{"id":4202,"date":"2015-08-12T16:10:20","date_gmt":"2015-08-12T20:10:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.khpi.org\/blog\/?p=4202"},"modified":"2015-08-18T12:18:08","modified_gmt":"2015-08-18T16:18:08","slug":"nomination-and-board-appointment-process-at-uofl-is-broken","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.khpi.org\/blog\/nomination-and-board-appointment-process-at-uofl-is-broken\/","title":{"rendered":"Nomination and Board Appointment Process At UofL Is Broken."},"content":{"rendered":"

Summary<\/strong>.
\nThe process of nominating and appointing members of the University of Louisville Board of Trustees has broken down, and\u2013 as seems to be the case for some other Kentucky universities\u2013 has been out of compliance with Kentucky law for some time. A system designed to prevent politicization of our Board and to foster gender and minority diversity has produced nothing of the kind. A major reassessment of the entire process is in order but it cannot be done behind closed doors in either Frankfort or Louisville.<\/p>\n

When it rains on our parade, it pours.
\n<\/strong>On the same day I wrote about the statutorily impermissible imbalance <\/a>of membership on the University of Louisville Board of Trustees with regard to sex and race, James McNair<\/a> of the Kentucky Center for Investigative Journalism published an extensively researched article documenting the major tilt towards registered Democrats on the Boards of UofL, the University of Kentucky, and the Kentucky Community & Technical College System (KCTCS).\u00a0 In a state with 53% registered Democrats, 39% Republicans, and 8% independents or other, the breakdown of appointees at the state\u2019s three largest institutions of higher education are currently as follows:<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Dem\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Rep \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Other<\/strong>
\nUofL<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 12\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 2
\nUK<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a012\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 ?
\nKCTCS<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a07 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a01 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 –<\/p>\n

One need not be a statistician to see that in this second term of a Democratic governor, that registered Democratic voters hold a large majority of the seats of these three boards. This is not the first time that the majority of appointees to various boards and commotions tracks the political party of the sitting governor. It was in large measure to prevent raw patronage that clauses requiring a balance of political parties on boards and commission were put into a host of statutes.\u00a0 (I recall that the clauses requiring gender balance were similarly placed in an attempt to remedy obvious historical gender underrepresentation.)<\/p>\n

Play for pay?<\/strong>
\nMcNair\u2019s article followed by only a few days one by Tom Loftus<\/a> of the Courier Journal who tallied the political contributions by the 17 current gubernatorial appointees to UofL\u2019s Board of Trustees to the the Governor\u2019s political causes to the tune of at least $750,000.\u00a0 Although there were the usual and predictable disclaimers all-around that no connections or expectations exits between the contributions and the appointments, only the most naive among us would not be highly skeptical.\u00a0 McNair quotes a former gubernatorial appointments secretary who offers a perspective that is generous to Trustee candidates:<\/p>\n

\u201cI think a lot of people want to be on the boards of their alma mater, especially UK and U of L, which are prominent in the state and there\u2019s a lot of prestige associated with it\u2026 I think people want to be with the president, they want to be involved in what\u2019s going on at those institutions and they very much want to get access to the best seats for the sports programs.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

These are indeed plums worth improving one\u2019s chances to obtain.\u00a0 I have never met a lobbyist who would deny that political contributions markedly enhance the likelihood of getting what you want. This truism transcends political affiliation.<\/p>\n

Why statewide and not more regional party representation?<\/strong>
\nThe calculus for political party balance above is based on statewide voter registration of the two major parties. (Independants and others are disenfranchised in this regard.) \u00a0If we want a Board that looks like, walks like, and talks like its community, why is a statewide metric assumed to be the fairest?\u00a0 UofL designates itself as an \u201cUrban\u201d institution.\u00a0 UK stresses its \u201cland-grant\u201d and statewide responsibilities whenever it is convenient.\u00a0 The ratio of Democrats to Republican voters is very different in Louisville than the rest of the state. Why not allow a few more Democrats at UofL?\u00a0 Similar arguments might be made regarding some of the other state Universities.<\/p>\n

What is an appropriate standard for minority racial balance?
\n<\/strong>Must the Board of Regents of Kentucky State University (also a land grant institution) with its large majority of African American students have the same racial composition as the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky?\u00a0 Instead, should the minority racial balance of a given educational institution reflect that of of its student body? Its local community? Its county? Its Area Development District?\u00a0 The Commonwealth?\u00a0 The nation?\u00a0 Why is a state-wide average necessarily the best?\u00a0 Indeed, why does it make any difference at all what board members look like?\u00a0 Of course, it does<\/u> make a difference, because minority racial status is a proxy for a different set of life experiences, perspectives, and priorities in the same way that gender or socio-economic status is. Diversity is generally considered to be important in public life, is it not? \u00a0It is also a matter of fairness of access.<\/p>\n

