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.