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.”
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?