I I 71- 18,291 SCHLAFMANN, Norman James, 1935- AN EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON THE EDUCATIONAL POLICIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY INCORPORATED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF MICHIGAN THROUGH ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC ACTS FROM 1851 THROUGH 1970. Michigan State University, Fh.D. , 1970 Education, higher U n iv ersity M icrofilm s, A XEROX C o m p a n y , A n n A rbor, M ichigan <25 Copyright by NORMAN JAMES SCHLAFMANN 1971 AN EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON THE EDUCATIONAL POLICIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY INCORPORATED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF MICHIGAN THROUGH ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC ACTS FROM 1851 THROUGH 1970 By Norman James Schlafmann A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1970 ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON THE EDUCATIONAL POLICIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONALLY INCORPORATED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OF MICHIGAN THROUGH ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC ACTS FROM 1851 THROUGH 1970 By Norman James Schlafmann The Problem The State of Michigan was the first of fewer than a dozen states to grant constitutional status to its fouryear publicly supported colleges and universities. Sub­ stantively, these institutions comprise the fourth branch of the state government, holding coordinate legal status with the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. As "constitutional corporations" these institutions possess a sphere of authority within which neither the legislature nor the executive may legally interfere. It was essentially for this reason that the University of Michigan was originally granted constitutional status under the provisions of the constitution of 1850. Since then, the citizens of Michigan have reaf­ firmed their belief in, and commitment to this system of operation by constitutionally incorporating additional Norman James Schlafmann colleges and universities with every major constitutional revision: Michigan State University under the provisions of the constitution of 1908; Wayne State University in 1959 by an amendment to this same constitution; and all remaining and future colleges and universities with the adoption of the present constitution, the constitution of 1963. Furthermore, Michigan's highest court has consist­ ently upheld the autonomous status of these colleges and universities in the face of encroachments by the other branches of state government. This study was designed to examine the extent to which the system of granting constitutional autonomy to the publicly supported colleges and universities of Michigan succeeded in eliminating outside legislative influence on policy decisions. Methods and Procedure This study was conducted as a historical inquiry. All Public Acts enacted by the Michigan legislature from 1851 through 1970 were examined. Those acts which made specific reference to any one or all of the Norman James Schlafmann constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities were identified chronologically, categorized by institu­ tion and by subject, and analyzed for their effect on higher educational policies in Michigan. Major Findings It was found that while the legislature was legally constrained from direct interference or involvement in the internal affairs of the colleges and universities it had a decided effect on their educational policies through the public acts it enacted. The legislature’s foremost method of influencing these educational policies was by placing conditions on, and/or line-itemizing the colleges and universities’ appro­ priations. Two-thirds of the 328 public acts, which were identified as the object of this study, were appropriations acts. From the very first appropriations act (PA 59 of 1867) to the very last (PA 83 of 1970) the legislature attached policy-making conditions. Coincidently, the conditions in each of these particular acts were also subjects of litigation. Every decision by Michigan's supreme court relative to the constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the Norman James Schlafmann legislature was made in favor of the colleges and univer­ sities . The court ruled that the powers of their governing boards were equal to that of the legislature's, because they both received their authorities from the same source, the state constitution. The question on the division of powers was never finally settled during this 120-year period. As a matter of fact, the "Big Three" universities of Michigan joined forces during the course of this study to contest recent legislation containing record numbers of conditions. Other public acts were enacted by the legislature which also influenced educational policies, but not to the extent nor the regularity of the conditioned appropriations acts. From a purely literal analysis of the public acts it was concluded that the operational success of the system of constitutionally incorporating state colleges and universities particularly for the purpose of insulating them from legislative influence was questionable, espe­ cially in view of Michigan's experience. However, it was fully recognized that such an analysis overlooked the impact of the entire legislative process leading to the Norman James Schlafmann formation, refinement, and final enactment of these public acts, e.g., direct requests by the colleges and univer­ sities for selected line-item appropriations and standard operational policies were not taken into account. Moreover, it was concluded that there probably was no better system for minimizing legislative influence on the educational policies of the colleges and universities in view of the fact that the state legislature is publicly responsible for allocating state resources. It was observed that the actual independence of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities ultimately depends upon the support of public opinion in addition to constitutional mandate. Please Note: Some pages have very light type. Filmed as received. University Microfilms. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. Page THE P R O B L E M ................................... 1 Purpose ..................................... 2 T e r m s ....................................... 3 N e e d ....................................... 5 B a c k g r o u n d ................................ 13 O v e r v i e w .................................. 24 REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ........................ 25 Institutional autonomy and state coordination . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Legal relations between higher education and the s t a t e ............................ 37 The influence of educators on political decisions ..................... 41 Political influence on higher e d u c a t i o n ................................ 48 S u m m a r y .................................... 60 D E S I G N ....................................... 66 S u m m a r y .................................... 70 ii pter IV. Page ANALYSIS OF R E S U L T S .......................... Description of the public acts e x a m i n e d ........................ 72 73 Constitutional history of the provisions relating to higher education . . . . . . 75 Legislation on annual operating appropriations and general finance 81 ... Legislation on capital outlay appropriations .......................... 103 Legislation on the establishment and governance of the colleges and universities ............................ 110 Legislation on the conveyance, sale, or transfer of land/property ............... 114 Legislation on the establishment and operation of educational programs and c u r r i c u l u m ........................... 116 Legislation on personnel matters ......... 120 Legislation on the operations of the University of Michigan hospitals . . . . 120 Legislation on miscellaneous matters 121 . .. S u m m a r y .................................. 122 V. SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ................... 126 S u m m a r y ................. .............. .. . 126 C o n c l u s i o n s .............................. 133 D i s c u s s i o n .............................. 137 Implications for future research ......... 141 Page BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 A P P E N D I C E S ............................................. 154 A. B. C. D. Public Acts of the Michigan Legislature in Chronological Order, 1970-1851 ........ 154 Public Acts Categorized by Each Institution to Which They Refer, 1970-1851 .................................. 169 Public Acts Categorized by Subject Matter, 1970-1851 ......................... 175 Constitutional Provisions Effecting the Constitutional Incorporation of Each ................... College and University 181 E. Selected Public Acts Referenced in the S t u d y .................................... 186 F. Michigan Supreme Court Cases Referenced in the Study in Chronological Order, 1970-1851 .................................. 208 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page Conditions Attached to the Annual Operating Appropriations Acts, 1970-1947 ............... v 90 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Higher educational policies are guideposts by which colleges and universities meet their individual and collec­ tive needs and objectives. Some policies are promulgated as explicit rules and regulations. implicit. Others remain unwritten and may only be Some are developed out of much forethought and planning, while others arise out of conflict and immediacy. Some are determined nationally. Others are determined regionally, statewide, and locally. vidual institution's own choosing. Some are of an indi­ Others are imposed upon them by various outside interest groups, i.e., alumni, philanthropic sources, and state, local, or national govern­ ments. Collectively, these policies determine the indi­ vidual characteristics of each institution or group of institutions. Historically, colleges and universities have jealously guarded their right to seek truth apart from any 1 2 outside influence. James Perkins, former president of Cornell University noted, The idea of university autonomy -- of the sanctity of academic pursuits -- is as old as the idea of the university itself. From the very beginning, this idea has been the doctrinal shield protecting the university from the state. More subtly, its quiet but persistent influence has helped to attenuate the relations of the university and the church. It has been the conceptual guardian of academic freedom, the moat around the city of the intellect whose drawbridge will lower only in response to internal signals. The emerging relationships of colleges and universities with state governments, and more recently with the federal government (basically relationships imposed because of fiscal dependency) give rise to new concern. The State of Michigan, as early as 1850, responded to that concern by building into its state constitution the legal means by which to prevent the state government from influencing internal educational policies. Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which higher educational policies in the State of Michigan have been influenced by the state legislature James A. Perkins, "The New Conditions of Autonomy," Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education. ed. by Logan Wilson (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Educa­ tion, 1965), p. 8. 3 through the legislative process from 1851, the year after which Michigan first granted constitutional status to one of its state universities, to the present (1970). It is a historical study based on the analyses of all Public Acts enacted by the legislature over the last 120 years which directly pertains to any one or all of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities of Michigan. Terms For the sake of increased clarity, certain critical terms used throughout this study are defined or otherwise explained at this point. PUBLIC ACTS--the laws of the State of Michigan enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor. CONSTITUTIONAL CORPORATION--Using Wooden's defini­ tion, "When a state constitution grants to a state university the authority to govern itself through its board of regents or similar body, that university is generally classified as a constitutional corporation." ^William P. Wooden, "Recent Decisions," Michigan Law Review. LV (1957), p. 728. 2 4 CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTONOMOUS OR INDEPENDENT UNIVER­ SITY- -Autonomy /independence granted by virtue of a constitutional provision. CONDITIONED APPROPRIATION— An appropriation which has been subjected to a condition(s) by the legislature. LINE-ITEM— A budget term used to describe a specific recipient of an appropriation within a larger category, e.g., see Public Act 83 in Appendix E, Michigan State University's state appropriation included a specific amount earmarked for the agriculture experi­ ment station which itself was subdivided into the various operational and research components. These designations establish the minimum and maximum amounts to be allocated to these particular items from state funds, whereas other unspecified units within the university are left to the discretion of the university's internal budgeting system. LINE-ITEM NOTATION--A statement of intent about a line-item, which is considered by some to 5 be less restrictive than a line-item per se (although this theory has not yet been tested in the courts). For example, using the same illustration as above, rather than listing the agriculture experiment station as a separate sub-item with a specific appropriation, a statement in parenthesis under Michigan State's total appropriation might have been substituted explaining that this appropriation includes a designated amount for the experiment station (see notation under Michigan State University's appropriation in Public Act 83, Appendix E regarding its medical schools). To prevent confusion, all colleges and universities are referenced by their present names (1970) even though their names may have been different in the early legislation. Need This study is considered important and timely for several reasons. Firstly, Michigan has the distinction of being the first state in the nation to grant constitutional status to a state college or university. This was accom­ plished in 1850, under the terms of the newly adopted 6 constitution, expressly for the purpose of removing the University of Michigan from the direct control or influence of the state legislature. This decision followed nearly a decade of capricious political intervention into the internal affairs of the University, which almost spelled the death of the fledgling University in Ann Arbor. This fact was graphically summarized by a special legislative committee appointed to look into the problems of the University at that time: When the legislatures have legislated directly for colleges, their measures have been as fluctuating as the changing material of which the legislatures were composed . . . Again, legislatures . . . have not been willing to appoint trustees for a length of time sufficient for them to become acquainted with their duties . . . A new board of trustees, like a legislature of new members not knowing well what to do, generally begins by undoing and disorganizing all that has been done before. At first they dig up the seed a few times to see that it is going to come up and after it appears above the surface they must pull it up again to see if there is sufficient root to support so vigorous branches; then lop off branches for fear they will exhaust the roots, and then pull it up again to see why it is so sickly and puny and finally to see if they can discover what made it die. And, as these several operations are performed by succes­ sive hands, no one can be charged with the guilt of destroying the valuable tree. Michigan, House of Representatives, Report of the Select Committee to Inquire into the Conditions of the University (House of Representatives Documents, 1840), p. 470. 7 Michigan State University was also granted consti­ tutional status in 1908, Wayne State University in 1959, and the remaining publicly supported four-year colleges and universities of the State in 1963. In all these years no one has systematically examined the extent to which this special legal provision has accomplished its intended purpose. Secondly, the task of balancing institutional autonomy with public responsibility requires the greatest skill and tact of both university officials and legislators. The best policy decisions are made when they are founded on the basis of an awareness of historical developments. Neither university officials nor legislators have the bene­ fit of readily available information on this subject at this time. Not even an annotated index of the public acts relating to higher education in Michigan is presently available. Thirdly, this study is considered important because it examines the entire question of institutional autonomy from a practical point of view. The question may be asked, while autonomy is considered the highest principle of higher education, is it operational, and to what extent? Socrates once instructed his disciples to "follow where the argument 8 leads," Gould Michigan's system of granting constitutional status to its colleges and universities be todays answer to an unadulterated, uncompromising search for truth? So convinced of the importance of autonomy was the Committee on Government and Higher Education that it concluded its comprehensive study of the changing relation­ ship between state governments and public institutions of higher education by strongly recommending that, "legal autonomy . . , be given to every institution of higher education that carries on a substantial program of teaching and research."^ Brumbaugh claims that "the vitality of American colleges and universities in fulfilling their role in the life and welfare of the nation has been derived in a large measure from the autonomy accorded them." This led him to the same conclusion as that of the Committee. This study takes a look at the operational realities of the principle of institutional autonomy in an optimal ^"The Committee on Government and Higher Education, The Efficiency of Freedom (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1959), pp. 4 and 30. J. Brumbaugh, "The Proper Relationships between State Governments and State-Supported Higher Institutions," Educational Record, Vol. 42 (July, 1961% p. 173. 9 setting, where autonomy is constitutionally granted and legally protected. Finally, this study is also very timely. The three big universities of the State--Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State University-have recently filed a lawsuit against the State which focuses on this very issue. They have charged that the State has violated their legally constituted authorities by attaching certain conditions to their annual appropriations, and by making policy decisions which only their respective fL governing boards are empowered to make. This is a very sensitive legal challenge and one which neither party is very eager to pursue. The truth of the matter is that this particular case has already been "conveniently" delayed for over a year in the hope of settling the issue out of court. This points up one of the real problems which the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities face. To challenge the constitutionality of certain legis­ lative infringements might well result in a Pyrrhic victory-g The public acts named in this suit as of November, 1970 include: PA 83 of 1970; PA 311 and 230 of 1968; PA 240 and 244 of 1967; PA 310 and 26 of 1966; and PA 124 of 1965. 10 where their autonomy is judiciously upheld but at the considerable expense of some very important legislative good will. For as one senator was quoted as saying about the pending lawsuit, . . the Legislature still holds the purse strings regardless of how the suit ends up on the autonomy issue, This is why the universities have often waited until they have had a very sure case, or at least until there were several instances of intervention before risking a lawsuit against the legislature. The common approach in recent years has been for a number of universities to go together in filing a complaint so as to reduce the likeli­ hood of reprisal, or at least to spread it around. Strangely enough the converse is also a problem for these constitutional corporation. Not to challenge the constitutionality of certain legislative infringements within a reasonable period of time can actually result in their having forfeited certain rights which otherwise might be theirs. This is the interpretation which Moos and Rourke give to the decision handed down by the supreme court of ^Robert Stuart, "Universities Losers, Say Legisla­ tors,11 The State Journal (Lansing, Michigan), January 21, 1968, p. A-12. 11 Utah in 1956, when the University of Utah failed in its bid to be recognized as a constitutional corporation. In support of its decision the court pointed out that "for over 50 years the University has never raised the point of independent control . . . and has acquiesced in and complied with the legislative enactments relating to its purposes Q and gove m m e n t.'* Very similarly, a precedent has been established for holding constitutionally incorporated universities accountable for the conditions which are attached to their appropriations once they have accepted such conditioned funds.^ In view of some of the pitfalls into which consti­ tutional corporations can fall, one wonders how the colleges and universities of Michigan have fared over the years. Did they choose to forfeit some of their legally constituted rights rather than risk the possibility of any financial Q Malcolm Moos and Francis E. Rourke, The Campus and the State (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1959), pp. 32 and 33. 9 Wooden (op. cit., p. 729) documents this with the following court decisions: Fanning v. Univ. of Minn., 183 Minn. 222, 236 N. W. 217 (1931); State v. State Bd. of Ed., 33 Idaho 415, 196 P. 201 (1921); and Regents v. Auditor General, 167 Mich. 444, 132 N. W. 1037 (1911). 12 deprivation or other political reprisal? To what extent, if any, did they compromise any of their rights? This study is designed to find answers to these important questions. In summary, four reasons were given why this study is considered both important and timely. Firstly, it examines the extent to which the original intent for grant­ ing constitutional autonomy to a state university has been accomplished in Michigan. Such a study has never before been conducted even though Michigan has chosen to grant all of its colleges and universities constitutional status over a span of 114 years. Secondly, this study provides the historical frame­ work out of which future higher education policy decisions can be made by both university administrators and legisla­ tors. Thirdly, it examines the principle of institutional autonomy from a practical point of view, in the optimal setting provided by Michigan's constitution. Lastly, this study is considered timely in view of the recent lawsuit which has been filed against the State by Michigan's "Big Three" universities accusing the legislature of overstepping its legal powers in determining educational policies. 13 Background The four-year publicly supported colleges and universities of Michigan enjoy a very privileged legal status as "constitutional corporations," more commonly described as constitutionally autonomous or constitution­ ally independent institutions. By virtue of the will of the people, expressed in the organic law of the state constitution (not by legisla­ tive statute as in some states), these institutions possess a sphere of authority within which neither the legislature nor the executive may interfere. Substantively, they comprise the fourth branch of the state government, holding coordinate legal status with the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. 10 Only nine other states have granted this high degree of autonomy to their colleges and universities. They are: Minnesota, California, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, 10 Probably the most famous court decision supporting this position is Sterling v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 110 Mich. 369 (1896). In the opinion of the court, "The board of regents and the legislature derive their power from the same supreme authority, namely, the constitution . . . They are separate and distinct constitu­ tional bodies, with the powers of the regents defined. By no rule of construction can it be held that either can encroach upon or exercise the powers conferred upon the other." 14 Georgia, Oklahoma (applicable only to the State Agricul­ tural College Board, and not to the University of Oklahoma), and Utah.*’"*' Approximately half of the fifty states make some specific reference to higher education in their constitu­ tions.^^ These references range all the way from a mere M. M. Chambers, The Colleges and the Courts Since 1950 (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1964), p. 147. Note: Chambers is alone in including Utah in this list. Others exclude it because of the confusion over a 1956 Supreme Court decision, which reversed and remanded a district court's declaratory judgment that the University of Utah was indeed a constitutional corporation. Chambers contends, however, that the basis for the supreme court's reversal decision was the result of unsupported evidence of interference with which the University had charged the State. Therefore the decision remains "somewhat equivocal" in that when such evidence is provided there remains a strong possibility that it will sufficiently justify in­ voking the protection of the constitution. Ibid., pp. ISO152. Other sources include: Malcolm Moos and Francis E. Rourke, p. 22; Thomas Edward Blackwell, College Law (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1961), p. 242; and Wooden, ojj. cit. (Wooden includes the clause of the state constitution which creates each of them, together with each state's leading cases). 12 Moos and Rourke, o p . cit., say there are twentyseven. Elliott and Chambers say there are twenty-four, and give a detailed analysis of constitutional provisions affecting state colleges and universities. See Edward E. Elliott and M. M. Chambers, The Colleges and the Courts (New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1936), pp. 505-512. See also Alexander Brody, The American State and Higher Education (Washington: American Council on Education, 1935), pp. 215-225; Council of State Governments, Higher Education in the Forty-eight 15 vague statement about the state's responsibility for providing general education to very specific provisions regarding an institution's location, government, financial support, and so on. By far the largest majority of publicly supported colleges and universities today are considered to be "public" corporations (technically quasi-corporations, although the use of this term is declining), owing their existence largely or wholly to the legislature and subject to its control. A few, however, have been denied the dignity of separate corporate status altogether and are treated as mere departments of the state. Only one other group of state universities has come close to enjoying the same intrinsic freedom and independ­ ence of the constitutional corporations. They are the few universities which in the early years of this country were looked upon by the courts as private corporations, with certain rights beyond the reach of legislative interference. The fact of the matter is, there was considerable confusion over private versus public corporations in those early States (Chicago: The Council, 1952), pp. 131-132; Council for the study of Higher Education in Florida, Provisions of State Constitutions for Higher Education (Tallahassee, Fla; The Council, 1957). 16 years. This attitude reflected the European tradition, and preceded the then novel concept that higher education is quite properly a function of the state. One receives the impression from reading Blackwell 13 and Elliott and Chambers that the days of those judicial pronouncements are past. Michigan not only can pride itself for being listed among the enviable few states to grant constitutional status to state universities, but enjoys the added distinc­ tion of being the first to do so, thus becoming the proto­ type for those which were to follow. Under the terms of the constitution of 1850 the University of Michigan was elevated to the status of a constitutional corporation. Its governing board, "The Regents of the University of Michigan," was designated a "body corporate," and was ex­ pressly given responsibility for "the general supervision of the University, and the direction and control of all expenditures from the university interest f u n d . " ^ 13 Blackwell, 1/ 15 . cit. , ojd p. 238-240. Elliott and Chambers, o p . cit., pp. 116-119. Michigan, Constitution (1850), Article XXII, Sections 7 and 8. When the constitution was amended in 1908 the word "interest" was removed from this clause and the word "fund" was changed to "funds" in order to clearly give the Board of Regents control over all income regardless of source. 17 This unprecedented decision to grant the University of Michigan constitutional autonomy was not an accident of history. Quite to the contrary, it was a deliberate attempt to remove the University from the arena of partisan politics and to place it on a more stable and permanent foundation.^ Michigan's first constitution of 1835 was very brief and left much to the discretion of the legislature and governor. The only reference it contained to higher education was a statement to the effect that the public lands granted to it by the federal government for the sup­ port of a university should be used for that purpose (Article X, Section 5). Two years later by an act of the legislature (March 18, 1837) the University of Michigan was established and placed under the supervision of a Board of Regents. The formative years of the University were anything but encouraging, according to the historical accounts of See, Michigan Constitutional Convention, Report of the Proceedings and Debates in the Convention to Revise the Con s ti tut ion (Lansing, 1850). 18 the University by Shaw 17 and Sagendorph. 18 There was even talk of discontinuing it altogether for some time. While the University experienced the normal problems of a newly established institution having no real precedent to follow, it seemed to experience more than its share of internal and political problems. One of the biggest problems was the politicallyminded first Board of Regents. This Board seemed always to be in a hassel over inconsequential matters. In retrospect, this problem might have been anticipated in view of the composition of the Board. It consisted of the governor (who served as ex-officio president), the lieutenant gover­ nor, the three supreme court judges, the chancellor of the State and twelve others who were nominated by the governor and confirmed by the senate. Sagendorph referred to these twelve as the "12 other politicians,"^ probably because several of them had previously served as constitutional delegates and were considered political friends. York: 17 Wilfred Shaw, The University of Michigan Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920). 18 (New Kent Sagendorph, Michigan: The Story of the University (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1948). ^ Ibid., p. 57. 19 Even before the University opened its doors it had become the center of controversy. A very heated debate developed among politicians over the sale of the University lands, which were to serve as the University's primary source of support. Some legislators, under pressure from settlers, squatters, and speculators, attempted to sell off the choice lands for some ridiculously low price. Governor Mason vetoed th*j s action. Matters did not improve when Governor Mason decided to retire, leaving the destiny of the University in what was reported to be less sympathetic hands. sion of governors followed. A quick succes­ Woodbridge served one year then went on to Washington as a U.S. Senator. Barry inherited the office from Woodbridge. Governor Each governor reorganized the structure of the University to suit his own taste. Governor Woodbridge went so far as to fire the first-appointed faculty member on the day he appeared for work, and to reduce the salary of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (who had diligently developed the origi­ nal plans for the operation of the University) to a level where he was forced to resign. This action by the governor left the supervision of the University directly in his and the Board of Regent's hands. 20 When Governor Barry took over, he surveyed the situation and announced, "Well, we've got the buildings . . . I don't think they're good for anything else, so we might as well declare the University open." 20 On this note of despair the University opened its doors in September, 1841 to six students and two faculty members. Looking back over the ensuing events, after the Board of Regents had assumed full administrative control, Sagendorph observed: They (the Board of Regents) reduced the faculty to the status of clerks. These Regents were not intellectual giants; most of them were politicians. They regarded their appointment to the Board as an excuse for posing as educators. They strutted. They were proud of the title, "Regent of the Univer­ sity." The less formal schooling they had, the more they preened themselves. Being politicians, they quickly gathered in all the reins and began driving the faculty. Within the next few years the University experienced an increasing number of problems and financial setbacks. Many of these unfortunate events were the results of, or eventually became "political footballs," tossed back and forth by politicians in the administration, the legislature, and the Board of Regents. 20 Ibid., p. 62. 21Ibid., p. 70. 21 The students began to rebel against the strict rules and discipline which were elaborately outlined in the Regent's "Book of Rules." The Whigs had won the majority in the legislature and succeeded in selling some of the University land for $1.25 per acre (generally valued at $20 an acre), thus reducing the University's income to such a point where salaries were cut nearly sixty percent. Bitter arguments arose in the legislature over the naming of buildings. Some of the students defiantly organized Greek- letter secret societies, and built the first fraternity house in America. This action set off a chain of hostile reactions, pitting students against faculty, faculty against faculty, and townspeople against the University. In the absence of strong leadership within the University (by design of the Regents) or on the part of the Board of Regents itself, the legislature was called upon to settle the confusion. During this same period of time, by contrast, the private colleges were making steady and continued forward progress. Different from the University, their governing boards were primarily composed of leading citizens, most of whom did not hold public office to distract them from their responsibilities to their respective institutions. This 22 basic difference was not to be forgotten at the constitu­ tional debates of 1850, by which time it had become increasingly obvious that some structural change was needed to reverse the University's faltering trend. Actually, the legislature had been forewarned about this deficiency in the University's organizational struc­ ture ten years prior to the constitutional convention by one of its own specially appointed committees. The select committee of the House of Representatives delegated to inquire into the conditions of the University, had reported as early as 1840 that the University lacked: . . . that oneness of purpose and singleness of aim (essential to their prosperity) that others have whose trustees are a permanent board, men chosen for their supposed fitness for that very office, and who, having become acquainted with their duties, can and are disposed to pursue a steady course, which inspires confidence and insures success, to the extent of their limited means. Moreover, the Board of Regents, in response to inquiry by this special legislative committee, went on record as favoring a constitutional change: The first change in the organic law deemed essen­ tial is the proper restriction of responsibility to the board of regents. At present the respon­ sibility is divided, and the board would be Michigan House of Representative Documents of 1840, op. c it. 23 greatly facilitated in their action were suc,h amendment made as would throw entire responsibility on them. It is interesting to note the incongruity between what the Legislature and Board of Regents reportedly recognized as being harmful to the University--partisan politics--and what their actual behaviors were over the next ten years. Change did come, however, in the form of the land­ mark decision of 1850 to grant constitutional autonomy for the first time to a state university. It came as a direct mandate from the people, who registered their disapproval of the way the University had been operated while under the political influence of the State. M. M. Chambers thinks there may have been still another reason why Michigan decided to go this route. He suggests; One must read between the lines a bit, too, and discern that colleges and universities as a form of institution of civilized society were five hundred years older than any of the American state governments, and that until the present century they were almost always and everywhere regarded as largely and properly autonomous institutions. There Report of the Board of the University of Michigan to the Legislature, March, 1840. 