Legislature(2019 - 2020)DAVIS 106
03/06/2020 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
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 | |
| HB236 | |
| HB180 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 236 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 180-ADD FACULTY MEMBER UNIV BOARD OF REGENTS
[Contains brief mention of HB 195.]
8:15:33 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 180 "An Act relating to the Board of Regents
of the University of Alaska."
8:16:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 180 as prime sponsor. He explained that HB 180 would
establish a voting faculty member representative on the
University of Alaska (UA) Board of Regents. He noted that five
states' universities include a faculty member on their boards.
He drew a comparison to boards such as those for hospitals and
banks that include doctors and bankers as a part of their
respective stakeholder representation for decision-making
processes. He noted that UA Board of Regents includes student
representation.
8:17:38 AM
ASHLEY CARRICK, Staff, Representative Adam Wool, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 180 on behalf of Representative Wool,
prime sponsor. She began a PowerPoint presentation [hardcopy
included in the committee packet], entitled "HB 180 Supporting
Document Intro Presentation." Slide 2 depicted the membership
structure of the UA Board of Regents and the current role of
faculty to the board. She added that faculty maintains speaking
rights but does not maintain voting rights. Ms. Carrick then
drew attention to slide 3, entitled "STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS
OVERVIEW," and noted that only public institutions are
represented on the map; however, there exists faculty
representation on 15 percent of private university boards across
the nation. She exemplified how the state of Oregon is
represented differently on the map due to more than one public
university system in Oregon, both of which include faculty
representation on its board with full voting rights.
8:21:05 AM
MS. CARRICK drew attention to slides 4 and 5, which depict the
composition of public university boards in Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee that include faculty
representation. She made note that no standard for university
board membership composition exists. She offered clarification
that Kentucky State University's governing councils elect
members rather than establishing membership by gubernatorial
appointment. She concluded that a variety of composition of
boards exists along with a variety among the way members are
appointed or elected on boards throughout the nation, and
variety exists also among boards that do not include faculty
representation.
8:23:39 AM
MS. CARRICK drew attention to slide 6, entitled "HB 180: HOW IT
WORKS," to the second bulleted point, "Nominees from the Faculty
Senate of each of the three main campuses are put forward." She
explained that two nominees from each of the three campuses are
put forward for gubernatorial consideration. She noted that
under HB 180, as currently written, a term consists of four
years; however, following stakeholder engagement, consideration
is being made to amend the length of the term to two years. She
then drew attention to slide 7, entitled "HB 180: BENEFITS OF A
FACULTY REGENT," and explained that faculty currently do not
enjoy a voting privilege while the student regent does. She
highlighted the standard of professionalism that exists, in
particular for the student regent member, and she said the
proposed faculty member would be held to the same high standard.
8:26:43 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked for an explanation of the selection
process of the student member.
MS. CARRICK answered that up to two students may be elected from
each campus for gubernatorial consideration through a petition
process.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether the six agricultural members of
the Pennsylvania State University Board of Trustees were faculty
of an agricultural program.
MS. CARRICK offered her understanding that the six agricultural
members represent the agricultural industry. In response to a
follow-up question, she confirmed that they could be members of
the business community.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referred to slide 6 and asked whether an
amendment is anticipated to reduce the term from four years to
two. She asked for additional information on the bullet point
"Tiebreaker vote of the full board can be broken by a vote of
the President," whether the president of UA is an employee of
the board comparable to a superintendent of a school district
who is hired by the district's board.
8:29:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL answered that the president is an employee
of UA and serves at the pleasure of the Board of Regents.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND expressed concern regarding the president, as
an employee of the board, holding a tiebreaker voting privilege.
She suggested that since the increase in regents proposed in HB
180 would result in 12 voting members, perhaps a vote of 7 could
be required to eliminate the need for a tiebreaker vote.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered the possibility that members absent
from a meeting could create challenges should a vote of seven be
required. He noted that there exists a simple majority of
members present.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND referred to Alaska State Legislative Uniform
Rules requiring either a simple majority of members present or a
full majority depending on the issue being voted upon. She
asked which rules of order govern the process for the board.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that the board has adopted Roberts
Rules of Order, and he expressed his belief that issues
requiring a vote require only a majority of those members
present.
