Last Thursday, a bill was introduced in the statehouse that calls for University of Illinois trustees to be elected by judicial district and lowers the number of voting members on the board from 10 to seven. Currently, the nine voting members are appointed by the governor while the tenth vote is rotated between the three student trustees elected from each of the three campuses. Proponents of the bill say that elections would help to ensure representation for areas outside of the Chicago metropolitan area, as only two of the nine current trustees are from downstate. However, this change may cause more harm than good.

The timing of the proposal seems to indicate that it is merely an outgrowth from the anger surrounding the retirement Chief Illiniwek, but the debate over how to appropriately select trustees actually reaches more than a century into the past and predates Chief Illiniwek by several decades.

Up until 1887, the trustees were appointed by the governor but pressure from the alumni association prompted the change to an elected board. In 1994, Governor Jim Edgar successfully pushed to revert the appointment system to its current form. He argued voters across the state knew little about the trustee candidates and, in large part, his argument still holds true today.

Most voters in the state have no vested interest in who becomes a University of Illinois trustee. Since many of them have little or no substative connection to any of the three campuses, creating an election would mean most voters would be casting uninformed or apathetic ballots. Passionate candidates would have to fund campaigns and would most likely be forced to run on immediate, controversial issues such as Chief Illiniwek or deferred maintenance. All these concerns call into question whether voters will simply align themselves with a controversial platform or choose the most qualified candidate that will most benefit the University as a whole.

Because of this, we believe the best course of action is to continue to allow the governor to appoint trustees. With that said, legislators in the statehouse should not stop the debate on the issue, as the possibility for more creative solutions still exists.

These should not only include giving increased influence to alumni, parents and current students, who should have a greater grasp on the issues facing higher education, but also increased legislative oversight, which seems to be lacking as of late. Which ever system wins out, it must be one that truly looks out for the bests interests of the University. Otherwise, we’ll find ourselves in this debate again soon.