24 is a great tradition of academic independence which has survived in the long run, though sometimes pushed into temporary eclipse. ^ It is the great tradition which followed Michigan's land­ mark decision of 1850 which is the subject of this study. Overview This study is reported in five chapters. A review of the literature follows this chapter. The methodology and procedures used to conduct this study are presented in chapter three. Chapter four contains a historical review of the impact of legislation upon the policy decisions made by the colleges and universities of Michigan over the past century. Conclusions and implications are presented in the final chapter. M. M. Chambers, Voluntary Statewide Coordination in Public Higher Education (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1961), p. 41. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The study of legislative influence on Michigan’s colleges and universities is essentially an examination of the role that politics played in the development of the State's system of higher education. A survey of the literature surprisingly yielded very little material which directly pertained to this sub­ ject. As a matter of fact, studies on politics and educa­ tion in general are quite limited and very recent in developmen t . It became obvious, from reviewing the literature which was written on this subject, that the primary deterrant to research on politics and education was, as Ferguson 1 described it, an unwritten "taboo" on such studies. Politics and education were never supposed to mix. Wendell Pierce, Executive Director of the newly formed Education Commission of the States, credits this 1 LeRoy Craig Ferguson, How State Legislators View the Problem of School Needs (U.S. Office of Education Coop erative Research Report, Project No. 532 (8166), 1960), p. 3 26 "myth" for obstructing "our understanding of how the American education system actually operates at the state level. A number of writers seemed almost compelled to justify or to somehow rationalize their research on the subject. At the same time their statements portray a changing attitude toward a more realistic appraisal of the relationship between politics and education. Robinson described it as "the Romantic age (giving) way to an age O of realism." Consider Iannaccone’s statement for example: Still the bulk of the educationists cling to the words, if not the reality, the shadow, rather than the substance, and are almost incapable of thinking of politics and education except prescriptively as other than discrete and immaculately untouching worlds. The myth that education is not politics-or stated prescriptively, that either "education would not be involved in politics," or "politics should not be in education"--virtually ruled the minds of many professors of education and the public statements of educators even when the practicing schoolmen and professors, such as Paul Mort, were not quite so naive. Ignoring for the moment the prescriptive "ought" concerning the separation of politics and education, and paying attention to the 2 Michael D. Usdan, David W. Minar, and Emanual Hurwitz, Jr. , Education and State Politics (Columbia University: Teachers College Press, 1969), p. vii. 3 Donald W. Robinson, "Good Politics Can Provide Better Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, XLIX (February, 1968), p. 289. 27 realities of American life, education and politics are and have been inextricably related.^Gove also had no illusions about education being free from politics. Instead, he took a very practical view of the situation: Higher education is in politics, has been, and will continue to b e . As faculty members, we want the pressures resulting in limitations on academic freedom to be eliminated; as administrators, we want the pressures resulting in administrative interfer­ ence to be eliminated; and as students, we want the pressures resulting in tuition increases to be eliminated. Wishing won't make it so, but accepting the political facts of life and fighting pressures with counterpressures may. Bailey didn't hesitate to admonish educators to become politically active for what he considered to be the good of society: Since the quality of our society rests in large measure upon the quality of our public education, a widespread recognition that schoolmen must be not only aware of politics but influential in politics may be the key to our survival as a free civilized nation. ^Laurence Iannaccone, Politics in Education (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1967), p. 6. 5 Samuel E. Gove, "Pressures on Higher Education: State and Local Governments," Current Issues in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: Association for Higher Education, 1965), p. 71. g Stephen K. Bailey, et. a l . , Schoolmen and Politics (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1962), p. 108. 28 As the demand for higher education soared to new heights, as the federal government and private industry came to rely more heavily upon higher education for basic research and technical assistance, and as the problems of a changing society were placed at the doorsteps of higher education, competition for tax dollars mounted and higher education moved into the public spotlight to stay. These were the factors which led educators about midway into the twentieth century to take greater notice of the relationship of politics and education, and to think of it in more realistic terms. To be sure there were other reasons why so little research was conducted in this area, but they are of lesser significance. As an example, Marden believed that: . . . either the politics of the public schools have been taken so much for granted that they have been ignored as a topic of serious study, or else the forbiding immensity of the research has induced potential explorers to steer away after they glimpse the Sargasso Sea of Difficulties.^ Certainly the move in recent years to more inter­ disciplinary studies also helped to encourage research in this field. 7 Goldhammer noted that, "Political scientists . . . Robert H. Marden, "The Politics of Education," Educational Administration Quarterly (Spring, 1965), p. 55. 29 suddenly discovered education, while specialists in educaQ tion . . . discovered political science." The literature which has been written on the general subject of politics and higher education presents only a fragmentary picture of this complex relationship at best. More specifically, . . the relationships between the legislatures and individual institutions have only been alluded to in the past," in the words of Gove. For the purpose of this study the literature which was chosen for review in this chapter is reported under four divisions: 1. Institutional autonomy and state coordination. 2. Legal relations between higher education and the state. 3. The influence of educators on political decisions. 4. Political influence on higher education. Q Keith Goldhammer, "The Politics of Education," Educational Administration Quarterly (Spring, 1965), p. 63. 9 Samuel K. Gove and Barbara Whiteside Solomon, "The Politics of Higher Education: A Bibliographic Essay," The Journal of Higher Education (The Ohio State University Press, Vol. XXXIX, No. 4, April. 1968), p. 195. 30 This order of presentation begins with the more distantly related studies and ends with those more relevant to this study. Institutional autonomy and state coordination Studies concerning institutional autonomy are often linked with those on state-wide planning and coordination. It is within this context that questions regarding politi­ cal influence on higher education are sometimes discussed. M. M. Chambers has probably written more books on these two subjects than any other person. TO He is a strong advocate of voluntary coordination (where universities agree among themselves to cooperate and coordinate their activities, as in the State of Michigan) as opposed to coordination which is imposed upon the colleges and univer­ sities by some central supervisory board (New York) or coordinating agency (Illinois). 10 See for example, The Campus and the People (Dan­ ville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. , 1960); Voluntary Statewide Coordination in Public Higher Education (Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1961); Chance and Choice in Higher Education (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. , 1962); and Freedom and Repression in Higher Education (Bloomington, Indiana: Bloomcraft Press, 1965). 31 Glenny, who is also considered an authority in this field, pointed out that: Diversity continues to be cherished and encouraged by all, but today the unlimited freedom of a college or university to pursue a self-determined destiny is rapidly being curtailed among the public institu­ tions and even has prospects of diminishing among the nonpublic ones . . . The classic condition of autonomy in higher education still prevails in only ten states. In all others, some rather formal structure, legal or voluntary, advises, persuades, or orders public, and occasionally nonpublic, institutions into a degree of coordination formerly thought to be impossible and undesirable. 1 Chambers strongly objected to any formal approach to coordination because of the restraining effect it has on institutional initiative and innovation. In very graphic words he wrote: In the developing world of science and learning, should a university move with the vision, alertness, speed and grace of a hawk, or should it be like a wing-clipped domestic fowl in a henyard enclosed with chicken-wire? Higher education at every level from the junior college to the graduate school, but especially at the topmost reaches, needs the freedom, spirit, curiosity and eagerness for action of the wild horse on the desert -- not the tired resignation of the Lyman A. Glenny, "State Systems and Plans for Higher Education," Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education, ed. by Logan Wilson (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965), pp. 86 and 87. 32 the plodding draft-horse, harnessed, check-reined and blindered .^ Conant, on the other hand, deplored the general lack of master planning and coordination among the states. He blamed the selfish interests of, and uncontrolled competition among colleges and universities for this problem. He drew attention to the effect this lack of planning and coordination has had upon the attitude of state legislators by citing the following comment made by a Texas legislator: "You've got to understand that every institution is out for itself, and when this happens education is a pork barrel." 1 ^ Both Chambers and Conant supported their respective positions with illustrations from actual experiences. Gove and Solomon provided an accurate assessment of their work in suggesting that: Each man has taken the stories that best fit his point of view and woven them into a presentation that supports his preference in coordinating arrangements. No doubt what the authors say about individual decisions is probably correct but it is only a section of the total picture and therefore easily M. M. Chambers, Voluntary Statewide Coordination in Public Higher Education (Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1961), pp. 67 and 68. 13 York: James B. Conant, Shaping Educational Policy McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1964), p. 56. (New 33 distorted. Abuses of freedom by universities exist, but taken out of context they do not present a study of the relationships between public higher education and state government.1*^ Reference has already been made to Lyman Glenny as a recognized authority in this field of study. Glenny has contributed to a number of books edited by others since writing his own on the subject back in 1959. In Autonomy of Public Colleges 1Js Glenny analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the coordinating systems which operated in twelve selected states. He made no effort to conceal his own preference for a more formal approach to coordination (actually he was responsible for setting up the system which now operates in the State of Illinois while he served as Executive Director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education). Glenny made an interesting observation on the longevity of the voluntary system of coordination which is of special interest to this study because it so nearly describes the system currently in operation, together with recent developments in Michigan (maybe it is prophetic?), 14 Gove and Solomon, op. cit., p. 186. 15 Lyman A. Glenny, Autonomy of Public Colleges (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959). 34 Voluntary coordination among state-supported institutions has succeeded only for short periods of time because the leading state university could be magnanimous without threat to its dominant position. However, once weak colleges gain in strength, they ungratefully descend upon their benevolent big brother, thus ending voluntary coordination. This creates conditions necessita­ ting formal coordination and regulation. ° Glenny failed to consider the political environment in which the various systems of coordination operated in his own book, but took account of it in some of his more recent articles. He conceived of the entire coordinating process as a political one--that of "balancing tensions." Moreover, he believed that some formal approach to coordina­ tion provides the greatest potential for positive political influence. Consider: The increase in political influence of the coordinating board results directly from the support of the governor, legislators, and college administra­ tors, the great majority of whom work for the broad public interest. Hence, the forces which could destroy the coordinating agency by direct and indirect attack actually have given it the support and confidence necessary for success.^ (One wonders if this may be the reaction of the administra­ tion and/or legislature which created the coordinating body Lyman A. Glenny, "Politics and Current Patterns in Coordinating Higher Education," Campus and Capitol: Higher Education and the State, e d . by W. John Minter (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1966), p. 38. 17Ibid., p. 31. 35 in an effort to make it work, or whether this holds true throughout the life of this body). Logan Wilson put together an interesting collection of articles on this general subject from papers which were originally prepared for the American Council on Education's 1964 annual meeting. As the title suggests, Wilson attempted to trace the Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education^ in administration and organization. This is a well balanced presentation. He effec­ tively illustrated the ongoing struggle to reconcile the necessity for institutional autonomy with new demands for wider institutional cooperation and coordination. He pointed out in his own chapter on "Myths and Realities of Institutional Independence" that we presently: . . . have no universally accepted norms of institutional autonomy, and hence lack precise guidelines to differentiate between proper and improper constraints. . .(Moreover). . . there is a gray area ranging from accepted constraints to those of a marginal and questionable nature. The erosion of autonomy thus can come from friendly as well as hostile sources and can be unintended as well as calculated. Logan Wilson, ed., Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965). 19 Ibid., pp. 22 and 25. 36 Finally, John Gardner, also a contributing author to Wilson's book, suggested that "The issue of university autonomy will never be finally solved," He recommended, therefore, that "the universities . . . become exceedingly knowing in the art of preserving their own autonomy," The articles reviewed in this division add only limited insight into the relationship between politics and institutional autonomy. They do, however, demonstrate the concern by educators over any threat to autonomy, whether it be by some system of state-wide coordination or otherwise. Most writers would agree with Chambers that "It is of the essence of a university that it shall not be controlled too largely by political authority. Where they would differ, of course, is in their respective defini­ tions of the term, "too largely," The literature reviewed in the next division focuses on the legal aspects of the relationships between colleges and universities and state governments, 20 ties," John W. Gardner, "Government and the Universi­ Ibid., p. 292. 21 M. M. Chambers, Voluntary Statewide Coordination, p. X. 37 Legal relations between higher education and the state A review of the literature on higher education and politics is not complete without some mention of the research by Chambers and Thomas E. Blackwell on the law and higher education. Their books contain a wealth of informa­ tion important as background and reference material for thi s s tudy. M. M. Chambers began writing what might be described as a layman's digest of principal court decisions affecting higher education on both the state and federal levels back in 1936. He updated this digest from time to time where it now numbers six volumes and covers nearly twenty-five hundred decisions. The Colleges and the Courts as the series is known, are familiar reference books found on almost every 22 M. M. Chambers, The Colleges and the Courts, 1962-1966 (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1967); The Colleges and the Courts Since 1950 (Danville, 111.: The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., 1964); The Colleges and the Courts, 19461950 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952); The Colleges and the Courts, 1941-1945 (New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1946); The Colleges and the Courts, 1936-40 (New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1941); and Edward C. Elliott and M. M. Chambers, The Colleges and the Courts (New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1936). 38 university administrator's bookshelf. They were written in non-technical language, yet retain the respect of the legal profession for accuracy and reliability. The official records of the supreme courts in at least two states (Minnesota and Michigan) contain citations from this series. A companion book, College L a w : istrators^ A Guide for Admin- by Blackwell, was also written with the practitioner in mind. As a former university administrator himself, Blackwell recognized the need for some kind of handbook or ready-reference to which the busy administrator might turn with problems having possible legal consequences. Blackwell and Chambers discuss many of the same topics but approach them differently. Chambers developed his presentations around the court decisions which were rendered within certain time periods, while Blackwell wrote his book by first selecting the areas in which he expected university administrators to experience legal problems and then supported his discussion of them with illustrative court opinions and citations. These volumes complement each other very well when used together. 23 Thomas Edward Blackwell, College L a w : A Guide for Administrators (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1961). 39 In both instances there were certain chapters which were more relevant than others to this study. Chambers' discussion of the legal status of public colleges and univer­ sities, the role of the legislature in matters of control, and the legal definition and characteristics of public corporations was most helpful and germane. Blackwell's more extensive discussion of legislative and executive inter­ ferences into the internal affairs of universities and his detailed explanation of constitutionally independent corporations were equally instructive. Blackwell also wrote an earlier book in which he traced the Current Legal Problems of Colleges and Univer­ sities.^ Much of what he had written in that book was later transferred to his book on College Law. George M. Johnson, former dean of Howard's Law School and until recently professor of education at Michigan State University, published a book simply entitled S Education Law.2 J Johnson referenced over three hundred federal and state court decisions in the process of 24 Thomas Edward Blackwell, Current Legal Problems of Colleges and Universities. 1950-1951 (St. Louis: Washington University, 1953). 25 Michigan: George M. Johnson, Education Law (East Lansing, Michigan State University, 1967). 40 examining the laws which regulate education on all levels in the United States. Writing in the style of a college professor, Johnson explained how and where to find laws related to education, and provided a glossary of legal terms which is invaluable for the layman in understanding basic legal jargon. Johnson's motive for writing was made exceedingly clear in this statement: Educators need a sufficient understanding of the legal principles underlying education law to appreciate the consequences of educational decisions and . . . to determine whether such laws promote sound educational Because Johnson's purpose in writing was to give every educator an awareness and understanding of education law his coverage of material was very broad but brief. His discussion of constitutionally independent institutions, for an example, was covered in only a few sentences. The literature reviewed in this division obviously served a very useful purpose as reference material for this study. A number of court decisions have been rendered which focus directly on the relationship of state legisla­ tures and the autonomy of public colleges and universities. 26 Ibid., p. 5. 41 These decisions are included and discussed in both Chambers' and Blackwell's books. Specific mention of them in this chapter was omitted because they are cited in chapter one, and contribute to the analysis of the results of this study in chapter four. Another facet in the study of relationships between politics and education is the influence that educators have on the legislative process. A few studies have been conducted in recent years which have as their partial concern, at least, this issue. These studies are reviewed in the following division. The influence of educators on political decisions Legislators do not pass laws in a vacuum. In addition to the constituents whom they strive to serve, legislators are often "pressured" by special interest groups to introduce, or to support legislation important to their respective causes. This is known as lobbying. Educators have not been known for their professional lobbying efforts (that is not to say they haven't lobbied). On the one hand, education has generally been highly valued in America and has not had to be "sold" to the public. 42 Masters found that virtually no one openly opposed public education and that no formal anti-school lobby existed. 27 On the other hand, legislators greatly depend on information from all sources to assist them in making O Q decisions which are proper and politically sound . Educa­ tors are not immune to providing information which most favorably supports their particular needs. The influence that educators have at these particular moments and on other occasions in the legislative process is the focus of the studies reviewed in this division. Ferguson attempted to learn where legislators get their information about education in his study, How State Legislators View the Problem of School Needs.^ He inter­ viewed legislators in California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee during their 1957 legislative sessions. One of the questions he asked in his structured interview was, "On this particular subject of school needs, where do you get your most reliable information--what source of advice and information would you trust the most?" 27 Nicholas A. Masters, et al., State Politics and the Public Schools (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), p. 266. 28 See chapters XI and XII of David B. Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951). 29 Ferguson, ojj. cit. 43 He found that the sources most frequently mentioned were the state and local school officials and educational associations (his question covered all levels of educa­ tion) . More interestingly, however, was the conclusion he reached after analyzing his data. He concluded "that legislators who relied on local officials for advice were less likely to be favorable in attitude (to school needs) than those who said that they got their most reliable information from state school officials or the education associations."^0 Schoolmen were among the several political pressure groups which were studied in depth by DeVries and Milbrath in their respective studies of lobbyists. Neither made any particular reference to, or analysis of the lobbyists from the field of higher education, however. DeVries, in The Michigan Lobbyist: 01 Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness, A Study in the focused his attention on the lobbyist as an individual agent of the group's interest. 30 31 Ferguson, He found that lobbyists with certain o ]d . cit. , p. 20. Walter Dale DeVries, The Michigan Lobbyist; A Study in the Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1960. 44 "socio-political" characteristics were more successful than others; and "that lobbyists who play defensive roles (defender-advocates) tended to be more effective than those required to play a role which calls for active promotion and strategical guidance of a bill through the legislature (promo ter-s trategis ts ) . Almost at the same time that DeVries was studying lobbyists in Michigan, Milbrath studied The Washington Lobbyists.^3 j^e designed a communications model to evalu­ ate the influence of lobbying on the policy-making processes in the U.S. Congress. He found that the most effective method of communications was personal contact. Influenced by Milbrath's theoretical approach to the subject, Zeigler decided to examine the communications between state legislators and lobbyists by applying an interaction theory (basically developed by social psycholo­ gists) . He found that "interaction and interpersonal Ibid., p. abstract. (Chicago: Lester W. Milbrath, The Washington Lobbyists Rank McNally & Company, 1963). 45 attraction are related," as he reported in How Legislators o/ and Lobbyists Interact. Another book, published in late 1967, in which the author attempted to chart the entire domain of politics and public education while concentrating on the political influence that educators have upon state legislatures, is Politics in Education by Laurence Iannaccone. 35 Iannaccone boldly introduced his book by asserting: A most fundamental assumption underlying this mono­ graph is that politics have not been and will not be kept out of education. A related concern involves the shibboleth, "keep politics out of education." This entails two potential dangers: (1) an implicit rejection of the mainstream of the American political system itself, and (2) a loss of touch with reality--a self-seduction which is the most dangerous form of fascination. Based upon the descriptive studies of Bailey et a l ., Schoolmen and Politics,37' Masters et al., State Politics Harmon Zeigler, How Legislators and Lobbyists Interact. At the time of this writing it is an unpublished monogram to be published soon along with (or as a part of) The Effects of Lobbying: A Comparative Assessment (Eugene, Oregon: The University of Oregon, 1967). 35 Iannaccone, o p . cit. 36Ibid. Bailey, ojj. cit. and the Public Schools „ ^8 and Usdan, The Political Power of Education in New York State 39 (which described the typical arrangements and customary patterns of influence used by educators and their allies to influence the course of educational legislation in eleven different states), Iannaccone set out to establish a theoretical model by which political acts could be examined and categorized, and from which probable modes and directions of change in state education politics could roughly be predicted. Essentially, Iannaccone1s work is an application of political systems analysis to educational government. A most interesting and informative book was just published (1970) by Michael W. Kirst entitled, The Politics of Education at the Local, State and Federal Levels.^ Kirst put together a wide collection of empirical studies on politics and education (all levels) in an effort to determine "who has political influence and how this 38Masters et a_l. , op. cit. 39 Michael Usdan, The Political Power of Education iii New York State (New York: Institute of Administrative Research, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963). 40 Michael W. Kirst, ed., The Politics of Education the Local, State and Federal Levels (Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1970). 47 i T influence is aggregated to reach policy objectives." Many of the studies already reviewed in this division are included in Kirst's book. Because of the comprehensive coverage of this book, and because Kirst provided a conceptual framework for analyzing the research in this and other volumes, The Politics of Education would make an extremely useful text­ book. It also serves as a helpful tool for the researcher. The studies briefly reviewed above demonstrate a growing interest in, and awareness of political influence as employed by educators. It is obvious, however, that the majority of these studies were conducted on the elementary and secondary levels. Others concentrated on education interest groups, professional organizations and associa­ tions, and on the variety of alliances and coalitions formed by these groups to strengthen their political influence. The studies which focus mainly on higher education among the literature on politics and education are those reviewed in the following division. 41 Ibid., p . v. 48 Political influence on higher education The literature reviewed under this division provides a more equitable base from which to make compari­ sons and applications to this study. While the research reviewed in earlier divisions provided some insight into the various facets of political and educational relation­ ships, these studies explore political behavior in higher education policy-making, which is the particular interest of this investigation. Governmental influences on educational policy­ making exist at every level of government and of education. Patterns of potential interaction are exceedingly complex as Bailey and M o s h e r ^ attempted to demonstrate with the simplified grid on the following page. They concluded that education policy "increasingly is bound to reflect the extended interaction of all levels and types of government and of a wide variety of private and professional forces." 42 Stephen K. Bailey and Edith K. Mosher, ESEA: The Office of Education Administers a_ Law (Syracuse, N. Y . : Syracuse University Press, 1968), p. 222. 49 INFLUENCES ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY-MAKING IN THE UNITED STATES General Legislative National State Local . cit., p. v. 54 Moos and Rourke included one chapter on some of the legislative "encroachments" on higher education, but devoted most of their time to state administrative and fiscal controls, i.e., central purchasing, preauditing, travel, publications, personnel, and capital expenditures. In their words, ". . . it is the executive rather than legislative officials who are today regarded as representing the chief threat to the independence of institutions of higher education. Moos and Rourke blamed the growing trend toward administrative centralization in state government for introducing greater stress into relations between public colleges and universities and state governments. This factor lead the Committee to recommend that all state supported colleges and universities should be granted constitutional status. Another difference worth noting between the study by Moos and Rourke and this study is the research method­ ology. Moos and Rourke, after intensively reviewing all available published information on the subject, chose to query state and college officials 49 Ibid., pp. 27 and 28. (via questionnaires and 55 personal interviews) about their impressions, and more particularly their grievances with the relationship between them. The Campus and the State is a report of their findings. This study is designed to base its findings on actual fact as it is officially recorded in the Public Acts of Michigan. One reason for the decision not to follow Moos and Rourke1s method of gathering information was their own evaluation of it. After analyzing the responses they received from their personal interviews they concluded that these responses could be placed in one of three categories: First, most state and educational officials spoke freely but not intimately (emphasis supplied), and demonstrated an obvious desire to present a com­ plete picture of campus-state relations . . . A second group of respondents used the interview as an opportunity to "tell all" about their problems. . . Finally, there were those who obviously had much to say but declined to provide information because of their fear that its publication, even without identifying the source, would do violence to the status of the official or the cause he served. Gould's warning ". . . that full and unreserved public discussion of relations between a university and state government could have the effect of straining and weakening the very elements such a discussion is intended ~*^Ibid. , pp. 375 and 376. 56 C "I to strengthen, was another reason why this study was kept as impersonal as possible, so as to offend the least number of people. (The problem is even more sensitive for a student of one state university and the employee of another to identify areas of conflict in this relationship). Gould's comment comes from a book recently published by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) entitled, Campus and Capitol: the State.52 Higher Education and This is a delightful collection of articles edited by W. John Min ter from a variety of papers which were originally presented at an institute co-sponsored by WICHE and the University of California at Berkeley in the Fall of 1966. The institute was planned around the question, "What are the most important dimensions of the growing interdependence between government and higher education." The roster of contributors to this fine book is quite impressive, including such authorities in the field 51 Samuel B. Gould, "The University and State Govern­ ment: Fears and Realities," Campus and Capitol: Higher Education and the State, ed. by W. John Minter (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Educa­ tion, 1966, p. 3. 52 W. John Minter, ojd. c it. 57 of higher education as Samuel B. Gould, Lyman A. Glenny, John F. Morse, Fred Harvey Harrington, T. R. McConnell, and others. Their individual contributions are equally as impressive, and proved to be quite provocative for this study. Pertinent quotations from this collection appear throughout this study. Of even greater value to this study, however, was the comprehensive annotated bibliography found at the end of the book. The result of an extensive search of the literature by Minter, these bibliographies provide a handy reference to the most important publications on each subject discussed. Another book just published (1970), contains a report on the opinions, attitudes, and expectations of state legislators and certain executive officials toward higher education. State Officials and Higher Education"*^ is the result of one of several studies recently commis­ sioned by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, under the direction of Clark Kerr, in an attempt to develop a better understanding of the complex relations between government and higher education on all levels. 53 Heinz Eulau and Harold Ouinley, State Officials and Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970). 58 Eulau and Quinley interviewed key legislators and executive officers from nine different states on as divergent topics as student unrest on campus to state support for private colleges and universities. Based on these interviews cautious generalizations were made about the current views of legislators and state officials on higher education. For instance, on the question of the proper role of the legislature in controlling higher educa­ tion, Eulau and Quinley found that: Most legislators maintained that they should restrict their decision making to appropriations, and perhaps very general policy guidelines--such as stipulating that admissions policies should not discriminate among racial groups. One wonders after closing Eulau and Ouinley's book whether the legislator's voting habits coincide with their generally favorable attitude toward higher education. More particularly, whether the legislator's reported attitude toward legislative control over higher education coincides with their voting records. Perhaps this study, which is designed to examine the actual voting records of the Michigan legislators, could serve as a basis for comparison. 