THE ORGANIZATION, POWERS, AND PERSONNEL OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS
Organization and Powers of the Governing Board of the University
THE term "regents" which has become a characteristic title in governing bodies of American state universities, apparently originated in the old University of Paris, where it signified certain masters of arts qualified to teach. Later, the English universities applied the term to those masters who possessed the functions of both teaching and governing the university. In the New World the University of the State of New York, upon its organization in 1787, utilized the title, but changed the function and made the regents a governing, and not a teaching, body.
When the question of the organization of an educational program in the state of Michigan was under consideration in the years after 1817, the term "regent," following the New York precedent, was employed in several tentative plans for changes in the original act of 1817. Although the precise date is not given in any of these drafts, which have been published by the University, the year is recorded in at least one of them, in Judge A. B. Woodward's handwriting, as 1818 (Early Records, pp. 182-97).
Thus, when the University was finally organized under the Constitution of 1835, the governing body, following these precedents, was denominated as the Board of Regents, and the University of Michigan became the first of the state universities to employ the term. (The University of the State of New York existed only as a centralized governing system for the educational institutions of the state.)
The powers of the Board of Regents. — In exploring the history and present status of the powers of the Board of Regents of the University, one seeks his information in the several enabling acts establishing and providing for the University and in the constitutional provisions giving the University a quasi-independent status as a constitutional corporation.
Throughout the life of the institution there have been five major statutes and two constitutional provisions defining, prescribing, and affecting the powers of the governing board. The first of the statutory enactments became a law on August 26, 1817, and is to be found in volume II of the Laws of the Territory of Michigan (p. 104). The second act was dated April 30, 1821 (I Terr. Laws, 1821, p. 879), and the third was enacted March 18, 1837 (Laws, 1837, p. 102). The fourth was approved May 18, 1846, and may be found in the Revised Statutes of the State of Michigan …, 1846 (p. 216). The fifth (Laws, 1851, p. 205), was an act approved April 8, 1851. In addition to the foregoing, there are several minor statutes of small consequence dealing with matters of detail.
The two constitutional provisions are found respectively in the Constitution of 1850, Article XIII, sections 6, 7, and 8, and in the Constitution of 1908, Article XI, section 5. Since the constitutional provisions are necessarily brief in text and general in nature, a proper understanding of their real meaning can be attained only by an examination of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the state and of the opinions of the several attorneys general construing and applying the general language of the fundamental Page 141law. As will be observed later, the constitutional provisions, as interpreted, have to all intents and purposes superseded the earlier statutory enactments, and have set up the Board of Regents as a virtually independent constitutional corporation with plenary governing powers over the University. The powers derived by the Board of Regents from the several above-mentioned sources will be discussed seriatim in the following pages.
Act of 1817. — The initial act creating the University and establishing the powers of its governing board was adopted on August 26, 1817. Being a territorial law, it was adopted, approved, and signed by the territorial legislative agency, i.e., the acting governor (the governor having been absent from the Territory), the presiding judge of the Supreme Court of the Territory, and one other Supreme Court justice. The act established an institution known as "the Catholepistemiad, or University, of Michigania," the legal predecessor of the present University of Michigan. The Catholepistemiad was unusual, not to say formidable, in structure. It was composed of thirteen didaxiim, or professorships. The "didactors," or professors, were appointed by the governor. The law provided that the didactor of "Universal Science" should be president of the institution, and granted to the president and the other didactors, or a majority of them assembled, certain specified powers:
[The president and didactors shall have power] to regulate all the concerns of the institution, to enact laws for that purpose, to sue, to be sued, to acquire, to hold and to alien property, real, mixed, and personal, to make, to use, and to alter a seal, to establish colleges, academies, schools, libraries, musaeums, athenoeums, botanic gardens, laboratories, and other useful literary and scientific institutions consonant to the laws of the United States of America and of Michigan, and to appoint officers, instructors and instructri [sic] in, among, and throughout the various counties, cities, towns, townships, and other geographical divisions of Michigan.
The matter of fiscal support was not overlooked. Existing taxes were increased 15 per cent, and from all "present and future public taxes" 15 per cent was appropriated for the University. An additional and novel means of support was also afforded: the University was authorized to "prepare and draw four successive lotteries," deducting from the prizes 15 per cent for the benefit of the institution. Lest extravagance ensue, a ceiling was placed on professorial salaries. The honorarium (apparently the amount paid by each student) for a course of lectures could not exceed $15; for classical instruction it could not exceed $10 a quarter; and for ordinary instruction $6 a quarter was the limit. The "forgotten man" was remembered, for, "if the judges of any county court should certify that the parent or guardian of any person had not adequate means to defray the expense of suitable instruction and that the same ought to be a public charge," the honorarium was to be paid from the treasury of the Territory of Michigan.
