Connecticut Senate Bill SB00160

Connecticut 2015 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/15
• Refer: 1/20/15

Caption

An Act Eliminating The Vice-presidents Of The Board Of Regents For Higher Education And Requiring A President Of A State University And Of A Regional Community-technical College To Serve As Members Of Said Board.

Impact

The proposed changes included in SB00160 are significant for state laws governing higher education. By removing the vice-presidents, the bill could potentially streamline the decision-making process within the Board of Regents. The inclusion of university presidents as board members aims to ensure that those leading educational institutions have a direct influence on policy and oversight, fostering a governance approach that aligns more closely with the operational realities faced by colleges and universities. This shift could lead to more responsive and relevant policies affecting higher education in Connecticut.

Summary

SB00160, titled 'An Act Eliminating The Vice-presidents Of The Board Of Regents For Higher Education,' proposes notable changes to the governance structure of the Board of Regents for Higher Education in Connecticut. Specifically, the bill seeks to eliminate the positions of vice-presidents on the board, which are currently responsible for providing oversight and strategic direction to higher education institutions in the state. The bill further mandates that the presidents of state universities and regional community-technical colleges serve as members of the board, thereby emphasizing the role of university leadership in governance decisions.

Contention

Notable points of contention around SB00160 include concerns about the governance structure's effectiveness and representation. Proponents of the bill argue that involving university presidents directly can lead to more informed decision-making and a better understanding of higher education needs. However, critics may raise questions about the removal of the vice-presidents and whether this could lead to a power imbalance or insufficient oversight functions, as these roles likely contributed diverse perspectives to board discussions. The balance between operational leadership and oversight roles within the board could be at the heart of ongoing debates surrounding this legislation.