No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Barnie Day

What's the Rush?

Granting Virginia's "Big Three" universities charter status would make them less accountable to the public. Such an irrevocable step needs to be thoroughly debated.

“The devil’s in the details. I think it’s a great idea worth exploring.”

--Speaker William Howell, Associated Press, December 8, 2004

“There’s no way we can address these three in a vacuum.”

--Senator John Chichester, Associated Press, December 8, 2004

Sure, the legislature meets again in January. But that’s mostly for show. The constitution says our representatives must meet. But, make no mistake, this is the dangerous time of the year. This is when votes are being lined up. This is when deals are being made. This is the time of year lobbyists really earn their money. 

This time of year, Santa Claus is not the only thing going bump in the night.

There is a lot of column fodder these days—Warner mulling over a run at the presidency, the 750,000 clams Virginia Republicans forked over to keep Jerry Kilgore from under oath on a witness stand, the cold-fusion approach (how to build roads without money) our leaders are taking to highway funding, and lots of other stuff—but the sleeper issue of the coming session is this proposal to grant three of our universities—UVA, Tech, and William and Mary—

so-called ‘charter’ status.

What is it that these universities want? What is it that they really want?

There is an awful lot of "task-forcing," and "flip-

charting," and "initiative-ing" going on, and the harmony being produced by the "Big Three" university presidents—UVA’s John Casteen, Tech’s Charles Steger, and William and Mary’s Tim Sullivan—is perfectly angelic.

In fact, a touch too angelic, if you ask me.

Ostensibly, "charter" status would—if you believe the Big Three—give the universities bionic—better, faster, stronger—capabilities. Maybe so. Maybe so.

But would it not also put another step of distance between these great institutions and the people of Virginia who own them?

The answer to that one is an absolute, irrevocable "yes." And this is what these universities want. This is what they really want. They don’t use the word "distance," they use "autonomy." But that is what they want. They want distance.

Is that bad? No. It’s what any institution wants—to shed the tentacles of ownership and governance. There is not a hired manager in America who doesn’t feel the same way.

Well? What to do? Way, way too early to say. The thing not to do is to let past neglect, past funding cuts, somehow become the rationale for doing something foolish now.

There has been no debate of this proposal. There has been no real scrutiny of it. Two points here—if the "charter" idea is as good as it is being portrayed to be, then it will withstand withering examination; and if it is as good as it is being portrayed to be, there should be no rush, no hurry. If it is all that good, it won’t be weakened by the wait of a year or two.

At minimum, the legislature should hold public hearings in each of the 95 counties of Virginia before they put any more distance between these universities and the people who own them. That might seem like a lot, but a lot is at stake here. What’s given away by charter can never, ever be taken back. In the matter of a charter, what is done by one legislature, cannot be undone solely by another.

What would guarantee the debate, the scrutiny this proposal deserves, would be to give this matter some time and then put it to referendum. (The year 2026 would be soon enough for me.) Let the people of Virginia who built and own these universities decide this matter directly.

Plain, workaday Virginians are smart. If the idea of chartering these universities is all that good, all that desirable, all that necessary, workaday Virginians will see the wisdom in it.

-- December 23, 2004