Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has received campaign donations from 63 percent of the regents he has appointed to public-university governing boards, according to a report released today by Texans for Public Justice.
The left-leaning government-watchdog group studied regents' donations both before and after their appointments for its report. It found that Governor Perry, a Republican, has collected a total of $6.1-million from 97 of the 155 nonstudent board members he has appointed during his 10 years in office. The average campaign contribution by an appointee was $39,251.
Some regents gave much more. Of the 16 people the governor has appointed to the Board of Regents of the University of Texas system, 13 donated to his campaign, at an average of $99,301.
The top giver identified by the study was Michele (Mica) McCutchen Mosbacher, a philanthropist who joined the board of the University of Houston system in 2008 and who has given a total of $440,400 to Mr. Perry's campaigns.
It is neither surprising nor improper for gubernatorial appointees to public university boards to have ties to the governors who tap them for service. However, the high percentage of campaign donors among Texas regents, as well as the large dollar amounts they gave, raises questions about the boards' political independence.
"Even in a state like Texas, this is big money," said Craig L. McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. "It seems like the only qualification to be a regent is to give big money to the governor."
Larry Keith Anders does not agree. The chairman of the Texas Tech University system's board, Mr. Anders was the third biggest donor on the list, having given $348,171 to Governor Perry's campaigns. While Mr. Anders said the board appointments are certainly political, he said the regents, all of whom are Texas Tech alumni, are encouraged to put the university's interests before politics.
Mr. Anders, who is chairman of a Dallas financial-services firm, began giving money to Governor Perry before 2005, when his six-year term as a regent began. He said that the governor is interested in the university's progress but that he leaves the decision making to regents.
"The governor does not meddle in the affairs of Texas Tech," he said.
A spokeswoman in Mr. Perry's office defended his track record with university boards, saying in a written statement that he "appoints individuals who share his conservative philosophy of government and can provide the appropriate oversight and leadership."
Leaving Politics at the Door
Regents and system leaders with ties to Governor Perry have at times squared off with university presidents, resulting in several messy resignations. Those meltdowns have led to grumbling on campuses that the governor micromanages universities.
Mr. McDonald said his group decided to conduct the campaign-donation research after complaints emerged last fall about politicized board appointments at Texas Tech, where all but one of Mr. Perry's 16 appointees have given to his campaigns. According to news reports, allies of the governor pressured two university regents to resign after they endorsed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's unsuccessful campaign to defeat him in the Republican gubernatorial primary last month.
"This is a pay-to-play state," said Mr. McDonald.
Most governors have the power to name members to public-university boards. Other states select board members through elections, or a combination of gubernatorial appointments and elections. And a small group of states, including Minnesota and Virginia, lean on nonpartisan screening committees to choose board members.
The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges endorses the screening-committee approach. But Richard Novak, an expert on public-university governance at the association, said gubernatorial appointments can work well. The key, he said, is that governors choose quality candidates who prioritize the university's needs.
"There's nothing unseemly about it if there's no quid pro quo," he said, noting that board members should "check your politics at the door when you go into the board room."
Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said campaign donations should not disqualify someone from serving on a university board. Ms. Neal said it makes sense that Governor Perry has chosen regents with similar viewpoints.
"It's natural that many of the appointees have supported the governor," she said.
Comments
1. tappat - April 08, 2010 at 08:33 am
Only Dems are silly enough to attack their own for such practices as "pay to play," leaving Repubs to do it for their own political and personal enhancement and the detriment of everyone else.
2. tmccool - April 08, 2010 at 08:40 am
This is news? This happens in every single state, in every locality, and with alarming regularity in Washington. If you are stunned by this "news," you are ignorant of the current state of politics in this country.
3. taoshiker831 - April 08, 2010 at 09:41 am
The criteria for being a board member in Texas and many other states is not competence, but money. It is a travesty that the governor passes out such important positions to people who want prestige and power rather than to individuals who are able and experienced education visionaries.
4. lccamp06 - April 08, 2010 at 10:21 am
Ms Neal apparently doesn't place much value on diversity of opinions within in an institution of higher education and the Governor certainly does not. Is Texas Tech about the business of education or indoctrination?
5. johntoradze - April 08, 2010 at 10:39 am
In California, where there is a much more stable set of regents who give little money to politics, they have managed to give themselves scads of money to themselves instead.
I thought Texas regents showed the backbone of planarian worms over the Thomas Butler case, but the odd thing, really, is that Texas works as well as it does. The educational system is pretty good, the universities operate about as well as any. I don't see much difference except the money flows from them into something else instead of the other way around.
