, and will continue to be, viewed as a political rather than an educational project. The result of this is that any intervention by the Governor or Legislature may be viewed as further political manipulation of the state's educational system. This can only further impoverish our state, our educational system, and our political culture.
• Problem 5: The strength of our SUS is found in the five components that make up each of the universities: students, staff, administration, faculty, and community/alumni. The soul of the SUS, however, is the faculty of each of the universities. Our faculty will not tolerate the kind of manipulative behavior engaged in by politicians during the 1950's and 1960's that, ultimately, led to the creation of the Board of Regents so as to prevent such abuses. In order for a university to function, the freedom to question and criticize must be absolutely unencumbered. During the years prior to the creation of the BOR, the legislature set off on a state-wide hunt for people who were a little too different, or asked a few too many questions. This unacceptable manipulation of our SUS- committed by the Johns Committee- must never, ever, be allowed to recur. The BOR was and is a firewall protecting the SUS and its' faculty and students from this type of abuse. There is no evidence that the Transition Committee has given any thought to these matters.

In summary, the proposed system of "a seamless educational system created through educational reform" threatens to be neither seamless, nor educational, nor reform. Rather, this process may be likened to a train careening at full speed down a steep incline. Disaster is sure to follow, it is only a matter of time. And the ones who will be hurt the worst are those who had nothing to do with setting the train in motion.

4. Proposal for a post-BOR governance structure

• There appear to be three possibilities:
• The present system with the BOR under a State Board of Education.
• The "North Carolina System" with a State Board of Education divided into three sections, each with its' own Chancellor. The Chancellor of the SUS would have a board working with him/her that would have strategic planning and overall budgeting duties assigned to them. Each campus of the SUS would have a President and a Board of Trustees [as called for in the legislation]. The role of the Board of Control is unclear at this time.
• The Transition Committee's system with the State Board of Education divided into three components, each with its' Chancellor. The duties of each of the components in this system are detailed in the attached spreadsheet.

back to HotTopics