Under the provisions of this law the University was launched on August 26, 1817. Acting Governor Woodbridge appointed the Reverend John Monteith and Father Gabriel Richard to fill the professorships, and they were authorized to put into execution the grand scheme contemplated by the legislation. They made a modest beginning by establishing schools and courses of instruction in Detroit, Monroe, and Mackinac. The Catholepistemiad was short-lived, however, for the governor and judges of the Territory adopted a new act in 1821, Page 142changing materially the structure and existing powers of Michigan's institution of higher learning.
Act of 1821. — This second enabling act, dated April 30, 1821, was apparently based upon a somewhat different theory of higher education. The University, instead of being state-wide in its geographical scope, seemingly was limited to the city of Detroit. The professors were no longer to constitute the governing board, for the institution was placed under the authority and direction of a board of twenty-one trustees, including among their number as an ex officio member the governor of the Territory. It was provided that the trustees should hold office at the pleasure of the legislature and that all vacancies on the board should be filled from time to time by the legislature. The trustees and their successors were declared to be "a body politic and corporate with perpetual succession in deed and in law, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, by the name, style, and title of 'The Trustees of the University of Michigan.'" As a corporate entity the trustees were given the power "of suing and being sued, holding property, real and personal and mixed, of buying and selling, and otherwise lawfully disposing of property." Eleven of the trustees constituted a quorum "for the purpose of disposing of property and of fixing compensations." Seven constituted a quorum for all other purposes.
The act provided in much greater detail than did the act of 1817 with respect to the powers of the Board of Trustees. The trustees were permitted to apply any part of University funds "to the promotion of literature and the advancement of useful knowledge within this territory." It was provided:
The said trustees may, from time to time, establish such colleges, academies and schools depending upon the said University, as they may think proper, and as the funds of the corporation will permit; and it shall be the duty of the said trustees to visit and inspect such colleges, academies and schools, to examine into the state and system of education and discipline therein, and to make a yearly report thereof to the legislature; to make such by-laws and ordinances, not inconsistent with the laws of the United States or of this territory, as they may judge most expedient for the government of such schools, academies and colleges, or for the accomplishment of the trust hereby reposed in such trustees; to appoint a president, professors, instructors and other officers, to fix their compensation, and to remove them when such trustees think proper, and to confer such degrees as are usually conferred by universities established for the education of youth.
For fiscal support, certain public lands were given to the Board of Trustees for the purposes of the institution. Section 7 of the act provided:
The said corporation shall have the control and management of the township of land granted by the act of Congress, passed March the twenty-sixth, one thousand eight hundred and four, and entitled "An act making provision for the disposal of public lands in the Indiana territory, and for other purposes," for the use of a seminary of learning: Provided, That the said corporation shall have no authority to sell the said land, nor to lease the same, for a longer time than seven years, nor then with a covenant for renewal.
In addition to the foregoing, section 8 provided:
… The three sections of land, granted to the College of Detroit by the treaty of Fort Meigs, concluded September the twenty-ninth, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, shall be vested in the said trustees, agreeably to the terms of the grant, and all the property, real, personal and mixed, and all rights, credits and debts, granted, given, conveyed, promised, or due to the corporation established by the act, entitled "An act to establish a Catholepistemiad or Page 143University of Michigania," shall be vested, and are hereby vested, in the corporation established by this act; subject, nevertheless, to the uses, trusts and purposes for which the same property was granted, given, conveyed or promised: Provided, nevertheless, That the corporation established by this act shall be liable to the payment of all the debts which are due, and to the discharge of all the duties incurred by the corporation hereby dissolved.
Thus, the act of 1821 reduced the geographical area of operations of the University and changed the character of its governing board from one made up of professors of the institution to one made up of citizens appointed by the governor from without the University staff. Furthermore, a radical change was made in regard to fiscal support. The original act had provided that all public taxes in the Territory should be increased by 15 per cent, the proceeds of the increase being appropriated for the support of the University. This provision was eliminated, and the University was required to rely for support upon student fees and the proceeds of the sales of public lands.
The institution set up by the act of 1821 made little progress. The trustees confined their efforts to the maintenance, for a time, of the primary schools and the classical academy which had been previously set up in Detroit, but by 1827 these enterprises had been abandoned, and the only function of the trustees appears to have been to grant the use of the University building to approved teachers for carrying on private instruction. This state of affairs continued until Michigan became a state in 1837.