54 Ibid., p . 52. 59 In conclusion, these few studies represent the published research on the subject of state legislative influence on higher education. Collectively, they most nearly resemble the interests and concerns of this study. Their central theses revolve around the belief that "American state legislators are strategic decision makers in policies affecting higher education,1' ^ as Eulau and Quinley put it. Each study in its own way has documented how this process works. There were other studies which might also have been reviewed in this chapter because they touch upon different aspects of politics and education as a part of their broader concerns. Among them were various histories of higher education, textbooks on state government, state master plans for higher education, and books on higher education administration. However, to have included these studies would have added little to this study and may only have resulted in a much more fragmentary picture of the literature on this subject than already exists. In addition to Minter's annotated bibliography, mentioned above, Gove and Solomon prepared a very good review of the literature on "The Politics of Education" for Ibid., p. vii. 60 The Journal of Higher Education C£ in April, 1968, to which the reader may wish to refer for added information. Summary A review of the literature on the relations of politics and higher education produced only a few, and often only distantly related studies. As Gove and Solomon observed, "Interest in the politics of education at any level is quite recent." C ~7 To illustrate, no studies reviewed in this chapter, outside of the series of books on The Colleges and the Courts by Chambers, were published before 1959. Interest in this field of study during the sixties was primarily stimulated by the research conducted by Moos and Rourke in the late fifties, and published under the title, The Campus and the State,in 1959. New interest in this area, which should result in a significantly larger volume of publications during the seventies, is evidenced by the series of recently sponsored studies by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, headed by Clark Kerr, and by the foundation-supported (Carnegie Corporation of New 56 57 Gove and Solomon, o p . cit. Ibid., p. 182. 61 York and the Ford Foundation) studies on the ’’politics of education" by Douglass Cater, former special assistant on education to President Johnson. CQ For convenience of presentation the studies reviewed in this chapter were placed in one of four categories, beginning with those more distantly related to the focus of this study and concluding with those which were more germane. Firstly, a number of studies were reviewed whose primary interest was in the area of institutional autonomy and/or state-wide planning and coordination. Among them were several of M. M. Chambers' books which advocated voluntary coordination among state colleges and univer­ sities, Conant1s book on Shaping Educational Policy, and Glenny's and Logan Wilson's books ^hich discussed the effects of state systems of coordination on institutional autonomy. Occasional references were made in these studies to the interrelations between politics and the various systems of coordination and institutional autonomy. How­ ever, these references, for the most part, were incidental to their main themes. 58 Announced in the Chronicle of Higher Education, January 13, 1969, Vol. 3, No. 7. 62 Several books authored by Chambers, Blackwell, and Johnson, on education and the laws, comprised the second category of studies reviewed in this chapter. Chambers and Blackwell discussed the applicability of various laws to higher education together with the legal consequences of certain administrative acts, whereas Johnson concentra­ ted on the educational laws which have been enacted effecting all levels of education. These books were of particular value to this study as legal reference sources. Under the third category of studies the role of influence, as used by educators in political decisions, was the focal subject of research. By interviewing legislators from several states Ferguson determined that state legisla­ tors rely primarily on state and local school officials and certain educational associations for their most trusted information about education. DeVries and Milbrath studied lobbyists--one in Michigan and the other in Washington, D.C, They found that lobbyists with certain "socio-political" characteristics who personally contacted individual legislators were more successful than others. 63 Zeigler found that interpersonal attraction between state legislators and lobbyists had a positive correlation with successful interactions. On the basis of the descriptive studies on the educational politics found in eleven different states, as reported by Bailey, Masters and Usdan, Iannaccone developed a theoretical model by which to predict future modes and possible changes in state educational politics. Kirst put together a collection of empirical studies, in textbook fashion, and provided a conceptual framework by which to analyze these and other studies. Collectively, these studies demonstrated that educators could, and do have a profound influence on educational decisions which are made by politicians. In the final category, five studies were reviewed which directly relate to the subject of this study, on the influence of politics on higher education. Banfield and Halperin each conducted case studies which vividly depicted the complexities and consequences of political influence on major decisions in the lives of two state universities (The University of Illinois and Wayne State University). Moos and Rourke directed the most popular and best documented study concerning the encroachments of state 64 governments on public colleges and universities. Based on their findings, the Committee on Government and Higher Education recommended that all institutions of higher education be granted constitutionally protected autonomy (this recommendation has profound implications for the significance of this study). Minter put together an unusually fine collection of articles by distinguished educators about the growing interdependence between government and higher education. Eulau and Ouinley found, after interviewing several key officials from nine states, that most state legislators and executive officers hold generally favorable opinions about higher education. Essentially, the studies reviewed in this final category had the greatest influence on the forma­ tion of the problem and research methodology for this study. In conclusion, it is obvious from these studies that there are many facets to the interplay between state politics and higher education. Recent studies are begin­ ning to examine this interplay as a primary research objective rather than as an incidental consideration as it was in the past. The previous research on politics and higher educa­ tion, and even more specifically, on the influence of state 65 politics on the educational policies of public colleges and universities is still extremely limited. In the meantime, the challenge offered by Herman James nearly a half century ago persists: A most enlightening investigation of the part played by politics . . . in the history of our state institutions could be made with great profit, if only the facts could be made available. y Perhaps this study will help make a small contribu­ tion to that end. Herman G. James, "The American State University: A Problem in Political Science," Edmund J. James Lectures on Government (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1938), p. 16. CHAPTER III DESIGN The methodology and procedures used to conduct this study are described in this chapter. This study was conducted as a historical inquiry into the question of legislative influence on the educa­ tional policies of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities of Michigan. Several factors were taken into consideration when the decision was made to conduct a historical study: 1. The experiences of previous studies, as reported in chapter two; 2. The need to be comprehensive if an accurate assessment of legislative influence was to be obtained; 3. The need to be as objective as possible so as to minimize prevailing attitudes and biases toward the subject; and 4. A personal desire to avoid unduly upsetting 66 67 relations between the colleges and univer­ sities and the legislature over this study. These concerns, together with the fact that no such study was ever before attempted supported the decision to conduct a historical review of the subject. The object of this historical overview was to trace the influence of the Michigan legislature upon the policies of the constitutionally incorporated four-year state supported colleges and universities through the public acts it enacted. It was fully recognized that the legislature had other means to influence educational policies through the legislative process — e.g. , through the passage of resolutions--however this study was delimited to an analy­ sis of public acts. All public acts of the Michigan legislatures over the past 120 years (1851-1970) were reviewed to determine which had direct reference to any one or to all of these schools. Upon identification, these acts were placed in chronological order (Appendix A), cross-indexed according to each institution to which they applied (Appendix B ) , and classified by subject matter (Appendix C ) . 68 In the process of identifying these public acts it was necessary to rely on the indexing systems of the official records of each legislative session, as usually compiled by the Secretary of State.^ Each record was thoroughly examined for all possible heading variations under which each college or university might have been recorded, e.g., the index headings examined for Michigan State University alone included: Michigan Agriculture College, Michigan State College, State Board of Agriculture, Board of Trustees, appropriations for . . . (each of the above titles), cooperative agriculture extension, as well as the general headings of colleges and universities and education. Even then a number of errors were discovered in the process of research. The Michigan Manual 2 was used as a guide to insure complete coverage of all legislative sessions. After every act relevant to this study was identi­ fied, cross-indexed, and categorized, an effort was made to "''The source of information was the biennially published Public and Local Acts ture of the State of Michigan, compiled by State and more recently by the Legislative 2 annually and of the Legisla­ the Secretary of Service Bureau. The State of Michigan, Michigan Manual, 1967-1968. 69 determine which of these public acts was contested in the courts due to an alleged infringement on the powers, duties, or authorities of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities. This information was considered helpful in determining legislative influences. Again comprehensiveness was a concern because not all cases were recorded under the specific names of the colleges and universities or their respective governing boards. Therefore seven different legal references were searched for litigation decisions by the Michigan Supreme Court, including: Shepard 1s Michigan Citations, three different volumes of the Mi chi g an Digest J* two volumes of r Michigan Statutes Annotated, £ and Michigan Compiled Laws. 3 Shepard 1s Michigan Citations, Statute Edition (Colorado Springs, Colo.: Shepard’s Citations, Inc., 1961 and 1969 pocket update). 4 Colleges and Universities, Vol. 4, Part 1; Tables of Cases, Vols. 15 and 15A; and Defendant-Plaintiff Table, Vol. 16; Michigan Digest, 1836 to date (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1947 and 1969 pocket update). 5 Constitutions, Vol. 1; and Education, Vol. 11; Michigan Statutes Annotated (Chicago: Callaghan and Col., 1936 and 1969 pocket update). Michigan Compiled Laws (St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1968), Vol. 2. 70 Pertinent decisions were also reviewed in the Michigan Reports? and the annual or biennial Report of the Q Attorney General. Intensive analyses of all public acts which were identified to be relevant to this study followed. Findings are reported in the next chapter, and the cumulative impact, trends, and implications are discussed in the final chapter. Summary The nature and intent of this study supported the need for a historical inquiry. All public acts of the Michigan legislatures from 1851 through 1970 were examined to determine which of them had direct reference to any one or to all constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities. To assist in determining the kinds of influence this legislation had upon these colleges and universities legal references were searched for decisions by the Michigan Reports (Rochester, N.Y.: Cooperative Pub. Co.), 1851-1968. Lawyer's g The State of Michigan, Report of the Attorney General. 1851-1968. 71 Michigan Supreme Court relative to any constitutional infringements. Findings are reported in the next chapter. CHA P T E R IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS In this chapter are presented the results of the analyses of all public acts enacted by the Michigan legis­ latures from 1851 through 1970 which have direct reference to any one or to all constitutionally incorporated state colleges and universities of Michigan. The results are reported according to^. the same format by which these public acts were categorized for subject analysis.^ Prefaced by a brief description of the public acts which were examined for this study and a history of the state constitutional provisions concerning higher education during this period of years, the findings are reported according to the following outline: 1. Legislation on annual operating appropriations and general finance. 2. Legislation on capital outlay appropriations. 1 All public acts pertaining to each respective category can be found in Appendix C. 72 73 3. Legislation on the establishment and govern­ ance of the colleges and universities. 4. Legislation on the conveyance, sale or trans­ fer of land/property. 5. Legislation on the establishment and operation of educational programs and curriculum. 6. Legislation on personnel matters. 7. Legislation on the operations of the University of Michigan hospitals. 8. Legislation on miscellaneous matters. Description of the public acts examined Of the nearly twenty-one thousand public acts which were passed by some sixty different Michigan legislatures (16th through 75th) in 120 legislative sessions (regular and extra sessions) from 1851 through 1970, 328 public acts were found to have direct reference to one or more of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities. Although the span of years covered by this study represents 120 years, the sixty legislatures actually met during only ninety-one of those years, because many of the earlier legislatures met on a biennial basis. 74 The 328 public acts which have direct reference to the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities of Michigan are the subject of this chapter and the essence of this study. They were listed in chronological order, beginning with 1970 and working backward to 1851, in Appendix A. They also were cross-indexed in Appendix B according to the institution(s) to which they apply. It is important to have clearly in mind just what was or was not included in this group of 328 public acts. All public acts which had direct reference to any one or to all constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities of Michigan from the point of their respective constitu­ tional incorporation forward were selected for analyses. In other words, the University of Michigan was the sole topic of research from 1851 to 1908, at which time Michigan State University was constitutionally incorporated. Wayne State University joined the other two in 1959, and the remainder of Michigan's four-year state supported colleges and universities were granted constitutional status in 1963. There were other public acts which had direct reference to some of these colleges and universities prior to the time they were constitutionally incorporated. 75 However, the thesis of this study was based upon the principle of constitutional autonomy as set forth in the state constitution through the legal method of incorpora­ tion. This method was employed as a constitutional device to insulate the colleges and universities from the influence of the legislature. Therefore, this study was delimited to include only those public acts which were enacted after each college and university was granted constitutional status. Constitutional history of the provisions relating to higher education This study began with the public acts of 1851 because Michigan first granted constitutional autonomy to the University of Michigan in the Constitution of 1850. As reported in chapter one, this was a landmark decision which has since been followed by only nine other states. The statement granting constitutional autonomy to the University of Michigan was very brief in Michigan's second state constitution, but its brevity did not detract See the section on "Background” in chapter one of this study for further detail. 76 from its clarity as far as the Michigan Supreme Court was concerned. It read as follows: Sec. 7. The regents of the university and their successors in office shall continue to constitute the body corporate, known by the name and title of "The Regents of the University of Michigan". Prefaced by instructions to the regents to elect a president at its first annual meeting, section 8 contained a definition of the duties of the newly constituted irbody corporate": Sec. 8. . . .The board of regents shall have the general supervision of the university, and the direction and control of 3^.1 expenditures from the university interest fund. It was the intention of the framers of this consti­ tution that the University of Michigan be removed from the direct supervision and control of the legislature and be placed in the hands of the people through a board elected by them. The history and intent of these provisions was traced at length by the Michigan Supreme Court in Sterling v. Regents of the University of Michigan. The court observed: Under the constitution of 1835, the legislature had the entire control and management of the Univer­ sity and the University fund. They could appoint regents and professors, and establish departments. 3 Michigan, Constitution Sec. 7. 4 Ibid., Sec. 8. (1850), Article XIII, 77 The University was not a success under this supervision by the legislature, and, as some of the members of the constitutional convention of 1850 said in their debates, "some of the denomina­ tional colleges had more students than did the University." Such was the condition of affairs when that convention met. It is apparent to any reader of the debates in this convention in regard to the constitutional provision for the University that they had in mind the idea of permanency of location, to place it beyond mere political influence, and to entrust it to those who should be directly respon­ sible and amenable to the people. (emphasis supplied) Section 7 and the portion of section 8 of the constitution of 1850 quoted above, except for the final two £ words, were repeated verbatim in the constitution of 1908, and appeared as sections 4 and 5 under Article XI (see Appendix D ) . Two new sections were also added (sec. 7 and 8) to grant Michigan State University equal corporate status and supervisory powers with the University of Michigan. A later court decision involving Michigan State University reaffirmed that the purpose of these constitu­ tional provisions was to remove the colleges and Sterling v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 110, Mich. 369 (1896). "interest fund" was simply amended to read, "funds," which, in effect, made the board of regents powers of control over University of Michigan funds all inclusive. 78 universities from the influence of the legislature. In the words of the court: The State board of agriculture stands on the same constitutional footing as the board of regents of the University. The progress which our University has made is due in large measure to the fact that the framers of the Constitution of 1850 wisely provided against legislative interference by placing its exclusive management in the hands of a constitu­ tional board elected by the people. The underlying idea is that the best results would be attained by centering the responsibility in one body independent of the legislature and answerable only to the people. See Sterling v. Regents of University, 110 Mich. 382 (34 L.R.A. 150). For this reason the Constitution gave the regents the absolute management of the University, and the exclusive control of all funds received for its use. The court has so declared in numerous decisions. People v. Regents of University, 4 Mich. 98; Weinberg v. Regents of University, 97 Mich. 254; Sterling v. Regents of University supra; Regents of University v. Auditor General, 167 Mich. 444./ An amendment to the constitution of 1908 was officially ratified by the citizens of Michigan at the biennial spring election of 1959 (April 6), which placed Wayne State University on the same constitutional basis as Q the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. The new section adding Wayne State University (sec. 16) and all articles and sections cited in this State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, 226 Mich. 417 (1924). Q Michigan, Constitution (1908), Article XI, Sec. 16. 79 chapter appear in Appendix D at the end of this volume for easy reference. Finally, the constitution of 1963 granted this special constitutional status to all of the four-year state supported colleges and universities of Michigan--to the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, Eastern Michigan University, Western Michigan University, Northern Michigan University, Central Michigan University, Michigan Technological University, Ferris State College, and Grand Valley State College--"by whatever names such institutions may hereafter be known, and other institutions of higher education established by law." q Saginaw Valley College (1965), Lake Superior State College (1969), and Oakland University (1970) were estab­ lished after this date, and automatically were covered by this provision. In the constitution of 1963 the provisions of the 1850 and 1908 constitutions, relating to the University of Michigan and Michigan State, as well as the 1959 amendment relating to Wayne State University, were all consolidated into one provision (sec. 5). All other institutions were ^Michigan, Constitution (1963), Article VIII, Sec. 4. 80 covered under section 6 of the new constitution. Each governing board was declared "a body corporate," and endowed with the authority to supervise its respective school and to control and direct the expenditure of its funds. By the use of the same language as that which appeared in the 1850 and 1908 constitutions the delegates to the 1963 constitutional convention clearly intended to perpetuate the principle of constitutional autonomy as stated in the earlier constitutions and as defined by Michigan's highest court over many years. Even as the board of regents of the University of Michigan was once declared, "the highest form of juristic person known to the law, a constitutional corporation of independent authority, which authority within the scope of its functions, is co-ordinate with and equal to that of the legislature,"'*'® so too must all boards of control now be considered under the provisions of the 1963 constitution. Their powers are absolute. No legislative statute is powerful enough to change their constitutional status, nor 10 Regents of the University v. Auditor General, 167 Mich. 444 (1911). 81 has a constitutional amendment been passed to alter their legal powers. Legislation on annual operating appropriations and general finance Nearly two-thirds (207) of the 328 acts analyzed in this chapter were appropriations acts of one kind or another. And sixty percent of these appropriations acts fell into the category of annual operating and general finance legislation. The State has served as the major source of support for most of the colleges and universities from the time of their establishment as state institutions. The University of Michigan and Michigan State University were also depend­ ent upon the support of the federal government through land grants in their formative years (dependence on the federal government has never really ceased, although the methods and degrees of support have). The University of Michigan, as it is known today in its Ann Arbor location, was founded under an act of Congress in 1826 which made an appropriation of lands for the support of a university in this state. The actual appropriation was made ten years later by another act of Congress in which it was provided: 82 That the 72 sections of land (almost fifty thousand acres) set apart and reserved for the use and support of an university by an act of Congress approved May 20, 1826, are hereby granted and conveyed to the State, to be appropriated solely to the use and support of such university. (5 U.S. Stat. at Large, 59) Michigan's first state constitution (1835) con­ tained a section which stipulated that: The legislature shall take measures for the protec­ tion, improvement, or other disposition of such lands as have been or may hereafter be reserved or granted by the United States to this State for the support of a university, and the funds accruing from the rents or sale of such lands, or from any other source for the purpose aforesaid, shall be and remain a permanent fund for the support of said university, with such branches as the public con­ venience may hereafter demand for the promotion of literature, the arts and sciences, and as may be authorized by the terms of such grant. And it shall be the duty of the legislature, as soon as may be, to provide effectual means for the improve­ ment and permanent security of the funds of said uni vers i ty. ^ By subsequent acts of the legislature, the lands were sold, and the State received the proceeds which were made a permanent fund for the support of the University. This fund came to be known as the "University Fund," or "University Interest Fund," and served as the University's principal source of support for several years. 11 Sec. 5. Michigan, Constitution This (1835), Article 10, 83 precedent was followed by all states entering the Union after 1837, according to S h a w . ^ Only four acts were passed between 1851 and 1867 which provided for the support of the University. Each directed that the University Interest Fund be credited with the amount of interest accrued at designated intervals. By 1867 the Fund no longer adequately met the growing needs of the University, so a new system of support was introduced to augment this income. An annual assess­ ment was made upon the taxable property of the State. When collected, it was paid by the state treasurer to the regents of the University in the same manner as the interest on the University Fund. The sum of one-twentieth of a mill on each assessed taxable dollar was the first "mill tax" to be assigned to the University. Thereafter the amount was increased from time to time until 1941 when the last appropriations act was passed with a mill tax designation in it for the Univer­ sity of Michigan--83/100th of a mill with a maximum of $4,804,000 (PA 255). Thereafter the legislature began making annual dollar appropriations, which continues to be York: 12 Wilfred Shaw, The University of Michigan Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920), p. 12. (New 84 the system used to support the state colleges and univer­ sities today. Not unlike the University of Michigan, Michigan State University really got its start after the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 was passed by the United States Congress. Each state was entitled to 30,000 acres of public lands (or land scrips equal to that amount) for each senator and representative under the apportionment of 1860. ■**"* Michigan's share was 240,000 acres. These grants of lands were made under the condition that: . . . all moneys derived from the sale of lands afore­ said by the States to which lands are apportioned and from the sales of land scrip hereinbefore provided for shall be invested in bonds of the United States or of the States or some other safe bonds; or the same may be invested by the States having no State bonds in any manner after the legislatures of each States shall have assented thereto and engaged that such funds shall yield a fair and reasonable rate of return to be fixed by the State legislatures, and that the principal thereof shall forever remain unimpaired: Provided, that the moneys so invested or loaned shall constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which shall remain forever undiminished . . . and the interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated, by each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University: A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p. 252. 85 military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.^ Interest paid by the State from the sales of these lands served as Michigan State University's major source of income for some time thereafter. Although, by 1908 when Michigan State became a part of this study it too had become heavily dependent upon a state mill tax. From 1909 to 1941 its share rose from l/10th to 51/100th of a mill with a $2,950,000 maximum (FA 358). The format of the first annual appropriations act was very simple, but the ensuing appropriations acts became more complicated and quite extensive (see Appendix E for a comparison of three appropriations acts). The legislature began to attach conditions on the annual appropriations acts with the very first such act. Public Act 59 of 1867 contained a proviso that the regents: . . . carry into effect the law which provides that there shall always be at least one professor of homeo­ pathy in the department of medicine, and appoint said professor . . . ^Morrill Act of 1862, section 4 (as amended April 13, 1926, 44 Stat. L 247). 86 Apparently the legislature found it difficult to adjust to the newly defined independence of the University as provided by the Constitution of 1850. Until that time the legislature was free to take an active part in the internal affairs of the University, and did so, even to the point of appointing the faculty and establishing various academic departments. This kind of intensive involvement, of course, led to the constitutional change of 1850, as was established earlier. Placing conditions on appropriations soon became the rule rather than the exception for the legislature. Moreover, another form of conditioning became popular toward the end of the century. The legislature would line- item portions or all of an appropriation, e.g., earmark $2,500 for library books, $8,200 for the homeopathic college, and $1,200 for the dental college. Some of the most detailed line-itemizing appeared in the appropriations acts between 1877 and 1891. Each major segment of the University was noted in these acts and allocated a portion of the total appropriation (see PA 185 of 1877 in Appendix E, wherein each professor was desig­ nated by area). 87 The appropriations acts in later years left no question as to the intentions of the legislature. They contained the stipulation that, "Each of the amounts appropriated shall be used solely for the respective purposes herein stated." Typical of some of the conditions the legislature placed upon appropriations around the turn of the century are the following: The appropriations in Public Act 19 of 1893, Public Act 102 of 1899, and Public Act 303 of 1907 all were made with the provision that— . . . the board of regents of the University shall maintain at all times a sufficient corps of instruc­ tors in all the departments of said University as at present constituted, shall afford proper means and facilities for instruction and graduation in each department of said University, and shall make a fair and equitable division of the funds provided for the support of the University in accord with the wants and needs of said departments as they shall become apparent (departments are then named). Public Act 19 and Public Act 102 also contained a penalty clause for emphasis just in case the board of regents failed to get the message — Should the board of regents fail to maintain any of said departments herein provided, then at such time shall only one-twentieth of a mill be so assessed (after having just increased the fraction of a mill to 1/6 in PA 19 and 1/4 in PA 102). 88 Public Act 324 of 1913 contained the following proviso in Michigan State University's appropriation-No part of this or any other appropriation shall be available in case a sum in excess of thirty-five thousand dollars from any or all sources, shall be expended in any one fiscal year for the maintenance of the mechanical and engineering department. This latter condition was challenged and ended up in the supreme court where it was found to be unconstitu­ tional because legislature.1 . . it exceeded the power of the This court decision apparently had some impact on the legislature for it refrained from attaching any further conditions on the operating appropriations acts for several years. There continued to be the usual require­ ment for an annual accounting to the State, of course, and a clause or two on how the money was to be collected and disbursed, but no condition so direct an imposition of the legislature's will upon the colleges and universities as those referenced above. This "reprieve" was short-lived, however. The legislature discontinued the mill tax formula approach to subsidizing operating budgets and began to make annual dollar-amount appropriations in 1947. 15 State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, 180 Mich. 349 (1914). 89 The change in method of financing brought with it a change in legislative format. The annual operating appropriation for all colleges and universities were hence­ forth made in a single public act, whereas former appro­ priations to the University of Michigan and Michigan State University were typically made in separate public acts. The first half of the act named the individual colleges and universities and specified the amount of their respec­ tive appropriations (including any line-item provisions). The second half (the narrative, or "boilerplate" portion) contained the conditions, directives, instructions, or provisos upon which the legislature made these appropria­ tions . Because of the similarities in format and boiler­ plate content of the annual operating appropriations acts between 1947 and 1970, it was possible to design a table to illustrate the different kinds and numbers of conditions placed upon these appropriations (see Table 1 below). To assist the reader comprehend the abbreviations used for the list of conditions in the table, Public Act 83 °f 1970 was included in Appendix E. While there were language changes from one year to the next the basic con­ tent remained the same, thus Public Act 83 is illustrative I TABLE 1 CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE ANNUAL OPERATING APPROPRIATIONS ACTS, 19T O -I947 ( L o c a te d In Che L anguage S e c ti o n o f Each A c t) Year 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 194B 1947 Public Act Number Act Contained Llne-ltem Appropriations 83 155 311 240 285 117 259 176 232 188 159 133 224 306 208 278 211 216 191 272 32 x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 316 22 X 304 X • Condition! • 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. G. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 3536. 37. 38. 39. Payment! In 12 monthly initallaent* Expenditures ulthln appropriations Notify legislators of distribution Used solely forpurposes stated Enrollment statistics required Fed/private funds,no state obllga No special orexpansionof program* Lobbying activities prohibited Overhead Income treated as reduct. Tuition incr.treated as reduction Tuition charges suggested Deficit budgeting prohibited No branch Institutionsnaybeestab. Construct, of buildings prohibited Self-llquldatlng projects;approval Annual accountingoffunds required Campus Incidents must be reported Nonresident enrollment limitations) Nonresidents must pay 75Zof cost Valver of tuition and fee* prohlb Revenues short, allotment* reduced Student offenders forfeit fin. aid Convictedpersons Ineligible; appro Possession of firearms prohibited Ulllful student damage;must expel! Kin. faculty contacthrs. Indicated Approprla.reduced Ifbelou HES est Continuingappropriationssuperseded Pro rata reduction payment Restricted rev. acc'ts; expenditure L’ nexpend/unencuabered bal. reverts Unclassified6classified positions Civil Service; retirement fund Transfer of appropriation,approval Closed-clrcult TV revenues; reduct. Reapproprlatlon of prev. yrt. bal. Private audits prohlb.v/o approval Title of chancellor prohibited Foodstuffs only soldonpublicprop. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X \o X X X X o X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 91 of the conditions which typically appeared in these appropriations acts. Moreover, this particular act con­ tained a larger number of conditions in it than any other annual operating appropriations act. Many of these same conditions appeared in the mental health operating appropriations acts, which included allocations for the University of Michigan’s Neuropsychi­ atric Institute. Similar conditions were also attached to the appropriations for the Veteran’s Readjustment Center at the University of Michigan, and to an occasional supple­ mentary appropriations made by the legislature to augment various regular programs, or for new or special programs. The 1962 annual operating appropriations act (Public Act 232) contained two additional conditions, which were not indicated on Table 1, directed specifically at Michigan State University. They were: Sec. 16. Recognizing the board of trustees of Michigan State University of Agriculture and applied science as having general supervision of Michigan State University and the direction and control of its funds; nevertheless, as a condition of appropri­ ating funds to the university under this act, no portion of such appropriation shall be used to maintain or continue the industries and labor rela­ tions center or any center or school of a similar nature. Sec. 17. It is the intention of the legislature that the board of trustees of Michigan State Univer­ sity not establish a medical education program 92 beyond a two-year program in human biology leading toward either a Ph.D. or an M.D. degree unless authorized by the legislature. Obviously the legislature did not recognize (or chose not to) the full meaning and implications of the board of trustees' power and authorities, even though it claimed to have, for the attorney general ruled this condi­ tion (sec. 16) to be unconstitutional. In his words, . . . the provisions of Act 232, PA 1962 . . . demand that the Board of Trustees of the university abdicate its constitutional authority to manage and control the university in return for the appropria­ tion. While it is true that the condition relates only to the industries and labor relations center or any center or school of a similar nature, if the limitations contained in Sec. 16 are valid, the legislature could impose other conditions of a similar nature and thus wrest exclusive control and sole management of all the funds of the university from its constitutionally designated governing body. It is entirely possible that the legislature deliberately chose to test the powers of one of the gov­ erning boards of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities, as it does from time to time with other legislation, to determine what, if any, changes had occurred in the interpretation of the cons t ‘.cutional provision over the years. No. 4090. The attorney general's opinion, Michigan, Report of the Attorney General, 1961-62, ------- 93 as the legislature learned, remained consistent with the decisions rendered by the Michigan Supreme Court in the past. Every appropriations condition ever tested in Michigan's highest court was decided in favor of the col­ leges and universities, e.g., see Regents of the Univer­ sity v. Auditor General, (supra p. 80); State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, (supra p. 88) ; and Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, (supra p. 78) . The legislature did not always abide by attorney general's opinions, however, as was evident in a 1956 decision. Senate Bill No. 1432 contained the provision that all self-liquidating projects had to have the prior approval of the legislature as a condition upon acceptance of the appropriation. The attorney general was asked to rule on this condition before it became law. In his opinion, this condition was "beyond the power of the legis­ lature to i m p o s e . T h e bill was passed by both houses nevertheless, and became Public Act 208 under the signature of the governor. Michigan, Report of the Attorney General, 1956, p. 262. 94 The same conclusion was reached by two succeeding attorney generals on the very same question, 18 ° but that condition has continued in the colleges and universities r appropriations even to this day. By placing conditions on appropriations, the legis­ lature actually attempted to accomplish indirectly what it was constrained from doing directly. As Chambers put it, "Control of the budget, especially of a minutely detailed ’line item1 budget, is nothing less than control of educational policy at the institutional level." 19 If ever there remained a question in the minds of legislators as to who was in charge of the appropriated funds to the colleges and universities, it wasn't because the courts were undecided. Over the years the courts repeatedly ruled that the governing boards of each college and university had.been granted exclusive control of these funds by constitutional mandate. Consider: . . . when the State appropriates money to the University it passes to the regents and becomes the property of the University, to be expended under 18 See Opinion No. 3369, December 30, 1958 and Opinion No. 4420, April 15, 1965. 19 M. M. Chambers, Voluntary Statewide Coordination in Public Higher Education (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1961), p. x. 95 the exclusive direction of the regents, and passes beyond the control of the State through its legis­ lative department . . . . . . it (constitution of 1850) takes away from the legislature all control over the income from that fund (University Interest Fund) . . . The power to control these expenditures cannot be exercised directly or indirectly by the legislature. It is vested in the board of regents in absolute and unqualified terms. The State board of agriculture has exclusive control of the general funds of the Michigan agriculture college. . . . it is beyond the power of the legislature to control the (board's) use of the funds . . . . . . when the money appropriated passes into the hands of the State board of agriculture, it becomes college property . . .^4 While the courts left little room for debate on the question of who was in charge of the appropriated funds, they were less than decisive on whether the legislature had 20 Weinberg v. Regents of the University, 97 Mich. 246 (1893). 21 Sterling, loc. cit. 22 Bauer v. State Board of Agriculture, 146 Mich. 415 (1911). 23 State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, 180 Mich. 349 (1914). 24 State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, 226 Mich. 417 (1924). 96 the authority to even attach conditions to the appro­ priations of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities. The confusion began with a decision rendered in the Weinberg case back in 1893. The court had ruled that: In making appropriations for its (University of Michigan) support the legislature may attach any condition it may deem expedient and wise, and the regents cannot receive the appropriation without complying with the conditions. This has been done in several instances. 5 This decision established a precedent for subse­ quent decisions, which only served to compound the issue: Some legislatures have attached conditions--and they have the undoubted right to do so . . . That conditions may be attached by the legislature to appropriations for the University is well settled. In such case the regents may accept or reject such appropriation, as they see fit. If they accept, the conditions are binding upon them. ' Neither the legislature nor any officer or board of the State may interfere with the affairs and property of the university or the Michigan Agriculture College, although in making appropriations for its support the legislature may attach conditions that it deems expedient, and the appropriation cannot be received without complying with the expressed conditions.2® Weinberg, loc. cit. 26 27 28 Sterling, loc. cit. Regents, loc. cit. Michigan Agriculture College v. Agler, 181 Mich. 559 (1914). 97 The inconsistencies in some of these early deci­ sions seem very obvious in retrospect. But it took many years of trying to implement seemingly rational decisions before their incongruence was fully recognized. Although the court allowed that the legislature had the authority to attach conditions to these appropriations acts, never did the Supreme Court of Michigan uphold a condition so attached which could in any way be construed to infringe on the powers of the governing boards in the management and control of their respective institutions. Justice Grant, in the Sterling case, pointed to some of the pitfalls in permitting legislatures to attach conditions to appropriations: Some legislatures have attached conditions . . . to appropriations for the support of the University, and a subsequent legislature has removed the conditions . . . What permanency would there be in an institution thus subject to the caprice and will of every legislature? " These were the kinds of problems the framers of the constitution had hoped to avoid by granting the colleges and universities constitutional autonomy. It soon became apparent that to grant the legisla­ ture the right to attach conditions to appropriations for 29 Sterling, loc. cit. 98 the colleges and universities the governing boards of these institutions were being asked to compromise their constitu­ tional mandates. The court finally settled the question in 1924 when Michigan State University challenged a condition placed on its appropriation the previous year (Public Act 308). This case probably presented the best discussion of the legality of conditioning appropriations acts of any to date. It included a strong dissenting opinion in a decision which held the condition in question to be "in conflict with the Constitution." Justice MacDonald spoke for the majority in declaring that: The language used in some previous decisions of this court in reference to this question (conditioning) seems to have been misunderstood. For instance, the following: "In making appropriations for its support, the legislature may attach any condition it may deem expedient and wise, and the regents cannot receive the appropriation without complying with the conditions. Weinberg v. Regents of University, 97 Mich. 246, 254." Clearly, in saying that the legislature can attach to an appropriation any condition which it may deem expedient and wise, the court had in mind only such a condition as the legislature had power to make. It did not mean that a condition could be imposed that would be an invasion of the constitutional rights and powers of the governing board of the college. It did not mean to say that, in order to avail itself of the money appropriated, the State board of 99 agriculture must turn over to the legislature management and control of the college, or of any of its activities. This logically leads us to a consideration of the character of the condition attached to the appropriation involved in the instant case. Is it a condition that the legisla­ ture had power to make?^ Justice MacDonald's question remains for every legislature to answer prior to attaching any condition to public acts affecting the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities. No court decision has since been rendered which would in any way modify or compromise this legal test. Yet, the number of conditions which the legislature annually placed on the colleges and universities' appro­ priations since that decision more than quadrupled over the years (see Table 1) . Of even greater importance than numbers, however, was the kinds of conditions the legisla­ ture added. A quick review of the thirty-nine different conditions listed on Table 1 of this chapter, followed by a thorough reading of Public Act 83 of 1970 as found in Appendix E leaves no question as to the degree of legisla­ tive influence on the educational policies of these colleges and universities. State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, 226 Mich. 417 (1924). 100 Moreover, the legislature has had a very decided influence on the internal allocations of funds by lineitemizing certain programs, or, as in Public Act 83 of 1970, the entire appropriation by functional categories. As a consequence, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University have collectively filed a lawsuit against the State protesting many of these conditions as violations of their respective authorities as granted by the state constitution. Among the conditions currently being contested are (it should be noted that certain revisions are made from time to time to be more inclusive and to add additional acts as they are enacted): 1. Line-item appropriations PA 83 of 1970, sec. 1 2. The state budget director was forbidden from disbursing appropriated funds until reports about campus incidents were filed by the colleges and universities. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 2 (e) 3. The establishment of branch institutions was prohibited PA 311 of 1968, sec. 4 PA 240 of 1967, sec. 8 The establishment of new programs or the expansion of existing programs was prohibited. PA 8 3 of 1970, sec. 2 (g) PA 311 of 1968', sec. 4 PA 240 of 1967, sec. 8 Tuition increases were to be deducted from the appropriations if announced after a designated date each year. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 2 (k) Student tuition fees were prescribed. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 2 (k) Overhead income from all sources was to be treated as deductions from the gross appro­ priations . PA 83 of 1970, sec. 2 (i) PA 311 of 1968, sec. 8 PA 240 of 1967, sec. 17 The construction of buildings with operating funds was prohibited. PA 311 of 1968, sec. 4 PA 240 of 1967, sec. 8 The letting of any contract for construction of any self-liquidating project was prohibited without prior legislative approval. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 3 (b) PA 311 of 1968, sec. 5 PA 240 of 1967, sec. 13 102 10. Universities with enrollments of out-of-state students in excess of 20 percent of their current total enrollment were prohibited from adding more. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 5 PA 311 of 1968, sec. 8 PA 240 of 1967, sec. 17 11. Universities were required to charge out-ofstate students tuition equal to approximately 75 percent of the actual cost of instruction. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 5 12. The waiver or modification of tuition or other student fees was prohibited. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 6 PA 311 of 1968, sec. 9 PA 240 of 1967, sec. 18 13. The payment of any salary or wages to any faculty member or other employee from appro­ priated funds, or for the education of students convicted of certain offenses was prohibited. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 9 14. Any student who caused willful damage to public property on campus was to PA 83 of 1970, sec. 11 be expelled. 103 15. A minimum number of classroom contact hours was prescribed for faculty members. PA 83 of 1970, sec. 12 16. The last quarterly payments made to the colleges and universities was to be adjusted on the basis of actual vs. estimated FYES enrollments. PA 311 of 1968, sec. 2 Even as extensive as this list appears, there were many conditions which the legislature attached to the appropriations of the colleges and universities which were not cited in this lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed with the Ingham County Circuit Court, but is destined for the Supreme Court of Michigan if actually pursued. Thus far the universities have been less than enthusiastic about pursuing it because of anticipated legislative reprisal. Moreover, if pursued and won (as is expected in view of past court decisions) the universities would expect to win no more than a Pyrrhic victory. Legislation on capital outlay appropriations The legislature also made appropriations to the colleges and universities for various capital outlay needs. 104 Among them were: land acquisitions, the planning, con­ structing and equipping of new buildings, remodeling, renovations, and some maintenance projects. During the early years of this study the income from the University Interest Fund supported both operating and capital outlay programs. The same was true of the mill tax years, although the legislature began making very specific line-item allocations between 1877 and 1891, much like Public Act 185 of 1877 found in Appendix E. Equip­ ment, repairs, room enlargements, and site acquisitions were all carefully detailed with individual appropriations. During the next thirty to thirty-five years capital outlay appropriations were hardly distinguishable from the biennial operating appropriations. Except for the proviso that "no buildings or repairs shall commence until savings in this fund are sufficient to complete the project," 31 one might have thought that these appropriations were intended for operating programs only. Eventually the demands for new or expanded facilities grew to such proportions that the legislature decided to enact separate legislation just for capital 31 See for example, PA 303 of 1907, PA 114 of 1915, PA 247 of 1921, and PA 308 of 1923. 105 outlay programs. Like the operating appropriations acts, the legislature began by enacting separate legislation for each institution, and later (1929 f) combined all capital outlay appropriations for the colleges and univer­ sities under a single act. This practice continues to this day (1970). Even though the capital outlay appropriations were separated from the operating appropriations, the legisla­ ture attached many of the same general conditions to both, e.g., "use solely for purposes stated, provide an annual accounting of funds, keep expenditures within the limits of the appropriations, and return any and all excesses to the general fund." While these conditions seem less prohibitive from the standpoint of their effect on educational policies, nevertheless their potential for influence, if but indi­ rectly, was the basis for a lawsuit in 1924. The legisla­ ture had appropriated funds to Michigan State University "for carrying on the co-operative agricultural extension work . . . " in Public Act 308 of 1923 under the condition that "Each of said accounts shall be used solely for the specific purposes herein stated, subject to the general supervisory control of the State administrative board." 106 The court made a very interesting ruling in this case. It held that the condition was unconstitutional, but in doing so, it conceded that this was a condition the legislature could appropriately make. It was the imple­ mentation of the condition which the court would not allow: . . . the State board of agriculture is entitled to the appropriation subject to the condition that it shall be used for the purpose specified. It is the undoubted right of the administrative board to see that the condition is complied with . . . It has been suggested that only by following the fund into the hands of the board of agriculture can the administrative board compel a compliance with the condition as to the manner of its expenditures . . . when the money appropriated passes into the hands of the State board of agriculture, it becomes college property, and is thereafter under the exclusive control of that board but must be used for the purpose for which it was granted. The proper method of compelling a compliance with the condition that the money shall be expended for the purpose specified will readily suggest itself to the administrative board and its legal advisor. This particular decision dramatized the fine line which separated the legislature's powers from those of the university governing boards in the eyes of the court. The legislature was acting within its right to subject appro­ priations to the colleges and universities to any condition within its powers. However, the minute these appropriations State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, 226 Mich. 417 (1924). 107 were turned over to the governing boards there was no way the legislature could force compliance (although the court seemed to imply there was a subtle way of getting around this limitation) . Moreover, the court made it very clear in this decision that the legislature could not delegate authority which it did not itself possess to another state agency. Good business practice and a more efficient state system of finance aside, The Agricultural College and the University of Michigan are constitutionally immune from such legislation . . . The business policy and manage­ ment of all of the affairs of the college belongs to the State board of agriculture. The people, speaking through their Constitution, have so decreed.^ Here again, as with the operating appropriations, the courts were very decisive about the separate powers of the legislature and the governing boards. Yet, capital outlay appropriations in succeeding years were subjected to larger numbers and more restrictive conditions than ever before. For example: Public Act 324 of 1929 and Public Act 382 of 1941 authorized the state administrative board to supervise all construction and the equipping of buildings; capital outlay appropriations acts between 1954 33 Ibid. 108 and 1961 authorized the state department of administration to let construction bids; and Public Act 237 of 1962 and Public Act 243 of 1963 authorized the state controller to award all contracts after excepting the colleges and universities from this provision in the previous year. The majority of these conditions were designed to assist the legislature carry out a more efficient and effective state capital outlay program. They were not unique to the colleges and universities per se. Rather, these conditions were part of a national move around mid­ twentieth century to modernize state government, which usually resulted in greater administrative centralization. Typical of the legislation initiated during this movement were the "preliminary studies and planning" acts. First introduced by the legislature in 1963, and passed in each successive year from 1965 to the present, these acts appropriated money to the Department of Administration rather than to the colleges and universities to complete the necessary details and information required to "define and justify" capital outlay requests. While this system of centralized planning may have had merit from the standpoint of efficient state govern­ ment, the legislature apparently overlooked the court's 109 ruling in State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, (supra, p. 107), wherein the colleges and universities were decreed "constitutionally immune from such legislation® M The legislature had inadvertently (if not delib­ erately) substituted the judgment of another state agency for that of the respective governing boards in passing the preliminary studies acts, as it had in authorizing other state agencies to supervise construction, let construction bids, and award contracts. Such action was declared unconstitutional in Regents of the University v. Auditor General, 167 Mich. 444 (1911) and State Board of Agricul­ ture v. Auditor General, (supra) . Here again, the three major universities, the Uni­ versity of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University, have acquiesced to this legislation under protest until the lawsuit now before the court (des­ cribed earlier) is decided. Public Act 124 of 1965, the first preliminary studies and planning act in a series, was cited in the lawsuit together with Public Act 310 of 1966 and Public Act 244 of 1967. It is noteworthy that the legislature attached a non severability clause to the preliminary studies and 110 planning acts which read: It is the intent of the legislature that, should any portion of this act be found unconstitutional, the entire act shall be void. Apparently it had some notion that these acts would or could be declared unconstitutional. Through the lawsuit, the court is being asked once again to rule on the division of powers between the legis­ lature and the governing boards of the colleges and universities. Legislation on the es tabli shment and governance of the colleges and universities During the 120 years covered by this study, the legislature enacted approximately three dozen public acts which were concerned with the establishment, management, and regulation of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities. Many of these acts were simply extensions and/or implementations of certain constitutional provisions i.e., the terms of office, duties, organization, and powers of the governing boards were defined; election procedures were outlined; and, regulatory and management policies were Ill brought into line with the corporate status of the colleges and universities. Constitutional changes necessitated the repeal or appropriate revision of obsolescent laws. Nearly a third of the acts in this category were passed during the second extra legislative session of 1963, following the adoption of the new state constitution. All of Michigan's four-year state supported colleges and universities were granted constitutional autonomy by the constitution of 1963, thus resulting in a number of changes in the laws. In only one of these public acts did the legisla­ ture attempt to directly influence educational policy. Following the constitutional change of 1908, when Michigan State University was constitutionally incorporated, the legislature passed an act (PA 269 of 1909) to change the name of Michigan State University from "the State Agricul­ tural College" to "Michigan Agricultural College." This act did more than change the name of the school, however. It required the faculty to "pass all rules and regulations necessary to the government and dis­ cipline of the college and for the preservation of morals, decorum, and health . . . " It also put the faculty in 112 charge of the laboratories, library, and museums, and detailed exactly who should constitute the faculty. These provisions (sections 13, 14, and 15) were declared unconstitutional by the state's attorney general, "as an invasion by the legislature of exclusive authority of the state board of agriculture over the agricultural college. In another ruling on this subject, the attorney general opined that the state board of agriculture was without power to change the name of the college. legislature had this power. 35 Only the However, if the legislature chose to change the college's name it could do so only if it did not at the same time alter or change the nature of the college.^ Three colleges and universities were established by law in recent years and one school of osteopathic medicine: Saginaw Valley College in 1965 (PA 278) , Lake Superior State College in 1969 (PA 26), Oakland University in 1970 (PA 35), and the school of osteopathic medicine in 1969 (PA 162). The establishment of the school of osteopathic 34 Michigan, Report of the Attorney General, 1955-56, No. 2227, p. 721. 35Ibid. , 1952-54, No. 1760, p. 312 and 1955-56, No. 2037, p. 157. 36 Ibid., 1955-56, No. 1996, p. 181. 113 medicine was an interesting phenomenon, involving direct legislative influence in an indirect manner. After years of unsuccessful lobbying, the osteo­ pathic profession finally won legislative approval for state support of the school. In doing so, certain compro­ mises and general agreements were negotiated between the profession and the legislature, i.e., the school would have to be located at one of the established universities, but would have its own advisory board appointed by the governor and would be headed by an osteopathic physician serving as dean. The potential conflict of authority between such an advisory board and the governing board of one of the colleges and universities is obvious. However, when estab­ lishing this school and prescribing the administrative arrangements as well as the qualifications for the dean, the legislature chose not to designate its location. Instead, it authorized the state board of education to locate the school "at an existing campus of a state univer­ sity with an existing school or college of medicine" (sec. 1), which meant the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, or Michigan State University, of course. 114 If any one of these universities wanted the School of Osteopathy, it had to accept it on the terms of the Act. Accordingly, there was very little room for "unconstitu­ tional" charges. rejected. Either the offer was accepted or Michigan State University accepted (it should also be noted that the other two universities prepared solicitous proposals). Legislation on the conveyance, sale, or transfer of land/property Eight public acts were enacted by the legislature which either authorized the colleges and universities to purchase or sell lands, or which transferred or conveyed land and/or property to the universities. While these particular public acts were never contested in the courts, a number of court decisions were rendered over the years which clearly established the governing boards' right to take, hold, and convey property, "for any purpose clearly tending to promote the interest of the university, or any way further the public objects for which the corporation was created. "37 37 Moreover, it was Regents v. Detroit Young Men's Society, 12 Mich. 138 (1863), also see Michigan, Report of the Attorney General. 1907, p. 104. 115 ruled that the governing boards could accomplish these transactions without securing legislative authorization. 38 The courts also ruled, in the case of the People v. Brooks, that while the regents of the University of Michigan, as a body corporate, was: . . . a separate entity, independent of the state as to the management and control of the university and its property, it (was) nevertheless a depart­ ment of the state government, created by the constitution to perform state functions, and the real estate which it holds, or acquires, is public property belonging to the state, held by the corporation in trust for the purposes of the univer­ sity, which are public purposes. ^ Under these conditions this property was declared exempt from taxation. In no other capacity were the colleges and univer­ sities considered "a department of the state." The court made this fact perfectly clear in Glass v. Dudley Paper Company: The governing bodies of the universities are vested with the entire control and management of affairs and property of those institutions to the exclusion 38 Michigan, Report of the Attorney General, 192628, p. 777. 39 People v. Brooks, 224 Mich. 45 (1923), also see Auditor General v. Regents of the University, 83 Mich. 467 (1890) and Lucking v. People, 320 Mich. 495 (1948). 116 of all departments of state government from any interference therewith.^0 Legislation on the establishment and operation of educational programs and curriculum The legislature influenced the educational policies of the colleges and universities most directly by enacting approximately twenty-five public acts which provided for the establishment and operation of a number of programs within the institutions, and which prescribed or regulated certain curriculum courses. Ranging all the way from the establishment of a professorship in homeopathy at the University of Michigan in 1855 (PA 100) to a highway traffic safety center at Michigan State University in 1955 (PA 9), the legislature established ten different operational programs on the campuses of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities through the legislative process in 120 years. While it is impossible to document this statement by only examining public acts and court decisions, it would appear that the colleges and universities were not opposed to the establishment of most of these programs on their 40 (1962). Glass v. Dudley Paper Company, 365 Mich. 227 117 campuses and may even have promoted the idea for their establishment, e.g., the joint establishment of the Institute of Gerontology by the University of Michigan and Wayne State University in 1965 (PA 245). The one program which was not solicited by the university through the legislature, however, was the pro­ fessorship in homeopathy at the University of Michigan in the mid 1850's. It wasn't so much that the University of Michigan did not want this program, as it was a determina­ tion by the University to decide for itself when or if it should or would establish such a program. The legislature apparently felt otherwise. In 1855 the legislature passed an act (PA 100) which outlined the duties and powers of the regents, after which it subjected these powers to the provision, "that there will always be at least one professor of homeopathy in the department of medicine." This was done, according to the legislature, because the regents had repeatedly neglected and refused to make such an appointment under its previous directions. Ruling that the interests of the University were entrusted to the judgment and discretion of the regents, the court denied a mandamus to compel the appointment of 118 such a professor on two different o c c a s i o n s W h e r e u p o n the legislature passed another act in 1873 (PA 63) which provided for the appointment of two professors of homeo­ pathy— one in theory and the other in materia medica. Again the court refused to compel the regents to comply with this act.^2 Disagreement over the homeopathic college did not end there. In Public Act 257 of 1895 the legislature directed the University to discontinue the existing homeo­ pathic medical college in Ann Arbor and to re-establish it in Detroit. The court made it very clear in response to this legislative act, that "the legislature has no control over the University or the board of regents."^ The court was prepared to rest its ruling on the evidence provided in the earlier Weinburg c a s e , ^ but because the plaintiff was not satisfied that the case 41 See Regents of University of Michigan v. People ex rel Drake, 4 Mich. 98 (1856) and Regents of University of Michigan v. People, 18 Mich. 469 (1869). 42 People ex rel McIntyre v. Regents of University of Michigan, 30 Mich. 473 (1874). 43 44 Sterling, loc. cit. Weinburg, loc. cit. 119 applied, the court strengthened its position by offering three additional reasons for its ruling: (1) The board of regents and the legislature derive their power from the same supreme authority, namely, the Constitution . . . They are separate and distinct constitutional bodies, with the powers of the regents defined. By no rule of construction can it be held that either can encroach upon or exercise the powers conferred upon the other. (2) The board of regents is the only corporation provided in the Constitution whose powers are defined therein. (3) . . . the intention (of the framers of the Constitution) was to place this institution in the direct and exclusive control of the people themselves, through a constitutional body elected by them. The legality of only one other public act in this category was questioned by the colleges and universities. Public Act 106 of 1954 required that political science courses of at least three semester hours were required for a degree or a diploma after June 30, 1956. The attorney general of Michigan ruled that any university receiving public funds would be expected to comply with this act.^^ The remaining public acts in this category author­ ized and regulated teacher certification programs, and 45 46 Sterling, loc. cit. Michigan, Report of the Attorney General, 1952-54, No. 1787, p. 345. 120 outlined the procedures for admissions of the University of Michigan graduates into the practice of law. Legislation on personnel matters Only eight public acts were enacted by the legisla­ ture which had as their central concern the employees of the colleges and universities. 1930 and 1968. All were enacted between Two public acts were passed during the thirties requiring the faculty to take an oath to support the U.S. constitution. The others authorized the governing boards to establish optional retirement programs and to extend social security coverage to their employees. Legislation on the operations of the University of Michigan hospitals Another couple dozen public acts were enacted by the legislature which required the University of Michigan hospitals to observe certain state regulations and proce­ dures in the operation of their respective programs. Authorizations were given to obtain, transport, and dissect cadavers. Strict record keeping and procedures for notifying the nearest of kin were required. Several acts contained very detailed procedures for the admission, treatment, and crediting of indigents and crippled or 121 dependent children. Other public acts required an accounting of all medicines furnished to patients, and defined the bases and procedures for the sterilization of inmates. None of these public acts were contested by the University of Michigan for interference by the state with the internal affairs or policies of the University. Except in an unusual case (as with the Neuropsychiatric Hospital), the University of Michigan hospitals were typically not singled out for special legislative consideration. Legislation on miscellaneous matters Finally, the legislature passed a number of public acts which didn't fit into any of the categories above. Included among these acts were: a requirement that the state supreme court reports be filed with the University of Michigan library; authorization for students to be employed in the dental school; authorization for the governing boards to make rules to protect their respective properties; authorization for Michigan State University to pave designated streets; authorization for the University of Michigan to survey Isle Royale; and twenty or so additional acts similar to these. 