Editor’s note: The following memo was obtained with the help of the Daily Vidette, Illinois State University’s newspaper.

The memo, which was distributed to the three regency university presidents, outlines the proposed changes in presidential acitivity by Regents Chancellor Roderick Groves. The Northern Star filed a Freedom of Information request for the memo, but access to the memo was denied by the Board of Regents.

The proposed changes in Regents’ policy have been labelled by many as an attempt to give more power to the chancellor. Groves has travelled to the universities to answer questions on the memorandum and the accompanying changes.

The memo states:

At last week’s board meeting, I told you that I would get back to you in writing regarding the changes the board has decided to make in the operations of this system. It may be desirable to revise the board regulations to reflect these changes at some future point, but this will not be done immediately. For the time being, we will procede on the basis of the board’s directives to me and the exchange all of us had with the Executive Committee members. This memo is intended to elaborate on that discussion and the executive session that preceded it.

The following four points summarize the board decisions.

1. The presidents are to report to the board through the chancellor and to be accountable to the board through the chancellor. The board will expect the presidents and their staffs to work in close cooperation with the chancellor and his staff on all matters the chancellor determines to require system coordination.

2. The board expects proactive efforts by the presidents and their administrations on behalf of the board and the system and that the presidents and other campus administrators will work actively to create a positive campus attitude toward the board and the system.

3. The board members will cease to act like “a court of first resort” and instead will expect the presidents to communicate university business first to the chancellor. The board agreed that the normal mode of operations should be that the chancellor be given prior notice of all matters that may require board and system attention and thereby be provided a timely opportunity to make necessary system-level decisions. Only thereafter should such matters be communicated to or considered by the board.

4. The board will hold the chancellor accountable for the operations of the system, including the conduct of the university administrators. Consistent with this, the chancellor will be substantially involved in evaluation of presidential performance.

Obviously, these are guidelines and will have to be fleshed out in practice. Clearly the board does not expect all communications between itself (corporately and individually) and the presidents to cease, particularly those which occur around social events or which are of a non-business character. But it believes that the system will function more smoothly if business is conducted through the chancellor and if the normal and primary communication linkage is from president to chancellor to board. I think you can feel comfortable in dealing with any future individual board member transgressions of this principle by referring to the meeting of March 22 and the related directives that you were given.

I would like to put particular emphasis on one point. The basic purpose of the changed procedure is that I be informed of policy of operational concerns, needs, events, requests, decisions, etc. at a point in time that allows me satisfactory time to consult with you and make whatever decisions are needed. It is not enough to simply copy me on a letter or memo to the boad as has been the case in the past. I should be informed and have an oppurtunity for a decision making or strategy setting exhange with you and adequate staff work where it is needed before such matters go forward. If this mode of operations is to work well, I should become “invested” to a greater degree in administrative initiatives, decisions and policy matters than has been the case in the past. I use that phrase not to mean that I intend to take over all such decision-making but in the sense of knowing, examining and discussing. Only if I know what is going on and have an opportunity to get adequate background information and to discuss it and make decisions where appropriate with you can I have a sufficient stake to provide you with the support you should expect with the board.

Be assured that it will not be my intent to utilize this operating change to totally centralize the system. It continues to make good sense to me that most decisions affecting campus operations should be made on campus. We will all have to exercise good judgement in implementing the new operating design and in deciding what policies and decisions should require system-level attention.

At this point I think it would be unwise to try to get very specific on the latter point. In general, I continue to think it is essential that the system office have primacy in external relations defined broadly. The system office should also be the normal and expected route of contact with the BHE and other agencies of state government. The board regulations list several other areas in which the chancellor and the chancellor’s staff will play a role and while I am not completely satisfied with all of the language, I don’t disagree with the coverage. For the time being, however, I would ask that when in doubt you err on the side of more rather than less communication and consultation.

The above will doubtless not answer all of your questions, but I trust that it will be helpful in decerning (sic) the board’s decisions and its intentions.