Act of 1837. — When the constitution of the new state of Michigan was formulated in 1835, higher education received specific recognition. Section 5 of Article X provided definitely:
[The legislature shall take measures] for the protection and improvement or other disposition of such lands as have been or may hereafter be reserved or granted by the United States to this state for the support of a university; and the funds accruing from the rents or sale of such lands or from any other source for the purpose aforesaid shall be and remain a permanent fund for the support of said university.
The constructive governmental activities of the period of state-building brought into focus the shortcomings of the earlier institutions, and as a result John D. Pierce, Superintendent of Public Instruction, was requested to draw up a plan for a university. His suggestions were incorporated in a new University organic act, adopted on March 18, 1837.
This act, following the act of 1821, provided that the institution should be called "the University of Michigan." It stated that the object of the University should be to furnish the residents of the state with "the means of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the various branches of literature, science, and the arts." The government of the University was vested in a Board of Regents, to consist of twelve members and a chancellor, who was ex officio president of the Board. The Board was nominated by the governor and was appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The governor, the lieutenant governor, the judges of the Supreme Court, and the chancellor of the state were all ex officio members. The Regents were said to constitute a body corporate with the name and title of "The Regents of the University of Michigan," with the right as such of suing and being sued.
It was provided:
The Regents shall have the power, and it shall be their duty, to enact laws for the government of the university; to appoint the Page 144prescribed number of professors, and the requisite number of tutors; also to determine the amount of their respective salaries; and also to appoint a steward and fix the amount of his salary.
(Origin and Government, p. 9.)
The first Board of Regents of the University, in accordance with this action, was constituted as follows: ex officio members, Governor Stevens T. Mason, Lieutenant Governor Edward Mundy, Chancellor Elon Farnsworth, and Chief Justice William A. Fletcher, together with Judge George Morell and Judge Epaphroditus Ransom. The twelve Regents appointed by the governor were as follows: John Norvell, Ross Wilkins, John J. Adam, whose terms were fixed at the first meeting of the Regents for one year; Lucius Lyon, Isaac E. Crary, and John F. Porter (to serve for two years); Samuel Denton, M.D., Gideon O. Whittemore, and Michael Hoffman (to serve for three years); and Zina Pitcher, M.D., Henry R. Schoolcraft, and Robert McClelland (to serve for four years). Charles W. Whipple was chosen as secretary of the Board and C. C. Trowbridge as treasurer.
Twelve members of this Board met in Ann Arbor for the first meeting of the Board of Regents on June 5, 1837. The members of the Supreme Court and four of the regularly appointed Regents were not present. Within a year Regent McClelland was replaced by Seba Murphy, John F. Porter by Jonathan Kearsley, and Michael Hoffman by G. C. Leech.
For the first time the internal structure of the University appeared in the statutes. There were to be three departments — the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts, the Department of Law, and the Department of Medicine. The act went to considerable lengths to prescribe the professorships to be established in each of the several departments, and it was stipulated that "no new professorships shall be established without the consent of the legislature." The immediate government of the several departments was to be entrusted to the respective faculties, but certain academic matters were put into the hands of the Regents:
[The Board of Regents shall have power] to regulate the course of instruction and to prescribe, under the advice of the professorships, the books and authorities to be used in the several departments, and also to confer such degrees and to grant such diplomas as are usually conferred and granted in other universities.
The Regents were also given the power to remove any professor or tutor or other officer when in its judgment the interests of the University required it. Fees of admission to the University were limited to $10, but to all residents of the state the University should be open without "charge of tuition."
In this act, for the first time, a direct appropriation of state funds was contemplated for the support of the University. In section 16, it was provided that the Regents should, "as soon as the state shall provide funds for that purpose," proceed to the erection of the necessary buildings for the University. The Regents were also given the power, and it was made their duty, "faithfully to expend all moneys which may be from time to time appropriated for books and apparatus." Student fees and proceeds from University lands were also available as means of support.
State-wide higher education was again authorized by the act of 1837. By section 18, it was made the duty of the Board of Regents, together with the superintendent of public instruction, "to establish such branches of the University in different parts of the state as shall be from time to time authorized by the legislature; also to establish all needful rules and regulations for the government of such branches."
Page 145Coeducation was forecast. It was provided that in every "branch" of the University, though seemingly not at the University itself, "there shall be established an institution for the education of females in the higher branches of knowledge whenever a suitable building shall be prepared." Apparently the women were destined to stay close to home where the branches were to be situated, thus leaving the principal institution to the men students (see Part I: Branches).
