|
REASONS FOR CREATING A CKANCELLORSHIP
FOR THE
STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
The Need for Statewide Coordination of Higher Education
With Florida now the lath-largest state in America,
higher education in Florida has become big business -- and will
become even bigger in the years ahead.
Today, there are 20,785 enrolled in our state universities.
By 1970, we know we can expect this number to increase to 63,200.
In the current biennium, the state university system
eXpenditures will amount to $102,697,666. We do not know what it
will be in 12 years from now. But we do know it will cost far more
than it needs to cost if we fail to plan and operate the university
system on a coordinated statewide basis.
This becomes especially true when you consider that we will
have a fourth institution in operation a year from next fall and that
even the most canservative estimates demonstrate the need for another
new institution, on the Lower East Coast, it existing institutions
are not to grow into gigantic, oversize education assembly-line
factories.
Each institution, naturally and understandably, is
concerned first of all with what it feels is its own self-interest.
They consequently compete with one another for the state funds
available.
Thus, pressures develop to support the interests and
ambitions of individual institutions, but the sum total or these
pressures does not necessarily reflect the educational programs
which make the most effective use or the state's educational
resources .
-10-
At the March 26, 1959, meeting of the Board of Control,
William Gaither, member from Miami, said:
"In order for the Board of Control to continue to move
forward in improving its plan of operation, I feel that it's the
present responsibility of the Board to present to the Legislature
a bill sponsoring a chief executive officer or a chancellor, who
should be a top professional educator capable of coordinating the
university system with a view toward long-range planning. Such an
individual is needed because of the complexities involved in
Florida's vast university system. He would serve as chief adviser
to the Board."
The Board of Control then voted unanimously to approve
the creation of a chancellorahip and to recommend such legislation
to the 1959 Legislature, with the provision that university presidaan
would be given specific authority for direct access to the Board of
Control at all times.
Subsequent to that. each of the members of the Cabinet
Board of Education Joined in this recommendation.
In his message to the 1959 Legislature, Governor Leaoy
Collins said:
"The other members of your State Board of Education Join
me in supporting the recommendation of the Board of Control that
you create the position of chancellor for the university system.
"For the chancellorship to function to best advantage,
the Board of Control should have authority for allocation of current
operating funds among the institutions.
"The recommendation for a chancellorship is not new. It
was urged by the statewide Citizens Committee on Education which
developed the Minimum Foundation Program back in l9h7. It was
strongly urged in the 1956 report of the Council for the study of
-11-
Higher Education in Florida. It 13 further recommended by the
current Interim Committee on Education.
"I urgently hope the Legislature will not longer deny
this reform."
-2-
Competition is fine. both within and between universities
-- but not if it is allowed to create gaps in the overall educational
service or to result in needless and costly duplication.
The Need for §guipping the Board of Control to do This Jot
If chaos and rank discrimination among universities are
to be avoided. there must be some agency whose responsibility is to
the overall higher education picture. This is the Job which the
Legislature has assigned to the State Board of Control.
The Board has been trying conscientiously to do this Job
of coordination, but it frankly has come to realize that it does
not have the means with which to carry out its responsibilities as
it feels it should.
while the Board members are able, in cooperation with the
Legislature and the State Board of Education, to lay out the broad
policies upon which our higher education is based. they have been
unable to implement and carry out these policies as effectively as
they feel they should on a sound, coordinated statewide basis.
To do this Job, the Board members feel they need a chief
executive officer with authority and responsibility to effect such
coordination for them under the policies they establish -- just as
the Board of directors of a large corporation needs a chief executive
officer to carry out its policies.
Why Is A Chancellorshig Needed?
1. The chancellorship is needed because a well-coordinated.
efficiently operated system of higher education requires long-range
planning and the formulation of policies for the government and
-5-
and operation of a system which is set up to provide professional
services.
A lay board which does not have competent professional
staff services that are oriented to the interests of the system as
a whole, rather than to the independent and often-conflicting
interests of each of the institutions, cannot devise a long-range
plan for a balanced pregram of higher education on a state-wide basis.
If a board must rely chiefly on the presidents of the universities.
plans are tied to the ambitions of individual institutions apart
from the over-all needs of the state. Such plans have never been
known to result in a well-coordinated, efficiently-operated system
of higher education with well-balanced programs and services to meet
the needs of the state.
2. The chancellorship is needed because the coordination
of a system of higher education requires executive and administra-
tive acts of a professional character as well as the formulation of
policy.