8:32:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed concern regarding the interest
between the president and the [proposed] faculty member. He
suggested that the president could apply pressure to a
subordinate faculty member in the case of a contentious issue.
Of the other states described in the presentation, he asked how
the states with an even number of board members function in the
event of a tie vote.
8:33:29 AM
MS. CARRICK indicated that she would conduct additional research
and inform the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked who has advocated for voting
privileges for a faculty representative as proposed under HB
180.
8:33:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that over the prior five years he has
fielded increasing requests from faculty members who have
expressed concern for lack of faculty representation on the
board, and he indicated the perceived concern had recently
increased due to budget cuts. He noted that the concept of
faculty representation on the board had been met with resistance
and that potential conflict of interest exists for faculty
members; however, he suggested that potential conflict exists
also for the student representative when votes on matters such
as tuition or program cuts are contemplated. He suggested that
should a genuine conflict of interest arise, the member should
recuse him/herself from the vote. He remarked that all
political appointees carry an inherent risk of potential for
conflict of interest. He suggested that students and faculty
bring a vital perspective to the board.
8:36:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted that professional trade groups may
prohibit employees from participating in governance due to pay
and benefits decisions. He contrasted student representation
and faculty representation due to the amounts paid by the state
to subsidize students' tuition. He expressed concern regarding
the uncertainty of future funding for UA.
8:37:51 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether adding a second student member
had been considered to alleviate the need for a tiebreaker by
the president.
8:38:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL said he had not considered another student
but had considered adding a staff member in addition to the
student and proposed faculty member. He suggested the
possibility of allowing a term of another regent to expire and
subsequently filling that position with a faculty member. He
expressed his hope that issues brought before the board would
generally result in more decisive voting outcomes [rather than
tie votes].
8:39:23 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND said that the Anchorage Assembly was in the
process of considering whether to add a member, which would
result in an even number of representatives, and that some
assemblies allow for a mayor to serve as a tiebreaker vote. She
encouraged more information be provided to the committee
regarding the rules of order and how the president as a
tiebreaker would function once implemented, including how other
state university systems may operate with the same.
8:40:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that regardless of whether the board
procedurally operates in accordance, Roberts Rules of Order
prescribes that the board chair is not a voting member unless a
tiebreaker vote is needed. He agreed to conduct further
research as requested.
8:41:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted the vote weight distribution in the
state systems referenced in the presentation and asked whether
the proposed faculty member would carry an 8 percent weight with
his/her vote. She then asked for clarification that currently
the faculty member representation cannot vote nor participate in
executive session, and she asked whether the proposed
legislation would allow for that participation.
8:42:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL confirmed Representative Johnson's
assessment and compared faculty member participation to that of
Puerto Rico or Guam [in the United States Congress].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that the conflict of interest
might occur should a faculty member participate in the hiring
and evaluation of a president, and she asked how that and other
potential conflicts, such as personnel issues being discussed
during executive session, would be managed.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL noted that student representatives are
exposed to sensitive information and potential conflicts of
interest and there exists a professional standard of conduct to
which they are held, such as self-recusal, based on trust. He
answered the question of a faculty member participating in the
hiring of a president, adding that the University of Alaska
Faculty Senate provides a position of support on the hiring of
the president. He noted that the faculty member vote weight as
proposed would be one-twelfth of the whole on hiring and other
matters brought to a vote, and he expressed his hope that the
board would not be divided by a tie vote in hiring a president
but rather maintain more of a consensus for a matter of such
consequence. He reiterated that the student representative
currently enjoys the privilege of voting on this [and other
matters] and suggested that the lack of faculty representation
results in imbalanced representation.