It was under this enabling act that the University was established at Ann Arbor in 1837. Under its provisions the beginnings of the present vast institution were created. Despite the breadth of view and progressive character of this legislation, weaknesses in the plan soon became apparent. The powers of the Board of Regents were not sufficiently defined and the Board was not given immediate control over the University funds arising from the sale of the federal lands. In the first meeting a committee appointed to consider the legislative acts providing for the organization of the University and the location of the University reported that while they were of the opinion that the legislature intended to vest in the Regents the appointment of the chancellor of the University, "an opinion predicated as well upon the propriety of that mode of appointment, as upon a knowledge of the opinions of many of the individual members of the Legislature, and the impression of the Superintendent of Public Instruction," nevertheless they felt that the "ambiguity of the Act" rendered the exercise of this power "of doubtful propriety" (R.P., 1837-64, p. 2). Therefore they suggested that the governor be requested to lay the matter before the legislature, and submitted a resolution, asking for an amendment to the University law empowering the Regents to prescribe the duties of the chancellor, to create professorships as they might deem proper, and to establish branches without the special sanction of the legislature. A further resolution suggested an amendment authorizing the governor of the state to serve as president of the Board of Regents.
At this time the sale of the federal lands and the control of the University funds arising from these lands, as well as the distribution of these funds between the University and the branches, were in the hands of John D. Pierce, Superintendent of Public Instruction, who looked at the educational problems of the state with realistic eyes and insisted upon immediate development of the branches of the University.
Act of 1846. — The Regents objected to this measure of control on the part of the legislature and superintendent of public instruction. Accordingly, several bills were submitted to the legislature asking for relief from this limitation of their powers.
In 1846 the statutes of the state were revised, and, although most of the provisions of the act of 1837 were re-enacted, the powers of the Board of Regents were increased in several important respects. It was specifically provided for the first time, by section 8 of the revised act, that the Board of Regents should have power to elect a chancellor of the University. The act of 1837 had provided for the appointment of the chancellor by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the state Senate. The provisions of the earlier act concerning the three departments of the University were repeated without change, as were the provisions prescribing the professorships to be created, the requirement that no new professorships should be created without the consent of the legislature, and the stipulation as to fees and the amounts thereof. Another new feature is found in one of the fiscal aspects of the act. Section 18 provided that the Board Page 146of Regents should have authority to expend "so much of the interest arising from the University fund as may be necessary for the purpose of philosophical and other apparatus, a library, and cabinet of natural history." This section constitutes a legislative recognition of the so-called "University interest fund," a fund consisting of interest on the proceeds of sale of lands granted to the University by the United States. The University receives to this day the income from the amount accrued from the sale of these lands.
The section in the earlier act concerning the education of women in the higher branches of learning was continued, and in addition it was provided that there should be established in each branch of the University a department "especially appropriated to the education of teachers for primary schools." Thus the modern school of education was foreshadowed.
In general it may be said that the revision of 1846 added but little to the previous powers of the Board and contributed little to the development of the University. It may well be, however, that the restrictions, most of which remained in effect until the Constitution of 1850 was adopted, were on the whole wise. The Regents were inexperienced in educational matters, and they had few precedents for the task before them. This uncertainty is shown in the reports of their first meetings. Nevertheless, in the main, the attitude of the legislature was interested and co-operative. In authorizing the state to accept its own depreciated scrip in payment of the University debt in 1844 the legislature gave much-appreciated relief in a financial crisis which almost threatened the closing of the institution.
The Constitution of 1850 and the act of 1851. — The next and last general statutory revision of the laws relating to the University was made in 1851 following the adoption of the Constitution of 1850, and went into effect on April 8, 1851.
The difficulties of the University during all of this early period and the gradual recognition of the special educational problems which faced the Regents, as well as the superintendent of public instruction and the legislature, had inspired certain changes in the constitution which gave the Regents new powers and clarified their relationship to the state administrative system. The new constitution provided that the Regents were to be elected by state judicial districts rather than appointed by the governor and legislature and made them not only a body corporate but also a constitutional part of the state government, coordinate with the legislative, executive, and judiciary divisions. It was provided by the new constitution that "the Board of Regents shall have the general supervision of the University and the direction and control of all expenditures from the University interest fund" (Art. XIII, sec. 8), and that the superintendent of public instruction was also to be elected by the people rather than appointed by the governor.
These changes had the effect of emancipating the University from legislative control, although it was not for many years that the full import of this independent status of the Regents was finally recognized by the legislature. Furthermore, a series of decisions by the state Supreme Court was required to free the University completely from control by the legislature. These measures also relieved the University from control by the state superintendent of public instruction, except for his prerogative of appointment of a board of visitors. With slight modifications, these provisions were repeated in the Constitution of 1908.
