'U' says no to student regent seat funding

After a negative response from University administrators, the Michigan Student Assembly's quest for a student reagent has taken a new and unexpected blow. But MSA said the decision merely marks a turning point in its fight.

At the University Board of Regents monthly June meeting, the board failed to approve the proposed increase in MSA fees that would go toward changing the state constitution to allow a student regent seat at the University.

In MSA's proposal to the regents, which was not recommended by Vice President for University Affairs Maureen Hartford, the added $4 fee per semester was said to aid "placing a question on Michigan's state ballot which would ask the citizens ... to vote to change the state constitution such that there be a ninth regent who would hold the status of a student."

In July the Secretary of State's office, in a draft letter, found that the assembly's strategy of trying to collect funds via the University would violate the Michigan Campaign Finance Act if sanctioned by the regents. The MCFA prohibits public bodi

FILE PHOTO University Regents Shirley McFee (R-Battle Creek), Rebecca McGowan (D-Ann Arbor) and Dan Horning (R-Grand Haven) listen during a board meeting.

es - including the University - from expending funds for a ballot question committee.

"What we are looking at here is an interpretation. What was earlier suggested by the students could not be done," said Elizabeth Boyd, a spokesperson for the Secretary of State.

News and Information Director Julie Peterson said the fees were not recommended by Hartford because of the question of legality over using student fees in this manner.

In the proposal, MSA also urged the regents to "be open to and to consider" a student regent who would be elected by the student body.

But amidst the negative response, MSA was prepared to fight back. MSA treasurer Bram Elias said the organization composed a compromise proposal, which avoided the necessity of changing the constitution.

"This new proposal will allow for a student regent without costing students money," Elias said.

MSA President Trent Thompson said the assembly will continue to push for full representation on the board, but added that the Secretary of State's decision puts a damper on the campaign.

"It cuts down our options," Thompson said. "We can't use money from students through the University anymore. We have not yet decided which strategy to use in the future."

Among the possible strategies is an ongoing attempt by MSA to convince the legislature to pass a bill amending the state constitution and creating a student seat on the board. The assembly's efforts in the legislature had been pushed aside by the more promising prospect of the statewide ballot, Thompson said.

MSA is also considering raising funds independently, rather than through the University, to pay for the signature gathering. Another option is to have students themselves gather signatures for the statewide ballot.

Regent S. Martin Taylor (D-Grosse Pointe Farms) said he is pleased with the decision to not incorporate a student regent at this time.

"This is a classic case of Pandora's Box," Taylor said. "There would just be a lot of mischief" if the constitution were to be changed.

Taylor said that although the fees were not approved, it does not mean the administration is against having open and improved communication with the student body.

"There are ways to improve the process," Taylor said. "Obviously, it is important to know what student requests and problems are."

Taylor said having a student regent would not necessarily accomplish this.

"Think how diverse the student body is," Taylor said. "Who would that one student regent be? Students are not a homogenous group of one mind or one priority."

Taylor added that student organizations on campus could offer better communication with administration.

"Requests and concerns that come from student organizations would be seriously considered by the regents and the president.

"All the regents are ready to help," Taylor said.

Regent Shirley McFee (R-Battle Creek) cited another reason for not approving the fee.

"This is all coming forth far too rapidly," McFee said. "Students may think it's a snail's pace, but in reality, it's ... far too sweeping, too soon."

But Elias said the assembly has been working at the regents' pace to establish the student seat on the board.

"This actual drive has been going on for five years non-stop," Elias said. "It's been going on for longer than half the board has been there."

McFee said that the board is indeed intent on establishing good student-administration communication but it is "not at all willing to entertain a proposal that involves a constitutional amendment."

Currently, any student of voting age can run for a seat on the board. The process entails a state-wide election and an eight-term commitment, and is different from the proposed student regent seat.

"Students, I think expected (the student regent proposal) would be more positively received than it was," McFee said.

"The regents on the board at the present time have emphasized that a constitutional change should not be done," she said.

Elias said the decision by the administration to not approve the original proposal was "unexpectedly bad" and made the issue more complicated.

"It makes us unhappy," Elias said. "But it won't end our fight. We've lost a battle, but we're in for a more long-term war."

McFee and Taylor said the lack of clarity as to exactly what a student regent would involve was subpar.

"I have yet to see a full-fledge discussion of expectations, term length or responsibilities," McFee said.

The fee, voted on by students in the Spring 1998 MSA election, would have been enforced for three terms if approved.

"If they are not willing to do this on a voluntary basis, they shouldn't be forced to pay," McFee said.

The fees would be used to aid the start of a petition drive to change the constitution. Although it would have been necessary to pay the increased fee, students could eventually ask for the money back.

"I don't buy that," McFee said. "It's just not the same as voluntary action."

Elias said the negative decision was based on wrong information.

"We're trying out best to correct problems," Elias said. He added that if the proposal's problems are indeed those cited by the board, the new compromise proposal should be viewed more favorably.

"If those are really the reasons, victory is pretty close," Elias said.

- Daily Staff Reporter Gerard Cohen-Vrignaud contributed to this report.

09-08-98