8:45:44 AM
MS. CARRICK offered that there could be a perception of limited
powers held by a student regent whereas, in practice, the
student regent is held to a rigorous standard of professional
conduct. She described anecdotal experiences related to her by
current and previous student regents who have participated in
program decisions and other sensitive matters for decision that
are subject to public scrutiny. She explained that student
representatives serve on the board to the benefit of UA as a
whole and not for the campus from which they were nominated or
for the particular program in which the student is enrolled.
She suggested that a faculty regent would reasonably be capable
of serving UA as a whole similarly, professionally, and in a
nonpartisan manner.
8:47:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL added that UA had recently eliminated its
education program with a vote of six yeas to five nays, and the
student regent voted in favor of the elimination of the program.
He suggested that as evidence that the student regent
participates in major decisions and is not a token member.
8:48:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether the student regent is elected
or whether his/her name is forwarded to the governor for
appointment.
8:48:46 AM
MS. CARRICK explained that among the three main campuses a
student may choose to solicit petition signatures to award the
opportunity of consideration of gubernatorial appointment to the
board. She added that there exists a trend of rotating the
student representation among the different campuses, with some
exceptions. She added that students are evaluated for
appointment based on qualifications.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked how a faculty member would be selected
and whether the faculty union would participate in the
nomination process.
MS. CARRICK reiterated that the UA Faculty Senate at each of the
three main campuses would appoint two nominees, for a total of
six nominees to be considered for gubernatorial appointment to
the board. She stated that the faculty union would not be
involved in the process.
8:51:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he did not see where Section 4 refers
to "Faculty Senate," and he asked for an explanation of how the
Faculty Senate works.
8:52:47 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND offered that on page 2, line 12, the bill
states "three faculty senates".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for an explanation of the composition
and function of the faculty senates.
8:53:03 AM
MS. CARRICK explained that each faculty senate conducts annual
elections to appoint members on rotating terms. She conjectured
that no term limits exist. She offered to provide additional
information to the committee including terms of service.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what function the faculty senate
serves.
8:53:57 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether a representative from UA was
present and available to provide information to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL indicated that the witnesses present did not
include invited testimony at the current hearing; however, one
or more invited testifiers would be offered at a future hearing
on the bill.
CO-CHAIR STORY referred to a letter in the committee packet,
entitled "UNAC Support Letter," which includes a reference to a
two-year term rather than a four-year term due to workload
considerations for the appointee. She cited a statement in the
letter which read that "the faculty regent be chosen in rotation
from UAF, UAA, UAS and Extended Campuses to ensure balanced
representation from the campuses." She asked whether the
sponsor intended to include the suggested language in an amended
version of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that he intentionally did not include
such language to mitigate regionalism in faculty representation.
He suggested that regionalization could politicize the board.
He expressed his intent that faculty and student representatives
work in the best interest of the UA system as a whole. He
suggested that the trend of rotating regional student
representation had occurred inconsequentially, and the
appointees were selected based only on their qualifications.
CO-CHAIR STORY asked whether the sponsor had obtained feedback
from the current board of regents regarding adding a faculty
member.
8:56:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL indicated that he had engaged informally
with some current board and faculty members, and he said he
thinks - especially considering the faculty felt
underrepresented over the summer - that while they may not
testify in support of [adding a faculty member to the board],
they would not be opposed to it. He added, "I'm sure there are
some that are opposed, and ... maybe, in a way, that speaks to:
This isn't such a bad idea." He said faculty does have a voice,
and he thinks faculty members, who are "just random faculty
members," would be hesitant to come before the board and make a
strong statement, because they are an employee. Whereas, if
they were on the Board of Regents, then that would be their job
and expected role.
8:58:52 AM
MS. CARRICK explained that she had been in contact with the
Northwest Commission on Colleges (NCC), which had contacted UA
the summer prior, taking issue with the fiscal state of UA. She
indicated that NCC has stated its political neutrality on HB
180, has offered no public opposition to the bill, and has
informally allowed for the merits of faculty representation on
the board.