As was the case with the revision of 1846, the important features of the prior Page 147legislation were continued in the statutory act of 1851, and the new features were few and of comparatively minor importance. Section 5 provided for the first time for the election of a president of the University instead of a chancellor, who had hitherto been legally designated the principal administrative officer. For the first time, also, the Board of Regents was given discretionary power with respect to the establishment of new departments, section 8 providing, in addition to the three departments previously authorized, that "such other departments may be added as the Regents shall deem necessary and the state of the University fund shall allow." Section 9 contained a new and unusual provision:
The Regents shall provide for the arrangement and selection of a course or courses of study in the University for such students as may not desire to pursue the usual collegiate course in the Department of Literature, Science, and the Arts embracing the ancient languages, and to provide for the admission of such students without previous examination as to their attainment in said languages and for granting such certificates at the expiration of such course or term of such students as may be appropriate to their respective attainments.
Section 11 of the act contained an important change in the government of the several departments of the University. Whereas previously the government of these departments had been entrusted to their respective faculties, it was, by the act of 1851, entrusted "to the president and the respective faculties." The provisions as to fees, including the prohibiting of tuition charges to residents of the state, were continued. The possibilities of use of the University interest fund were broadened. Specific provision was made for the erection of buildings from this fund, but it was stipulated that no such building should be erected until provision was made for the payment of existing indebtedness of the University, nor "until one branch of the University was established in each judicial circuit of the state." Obviously, the limitations were such that not many buildings could be built from the fund, and none ever were built.
Another important change was made by section 18 of the new act. Whereas in the previous legislation the Board of Regents was simply authorized to establish branches "in different parts of the state," leaving the matter subject to the discretion of the Board, the act of 1851 provided:
… As soon as the income of the University interest fund will admit, it shall be the duty of the Board of Regents to organize and establish branches of the University, one at least in each judicial circuit or district of the state.
A further change in the composition of the Board was effected in 1863, when, pursuant to an amendment ratified in 1862, a law was passed providing for the election of the Regents at large rather Page 148than by judicial districts, and also for a rotation of the Board. Accordingly, the election of two Regents has been held every second year since then, in place of the election of an entire Board at once, as formerly.
Constitutional provisions and the powers of the Board of Regents since 1850. — The complete powers of the Board of Regents over the conduct of the University and in the administration of its funds has remained to the present day. In the Constitution of 1850 the appointment of a president by the Regents was made mandatory, resulting in the selection of President Henry P. Tappan. He took office in 1852, and from that time the administration of the University assumed a more assured and settled form.
The Regents have always held the power of appointment of members of the faculty and administrative officers and the granting of degrees, but in practice, honored almost from the beginning, these matters have been left with the various faculties, and their recommendations are seldom if ever questioned by the Regents. Thus, the internal government of the University rests almost completely with the University administrative officers, the faculties of the various schools and colleges, and the University Senate, which, in practice, expresses its wishes ordinarily through the University Council. The Regents, however, have always exercised their constitutional prerogative in controlling the fiscal policies of the University, investment of its funds, erection of buildings, and the control of its budget.
The action of the electors of the state in writing into the state constitution a specific grant to the Board of Regents of the power of supervision and control correspondingly limited the power of the legislature to deal by legislative enactment with the affairs of the University. Although the full meaning of this change in policy did not become immediately apparent, a series of judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of the state, beginning in 1856 with the case of People v. Regents of the University of Michigan (4 Mich. 98), and ending in 1896 with the case of Sterling v. Regents of the University of Michigan (111 Mich. 369), supplemented by a series of opinions by the attorneys general of the state, has made it clear that under the authority of this constitutional provision the powers of the Board of Regents include everything now necessary to govern the internal affairs of the University. Conversely, they have made it equally clear that legislative enactments cannot affect the internal affairs of the institution, and as a consequence, the act of 1851, as well as all subsequent enactments purporting to deal with such internal affairs, are inoperative. The University is now governed under the plenary constitutional powers granted to the Board of Regents. The series of judicial decisions to which reference is made is fully reviewed and discussed elsewhere in this volume (see Part I: Constitutional Status).
So far as the present status of the powers of the Board of Regents is concerned, the following conclusions may be drawn:
- 1. The Supreme Court has followed a liberal policy of interpretation of the constitution, to the end that under the constitutional grant of power of "general supervision" the Board may exercise plenary power over all matters of internal management of the University free from limitations contained in statute law.
- 2. The Board of Regents is, however, subject to the general legislation of the state having to do with public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The constitutional power of the state legislature as to these fundamental matters must of necessity be paramount, and the Page 149powers of the Board are circumscribed by legislative enactments in these fields. Since the nature of the functions of the University is such that the activities of the institution seldom if ever run counter to legislative enactments of the kind designed to promote general public health, safety, morals, and welfare, this limitation on the powers of the Board of Regents is not of great significance. Hence, it may be said with reasonable accuracy that, under the constitution of the state, the powers of the Board are today coextensive with the needs of the University.
