It has recently come into the public consciousness that, unsurprisingly, most of the members of the University’s Board of Visitors have donated generously to the campaigns of the governors who appointed them — in most cases, current Gov. Bob McDonnell. It is not at all conspiratorial to deem this patronage. This particular kind of patronage can have — and has had — major consequences for the University, and makes it clear that we need to find a new method for appointing members to the Board. Even setting aside the ethical implications of leaving governors to appoint their campaign donors to these positions, these appointments have numerous adverse effects.
One such effect is that there is little economic diversity on the Board; people who are able to donate amounts significant enough to win a place on the Board come from the upper echelons of our class system. While there is nothing wrong with having economically successful people on our Board, there is definitely something wrong with having only these people. We need to have a diverse Board in every sense to best represent a diverse student body. The importance of economic diversity in particular has become clear after the recent changes the Board made to the AccessUVA program. Perhaps those changes would also have come about with an economically diverse Board, but regardless, when programs regarding financial aid are in play, it does little good to have a Board that, for the most part, is currently out of touch with these kinds of economic issues.
The lack of economic diversity on the Board corresponds to a lack of professional diversity — members of the Board generally work in business. While the University can certainly benefit from these members’ insights, people with professional experience in education might be better qualified to weigh in on some of the Board’s decisions. Perhaps a remedy would be to have a required number of Board members who have some professional background in higher education.
Another adverse effect of these possibly biased appointments is that it politicizes positions on the Board. By appointing donors, the governor wittingly or unwittingly puts his or her agenda in the mix. In fact, Virginia state law allows the governor of Virginia to remove members of the Board with proper cause, which adds a level of pressure for Board members to implement the governor’s agenda, if it is relevant to the University.
If, for example, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli — who is against climate change research — were to become governor and make appointments to the Board, when designing the budget Board members might feel pressured to limit funding for climate change research done at the University. I do not mean to insinuate anything about Cuccinelli’s plans regarding the University; the point is that Board members who are products of politics are likely to either feel threatened by the governor’s agenda or to have their own political agendas mirroring those of the governor. This prevents Board members from pursuing what is in the University’s best interests. If University-specific organizations like the Alumni Association had a greater involvement in these appointments, Board members would be held accountable by those directly involved in the University, and would feel more responsible for the betterment of our school, as opposed to the implementation of someone’s political agenda.
Of course, there is no way to fully prove that there is a link between a Board member’s campaign contributions and his or her appointment to the Board, and any politically savvy governor would deny that such a relationship exists (as McDonnell has via his spokespeople). But even if these positions were not used for patronage, there is still little sense in leaving these appointments to the governor. State funding accounts for roughly 5.9 percent of the University’s total operating budget. This is not exactly a fair exchange. Despite having little actual investment in the University, the governor makes the incredibly important decision of who has final voting power in University issues — power that includes the ability to fire the president and determine the budget. We give the governor the chance to pacify or reward his donors and, in return, receive minimal state funding and a semi-corrupted Board.
From a purely practical standpoint, this is nonsensical. Add to that the likelihood of at least some level of patronage and it’s obvious that this system needs to be replaced. Instead of having governor-made appointments, the University would benefit from appointing Board members through the Alumni Association, or at least giving the Alumni Association a bigger role in advising the governor on whom he or she should appoint, both of which would have the additional benefit of fostering more alumni involvement. If the system itself can’t be overhauled, then in order to limit patronage further restrictions should be made on who is eligible to serve on the Board. Maybe there is no way to completely prevent corruption in Board appointments, but we should do everything in our power to limit it.
Dani Bernstein is a Viewpoint columnist for The Cavalier Daily. Her columns run Tuesdays.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