9:00:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK expressed concern that a faculty member may
be subject to undue pressure should the president enjoy the
power of a tiebreaker vote since the faculty is employed at the
pleasure of the president and could be terminated.
9:01:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that a tenured professor is protected
from [capricious] termination.
9:02:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether a recently retired
professor would be considered qualified to fill the proposed
faculty position.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL acknowledged that a retired professor may
already exist by happenstance on the board and any retired
professor would add value to the board.
9:03:04 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY opened public testimony on HB 180.
9:03:18 AM
MARIA WILLIAMS, PhD, Chair, Faculty Alliance, University of
Alaska, testified in support of HB 180. She explained that the
Faculty Alliance is the faculty governance group and consists of
the Faculty Senates at each main campus. She added that Faculty
Senate terms are for one year and the chair rotates among the
campus representatives. She suggested that a four-year term
could be too onerous considering faculty workload. She
suggested that the current board makes decisions at a very high
organizational level and may lack valuable input from faculty
and student perspective. She added that faculty members work on
campus and are engaged directly in program activities, including
curriculum.
9:06:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for an explanation of the activities
and recommendations made by the faculty alliance.
9:07:03 AM
DR. WILLIAMS explained that the faculty alliance meets every two
weeks for two hours. She added that its membership comprises
elected representatives from a coalition of student leaders,
staff alliance, and faculty alliance. She added that a
presentation is developed for presentation to the board and
voiced her concern that the board may not acknowledge the
faculty at meetings and allow testimony.
9:08:11 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Dr. Williams to detail the changes in UA
administration during her tenure.
DR. WILLIAMS answered that since 2011, she had experience with:
three deans, including a current interim dean; five provosts,
the last three of whom have been interim provost; and two
presidents. She explained that while it is not unusual for
turnover, it is unusual for there to be extensive interim deans
and provosts.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND opined that these administrative changes
reflect a state of disorder at UA.
9:09:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL remarked that turnover in administration is
typical.
9:09:59 AM
MAX KULBERG testified in support of HB 180. He explained that
the faculty alliance is invited to the board meetings to provide
a presentation. He said that faculty members are subject to
acknowledgement to testify at board meetings and suggested that
they are regularly not acknowledged to speak. He said that
during the most recent accreditation process of UA, the
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities determined two
areas for suggested improvement in order to maintain
accreditation. He stated the first was to delineate the roles
for chancellor and president, and the second was to improve
shared governance. He stated strong support for HB 180 as a
means by which UA could improve shared governance. He noted
that a faculty member as board member would provide perspectives
currently lacking from the board discussions. He suggested that
a quorum of seven, or a majority, be included under HB 180 as it
is proposed under HB 195. He suggested reconsideration of the
president as tiebreaker vote and recommended instead that a
voting member should serve as tiebreaker.
9:12:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked for clarification on the assertion
that faculty members do not enjoy representation due to a lack
of voting privilege despite enjoying the privilege of speaking
to the board.
MR. KULBERG emphasized his primary reason for his testimony is
to convey the concern that faculty do not enjoy the privilege to
vote. He explained that faculty are invited as guests to
provide faculty updates; however, faculty are not consistently
invited to participate in discussions germane to their areas of
expertise and shared knowledge.
9:14:39 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Mr. Kulberg to provide additional
information on nonvoting members as tiebreaker.
MR. KULBERG noted that faculty have discussed and researched
other boards and have not found an instance where a nonvoting or
ex-officio member [such as the president] enjoys the privilege
of a tiebreaker vote. He suggested that acceptable alternatives
could include a change of majority vote to require seven, rather
than six; the inclusion of an additional board member such as a
staff representative; or the reduction in the number of regents
when a term expires.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND reiterated her suggestion of including an
additional student member and cautioned that adding a staff
representative might result in a complex appointment procedure.
She postulated that regardless of odd or even membership, issues
should be meritorious enough to warrant persuasion to a
consensus outcome by vote.
