'Complete takeover': Lawmakers exert control over university policy in 11th hour
These changes ― among them, giving Gov. Mike Braun sole appointing power over Indiana University's board of trustees, subjecting tenured faculty to "productivity" quotas that could lead to termination, dissolving the decision-making power of faculty governance organizations ― were never the subject of a filed bill or amendment and saw no opportunity for public testimony.
They appeared near the bottom of the 220-page budget bill the evening of April 23, and rose to the forefront of the heated debate that went into the early hours of April 25 when lawmakers approved the bill.
"It's hard to imagine anything that could possibly be more nontransparent, opaque," said Russ Skiba, professor emeritus at IU. "This is a complete takeover of universities by the governor and state legislature."
Republican Rep. Jeff Thompson of Lizton, the House's budget writer, repeatedly defended the measures as the state exercising its duty to ensure taxdollars are spent wisely and efficiently. Asked multiple times, he said he could not recall who brought forward the ideas.
IU Board of Trustees
The governor has previously appointed five of the nine trustees to IU's board, plus a student member. Three alumni board members have been elected by alumni. The new language gives the governor appointing and replacing power over all nine members.
Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, in whose district IU's flagship campus sits, questioned why the university itself hadn't made a public position known on this language. He pointed out that one alumni-elected board member recently questioned the pay raise and contract extension of the university president ― referring to Vivian Winston, who was the sole "no" vote on that measure.
House Speaker Todd Huston said there are so few who participate in the elections for the alumni board members, so the university is "better served" to have the highest state elected official appoint the board.
That doesn't mean alumni wouldn't be one of Braun's choices, Braun told reporters earlier in the day. But he said the "current process" has perhaps not "yielded the proper results" in terms of curruculum, cost and the operation of the university.
"So I want to get a board there that is going to be maybe a little more rounded, that's going to produce better results," he said.
Faculty tenure and power
Colleges will be required to adopt a post-tenure review policy that includes certain productivity based quotas: the faculty member's class load, the number of students who they graduate, their time spent instructing and the amount of research they put out.
It's reminiscent of the additions to the tenure review process that lawmakers added last year, in Senate Enrolled Act 202, which dictated that a condition of tenure includes fostering intellectual diversity. Huston said Thursday night's debate reminded him of that bill.
"I think, frankly, Indiana universities from what I can understand are thriving after that passage," he said.
Thompson again said this is about ensuring the efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
Rep. Ed Delaney, D-Indianapolis, posited that this could lead to "diploma creep" ― an inflated number of students attaining diplomas who perhaps aren't ready simply because their professors are incentivized to increase their numbers or meet a quota.
"You can't use Stalinist techniques to run an educational system," he said. "It will lead to distortion."
Skiba said if he were still working as a professor, he would leave the state rather than be subjected to these standards. While these metrics are quantitative, the measure of a professor's success is often more about the quality of the students they graduate, he said.
"Essentially there will be no such thing as tenure anymore," he said. "The review is kind of disturbing, really. ... Any professor could be summarily put on probation and fired for failing to meet some standard."
Another insertion into the budget designates faculty governance organizations as "advisory" only in nature ― contrary to the "shared governance" tradition that many institutions have. Faculty will now also have to post all their syllabi online.
All told, the process behind the policy became just as criticized as the policies themselves.
"Why did members of this body not have the courage to admit to members of this public what they planned to do?" Pierce said. "It is beneath this institution to do such a thing."
Both Huston and Senate President Pro Tempore Rod Bray acknowledged that the legislative process wasn't ideal, and they try to limit how often policies get added to legislation in the final hours of session.
"There a few things that land in a budget that maybe haven't seen much light of today before," Bray said. "We still have the opportunity, of course, to debate them, and we did that this evening. So, certainly not perfect, but you'll have some of those things almost every session."
@kayla_dwyer17.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Georgia Moves Closer to Eliminating Income Tax
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Lawmakers in Georgia have met to discuss the possibility of axing personal income tax. Supporters say eliminating the state's income tax could attract businesses and residents, continuing recent tax relief efforts. Critics warn it would force service cuts or higher sales taxes, hitting low- and middle-income households hardest. Why It Matters Georgia has been amending its personal income tax rates in recent years. Governor Brian Kemp this year signed into law income tax rebates of up to $500 and a rate cut to 5.19 percent starting in January for all income earned in 2025. The measure is part of a broader plan to lower the rate to 4.99 percent. The law also replaced Georgia's system of tax brackets with a flat income tax. According to the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, individual income taxes are expected to amount to around 47 percent of Georgia's state revenue for the current budget year, which started on July 1. Currently, only eight states don't tax individual income, according to the Tax Foundation. What To Know The effort to abolish the Peach State's individual income taxes is being led by Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, a Republican, who argued in a Tuesday meeting that reducing income taxes to zero would help the state stay competitive, particularly among southern states like Florida and Tennessee which have no income tax, and Mississippi and North Carolina, both of which are working toward eliminating personal levies. Jones said lawmakers have already given back billions of dollars to taxpayers in recent years through tax cuts, rebates and other measures. Some $7.6 billion has been returned to Georgia taxpayers through property tax relief, motor fuel tax relief, and income tax rebates and cuts, according to Kemp. "But we must go further," Jones told the Senate Special Committee on Eliminating Georgia's Income Tax. "We must seize this opportunity to lead the South, not trail behind it." The Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta on December 30, 2024. The Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta on December 30, 2024. GETTY Danny Kanso, senior fiscal analyst at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, said that for most Georgia households, eliminating the income tax would effectively be a "massive" tax increase. To offset the deficit, he said, the state would need to triple the sales tax and apply it to new products, calling that "a very tall order to replace the state's largest source of revenue." "[It] doesn't really make sense when you hear we're going to lower taxes, eliminate sources of revenue, and somehow we're also going to raise more money," Kanso said. "That's not something we've really seen work in the past." The committee also heard from Democrats, who warned that eliminating the income tax could force Georgia to either cut services or raise sales taxes, measures they said would hit low- and middle-income residents the hardest. "The same people who favor lowering taxes want the ambulance to be there in four minutes when their loved one is having a health crisis," said State Senator Nan Orrock. "That requires an investment." The committee also heard from Grover Norquist, president of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist argued that states like Florida, which has no income tax, continue to generate revenue even after cutting personal levies. He said that when businesses see states moving to eliminate the tax, they begin investing there, and residents follow. What People Are Saying Georgia Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones said on Tuesday: "If we want to continue to stay competitive here in the state of Georgia, and continue to be the number one state to do business, we've got to be looking for ways to keep us competitive and make it where we have a competitive advantage over states that we are competing with all the time." Danny Kanso, senior fiscal analyst at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, said in Tuesday's meeting: "The proposal would have to increase taxes on far more Georgians than it would reduce taxes on, and so it's a little bit of a solution in search of a problem that would likely cause ripples all across the state and across the economy as well." What Happens Next The committee has set a goal of delivering a workable plan to eliminate income taxes ahead of next year's legislative session, which begins in January 2026.