The chief function of a lay board of education is policy-
making. while some of the policies of the Board of Control are
carried out in the institutions under the administrative authority
of the presidents, other policies relating to the allocation of
programs and services among the institutions and to system-wide con-
cerns should be carried out by an administrative officer whose
authority and responsibility is system-wide.
without an officer who is recognized as the chief officer
of the system. system-wide administration is neglected. It is
carried out when it can be done without stepping on the toes of the
presidents or when it can be done in the name of a member of the
board. Or it is done by members of the board who take a special
interest in a particular aspect of the program.
-u-
3- The chancellorship is needed in order to give the
professional staff of the Board of Control sufficient recognition
and authority to enable it to function effectively.
The presidency of a state university carries a high level
of prestige. If the chief staff officer of the Board of Control is
not recognized as the chief officer of the system of higher educa-
tion, he does not have sufficient authority and influence to prOVide
the effective professional leadership necessary for a coordinated
and efficientlyoperated system of higher education.
Some Questions ghich Are Raised
Q. won't the establishment of a chancellorship be an
added expense?
A. The Board of Control estimates it will require an
additional $75,000 for this biennium. A properly coordinated
university system should result in far more savings than this.
Q. won't this be creating a super-authority in higher
education?
A. Not at all. The Board of Control already has
authority for governing the institutions of higher learning. This
merely gives the Board the means with which to carry out this
responsibility.
Q. won't this be taking authority away from university
presidents which they have now?
A. They are not supposed to have system-wide authority
in the first place. The chancellorship bill gives such authority
to the Board and the chancellor and makes it clear that the
pzesidents are the chief administrative officers Within their
respective institutions.
Q. Won't this require the chancellor to pass on
-5-
sppointeents of deans and other top university officials nouinated
by the presidents?
A. Yes, but the Board now has this authority, and the
chancellor would be performing this responsibility on behalf of
the Board.
Q. won't this keep the presidents froa taking up their
problena with the Board?
A. No. The bill expressly provides that nothing shall
interfere with the presidents' access to the Board.
Q. Won't the chancellor become superior to the Board?
A. No. He actually will free the Board of its aultitude
of administrative details and thus allow it to have more time for
the thoughtful preparation of policy.
Q. Is the chancellorship the only means by which this
bill would strengthen the hand of the Board of Control?
A. No. me bill also provides that the Board of Control
shall have the authority for the central distribution of operating
funds for the entire university system. The Board feels this is
essential to sound statewide administration. No change. however,
is contemplated in the allocation of capital outlay funds. which are
appropriated by the Legislature specifically to each institution.
Q. Hhat has been the experience with chancellorships
OIBMOPO?
A. No two states have exactly the same kind of organization.
But an accurate generalization would be that where such chief
executive officers of governing boards have been given responsibility
without commensurate authority, the experience has been unsatisfactory
-5-
And where such an officer has been given authority equal with
responsibility and has had the backing of the Legislature, the execu-
tive departments and the public, the system has worked exceptionally
well. In fact, in such states university administrators, members
of governing boards and state legislators have said they would never
so back to the old system or every-institution-ror-itselt and wondered
why they had not gone to system-wide coordination earlier.
Q. Who recommends a chancellorship for Florida?
A. It was recommended by the 1956 report of the Council
for the Study of Higher Education in Florida -- the study upon
which so much of our program of higher education has been based.
It also was recommended in 1937 by the Citizens Committee
on Education, the statewide group which proposed our Minimum
Foundation Program.
It is recommended by the 1957 Legislature's Interim
Committee on Education.
The Board of Control is requesting it, and this has been
concurred in by the Cabinet Board of Education and the Governor.
The Florida Citizens Committee on Education, which
recommended the Minimum Foundation Program, was composed of S.
Kendrick Guernsey, chairman, Jacksonville; Richard H. Simpson,
Monticello; Mrs. Kathryn Abbey Hanna, Winter Park; Reverend Jack
Anderson, Gainesville; F.N.K. Bailey, DeSoto City; Mrs. H. R.
Backham, Miami; Al B. Block, Tallahassee; Ray N. Carroll, Kissimmee;
A. W. Litschgi, Tampa; 3. A. Pierce, Bartow; Wallace E. Sturgis,
Ocala; Mrs. H. H. Wedgworth, Belle Glade, and Leo Wotitsky, Punta
Gorda. In its 1947 report it said:
"A chancellor of higher education should be appointed
promptly to head the state system or higher education ....The
-7-
chancellor should work with the presidents of the institutions to
coordinate the program of higher education . . "
In his message to the 1947 Legislature, Governor Millard
Caldwell said:
"A coordinated university system, served by a chancellor
and an efficient business office, would be a long step forwa~d."