Organization and policies of the Board of Regents. — The first meeting of the Regents comprised a three-day session which opened in Ann Arbor on June 5, 1837. A second meeting was held in Ann Arbor on July 12, 1839, and after that time occasional meetings were held at the University, presumably to give the Regents an opportunity to acquaint themselves more intimately with the University's progress. But for some years most of the meetings were held in Detroit in the Supreme Court room in the old Capitol Building. The meetings in Ann Arbor were held in the Library room at the University. In 1852 another room on the campus was set aside especially for the Regents — No. 23, in the building now known as Mason Hall, but which was then called "North College." From that time on most of the meetings of the Board have been held in Ann Arbor. A new Regents' room was provided when the Law Building (now Haven Hall) was enlarged in 1898. This was in use until 1934, when the present Regents' room in Angell Hall, adjacent to the president's office, was made available.
At the first meeting in June, 1837, five committees were appointed: (1) on ways and means, (2) on buildings and improvements, (3) on the number of professors and tutors. (4) on a code of laws, and (5) on the library, philosophical apparatus, and cabinet of natural history. Other committees, including one on branches, were also appointed from time to time, and in the meeting of March 3, 1838, a standing committee on the organization and government of the University was appointed. This evidently led, on August 20, 1841, to an executive committee of three, "who shall discharge for the present the same duties with respect to the University that the Committee on Branches discharged with respect to the Branches" (see Part I: Branches). This was the beginning of the executive committee, which has functioned to the present day.
By 1844 the list of standing committees, in addition to the executive committee, was as follows: library, branches, auditing, finance, and professors.
At the meeting held December 31, 1850, the original Board of Regents appointed by the governor came to an end and the first meeting of the Board lately elected by the people and entirely new with the exception of Elon Farnsworth, was held on the following day, January 1, 1852. An executive committee, a finance committee, and a committee to correspond with possible candidates for the presidency were appointed immediately, but no lists of standing committees appear in the Regents' reports until 1865, when, besides the executive committee, there were committees on finance, on the classical course, on the scientific course and chemistry laboratory, on the Law Department, on the Library, on the Museum, and on the Observatory.
This represented in general the committees as they stood for many years, with each department of the University under the special charge of a committee — a division of responsibility on the part of the Regents which led to very close relations between the faculties of the departments Page 150concerned and the Regents particularly interested. The departments which happened to have vigorous influential committees were sometimes especially favored, and certain members of the Board of Regents tended to become identified in their own minds as well as in those of others with some part of the University rather than with the whole institution. The result was that in some cases actions were taken by the Regents without formal reference to the president and to the regular University administrative system.
This arrangement continued more or less in force until 1920, when President Marion L. Burton caused the committee system to be completely revised, with the new organization designed to cut directly across the whole University administrative structure and deal with general interests in which all departments share. Thus a return was made to the more general division of responsibilities of an earlier day.
Under this reorganization, in addition to the executive committee, provision was made for a finance or budget committee, a salaries committee, a buildings and grounds committee, a library committee, a committee on educational policies, a committee on promotion of research, and a committee on student welfare. This list was changed in 1939 so that the standing committees were reduced to six: an executive committee, a finance committee, a committee on plant and equipment, and committees on educational policies, public relations, and student and alumni relations.
Throughout the history of the University the Regents have been distinguished by their public-spirited attitude and devotion to the fundamental interests of the University. At times they have been sharply divided on certain University policies and have split into factions in certain crises in University history. The question regarding the abolition of fraternities in 1848 represented one such controversy, and the summary action of the retiring Board of Regents in 1863 in the dismissal of President Tappan represented another. The long-drawn-out controversy between the Department of Medicine and Surgery and the advocates of the establishment of a homeopathic department divided the Regents for many years, as did also the question of the removal of the Medical Department to Detroit, a policy long sponsored by many prominent members of the medical profession throughout the state.
Perhaps the sharpest division in the Board came over the Douglas-Rose controversy, which began in 1875 and lasted for nearly four years, with the state legislature involved in the question before its final settlement (see Part I: Douglas-Rose Controversy). In 1906 a demand from a strong section of the alumni for the withdrawal of the University of Michigan from the Western Intercollegiate Conference resulted in a summary action by the Regents and compelled the resignation of the Board in Control of Athletics and the appointment of an entirely new board. Since this action represented control of athletics by the Regents rather than by the faculty, in opposition to the rules of the Conference, relations with the Conference ceased automatically, and it was not until 1917 that an adjustment was made by the Regents which assured control of athletics by a board constituted by the faculty.
