Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/20/2022 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB71 | |
| HB21 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 21
"An Act relating to the Board of Regents of the
University of Alaska."
9:39:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, SPONSOR, provided a brief review
of the bill. He explained that the bill would add a faculty
member to the Board of Regents who would serve a two-year
term. Each University of Alaska (UA) campus would pick two
faculty members and the governor would pick one, and that
person would have to be confirmed by the legislature. The
faculty regent would have all the privileges and
responsibilities of the other regents. University faculty
had requested this change for many years as it would give
them a seat at the table. Many decisions were made when the
board goes into executive session and the faculty was
excluded from those conversations.
9:41:47 AM
ASHLEY CARRICK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, introduced
the PowerPoint Presentation: "HB 21: University of Alaska
Faculty Regent" (copy on file). She began by reading a
portion of the sponsor statement:
The University of Alaska has a mission to inspire
learning, advance and disseminate knowledge through
teaching, research, and public service, and to
emphasize the North and its diverse peoples. The
University of Alaska Board of Regents is an eleven
member board that is responsible for helping to guide
the University towards this mission. The addition of a
Faculty Regent to the Board would serve to help
advance this mission and to provide further
representation to this key University stakeholder
group.
Ms. Carrick discussed the University of Alaska Board of
Regents membership on slide 2. She summarized from the
slide as follows:
• 10 Regents serve 8-year terms
• 1 Student regent:
o Serves a 2-year term
o Has full board powers
o Must have 2.5 cumulative GPA
o 2 students are elected by their campus
o and then a nominee is selected by the Governor
• Current Role of Faculty with the BOR:
o Faculty Alliance makes a report at each BOR
meeting
o Able to be called on to answer questions
9:43:26 AM
Ms. Carrick continued to slide 3 to review a state-by-state
comparison. She relayed that there were 24 state university
systems that had a student regent and five systems that had
a faculty regent. She noted that Vermont was currently
considering similar legislation as HB 21 which would add
faculty and staff members to the board. Additionally, 15
percent of private institutions also had a voting faculty
regent.
Ms. Carrick turned to slides 4 and 5 to discuss some
examples of faculty regents in the states of Oregon,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Kentucky, and
Tennessee. Each of the states had dramatically different
board compositions. Most states had a Board of Trustees,
which would vary dramatically in how many members served on
the board.
Ms. Carrick explained how HB 21 worked on slide 6. She
summarized from the slide:
• Increases the number of Regents from 11 to 12
• 2 nominees from the Faculty Senate of each of the
three main campuses are put forward
• Governor selects one appointee, subject to
confirmation by the Legislature
• Faculty must be tenured
• Serves a 2-year term
• Has the full powers of a regent for voting, travel,
and entering executive session
• Majority vote needed for a motion of the Board to
carry
9:45:58 AM
Ms. Carrick moved to slide 7 to talk about the benefits of
a faculty regent. She read from the slide as follows:
• More than a "seat at the tabl
• Faculty can enter executive session, travel for Board
meetings, and can vote
• Improves the ability for faculty to provide
stakeholder interest
• Held to a standard of professionalism- they can recuse
themselves from a conflicted vote
• Ensures that faculty, like students, are given a
voting interest in University affairs
Ms. Carrick concluded the presentation and made herself
available for questions.
9:46:45 AM
Representative LeBon asked why not allow the Faculty Senate
to select one nominee and the chancellor to select another
nominee. He wondered if his suggestion had been discussed.
Representative Wool replied that his suggestion had not
been discussed.
Representative LeBon asked why it was proposed for the
Faulty Senate to select two nominees rather than one.
Representative Wool responded that it provided more
options. It would allow the governor to pick from a larger
pool and would allow for more discretion.
Representative LeBon thought that commonality and choice
would already exist within the choices of the Faculty
Senate. Whereas, if the chancellor were to appoint one of
the positions it would allow for more diversity rather than
the same group providing two names.
9:48:11 AM
DR. JULIE JAK MEIER, CHAIR, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FACULTY
ALLIANCE, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), explained the
rationale behind the Alaska Faculty Alliance's (AFA) desire
to add a faculty regent to the board. She relayed that AFA
represented all faculty members across the UA system.
Adding a faculty regent was one of the most important
things the legislature could do to help UA. It should be
done for the sake of the students, the university, and the
state. The Board of Regents currently only heard feedback
from a single voice, which was the voice of the
administration. Although the administration was important,
there were other groups that were not currently allowed to
participate in the board process that should be heard as
well. Faculty were uniquely positioned to bring a
knowledgeable and positive perspective to the board.
Generally, critical knowledge of the faculty perspective
was lacking within the board, and faculty members were well
suited to provide critical information. She thought the
legislature was wise to have added a student regent
position to the board and the position had been a
successful addition. She argued that it was time to add a
faculty member position to provide a deeper and more
thorough understanding of the university and what it took
to help students succeed. The faculty regent could help
other members remain informed, result in better decisions
being made, and help the board more effectively lead the
university system.
9:51:28 AM
Representative LeBon asked Dr. Maier whether there was
discussion about allowing each campus's chancellor to
nominate a faculty member for selection to the board.
Dr. Meier responded that constituent groups were often
consulted in decision making processes. The problem she saw
with the chancellors potentially appointing faculty was
that the chancellors would likely select more
"administration friendly" faculty members. She thought it
was most important to nominate people who were
knowledgeable about governance. If a member was not
experienced, it took about one year to get up to speed. She
thought the Faculty Senate would select nominees who were
knowledgeable both about faculty issues as well as
governance.
Representative LeBon asked if it would be acceptable if the
bill were to be amended to allow each campus chancellor to
make a nomination, or would it ruin the bill.
Dr. Meier responded that she would be against such an
amendment. The nominee needed to put students first without
being preoccupied by the chancellor's opinion. She thought
it would detract from the bill.
9:54:52 AM
Representative Rasmussen asked why the decision was made to
add one faculty member rather than two. She thought it
might be better to have an odd number on the board.
Representative Wool replied that he had not considered
adding two faculty members. He agreed that the board would
be comprised of an even number of members. Many of the
votes made by the board were either unanimous or there was
an overwhelming majority. If there was a situation where
the vote was close, it likely signified that there needed
to be more discussion on the subject. He thought it was a
valid suggestion to add two members, but he thought it
should start with one additional member. Also, in past
years there had been turmoil within the Board of Regents
and discussion of unifying into a single university. One of
the complaints from faculty members was that they had not
been included in the discussions around unification. One of
the goals of the bill was to ensure that faculty members
had a voice on the board, particularly when it went into an
executive session.
Representative Rasmussen supported having boots-on-the
ground board members.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated that the fiscal note would be
reviewed at a future hearing.
HB 21 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 21 Backup Faculty Alliance Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 21 |
| HB 21 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 21 |
| HB 21 Sponsor.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 21 |
| HB 21 Backup Intro Presentation.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 21 |