The Council for the Study of Higher Education in Florida,
appointed by the Board of Control and composed of leading American
educators under the chairmanship of Dr. John E. Ivey, Jr., then
chairman of the Southern Regional Education Board, in 1956 made the
study upon which Florida's present long-range plans for the orderly
development of higher education largely have been based.
In recommending a chancellorship, it said:
"The executive officer of the Board of Control should be
the peer of the presidents of the universities, and he should
combine talent for educational leadership with ability to represent
higher education to the peeple of the state, including their
representatives in state government. Such an officer is sometimes
called a chancellor of a state university system. The title given
him, however, is not important, but his qualifications, the status
accorded him, and his acceptance by the Board are important.
"A university system is a complex organization the opera-
tion of which requires professional competencies that the members of
a lay board cannot be expected to possess. It is imperative, there-
fore, that thc executive officer of the Board be an individual of
widely recognised professional competence. This executive officer
should serve as chairman of a Council of Presidents of State
Universities and he should transmit the recommendations of die Council
to the Bard, together with his own recoanendstions. Under these
conditions, a Council of Presidents would serve as a safeguard
against overcentralisation and neglect of institutional interest
and, at the same time, would provide the Board with professional
recommendations which take into account the needs of the system
as a whole.
"The executive officer of the Board of Control should
not supersede the presidents as chief administrative officers of
the universities. He should be the officer through whom the Board
of Control performs appropriate functions which, for the most part,
can be characterized as planning, coordinating, and supervising
the state system of higher education. He should not engage in
details of institutional administration. This arrangement would in
no way lessen the prestige of the presidents of the universities.
Rather, it should be an important step to assure more effective
functioning by the presidents.
In his message to the 1957 Legislature, Governor LeRoy
Collins said:
"For some years now much discussion has been generated
about the advisability of having a chancellor who would serve under
the Board of Control, execute its policies and supervise the planning,
coordinating, and fiscal and program evaluation of all our degree
granting institutions.
"The Council for the Study of higher Education, in its
final report, strongly recommended the chancellor system.
"I concur in this recommendation and urge that we proceed
now to provide for such. The Board of Control, capable and devoted
as its members are, should be supported by extremely able and
professional assistance functioning between it and the universities
themselves.
"A chancellor would give leadership and assistance to the
institutions in their planning and growth from the statewide
perspective. He would provide the Legislature and executive
-9-
agencies of government a fuller opportunity to participate appro-
priately and with confidence in the development of the whole State
system.
"I confidently believe that a chancellor will greatly
strengthen the Board of Control in its efforts to find the path to
future greatness for Florida's higher institutions. I think Just
as confidently that such will be the means or avoiding the route
to future educational confusion and financial waste.
"The time to act is now, especially in view or our States
needs and the enormous additional load of new students we must soon
provide for."
The 1957 Legislature created an Interim Legislative
Committee on Education, composed of Senator L. K Edwards, Irvine,
chairman; Senator Tom Adams, Orange Park; Senator Wilson Carraway,
Tallahassee; Senator Fred 0. Dickinson, Jr., West Palm Beach; Senator
Verle Pope, St. Augustine; Senator John Rawls, Marianna; SenatOr
J. Enory Crooa, Gainesville; Representative William V. Chappell, Jr.,
Ocala; Representative J. J. Griffin, Jr., St. Cloud; Representative
Robert T. Mann. Tampa; Representative John S. Shipp, Jr., Marianna;
Roy Surlea, Lakeland; A. max Brewer, Tituaville; J. Rex Farrier, Sr.,
Tampa; Mrs. G. D. JOhnaon, Qginoy; Mrs. Lyle Roberts, Miami; Paul
R. Scout, Miami; Ray V. Sewers, DeLand, and Mrs. D. Fred McMullen,
Tallahassee. In its report to the 1959 Legislature, the committee
said:
" As Florida's system of public supported universities
grows, the complex problems of administering such a system become
more apparent. The committee recommends that a single executive
head he provided under the Board of Control whose particular function
would be to coordinate budgetary and curriculum planning for the
universities.
