COLUMN ONE : Regents: Too Much Clout? : The UC board was designed as an independent body. But its vote to kill affirmative action--defying wishes of chancellors and other groups--reignites debate over range of its power.

When the meeting dissolved into shouts and shoves, the trustees of the most prestigious university system in the world abruptly rose from their chairs and left the room, reconvening on an upper floor far removed from the emotional crowd.

There, they ended more than 12 hours of tortuous debate by closing the doors and taking the vote against affirmative action that would reverberate across the nation.

Some say their retreat--both physically and philosophically--symbolizes the failures of the University of California’s system of governance, overseen by the 26-member Board of Regents.

Others say the board is in fine health and declare that claims to the contrary are little more than the whinings of sore losers. Gov. Pete Wilson on Friday called charges that the regents capitulated to his political agenda bogus and a convenient excuse for “defenders of the status quo.”

What is certain is that the regents’ decision Thursday to roll back affirmative action--made in defiance of every major segment of the UC system, from chancellors and faculty senates to students--will renew questions about their independence and qualifications and fuel a long-simmering movement for reform.

“The governing board of a great university cannot serve two masters--higher education and politics,” said Patrick Callan, executive director of the California Higher Policy Center, a nonpartisan research institute. “In this case, they chose politics.”

Critics contend that in voting to abolish race-based preferences in hiring and admissions, the regents made a blatantly political decision, goaded by Republican Wilson, who is making opposition to affirmative action the centerpiece of his presidential bid.

“This is a politicizing of the regents that I haven’t seen since the loyalty controversies [during the McCarthy era] in the ‘50s. Instead of [buffering] the university from political pressures, [the board] has become a conduit for pressures,” Callan said.

By intent, the UC system is designed to provide a measure of autonomy uncommon among the nation’s public universities. The state Constitution, aiming to protect UC from political interference, has made it independent of the Legislature.

Its trustees include 18 appointed by the governor to 12-year terms. Seven others--including the governor, state school superintendent, UC president and an alumni representative--serve by virtue of their positions of leadership in the state and the university. One student regent is selected by the board.

While the day-to-day governance of the massive 162,000-student system is handled by the UC president, broad policies--from student fees to salaries--are the responsibility of the regents. The board members are not paid but are reimbursed for travel expenses for conferences and the nine regent meetings a year.

Most of the regents are affluent--one recent study estimated their median wealth at $700,000--and they include developers, bankers, attorneys and businessmen. Seventeen of the 18 appointees owe their service to Republican governors.

Their lengthy terms, which expire intermittently, are supposed to provide stability to the governing board, ensure the regents’ independence and provide a buffer against the whims of their political patrons.

But on Thursday, some say, the board delivered a quid pro quo to the governor who appointed six of its members.

“The regents are acting as political appointees as opposed to persons with a trust,” said Marguerite Archie-Hudson, who chairs the state Assembly’s higher education committee.

“It brings up a number of questions: Should the regents be an elected body? I’m not sure. But I do think there ought to be a broader appointing authority. . . . [And] I’m not sure that we are right to keep the terms of office so long.”

*

California’s regents have long enjoyed the admiration of the nation’s higher education world for their role in expanding the system renowned for its research capabilities, and for “the way they have not been politicized by forces outside, the way they have seen themselves as the defenders of the university,” said Robert Atwell, president of the American Council of Education.

Now, he says, “there is some concern about this particular Board of Regents. . . . When the regents turn down a very strong position by the [UC] president and the chancellors, that suggests there are real problems between the governing board and the administration.

“On matters as serious as this . . . they should defer to the administration and the faculty because that’s their area of expertise. And they should not let this issue become politicized,” Atwell said.

The roll call among regents on affirmative action divided sharply, with a majority of the appointed members voting to scrap the policies, while the ex-officio members voted overwhelmingly to preserve them. And the day after the vote, the rift between the factions seemed to be growing wider.

One regent was so angry that at Friday’s session he rose from his seat at the boardroom table to address his colleagues from a podium usually reserved for the public.

“If ever there was a violation of shared governance, it occurred during the affirmative action debate yesterday,” said Regent Roy T. Brophy. “This board cannot operate this university unilaterally.”

Emphasizing how distant he felt from the action taken Thursday night, he continued, “you managed to circumvent the chancellors. You managed to circumvent the faculty and you managed to circumvent the students. . . . It’s so unfortunate.”

*

Some defended the regents, saying their actions Thursday demonstrated their autonomy and ability to take the long view.

“I think the regents did well yesterday,” said Jonathan Brown, president of the Assn. of Independent California Colleges and Universities, which represents the state’s private institutions of higher education.

That the board appeared to turn a deaf ear to the university’s administration, faculty and students in no way suggests dysfunction, Brown said.

“There is always a tendency for people to say, ‘We lost, so let’s change the governance system.’ There is a little bit of sour grapes going on,” he said.

The regents, Brown said, should not be “an absolutely representative system,” making decisions that reflect the consensus of UC constituencies.

“They are supposed to be thinking about the long-term health of the system. They are trustees. They are stewards of the legacy.”

As he viewed Thursday’s proceedings on cable television, Brown said, he was “convinced that the regents were trying to think of this [affirmative action] in the long-term perspective.”

*

The image of the regents has been badly bruised in recent years, battered by controversies over its handling of executive compensation, state budget deficits and, most recent, its fumbling search for a new UC president.

Now, its profile turnabout on affirmative action has reinvigorated critics, who have called variously for the election of regents, greater scrutiny during their confirmation process, sharp limits on the number of gubernatorial appointments and the extension of more decision-making authority to legislators, faculty, students and alumni of the nine-campus system.

State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica)--an expert on higher education issues who urged the regents to keep affirmative action--said closer scrutiny ought to be given to the selection of regents--and he did not spare his legislative colleagues from criticism.

The Senate leadership asked Wilson a few years ago to make his nominations to the board more ethnically diverse. Five of his six appointees to the board are black, Latino or Asian; they were confirmed, Hayden said, mainly because they were minorities, with little regard given to other qualifications.

The position of regent is considered a political plum because of the prestige of the UC system. Those appointed to the board tend to be major campaign contributors to the governor who names them, Hayden said, but they generally lack substantial expertise in higher education matters.

“Those factors,” he said, “undermine their constitutional mandate to be independent and serve the public trust. . . . [Thursday’s vote] will stimulate those reformers like myself who think there is something profoundly wrong with the process” by which regents are selected.

Archie-Hudson said Friday that she may reintroduce a proposed constitutional amendment backed two years ago by the UC Students Assn. to sharply restrict the number of gubernatorial appointees to the Board of Regents and expand the influence of the Legislature and UC constituencies, including faculty and students.

“I don’t see any reason why we should continue to extend to them the constitutional privileges they have when they don’t act like they have a constitutional duty to the public,” she said Friday.

Whether there is the political will in the fractured Legislature to mount a serious review of the regent system is far from certain.

The governor surely sees no necessity for such discussions. “He doesn’t see any glaring need for changing the appointment process for the regents,” said Paul Kranhold, Wilson’s press secretary.

“They are a constitutionally independent group of people. It is demeaning to the 25 other regents to imply that any person controls their vote.”