As you probably know, the state Legislature put the brakes on the Board of Trustees’ “Strategic Plan” which seeks to merge the USM and UMA campuses. As such, higher education in Maine is now in the political arena: The legislature recently passed an amendment barring universities from changing campus names, and pressure from local constituents resulted in the formation of a governor’s task force to address the merger issue. Meiklejohn addresses what he sees as the Legislatures “great act of hypocrisy.”
Q: From the Student Senate’s perspective, what are some concerns surrounding the USM / UMA merger?
A: [Student liaison] gotten to the point of a unified student government that’s been formed and approved by all the various student governments, and we’ve formed this student government steering committee that’s approved the merger. We’re now ready to represent this “new” merged institution that’s been creative and collaborated, identifying opportunities-we’re ready to go. And now the legislature comes in and says, don’t merge quite yet, and that’s what I protest. They’re sort of retroactively saying, students in the past needed our approval, and this flies in the face of all those who have spent thousands of hours volunteering.
Q: How do you think legislative oversight of the Board of Trustees could effect the ability for changes to occur within the UMaine System?
A: The trustees were appointed there supposedly because they’re “trusted.” They go to all these workshops and committees that compare state universities- tuition, faculty wages-to help make the system the best it can be for students and the state. The legislature doesn’t sit through all these workshops; they’re not the experts on higher education in Maine. That’s why trustees are appointed to do that work. The legislators don’t have the time or the resources to be the experts on every state agency. Requiring state authority just makes it a political show.
Q: According to the UMaine System, saving money is the main reason for the merger. It looks as if the BOT is trying to operate within recent budget constraints handed down by the state, yet the legislature is unhappy with the merger as a cost-cutting option. Why?
A: I don’t know why. It’s politically charged. Anytime there’s change people get upset. That’s why the campuses in northern Maine got changed to a consortium [instead of consolidating to a University of Northern Maine] and why the USM / UMA merger got put on hold for a year. The legislature doesn’t know USM. It’s an assumption Portland would be dictating how things are done on the Augusta campus and wouldn’t care about Augusta…I can understand the fear, but it is based on an assumption. I think [President] Pattenaude is a sensitive leader. I think if the merger were to go into effect he’d be very gradual and take things step-by-step, listening to the student’s and faculty’s needs and respond appropriately.
Q: The idea of university consolidation has been raised before, hasn’t it?
A: When I was President of Student Government in Orono we had looked into system wide issues of the time, there was even a legislative commission on Higher Education Governance soliciting input. We submitted recommendations, and looking back-gosh 10 years-one of the recommendations we had made is there should be some sort of consolidation. I’ve always felt there has been a lack of identity amongst the different universities. That the way they’re organized, the way they’re labeled has sort of a generic quality-you know, University of Maine here, University of Maine there-I’ve actually thought not all of the universities are actually universities. There is a certain protocol if you look nationally between what makes a university and what makes a college. I’ve often thought some of the smaller universities would be better labeled as a “Maine State College.
Q: Governor Baldacci has said “there is a balancing act between the legislature and the BOT, but that ultimately, and rightly, the Legislature has control.” How do you respond to that?
A: It does. I mean it created the trustees, it could dissolve the trustees. It does sort of own the state university. But, I think it’s preemptive for the legislature to get involved at this level without being subjected to all the information that the trustees receive in the course of a year. This makes the trustees equipped with the information necessary to make sound, rational decisions, and the legislators just don’t have that. They’re not sitting in workshops saying, look at how much less the Legislature is giving you every year compared to the rising costs…the legislators aren’t seeing that. If they were seeing that I think they would see how hypocritical they’re starting to look. They want to decide things, but they don’t want to fund things. They’re the ones that decide how much to fund. They’re the ones who aren’t funding this state university system at the level that competitive states around this country are funding their state university systems. It’s a great act of hypocrisy, in that, they want to decide how the system is structured, yet they don’t want to decide to fund it. That’s the point none of them are getting.