Conflict of Interest – Part 6

The PASSHE Board of Governors

The dictionary defines a ‘conflict of interest’ as “A conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust.” 

In this blog post we will consider the PASSHE Board of Governors in the context of the above definition. To do that in a fair and equitable way, we must consider three questions: 1) Does a BOG member serve in position of trust?  2) What are the official responsibilities of BOG members?  And 3) What private interests of BOG members, if any, conflict with their official responsibilities?

The first question is easiest to resolve.  To serve on the BOG is to hold one seat on a 20-member board with responsibility for a $1.5 billion budget and the best interests of 112,000 students, 12,700 salaried employees, and some 700,000 alumni.  Such a position is literally a position of trust since thousands of Pennsylvania parents are entrusting their sons, daughters and hard-earned money to the PASSHE BOG.

As to the second question, Act 188 of 1982, the enabling legislation that created the PASSHE system of universities, defines the powers and duties of all the various entities in the system, including those of the BOG itself.  So, in that sense, the BOG’s official responsibilities are well defined by Act 188.

As to the third question, it is certainly clear that every human being has at least some private interests, i.e., personal goals or aspirations—not listed in the official responsibilities for BOG members in Act 188. That fact alone suggests that, in general terms, there are bound to be private interests that differ from the official responsibilities.  But the key question to be explored here is not difference but conflict.

That is, Do BOG members have private interests that not only differ from, but conflict with, one or more of their official BOG responsibilities?  And the answer to that question is decidedly yes, as shown below.

With the exception of the Governor and Secretary of Education, who are ex officio members of the BOG, the other eighteen (18) members are all in some way appointed—as opposed to elected, dragooned or sentenced.  That is, service on the BOG is seen to be a personal and professional honor, as opposed to a punishment.

History shows, in support of that notion, that service on the PASSHE BOG is apparently so rewarding and desirable that it is not unusual for some appointed members to happily serve several consecutive 4-year terms.  This, in turn, suggests that many of the appointed members of the BOG share a common private interest—to be reappointed to their BOG seats when their terms inevitably expire.

For the four (4) State legislators who are appointed to the BOG, their appointments are made by the top legislative leader from both parties in the State Senate and House of Representatives.  So in that sense, to retain their BOG seats, the legislators must rely on the leader of their party caucus to reappoint them.

For the other fourteen (14) BOG members appointed to the BOG, if they wish to retain their seats they must rely on the Governor and/or the leadership of the State Senate to get reappointed.   

As always, the key to every conflict of interest is the presence of divided loyalty—the impossible goal of trying to serve two interests that are fundamentally irreconcilable—in this case, the interests of the students/parents/donors/alumni vs. the interests of the elected officials who reappoint BOG members.

Based on the definition of conflict of interest, together with the facts already given, it is clear that the Board of Governors, as currently constituted under Act 188, is hopelessly conflicted, in a way that has little to do with individual BOG members, but everything to do with a fundamentally flawed structure.

The very natural desire to be reappointed to the BOG puts 18 of the 20 BOG members in a position of wanting to serve the best interests of the individuals with the power to facilitate their reappointment.

On the other hand, there is currently no role for PASSHE students, parents and donors, primarily alumni, in the BOG reappointment process.  That is a purely political process that favors the elected officials over the students/parents/donors/alumni, when it comes to making those reappointments happen.

That the State, in the person of its elected and appointed officials, continues to control 100% of the BOG seats is the most egregious conflict of interest of all.  The State share of the PASSHE budget fell to 27% in 2013, while the student/parent/donor/alumni share of the PASSHE budget grew to 73%!  This ongoing privatization without representation is a tyranny that has become a stain on the State’s honor.  It is both unjust and oppressive, and wholly unworthy of the elected officials and people of Pennsylvania.