Michigan’s public universities already operate openly

Concerns about how Michigan’s universities operate, as expressed by Michigan state Rep. Martin Howrylak (R-Troy) are much appreciated. However, it seems his proposal to mandate that these institutions be held to some superior level of “openness” in governing board meetings is a solution in search of a problem.

Michigan’s public universities are perhaps the healthiest of our state’s public institutions. They are recognized as among the best in the world when measured against peers. They attract students from all over the nation—and from across the globe. Their enrollment is near an all-time high. That’s impressive, given that every student attending a postsecondary institution does so voluntarily, and that Michigan public universities operate in one of the most competitive environments imaginable, with nearly 100 universities and colleges in the state and thousands across the nation.

Rep. Howrylak wrote in his Bridge commentary that he wants a constitutional amendment that would “require the governing boards of Michigan’s public universities to open their meetings to the public.”

Governing board meetings, are, in fact, already open to the public. Far from hiding “under a cloak of secrecy,” as Rep. Howrylak suggests, public universities routinely operate in the public eye—from the agendas, detailed reports and other materials that are provided ahead of board meetings and available for public scrutiny, to the public meetings themselves.

Indeed, Rep. Howrylak acknowledges attending such open meetings as a student—meetings which are regularly covered by reporters, and provide opportunity for public comments.

Michigan’s public universities routinely respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, providing tens of thousands of pages of documents to reporters and the public each year. A visit to the web sites of these institutions allows detailed examination of budgets, policy documents, minutes of a variety of meetings and other public records. And as Rep. Howrylak is aware, the public universities also provide numerous legislatively-mandated reports annually to the state.

Today, board members and other university leaders are routinely queried by the public and press via email and various social media tools, which serve as additional communication channels between campus and community constituents.

Rep. Howrylak seems to be concerned that there are times when board members may confer among themselves or others as they seek to understand various issues and the positions of other board members. It is as if he wants to prevent board members from ever discussing university matters one-on-one, or even in groups, but instead should have every conversation conducted as part of a formal open meeting.

“Public officials cannot make decisions in vacuums,” Rep. Howrylak says. That’s very true. But does being forced by law to hold every discussion with a fellow board member, constituent or expert in a public meeting, where blunt and forceful opinions are often withheld, contribute to or solve this problem? I would argue that university board members are better served in their decision making capabilities by being able to gather information from a variety of sources, at any time, rather than place an artificial restraint on their consultative deliberations and wait for a public hearing.

Certainly, all board decisions should be made in a public hearing—and they are. That is why the governing board meetings held by Michigan’s public universities are open, with votes on every policy and major personnel appointment conducted in public session, and which include public comment sessions.

Forcing every discussion by a board member about university policy to be held in a public meeting is simply impractical, and certainly doesn’t follow the example of the publicly-elected Michigan Legislature, where leadership meetings and even meetings among party caucuses—including caucuses where a majority of members are involved—are private matters. Indeed, disclosure of caucus discussions is punishable by expulsion from the caucus. Meetings of gubernatorial cabinets, where very weighty matters are discussed, are private sessions until the governor is prepared to announce an appropriate decision.

“Public policy is best made in the sunshine, for, if a policy decision is made without the support of the public to which it is applied, it will surely have a short and miserable life,” Rep. Howrylak writes.

He is correct.

The fact that Michigan’s public universities enjoy such broad public support and are extraordinarily successful in their missions is further evidence that current policies requiring governing boards to make decisions in public meetings are working well. As such, we should leave the state’s Constitution alone.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission.

If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, please contact Ron FrenchClick here for details and submission guidelines.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Tony Duerr
Tue, 09/01/2015 - 10:49am
Well said. Moreover the Constitution already requires that formal sessions of the governing boards, where all decisions affecting public policy are made, be open to the public.
Jim Rumpf
Tue, 09/01/2015 - 12:03pm
Meetings at which decisions are announced or motions are formally voted upon are open. Meetings at which decisions are, for all intents and purposes, actually *made*? Those resolutions have to come from somewhere.
Mike Staebler
Tue, 09/01/2015 - 3:23pm
Very nicely put. The Universities are every bit as open to public inspection as any of our institutions.
Nick Fleezanis
Wed, 09/02/2015 - 1:40am
Of course Mr. Hurley is going to say everything is fine with our universities. He's one of the foxes guarding the chicken coup! We have to many public universities, entirely to many community colleges,and way to many schools districts in Michigan. Colleges and universities suffer from mission creep to stay in business pilfering students from each other and the tax payers continues to support all of this redundancy! Between the cost of education and the corrections system, it's no wonder there is no money to fix our roads! These college and university boards have become become to arrogant and self-serving. It high time they meet the existing laws that demand openness and transparency.
Ron Robinson
Wed, 09/02/2015 - 2:07pm
As an Oakland University trustee, I support State Rep. Howrylak's legislation. Michigan's public universities and their individual boards have a great deal of autonomy which is good. However, the autonomy needs to be balanced with board accountability and transparency. Since the 1999 Michigan Supreme Court decision in Federated Publication, Inc. vs. the Board of Trustees of MSU that balance has been lost. Our state university boards can now operate behind closed doors without public knowledge or oversight. Rep. Howrylak's legislation would require board's to do the public's business in open forum. Since the decision, our university boards have had limited oversight and of course they will defend that power and privilege as long as our state legislative leaders allow it. Our democracy depends on holding our public officials accountable and transparent. Our local governments operate under Michigan's Open Meetings Act and our university boards should be no different.