Opinion: The University of Arizona’s financial crisis points to the need for greater oversight. A bill headed to the governor takes it away.
Ethan Orr and Mark Stegeman
| opinion contributors
University of Arizona financial crisis could take 3 years to fix, officials say
Multiple University of Arizona school officials have stepped down amongst the school’s ongoing financial crisis.
The University of Arizona’s recent administrative blunders resulting in a financial crisis suggest a need for more oversight of university governance, but a measure that the Arizona Legislature sent the governor last week would reduce such oversight.
Aside from its strange timing, House Bill 2735 would tie the hands of future university presidents in a way that contradicts good management practice.
The Senate and House passed this Republican bill with party-line votes, even though it undermines traditional Republican goals.
Neither the state Board of Regents nor any of the three universities officially supported the bill (but legislators from both parties claimed it was promoted by individuals connected to the outgoing UA administration).
The governor should veto the legislation, which, given the University of Arizona’s recent history, moves in exactly the wrong direction.
UA’s Faculty Senate provides needed oversight
The central provision of HB 2735 states: “A university president may not delegate the president’s authority to approve academic degrees or organizational units.”
At the University of Arizona, the Faculty Senate is the last step in the approval chain, before a proposed new academic degree or program goes to the Regents for final approval.
The University of Arizona has created scores of new degrees and programs in recent years, sometimes at considerable expense.
The Faculty Senate initiates none of these programs. They come from administration, either central administration or from the 20-odd individual colleges, such as Science, Humanities and Medicine.
This Senate has never, in recent memory, blocked any of the administration’s proposals.
The bill thus eliminates an authority that the Faculty Senate rarely, if ever, exercises. In 2023, for example, the UA administration proposed 28 new degrees and programs. The Senate approved 26 immediately; the remaining two were eventually approved.
The problem is that the bill also ends an important public mechanism for the oversight of a college administration that clearly needs oversight.
People with skin the game should review ideas
The board of a private corporation is accountable to shareholders who have a financial stake in the firm’s performance.
In Arizona, the politically appointed Regents have the challenging task of supervising three large and independently led entities, with no shareholders standing behind them to hold the Regents themselves accountable.
Republicans should recognize that bureaucrats spending billions of other people’s dollars — taxpayer and tuition dollars — need oversight. The UA Faculty Senate, through its public meetings and documents, provides one layer of useful oversight.
Last December, the Faculty Senate held a spirited discussion about, and publicly posted much information about, a proposed “Global MD” degree. After a $14 million startup cost, this program would send students to Australia for medical training, with a special emphasis on Indigenous medical practices.
Board of Regents: Did little to stop UA scandal
Faculty senators asked whether Arizona, and the students themselves, would get a reasonable return on investment. Following this discussion, the Senate approved the program on a split vote, but the Regents have (so far) declined to grant final approval.
In this and similar cases, Faculty Senate oversight is useful.
This bill undercuts UA. Hobbs should veto it
Neither the faculty nor the Legislature wants money wasted on projects that are poorly conceived or weakly managed, on a bloated and self-protecting administrative class, or on priorities that leave behind the Arizona students and families who provide most of the universities’ funding.
Other states recognize the useful role played by faculty governance. In the highly regarded university systems of North Carolina and Texas, for example, faculty governance plays a larger role than at the University of Arizona.
Finally, HB 2735 takes the remarkable step of prohibiting a university president from delegating any of his or her authority on program and degree approvals.
Effective management of any large organization requires sensible delegation of authority. The Legislature should respect a university president’s discretion to implement good and common management practice.
In HB 2735, the Republican majorities have approved a bill that undercuts their own priorities. Gov. Katie Hobbs can do them a favor by vetoing it.
Ethan Orr is a former Republican state lawmaker and teaches at the University of Arizona’s College of Agriculture, Life, and Environmental Sciences. Mark Stegeman is a faculty member of UA’s Eller College of Management and a UA faculty senator. Reach them at eorr@arizona.edu and stegeman@arizona.edu.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25782636/247422_ChatGPT_anniversary_CVirginia.jpg "Inside the launch — and future — of ChatGPT")
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25789444/1258459915.jpg "OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever says the way AI is built is about to change")
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25546252/STK169_Mark_Zuckerburg_CVIRGINIA_D.jpg "Meta asks the US government to block OpenAI’s switch to a for-profit")
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23951353/STK043_VRG_Illo_N_Barclay_3_Meta.jpg "Meta’s Instagram boss: who posted something matters more in the AI age")