Personnel of the Governing Board of the University
ACT OF 1817. — The original act establishing the Catholepistemiad, or University of Michigania, dated August 26, 1817, stated that the president and didactors (i.e., professors), or a majority of them assembled, should have power to regulate all the concerns of the institution. They constituted its governing board, and were to be "appointed and commissioned" by the governor of the Territory. The only professors to be appointed (and these by Acting Governor Woodbridge) were Father Gabriel Richard and the Reverend John Monteith, so that until the act of April 30, 1821, creating the Board of Trustees of the University of Michigan, the institution was under the management of these two men. The board appointed under the act of reorganization did not regard the University as having been the "University of Michigan" from the beginning, but carefully observed a useful legal distinction by consistently referring to the institution of 1817-21 as the "University of Michigania" and to its successor of 1821 as the "University of Michigan" (Early Records, p. 57). The official personnel of the University of Michigania, so far as it is known, was as follows:
The first equivalent of the present Board of Regents was known simply as the "University of Michigania" or the "University." This board, composed of President Monteith and Professor Richard acting in their corporate capacity, met on September 12, 1817, and passed several acts for the organization and management of the institution, including the establishment of the offices of register and treasurer. These offices were undoubtedly outside and subordinate to the corporation itself. A register was promptly appointed, and, together with the President, separately signed the record of each of the acts passed that day. At the same time, the "University" authorized the appointment of two boards of trustees and visitors, one for the classical academy and one for the primary school (later, schools). These boards were appointed in February, 1818. Within two months they were combined and thereafter functioned as one board. The appointments were as follows:
- Trustees and Visitors of the Classical Academy of the City of Detroit, 1818-21
- William Brown
- Abraham Edwards
- Charles Larned
- Philip Lecuyer
- William McCaskry
- George McDougall
- Alexander Macomb
- William W. Petit
- Solomon Sibley
- John L. Whiting
- Andrew G. Whitney
- Austin E. Wing
- William Woodbridge
- John S. Roby
- Trustees and Visitors of the First Primary School of the City of Detroit, 1818-21
- James Abbott
- Barnabas Campeau
- Joseph Campeau
- James Conner
- Peter J. Desnoyers
- Henry J. Hunt
- David C. McKinstry
- Stephen Mack
- Oliver W. Miller
- Benjamin Stead
- John R. Williams
- Oliver Williams
- Benjamin Woodworth
Since each board was constitutionally limited to thirteen members, it seems probable that Roby, who as a member Page 152first attended an academy board meeting on April 9, shortly before the merger, was appointed to fill out the term of some other person who had resigned. As the identity of this person is unknown, all the terms are given above as extending to 1821.
On October 3, 1817, the corporation (Monteith and Richard) appropriated funds toward the "first College of Michigania," enacted that the University faculty should be the college faculty, and also planned to appoint a board of trustees and visitors for the college. This plan was never executed.
The Board of Trustees and Visitors for the Classical Academy and Primary Schools elected certain officers at various times. The records do not make clear what their functions were, nor even of what body they were officers. The list is as follows:
|Andrew G. Whitney, Secretary||1818|
|Charles Larned, Secretary||1820|
|Alexander Macomb, President||1820|
|John L. Whiting, Secretary||1820|
|James Abbott, Treasurer||1820|
|William W. Petit, Secretary||1821|
Generally, the secretary must have been secretary of the board by which he was elected, as he continued to sign the minutes of meetings of that board. An exception was John L. Whiting. It seems possible that he and James Abbott and Alexander Macomb, who were elected simultaneously, were intended by the board as officers of the University. There is definite evidence that Abraham Edwards was the last treasurer of the University in the "Michigania" period (Early Records, p. 57), but the date when he became treasurer is not given. Presumably, he was appointed by the "University"; at least we do not have any record that the Board of Trustees and Visitors of the Classical Academy and Primary Schools elected him.
The original register and the first treasurer had been appointed by the "University" (that is, by Monteith and Richard acting as a corporation or board). The functions of the register of the University, so far as they are known, were like those of a secretary of that institution. This same John L. Whiting, a member of the Board of Trustees and Visitors of the Classical Academy and Primary Schools, was the first appointee to the position of register. His not signing the board minutes in the period immediately after that body elected him secretary in 1820 may indicate that the board meant to continue him as register of the University rather than to make him its own secretary.
