advertisement

Gov. Blunt right, for once, to veto student curator vote

Saturday, July 12, 2008 | 10:00 a.m. CDT; updated 4:52 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, July 22, 2008

LONDON — I could feel the anger, the disappointment and the politics way over here when the announcement came that our Boy Governor had vetoed the bill to empower the university’s student curator with an actual vote.

My first reaction was what regular readers would expect. I’m generally in favor of voting and of Chuck Graham. More often than not, I’m critical of the governor and my bosses, the curators, who urged the veto. So surely the lad had committed another boo-boo.

Then I violated my usual rule and began to think again. What I began to think was that this time Chuck is wrong and the curators and the governor are right. That’s a conclusion that’s almost painful, so I’ll try to explain.

What is a “curator,” anyway? There’s a starting point. A curator is, by definition, one who looks after, cares for, something. Great art collections have curators. It’s an especially apt descriptor, I think, for those who are entrusted with the care of what is one of our state’s most valuable resources.

These particular curators are chosen in a way that is intended to make the body broadly representative of the university’s real constituency, the citizens of the state. There’s one from each congressional district, and the rule is that the partisan majority can be no greater than one. These days, that means there are five nominal Republican curators and four nominal Democrats. Appointment is by the governor, with confirmation by the state Senate.

Like any political structure, this one can be and has been abused. We’ve seen damaging partisanship and anti-intellectual ideology. But it’s better than the alternatives, such as direct election.

There are no seats designated for alumni or for faculty. Those two groups, I’d argue, have at least as much legitimate interest in the direction of the institution as do the students. Still, several years ago, a nonvoting student member was added as what might be called a quasi-curator. I’m sure that seemed like a good idea at the time.

What has happened, of course, was perfectly predictable. Student curators and the interest group they represent have been frustrated by their powerlessness, the reality that they aren’t “real” curators. So they’ve agitated and eventually succeeded in persuading a comfortable majority of the legislature to give the student curator a vote.

Why not a voting student curator? Because, it seems to me, that undercuts the broadly representational nature of the board. If the students deserve a vote, then surely the faculty does. And the alumni association. And maybe the staff. You can probably think of other legitimate claimants.

A critic could argue that as an alumnus and a faculty member, I have a stake in this debate. True enough. My more important membership, though, is in the citizenry.

In theory, the curators govern the university on behalf of the citizenry of Missouri. If their practice has sometimes fallen short of the ideal, that’s a reason to seek better members, not to give more weight to one set of stakeholders.

For once, the governor got it right.

George Kennedy is a former managing editor at the Missourian and professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ellis Smith July 14, 2008 | 7:59 a.m.

If the curators do their job, no further additions are necessary; if the curators FAIL to do their job, no amount of "additions" are apt to make up for the fact that they failed to do their job.

Last time we checked, three curators have no degrees from University of Missouri; one curator (the present curators' president) has her degree from Missouri S&T; five curators have degrees from MU.

No curator has a degree from either UMKC or UMSL, yet the combined student population of those campuses is within a percentage point of MU's. Would you call THAT situation "representational"? I'd call it a disgrace.

Will we see that situation addressed in an editorial?

(Report Comment)
Eric Stockton July 17, 2008 | 9:02 a.m.

Mr. Kennedy what is your answer for when/if Missouri loses its 9th congressional seat? No one mentions the fact that before the student curator gets a vote we have to lose the seat (which by many prognostications we are going to).

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith July 21, 2008 | 6:13 a.m.

There seems to be a supposition that should Missouri lose a congressional district and the number of curators falls to eight that we'd be faced with tie votes. Obviously, that's possible in theory, but if you examine curator voting since (and including) the year 2000 you will find a large number of 9-0 votes on issues coming before the curators.

More recently we've seen votes such as 7-2, and some folks got really exercised over those "2."

At the risk of being redundant, the real problem is lack of any curators who have received their degrees from UMKC and UMSL, whether there are 9, 8 or 10 curators in total.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements