Texas Regents' Potential Conflicts to Be Scrutinized
At a recent hearing of the new joint higher education oversight committee, state Sen. Judith Zaffirini asked the chairmen of the University of Texas System and Texas A&M University System regents what they had done to prevent conflicts of interest on their respective boards. There was a long pause.
She asked if either board has “a statement setting forth the expectations for the conduct of its members.” Both men said they would have to get back to her.
Zaffirini, a Laredo Democrat and co-chairwoman of the committee, is likely to get an answer even if they do not. Legislators ...
Comments (8)
jpt51
Good for you Senator Zaffirini! The two university chairmen know well, the only requirement their regents now have is to make hefty campaign contributions to Rick Perry's political campaigns.
LoneStarLaurel LoneStarLaurel
Critical information on regent job responsibilities is missing in this article, and essential to delivery of full understanding of the problems described.. Tried to find this on the web without success. I could find neither specifics nor meaningful general information.
That said, without information,regarding a regent's potential spheres of influence, this article is meaningless.
Wilkins Micawber
"Gene Powell, the chairman of the UT System board, cautioned against infringing on the rights of regents, who serve voluntarily, and said they were aware that their chief loyalty lies with the system. “I think they have the right to participate on boards and associate with who they want to associate with,” he said."
Every library clerk at UT or A&M "serves" voluntarily, and I'll bet every one of them is aware that their "chief loyalty" lies with the university for which they work, yet every library clerk must *seek permission from administrative superiors even to work an outside job at a grocery store.*
One issue at hand revolves around the meaning of the verb "to serve". Under the Rick Perry administration, the notion that these are PUBLIC service positions seems to have been replaced by a more venal form of "service".
The Regents should absolutely be held accountable to the highest standards of PUBLIC service. It should not be necessary to spell it out and verify compliance, but as has been demonstrated in the last several years, Regents seldom "serve" out of selfless devotion to the ideals of higher education. They should be subject to more thorough and intense scrutiny than library clerks, not less.
And if they don't like it, maybe they should take their "service" on down the road. There are plenty of other commissions in this state that are for sale.
T D
The fact that Gene Powell refused to divulge the name of the friend who recommended he use tax money to hire Rick O'Donnell tells us a great deal about Powell's idea of public service.
LoneStarLaurel LoneStarLaurel
K
WUSRPH
As the old state senator from Pennsylvania was said to have responded when questioned about his vote on a bill that would put some $ in his pocket: "Conflict of interest? What do you mean 'conflict of interest'...It does not conflict with my interests!".....That his being the ruling principle of the Regents for the history of UT...and it has been the reason why so many over so many years have paid so much to get the appointment.....Running a multi-million (if not billion) $ operation and enjoying all the "bennies" (regents hideaways, football games, fawning administrators) have always been what being a regent is all about... (With a few possible exceptions put on the boards for public relations--ala Lady Bird, etc.)
Frances Morey
Any member of a Board of Regents who contributes as much as $40,000 to the governor who appoints them is likely to have an agenda to pursue when serving on those boards. One safeguard would be to prohibit quid pro quo appointments for campaign contributions.
Ideological agendas are even more troubling than financial conflicts of interest. The leadership of the Republican Party is hell bent on throwing a wrench into the works of government like spoilers who want things to go wrong in order to put the discord created by them to use in regaining power.
Their singular purpose is to regain that power at all costs. It appears to be happening on both the state and national levels. By golly, if those pointy head intellectuals and scientists on the faculty of state supported universities want regulations we'll show 'em regulations.
audrey fisher
As was pointed out by Matt Taibi - the only way to get to a place of "prominence" here in TX is to buy your way in. In a moment of rationale thought, Zaffirini asked a great question and should demand an answer. If there is a conflict: private or public higher education and pay for play, then the board members, who serve (not to forget, supposedly for free) then they should leave their respective boards.
To note: the most recent ploy by the State of TX was to demand a "contract" from the students. Originally, that "contract" included a penalty if a 4 year degree was not completed within 4 years. It would require that the in-state student pay out of state tuition rate....which was an ALEC agenda on steroids. ALEC said a 25% increase in rate, TX started at 400%.
Original TX University plan was to NOT ALLOW a student to change their major and that was removed.
Ask why is all this necessary: because of low grad rates. In their twisted thinking, forcing students to graduate regardless of whether or not that prepares the student for anything indicates that students are a revenue stream meant to be exploited....and the Reagents are apparently on board. Now they are being asked WHY/ IF they would gain from this approach.