122 Again, while some of these acts appeared to usurp powers reserved only for the governing boards of the colleges and universities they were not legally contested— probably because this legislation was either sought by the colleges and universities or its effects were not unwelcome. Summary The Michigan constitutions of 1850, 1908, and 1963 declared the governing boards of the four-year publicly supported colleges and universities bodies corporate, placing them on an equal legal basis with that of the leg­ islature (Regents of the University v. Auditor General, supra, p. 80). Clearly, the reason for constitutionally incorpo­ rating these colleges and universities was to remove them from legislative influence (Sterling v. Regents of the University of Michigan, supra, p. 77 and State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, supra, p . 78). An analysis of just over three hundred public acts, which directly pertained to the constitutionally incorpo­ rated colleges and universities, revealed that the legisla­ ture did indeed influence the educational policies of these institutions irrespective of their constitutional status. 123 The legislature exerted its greatest influence on the colleges and universities by subjecting their appro­ priations to numerous conditions, directives, and provisos. Table 1 in this chapter listed thirty-nine different conditions which were placed by the legislature on the operating appropriations acts between 1947 and 1970. Several of these conditions were tested in the courts, and always were decided in favor of the colleges and univer­ sities, e.g., see Weinberg v. Regents of the University, (supra) ; Sterling v. Regents of the University of Michigan, (supra) ; Regents of the University v. Auditor General, (supra) ; and State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General (both 180 Mich. 349 and 226 Mich. 417) , (supra) . Nearly two-thirds of the three hundred and twentyeight public acts analyzed in this chapter were appropria­ tions acts. The remainder fell into one of six other categories (see Appendix C for a complete listing) . One of these remaining categories contained approximately two dozen public acts which provided for the establishment of programs and curriculum within the campuses of these colleges and universities. Although the acts in this category represented the most direct influence of the legislature on the educational policies of the 124 colleges and universities, they surprisingly inspired little resistance from the colleges and universities. It appeared that many of these acts may actually have been solicited by them. In the few instances where disapproval was ex­ pressed in terms of lawsuits, the courts refused to compel the colleges and universities to comply with the legisla­ tive directives in these acts, e.g., see Regents of University of Michigan v. People ex rel Drake, Regents of University of Michigan People (supra) ; v. People, (supra) ;and ex rel Meintyre v. Regents of University of Michigan, (supra) . Other public acts enacted during by the legislature this time had little or no discernible influence on the educational policies of the colleges and universities. Summarily, they carried out constitutional mandates, authorized the sale or conveyance of land or property, extended retirement benefits to college and university personnel, brought the operations of the university hospi­ tals into line with state regulations, and satisfied a number of miscellaneous needs and requests by the colleges and universities. 125 The division of powers between the legislature and the colleges and universities was an issue throughout the entire 120 years covered by this study. Beginning with Public Act 100 of 1855 and ending with the latest opera­ ting appropriations act in 1970 (PA 83) the colleges and universities and the legislature were at odds over this question. As a result, the three major universities--the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University--filed a lawsuit to protest the legislature's interference into the internal affairs of the universities. It was observed, however, that the universities displayed little enthusiasm for another court decision which they anticipate will only result in a Pyrrhic vic­ tory. Moreover, it appeared the universities were also concerned over legislative reprisal in already very stringent budget years. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this final chapter, the study is summarized, conclusions are enumerated and discussed, and implications for future research are presented. Summary The State of Michigan was the first of fewer than a dozen states to grant constitutional status to its fouryear publicly supported colleges and universities. This was accomplished in stages over the course of 114 years with the adoption of three newly revised state constitu­ tions (the constitutions of 1850, 1908, and 1963), expressly for the purpose of placing the colleges and uni­ versities beyond the direct control and influence of the state legislature. The University of Michigan was the first to be constitutionally incorporated in 1850. University was next in 1908. Michigan State Wayne State University fol­ lowed in 1959 by virtue of an amendment to the 1908 126 127 constitution. The remaining publicly supported four-year colleges and universities and all future institutions of higher education "established by law" were constitutionally incorporated with the adoption of the 1963 constitution. Institutional autonomy has historically been equated with academic freedom and institutional integrity. For institutional integrity to be safeguarded by constitu­ tional mandate has been upheld as the ideal governmental arrangement outside of status as a private institution. A nation-wide study on the relations between state univer­ sities and state governments by a committee of distin­ guished educators and statesmen concluded with the recom­ mendation that all publicly supported colleges and universities be granted constitutional autonomy in the Michigan tradition.*In view of the importance of institutional autonomy to colleges and universities, and in view of Michigan's exemplary system of maximizing autonomy within a formal governmental structure, this study was devised to examine Michigan's actual experience with that system. 1 The Committee on Government and Higher Education, The Efficiency of Freedom (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1959); and Malcolm Moos and Francis E. Rourke, The Campus and the State (Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1959) . 128 The literature was examined for clues to research methodology and for general insight into the problem. comparable study was found on the subject. No Moreover, research on politics and higher education was found to have been relatively recent in development. Early cautions against associating higher education with politics were apparently so strong they tended to discourage research on the subj ec t . In an effort to avoid the limitations of other research methodologies and further straining relations between the colleges and universities and the legislature, while at the same time presenting a comprehensive and reasonably objective review of the problem, this study was conducted as a historical inquiry. All public acts enacted by the Michigan legisla­ tures from 1851 through 1970 were examined to determine their pertinence to the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities. Once identified as having made direct reference to any one or all of these colleges and universities, these acts were categorized by institution and subject matter, analyzed for impact on educational policies, and placed in Appendices A through C of this study for easy reference. 129 Michigan supreme court decisions and attorney general opinions were used as guides to determine excessive legislative influence. Three hundred and twenty-eight out of more than two thousand public acts enacted by sixty different Michigan legislatures over the last one hundred and twenty years were identified as pertinent to this study. Of the 328 public acts analyzed in this study, nearly two-thirds were appropriations acts of one kind or another, i.e., operating, capital outlay, and general finance. The remainder were scattered among six different subject categories. Legislative influence on the educational policies of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and univer­ sities of Michigan existed in varying degrees and manners throughout this 120-year period in spite of constitutional guarantees to the contrary. The method most commonly used by the legislature to influence such policies was the conditioning of the colleges and universities' appropriations. While the legislature refrained, with but a few exceptions, from enacting legislation which directly imposed its wishes upon the colleges and universities, it regularly attached 130 conditions upon, or line-item!zed their respective appro­ priations to accomplish indirectly what it could not do directly. By conditioning and/or line-itemizing these appropriations, the legislature influenced such educational policies as: the proper balance of in-state and out-state students, tuition and student fee charges, the establish­ ment of certain academic programs and the discontinuance of others, the level of support for certain programs, discontinuance of the establishment of branch colleges, disciplinary measures for campus disrupters, the number of hours faculty members should teach, whether to best utilize the appropriation funds for buildings or operating expendi­ tures, among others (see Table 1 in chapter four for a complete listing of conditions placed on appropriations acts between 1947 and 1970). Occasionally one of the colleges and universities challenged the constitutionality of a particular condition, or of the legislature's authority to even place conditions on its appropriation. In every case where the State's highest court was called upon to make the decision it decided in favor of the colleges and universities. 131 In one decision after another the court made it abundantly clear that the governing boards of these institutions were granted unqualified and complete control over the maintenance and operations of their respective colleges and universities by direct mandate of the people through their state constitution. Moreover, the constitu­ tional powers of these governing boards were equated with that of the legislature by the court. These decisions had little or no effect on the legislature's practice of subjecting the colleges and universities' appropriations, however. In fact, the volume of conditions increased over the years, as did the lineitem appropriations. Consequently, the "Big Three" universities (Michi­ gan State University, The University of Michigan, and Wayne State University) filed a lawsuit against the State pro­ testing the legislature's encroachments on the powers and authorities of their governing boards. In view of past practices, these universities expect to win no more than a Pyrrhic victory. Few other public acts were enacted by the legisla­ ture during this period of time which carried the same 132 degree of influence as the conditioned and/or line-itemized appropriations acts. Several acts authorized the establishment and governance of colleges and universities in accordance with constitutional provisions. Among them was an act to create a school of osteopathic medicine with details as to its administrative leadership and supervision. Complaints over infringements of constitutional authority were avoided, however, because the legislature first created the school then asked the "Big Three" universities if any of them wanted it under these terms. The legislature most directly influenced educational policies through the approximately two dozen public acts which were enacted for the purpose of establishing or operating certain educational programs. Interestingly, only three of these acts were legally contested by the colleges and universities. It was conjectured that either these acts were solicited by the colleges and universities because of the benefits they returned to them, or that the effects of these acts were of such inconsequence that legal action seemed fortuitous. The remainder of the public acts analyzed in this study had little or no evidential influence on the 133 educational policies of the colleges and universities. Again, many of these acts were enacted as enabling legis­ lation, at the request, or for the benefit of the colleges and universities. They authorized the sale or conveyance of land or property, extended retirement benefits to college and university personnel, coordinated the rules and regulations for the operation of the University of Michigan hospitals with those of the general health and welfare policies of the State, and fulfilled a number of miscellaneous needs and requests by the colleges and universities. As a result of the analysis of 328 public acts over a period of 120 years it was discovered that the legisla­ ture and the colleges and universities never finally resolved their differences over their division of powers as defined by the state constitution of Michigan. To this day that issue lingers. Conclusions Six major conclusions were reached as a result of the findings of this study. 1. During the past one hundred and twenty years the state legislature influenced numerous educational 134 policies legally reserved for the governing boards of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities of Michigan through the public acts it enacted. 2. The legislature's most effective method of influencing these educational policies was by making them a condition of acceptance of the col­ leges and universities* annual appropriations. It was noted that despite constitutional guarantees to the contrary and repeated rulings by Michigan's highest court, the numbers of conditions attached to the colleges and universities' appro­ priations consistently increased during the span of years covered in this study. 3. Another method used effectively by the legislature especially to control the growth and development of certain programs was by line-itemizing these programs with specific dollar allocations in the appropriations acts. 4. The cumulative effect of prolonged legislative influence on the educational policies of the col­ leges and universities was an obvious erosion of their independence. 135 The change was not abrupt, and probably not significant, but decisions which were formerly regarded as educational policies to be determined by the governing boards of the colleges and univer­ sities were later made as public policies by the state legislature, e.g., composition of student enrollments, tuition charges, the establishment of branch colleges, the proper balance between instruction, research, and public service, to name but a few. The flexibility and diversity which for­ merly characterized these colleges and univer­ sities, and which virtually made them what they are today, have gradually diminished in the face of efforts to centralize and to standardize operations in state government. 5. From a purely literal analysis of the public acts, the operational success of constitutionally incor­ porating publicly supported colleges and univer­ sities expressly for the purpose of placing them beyond legislative influence would have to be questioned in view of Michigan's experience. How­ ever, such an analysis does not take into account 136 the consequence of direct requests by the colleges and universities for selected line-item appropria­ tions, enabling legislation, and standardized operational policies. In order to make a final judgment on the validity of this system for the purpose of insulating colleges and universities from legisla­ tive influence, it would be necessary to examine the entire legislative process in which influence is applied by both the legislature and the colleges and universities in arriving at the final version of these public acts. 6. Probably no other system could have more effec­ tively eliminated legislative influence on the educational policies of these colleges and univer­ sities than, the system of constitutional incorpora­ tion, especially since the state legislature had the responsibility for allocating state resources. In carrying out its public mandate to "appropriate moneys to maintain" these colleges and universities, Michigan's state legislature exercised its best judgment in enacting legislation which was responsive to the public will. 137 Discussion Several observations were made as a result of the findings and conclusions of this study. Apart from a more thorough analysis of all of the contributing factors which lead to the final enactment of these public acts, it was quite evident that the legisla­ ture had considerable influence on the educational policies of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and univer­ sities of Michigan over the past 120 years. No value judgments were intended by this study. In all probability both good and bad influences were applied and both good and bad results occurred. The point is, the legislature influenced educational policies which according to a literal interpretation of the state constitution (and supported by numerous supreme court decisions) should not have happened. How or why such influence occurred, especially on the part of a body of lawmakers whose respect for the law might be assumed, can only be left to conjecture. On the one hand, it might be suggested that the legislature acted punitively or vindictively, and there were public acts (or conditions) which seemed to fall into this category. On 138 the other hand, the legislature acted responsibly and in good faith to its public trust. The latter is probably more representative of the legislature's true intentions. On occasion educators and legislators alike forget that the other is also a public servant working for the common good of society. Belief in a democratic form of government is demonstrated by faith in the elected and appointed officials of state government and higher education. Important to improved relationships between the legislature and the colleges and universities are better communications and a mutual respect and understanding of the public responsibility that each has. Neither academic jargon nor legislative fiat is responsive to the broad public interest. An educated citizenry is dependent upon a successful working relationship between the legislature and the colleges and universities. Legitimate differences of opinion did arise over public versus internal educational policies. What seemed to fulfill the requirements of good public policy to the legislature, was viewed by the colleges and universities as an encroachment on their constitutional powers and authorities. 139 The task of balancing public responsibility with institutional autonomy is a delicate one. Too often the colleges and universities were not responsive to the social, economic, and cultural needs of the people who supported them. As a result, the legislature often took it upon itself to correct this obvious oversight and over­ stepped its legal bounds in the process. Furthermore, it did so, at times, in direct opposition to supreme court decisions. While it is important, as C. K. Arnold put it, that "independence . . . b e achieved in such a fashion that the institution doesn't isolate itself from reality and destroy its usefulness through ever-narrowing scholasticism," it is equally as important that higher education maintain its right to criticize society, or the pursuit of truth is impeded, and society inadequately served. Neither is society the benefactor if one branch of state government attempts to correct the failures of another by overlooking the judgments of a third. Good educational policies should equal good public policies. Where they do not, and where genuine efforts to correct 2 C. K. Arnold, "Higher Education: Fourth Branch of Government?" Saturday Review, January 18, 1964. 140 disagreements between the legislature and the colleges and universities fail, the state’s highest court has the public responsibility to pass final judgment. Feelings of intimidation or fear of reprisal in seeking such a judgment should not exist in a system of state government which is committed to the general interest and welfare of the public. Samuel B. Gould offered some good advice on this subject which is very apropos to this study. He said: . . . the public universities of today and tomorrow should have their basic freedom of action guaranteed to them by constitutional authority; . . . they should use their power under such authority only when necessary as a protection; . . . they should deal responsibly, perceptively, and realistically with all elements of state government, seeking thereby to create a climate of understanding and trust which will make recourse to legal defenses unnecessary in all but the most extraordinary circumstances.J In the final analysis, the actual independence of the constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities of Michigan (as is true elsewhere), ultimately depends upon the support of public opinion in addition to constitutional mandate. The problem in Michigan in recent years is that 3 Samuel B. Gould, "The University and State Govern ment: Fears and Realities," Campus and Capitol: Higher Education and the State, ed. by W. John Minter (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1966), p. 15. 141 the colleges and universities have lost public favor. As a result the legislature, which is sensitive to public opinion, has reflected this attitude in the public acts it enacted. Maybe Aldrich was right in suggesting that institu tional autonomy is a relative concept. In his words, Whether it be an individual entity or a member of a system, coordinated or otherwise, a university is a product of society and is subject to a variety of constraints, according to the particular forces which established it and the environment in which it functions. These "constraints11 have the potential of compromising institutional integrity and independence unless each col­ lege and university is careful to clearly define and protect that portion of institutional life within which outside influence is unacceptable. Implications for future research A number of questions were suggested by this study which could serve as a basis for developing future topics of research. Among them are: ^Daniel G. Aldrich, Jr., ''Maintaining Institutional Identity and Autonomy in Coordinated Systems," Campus and Capitol: Higher Education and the State, ed. by W. John Minter (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1966), p. 15. In view of Michigan's experience where the colleges and universities are constitutionally incorporated, to what extent does legislative influence on the educational policies of publicly supported colleges and universities exist in other states where they are established as public corporations, or mere departments of the state? How does Michigan's experience compare with that of one or more of the other nine states in which constitutionally incorporated colleges and univer­ sities have been established? While this study concentrated only on the public acts which were enacted, to what extent did the Michigan legislature influence the educational policies of the constitutionally incorporated col­ leges and universities through resolutions or through proposed legislation which for some reason never became law? It Is a common practice for legislatures to Introduce legislation which is never expected to become law but which serves as a sort of "warning" or notice to the subject(s) named in such legislation. What influence have special legislative committees had on the educational policies of these colleges and universities? For example, a special senate committee spent nearly $60,000 investigating student unrest on the campuses during the past year with the result that a number of committee members introduced repressive legislation, while others reported being satisfied with the "informal agreements".reached with the colleges and universities. To what extent have the colleges and universities compromised their constitutional autonomy by informal agreements and/or requests for conditional appropriations ? Interestingly, when the colleges and universities requested such legislation themselves there was never a complaint about encroachments. The Utah experience (supra, p. 10) suggests that a pattern could be established which the colleges and universities might find hard to reverse in the future. To what extent did the colleges and universities exercise their independent status by allocating 144 earmarked appropriations for other purposes? Or by establishing programs prohibited by the legislature? 7. To what extent have lawsuit victories resulted in perceived or actual legislative reprisals? It was observed that more lawsuits were filed by the respective colleges and universities against legislative practices during the early years of this study. Moreover, the recent lawsuit (supra, p. 100) was collectively filed by all three major universities. 8. In view of Michigan's experience and general indi­ cations of a willingness for some change on the part of certain university officials, is there a basic understanding of, and a desire for the continuation of the system of constitutionally incorporating the state colleges and universities in Michigan? such a system? If so, what is the definition of BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY American Assembly, The. Columbia University. State Legislatures in American Politics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. American Jurisprudence. Second edition. Rochester, New York: The Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co., 1964. Bailey, Stephen K . , et a l . Schoolmen and Politics. Syra­ cuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1962. Bailey, Stephen K. and Mosher, Edith K. ESEA: The Office of Education Administers a Law. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1968. Banfield, Edward C. Political Influence. Press of Glencoe, 1961. New York: Free Blackwell, Thomas Edward. College L a w : A Guide for Admin istrators. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1961. Blackwell, Thomas Edward. Current Legal Problems of Col­ leges and Universities, 1950-1951. St. Louis: Washington University, 1953. Brody, Alexander. The American State and Higher Education The Legal, Political and Constitutional Relation­ ships . Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1935. Brumbaugh, A. J. "The Proper Relationships between State Governments and State-Supported Higher Institu­ tions." Educational Record. Vol. 42 (July, 1961) pp. 173-178. 145 146 Chamberlain, Leo M. lfWhat are the Significant Developments in this Relationship of Higher Education to State Governments." Current Issues in Higher Education, 1955-1956. Smith, G. K . , ed. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association Department of Higher Education, 1956. Chambers, M. M. The Campus and the People. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1960. ________ . Chance and Choice in Higher Education. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1962. ________ . The Colleges and the Courts, 1962-1966. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1967. ________ . The Colleges and the Courts Since 1950. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1964. ________ . The Colleges and the Courts, 1946-1950. York: Columbia University Press, 1952. New ________ . The Colleges and the Courts, 1941-1945. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1946. . The Colleges and the Courts, 1936-40. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1941. . Freedom and Repression in Higher Education. Bloomington, Indiana: Bloomcraft Press, 1965. . Voluntary Statewide Coordination in Public Higher Education. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The Uni­ versity of Michigan, 1961. Chronicle of Higher Education. January 13, 1969. 147 Colton, David L. "State Power and Local Decision Making in Education." Strengthening State Departments of Education. (June, 1967) The Midwest Administra­ tion Center, University of Chicago. Committee on Government and Higher Education, The. The Efficiency of Freedom. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1959. Conant, James B. Shaping Educational Policy. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1964. New York: Constitutional Revision: The Arguments for and Against Certain Questions. Michigan: Governor's Consti­ tutional Convention Planning Committee, 1961. Council for the Study of Higher Education in Florida. Provisions of State Constitutions for Higher Educa­ tion . Tallahassee, Florida: The Council, 1957. Council of State Governments. Higher Education in the Forty-Eight States. Chicago: The Council, 1952 DeVries, Walter Dale. The Michigan Lobbyist: A Study in the Bases and Perceptions of Effectiveness. Un ­ published Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 1960. Dunbar, Willis F. Higher Education in Michigan1s Constitu­ tion. Michigan: Constitutional Convention Pre­ paratory Commission, 1961. Dunbar, Willis F. The Michigan Record in Higher Education. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1963. Eliot, Thomas H. "Toward an Understanding of Public School Politics." American Political Science Review. LIII (December, 1959). Elliott, Edward C. and Chambers, M. M. The Colleges and the Courts. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1936. 148 Eulau, Heinz and Quinley, Harold. State Officials and Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970. Ferguson, LeRoy Craig. How State Legislators View the Problem of School Needs. U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Report, Project No. 532 (8166), 1960. Garfinkel, Herbert. The Constitution and the Legislature. Michigan: Constitutional Convention Preparatory Commission, 1961. Glenny, Lyman A. Autonomy of Public Colleges. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. New York: Gove, Samuel K. "Pressures on Higher Education: State and Local Governments." Current Issues in Higher Edu­ cation . Washington, D.C.: Association for Higher Education, 1965. Gove, Samuel K. Statewide Systems of Higher Education Studies: A Summary. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1967. Gove, Samuel K. and Solomon, Barbara Whiteside. "The Politics of Higher Education: A Bibliographic Essay." The Journal of Higher Education. XXXIX, No. 4 (April, 1968). Halperin, Samuel. New York: A University in the Web of Politics. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Hanawalt, Leslie L. A Place of Light: The History of Wayne State University. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1968. Harris, Seymour E . , e d . Challenge and Change in American Education. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Pub­ lishing Corporation, 1965. Henderson, Algo D. Policies & Practices in Higher Educa­ tion. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1960. 149 Henderson, Algo D. "The Role of the State in Higher Education." Educational Record. XXXII (January, 1951). Henderson, J. M. Michigan Statutes Annotated. Callaghan and Company, 1936. Chicago: Iannaccone, Laurence. Politics in Education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc. 1967. James. H. Thomas. "Politics and Community Decision Making in Education." Review of Educational Research. XXXVII, No. 4 (October, 1967) pp. 377-385. James, Herman G. "The American State University: A Prob­ lem in Political Science." Edmund J. James Lectures on Government. Urbana, Illinois: Univer sity of Illinois, 1938. Johnson, George M. Education Law. East Lansing, Michigan Michigan State University, 1967. Kimbrough, Ralph B. Political Power and Educational Decision-Making. Chicago: Rand McNally and C o ., 1964. Kirst, Michael W . , e d . The Politics of Education at the Local, State and Federal Levels. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1970. Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State: East Lansing, Michigan: sity Press, 1955. The First Hundred Years. The Michigan State Univer Marden, Robert H . ; Goldhammer, Keith; and Wilson, Charles. "Essay Reviews: The Politics of Education." Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. I (Spring, 1965) pp. 54-76. Martorana, S. V. , et^ aj.. State Legislation Relating to Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Annual reports beginning in 1956. 150 Masters, Nicholas A.; Salisbury, Robert H . ; and Eliot, Thomas H. State Politics and the Public Schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964. Michigan. The Constitution of the State of Michigan (1850, 1908, and 1963). Michigan. Delegate Proposals. State of Michigan Constitu­ tional Convention. Part 1 and 2. 1961. Michigan. Public and Local Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan. Lansing: Secretary of State, 1850-1970. Michigan Compiled Laws. St. Paul, Minnesota: lishing Company, 1968. West Pub­ Michigan Constitutional Convention. Report of the Pro­ ceedings and Debates in the Convention to Revise the Constitution. Lansing: 1850. Michigan Cons titutional Issues. Detroit: Council of Michigan, 1960. Michigan Digest. St. Paul, Minnesota: Company, 1947. Citizens Research West Publishing Michigan House of Representatives. Report of the Select Committee to Inquire into the Conditions of the University. House of Representatives Documents, 1840. Michigan Reports. Rochester, New York: tive Publishing Co., 1851-1968. Lawyer's Coopera­ Michigan Statutes Annotated. Chicago: Callaghan and Company, 1936 and 1969 pocket update. Milbrath, Lester W. The Washington Lobbyists. Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Chicago: Minter, W. John, ed. Campus and Capitol: Higher Education and the State. Boulder, Colorado: Western Inter­ state Commission for Higher Education, 1966. 151 Moos, Malcolm and Rourke, Francis E. The Campus and the State. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1959. McKean, Dayton David. Pressures on the Legislature of New Jersey. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Pierce, Truman M. Federal, State, and Local Government in Education. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964. Power Flay for Control of Education. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1967. Pro and Con on Con-Con. Detroit: Citizens Research Council of Michigan, 1958. Proposed Constitution, The: A Comparison with the Present Constitution. Detroit: Citizens Research Council of Michigan, 1962. Public Higher Education and the State Legislature: Changing Relationships. Washington, D.C.: N a ­ tional Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges, 1968. Report of the Board of the University of Michigan to the Legi slature. (March, 1840). Robinson, Donald W. "Good Politics Can Provide Better Schools." Phi Delta Kappan. XLIX (February, 1968). Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University: A History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962. Sanford, Terry. But What About the People? Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966. New York: Sargendorph, Kent. Michigan: The Story of the University. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., 1948. Shaw, Wilfred. The University of Michigan. Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920. New York: 152 Shepherd 1s Michigan Citations. Statute Edition. Colorado Springs, Colorado: Shepherds Citation, Inc., 1961 and 1969 pocket update. State of Michigan, The. 1851-1968. Report of the Attorney General. Stuart, Robert. "Universities Losers, Say Legislators. if The State Journal. Lansing, Michigan. (January 21, 1968) p. A-12. Truman, David B. The Governmental Process. Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. New York: University of Michigan. Report of the Board of the Univer­ sity of Michigan to the Legislature. (March, 1840) Usdan, Michael. The Political Power of Education in New York State. New York: Institute of Administra­ tive Research, Teachers College, Columbia Univer­ sity, 1963. Usdan, Michael D . ; Minar, David W . ; and Hurwitz, Emanuel, Jr. Education and State Politics. Columbia University: Teachers College Press, 1969. Verhaalen, Roman F. Legislation and Higher Education: The Laws and By-Laws Affecting the Government of Public Institutions of Higher Learning. Laramie: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, University of Wyoming College of Education, 1950. Walsh, John E. Education and Political Power. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964. What the Proposed New State Constitution Means to Y o u . Lansing, Michigan: A report to the people of Michigan by their elected delegates to the Consti­ tutional Convention, 1962. Wilson, Logan, ed. Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965, p. 8. 153 Wise, W. Max. The Politics of the Private College: An Inquiry into the Processes of Collegiate Govern­ m e n t . New Haven, Connecticut: The Hazen Foundation. Wooden, William P. "Recent Decisions." Michigan Law Review. LV (1957), pp. 728-730. Zeigler, Harmon. How Legislators and Lobbyists Interact. Unpublished monogram. Eugene, Oregon: The Univer­ sity of Oregon, 1967. Zeigler, Harmon. The Effects of Lobbying: Assessment. Unpublished monogram. The University of Oregon, 1967. A Comparative Eugene, Oregon: APPENDICES APPENDIX A Public Acts of the.Michigan Legislature in Chronological Order 1970-1851 Source of information: the annually and/or biennially published Public and Local Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, usually compiled by the Secretary of State and more recently by the Legislative Service Bureau. All public acts researching the indexes comprehensiveness were, A number of errors were pertinent to this study were identified by of these annuals or biennials. Accuracy and therefore, dependent upon proper indexing. discovered during the process of research. Only those public acts which had direct reference to any one or all constitutionally incorporated colleges and universities were listed. Accordingly, such acts os Public Act 1 of 1966 which required all public buildings to provide for accessibility and utilization by the physically handicapped were excluded. Although colleges and universities were required to abide by this law, specific reference to any one or all of them was omitted. 154 155 session PA PA PA PA PA PA PA )* 12 13 35 45 46 80 83 session of 1969 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 14 16 26 36 99 130 155 162 225 Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental Central, Eastern, Northern, Western, powers defined Lake Superior State College, established Appropria., preliminary studies & planning buildings Boards of control, residence requirement Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, annual operating School of osteopathic medicine, established/location Appropriations, capital outlay session of 1968 PA PA PA PA PA PA 10 185 230 244 310 311 (346) (358) Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental State Retirement Program, optional participation Appropria., preliminary studies & planning buildings Appropriations, capital outlay Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, annual operating Extra session of 1967 (12) none Regular session of 1967 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 1 156 240 244 245 252 291 (306) Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental State Retirement Program, optional participation Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, preliminary studies 6 planning bldgs Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, capital outlay Traffic ordinances, enactment, enforcement *The number in parentheses ( ) represents the total number of public acts passed each session. No number was given for the regular session of 1970 because this study went to print before the session had officially ended. 156 Regular session of 1966 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 2 14 26 149 202 285 286 310 Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental Saginaw Valley College, renamed Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental Grand Valley, board of control, powers defined Western Michigan, conveyance of land to Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, capital outlay Regular session of 1965 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 16 57 117 124 125 126 245 278 (413) Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental Northern Michigan, transfer of land to Appropriations, annual operating Appropria., preliminary studies & planning buildings Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, capital outlay Institute of Gerontology, established Saginaw Valley College, established Regular session of 1964 PA 14 PA 259 PA 272 PA 273 (351) (290) Certain boards of control, powers defined Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, capital outlay Second extra session of 1963 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 5 21 22 23 24 42 48 49 50 51 (68) Boards of control, qualifications, elections Michigan Technological, Ferris, Grand Valley, renamed Ferris, board of control, powers defined U. of M., W.S.U., board members, terms Grand Valley, board of control, powers defined Colleges and universities, accounting to legislature Central, Eastern, Northern, Western, powers defined Michigan Technological, laws revised Michigan State, laws revised Wayne State, laws revised First extra session of 1963 (2) none Regular session of 1963 PA PA PA PA 173 174 176 243 (249) Appropria., preliminary studies & planning buildings Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, capital outlay 157 Regular session of 1962 PA 232 PA 234 PA 237 Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, capital outlay Regular session of 1961 PA PA PA PA 111 125 145 188 (342) (239) Appropriations, Appropriations, Appropriations, Appropriations, Extra session of 1960 capital outlay, supplemental mental health capital outlay annual operating (4) none Regular session of 1960 (163) PA 52 Retirement benefits, Wayne State employees eligible PA 77 Mich. Higher Education Authority, established, members PA 131 Appropriations, mental health PA 159 Appropriations, annual operating PA 160 Appropriations, capital outlay Regular session of 1959 PA 72 PA 133 PA 135 PA 269 JR 2* JR 3* (277) Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, capital outlay Michigan State governing board, name changed Wayne State, governing board, created Extra session of 1958 (1) none Regular session of 1958 PA PA PA PA 142 218 224 229 U. of M . , Veteran's Readjustment Center, management Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, capital outlay Regular session of 1957 PA 8 PA 142 (230) (315) Michigan State, governing board, elections Retirement benefits, U. of M. and M.S.U. employees Joint Resolutions are used by the legislature to propose amendments to the state constitution. Both were ratified, April 6, 1959. 158 PA 172 Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental PA 229 Political science course, required for degree PA 286 U. of M. hospital, welfare patients, admitting PA 288 Condemnation of property, public hospital,college PA 302 Appropriations, U. of M. VeteransReadjustment Center PA 306 Appropriations, annual operating PA 308 Appropriations, mental health PA 309 Appropriations, capital outlay Extra session of 1956 (14) none Regular session of 1956 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (230) 102 Appropriations, supplemental, special purposes 190 Boards of control, nominees, certified 197 Promote agric., cooperate with referendum 201 Appropriations, U. of M. Veterans Readjustment Center 208 Appropriations, annual operating 225 Appropriations, mental health 226 Appropriations, capital outlay Second extra session of 1955 (1) none First extra session of 1955 PA PA 9 M.S.U. highway, traffic safety center, established 11 Appropriations, Michigan Statesafety programs Regular session of 1955 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (11) 37 39 63 103 127 168 269 272 273 277 278 (283) Michigan State, name changed, curricula prescribed Social Sec. coverage, U. of M. and M.S.U. employees Appropriations, U. of M. 2-year programs, Flint Appropriations, capital outlay, supplemental Voc. Ed., bd. of control, membership, U. of M./M.S.U. Appropriations, U. of M. Veterans Readjustment Center Supt. of public instr., general super, over insti. Appropriations, capital outlay, construction Appropriations, capital outlay, remodeling Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, annual operating Extra session of 1954 (3) none Regular session of 1954 PA 106 PA 152 (217) Political science course, prerequisite to degree U. of M . , Neuropsych. Institute, conveyance land for 159 PA 203 Appropriations, PA 207 Appropriations, PA 211 Appropriations, PA 212 Appropriations, PA 213 Appropriations, Regular session of 1953 supplemental special purposes mental health annual operating U. of M. Veterans Readjustment Center capital outlay (234) PA 146 U. of M . , Veterans Readjustment Center, laws revised PA 216 Appropriations, annual operating PA 228 Appropriations, mental health PA 231 Appropriations, capital outlay PA 233 Appropriations, U. of M. Veterans Readjustment Center Extra session of 1952 (4) none Regular session of 1952 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 84 176 191 212 255 268 271 (280) U. of M . , Veterans Readjustment Center, laws revised Appropriations, supplemental, Neuropsych. Institute Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, capital outlay Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, U. of M. Veterans Readjustment Center Appropria., supplemental, Veterans Readjustment Center Second extra session of 1951 (2) none First extra session of 1951 (5) none Regular session of 1951 PA 123 PA 272 U. of M., Veterans Readjustment Center, laws revised Appropriations, annual operating, capital outlay Extra session of 1950 PA 32 53 203 280 301 306 314 316 (43) Appropriations, annual operating Regular session of 1949 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (279) (317) U. of M. hospital, admittance of indigents, payments U. of M. hosp., admittance of indigents, compensation M.S.U., military courses, certain exemptions Appropriations, mental health U. of M., Veterans Readjustment Center, established Appropriations, capital outlay Appropriations, annual operating 160 Second extra session of 1948 (11) none Extra session of 1948 PA PA PA 22 23 46 (51) Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, capital outlay Second extra session of 1947 (4) none First extra session of 1947 (1) none Regular session of 1947 PA PA PA PA 240 304 306 314 (360) Empl. retire, system, cred. for service U. of M./M.S.U. Appropriations, annual operating Appropriations, mental health Appropriations, capital outlay Second extra session of 1946 (4) none Extra session of 1946 PA PA 1 29 U. of M./M.S.U., postwar victory bldg. program, estab. Appropria., operating, supplemental, Veterans Center Regular session of 1945 PA PA PA PA PA 332 333 337 342 343 (29) (345) Appropriations, M.S.U., addTl. cost of veterans ed. Appropria., U. of M., additional cost of veterans ed. Appropriations mental health Appropria., capital outlay, maintenance and repairs Appropriations, capital outlay, construction Third extra session of 1944 (3) none Second extra session of 1944 none Extra session of 1944 none (59) (1) 161 Regular session of 1943 PA 191 (250) Appropriations, mental health Second extra session of 1942 (22) none First extra session of 1942 PA 15 Appropria., U. of M./M.S.U., for national defense Regular session of 1941 PA PA PA PA 109 255 358 382 (384) U. of M. , Neuropsych, hospital, steril. of inmates Appropria., U. of M. , continue annual, amends maximum Appropria., M.S.U. con't. annual, amends max. millage Appropriations, capital outlay Regular session of 1939 PA 325 PA 326 (16) (346) Appropria., U. of M . , continue annual, amends maximum Appropria., M.S.U., continue annual, amends maximum Extra session of 1938 (9) none Extra session of 1937 (4) none Regular session of 1937 PA PA PA PA PA PA 45 85 147 156 243 262 (350) Repeal of PA 140 of 1895, U. of M . , Paym. St. Treas, U. of M . , transfer psychopath, hosp., Neuro. Institute Approp., U. of M . , con't. annual, am. mill, set max. Approp., M.S.U., con't. annual, amend mill, set max. Approp., Neuropsych. Institute, capital outlay U. of M. hosp., admittance of indigents, reimburse. Extra session of 1936 (1) none Regular session of 1935 PA 10 PA 11 PA 23 PA 27 PA 112 PA 113 PA 118 (258) Repeals PA 53 (1893), prov. a mill tax, U. of M. Repeals PA 32 (1873), extended aid to U. of M./M.S.U. College faculty oath to support U.S. constitution Mich. Institute for promotion of Mich, mined coal Approp., U. of M . , continuing annual, 73/100 millage Approp., M.S.U. continuing annual, 243/1000 millage Approp., M.S.U. cooperative agricultural extension 162 Extra session of 1934 (40) none Extra session of 1933 (19) none Regular session of 1933 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 10 19 110 115 116 117 167 222 248 Repeals PA 324 (1929), making approp. for buildings M.S.U., approp. agricultural inst. removes dollar max. M.S.U., sec. of bd., removes salary stipulation M.S.U., sec. of gov, bd., rev. duties, add Bus. mgr. M.S.U., Fed. aid for coop ag. ext., dep. w/bus. mgr. M.S.U., Fed. aid for coop ag. ext., dep. w/bus. mgr. Approp., con't. annual, from sales tax fund (sec. 25) U. of M. hosp., admittance of indigents, laws revised U. of M. hosp., indigent/afflicted, care of Extra session of 1932 PA PA PA PA 2 3 15 42 16 56 319 320 327 328 209 285 317 324 207 236 317 386 387 402 404 406 (326) U. of M., survey of Isle Royal, appropriation Appropriations, M.S.U. coop ag. extension (1930-1931) U. of M . , hospital treat, handl. of crippled children Appropriations, capital outlay Regular session of 1927 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (336) Faculty oath, U. of M. and M.S.U. excepted Appropriations, capital outlay (1932-1935) Approp., U. of M., continue annual, sets maximum Approp., M.S.U., con't. annual, amends millage max, Mich. Gen'l. Corp. Act, founda. to provide scholarship Mich. Penal Code, trespass on college/univ. lands Regular session of 1929 PA PA PA PA (42) Approp., U. of M . , con’t. annual, sets maximum Approp., M.S.U., continued annual, sets maximum Approp., capital outlay (1932-1935) Approp., M.S.U., coop, agricultural extension Regular session of 1931 PA PA PA PA PA PA (270) (408) U. of M . , psych, hospital, organized, laws revised U. of M. Hosp., treatment etc. of crippled children U. of M. Hosp., account for medicine furnished Appropriations, M.S.U., con't. annual, removes max. Appropriations, M.S.U., coop. ag. extension (1928-29) Appropriations, M.S.U. capital outlay (1928-29) Appropriations, U. of M., con’t. annual, removes max. Appropriations, U. of M., capital outlay (1928-29) 163 Extra session of 1926 (2.1) none Regular session of 1925 PA PA PA PA PA 153 314 323 324 335 Michigan State University, name changed Approp., U. of M. continue annual, amend maximum Approp., M.S.U., coop. ag. exten., suppl. (1926-27) Appropriations, M.S.U., capital outlay (1926-27) Appropriations, U. of M . , capital outlay (1926-27) Regular session of 1923 PA PA PA PA PA 191 193 252 308 310 (393) (323) M.S.U., auth. construction of stadium, appropriations Approp., M.S.U., con't. ann., amends mill, sets max. Appropriations, U. of M . , continue annual, sets max. Appropriations, M.S.U., capital outlay (1923-25) Appropriations, U. of M . , capital outlay (1923-25) Extra session of 1922 (1) none Second extra session of 1921 (5) none First extra session of 1921 (31) none Regular session of 1921 PA PA PA PA PA 84 219 247 250 351 (404) Domestic corp., Appropriations, Appropriations, Appropriations, Appropriations, Extra session of 1919 corp. providing scholarships M.S.U., emergency operating needs U. of M . , con't. annual, amends mill. M.S.U., coop ag. exten. (1921-23) U. of M., capital outlay (1921-23) (26) none Regular session of 1919 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 36 149 178 204 229 315 402 (421) Plantings along highways, M.S.U. to assist Voc. ed., board, membership includes U. of M./M.S.U. Appropriations, U. of M . , capital outlay (1919-21) Appropriations, M.S.U., coop ag. extension (1919-21) Auth. M.S.U. to sell land to East Lansing church Promote ag. in state, cooperate with Michigan State Supt. of pub. instr., supervise over all instr. 164 Regular sesaibn of 1917 PA PA PA PA PA PA 96 144 174 189 226 310 Appropriations, U. of M . , capital outlay Authorize M.S.U. to pave certain adjacent streets Bd. of boiler rules, Mem. included M.S.U./U. of M. Voc. ed., bd. of control, mem. incl. M.S.U./U. of M. Rural ag. schools, M.S.U. test teacher qualifications U. of M. hosp., control vested in board of trustees Regular session of 1915 PA 65 PA 114 PA 190 PA 267 67 111 254 274 295 324 (314) M.S.U. coop ag. exten., acceptance of Fed. grant Approp., M.S.U., con’t, annual, amends mill, tax Appropriations, U. of M., capital outlay U. of M. hosp., regulate free treatment, etc. Regular session of 1913 PA PA PA PA PA PA (387) (407) County ag. dept., to work in conj. with Michigan State Appropriations, U. of M . , capital outlay Prevent sale adulterated insect., M.S.U. inspect U. of M. hosp., free treatment of certain children M.S.U., authorized to purchase land Approp., M.S.U. con't. annual, amends mill, tax Second extra session of 1912 PA 3 (9) Auth. county to approp. ag. improv., M.S.U. to coop. Extra session of 1912 (12) none Regular session of 1911 PA 100 Appropriations, U. of M., capital outlay Regular session of 1909 PA PA PA PA PA PA 26 142 165 171 219 269 (322) Transfer of military property to Michigan State Transp. cadavers, dissect., duties U. of M. anat. Auth. M.S.U. to grant ag. teachers certificates Auth. U. of M. obtain cadavers, current expen. acct. Co. ag. sch., courses teach, req. M.S.U. appr. M.S.U. name chg., laws rev., board powers prescribed Extra session of 1907 none (299) (7) 165 Regular session of 1907 PA 278 PA 302 PA 303 State psycho, hosp., organize, laws revised Auth. pub. boards, rules, protest prop., amend Approp., con't. annual, amend mill, with provisos Regular session of 1905 PA 80 PA 140 (257) Pasteur Inst., adm. of indigents, rabies, reimb. Inc. assoc, providing scholarships, amend. Auth. gov. board to grant teachers cert., amend. Regular session of 1901 PA 5 PA 161 (332) Auth. pub. boards to make rules, protest property Psycho, ward, ann. approp., est. res. lab, admin. Regular session of 1903 PA 116 PA 180 PA 213 (340) (242) Auth. dissecting, for adv. of science, amend. Psycho, ward, established, appropriation Extra session of 1900 (6) none Extra session of 1899-1900 (3) none Regular session of 1899 PA 86 PA 102 PA 193 PA 250 (273) Enables U. of M. to rec. money/property, invest Appropriations, con’t. annual, amends mill tax Auth. dissecting, for adv. of science, amend Inc. assoc., estab. loan-funds, benefit stud. Extra session of 1898 (8) none Regular session of 1897 (289) PA 42 U. of M. hosp., treat, of indig. child., duties, am. PA 43 U. of M . , analyze water used by public PA 93 U. of M. grads., adm. to practice law, amend. PA 119 Auth. dissect, for adv. of science, amend. PA 168 Appropriations, capital outlay PA 233 U. of M. hosp., admission depend, child., treat am. 16 6 Regular session of 1895 PA PA PA PA PA 36 140 205 257 267 U. of M. Regents, perpetual trust of land/prop. Funds, held in trust, dep. with state treas. U. of M. grads., adm. to practice law, regulate Homeopathic m e d . college, amend PA 128 (1875) location Auth. dissecting, for adv. of science, amend Regular session of 1893 PA 19 PA 553 (234) Approp., operating and capital outlay (1885-86) Regular session of 1883 PA 96 PA 140 (317) Approp., operating and capital outlay (1887-88) Regular session of 1885 PA 191 (277) Approp., operating and capital outlay (1889-90) Regular session of 1887 PA 243 (200) Approp., operating and capital outlay (1891-92) Vet, med. soc. report to be filed in library Students may be employed in dental col., amend. Prop., Woman's Aux. Assoc., U. of 11., tax-exempt Auth. certain depart, to give teacher cert. Unif., acc't., biennial invent., ann. settle, am. Regular session of 1889 PA 145 (213) Approp., continue annual, amends mill tax Mill tax, paid in quarterly installments hereafter Regular session of 1891 PA 25 PA 56 PA 98 PA 143 PA 144 PA 146 (271) (197) Approp., operating and capital outlay (1883-84) Students may be employed in dental college Extra session of 1882 (27) none Regular session of 1881 PA 16 PA 60 PA 116 PA 138 (290) Auth. dissecting, for adv. of science, amend. Approp., operating and capital outlay (1881-82) Supreme court rep. to be filed in U. of M. lib. U. of M. hospital, admiss/treatment depend, child. 167 Regular session of 1879 PA 56 PA 122 Appropriations, capital outlay Approp., operating and capital outlay (1879-80) Regular session of 1877 PA 185 23 74 113 128 138 186 205 207 (207) Approp., operating and capital outlay (1877-78) Regular session of 1875 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA (268) (234) Proc., sale of e d . land, defer exp. to state Appropriations, capital outlay Approp., for outstanding interest warrants Homoeopathic med. college, establish, appropriations Auth. dissecting, for adv. of science, amend. Dental school, establish, appropriations School of mines, establish, appropriations Appropriations, capital outlay Extra session of 1874 (7) none Regular session of 1873 PA PA PA 7 32 63 (199) Approp., operating deficit and capital outlay Approp., con't. annual, prov. for mill tax Prov. for app't. two professors of homeopathy Extra session of 1872 (64) none Regular session of 1871 PA 30 (197) Appropriations, capital outlay (1871-72) Extra session of 1870 (8) none Regular session of 1869 PA 14 Approp., continuing annual, amends PA 59 of 1867 Regular session of 1867 PA (170) 59 (208) Approp., con't. annual, commence mill. tax. 168 Regular session of 1865 (365) none Extra session of 1864 (71) none Regular session of 1863 PA 143 (243) Prov. for election/classification of regents Extra session of 1862 (26) none Extra session of 1861 (10) none Regular session of 1861 (265) none Regular session of 1859 PA 143 PA 206 PA 219 Univ. int. fund, credit from lands sold, etc. Geol. spec., maps, diagrams, dep. in library Annual report to supt. of pub. inst. required Extra session of 1858 PA 56 PA 73 PA 100 (174) (97) University fund, Extra session of 1851 (38) none Regular session of 1851 none amends date of effect Univ. fund, credit with amount of interest accrued Professor of homeopathy, establish Regular session of 1853 60 of regents/9th & 10th jud. dist. (195) University fund, Regular session of 1855 PA (32) 5 Prov. for elect, Regular session of 1857 PA (263) (157) credit with interest accrued APPENDIX B Public Acts Categorized by Each Institution to Which They Refer, 1970-1851 While the legislature may have enacted other legislation which influenced educational policies at these colleges and univer­ sities, only those public acts were analyzed which had direct reference to any one or to all of the constitutionally Incorporated colleges and universities from the date they were respectively incorporated forward. Therefore, public acts were listed for each college or university according to the following order: I. Colleges and Universities granted constitutional status by the constitution of 1963 A. Central Michigan University ♦ . . 1970-1963 B. Eastern Michigan University . . . 1970-1963 C. Ferris State College . , . 1970-1963 D. Grand Valley State College . . . 1970-1963 E. Lake Superior State College . . . 1970-1969 F. Michigan Technological University . . . 1970-1963 G. Northern Michigan University . . . 1970-1963 H. Oakland University . . , 1970 I. Saginaw Valley College . . . 1970-1965 J. Western Michigan University . . . 1970-1963 II. Universities granted constitutional status by the constitution of 1908 A. Wayne State University . . . 1970-1959 B. Michigan State University . . . 1970-1909 III. University granted constitutional status by the constitution of 1850 A. University of Michigan . . . 1970-1851 169 170 I. Colleges and universities granted constitutional status by the constitution of 1963 A. Central Michigan University 1970 PA 12, 46, 83 1969 PA 14, 16, 99, 155, 225 1968 PA 185 , 230, 244, 311 PA 156 , 240, 244, 252, 291 1967 1966 PA 26, 285, 310 PA 117 , 124, 126 1965 1964 PA 14, 259, 273 second extra session PA 42, 48 1963 B. Eastern Michigan University 1970 PA 46, 83 1969 PA 14, 16, 36, 99, 155, 225 1968 PA 10, 185, 239, 244, 311 1967 PA 1, 156, 240, 244, 252, 291 1966 PA 2, 26, 285, 310 1965 PA 117, 124, 126 1964 PA 14, 259, 273 1963 second extra session PA 42, 48 C. Ferris 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 State College PA 46, 83 PA 14, 65, 99, 155, 225 PA 10, 185, 230, 244, 311 PA 1, 240, 244, 252, 291 PA 2, 26, 285, 310 PA 117, 124, 126 PA 259, 273 second extra session PA 21, 22, 42 D. Grand 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 Valley State College PA 13, 46, 83 PA 99, 155, 225 PA 230, 244, 311 PA 240, 252, 291 PA 2, 26, 149, 285, 310 PA 117, 124, 126 PA 259, 273 second extra session PA 21, 24, 42 E. Lake Superior State College (first established in 1969) 1970 PA 45, 46, 83 1969 PA 26, 36, 99, 155, 225 F. Michigan 1970 PA 1969 PA 1968 PA 1967 PA Technological University 12, 46, 83 14, 26, 36, 99, 155, 225 10, 185, 230, 244, 311 1, 240, 244, 252, 291 171 1966 1965 1964 1963 II. PA 2, 285, 310 PA 16, 117, 124, 126 PA 259, 273 second extra session PA 21, 42, 49 G. Northern Michigan University 1970 PA 12, 46, 83 1969 PA 16, 36, 99, 155, 225 1968 PA 185 , 230, 244, 311 1967 PA 156 , 240, 244, 252, 291 1966 PA 2, 285, 310 1965 PA 57, 117, 124, 126 1964 PA 14, 259, 273 1963 Second extra session PA 42, 48 H. Oakland University (first established in 1970) 1970 PA 35, 46, 83 I. Saginaw Valley College (first established in 1965) 1970 PA 46, 83 1969 PA 99, 155, 225 1968 PA 10, 230, 244, 311 1967 PA 1, 240, 244, 252, 291 1966 PA 14, 285, 310 1965 PA 278 J. Western Michigan University 1970 PA 12, 46, 83 1969 PA 14, 16, 99, 155, 225 1968 PA 10, 185, 230, 244 , 311 1967 PA 1, 156, 240, 244, 252, 291 1966 PA 2, 26, 202, 285, 310 1965 PA 117 , 124, 126 1964 PA 14, 259, 273 1963 second extra session PA 42, 48 Universities granted constitutional status by the constitution of 1908 A. Wayne 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 State University (by amendment to the constitution) PA 46, 83 PA 36, 99, 155, 225 PA 10, 230, 244, 311 PA 1, 240, 244, 252, 291 PA 26, 285, 310 PA 117, 124, 126, 245 PA 259, 273 second extra session PA 5, 23, 42 , 51 PA 232, 237 PA 111, 145, 188 PA 52, 77, 159, 160 PA 133, 269, JR 3 (constitutional amendment) 172 B. Michigan State University 1970 PA 45, 46, 83 1969 FA 36, 99, 155, 162, 225 1968 PA 230, 244, 311 1967 PA 1, 230, 244, 311 1966 PA 2, 26, 285, 310 1965 PA 117, 124, 126 1964 PA 259, 273 1963 second extra session PA 5, 23, 42, 50 1963 PA 173, 176, 243 1962 PA 232, 237 1961 PA 111, 145, 188 1960 PA 77, 159, 160 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 PA 133, JR 2 PA 224, 229 PA 8, 142, 229, 288, 306, 309 PA 102, 190, 197, 208, 226 first extra session PA 9, 11 PA 37, 39, 103, 127, 269, 272, 278 PA 106, 211, 213 PA 216, 231 PA 191, 212 PA 272 PA 32 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1942 1941 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 280, 22, 240, 1 332, 15 358, 1939 1937 1935 1933 1932 1931 PA PA PA PA PA PA 326 156 11, 23,27, 113, 118 10, 19, 110, 115, 116, 3, 15, 42 16, 56, 320, 327, 328 1929 1927 1925 1923 1921 PA PA PA PA PA 285, 386, 153, 191, 219, 1919 1917 1915 PA 36, 149, 204, 229, 315, 402 PA 144, 174, 189, 226 PA 65, 114 314, 316 46 304, 314 342, 343 382 117, 167 324 387, 402 323, 324 193, 308 250 173 III. 1913 1912 PA 67, 254, 295, 324 PA 3 1909 PA 26, 165, 219, 269 University granted constitutional status by the constitution of 1850 A. University of Michigan 1970 PA 45, 46, 80, 83 1969 PA 36, 99, 130, 155, 225 1968 PA 10, 230, 244, 310, 311 1967 PA 240, 244, 245, 252, 291 1966 PA 2, 285, 286, 310 1965 PA 117, 124, 125, 126, 245 1964 PA 259, 272, 273 1963 second extra session PA 5, 23, 42 1963 PA 173, 174, 176, 243 1962 PA 232, 234, 237 1961 PA 111, 124, 145, 188 1960 PA 77, 131, 159, 160 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 72, 133, 135, 269 142, 218, 224, 229 142, 172, 229, 186, 188, 306, 308, 309 102, 190, 201, 208, 225, 226 39, 63, 127, 168, 269, 172, 273, 277, 278 106, 152, 203, 207, 211, 213 146, 216, 228, 231, 233 84, 176, 191, 212, 255, 268, 271 123, 272 32 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1943 1942 1941 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 53, 203, 301, 306, 314, 316 22, 23, 46 240, 304, 306, 314 1, 29 333, 337, 342, 343 191 15 109, 255, 382 1939 1937 1935 1933 1932 1931 PA PA PA PA PA PA 1929 1927 1925 PA 209, 317, 324 PA 207, 236, 317, 404, 406 PA 314, 335 325 45, 85, 147, 243, 262 10, 11, 23, 27, 112 10, 167, 222, 248 2, 15 16, 56, 319, 327, 328 b— 174 1923 1921 PA 252, 310 PA 84, 247, 351 1919 1917 1915 1913 1911 PA 149, 178, 402 PA 96, 174, 189, 310 PA 190, 267 PA 111, 274 PA 100 1909 1907 1905 1903 1901 PA 142, 171 PA 278, 302, 303 PA 80, 140 PA 116, 180, 213 PA 5, 161 1899 1897 1895 1893 1891 PA 86, PA 42, PA 36, PA 19, PA 25, 102, 193, 250 43, 93, 119, 168,233 140, 205, 267 53 56, 98, 143, 144,146 1889 1887 1885 1883 1881 PA 145 PA 243 PA 191 PA 96, PA 16, 1879 1877 1875 1873 1871 PA 56, 122 PA 185 PA 23, 74, 113, 128, 138, 186, 205, 207 PA 7, 32, 63 PA 30 1869 1867 1863 PA 14 PA 59 PA 143 1859 1858 1857 1855 1853 PA 143, 206, 219 PA 5 PA 56 PA 73, 100 PA 60 140 60, 116, 138 APPENDIX C Public Acts Categorized by Subject Matter, 1970-1851 Subject Categories I. II. Appropriations, operating (annual and special programs) General finance matters III. Appropriations, capital outlay (maintenance, remodeling, new construction). IV. Appropriations, preliminary studies and planning of buildings V. Establishment and governance of the colleges and universities VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. Conveyance, sale, or transfer of land/property Establishment and operation of educational programs and curriculum Personnel matters Operations of the University of Michigan hospitals Miscellaneous matters 175 176 Appropriations, operating (annual and special programs) 1970 PA 00 o X. 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 130, 310, 240, 285, 117, 259, 174, 232, 125, 131, 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1951 1950 PA 133, 135 PA 218, 224 PA 302, 306, 308 PA 102, 201, 208, 225 first extra session PA 11 PA 63, 168, 277, 278 PA 203, 207 , 211, 212 PA 216, 228, 233 PA 176, 191, 255, 268, 271 PA 272 PA 32 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1943 1942 1941 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 1955 1954 1953 1952 II. 83 155 311 245 286 125 27 2 176 234 188 159 301, 316 22, 23 304, 306 29 332, 333, 337 191 15 255, 358 1939 1937 1935 1933 1932 1931 PA PA PA PA PA PA 325, 326 147, 156 10, 11, 112, 113, 118 19, 167 2, 3 , 42 319, 320 1929 1927 1925 1923 1921 PA PA PA PA PA 285 386, 314, 193, 219, 1919 1915 1913 PA 204 PA 114 PA 324 1907 PA 303 1899 1893 1891 PA 102 PA 19 PA 25 1889 1887 1885 1883 1881 PA PA PA PA PA 1879 1877 1873 PA 122 PA 185 PA 7, 32 1869 1867 PA 14 PA 59 387, 404 323 252 247, 250 145 243 191 96 60 General finance matters 1937 1931 1921 1903 1899 1895 1893 1891 1875 1859 1857 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 45 327 84 180 86 250 140 53 146 113 143 56 Repeal of PA 140 of 1895 Mich. General Corporation Act, scholarships Dom. corporation, relating to scholarships Inc. association providing scholarships Enables U. of M. rec. money/property, invest Inc. association estab. loan funds, students Funds, held in trust, dep. with state Mill tax, paid in quarterly install, hereafter Uniform accounting, biennial inventory Appropria., for outstanding interest warrants Univ. interest, fund, credited from lands sold University fund, amends date of effect 177 1855 1853 III. IV. 73 60 Univ. fund, cred. with amount of interest accrued Univ. fund, cred. with amount of interest accrued Appropriations, capital outlay (maintenance, remodeling, new construction) 1970 PA 12, 46 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 14, 225 10, 244 1, 252 2, 26, 310 16, 126 273 243 237 111, 145 160 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 72, 269 229 172, 309 102, 226 103, 272, 273 213 231 212 272 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1941 PA PA PA PA PA PA 314 46 314 1 332, 333, 342, 343 382 1937 1933 1932 1931 PA PA PA PA 243 10 15 56 1929 1927 1925 1923 1921 PA PA PA PA PA 324 402, 324, 191, 250, 1919 1917 1915 1913 1911 PA PA PA PA PA 178, 204 96 190 111 100 1897 1891 PA 168 PA 25 1889 1887 1885 1883 1881 PA PA PA PA PA 145 243 191 96 60 1879 1877 1875 1873 1871 PA PA PA PA PA 56, 122 185 74, 207 7 30 406 335 308 351 Appropriations, preliminary studies and planning of buildings 1970 1969 1968 1967 1965 1963 V. PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 45 36 230 244 124 173 Establishment and governance of the colleges and universities 1970PA 13 Grand Valley State College, powers defined PA 35 Oakland University, established 178 1969 1966 1965 1964 1963 1959 1957 1956 1955 1933 1925 1915 1909 1895 1863 1859 1858 PA 16 Central, Eastern, Northern, Western, powers def. PA 26 Lake Superior State College, established PA 99 Boards of control, residence requirement PA 162 School of osteopathic medicine, estab./loca. PA 14 Saginaw Valley College, renamed PA 149 Grand Valley, boards of control, powers defined PA 278 Saginaw Valley College, established PA 14 Certain boards of control, powers defined second extra session: PA 5 Boards of control, qual., elections, etc. PA 21 Mich. Tech., Ferris, Grand Valley, renamed PA 22 Ferris, board of control, powers defined PA 23 U. of M . , M.S.U., W.S.U., board members, terms PA 24 Grand Valley, board of control, powers defined PA 42 College/university, accounting to legislature PA 48 Central, Eastern, Northern, Western, powers def. PA 49 Michigan Technological, laws revised PA 50 Michigan State, laws revised PA 51 Wayne State, laws revised 2 M.S.U., governing board, name changed JR 3 W.S.U., governing board created JR 8 M.S.U., governing board, elections PA PA 190 Boards of control, nominees, certified PA 37 M.S.U., name changed, curriculum prescribed PA 110 M.S.U., sec. to board, remove salary stipulation PA 115 M.S.U., sec. to b d ., revised duties, adds bus. mgr. PA 116 M.S.U., Fed. aid, agric. exten., dep. with b. mgr. PA 117 M.S.U., Fed. aid, coop, ext., dep. with bus. mgr. PA 153 M.S.U., name changed PA 65 M.S.U., coop, ag. ext., state accepts U.S. grant PA 269 M.S.U., name changed, laws revised, powers PA 36 U. of M. regents, take/hold property in trust PA 143 U. of M. regents, election, classification PA 219 Annual rept. req., for supt. of public inst. PA 5 U. of M. regents elec. in 9th and 10th districts Conveyance, sale, or transfer of land/property 1966 1965 1954 1937 1919 1913 1909 1875 VII. PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 202 57 152 85 229 295 26 23 Western Michigan, conveyance of land to Northern Michigan, transfer of land to U. of M . , Neuropsych. Inst., conv. land for U. of M., trens. of hosp., Neuropsych. Inst. Authorized M.S.U., sell land, E. Lansing church M.S.U., authorized to purchase land Transfer of military property to M.S.U. Educa. land proc., defray expen. of government Establishment and operation of educational programs and curriculum 1965 1960 PA 245 PA 77 Institute of Gerontology, established Mich. Higher Education Authority, established 179 1958 1957 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1949 1917 1909 1905 1903 1901 1897 1895 1891 1875 1873 1855 VIII, Personnel mat 1968 1967 1960 1957 1955 1947 1935 1931 IX. PA 142 U- of M . , Veterans Readjust. Center, management PA 229 Political science, required for degree first extra session: PA 9 M.S.U., highway traffic safety ctr., estab. PA 106 Political science, required for degree PA 146 U. of M . ,Veterans Readj. Ctr., laws revised PA 84 U. of M . ,Veterans Readj. Ctr., laws revised PA 123 U. of M . ,Veterans Readj. Ctr., laws revised PA 280 M.S.U., military courses, certain exemp. PA 306 U. of M . , Veterans Readj. Center, established PA 226 Rural ag. sch., M.S.U. test qual. PA 165 Auth. M.S.U. to grant agric. teacher cert. PA 219 Co. ag. sch., teachers/courses, M.S.U. appro. PA 140 U. of M . , psych, ward, estab. research lab. PA 213 Auth. U. of M. to grant teach, cert., amend. PA 161 U. of M., psych, ward, established, appropria. PA 93 U. of M. grads, adm. to practice law, amend. PA 257 U. of M., homeopathic med* col., trans. to Detroit PA 205 U. of M. grads, adm. to practice law, regulate PA 144 U. of M., authorizes depts., give teach, cert. PA 128 U. of M. , homeopathic med. college established PA 186 U. of M., dental school, established PA 205 U. of M. , school of mines, established PA 63 Prov. for appt. two profs, of homeopathy PA 100 U. of M. professor of homeopathy, establish PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 185 156 52 142 39 240 23 16 State retire, program, optional participation State retire, program, optional participation Retirement benefits, W.S.U. employees benefits Retire, benefits, U. of M. & M.S.U. employees Soc. Security coverage, U. of M. & M.S.U. empl, Employee retirement system, credit for service College faculty oath, to support U.S. const. Faculty oath, U. of M. and M.S.U. excepted. Operations of the University of Michigan hospitals 1957 1949 1941 1937 1933 1929 1927 1917 1915 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 286 53 203 109 262 222 248 317 207 236 317 310 267 Welfare patients, admittance procedures Admittance of indigents, payment revised Admittance of indigents, compensation Neuropsych, hosp,, sterilization of inmates Admittance of indigents, reimburse, revised Admittance of indigents, reimburse, revised Indigents/afflicted, care of, compensation Treatment/handling of crippled children U. of M., psych, hosp., organize, laws revised Treatment/handling of crippled children Required to account for medicines furnished U. of M. hosp., control vested in bd. trustees Regulate free treatment and care 180 1909 1907 1903 1901 1899 1897 1895 1881 1875 x. PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 142 171 278 116 5 193 42 119 233 267 16 138 138 MLscellaneoui 1967 1957 1956 1955 1935 1931 1929 1919 1917 1913 1912 1907 1905 1897 1891 1883 1881 1859 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 291 288 197 127 269 27 328 209 36 149 315 402 144 174 189 67 254 3 302 80 43 56 98 143 140 116 206 Transp. dead bodies, dissecting, duties Auth. to obtain cadavers with curr. funds U. of M . , psych, hosp., organize, laws rev. Pasteur Inst., admission of indigents, rabies Auth. dissect, foradv. of science, amend. Auth. dissect, foradv. of science, amend. Treatment of indigent child, duties, amend. Auth. dissect, for adv. of science, amend. Adm. of depend, children, treatment, amend. Auth. dissect, foradv. of science, amend. Auth. dissect, foradv. of science, amend. Adm. of depend, children, treatment, amend. Auth. dissect, for adv. of science, amend. matters Traffic ordinance, enactment, enforcement Condemn, of prop., public hospitals, colleges Promote ag., coop, with M.S.U., referendum Voc. ed., b d . of control, mem., U. of M./M.S.U. Supt. pub. instr., gen'l. sup. over insti. Insti. for promotion of Michigan mined coal Mich, penal code, trespass on col./univ. lands U. of M . , survey of Isle Royale, appropriations M.S.U., assist/regulate highway plantings Voc. ed., bd. of control, mem., U. of M./M.S.U. Promote a g ., cooperate with M.S.U. Supt. pub. inst., superv. over all instr. Auth. M.S.U. to pave certain adjacent streets Bd. of boiler rules, mem. incl. U. of M./M.S.U. Voc. ed. board mem. Included, U. of M./M.S.U. Co. ag. dept., work in conjunction with M.S.U. Prevent sale insecticides, M.S.U. inspect Auth. co., to appro, ag. improv., M.S.U. coop. Auth. public boards, make rules, protect prop. Auth. pub. bds. make rules, protect property U. of M. , analyze water used by public Vet. med. soc. rep't., filed U. of M. library Student may be empl., dental college, amend. Property, U. of M. Woman's A u x ., tax-exempt Student may be employed in dental college Supreme court rep., filed U. of M. library Geol. speci., maps, diagr., filed U. of M. lib. APPENDIX D Constitutional Provisions Effecting the Constitutional Incorporation of Each College and University I. II. Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963 1959 Amendment to the Constitution of 1908 III. Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1908 IV. Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1850 181 182 I. Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963 ARTICLE VIII Education Higher education institutions; appropriations, accounting, public sessions of boards Sec. 4. The legislature shall appropriate moneys to maintain the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan College of Science and Technology, Central Michigan University, Northern Michigan University, Western Michigan University, Ferris Institute, Grand Valley State College, by whatever names such institutions may hereafter be known, and other institu­ tions of higher education established by law. The legislature shall be given an annual accounting of all income and expendi­ tures by each of these educational institutions. Formal sessions of governing boards of such institutions shall be open to the public. University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University; controlling boards Sec. 5. The regents of the University of Michigan and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate known as the Regents of the University of Michigan; the trustees of Michigan State University and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate known as the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University; the governors of Wayne State University and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate known as the Board of Governors of Wayne State University. Each board shall have general super­ vision of its institution and the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution's funds. Each board shall, as often as necessary, elect a president of the institution under its supervision. He shall be the principal executive officer of the institution, be ex-officio a member of the board without the right to vote and preside at meetings of the board. The board of each institution shall consist of eight members who shall hold office for terms of eight years and who shall be elected as provided by law. The governor shall fill board vacancies by appointment. Each appointee shall hold office until a successor has been nominated and elected as provided by law. Other institutions of higher education; controlling boards Sec. 6. Other institutions of higher education established by law having authority to grant baccalaureate 183 degrees shall each be governed by a board of control which shall be a body corporate. The board shall have general supervisions of the institutions and the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution's funds. It shall, as often as necessary, elect a president of the institution under its supervision. He shall be the principal executive officer of the institution and be ex-officio a member of the board without the right to vote. The board may elect one of its members or may designate the president, to preside at board meetings. Each board of control shall consist of eight members who shall hold office for terms of eight years, not more than two of which shall expire in the same year and who shall be appointed, by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate. Vacancies shall be filled in like manner. II. 1959 Amendment to the Constitution of 1908 ARTICLE XI Education Board of governors; Wayne State University; president; supervision Sec. 16. There shall be a board of governors of Wayne State University, consisting of 6 members, who shall hold office for 6 years. There shall be elected at each regular biennial spring election 2 members of such board. When a vacancy occurs in the board of governors, it shall be filled by appointment of the governor. The board of governors of Wayne State University and their successors in office shall continue to constitute the body corporate known as "The Board of Governors of Wayne State University". The board of governors shall, as often as necessary, elect a president of Wayne State University. The president and the superintendent of public instruction shall be ex-officio members of the board of governors, with the privilege of speaking but not of voting. The president shall preside at the meetings of the board and be the principal executive officer of Wayne State University. The board of governors of Wayne State University shall have general supervision of Wayne State University and the duties of said board shall be prescribed by law. The legislature shall be given an annual detailed accounting of all income from whatever source derived and all expenditures by Wayne State University. 184 III. Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1908 ARTICLE XI Education Regents of the university; name Sec. 4. The regents of the university and their successors in office shall continue to constitute the body corporate known as "The Regents of the University of Michigan." University; president, supervision Sec. 5. The regents of the university shall, as often as necessary, elect a president of the university. The president of the university and the superintendent of public instruction shall be ex-officio members of the board of regents, with the privilege of speaking but not of voting. The president shall preside at the meetings of the board and be the principal executive officer of the university. The board of regents shall have the general supervision of the university and the direction and control of all expenditures from the university funds. State board of agriculture; election; name Sec. 7. There shall be elected on the first Monday in April, nineteen hundred nine, a state board of agriculture to consist of six members, two of whom shall hold the office for two years, two for four years and two for six years. At every regular biennial spring election thereafter, there shall be elected two members whose term of office shall be six years. The members thus elected and their successors in office shall be a body corporate to be known as "The State Board of Agriculture." Agricultural college; president; supervision Sec. 8. The state board of agriculture shall, as often as necessary, elect a president of the agricultural college, who shall be ex-officio a member of the board with the privilege of speaking but not of voting. He shall preside at the meetings of the board and be the principal executive officer of the college. The board shall have the general supervision of the college, and the direction and control of all agricultural college funds; and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law. 185 IV. Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1850 ARTICLE XIII Education Regents of university; body corporate Sec. 7. The regents of the university and their successors in office shall continue to constitute the body corporate, known by the name and title of "The Regents of the University of Michigan." President of university; supervision by regents Sec. 8. The regents of the university shall, at their first annual meeting, or as soon thereafter as may be, elect a president of the university, who shall be ex-officio a member of their board, with the privilege of speaking but not of voting. He shall preside at the meetings of the regents and be the principal executive officer of the university. The board of regents shall have the general supervision of the university, and the direction and control of all expenditures from the university interest fund. APPENDIX E Selected Public Acts Referenced in the Study These public acts illustrate the growing complexity of the appropriations acts over the years together with the different styles and numbers of conditions which were attached by the legislature. Included in Appendix E are: I. II. III. The First Appropriations Act— Public Act No, 59 of 1867 The First Appropriations Act to be Completely Itemized--Public Act No. 185 of 1877 The Latest Appropriations Act— Public Act No. 83 of 1970 186 187 X. The First Appropriations Act PA 59 of 1867 was the first appropriations act to be enacted by the Michigan legislature for a university. It also was the first "mill tax" to be levied by the State for a University. In prior years a "University Interest Fund" had been established from funds received from the sale of lands, which the University of Michigan drew upon for its operational and capital outlay needs. State of Michigan Regular Session of 1867 Public Act No. 59 An Act to extend aid to the University of Michigan. Sec. 1. The People of the State of Michigan enact. That there shall be assessed upon the taxable property of this state, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and in each year thereafter, for the use, aid and maintenance of the University of Michigan, the sum of one-twentieth of a mill on each dollar of said taxable property assessed and paid into the treasury of the State, in like manner as other State taxes are by law levied, assessed and paid; which tax, when collected, shall be paid by the State Treasurer to the treasurer of the Board of Regents of the University, in like manner os the interest on the University fund is paid to said treasurer of said board: Provided, That the Regents of the University shall carry into effect the law which provides that there shall always be at least one professor of homeopathy in the department of medicine, and appoint said professor at the same salary as the other professors in this department, and the State Treasurer shall not pay to the treasurer of the Board of Regents any part or all of the above tax until the Regents shall have carried into effect this proviso. Approved March 15, 1867 188 XI. The First Appropriations Act to be Completely Itemized PA 185 of 1877 was so specifically itemized that each profes­ sor was named by department together with the equipment and physical improvements he required. The legislature had been unhappy about the way the University was spending its money in the past. It also wanted to be certain that programs of special interest to the legislature were properly funded. State of Michigan Regular Session of 1877 Public Act No. 185 An Act entitled "an act making appropriations for the general and other expenses of the University of Michigan." Section 1. The People of the State of Michigan enact, That there shall be and is hereby appropriated out of the State treasury, for the general expenses of the University of Michigan and for other expenses herein named, the following sums, to wit: To pay the profes­ sor of geology for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, two thousand dollars; to pay the professor of geology for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, two thousand dollars; for the physical laboratory for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, one thousand dollars; for the physical laboratory for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, five hundred dollars; to pay the professor of physics for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, two thousand dollars; to pay the professor of physics for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, two thousand dollars; for the hospital for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, two thousand dollars; for the hospital for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, two thousand dollars; for the physiological laboratory of the medical departments for the year eighteen hundred and seventyseven, two thousand five hundred dollars; for the physiological laboratory of the medical departments for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, one thousand dollars; for the general library for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, two thousand five hundred dollars; for the general library for the year eighteen hun­ dred and seventy-eight, two thousand five hundred dollars; to pay the professors in the dental school for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, four thousand five hundred dollars; to pay the professors in the dental school for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, four thousand five hundred dollars; to pay for apparatus in the dental school for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, one thousand dollars; to pay for apparatus in the dental school for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, five hundred dollars; to repair a building for the dental school for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, one thousand dollars; for the astronomical department for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, one thousand five hundred dollars; to enable the regents to extend the term of instruction in the department of 189 medicine and surgery to nine months for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, four thousand five hundred dollars; to enable the regents to extend the term of instruction in the department of medicine and surgery to nine months, for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, four thousand five hundred dollars; to enable the regents to extend the term of instruction in the homeopathic college to nine months, for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, two thousand five hundred dollars; to enable the regents to extend the term of instruction in the homeopathic college to nine months, for the year eighteen hundred and seventy-eight, two thousand five hundred dollars. Sec. 2. There shall be assessed upon the taxable property of the State in the year eighteen hundred and seventy-seven, the sum of twenty-seven thousand dollars, and in the year eighteen hun­ dred and seventy-eight, the further sum of twenty-two thousand dollars assessed and levied in like manner as other State taxes are by law levied, assessed, and paid; which tax when collected shall be credited up to the general fund to reimburse the same for the amounts drawn therefrom, as provided in section one of this act. Sec. 3. This act shall take immediate effect. Approved May 22, 1877. 190 III. The Latest Appropriations Act Dy 1970 the appropriations acts had become quite detailed and contained a record number oi: conditions (see Table 1 in chap­ ter XV for some indication of the growing numbers of, and changes in conditions). PA 83 of 1970 was the first appropriations act to be subdivided by operational categories. It should also be noted that the appropriations for the three medical schools were highlighted under each of the universities which have one. State of Michigan Regular Session of 1970 Public Act No. 83 AN ACT to make appropriations for the state institutions of higher education anti certain other purpose's relating to education for the fiscal year ending June JO, 1071 ; to provide for the lucirenditure of such appropriations; anil in provide for the disposition of fees and other income received by various statu agencies. The Peopl e o f the Stott: o f Michigan enact : Sec. 1. There is appropriated for the s ta le institutions of higher education and certain stale purpo;*;s related to education, and subject to the conditions herein set forth, front the general fund of the slate, for the fiscal year ending June JO.1*01, the sum of $330,332,234.00 or as much thereof as m ay he necessary for the several purposes and in the following respective amounts: CENTRAL M IC H IG A N U N IV E R SIT Y Tor Fiscal Year Instiuction (T h is program includes teaching credit Isn diu ^lu nu JO, courses, academic advising, admissiuns, registration and learning resources) ......................................................... $ 12,512,67*1.00 Public service (T h is program includes noncredit ex­ tension and olhei com m unity service activities) . . . 47*1,795.00 Library ('Phis program includes technical services, public services, acquisitions and administration) . ................ 858,517.00 Student services (T h is program includes student services, student activities and includes financial aids o f $660,075.00} 1,777,053.00 General support (T h is program includes administration, plant operation and maintenance, improvement and expansion) ...................................................................................... 5,011,871.00 Gross total current operations $ 20,614,915.00 Less in state student fees........................................................ 5,206,200.00 L ess out of state student fees .......................................... 156,635.00 Less o f f campus student fees ................... 508,750.00 Less self-liquidating debt fees ............................. 811,020.00 Less other incom e . .............................................. 1,145,410.00 N ET GENERAL FUND $ 12,786,900.06 1.91 For Fiscal Year Kudin;; J u n e JO, mi E A STE R N M IC H IG A N U N IV E R SIT Y I n s t r u c t i o n ...............................................................................................$ 17,246,362.00 Research (T h is program includes project research and research units) ............................................................................. 54,944.00 Public services ................................................................. . .............. 578,701.00 L i b r a r y ..................................................................................................... 1,4 19,453.00 Student services (including financial aid of $3S2,700.C0) 2,192,517.00 General support ................................................................................ 6,612,193.03 Gross total current operations ...............................................$ 28,1.>1,1 75.00 L ess in state student ic-es .................................................. 7,069,515.00 800,311.00 L ess nut o f suite student f e e s ............................................. L ess o ff catnpus student f e e s ................................................... *180,669.00 Less self-liquidating debt fees ............................................. 698,970.00 Less other income ................................................................... 803,829.00 N E T CENEKAL FUND ................................................................................ ? 18,281,051.00 F E R R I S S T A T E COLLEG E In stru ctio n ................................................................................ ? Public service .................................................................................... L i b r a r y ..................................................................................................... Student services (including financial aid o f $ 599,904.00) General s u p p o r t .................................................................................... 8,6S1,6-15,00 1G6,53G.OO 553,013.00 1,585,137.00 2,974,79-1.00 Gross total current operations ............................................ S 13,966,175.00 Less in state student fees...................................................... 3,057,436.00 Less nut. o f state student f e e s ................................................ 354,3S9.t>0 Less self-liquidating debt fees ......................................... 174,050.00 Less other i n c o m e ..................................................... 205,492.00 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D ...................................................................................$ 10,174,805.00 G R A N D V A L L E Y S T A T E CO L LE G E In stru ctio n $ Research ................................................................................................ Public service ....................................................................................... L i b r a r y ..................................................................................................... Student services (includes financial aid o f $232,777.00) . . General support .................................................................................. 2,657,483.00 6,500.00 95,290.00 311,369.00 621,696.00 1 ,546,7S9.CjO Gross total current operations $ Less in state student fe e s .......................................................... Less out o f state student fees ............................................. Less self-liquidating debt fees ............................................. Less other i n c o m e ...................................................................... 5,239,132.00 1,224,035.00 102.070.00 96,370.00 93,744.00 NET GENERAL FU N D $ 3,722,913.00 192 For Fiscal Year Ending Jm:c 30, iv7I L A K E S U P E R I O R S T A T E CO L LE G E I n s t r u c t i o n ................................................................................................$ Public service ........................ Library ................................................................................................... Student services (includes financial aid of $94,071.00) . . . General s u p p o r t .................................................................................... 1,470,942.00 54,147.00 201,151.00 273.202.CO 800,S4 7.03 Gross total current operation .................................................? L ess in slate student fees . . . .............................................. Less out of state student fees ........................................... Less o ff campus student fees .......................................... Less self-liquidating debt fees .............................................. Less other income ...................................................................... 2,300,289.00 455,1 56.00 260,527.00 30,241.00 40.300,00 122,500.00 N E T GENERAL FU N D ....................................................................................... 9 M IC H IG A N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y (E A S T L A N S IN G C A M P U S ) (Including land grant endowment fund interest, anti $1,362,939.00 for administration and operation o f the college of human medicine and $1,056,915.00 for ex­ pansion of the third and fourth years of the medical school to an enrollment o f ICO allopathic medical students. Also including $900,000.00 for administra­ tion and operation o f the college of osteopathic medicine ami expansion to an enrollment of 45 osteo­ pathic mcd;cal students.) Instruction $ 50.459.Cd 7.CO Research ................................................................................................ 2,999,723.00 I’ublic service .................................................................................... 3,073,111.00 Library ..................................................................................................... 3,037.403.00 Student scivices (includes financial aid of $6,874,436.00) 11,605.455.00 ............................................................................. 17.503,491.00 General support Gross total current operations $ 95.273.205.00 Less in state student f e e s ............................................ 20,736.7 71.00 Less out of state student fees .............................................. 8,131,606.00 Less off campus student fees ................................................ 1,217,914.00 Less self-liquidating debt fees ........................................... 861,527.00 Less otl’.cr i n c o m e ........................................................................ 4,348.263.00 N E T G ENER AL F U N D , EAST L A N SIN G CAM PUS $ 59,932,124.00 Agriculture experiment station Administration and operation ? 5,869.645.00 Dean and beet plant research .............................................. 80.000.00 Vegetable and fruit research ................................................ 100,000.00 Pesticide research ...................................................................... 500,000.00 Mastitis in dairy c a t t l e ............................................................ 50,000.00 75,000.00 B eef cattle forage ...................................................................... S oft white winter wheat .......................................................... 75,000.00 Sod production ............................................................................ 50,000.00 Mechanization o f h a r v e s t i n g ................................................... 40.000.00 Extending peach tree life ....................................................... 24,000.00 1,861,535.00 193 For Fiscal Year End in t: .luue 30, iyn Cattle and swine infertility ................................................... $ Fruit and vegetable weather adaptability ...................... Integrated control of lruit pests ....................................... Less federal aid and other income ............................. 50.000.00 36.000.00 40.000 00 L-tOl.613.C0 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D , AG RIC U LT U R E E X l ' E E l M E N ' i d T A T JU N ........................... $ Cooperative extension service Administration and operation ............................................... $ 7,-VIS.29 LOO Less federal aid and other income .............. .............. 2.S06.921.00 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D . C O O P E R A T IV E E X T E N S IO N SER V IC E $ 4,5-11,370.00 N E T G ENER AL F U N D , M IC H IG A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y ....................................................................................... ? 70,06I,I96.G0 M I C H I G A N T E C H N O L O G IC A L U N I V E R S I T Y Instruction ............................................................................................ $ Research . ................................. Piddle set vice . Library ................................................................................................... Student service.- (includes financial aid o f $70 7,610.00) . . General support .................................................................................. 6,521,3-6.00 S57.S71.00 282.329.03 549.001,00 1,326.743.00 3,? 19.605.00 Gross total current operations ........................................... ? 12,756.971.00 L ess in state student fees ....................................................... 1,696.395.00 1,714.744.00 Less out of stale student fcrs .............................................. Less o ff campus student f e e s .............................................. 7,215.00 L ess self-liquidating dcvbt fees .............................................. 2S 7.160.00 L ess other income ...................................................................... 3S0.039.00 N ET GENERAL FUND ................................................................................ $ NO RTH ER N M IC H IG A N U N IV ER SIT Y Instruction ............................................................................................ $ Public service ....................................................................................... Library ........................................... .................................................. . Student services (includes financial aid of $ 6 6 5 ,4 2 3 .0 0 ). . General support ........................................ 8,671,418.00 7,010.931.00 429,143.00 787,739.00 1.633.994.00 3,503.296.00 Gross total current operations $ 13.365.153.00 Less in slate student fees ....................................................... 2,645.616.00 748.5-14.00 Less out of state student fees .............................................. L ess o ff campus student fees .............................................. 100,913.00 Less self-liquidating debt fees .............................................. 390.S99.00 Less other income ...................................................................... 1,494.696.00 N E T GENERAL FU N D .............................................................................. .$ 7,9S4,4 8 5.00 19/i F or Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1971 OAKLAND U N IV ER SIT Y Instruction .............................................................................................$ Research .............................................................................................. Public service ..................................................................................... Library ................................................................................................. Student services (includes financial aid of $3 19,SOI.0 0 ) . General support (including $15,000.00 added subsidy for autonom y pursuant to Public Act N o . 35 of 19701 9 Gross total current operations I.ess in s ta le student fees Less out of state student fees Less self-liciuidnling debt fees Less other incom e ................... N ET GENERAL FU N D 6.276.527.00 75,11 1.CJ0 2-12,905.00 915,604.00 1,703,-13-1.CO 2.311.52.3.00 12,062.909.00 3.763.051.00 -169.3-19.03 3-i6.ooo.no 350.000.00 ................... $ S A G IN A W V A L L E Y C O L LE G E In.'tructinn .............................................................................................$ Research ................................................................................................. Public se n d ee ....................................................................................... Library . , . . ..................................................................................... Student services (includes financial aid o f $ 43,000.00) . . General support ................................................................................ 1.599,739.00 27.-17S.OO -12,007.03 257’,05s.03 119,503,00 92S.2SI.OO Gross total current o p e r a t i o n s ...............................................$ Less in stale student fees . ................................................... Less out of state student fees ............................................. Less sclf-lbpiid.iting debt fees ............................................. Less other incom e ...................................................................... 2,773,669.00 602,-162.00 17.922.CO 35,113.00 27.-171.00 N E T G E N E R A L I-’U X D .................................................................................$ U N I V E R S I T Y OF M I C H I G A N ( A N N A R B O R C A M P U S ) (Including $5,299,166.00 fur adr.ainistratinn and operation o f the college o f medicine and $320,000.00 for the continuing expansion program to 225 class level and total enrollment of S57 allopathic medical students and $1-10,930.00 for com m unity medicine program and $3,501,267.00 for administration and operation of the dental school and $497,400.(70 for expansion to 130 class level and total enrollment o f -130 dental and medical students.) Instruction $ 63,332.013.00 Research ................................................................................................ ?,29S,796.00 Public service ............................................ ■.................................... 2,523,376.00 L ib rary '................................ .*.................................................................. 5,489,741X0 Student services (includes financial aid o f $5,019,390.00 at the Ann Arbor cam pus) ..................................................... 6,952,196.00 General support .................................................................................. 23.919.901.00 Gross total current operations $116,516,023.00 7,153,909.00 ?,090,$98.03 195 L ess L ess L ess Less L ess F o r Jmsc.i 1 Y e a r K udin;; J u n e 30, 1971 in s la te student f e e s .........................................................$ 12,783,920.00 18,*175,295.00 out o f state student fees .............................................. o ff campus student fees .............................................. 1,362,133.00 self-liquidating debt fees .............................................. 1,169,077.00 other income ......................................................................... 13,-130,562.00 N E T G EN ER A L F U N D , A N N ARBOR C A M P U S ........................................................... $ 6 9 ,2 9 5 ,0 3 0 . 0 0 U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I C H I G A N C O M M U N I T Y COLLEGE, not to exceed ......................................................................... $ L A K E M I C H I G A N CO LLEG E Gross budget . . . . ............................................................................. $ Less student fees ........................................................................ Less oilier income ...................................................................... Less local tax r e v e n u e s ............................................................. 2,263,950.00 13,071.0S7.00 4,234.610,00 335.217.00 1,755,000.00 N E T GENER AL FU N D . MACOMB CO UNTY COM­ M U N I T Y CO LLEG E, not to e x c e e d ................................................. ? M I D - M I C H I G A N C O M M U N I T Y CO LLEG E Gross budget .......................................................................................$ Less student fees . . ................................................................. Less other incom e ............................... ..................................... Less local tax revenues .......................................................... 955,350.00 5,479,06S.C0 1,594,950X0 390,163.00 1.230,000.00 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D , LAN SIN G C O M M U N IT Y CO LLEG E, not to exceed ...................................................................... $ M A C O M B C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y CO L LE G E Gross budget . ................................................................................$ Less student fees ............................................ L ess other income ................................................ Less local tax revenues ............................................................ 313,125.00 2,34 1,416.00 524.740.C0 233,796X0 G30.030.C0 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D . LA K E M IC H IG A N COLLEGE, not to exceed ......................................................................... $ L A N S IN G C O M M U N I T Y COLLEG E Gross budget ........................................... .......................................... $ Lcs.i student fees ..................................................................... Less other incom e ...................................................................... Less local tax r e v e n u e s ............................................................ 