PHOENIX – The Arizona Board of Regents will remain intact -- and with all its powers -- at least for the time being.
Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, said Tuesday he will not force a vote on his legislation to create separate governing boards to make policy, funding and tuition decisions for each of the three state universities. HB 2359 would have reduced the regents to a strictly advisory role.
Finchem told Capitol Media Services his decision came after “some folks from the Board of Regents’’ agreed to create a “working group to try and sort through some of the questions of accountability and some of the accusations of largess.’’
He contends the board is so far removed from the needs and financial realities faced by students that it fails to control its spending.
And Finchem said there also needs to be a discussion of whether the university system should be involved in ventures outside of its basic role of educating students.
But Regents Chairman Greg Patterson said the agreement Finchem said he has does not exist.
“His bill has no support and he pulled it,’’ Patterson said about the death of HB 2359.
And asked specifically if there was any promise to have talks with Finchem about changes in university oversight, Patterson responded, “Of course not.’’
Finchem said he recognizes there is a danger in not pushing ahead with his legislation now based on the promises he got -- or believes he got -- from the regents.
“Are we being strung along?’’ he asked.”That’s a risk I’m willing to take.’’
And even if there are no talks and no compromises, Finchem said the delay it provides time for him to craft legislation that really resolves the problems he sees. Finchem said he’s prepared for the regents to do everything possible to quash any efforts to dilute their power. And he said he’s not under any illusion that board members, appointed by the governor, are about to negotiate away any of the control they have over the university system.
“That’s part of the problem, isn’t it?’’ he said.
“The fact is you acquire power,’’ Finchem continued. “You seem to work very hard to sustain it.’’
At least part of the issue for Finchem and other lawmakers is the sharp increase in what Arizona residents have to pay to attend one of the three state universities.
Regents President Eileen Klein has said at least part of that blame can be laid at the feet of legislators who have cut the state’s share of what it costs to educate a student from 72 percent a decade ago to only about 33 percent now.
And even with some new dollars promised by Gov. Doug Ducey, that ratio will barely change. Finchem, however, said he believes the universities could charge a lot less if they would stick to their basic mission. And he contends that having separate governing boards, each interested in attracting students, would go a long way to cutting costs.
Conversely, Finchem said that won’t happen with a single governing board.
“When you have consolidation of power, when you have consolidation of authority, I’m not convinced you have better government,’’ he said. And Finchem said that’s not limited to the regents.
“As organizations grow bigger and bigger and bigger, there becomes a point where they become less and less effective,’’ he said.
The death of Finchem’s legislation is the second setback this session for lawmakers who say they want to find ways to rein in the high cost of university education for students.
Earlier this month, Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, agreed to scrap her proposal to limit year-over-year tuition hikes to just 2 percent.
That measure, too, faced opposition from the regents who said that higher charges are the net effect of less state aid.
On Twitter: @azcapmedia
More like this story
- Panel OKs controversial 'Espresso Pundit' for state Board of Regents
- New law blocks universities from collecting fees for student group
- Panel votes to kill Common Core academic standards
- Regents strike down Arizona Students' Association to impose its $2-a-semester fee
- Head of Board of Regents said lawsuit over tuition could force legislature to explain possible violation