Let Us Do It The U of M should have its own governing board. by BOB BYRD The University of Memphis has the potential to become a great university, but funding for it — and the rest of higher education — is endangered because of the public’s current anti-tax feeling. Moreover, the university lacks a comprehensive, well-developed strategic plan that enjoys the wide support of the community. As a result, the university has endured a succession of “shooting star” projects without the sustained connectivity that one finds at such successful schools as the University of Texas. The most crucial change needed is for the U of M to have its own governing board of trustees — coequal under the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC) with the University of Tennessee and the present Board of Regents. The Board of Regents, composed of 18 members from all over the state, oversees a total of 46 institutions with a disharmonious variety of missions and emphases. To say the least, the regents cannot have any great loyalty or commitment to one institution. Individual regents may be greatly supportive of the U of M but “ho-hum” toward Tennessee Tech. Similarly, a regent partial to Austin Peay may be blithely unconcerned about any other institution. The result is a willy-nilly process of trade-offs before the regents can even begin to formulate funding plans before the THEC and the legislature. And, needless to say, the legislature is fully aware that the regents’ plan has neither political force nor any community commitment behind it. A fully constituted and vested University of Memphis Board of Trustees would be comprised of members from and of this community and this University. It would be empowered to effectively seek and raise capital from all sectors of the university’s various constituencies, in this community and beyond. Such a board could effectively build public/private partnerships in academia, business, the professions, and public education — and attract input as well from the large Memphis health-industry complex, from local governments, and, notably, from the CEOs and “lightning rod” talents of our major world-famous corporations. It could also provide useful mentoring programs — integrating practical marketplace experience with the classroom. That being served by such a board is preferable to the university being one of 46 institutions governed by the regents is undeniable. Such a board — supported by the community — would have a much greater chance to present an effective plan to THEC and the legislature. Another major advantage of a University of Memphis Board of Trustees is that it would be overwhelmingly attentive to the selection of the institution’s president and would choose a president consistent with the direction and demands of the board’s strategic plan. Under the present set of circumstances, citizens can gripe, call radio talk shows, and write letters, but acquiring a cohesive understanding of the university’s problems and getting concerted action from the convoluted regents system are all but unattainable possibilities. All members of the proposed new board would still be responsible to the governor and the legislature, but they would be accountable as well to the local media and to the university’s own constituents. If the citizens of Murfreesboro, say, want to get behind Middle Tennessee State University and commit local resources and local attention to making that institution excellent, they will have our full support. Conversely, we would hope that the rest of the state would allow us to chart our own course according to our own unique purposes. Excellence in proven community leadership would, we have every reason to believe, inaugurate the pursuit of academic excellence. We don’t have to go far to find the seats of greatness. They are here already — within ourselves. It is time for us to be permitted to cultivate them. (Bob Byrd is chairman of Bank of Bartlett and was an 11-year member of the state board of education.)