6. peggy875 - April 08, 2010 at 11:18 am
No quid quo pro? Are you kidding me - of course there is. And we wonder why we have problems with higher education when these are the people being put on the boards. Just because the universities "operate about as well as any" does not mean there is not huge room for improvement. Texas is and will continue to be "a good ole boy" system. Just look at UNT and what's gone on there with the Chancellor and Board. Why don't they instead donate their money for scholarship programs for students - instead of a "scholarship" program for the governor!!
7. etenner - April 08, 2010 at 11:33 am
True, this kind of political maneuvering takes place everwhere. However, with Perry, it has truly effected the quality of education. Remember the flack at Texas A&M University with the forced resignation of Dr. Elsa Murano? Do you think the faculty at Texas public institutions has academic freedom in the wake of that incident? Quoting from an earlier Chronicle article:
Dr. McKinney, a physician and former chief of staff for Gov. Rick Perry, judged Ms. Murano to be a poor team player and gave her low marks for honesty and integrity.
8. johntoradze - April 08, 2010 at 11:51 am
"Murano will return to the faculty under an agreement reached with the university. She will take a year off while collecting her salary of $425,000 and will be paid an additional $295,000. Under the terms of the agreement, she will return as a professor with a starting salary of $260,000."
She played, she paid. I have no tears.
9. rsp0001 - April 08, 2010 at 12:01 pm
The American public not only tolerates but supports the influence of money on politics. The Governor is Governor because of money; the governing boards are put there because of money. Their interests and actions are guided by money. Their influence is measured by money. Their influence in conducting the business of higher education is guided by money. Their whole life style and basis for civic duty is guided by money. These people are good at what they do--influence others by using money.
Money allows for enhanced power and influence. It's a common human trait and politicians are human. People understand that and accept the consequences. The only problem seems to come with abuse and excess of using money in this manner. Wall Street shows the levels that can be attained.
Higher education is not immune to the influence of money as traded and exchanged by governors, boards and others in power.
Money talks. We all listen. Are we surprised?
10. craigwood - April 08, 2010 at 12:02 pm
It is called the "spoils system" and as long as a governor appoints any oversight board the corruption will continue. The regents quickly regain their contributions plus interest through various mechanisms. At my school we tear down useful buildings and build shoddy replacements. The contractors are affliated with the regents.
11. scottwhisenant - April 08, 2010 at 01:55 pm
?
12. soxplayer - April 08, 2010 at 01:58 pm
"The average campaign contribution by an appointee was $39,251.
Some regents gave more. " Of course some gave more, unless they all gave exactly $39,251. If they all gave exactly the same amount I would be really suspicious.
13. paulfain - April 08, 2010 at 02:08 pm
Good point, soxplayer. I probably should've said: "Some regents gave much more."
14. getwell - April 08, 2010 at 04:17 pm
Another silly attempt by "The Chronicle" to smear anyone who does not follow a liberal agenda. Way to go, another prime example of hypocrisy among the politically motivated!
15. johntoradze - April 09, 2010 at 11:54 am
From the article: 13 out of 16 donated to his campaign. Split 16 ways, it averages $99K each. (for regents)
Based entirely on the article, I figured out that with heavy hitters like that, the median/mode contribution was around $10,000 and the skew (measure of breadth of distribution) was very high. Then I decided to look at the link, and over breakfast downloaded the spreadsheet of all contributors. And ... Ahem!
The article is misleading. It leaves a reader with the impression that this occurred in one year's time, although it does not say so. Downloading that spreadsheet, I find that it is a total dating back a decade to May of 2001.
The article also quotes averages without specifying what kind of average it is. In truth, it is a mean over a decade, not a median nor a mode. So I decided to do a histogram for exercise for just 2009 on the spreadsheet linked to by the PDF. Here are my results.
The mean (average) donation in 2009 was $23,403.
The mode (most common) donation in 2009 is $5,000, with 28 out of 49 regents who donated in 2009 giving $5000 or less. The mode is 21% of the mean.
Looking at double the mode, 35 out of 49 regents (71%) contributing in 2009 gave $10,000 or less.
The median donation (middle, 25th out of 49) was also $5,000.
The maximum donation was $225,501. The maximum was 9.6 times the average, and 45 times the mode. And 3 out of the 49 (6%) regent contributors of 2009 gave more than $60,000.
What the article should have said is: "Most regents gave far less."
16. _perplexed_ - April 09, 2010 at 01:05 pm
"While Mr. Anders said the board appointments are certainly political, he said the regents...are encouraged to put the university's interests before politics."
I would have thought that regents would be required by law, and not merely "encouraged", to place the university's interest first. Is this not so in Texas?
17. behaha - April 12, 2010 at 08:45 pm
"The governor does not meddle in the affairs of Texas Tech," Anders said.
Didn't Perry just recently remove a regent from Texas Tech for no stated reason?