w... w m mi w w w f The Regenl Do we have a legitimate selection process for these people who have final say over everything from tuition to faculty? ;1\w, \y t , h4 " "u}1}:} .: " . .: ".i1Y .} > :"..y.}}-"}.\:.t}, .} ,".{.;}} }.;{K.: x { .:i"( ":"' .). - . \ . :::i i+ ' . ^, 4: : i Story by Kery Murakami ike feudal lords, they ride into campus once a month to rule over the land. While here, they take administrators to task if need be and dine at the University's expense at its out-of-the- way estate, Ingalls House. But most importantly, they exercise final say over all major University policy decisions. Or, as in the case of the search for a new President, they have virtually the only say. Who are these six men and two women that comprise the University's Board of Regents? And why do they wield such power? In theory, the state constitution says the regents - who are elected to eight-year terms in state-wide elections - represent the wishes of Michigan taxpayers. But in practice, the system results in uninformed voters choosing from a limited pool of candidates. Historically, since most state voters don't know the difference between a Deane Baker (R-Ann Arbor) or a Thomas Roach (D-Saline), they usually decide who to vote for based upon the party a particular candidate represents. Often, regental candidates ride onto the board on a popular presidential or gu- bernatorial candidates's coattails. In 1986, for example, Democratic Gov. James Blanchard easily won reelection and, not surprisingly, his party's two re- gental candidates, Paul Brown (D-Petoskey) and James Waters (D-Muskegon) were also reelected. Two years earlier, President Reagan's landslide win over Walter Mondale helped carry to victory the two Republican candidates - Neal Nielsen (R-Brighton) and Veronica Latta Smith (R-Grosse Ile). In that election, the two won despite getting only about half the number of votes their Democratic challengers received from campus-area voters. Also, neither of the winners had ever attended a regents meeting, while both losers - incumbent regent, Robert Nederlander (D-Detroit), and Eastern Michigan University Prof. Marjorie Lansing (D-Ann Arbor) - had con- siderable experience in higher education. "The election process tends not to get people elected on the basis of their relative merit," said Richard Kennedy, the Uni- versity's vice president for state relations and secretary. "Most voters don't know about the identities of the people nominated. And I think that's too bad," said Regent Philip Power (D-Ann Arbor). "As a practical matter, few people know what a regent is,; much less who the candidates are. The election pretty much goes with the strength of a party and the top of the ticket," said Roach. The only exception in the past 20 years came in 1980 when Regent David Laro (R-Flint) lost to Nellie Varner (D-Detroit) by a slim 6,000 vote margin. And that was an "unusual case," Laro said, when Reagan's victory over President Jimmy Carter was not large enough to help him win. Because of the strength of Democrats in the state, Laro said, top-of-the-ticket Republicans "need to do extremely well" in order to help regental candidates. With the election based little on issues and merit, the re- spective party conventions which nominate the regental candi- dates become key. Party officials and University regents say that concern over the University's well-being is important in deciding who to nominate. But regents acknowledge that the nomination pro- cess is often tied to party politics. An extreme example occurred in 1984, when Regent Gerald Dunn (D-Garden City) failed to win renomination after anger- ing some party members. A lobbyist for western Michigan public schools, Dunn blamed his loss on a vendetta by the United Auto Workers union, after he lobbied against a plan to increase funding for school breakfast and lunch programs. The UAW, an influential faction within the party, supported the proposal. "Dunn made some enemies in the party," Brown said. UAW officials denied the accusation, saying they thought Lansing was qualified and were concerned about a possible conflict of interest between Dunn's lobbying activities and his responsibilities as a regent. The union, however, supported Dunn when he was nominated and elected eight years earlier. Being active in party politics is not essential to gaining a nomination. Regent Smith, for example, held no positions in the Republican party when she was nominated. But strong participation in the party doesn't hurt. Some re- gents have gone on to try for higher offices, albeit unsuccess- fully - Baker in a bid for U.S Senate and Brown for lieu- tenant governor. Most regents have served on at least one party committee, either locally or on the state level before running for the board. "In 1964, I thought I'd be interested in being a regent and I asked some people in the par inated. They said the first political service." He served on several loca committees, and served as]F debate at the party's 1972 Na Roach first ran in 1970, tion to Brown and Waters. Pa a midnight caucus the night the state ticket needed such from the state's outer areas. men and women, racially d said. Roach was nominated i "McGovern backlash that ye - a year when Watergate ht Gov. William Milliken was statewide election. Underlining the importan he spent $2,000 in campaign with $1,200 during the gen the party convention include ers of party organizations in 19 Congressional districts, R The cost, as well as the cludes students and recent g President Ken Weine. "They the party, and by the time from what students think," h In 1984, LSA senior Dav run for regent in recent histc lander for the nomination. The need to campaign, w sen based oo merit, drives aw not just students, conclude James Blanchard to examine "The current system ofte choices and discouraged mar willing to subject themselv mission said in a 1984 repoi But regents argue that the tion actually screens out unqu See COVE Murakami is the Daily's University Editor PAGE 8WEEKEND/NOVEMBER 13,1987 WEEKEND/NOVEMBER 13, 1987 WEEKENDINQVEMBER 13, 1987