This week the Minnesota legislature will vote on four regents for the University of Minnesota. This follows last week's unusual committee action of sending three of four candidates to the Joint Convention "without recommendation." No matter who wins, some group will inevitably scream Politics!" when the convention adjourns.
The truth is, today's regent selection process works light years better than in the past. It virtually guarantees that four highly qualified public servants will be elected as regents.
Remember what it was like prior to 1988? Long-time veteran legislators of congressional districts got together quietly in back rooms and "anointed" the person of choice as regent. Since most veteran legislators were white men, so were most of the regents selected. Their caucuses honored seniority, and the person chosen usually was elected by the legislature. It didn't matter that the person chosen might not be qualified.
Enter the Alumni Association of the University of Minnesota and stellar leaders like Tom Swain. They brought to the legislature a proposal for a citizen Regent Candidate Advisory Council (RCAC) to reach out for diverse applicants and screen them for qualification. The Council was tasked to forward at least two vetted names to the legislature for each open regent seat. The bottom line: no matter who was elected by the legislature from this group, we were guaranteed people of quality and commitment to the university.
Rep. Todd Otis and I sponsored this bill into law in 1988. In 1992 the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges honored the Minnesota legislature for its foresight in moving to this new process.
The RCAC has done a laudable job over the years in putting forth quality names of diverse ethnic and political background. To my memory, in every case, candidates from this pre-screened, vetted group have been elected by the legislature.
The process is working. Yet, every regent election year this becomes a divisive fight at the legislature. Some legislators still insist that nominees of congressional caucuses should prevail. Group recommendations are helpful, but recruiting and screening is now the domain of an impartial commission, not a congressional caucus.
In recent years the governor has been given more input in this process. I never understood that one. This is a legislative appointment and they can elect who they want. Why cede the governor any power in this?
Some legislators insist that the majority party at the statehouse should have total control of the selected slate. That resulted in bitter conflict in recent years. The divisiveness in selection of regents has been a microcosm of the divisiveness between the senate, house and governor.
So, this year, can't we all just get along? Every recommended candidate brings a wealth of skills. Narrow the group first to those with talents best suited to serve today's university needs. Then, from that narrowed group, key stakeholders can work together to offer a balanced slate of four candidates reflecting the diversity of our state, the current split of legislative political power, and the specific existing needs of the board of regents.
This shouldn't be so hard. We can't go wrong no matter who is elected, provided the victors come from commission recommendations. How the legislature deals with regent selection this year will say less about winning and losing candidates, than about the political firestorms that may be ahead at the statehouse in the next two years.
The truth is, today's regent selection process works light years better than in the past. It virtually guarantees that four highly qualified public servants will be elected as regents.
Remember what it was like prior to 1988? Long-time veteran legislators of congressional districts got together quietly in back rooms and "anointed" the person of choice as regent. Since most veteran legislators were white men, so were most of the regents selected. Their caucuses honored seniority, and the person chosen usually was elected by the legislature. It didn't matter that the person chosen might not be qualified.
Enter the Alumni Association of the University of Minnesota and stellar leaders like Tom Swain. They brought to the legislature a proposal for a citizen Regent Candidate Advisory Council (RCAC) to reach out for diverse applicants and screen them for qualification. The Council was tasked to forward at least two vetted names to the legislature for each open regent seat. The bottom line: no matter who was elected by the legislature from this group, we were guaranteed people of quality and commitment to the university.
Rep. Todd Otis and I sponsored this bill into law in 1988. In 1992 the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges honored the Minnesota legislature for its foresight in moving to this new process.
The RCAC has done a laudable job over the years in putting forth quality names of diverse ethnic and political background. To my memory, in every case, candidates from this pre-screened, vetted group have been elected by the legislature.
The process is working. Yet, every regent election year this becomes a divisive fight at the legislature. Some legislators still insist that nominees of congressional caucuses should prevail. Group recommendations are helpful, but recruiting and screening is now the domain of an impartial commission, not a congressional caucus.
In recent years the governor has been given more input in this process. I never understood that one. This is a legislative appointment and they can elect who they want. Why cede the governor any power in this?
Some legislators insist that the majority party at the statehouse should have total control of the selected slate. That resulted in bitter conflict in recent years. The divisiveness in selection of regents has been a microcosm of the divisiveness between the senate, house and governor.
So, this year, can't we all just get along? Every recommended candidate brings a wealth of skills. Narrow the group first to those with talents best suited to serve today's university needs. Then, from that narrowed group, key stakeholders can work together to offer a balanced slate of four candidates reflecting the diversity of our state, the current split of legislative political power, and the specific existing needs of the board of regents.
This shouldn't be so hard. We can't go wrong no matter who is elected, provided the victors come from commission recommendations. How the legislature deals with regent selection this year will say less about winning and losing candidates, than about the political firestorms that may be ahead at the statehouse in the next two years.