9:17:00 AM
MS. CARRICK referenced Representative Prax's earlier discussion
regarding the existing role of faculty to the board and
suggested that a disparity exists between the board's perception
of faculty role and the faculty perception of the same. She
added that faculty enjoys speaking privileges compared to a
member of the general public who would not enjoy the privilege
of speaking to the board; however, stakeholder feedback has
indicated that the speaking privileges in practice are
inadequate to that of voting privileges to represent the
interests of faculty to the board.
9:18:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed his sympathy to the matter of non-
voting interested party testimony in governance and asked for
further clarification on what disparity exists.
9:18:58 AM
MS. CARRICK offered that while faculty are invited to present to
the board, no certainty exists that faculty remain fully engaged
in discussions. In practice, faculty are not invited to engage
consequentially with the board following their initial
presentation.
9:19:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL explained that the configuration of the
meeting room in practice is comparable to the configuration of a
hearing such as this of the House Education Standing Committee,
where faculty are invited to speak yet not engaged in the
discussion.
9:20:25 AM
STACEY LUCASON testified in support of HB 180. She expressed
her support as a former student regent and UA alumnus for
consideration of an amendment to prescribe a two-year term due
to workload management. She suggested that HB 180 would aid in
compliance to findings which have jeopardized accreditation of
UA as a whole. She lauded the value of faculty insight and
perspective as necessary to effective governance and opined that
faculty input as it exists is inadequate to meaningfully
contribute to the process. She echoed previous concerns raised
regarding the president as tiebreaker, suggesting that the
conflict which exists due to the employer/employee relationship
between the president and the board is insurmountable. She
expressed her support for the suggestion to require a seven-
member majority vote as it would reflect a modernization in
decision-making and would result in more consensus necessary
when making consequential decisions on controversial matters.
She suggested that professional standards apply to all members
of the board. Recusal from matters where a conflict exists does
occur, and faculty would not be unduly burdened to maintain the
same level of conduct, she said.
9:23:27 AM
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked Ms. Lucason to describe the training and
support she received in her role as student regent.
MS. LUCASON answered that training and support are relatively
minimal. She explained that her individual experience as
student body president served as an additional benefit to the
training she received. She described written materials were
provided that covered matters of confidentiality, procedure, and
calendar, among others. She stated that she also participated
in a tour of the facility.
CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked whether any professional training had
been provided.
MS. LUCASON added that she had also been introduced to the UA
General Council around the time of her appointment.
9:25:49 AM
LUANN PICCARD, Associate Professor, University of Alaska,
Anchorage, testified in support of HB 180. She provided her
biographical information, including professional certification.
She indicated that her expertise in management dictates that
diversity of stakeholder input is vital to proper governance.
She suggested that most public boards and commissions include
members qualified with subject matter expertise. She challenged
the committee to consider the effectiveness of governance bodies
that do not include such expertise. She suggested that the
current board composition does not require members possess such
expertise, but the proposed addition of a faculty member would.
She suggested that the areas of expertise lacking, which a
faculty member would bring, include experience in teaching
students, conducting research, knowledge of accreditation,
institutional knowledge, and active participation in shared
governance. She suggested that faculty perspective is vital to
effective governance, and inclusion of faculty would bring added
integrity to the process.
9:29:43 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY recalled that the sponsor would provide
additional information to the committee pertinent to how other
state public universities address matters of voting and
tiebreaking.
9:30:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL affirmed that additional testimony and
information would be forthcoming.
9:30:28 AM
CO-CHAIR STORY announced that HB 180 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2020.HB 180.Bill Version U.PDF |
HEDC 3/6/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 180 |
| 2020.HB 180.Sponsor.pdf |
HEDC 3/6/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 180 |
| 2020.HB 180.Sectional.pdf |
HEDC 3/6/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 180 |
| HB 180 Supporting Document- UNAC Support Letter.pdf |
HEDC 3/6/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 180 |
| HB 180 Supporting Document- Intro Presentation.pdf |
HEDC 3/6/2020 8:00:00 AM |
HB 180 |