By Zachary Gorchow
President of Michigan Operations
Posted: February 20, 2018 4:24 PM

This is sort of a rebuttal to and sort of a continuation of a blog my colleague John Lindstrom wrote last week on the debate about whether the members of the governing boards for Michigan State University, the University of Michigan and Wayne State University should continue to be elected by statewide voters.

The MSU Board of Trustees, as a result of its fealty to former MSU President Lou Anna Simon and in particular the comments of Trustee Joel Ferguson (D-Lansing) minimizing the significance of the Larry Nassar sexual assault scandal, has brought Michigan’s unique system of electing university governing boards front-and-center.

Relatively few large public universities have their trustees elected by voters. Among the 13 public universities that make up the Big Ten Conference, MSU, U-M and the University of Nebraska are the only three with boards chosen by voters, and Nebraska uses a district system instead of the statewide one in place for MSU and U-M (and Wayne State). In the Big Ten and nationally, governors tend to appoint most of the large public university governing boards.

The MSU board’s approach has prompted legislation to move Michigan’s three large research institutions to gubernatorial appointment for their governing boards. The legislation is likely going nowhere because Democrats have reacted negatively to the idea, and it will take Democratic votes in the Michigan House to attain the two-thirds majority necessary to put a constitutional amendment before voters.

The politics of the situation are easy to understand. If voters adopted the constitutional amendment, it would allow Governor Rick Snyder to replace the governing boards of all three universities. Democrats control the U-M and WSU boards, and the MSU board is a 4-4 split. Instantly, there would be, presumably, 8-0 Republican majorities on all three boards.

University boards would move to a spoils system. Critics of this system have noted it means appointees tend to be political supporters of the governor, even if they are well-qualified. And it means that the governor’s political opponents, even if also well-qualified, have no shot. Further, it means when a new governor takes office that quality board members will get replaced upon the expiration of their terms simply because they belong to the opposite political party.

The system’s supporters have countered that once appointed, the members are largely freed from partisan political concerns.

This is the system now in place for Michigan’s 10 other public universities (I’ve seen several people refer to 12 other public universities, but two of those are the University of Michigan-Dearborn and University of Michigan-Flint, which fall under control of the same board of regents as the main campus in Ann Arbor).

Part of the hue and cry about ceasing election of the MSU, U-M and WSU boards stems from the idea of taking the choice away from voters. And from a philosophical standpoint, that makes sense.

The realities of how those elections work, however, are completely at odds with that lofty ideal.

The candidates for the board are nominated by the political parties’ state convention delegates. As Rep. Aaron Miller (R-Sturgis) pointed out last week, that means Republican nominees result from those who can meet conservative litmus tests even on issues that have nothing to do with university governance. No one said so on the Democratic side, but those hoping to win Democratic nominations generally have no chance unless they have the blessing of the United Auto Workers and/or other major unions.

Republican convention delegates elect their nominees through one-person, one-vote secret ballot. Theoretically, Democratic delegates elect their nominees through an open ballot process with votes apportioned according to congressional district through in practice, powerbrokers sort out the nominees in advance and the convention rubber stamps those choices.

And then voters, carefully vetting the nominees based on the issues, make their grand pronouncement on who is fit to lead the three universities in November elections in even-numbered years.

Well, no. Voters generally have no idea who the candidates are or what they stand for unless there’s a famous name in the mix. Former MSU head football coach George Perles didn’t get elected to the MSU board because of his views on tuition and the cost of room and board.

So voters default to their basic partisan leaning, whether through using the straight-ticket voting option or going through the candidates one by one.

There’s a reason Mr. Ferguson lost re-election in 1994 and won back a seat in the 1996 elections. It’s the same reason Republicans dominated the board races in 2010 and 2016 while Democrats did so in 2006, 2008, 2012 and 2014.

In big Democratic years, Democratic university board candidates win. And in big Republican years, Republican candidates win. 1994 was a historic Republican sweep, so Mr. Ferguson lost. 1996 was a solid Democratic year, so Mr. Ferguson won.

Defenders of the current system note, rightfully, that upending the U-M and WSU boards because of the fiasco at MSU makes little sense. Indeed, blowing up the electoral system for the three universities because of a hopefully once-in-a-century scandal at MSU feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

There’s no way to know if a board consisting of members chosen through a different system would have responded differently.

That said, regardless of the MSU situation, the current system, which dates to the 1908 Constitution, has flaws, and they are obvious. A serious research project by the Legislature into whether there’s a better system would be fascinating and maybe even lead to genuine reform.