Bills to give regents' power

COLUMBUS -- The Ohio Board of Regents is unhappy with legislation introduced in both the state House and Senate on Tuesday that would strip the board of its authority, reducing it to advisory status.
House Bill 2 and Senate Bill 2 would put all the responsibility for higher education in the hands of a single political appointee in Columbus, according to Donna M. Alvarado, Granville businesswoman and chairwoman of the Ohio Board of Regents.
The legislation would allow the governor to appoint the chancellor of the Board of Regents, make the Board of Regents an advisory board to the chancellor and transfer the board's duties and powers to the chancellor, she said.
Bruce R. Beeghly, Youngstown businessman and vice chairman of the Board of Regents, thinks that would definitely be a step backward.
"While a citizen board can coordinate policy across all of state government and the institutions of higher education, a political agency can speak only for the executive branch, & quot; Beeghly said.
& quot;With no single point of coordination, various college and universities will inevitably invest more resources in lobbying the governor and the Legislature for their own special interests. This will return Ohio to the days of fragmentation and stagnation that caused the Legislature to create an independent Board of Regents in the first place, & quot; he warned.
Change in command
Gov. Ted Strickland and some legislators have called for the chancellor of higher education to be a gubernatorial appointee rather be hired by and report to the Board of Regents.
& quot;The real immediate and long-term changes in higher education required for our state to progress will not be addressed simply by rearranging organizational charts in Columbus, & quot; said Alvarado.
& quot;As a coordinating body of concerned citizens from across the state, our advice to the General Assembly is that this legislation won't provide the means to address core issues such as access, success and tuition policies. We remain convinced that the chancellor should continue to report to the board and for the board to remain an independent body."