What does the law require with regards to racial balance?<\/strong>
\nIt appears to me that the statutory requirement<\/a> for racial balance on the UofL Board is ambiguous compared to the unambiguous statewide standard for political affiliation.<\/p>\n

The Governor shall make his at-large appointments so as to divide the citizen representation upon the board to reflect proportional representation of the two (2) leading political parties in the Commonwealth based on the state’s voter registration and shall reflect no less than proportional representation<\/u> <\/em>[emphasis mine] of the minority racial composition of the Commonwealth.<\/em>\u00a0 Thus, having greater than the statewide proportion of minority members seems not to be ruled out!<\/p>\n

According to the U.S. Census Bureau Jefferson County 2013<\/a>, in 2013, the racial composition of Jefferson County was as follows (Jefferson Co. vs. Kentucky)<\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Race \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0County \u00a0vs. \u00a0State
\n<\/strong>White alone, (a)\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a073.7% \u00a0 \u00a0 88.5%
\nBlack or African American alone, (a) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a021.4% \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 8.2%
\nAmerican Indian and Alaska Native alone, (a) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 0.2% \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a00.3%
\nAsian alone, (a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/strong> 2.4%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.3%
\nNative Hawaiian &\u00a0Pacific Island. alone,(a) \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 0.1%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 0.1%
\nTwo or More Races,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>2.2%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.7%
\nHispanic or Latino, (b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong> 4.7%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.3%
\nWhite alone, not Hispanic or Latino, \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 69.7%\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 85.6%<\/p>\n

a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
\n(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.<\/p>\n

The biologist and physician in me does not have much of a handle on what race means with respect to human beings.\u00a0 As with gender, individuals can assign themselves one or more races that may not seem obvious to others. However, for the purpose of the census there are some standardized categories. Thus in Jefferson County, 21.4% of our citizens declared themselves to be Black or African American alone [not two or more races] compared to 8.2% in Kentucky. Additionally, 73.7% declared themselves to be white alone compared to 88.5% of Kentuckians. [Note that because Jefferson County has the greatest population density in the state, the non-Jefferson Counties are in aggregate less black and more white.]<\/p>\n

Thus, ignoring individuals of mixed and other minority races, of 17 appointed board members we would expect<\/a> 3 or 4 African Americans using a Jefferson County standard, and 1 or 2 using a Kentucky standard.\u00a0 White members would number between 12 or 13 with a county standard and 15 with the statewide standard. \u00a0Hispanics or Latinos make up 4.7% of Jefferson County residents but they are of multiple races. \u00a0As a group they would require 0.8 Board members for proportional representation!\u00a0 What we have today among the gubernatorial UofL appointees are 16 white people and one Hispanic.\u00a0 This count is only one African American \u201coff\u201d by the Kentucky standard, but not very representative of UofL\u2019s \u201curban\u201d community at all. \u00a0(The undergraduate student body of UofL is 11% Black or African American, 76% white, and 4% Hispanic\u2013 intermediate between county and state proportions.)<\/p>\n

Why does it matter?<\/strong>
\nCounting heads like this implies a zero-sum game\u2013 that one group\u2019s \u201cwin\u201d is at the expense of another.\u00a0 I don\u2019t like that game.\u00a0 In the best of all possible worlds, participation in public life would be race-neutral\u2013 but we do not live in that world.\u00a0 What is<\/u> clear is that the laws in force intended to shape the Board\u2013 put into place with the best of intentions\u2013 are being ignored.\u00a0 What we are left with at UofL is a Board of Trustees that for all of their positive qualifications for the job and their best intentions, are richer, whiter, more male, more Democratic, and better connected politically than other Kentuckians.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t make them unqualified for the job, but they are most definitely a relatively homogeneous bunch. Can it be said that they look like, walk like, and talk like the constituencies they represent, or the students and patients served by the University? I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n

Where do we go from here?<\/strong>
\nOne conclusion seems for sure.\u00a0 Either enforce the existing laws, rewrite them, or take them off the books altogether. I would like to believe that given the emphasis most Universities place on inclusiveness and diversity, that the ethics and conscience of the academic and civil marketplaces would automatically yield both a diverse and a competent Board.\u00a0 However, that is not happening now.\u00a0 We have a system of nomination and appointment that allows the very thing it was supposed to prevent\u2013 a Board perceived as overly vulnerable to political influence.\u00a0 Maybe that is what Kentucky wants. The old academic dinosaur in me hopes not. \u00a0I must assume that there are structural barriers to participation by all. \u00a0 At the very least, it is time to reevaluate from scratch the way we appoint and evaluate the Board and executive leadership of our public universities. The public discussion required to bring the appointment system into compliance will not be easy, but it is necessary.<\/p>\n

Peter Hasselbacher, MD
\nPresident, KHPI
\nEmeritus Professor of Medicine, UofL
\nAugust 12, 2015<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>