In November, the voters of Hawai'i will see this constitutional question printed on ballots:

"Shall the governor be required to select Board of Regents candidates from a pool of qualified candidates screened and proposed by a candidate advisory council for the Board of Regents of the University of Hawai'i as provided by law?"

This question asks the voters whether the governor should choose regents from a list of candidates recommended by an advisory council. Currently, the governor has the full discretion to select and appoint regents, who then must be confirmed by the Senate.

The Legislature also passed enabling legislation setting up a candidate advisory council to screen and propose candidates for appointment to the Board of Regents, as well as increasing the membership of the board from 12 to 15.

It also requires a certain number of board members to represent specific geographic areas, and holds board members to no more than two consecutive five-year terms.

Of particular interest was the requirement that the seven-member advisory council screen and qualify candidates for the board based on a candidate's background, experience and potential for discharging his or her responsibilities on the board. The council also was required to develop and implement a fair, independent, nonpartisan procedure for selecting candidates and required candidates to disclose any existing or anticipated contracts with the university or any existing or anticipated financial transactions with the university.

This legislation basically adopted the best practices recommended by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. In the May/June 2005 issue of the association's bimonthly publication Trusteeship, then-Democrat Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia makes the case for selecting public higher education board members based on qualifications, not politics.

Clearly, governors of other states, and from both parties, are willing to remove politics from their state higher-education systems by establishing nonpartisan board screening commissions very simply by executive orders. It is unfortunate that in Hawai'i we are obliged to accomplish this by the difficult and lengthy process of amending the state Constitution.

This enabling legislation was to take effect July 1, 2007. However, it is important to note that section 1, establishing the advisory council, would take effect immediately upon ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment.

On July 11, 2005, Gov. Linda Lingle vetoed this legislation, stating: "This bill is objectionable because it is premature."

She also stated that: "If the constitutional amendment proposed in Senate Bill No. 1256 is ratified, the statutory changes described in this bill could be introduced as legislation in the 2007 session and enacted in time to meet the new constitutional requirement."

With all due respect, I believe that this statement is in error.

Section 5 of SD 1257 provides that "This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2007; provided that section 1 of this Act shall take effect upon the ratification of a constitutional amendment providing for the creation of a candidate advisory council for the Board of Regents of the University of Hawai'i."

If Hawai'i's voters reject the proposed constitutional amendment, the implementing legislation automatically becomes null and void, thus making the governor's veto unnecessary.

However, I believe the majority will vote to support this amendment to rid the UH Board of Regents of politics. Thus Lingle's veto will prevent enabling legislation to be enacted in time to meet the new constitutional requirement.

This will leave the university with a defective governance structure that has no legal mechanism to appoint regents unless and until the Legislature passes the necessary implementing legislation. Unfortunately, if this attracts the attention of the accreditation commission, it could once again place the accreditation of the UH system at risk.

Over time, one of the most vexatious and troubling issues the UH Board of Regents has had to deal with is conflicts of interest. The Legislature approved a resolution (SCR85) requesting the state auditor to review the University of Hawai'i Board of Regents' conflict-of-interest policy and to make a recommendation on whether the regents should make financial disclosure statements for the public record, as is now required for all senior officials of the university.

The resolution cites a number of examples of conflicts of interest that have arisen in recent times. Of particular interest, in my view, was the newspaper report cited in the resolution that the chairwoman of the Board of Regents recused herself from decisions relating to selecting developers for more than $150 million in construction contracts. Her reason for recusal was conflicts of interest with developers bidding for the projects.

The resolution states that "even though regents may recuse themselves from voting, a question still remains as to whether a regent with a declared conflict of interest should be allowed to participate in discussions regarding an issue in which the Regent may have an interest up until a formal vote is taken, in view of the fact that the regent's presence during the discussion may still influence their fellow regents' decisions."

The resolution then refers to the expressed concern about the UH regents conflicts-ofinterest policies by the accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

It is also my view that if a regent has business interests with university contractors, or promotes such contracts, a mere recusal from a vote on those contracts does not resolve the conflict-of-interest issue in a satisfactory manner.

It is difficult for me to understand how a seriously conflicted Board of Regents is able to exercise properly its oversight responsibilities over the university.

I also believe that this resolution will be welcomed by the majority of regents who are public spirited citizens who give freely of their time and who may well be troubled and embarrassed by colleagues who need to recuse themselves from voting on contracts and transactions with the university from which they derive profits.

There is no valid reason why regents should be held less accountable than senior university officials.

It is my firm belief that problems of this nature would be avoided in the future if the constitutional amendment and implementing legislation referred to earlier were adopted.

Last year I argued that because the University of Hawai'i was granted autonomy by a constitutional amendment enacted in 2000, it should now have a system of governance appropriate to this status.

I also pointed out that our current law, including the requirement that no more than six members of the board be members of the same political party, is obsolete and dates back to a time when the university was a state agency required to deposit all of its revenues in the state's general funds, and when it was largely dependent on appropriated funds for its expenditures.

I am hopeful that the people of Hawai'i will vote yes in overwhelming numbers to adopt the constitutional amendment this November to significantly rid the governance of the University of Hawai'i of politics.

I look forward to the time, hopefully in the near future, when all the stakeholders of the university, including the faculty, students, alumni and employees, will feel that their vital interests are represented on the Board of Regents. They will then not only have a renewed sense of confidence in the governance of the university, but they will also be able to enjoy the pride of ownership in this great institution.

Frank Boas is a retired attorney and a member of the Board of the UH Foundation. This article is based on a paper given to the Social Science Association.