'A fundamental question is whether major modifications should be made in the organizational structure ...'

energy affairs are being demanded, the BHE must decide which campuses should mount such programs. If such programs are to be recommended, what happens if existing budgets are not adequate? Should the BHE attempt to exercise a vague and untested section of its statute which could be construed as giving it authority to abolish existing programs at the colleges and universities? The dislocations attendant upon such action are unpleasant to consider.

Need for intermediate boards?
The larger question is whether there is really a need for all parts of the superstructure now in place. It includes four state governing boards (U. of I., SIU, Regents, and Governors), one board — the Community College Board — which appears to have both governing and coordinating functions, and the BHE, whose statute restricts it to planning and coordinating functions. Pertinent is the fact that BHE detractors often accuse it of inappropriately exercising governance functions.

Some critics of the governance structure contend that all five system boards have ceased to be management boards. They charge that the boards have become advocate agencies seeking to advance the interests of their institutions without regard to soundness of policy. Lately, the question of the costs involved in maintaining so many boards has been raised more often. A usual response to this query is the argument that a state with such diverse educational needs requires "buffer" layers to assure protection to all segments from short-term political incursions.

Competition in the management process
During the administration of Republican Governor Richard B. Ogilvie (1969-73) a powerful Bureau of the Budget (BOB) was established as a fiscal extension of the Governor's office. Ogilvie's successor. Democratic Governor Dan Walker, has maintained the BOB in this role. Over the last four or five years, conflicts have developed between the BHE and the BOB (which is directly responsible to the Governor) regarding the consolidated state higher education budget.

Tangentially involved in these debates are the newly-strengthened staffs of key educational committees in both houses of the General Assembly. Whereas in former years part-time lay legislators were often ill-prepared to cope with the complexities of -the knowledge industry, such staff assistance is increasingly permitting legislators to more adequately analyze the budgetary and program proposals of the BHE.

The shaping and final approval of these proposals is the result of complex interaction between the following governmental units: (1) campus officers; (2) system administrators; (3) the various systems' governing boards; (4) the Board of Higher Education staff; (5) the BHE Board members themselves; (6) legislative staff; (7) members of the General Assembly; (8) the Governor's staff, particularly the BOB; and (9) the Governor himself, who must finally sign higher education measures or develop justifications for vetoing them.

Possibilities for the future
As noted earlier, the BHE is the keystone to the Illinois knowledge industry. Under the statute creating the BHE, the Governor in office designates the BHE chairman. The Governor also appoints the other nine "public" members for staggered six-year terms. Thus, the possibility of a single governor "packing" the BHE is remote. In addition, a member of each of the system boards sits with the BHE. Finally, the Superintendent of Public Instruction serves as an ex officio member of the BHE, bringing its total membership to 16.

Only one executive director, James B. Holderman, occupied the position during Gov. Ogilvie's four-year administration (1969-73). But during the final two years of Holderman's leadership, unprecedented tensions arose between several of the governmental units listed above.

After Dan Walker's inauguration as Governor in January of 1973, he appointed Donald Prince, a Chicago businessman, to the chairmanship of the BHE. In turn, the full BHE selected Cameron West, a North Carolina educator, as executive director in May of 1973. Less than 14 months later, in July of 1974, West announced his resignation.

Speculation on the reasons for West's resignation centers on his difficulty in orchestrating the activities of agency and institutional characters. Though West's style of administration differed dramatically from Holderman's, it could be argued that the difficulties in obtaining consensus on educational policy which plagued Holderman, resulted in West's resignation.

New BH E staff leadership comes at a crucial time. A fundamental question is whether major modifications should be made in the organizational structure in Illinois public higher education. The BHE staff will present its provisional plan to its Board in the fall of 1975. The ensuing debate could center around the question of whether a streamlining of the superstructure of Illinois higher education is desirable.

A most extreme form of such streamlining would eliminate the governing boards and vest governance authority in the BHE or in a new state wide governing board. The few advocates of such a step claim that a single "objective" arbiter could make judgments which balance the requests and functions of each institution against long-range and immediate state needs. Opponents argue such a scheme would stifle the legitimate voice of the "grass roots" institutions, forcing them to be even more competitive in their requests and claims. If Phase IV of the Master Plan includes "governance" recommendations, final determination could be made by the General Assembly in the 1976 session. It could be one of the most hotly contested issues of the year.

Illinois Issues/January 1975/7