OCR Text |
Show U's ?ve"in.g structure 'unconstitutional' i i : ; ..... s V jj ' , 1 By REX NUTTING Chronicle Staff University's basic rp of governance has been f,ted unconstitutional by District Judge Gordon R. It day-to-day life at the iersity will go on as usual, If the State Board of Higher elation and the Institutional Council are illegal. The decision was made on a friendly suit" filled by the State Li of Education challenging ,ke constitutionality of the Ler Education Act of 1969 ,bich created the present Stper Billings, chairman of the state Board of Higher Education, will appeal the decision to the Utah Supreme Court. Until the higher court jes on the case, the State Board of Higher Education will continue con-tinue to have control over institutions in-stitutions of higher education in fc state. The Utah constitution provides that the State Board of Education will have control over all state-supported educational systems. But the Highe Education Act created a separate nH rirCu0llegeS' Cities and trade schools. The court held "that the authority in power conferred on the higher board in the Higher Education Act 0f i969 necessarily conflicts with the constitutional authority of the State Board of Education by transferring its power, control and supervision to a separate legal entity." Provost Thomas C. King believes that the legislature will not leave the University under the Board of Education, if the Supreme Court concurs. An amendment to the constitution allowing a higher board in predicted by the prophet provost. Jack Wixom, information officer for the Board of Higher Education, felt that many questions had been left unanswered unan-swered by the court in its decision. He announced that the board would continue as normal until, and if, the Supreme tw against them, C deced to speculate on the future. nothing 'nf ' ,CnifSSing he kn SET Court confi- FriJdavgaf?all1mad6 the decisi" from bn f Kearing arme rom both boards and the Univers.ty.EdwardW. Clyde, an attorney who also serves on the Un.vers.ty Institutional Council represented the University atS fearing. He presented arguments boarf noting that the Supreme Court generally has stricken down actswhere the legislature has attempted to remove essential functions from one agency and give them to another. Mr. Clyde said the Higher Education Act is an example of this, where the legislature took control from the University and gave it to the Board of Higher Education. The Board of Education contended that the constitution gave control of state education to them, not to any other agency. The higher board argued that the Board of Education hadn't included universities in its annual reports, so they didn't consider itself in charge of them. Walter Talbot, superintendent 1 of public instruction, said his office was happy about the decision. Dr. Talbot also said, "The decision poses lots of questions and if it stands, it will provide a unified system of education." "I do think the state needs state-wide co-ordination " commented Dr. King. "I'm hopeful that this is an opportunity op-portunity to improve on what problems there have been in our governance," continued Dr King. But Dr. King reassured anyone who was wondering that the I University would continue to develop new, exciting and relevant programs, whatever the ultimate authority is. Provost Thomas C. King. . . predicts amendment |