Student curator rep raps Blunt’s veto
Anton H. Luetkemeyer, the current student representative on the UM Board of Curators, has weighed in with his reaction to Gov. Matt Blunt’s veto of a bill that bolstered the student presence on the board.
(See post below for governor’s action and statement.)
Here’s Luetkemeyer’s statement:
I am obviously extremely disappointed in the Governor’s decision to veto a bill that so many students and legislators supported. To use a tool as rare as a veto on such a non-controversial issue which was supported by an overwhelming majority in both houses is clearly a very unexpected decision.
“The Governor’s release raises several concerns regarding Senate Bill 873. In response to his criticism that the legislation would create ‘stakeholder representatives,’ I would point out that the only alternative suggested by the Board to deal with the loss of a congressional district was to appoint an out-of-state alumni ‘wild card’ curator. Clearly this suggestion would also constitute a stakeholder.
“The Governor also cites the student representative’s two-year term as reason for his veto, reasoning that their membership is “transitional.” I have several concerns with the assertion that two years—the same amount of time members of the U.S. Congress serve—is insufficient time to master the issues and become an involved and effective member of the board.
“The Governor’s argument that the new policy would be “inconsistent with other education institutions” and therefore problematic is also misguided. The UM System is the flagship system of the state and undoubtedly the recipient of many unique legislative actions that are tailored to its history, prominence and position as the state’s main educational institution.
“In addition, more than thirty states have already taken action to allow student representatives at state universities a vote. Finally, the Governor’s assertion that giving the student representative a vote in the case of a lost congressional district would result in one region or area having a “stronger vote over others” is also problematic.
“If Missouri loses a congressional district in 2010, there will still be an open spot on the Board—up for grabs by one of the other eight congressional districts, creating double representation anyway since the Board is constitutionally required to have nine members.
“In a time where students’ tuition dollars outweigh state appropriations to the UM system, giving the student representative this vote is the best solution. I hope the legislature will seriously consider overriding this veto.”
Uhh Anton, by and large it is not “students’ tuition dollars” that “outweigh state appropriations” the vast majority is “Mom and Dad dollars” not “student dollars”.
Perhaps next year the legislature should pass a bill requiring a curator spot be dedicated to a parent/guardian who is really paying the bills.
I agree with you though in the thought that it is terrible, just terrible, that students/parents actually have to pay for the education they receive. Why what will this world come to if everyone is required to pay for what they receive? It’s disaster waiting to happen I tell you!
Tony clearly has the better argument here. It’s clear the curators have bought and paid for the governor’s veto through their influence. What are they so afraid of? Just like he said, that one seat would be up for anyone’s grabs anyway, surely ensuring a legislative fight next session. When a majority of lawmakers (nearly all Senators) vote for a bill to actually respect the students’ voice by giving the student rep ONE VOTE, and the Gov turns around and vetoes it–that sends a very clear message to students: sit down and shut up.
oh, and jackson, no one is complaining about having to pay tuition, despite the fact that it’s risen 30 percent in the last five years. It’s more about equity and putting Missouri on par with all the other states and schools that (gasp! how progressive!) allow their ONE student rep a vote.
To Blunt: The students of the UM system will not soon forget this.
When all else fails, when we don’t get what we want, the other side has “bought and paid for” what they want.
Yadda yadda yadda.
Grow up and face it that not everyone believes like you. That doesn’t make them bought and paid for. The legislators who voted for this idiotic bill were bought and paid for, so what.
The “bought and paid for” argument further illustrates why there should be no student curator. Shallow, whiney thinking.
Jackson,
I don’t know if your mommy and daddy paid for YOUR education, or whether YOUR children are too inept to have paid for their own, but I have used scholarships and student loans to pay for my education. I will be paying the banks back when I graduate. So please, think before you type next time.
Jackson,
Go check out the Missouri Ethics Commission and do some research — these guys did donate to Governor Blunt! Do you know how to find the MO Ethics Commission and look up these donations? I can provide the link if you need it.
Russell and Fraser both did! They donated hundreds of dollars each to the campaign…cronyism? I think so! Oh, and BTW, Russell is the Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party. Can we say partisan and donor?
Wah Wah Wah. Somebody gave some money. I didn’t give any money. Those sombody’s got what they wanted and I didn’t. It has to be the hundreds of dollars they gave that made the difference. Yet another good reason not to have a voting student curator.
You had better hope that if you are on trial the jury is unwilling to convict you on such paltry, circumstantial evidence. File an ethics complaint if you think the veto was bought and paid for. The veto was a solid, good government veto.
UMSL Student, thou shouldst follow thine own advice. Scholarships no matter the source are still not your money. Despite your whining, you are being substantialling underwritten by the taxpayers of this state. They invest not only in tuition but in buildings and other areas.