1,147,515.00 6.196,260.00 633,385.00 204.690.00 —O— 145,G15.00 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D , M ID -M IC H IG A N C O M M U N IT Y CO LLEG E, not to exceed .......................................................................$ 333,030.00 200 For Fiic.il Year Ending Jinn: 3U, 1971 M O N R O E C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y CO L LE G E Gross budget ..................... ................................................................ $ Less student fees ...................................................................... L ess other i n c o m e ........................................................................ Less local lax revenues .................................................... 1,938,360.00 5-)2,*100.03 85.000.00 551,250.00 N E T GENER AL F U N D , M ONROE C O UNTY COM­ M U N I T Y CO LLEG E, not to cxcccil ................................................. $ M O N T C A L M C O M M U N I T Y CO L LE G E Gross budget ...................................... ............................................... $ L ess student fees ........................................................................ Less other i n c o m e ........................................................................ Less local tax revenues ............................................................ 779,710.00 1,053,823.00 243,G8Q.OO 218.043.00 I75.C30.00 N E T G EN ER A L F U N D , M ONTCALM C O M M U N IT Y C O LLEG E, not to exceed ....................................................... $ <117,100.00 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D , M U S K E G O N C O U N T Y CO M ­ M U N I T Y CO LLEG E, not to exceed .................................................. S 1,624,110.00 M U S K E G O N C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y C O L LE G E Gross budget ...................................................................................... S I^css student fees ........................................................................ Less other i n c o m e ........................................................................ L ess local tax r e v e n u e s ............................................................ N O R T H C E N T R A L M I C H I G A N C O L LE G E Gross budget . ................................................................................$ Less student fees ................................................................... . Less other incom e ........................................... ■......................... Less local tax revenues .......................................................... 3,960.476.00 983,530.00 137.7S6.00 1,215,000.00 903,375.00 296,700.00 109,640.00 95,000.0*0 N E T G E N ER A L F U N D , N O R T H CENTRAL M IC H IG A N CO LLEG E, nnt to exceed.... ............................................................. N O R T H W E S T E R N M I C H I G A N CO L LE G E Gross budget ............................................................................. $ Less student fees ........................................................................ Less other incom e .......................... Less local tax r e v e n u e s ............................................................ $ 1,561,755.00 604,770.00 105.000.00 137,600.00 N E T G E N ER A L F U N D , N O R T H W E S T E R N M IC H IG A N CO LLEG E, not to exceed ................................................. '.................... $ O A K L A N D C O M M U N I T Y CO LLEG E Gross budget..... ...................................................................................... $ Less student fees . . ................................................................. Ivcss other incom e .................................................................... L ess local tax r e v e n u e s ............................................................ 402,535.00 713,385.00 13,516,595.00 3,449,720.00 425,000.00 4,500,000.00 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D , O A K L A N D C O M M U N IT Y CO L LE G E , not to e x c e e d ..................................................................... - $ 5,171,875.00 201 ST. C L A I R C O M M U N I T Y C O L LE G E Gross budget ........................................................................................$ L ess student fees ......................................................................... Less other i n c o m e ........................ Less local lax r e v e n u e s ............................................................ .For Fiscal Year Emliiut June 30, 2.8SS,935.00 1071 31-1,000.00 32-J.V-I7.00 5*10,1 SS.09 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D , ST. C L A IR CO M M EN T J'Y CO LLEG E, not to exceed ......................................................................... $ SC H O O L C R A FT CO L LE G E Gross budget ........................................................................................$ Less student fees ......................................................................... Less other income ...................................................................... Less local tax revenues ............................................................ 5,275,056,00 1,510,330.00 220,663.00 1,295,823.00 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D ,S C H O O L C R A F T COLLEGE, not to exceed .......................................................................? S O U T H W E S T E R N M I C H I G A N CO LLEG E Gross budget ........................................................................................$ L ess student fees ......................................................................... L ess other income ...................................................................... Less local tax r e v e n u e s ............................................................ 1,210,000.00 2,2*17,710.00 1,123,651.00 393,400.00 42.7S7.00 142,407.00 N E T G E N E R A L F U N D , SO U TH W E STE R N M IC H IG A N COLLEGE, not to exceed ........................ $ 550,060.00 N E T G EN ER A L F U N D . W ASH TENA W C O M M U N IT Y C O LLEG E, n ot to exceed ......................................................................... $ 1,394,370.00 W A S H T E N A W C O M M U N I T Y CO L LE G E Gross budget . ................................................................................... ? L ess student fees ......................................................................... J.css other incom e .... Less local tax revenues ................................. W A Y N E C O U N T Y C O M M U N I T Y CO L LE G E Gross budget L ess student fees ......................................................................... Less other income ...................................................................... Less local tax r e v e n u e s ............................................................... 4,019,290.00 839.920.00 335,000.00 1,400,000.00 $ 13,647,225.00 1,735.000.00 500.000.00 ■S ,700,000.00 N E T G ENER AL F U N D . W A Y N E C O U N TY C O M M U N IT Y COLLEGE, not to exceed ......................................................................... ? W E S T SH O R E C O M M U N I T Y CO L LE G E Gross budget ........................................................................................$ Less student, fees ........................... Less other income . . . .................................... Less local tax revenues ............................................................ 2,712,225.00 700.222.00 137.400.00 75,000.00 197,947.00 N E T G E N ER A L F U N D . W EST SHORE C O M M U N ITY COLLEGE, n ot to exceed ......................................................................... $ 289,875.00 T O T A L J U N I O R A N D C O M M U N I T Y C O L LE G E S ................... $ 46,265.935.00 T O T A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N ................................................................$330,332,284.00 202 See. 2. ( a ) T h e suntE appropriated herein shall be paid out of the state treasury and shall be distributed b y the state treasurer to the respective institutions in 12 m onthly in ­ stallments, payable on the first o f every month. In no instance shall the amount dis­ tributed to any institution exceed the net appropriation plus additional distribution specifi­ cally authorized by this act. ( b ) T h e state treasurer shall inform each legislator in writing of tlie amount to be distributed to each institution o f higher education not less than 10 clays prior to each distribution o f funds pursuant to this act. ( c ) Each o f the am ounts appropriated shall be u s e d solely for the respective purposes herein stated, except as otherwise provided b v taw. Under no circumstances shall any junior or com m unity college, college nr university pay an employer's contribution to more than one retirement fund providing benefits for any employee. ( d ) T h e appropriations made in this act to the various state supported institutions o f higher education, were calculated on the following estim ated fiscal year equated student enrollments: IN ST IT U T IO N O N CAM PUS OFF CAM PUS 764 74 S O 0 37 1,279 4 1S5 0 0 70S 0 O S67 643 T O TA L 13,995 IS.594 9,400 2,993 1,550 41,659 5,41S 7.803 6.465 1.500 35,194 1,08u 1,4 58 29,368 22,4 23 ............... ............... ............... _______ 17,846 9,*100 2,99,5 1,513 Michigan technological university ................. ............... Northern Michigan university ........................ ............... Oakland u n i v e r s i t y ................................................ Saginaw valley college ....................................... ............... University of M ichigan—-Ann Arbor .......... ............... Universitv o f Michigan— D e a r b o r n .............. ................. University o f Michigan— Flint ...................................... 5, - m 7,623 1,500 3 4 .-15.5 1,086 L »ss Subtotal ....................................................... ................. 193,676 5,235 198,911 Alpena ........................................................................ ................. Ilnv dc N o e . .......................................................... ................. D ella ........................................................................................... Genesee ...................................................................... ................. Glen Oaks ................................................................. ................. Gogebic ................................................................... ................. Gmnd Rapids .......................................................... ................. Ilcnrv Ford .......................................................... .................. Highland Park ...................... ................................. Jackson ...................................................................... , ............ Kalamazoo v a l l e y .................................................. ................. Kellogg ....................................................................................... Kirtland ...................................................................................... Lake Michigan ..................................................... ................. Lansing ....................................................................................... M a c o m b .................................... .*............................. ................. Mid M i c h i g a n ........................................................ ................. M onroe .................................................................... ................. M ontcalm ............................................................... ................. Muskegon ............................................................... ................. ................. North Central ............................. .................. 932 676 4,460 -1,584 650 60S 4,212 6,230 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 932 676 4.460 4,334 650 60S 4,212 6,230 3,217 2,500 1,894 1,943 45 8 1.532 4.100 11,032 482 1,318 600 2,615 593 Eastern Michigan university ........................... Ferris state c o l l e g e ................................................ Grand valley s la te college ............................. Lake Superior state college ............................. 2,500 1.894 1,943 458 1.582 4.100 11,032 482 1,313 600 2,645 598 ' 203 Northwestern ................... Oakland ............................................................ St. C l a i r ............................................................ Schoolcraft ..................................................... Southwestern ................................................ Washtenaw ..................... W ayne . ...................... AVest Shore ..................... ........................ 806 2,323 5,153 425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,191 9,677 2,000 3.745 806 2,323 5,153 425 Subtotal .............................................. ........................ G R A N D T O T A L ........................ ........................ 80,041 2 7 3,717 0 5,235 80,041 2 75,952 ........................ ........................ 9,677 2,003 ........................ ......... ................... ( e ) It is n condition o f .this appropriation t i n t carh junior and com m unity college and each college and university submit the reports required under section *1 o f this act at such lime as required by the bureau of the budget am! the Ugi-lmure. T he state budget director shall withhold the remaining allotm ents and the state treasurer shall cet^c and d e-isl from the payment o f funds to any junior or com m unity college. colleen or univerrity. until such time as these reports arc submitted. Furthermore, it is a condition that budget requests and reports submitted shall determine fiscal year equated students by dividing the total number of undergraduate student cttdit bouts for which students were carolled at the end of each normal registration period during the entire fiscal year by 31 for these institutions operating on a semester schedule and by 40.5 for those colleges operating on a quarter term schedule, and 24 for master's level and 16 for doctorate level on a semester schedule or equivalent at a quarter term institution. Furthermore, nu junior or com m unity college shall include in its -cnrcdlment count the student credit hour enrollments o f those persons enrolled concurrently in com m unity college credit courses and in secondary’ programs as a part of a cooperative program between a college district and a secondary or Intermediate school district. It is not the intent of the legislature tn prohibit junior or com m unity college services from being extended to high school cnroi!c_*s. but to prohibit th e paym ent of com munity college aid for the sam e individuals already reimbursed by K -t? aid. ( f ) Subject to the provisions of section 4 o f this act all m oneys received b y the state of Michigan from the federal government or private sources for the use o f any department or agency are appropriated for the purpose for which provided. T h e acceptance and use of federal or private funds places no obligation upon the legislature to continue the puqroscs for which the funds are made available, ( g ) Mo state agency shall establish special programs or expand existing programs which are beyond the scope of the programs of the agency already established and recognized b y the state legislature, including any program which might develop as a result of gifts or m oneys received or available from the federal government, if such acceptance will require obligation or expenditure o f state funds. (10 Furthermore it is a condition o f this appropriation that no general fund appropria­ tions be used by any college, university or junior or com m u nity college to support any lobbying activity. ( i ) All moneys which may be received b y any agency, branch or institution o f higiier education during the fiscal year 1970-71 as an allowance for or in p aym ent o f overhead expenses, sftall be considered by the legislature in the same category as fees or other income and treated as a deduction from the gross authorized scope when calculating the net general fund subsidy for such agency, branch or institution o f higher education. ( j l It is a condition o f this appropriation any other provision of the law to th e con­ trary notwithstanding, that the governing bodies o f junior anti com m unity colleges shall commencing in Ju ly 1971 charge ihc following tuition rate* pci semester hour o f credit or its equivalent in term hours o f credit for all students as follows: Ten dollars per hour for in district students o f the junior or com m unity college district; S20.G0 per hour for out o f district Michigan residents; and $30,00 per hour for out-of-state residents or foreign students. N o waiver o f tuition shall b e granted b y the governing b ody o f an y junior or com m unity 204 college. T his section sh ill in no way prohibit the granting o f scholarships or student aid grants if the full amount of tuition due is assessed against each and every student enrolled. T h e slate budget director shall withhold ail state aid paym ents from any com m u nity college not in compliance with this section. ( k ) If revenue from tuition and student fees, excluding' self-liquidating or activity fees, exceeds in the aggregate the amount nppioprir.lcd as a deduction in section I for any branch or institution nf higher education as a re.-ult uf an increase in tuition or student fee rates applicable to Michigan resident students announced subsequent, to April Is, IrJ70, with the exception of increases made b y junior or com m unity college:, to comply with the minimum set in section 2 f j ) , tile general fund subside appropriated for the support of that branch or institution of higher education shall automatically ha reduced hv the aui'uim by which such revenue exceeds the amount appropriated as a deduction in section 1 o f this act. l-'or the fiscal year 1971*7? this pruvi>ion shall apply to tuition or student fee rate increases applicable to. Michigan resident students announced subsequent to April 15. 1071. leach institution o f higher education shall certify to the le e b litu r e not later than April 15. 1971. the schedule of tuition and student fees applicable to Michigan re-idcnl students for the fiscal year 1971*72. It is the intent of the legislature tn institute in 1971-72 a rational structure of student fees that recognizes program diversity and complexity. In computing student fees the state colleges and universities will request and the bureau of the budget shall recommend according to the following schedule. Rate Per S e me st er Hour $21 R a t e P er Quart er H o ur $14 L e v el graduate $18 $12 complex $15 $10 regional $13.50 $ 9 developing $12 $ 8 technical Institution Michigan state university, university of M ic h ­ igan. W ayne state university W estern Michigan university, Michigan tech­ nological university Central Michigan university, eastern Michigan university. Oakland university, northern M ich ­ igan university Saginaw valley college. Lake Superior state college. Grand valley stale college, university of Michigan— Flint campus— Dearborn c a m ­ pus Ferris state college Any com m unity or junior college not collecting or allocating for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971 the equivalent o f I mill n:i the college d istricts stale equalized valuation for college operation purposes shall forfeit state funds at a rate equal to IQT for each 2 / 1 0 of a mill less thnii 1 mill. T h e bureau of the budget shall decrease the mouthy payment to junior and com m unity colleges for noncompliance if such compliance has not occurred by D ecem ber 1, 1970. ‘ I f the enrollments cited in section 2 (d j of this act for junior and com munity colleges are increased or decreased in the certified enrollments reports as specified by the bureau o f the budget and submitted to the bureau o f the budget at the end o f each normal registration period, the bureau of the budget shall prorate or increase the paym ent to support actual credit hour production. Paym ents shall b e based on the following formula: FYES ' Liberal Formul a Arts Business A. Schools enrollment more than 4000 F Y E S .................$500 $515 B. Schools enrollment more than 1000 F Y E S .................$5G0 $575 Vocational Technical Heal th $7-15 $800 $745 $S00 205 C. S chools enrollment less . th a n JOOO I 'V K S , .,..$ 0 5 5 . - $070 $7-15 $8 0 0 I f the'enrollment, increases exceed the decreases, the bureau of the budget shall provide the legislature with information regarding requ :st> for a supplemental appropriation by April 1, 11)71. In no case shall an y paym ents be made which do not adjust for increases or de­ creases in F Y E S . Enrollment reports shall be made within 30 days a lter the close of the normal registration period. T h e auditor general shall audit enrollment repurLs at all colleges during the course o f the fiscal year. N o p aym ents shall b e issued w ithout submission of these reports after that lime. (1) It is a condition o f this appropriation that the junior and com m unity colleges henceforth shall pay the em ploy er’s contributions to the retirement system , and that the executive shall include such contributions to the retirement system by junior and com m unity colleges in the executive recommendations for each junior and com m unity college. ( m ) T h e legislative auditor general is d ir ecu d In conduct, at least biennially p e r ­ formance audits o f com m u nity colleges in any number not less than 5 as he may deem necesta ry. (n j N o institution o f higher education receiving funds under this act may have ex­ penditures in excess of actual revenues resulting in a deficit budget. Sec. 3. It is not the intent of the legislature in making the appropriations provided in this act to appropriate m oneys for any institution nf higher education to establish any new branch institution away from its main campus. In :io instance shall any of the appropria­ tions contained in litis act be used for the construction o f buildings, or operation o f institu­ tions o f higher education not expressly u u th o m e d in section 1. ( b ) In view of the fact that state appropriations have been used for certain expenses in connection with self-liquidating project?, no contract shall he let for roust ruction of any self-liquidating project at a n y of the state supported institutions of higher education without p iioi ap piov al liieiufm by the legislature. .Sec. 4. ( a ) All institutions of higher education shall furnish actual statistics reflecting head count and student credit, hour enrollment for each semester, quarter cm term, includ­ ing summer school, for each separate campus, for the preceding, current and en-uing fiscal years. Each budget request and the detail budget document subm itted to the legislature bv the governor shall contain the number of on-campus and off-cam pus students on both a head count and a fiscal year equated basis, as defined in section 2 f e ) of this art in the following groups: freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, masters, doctoral and professional students. ( b ) Each junior and com m unity college shall report on both a head count and fiscal year equaled basis the number o f student enrollments and student completions by the following program categories: liberal art, business and commerce, trade and industry and other vocational technical, en d health. (cl Each budget request shall set forth b y semester, quarter or term, including sum ­ mer school, the total credit hours, the approximate cost per credit hour for each croup of students, and the portion o f the total cost paid in tuition and fees by both resident and nonresident students in each group. (d) Pursuant to section 4 o f article 3 o f the constitution o f 19f>3, all institutions of higher education shall furnish an annual accounting o f all income and expenditures to the legislature. T h e accounting shall include a report o f trust and endowment funds presently held by each institution, the purpose o f each trust or endowm ent, expenditures from each trust nr endowment fund during the fiscal year, revenue from interest and other sources added to each trust or endowment fund during the fiscal year, and the balance in each trust or endowment fund at-year end. f e ) A'l institutions o f higher learning shall b e required to submit a full report of any incidents that results from any pliyvcal violence or the d is tin ctio n of property including the total damages in dollars incurred. Further, such rcnort will include the number o f students arrested, and classes missed due to strikes, h o y co lts or demonstrations. This report would be due w ith ih ^ O ’days. o O 206 Sec. S. It is a condition o f this appropriation that no college or university having an ^enrollment_ o f ’out-of-state students in 'e x c e s s ’of 2 0 ' I o f their total enrollment shall increase their' enrollment o f out-of-state students in either actual number or percentage over the actual numbers and percentages that were enrolled in the 19o9-70 school year. fu r t h e r it is the intent o f the legislature that out-of-state students shall pay a student fee c(|ual to approximately 75Vc o f the cost of instruction at the respective institution of higher education. Sec. (i. N o waiver of tuition or student fees shall he granted by any institution of higher education. T his section shall in no w ay prohibit the granting o f scholarships or student aid grants if the full amount o f tuition and student fees due is assessed against each and every student eniullod. Sec. / . When it appeals to the g o v c t m u , based upon w iilten information received by him from the director and the department uf treasury, that actual revenues for a fiscal period will fall below the revenue es tim a te > on which appropriations for that period were based, the estim ates being as determined by the legislature in accordance with section .*1 of article -I o f the state constitution. I h e a .v ern o r shall niahe a finding that a r tu il tevcnue for that fiscal period will fall below such revenue estimates, i l e s h a l l then order the director lo review all appropriations made by the legislature, except those marie for the legislative and judicial branches o f government or from funds constitutionally dvdValed for specific puqioses. Ifascd upon needs, the director shall recommend to the governor a reduction of expendi­ tures authorized by such appropriations, either direct or open-ended, for that fiscal year. T h e governor shall review the recommendations oT the director and shall prepare his order ronlainitig reductions in expenditures authorized b y appropriations fo that actual revenues for the fiscal period will be sufficient In equal such expenditures. T h e governor shall give not less than 5 d ays’ written notice to the members of the appropriations com m ittees o f the house and senate specifying a time and place for a joint meeting of the governor and the 2 com mittees, at which the governor shall present lo the com m ittees his recomm enda­ tions and copies of bis proposed order. N o t later than 10 days after submission o f the order to the com m ittees, e ich com ­ mittee b y v o le o f a majority of its members elected ami serving shall approve or dis­ approve the order. Approval of both appropriations com m ittees is required before any expenditures authorized b y appropriations shall be reduced. I ’pon approval by both ap­ propriations com mittees, the director shall carry out ami implement the order. I f cither or both appropriations com m ittees disapproves the ord.’r. the order is without force and effect. N o t later than 50 days after any disapproval o f a proposed order, the governor may give reasonable written notice to the members, of the appropriation com ­ m ittees o f the house and senate as to the time and place of a further joint meeting o f the 2 com m ittees at which time he shall remhmit an order reducing expenditurei authorized b y appropriations. Within 10 days of the receipt o f such order by the appropriations c o m ­ mittees. each com m ittee shall b y a majority v o te o f its members elected and striving. a p ­ prove or disapprove the order. A cop y o f the order o f the governor and resolutions o f both the appropriations com m ittees approving it shall be filed with the secretary of state and the order shall thereupon becom e effective. Ser. S. Any student who receives scholarship funds under the provisions o f Act N o. 203 of the Public A cts o f 19fi4, as amended, being sections 309.071 to 590.950 o f the Compiled b w vs o f 1043, or receiving tuition grants under the provisions of Act No. 3 f 3 of the Public Acts o f 19Gtj, as amended, being sections 390.991 to 390.99" of the Compiled Laws of 194S, for or while in attendance at an institution o f higher education, which receives appropriations under this act. and is cither convicted in a court of law of the violation of any penal statute or ordinance prohibiting disorderly conduct, violence to a person or damage to property, which x'iolation is com mitted while participating in any disorder, disruption of the administration of or the rendering o f services, or giving o f instruction at any siirli.'instjtuljpn, or b y the, proper authorities of, such institutions o f violating its rules and*'regulations while so participating'shall forfeit any right or qualification which o 207 lie m ay otherwise have for the receipt o f further benefits under either or both said acts. Upon final conviction o f any such student o f any penal violation or determination o f v io ­ lations of such rules or regulations, the president e f such institution of learning shall cause report of the same to be forwarded forthwith to the awarding authority under said acts, which authority shall forthwith terminate any such assistance provided under either or hath o f sa id, acts to such students. Any rule o f an y such institution relied upon to determine continued eligibility for said scholarship shall be in accord with due process of law including the light of appeal. Sec. 9. N o part of any appropriation made b y this act m ay be used for the payment of any salary or wages to any faculty m em ber or other em ployee or foi the education of students convicted o f the o ffen se nf interference with normal operations of any public institution of higher education as described in Act No. 2b of the l'nbltc Acts of 1970. bee. It). N o part oi any appropriation made by this act may fie* ti-u i lor the paym ent o f any salaries, wages, or fees to any trustees, administrators, faculty member or other em ployee or for (he: education of a student, cither full or part lime, who shall possess or permit lo be possessed, without, being a peace officer employed by an bi->litulion o f higher education, any firearm, not registered witii the i n s t i t u t i o n , or other danucroua weapon in any university, college or institution o f higher education, including all the buildings and grounds under their jurisdiction. Sec. 11. It i.-. a condition o f this appropriation that a student o f a college or university who causes willful damage to public property on a campus or other facility o f a college or a university and subject lo all other legal penalties shall be expelled from the college or university. Sec. 12. H is the intent of the legislature that each fulbtim e faculty m em ber who is paid wholly from the line item instruction will teach a minimum nf not less than fifteen (1 5 ) classroom contact hours per week at junior and com m u nity colleges; tw elve ( 1 2 ) classroom contact hours at technical colleges, developing colleges and universities, regional colleges and universities, and com plex universities; and ten ( 1 0 ) classroom' contact hours at graduate institutions as cited in section 2 f j ) . Any faculty member who is paid partly from the line item instruction and partly from other line items of appropriations shall teach a num ber o f classroom hours in proportion to the salary paid from the line item instruction. See. 13. T h e board o f trustees of a com m unity or junior college shall reduce expendi­ tures authorized by appropriations whenever it appears thaL actual revenues for a fiscal period will fall below the revenue estim ates on which appropriations for that period were based. T his net is ordered to take im m ediate effect. o APPENDIX F Michigan Supreme Court Cases Referenced in the Study in Chronological Order 1970-1851 Source of Information: Michigan Reports. Rochester, New York: Lawyer's Cooperative Publishing Company. O 209 Board of Trustees of Michigan State University v. State Labor Mediation Board, 1968 (381 Mich. 44). ^Subject : Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review orders of State Labor Mediation Board. Western Michigan University Board of Trustees v. Slavin, 1968 (381 Mich. 23). Subject: Power to condemn privately owned land. Fox v. Board of Regents of The University of Michigan, 1965 (375 Mich. 238). Subject: Malpractice charge against University of Michigan hospital. Glass v. Dudley Paper Company, 1961 (365 Mich. 227). Subject: Governing bodies have entire control. Christie v. Board of Regents of The University of Michigan, 1961 (364 Mich. 202). Subject: Personal liability charge against University. Jackson Broadcasting and TV Corporation v. State Board of Agriculture, 1960 (360 Mich. 481). Subject: Provision prohibiting the letting of selfliquidating projects without legislative approval exceeds legislative authority. Lucking v. People, 1948 Subject: (320 Mich. 495). Property belongs to the state. Peters v. Michigan State College, 1948 (320 Mich. 243). Subject: Subject to workmen's compensation--divided court. Attorney General ex rel. Cook v. Burhans, 1942 (304 Mich. 108). Subject: Regents are state officers--legislators ineligible. Regents of The University of Michigan v. Herrst, 1925 (231 Mich. 396) . Subject: Negligence charge against University. Robinson v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, 1924 (228 Mich. 225). Subject: Money for university hospitals-^regents. ' .Sta£e Board of Agriculture v. State Administrative Board, 1§24 1(226 Mich. 417) . ^ * - Subject: Governing' board,-has full control of 'funds--discusses'.* conditions on appropriations. * The subject titles only relate to the relationship of these cases to this study. 210 People v. Brooks, 1923 (224 Mich* 45). Subject: Property belongs to the state. Regents of JThe University of Michigan v. Draper, 1917 (195 Mich. 449). Subject: Workmen's compensation claim. The University of Michigan Board of Regents v. Bancroft, Mich. 168). Subject: Personal injury claim. 1916 (192 Michigan Agriculture College v. Agler, 1914 (181 Mich. 559). Subject: Constitutional body, working compensation. State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General (Fuller), 1914 Mich. 349). Subject: Conditioning entire appropriation'}, unconstitutional. (180 The University of Michigan v. Auditor General, 1911 (167 Mich. 444). Subject: Regents equal to legislators--conditioned appropriations. State Board of Agriculture v. Bauer, 1911 (164 Mich. 415). Subject: Internal distribution of appropriations is for the board to decide. State Board of Agriculture v. Attorney General, 1908 (152 Mich. 689) . Subject: Authorized to provide water to local village. The University of Michigan Athletic Association v. Scott, 1908 Mich. 684). Subject: Negligence liability case. (152 Regents of The University of Michigan v. Sterling, 1896 (110 Mich. 369) . Subject: Defines "body corporate" and delineates constitutional powers. Regents v. Auditor General (Turner), 1896 (109 Mich. 134). Subject: University Interest Fund--rate of interest. Regents of The University of Michigan v. Weinberg, 1893 (97 Mich. 246). . Subject: Conditioned appropriations--regents in full control. ■ ‘ ’ - * * Regents of The University of Michigan v. Auditor General, 1890 (83 Mich. 467). '• Subject: Property owned by Regents is tax exempt— state property. 211 Regents v. Douglas (or Rose), 1881 (45 Mich. 284). Subject: Accounting for deficit in public moneys. Regents of The, University of.Michigan v. People ex rel. Attorney Genera 1 , .1874 (30 Mich. 473). - - 'Subject: Declined'mandamus to appoint homeopathy . professors. ‘ ' '’ People ex rel. McIntyre v. Auditor General, 1869 (19 Mich. 13). Subject: University is entitled to all moneys collected under various public acts. Regents of The University of Michigan v. People, 1869 (18 Mich. 469) . Subject : Declined mandamus to appoint homeopathy professor. People ex rel. Regents of The University of Michigan v. Auditor General, 1868 (17 Mich. 161). Subject: Regents have direct control of University Interest Fund— establishment of branch campuses. Regents v. Detroit Young Men's Society, 1863 (12 Mich. 138). Subject: Right to take and hold real estate. Regents v. Board of Education of City of Detroit, 1856 (4 Mich. 213) . Subject: Regents are legal successors of board named in constitution of 1835. Regents of The University of Michigan v. People ex rel. Drake, 1856 (4 Mich. 98). Subject: Declined mandamus to appoint homeopathy professor.