Editorial: Board size may not be the issue

Monday, Dec. 30, 2002 | 9:36 a.m.

We've all heard the immediate and ill-considered reactions to the Board of Regents controversies of late. Some revolve around the notion of abolishing the board. That's an emotional reaction to the news that regents accessed confidential student records for no good reason, that they interfered with routine administrative decisions and that name-calling, threats of censure and official apologies were occupying their time. People look to their public boards for leadership and expect that they will offer guidance and policies that will keep services running smoothly. Higher education, which is what the Board of Regents oversees, affects the futures of nearly everyone. The board greatly disappoints when its members, individually or collectively, act irresponsibly. With disappointment comes the immediate calls for drastic action.

Usually, such emotionally tinged initial responses die out and are replaced by thoughtful suggestions. This latest Board of Regents' flare-up, however, has produced one immediate response that will linger and could even result in a permanent change. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, a respected veteran legislator, is proposing that the board be limited to seven members. Currently the board expands proportionate to population growth. Next month the board's membership will expand to 13 from the current 11 -- elections for the two new seats were held in November.

Giunchigliani's reasoning is that with fewer personalities interacting, the board would be more manageable and more efficient. She said a smaller board would be more apt to stay focused on its mission. The assemblywoman's point of view is worth discussing, particularly given the Board of Regents' antics of late and that state law clearly allows the Legislature to set the board's size. Yet such a decision should not be made without careful consideration of the potential downsides.

Carl Steinhoff, a University of Las Vegas, Nevada, professor who specializes in organizational behavior, says leadership, not size, is the key to efficient boards. His cautionary comment begs the question: Will reducing the size really solve anything? One thing is known for sure about the proposal -- it will reduce Nevadans' representation, and that is worrisome. We're inclined more toward giving the new members a chance to have a positive influence on the board's behavior.