Bottom line is that the taxpayers of Missouri are still making a huge investment in higher education. Last time I looked, over a billion dollars was going to universities and colleges for tuition alone. Capitol projects over the years have added more and more to the significant underwriting taking place.
The fact YOU are having to pay a portion of your own education which will benefit you as much as it does the state is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the constant whining about being responsible which again demonstrates why there should be no voting student curator.
So, Jackson, the essence of your argument is: Unless you were able to work your way, by yourself, into being able to afford college, you need to shut up, sit there and take it. Well, maybe I would qualify to be critical of the veto. I’m 28 years old, and paying for school through a combination of loans, working full-time, and using the G.I. bill that I “was given” by serving in the U.S. Navy for six years. Not a single penny of “Mom or Dad’s money” or scholarship money.
First of all, saying that scholarships are being underwritten by the taxpayers is technically true if you mean people who pay taxes in one way or another. But, not every scholarship is a government scholarship. The vast majority aren’t. They are scholarships from private organizations.
Second, saying that students shouldn’t have a voice in how the university is ran is simply ludicrous. That’s like saying a hospital patient shouldn’t have a say in what procedures are used. The students, more than anyone on the board of curators, realize the impact of the board’s decisions. If the board puts in a policy, it’s the students who have to live under that policy.
Third, the bill doesn’t make it automatic. It simply states that, should Missouri lose a congressional seat, the board member will be a student. How would you want the last spot on the board to be filled? A statewide election would be too cumbersome, an out-of-state alumni makes absolutely no sense, and making a faculty member serve as a curator would, by your own definitions, be even worse, since they pay no money and are the recipients of the university’s largesse.
While I think Gov. Blunt makes a lot of good decisions, this isn’t one of them. Using a veto on this is misguided, but fortunately will probably be overridden come September.
The problem is “student voice” is defined as “voting student curator”. Students have a voice and they have representation at the board of curators.
Regardless of the exact source, scholarships are still other people’s money. Scholarship recipients have the obligation to do their best in living up to the scholarship gift they have been given.
You mentioned the GI bill, many of us have taken advantage of the GI bill. IMHO the state should redirect all their higher education tution dollars to be placed in a GI bill type approach. Establish appropriate state residency requirements such as graduating from a Missouri High School or something like that and give the money directly to students. With check in hand, students would have far more voice than they would have with a vote on the board of curators.
Jackson, I agree with you - students already have a voice, but we let grownups make the final decision. That’s as it should be.
As to the “revelation” here that some curators are Republicans … well, I know, god forbid that anyone to the right of Barak Obama should have any influence in a university. You liberals are the most closed-minded people I’ve ever encountered.
Grownups?? The average age for a student curator is 24-all have been grad or professional students, many with more education already than most of the curators. If we let people run for Congress at the same age, why do you still refuse to acknowledge that they are ‘grown ups?’
Amen repub!
Grownups? It doesn’t get much more grown up than taking on thousands of dollars in debt to better yourself in most cases and having to act like a respectable citizen?
How much more “grownup” do you think people need to be? There are multiple legislators that are in their mid-20s, just as the student curator. Are they not “grownup?”
Nick, usually I agree with your comments on here. I have to respectfully disagree, however. As one of the commentators pointed out, the average age of most of the student reps is 24. I know Tony Luetkemeyer, and he’s starting his final year of law school this fall, and has a White House internship (among other things) on his resume. Calling him a kid is insulting. Hell, calling a great deal (not a majority, but a great deal) of the students ‘kids’ is insulting.
The one thing I would like to hear is how we would replace the curator if that spot opens up in 2010. So far, this is the best of the proposals.
Re: student curator comments.
Read them, well reasoned , thoughtful comments.
Some thoughts: a student voting member would have 11% of the voting power in a 9 member board, and a vocal local constituency at the university, which has been evidenced in this thread. I cannot believe they would vote for a tuition increase in that atmosphere. Thus, 11% of the votes would always be against a tuition increase, no matter what the facts are financially. Similar effects on other UM issues in Columbia.
This is essentially a transfer of power, rightly or wrongly, in favor of students to control the university system. There are other boards and commisions that do not have representatives of certain affected persons are there not?
As to MoActiveGOP’s idea that the student rep is a direct delegate of student interests, it is important to point out that the student rep acts as a trustee–and as to your concern that as a result of their representation of students, you “cannot believe they would vote for a tuition increase in that atmosphere”–
You should know that Luetkemeyer is quoted on the record saying that he would support a tuition increase if it was warranted. Those who pay attention to his service on the board (see past news articles) know that he is just as aware–if not more aware–of the issues and initiatives facing the board. By no means is Tony a one-issue (i.e. anti-tuition hikes) member of the board. The curators and education reporters know this.
Nick, your comments are more closed-minded and thoughtless than any other I’ve encountered. “Grown-ups”? A very decent chunk of UM students are well into adulthood. Do you think that college campuses are solely composed of eighteen year old freshman?