Legislation changing BOR authority is necessary

The California State Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges is comprised of 17 members who are appointed by the state’s governor. The board sets policy and provides guidance for the 72 districts and 108 colleges that constitute the California Community College system. In addition, the board interacts with state and federal officials and other state organizations.

California law AB 1725 was signed by the governor in 1988 and designated to be an integral part of the Education Code for higher education in California. Since it stipulates the necessity for “shared governance” among the board of governors that oversees all of the community colleges, there is respect and relationship with the individual locally-elected Board of Trustees representing all of the individual California community colleges and the districts they comprise.

Although the local Boards of Trustees of California community colleges work collegially and collaboratively with the State Board of Governors in Sacramento, their specific duty and function is to be responsive to local community needs. They are essentially empowered and charged with policy formulation for the operation and direction of the local college they were elected to serve. The Chancellor for a multi-college district or president is the key administrator in terms of assisting the board with decisions regarding policy formulation, budget, and with short- and long-term planning.

The Chancellor of the entire California community college system oversees every district chancellor and president of every district in the system. Through a formal process of consultation, the Chancellor of the system, who is also located in Sacramento, brings recommendations to the Board of Governors, which has the authority to develop and implement policy for the colleges.

Legislation affecting the California Community Colleges is, for the most part, channeled through the Board of Governors and presented to the Legislature.

In the CNMI, Public Law 4-34 amended the Higher Education Act of 1983 by creating a separate board of regents and broadening the authority and responsibility of the governing board.

The CNMI’s State Board of Regents, or BOR is, according to the organizational chart of the government, an “autonomous agency” under the auspices of the Executive Branch of the CNMI. The BOR is vested with the authority through the abovementioned legislation to make decisions for NMC, as well as regulate and approve the approval and licensure of applications of any organizations involved with training and/or higher education.

In February 2003, HR 13-246 was introduced supporting the removal of the State Board of Regents’ jurisdiction over private postsecondary institutions wishing to provide higher education in the CNMI. From February through April 2003, it was discussed and reviewed by committees. Nothing transpired for approximately eight months and in January 2004 it was “filed.” Thus it was passed by the House, but never officially became CNMI law.

The Saipan University debacle was what prompted HR 13-246 to be introduced. Since it was never enacted into law, the BOR is still able to review applications for organizations that will compete directly or indirectly with NMC. The problem thus far has been in selecting credible organizations.

Recently, the BOR submitted to the AGO regulations relative to organizations that wish to establish a postsecondary program in the CNMI. Assistant attorney general Alan J. Barak said that the 28-page policy submitted by the BOR was broad and expensive to meet, as well as contradictory because it could put many current Saipan-based legitimate businesses out of business. Barak went on to say that the BOR’s regulations may be counterproductive and make it difficult, expensive and uncertain to independently open a higher education school here, so that virtually no legitimate program will come to the CNMI.

The BOR should not be involved with any transactions involving other organizations besides the Northern Marianas College, unless the program is affiliated with a university in the region, e.g., UOG, that will take NMC graduates from specific programs like elementary education and allow students to matriculate for a baccalaureate. Anything else should not even be entertained.

The BOR should focus on NMC and should have never expended the time and energy to formulate a lengthy policy for organizations that are desirous of offering educational programs to students not wanting to attend NMC. Focusing on developing policy to make the college progress and not perusing applications of organizations should be the primary purpose and function of the BOR.

Being involved with granting licenses to organizations wanting to provide training and educational programs should be reviewed by the business sector. Since these organizations will be offering training and education “for profit” and will not be publicly supported with taxpayers dollars, then it only makes sense that these organizations be approved by another group of individuals other than the BOR.

Within the next decade, the CNMI may double in terms of population and be nearly 200,000 people. A large percentage of that population will be over seventeen years of age.

In light of the fact that NMC will clearly be unable to handle a student population that could double over the next decade, then the planning to accommodate the influx of students and demand for more faculty and programs will be a necessity.

This type of planning falls into the lap of the BOR. And if they do not begin the process now (since their tenure on the board is not indefinite), then the boards of the future will be in a “hurry and catch up mode” in responding to an inevitable consequence like a rapid increase in population.

Moreover, there should not be any influence on the part of the CNMI governor in terms of what takes place in higher education. The function of policy formulation and direction is the sole responsibility of the board and not the elected governor.

A directive given from the governor’s office should never take precedence over the authority that is vested in each and every member who comprises the State Board of Regents for the CNMI. Any influence given by the governor will take away from the “autonomy” of the BOR.

The island community saw with their own eyes in 2002 and 2003 what happened when Gov. Juan Babauta intervened, becoming involved with the BOR and the Pacific Gateway project and La Fiesta Mall complex. The net result was a program that failed before it even began and approximately $4.6 million was wasted on a complex that cost $600,000 to maintain and run. Clearly, the funds should have been used for other areas like the PSS, NMC, DPH, and DPS.

The politics from the governor’s office that entered the decision-making process of the State Board of Regents has clearly destroyed the image and impetus of higher education in the CNMI. This should no longer be tolerated and allowed to take place by the residents of the island community. Allowing a governor to get involved with the business of higher education because of an “education initiative” he promoted on the campaign trail has proven to be an utter disappointment.

In order for any progress to be made, there should not be any involvement by the governor and/or stipulations handed down from the Attorney General’s Office unless there is clearly a violation of the law by any of the policies established by the BOR. If no laws are broken, then the AGO should not interact with the BOR. A review of the policy recently submitted by the BOR is a waste of time and taxpayers’ dollars. The time and money expended should be for the students and college and nothing else.

There are no Boards of Governors or Regents in any state of the mainland that are involved with the perusal and approval of applications of organizations that are seeking to provide training and/or higher education. And since the focus of these boards is for the “college or colleges” under their auspices, then it is clearly inappropriate for them to be involved with anything else. Their focus and concentration is on their district only.

The legislation that grants the State Board of Regents the power and authority to grant licenses to be involved with training and higher education should be adjusted to only focus on NMC, which is accredited by WASC and “the only” bona fide institution of higher education in the CNMI.

If there are no changes made to the existing legislation regarding the State Board of Regents’ authority, then there will always be the potential for problems with organizations wanting to make money as a private entity and not provide public education as a public entity like NMC.

When change is not implemented when necessary, then there will always be complications and the potential for the situation to become problematic. The recent rejection by the AGO of the policies involving the State Board of Regents for the CNMI is a prime example of the legal arm of the government trying to regulate the decisions desired by a higher education board regarding organizations that are in the business to make money providing training and/or education.

It is of dire importance for the 14th Legislature to make changes in terms of the authority of the State Board of Regents. It is imperative that another bill similar to HR 13-246 be created to curtail the power and jurisdiction of the BOR. Any changes made through formal legislation now will ensure that the emphasis will be placed on NMC and allow the college to serve the community and prepare the students enrolled for a solid foundation and brighter future in the CNMI, or anywhere else for that matter.

Dr. Jesus D. Camacho
Delano, California