THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 30, 1997 TAG: 9701300013
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 59 lines
Designing policy to fit specific personalities is risky business. The people may move on, but the policies linger. Structures that increase the influence of your friend may lose their appeal when power shifts to your foe - and vice versa.
This is the danger of several bills before the General Assembly that are designed to relax the governor's grip on higher education and K-12 schools.
A bill approved by the House Education Committee would let the legislature name five of eleven members on the State Council of Higher Education. Currently, all 11 appointments rest with the governor.
Another bill would turn council appointments over to a selection commission.
Yet another would strip the State Board of Education, also appointed by the governor, of power to oversee the accreditation of Virginia schools. The bill would pass that responsibility to the legislature.
Such legislation reflects the increased politicization of the education panels under Gov. George F. Allen. The governor has appointed majorities to both bodies that are at odds with the forces that traditionally have run education in the state. Under the newcomers, the fiscal bottom line increasingly is ``the'' bottom line.
The atmosphere at the State Council of Higher Education, particularly, is tense. That cannot be good either for those who have long performed quality work at the council, or for the institutions they oversee.
Still, the legislature should move slowly before embracing structural change as a solution to ideological disagreement.
A better first step is to apply political pressure within the existing framework. In fact, that will be the effect of the bills now before the legislature. Sponsors know that, even if the bills should pass, the legislation would be vetoed by Governor Allen.
But by highlighting concerns, the bills direct public attention to the philosophical makeup of the boards assembled by Allen. To the extent that the boards are at odds with the public will, they should become a political issue in this fall's elections.
Longer range, legislators may need to consider the state's increasingly contentious political climate and seek ways to insulate portions of the bureaucracy from whims that result from rapid turnover in the governor's office.
One positive step would be to abandon Virginia's outdated ban on governors' succeeding themselves. It is one thing for voters to elect a chief executive who forces change in the bureaucracy. It is another for agencies to be whipsawed by a change in direction every four years.
Legislation sponsored by Del. Bob Purkey of Virginia Beach would have started the process of amending the constitution to allow two consecutive terms. Unfortunately, that resolution was killed by the House Rules Committee, with House Speaker Tom Moss and Del. George Heilig, both of Norfolk, and Del. Paul Councill of Franklin among those voting against it.
They erred. Governors who stand a chance of succeeding themselves are more likely to feel responsible for the outcomes of their policies. And, whether they like the direction or not, bureaucrats will have a better idea of where the state is headed.