Last Thursday, the University of Michigan Board of Regents voted to reinstate a bylaw that encourages student participation in University decision-making removed in 2011. Both former and current Central Student Government presidents have also made efforts since March to allow for more student input during board meetings. While reinstating the bylaw is a good step forward — it clearly communicates to students that the board values student input — the University ultimately needs to make more concrete changes to incorporate student voice. To effectively achieve this goal, the regents should amend their bylaws and create a position for a nonvoting student member on the board.
This request is not a new one. Over the years, CSG candidates’ platforms have stressed the importance of increasing student involvement in the higher-up workings of the University. Both former CSG President Cooper Charlton and current CSG President David Schafer advocate for the board’s bylaws to include a student regent. The board’s primary responsibility is to supervise the University and control expenditures from the University’s funds, meaning their decisions directly impact students.
This request is also not an outlandish idea: 70 percent of public universities in the United States have a student in such a position. The University of Wisconsin, University of Washington, University of Maryland and University of California system all have a student regent. Universities nationwide recognize the importance of having a student perspective not only in board meetings, but also in regent decisions, as the outcomes do have tangible impacts on students. At the University, for example, the board votes every year on the upcoming academic calendars. For fall semester 2015, the board voted to have the last exams two days before Christmas, leading students to petition to change the calendar. Though the calendars are set in advance, a student on the board could have provided input on the ways in which ending fall semester so late does a disservice to students (and even faculty members). Other important decisions directly affecting students that are left to the board’s authority include approving the University’s annual budget, approving construction projects and determining yearly tuition rates.
While it is true that our student-elected CSG president has the opportunity to speak and present at the board’s meetings, the alloted speaking time is just five minutes. A student on the board would have the ability to discuss issues with regents far an extended period of time and be involved in the decision-making process. Though the board meetings include a small discussion before voting on an issue, oftentimes both discussions and decisions have been made prior to the meeting. In July 2014, the Detroit Free Press sued the University over violations of the Open Meetings Act based on how the Regents conducted their monthly meetings. The lawsuit held that based on the Free Press’ year-long analysis, the regents routinely make decisions about the University’s governance behind closed doors, without public accountability. Having a student regent would ensure students are directly involved in these discussions and decision-making both prior to and at the board meetings.
Additionally, unlike CSG executives, who have many other duties that are more related to everyday student life, a student regent would be able to dedicate their time entirely to becoming an expert regent. Though sometimes issues regents vote upon are similar to CSG initiatives, we feel decisions made at the regent level are specifically different from CSG’s work: appropriating funds, approving building renovation plans and authorizing transactional partnerships, to name a few. A student regent would be able to dedicate his or her time entirely to researching, discussing and proposing solutions to the types of issues that fall under the board’s responsibility.
Furthermore, opponents to adding a nonvoting student member to the board argue that a student could not possibly have the expertise to hold such a position. But there are many other high-level positions filled by students at this University, such as CSG president, athletic team captains, presidents of nationwide student organizations, the editor in chief of The Michigan Daily and countless others that are arguably also very difficult positions.
It’s important to note that adding even a nonvoting student member to the board challenge Article VIII, Section 5 of the Michigan state constitution. The constitution states, “The board of each institution shall consist of eight members who shall hold office for terms of eight years and who shall be elected as provided by law,” and only mentions one nonvoting member — the university president. It does not, however, specify whether the president can be the only nonvoting member. Having more than one nonvoting member on the board is not addressed in the constitution, so adding a student to the board seems neither explicitly legal nor illegal. Though if the process moves forward, this issue will have to be resolved. Even so, changing the constitution is not out of reach, as amendments and referendums are not infrequent in Michigan.
This being said, we acknowledge it may be very difficult to achieve this goal, given that a change to the Michigan Constitution may be necessary. We advocate to the highest degree for this constitutional change; however, if implementing a student regent is not feasible, it is still vital that student input within the board’s decisions is increased. Firstly, creating a group of students who are dedicated to discussing regent-related issues and allowing representatives from that group time before and during the board meetings to voice their concerns would increase student input. Secondly, scheduling regular meetings between the board and student groups would also increase students’ abilities to participate and have a voice in issues.
So while we applaud the steps the board took by adding back in the bylaw that states they will consider more student input, much more concrete action needs to be taken. Implementing a nonvoting student regent and creating more places for students to have clear dialogue with regents are important next steps to take.