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
What Trump Is Really Up to in Washington
You do not need the strongest powers of observation to see that crime is a pretext — and not the main reason — for the military occupation of Washington, D.C., by federal agents and soldiers from the National Guard. If the president cared about crime, he would push House Republicans to restore the $1 billion Congress cut from the city's budget, so that Washington could fully staff its Metropolitan Police Department and pay for the services and personnel necessary to keep the city safe. He might fill vacancies at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington and on the local Superior Court, to help federal and municipal officials bring cases to fruition. Looking beyond Washington, he might also have kept federal agents assigned to actual criminal cases, rather than move them to immigration enforcement or saddle them with investigations of his political enemies. If the president cared about crime, he would not have pardoned the Jan. 6 rioters, many of whom have gone on to commit violent crimes in their communities. Still, President Trump's obvious indifference to the actual work of preventing criminal victimization has not stopped some professional political observers from defending the occupation of Washington on the grounds that there is crime in the city. 'I have no doubt that Trump enjoys targeting Democratic-controlled cities for embarrassment,' Michael Powell wrote in The Atlantic, conceding that this deployment is pretextual. But, he added, 'I also have little doubt that a mother in Ward 8 might draw comfort from a National Guard soldier standing watch near her child's school.' Ward 8 is a disproportionately low-income area of Washington that covers the southernmost quadrant of the city, where the violent crime rate is significantly higher than it is in other parts of the city. One assumes that there are actual residents of the area you could speak with to understand their view of the situation. There's no reason to ventriloquize an imagined person when there are real ones with thoughts to share. To this point, my newsroom colleague Clyde McGrady spoke to people in Congress Heights, a neighborhood in Ward 8. 'If Trump is genuinely concerned about the safety of D.C. residents,' one resident said, 'I would see National Guard in my neighborhood. I'm not seeing it, and I don't expect to see it. I don't think Trump is bringing in the National Guard to protect Black babies in Southeast.' You won't find the National Guard in any of the city's high crime areas. The vast majority of soldiers and agents deployed to Washington are stationed in the vicinity of the White House and other high-profile sections of the city. There are soldiers patrolling the National Mall; armored vehicles parked at Union Station; and ICE agents manning checkpoints on U Street, an area known for its bars, restaurants and nightlife. They're not there for safety, but for show. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Would You Trust This Man With Your Elections?
With Republicans potentially losing their current seven-vote majority in the House in next year's midterm elections (or, less likely, their six-vote majority in the Senate), President Trump has been sending clear signals of his intent to interfere with the fairness and integrity of those elections. After saying in a social media post on Monday that 'DEMOCRATS … CHEAT AT LEVELS NOT SEEN BEFORE,' he promised to sign a new executive order aimed at 'MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD' in order 'to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterms.' Mr. Trump also promised to 'lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN ballots and also, while we're at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial Voting Machines.' He also claimed that the United States is the only country using mail-in balloting. (In fact, it is used in Canada, Britain and many other countries.) Mr. Trump's claim that 'the States are merely an 'agent' of the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes' is as legally wrong as it is politically dangerous. That can also be said about his plans to issue an executive order interfering with how states run their elections. The fear that Mr. Trump will try to subvert the 2026 elections is real — after all, he tried to overturn the results of the first presidential election he didn't win. But even if Mr. Trump fails to keep the House and the Senate in Republican hands, he will have delegitimized future Democratic victories in the eyes of his MAGA base. Mr. Trump wants his supporters to believe that Democrats can win only by cheating. 'Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM,' he wrote in his Monday post. (Never mind that he raised his claim after he was apparently lectured on the supposed insecurity of mail-in ballots by the noted democracy enthusiast Vladimir Putin.) It's a recipe for further polarization and, as someone in Mr. Trump's orbit told The Times, 'maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.' It is going to be up to states, the courts and ultimately the American people to stop this further erosion of American democracy. For decades, I argued that the United States should join other modern democracies in having national nonpartisan administration of elections. What we have instead is a hyper-decentralized system that gives states the primary role in running elections, and states in turn give their counties the authority to conduct elections and count ballots. I had thought that the variety of voting rules, machines and personnel was inefficient and particularly dangerous in polarized times, when every local mistake becomes evidence of some claim of a stolen or botched election. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