PAGE 1
GASONS FOR CREATING A OfANCEL PCR TEE STATE QJIVilRSITY SYSTEM The Need for Statewide { idith Florida e higher educ.:it!.00 in Floz became even bigger in tiTelay, there a By 1970, we know we can Tn the curre.t S,7B5E than t t needs to coat ti we fail te plan a system on a coordtnated statewlae basis. This becoines espee cally true who have a fourth institution to operation a y even the most conservat tve estimates demon ssures develoo to support the ln .dual inst ttutions, but the Guin t necessarily reflect the education .effective use of the state is ed
PAGE 2
..t. t1, 1947. 261991etn fth or fCnrl Wi5ia -1-1er 1--r rmMim, ad
PAGE 3
Higher Fducation in Florida. It is further recoinmended by the current Interim Committee on Education. "I urgently hope the Legislature will not longer deny this reform."
PAGE 4
.... .......-..
PAGE 5
'Jithout stri eff 1000 -.-Jity is recoglii 20-3 as t.he et he ayatent, system-1;!'Je ajastilistratto:1 la neglected. wriod out mali it cal: be done 9:ithotit steppilig on the residentts or whert it enii be done Ln the ranle of a ritembe meij. Or i t 1.8 donc by rie@ers of r.he ~ooard who take a iterest in a particular aspect of the program.
PAGE 6
+T h dAi Aed n Cr AAMv AAA F5-e-ina 1t-1 1-teBado oto sfiin eonto
PAGE 7
by ..e .re...n.. A. Ylk, t h Bar no ha th ut rty adth ..ne o ..ul .e ....r..n tis -epniblt ........o
PAGE 8
A A.er AA )56 --1a AA t 1-p1siilt Ml.nd a 1a h akngo h ~il tive ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~91 debate n t1pb 1ateaytshswre well, ~ ~ -1 -nfci uhsttsatest diit
PAGE 9
chanello shold wrk wth te praldets o th.....t.t.n... --11,1n1t the prga fh hhreua.a In.. ...... et te107LssatrGoenr il
PAGE 10
against overcentralizat .on .n .elc .f .ntttoa ..t.r.e.
PAGE 11
agencies of goverrtment a fuller opportunity to past..cipate appro, privately arid with confidence in the developrent of the idiole Stat.e systers. "I confidently believe tjtat a chancellor will t-reatly 3:;rengthen the Board of Control in its erfarts to f1nd the path to future greatness for Florida'd alcher tr.stitutiors. 1 chink just aa confident:ly that such will be the :nea-n of avolding the route 00 ftlt'Jre G'istQatiQTlal E01(L-3'.O''I 6110 finanelAl 'al!.E r.C. ''lhe time to ac' ia :100, especially in vis'.; of our State 's neads a:--d the coormous additio:al load of new atadeTits we must soari pravldo for.' The 1257 Legisitum esa teel av. In t er:..r Le._.i sla t ] ve Commi tree im Education, cociposed al' senator L. K Ediards, Irvine, cherman; Elenator Tola Mana, Ora.L-e Park; 'lerister '311:500 Carraway, Allaha3see; Eerator Fred G. Dickinson, Jr., West Falra ~Mach; Senator Verle ['ope, St .Augustine; Senator John flaula, [Griaana ; ~ier:al-or J. E:Imry Cross, Gaireavtile; Representative Will":ar:i V. Cliappell, Jr. Deala; Tiepresorttative J. J. Gr,ffi.n, Jr., St. Clead; Reproeritative Robert T. ans, Tamps TiepreEeutat--ve John & Chipp, Jr., Arlarria; floy Surles, Lakeland; A. [ex Drewer, Tibusville; J. Rex F-rrior, Er., Tampg r.tra, C, D. Johnson, Quiney; I-]ra. Lyle itaberts, Miaol.; Paul ]s .50000, atl.aeri; Ray V. Sowei's, Debid, ared [4ra .D. Fred I']eMillerg Tallahance. Ir is report 'a the 1959 Leelaturn 1.he comnitbee Gaid: As I'lorida's system of public s'.:pporte-1 uatveralt ico powa, 1:he actaple-I pro-letas rd alai ritatoririg SL100 ja Dyyter:t l'OBOde mors app-arel. She co;ara11.tae recente-mas that a tuimle exeotive head be provided under the Board of Colitrol whose particular funettor would be to coordinate bud-etarv arid curriculum planreilm for the universitled."
|
