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.”