The existing official record does not show that the Board of Trustees and Visitors of the Classical Academy and Primary Schools had proper authority to elect men to University offices, but it does show that in at least one instance near the close of the "Michigania" period the board was uncertain as to how far its jurisdiction extended. "Doubt having been expressed," the secretary of the board was directed to obtain from the register of the University the bylaws relating to powers of the board. Later, the secretary reported that because the register was out of the Territory he had not been able to carry out this request (Early Records, p. 52). The incident at least shows unmistakably that the position of secretary of the board and that of register of the University were distinct.
Act of 1821. — On April 30, 1821, it was enacted by the governor and the judges of the Territory of Michigan that the University should be under the management, direction, and government of twenty-one trustees, one of whom, the governor of the Territory, should be a trustee of the University ex officio. It Page 153was also enacted that these trustees should continue in office during the pleasure of the legislature, and that all vacancies should be filled by the legislature. On March 1, 1831, it was enacted by the legislative council of the Territory that all vacancies should be filled by nomination from the governor, by and with the advice of this territorial council. The appointed and ex officio trustees under this act, and the officers of the board, were as follows:
Several men on this board had served as members of the "University of Michigania" Board of Trustees and Visitors of the Classical Academy and Primary Schools of the City of Detroit, 1817-21. These (in addition to the University faculty, Monteith and Richard) were Charles Larned, John R. Williams, Solomon Sibley, Henry J. Hunt, Peter Desnoyers, Austin E. Wing, William Woodbridge, Benjamin Stead, Philip Lecuyer, William Brown, and Abraham Edwards. Within the years 1817-21 Larned had been secretary to the Board of Trustees and Visitors of the Classical Academy and Primary Schools and Edwards, treasurer of the University. Also, James Abbott had been made treasurer, either of the University or of this board. For a brief time in 1821 Edwards continued as treasurer of the reorganized Board of Trustees of the University of Michigan, although he was not then a trustee, but after he had declined reelection to the position of treasurer he was appointed a member of the board in 1821, and James Abbott succeeded him as treasurer of the University. No secretary or treasurer between 1821 and 1837 was simultaneously a trustee. Trowbridge, however, like Edwards and Abbott, served on the University governing Page 154board at a different period. He was appointed Regent in 1839. Seven members of the 1821-37 Board of Trustees likewise became members of the Board of Regents at a later date. Among these were the first two governors of the state, who were Regents ex officio, Stevens T. Mason (1837-40) and William Woodbridge (1840-41). The others were Regents by appointment — Jonathan Kearsley, John Norvell, and Ross T. Wilkins, appointed in 1837; Lewis Cass, who had formerly been governor of the Territory of Michigan, in 1843; and Austin E. Wing in 1845.
Act of 1837. — Under the act of March 18, 1837, the government of the University was vested in the Board of Regents. This body was to consist of several state officials as ex officio members, twelve appointed members, and a chancellor of the University, who should be ex officio president of the Board. (Actually, however, no president or chancellor of the University was appointed before 1852, and the short-termed, elected presidents of the faculty between 1841 and 1852 did not serve in this capacity.) The Board of Regents was nominated by the governor and was appointed by and with advice and consent of the Senate. The governor, the lieutenant governor, the judges of the Supreme Court, and the chancellor of the state were the ex officio members of the Board. The number of Supreme Court justices was increased from three to four in 1838, and in 1846 the office of chancellor of the state was abolished. Under the organic act of 1837 the list of Regents was as follows:
For several years (1845-50), both Warner Wing and Austin E. Wing were members of this Board, of which no members save Elon Farnsworth continued as Regents in 1852. None of the officers was Regent during his term of office, but John J. Adam was a former Regent, and Secretary Charles W. Whipple was later a justice of the Supreme Court and hence Regent ex officio. Secretary James V. Campbell was afterwards Professor of Law in the University, and still later, a justice of the Supreme Court; before he became a justice, however, the new state constitution had gone into effect, and no longer were the justices and other state officers Regents of the University ex officio. Alpheus Felch held the Tappan professorship of law from 1879 to 1883. Under the Constitution of 1835, Fletcher, Mundy, Farnsworth, and Ransom served separate terms as Regents by appointment and Regents by virtue of public office. Oliver Comstock became superintendent of public instruction in 1843, immediately after he had been on the Board two years as a Regent by appointment. At that time the superintendents of public instruction were not ex officio members of the Board of Regents.
Constitution of 1850 and Constitution of 1908. — By the Constitution of 1850 it was provided (sec. 6, Art. XIII) that "there shall be elected in each judicial circuit (eight in number), at the time of the election of the judge of such circuit, a regent of the University, whose term of office shall be the same as that of such judge" (six years).
When the first Regents by election took office in 1852 there was an almost complete change in the personnel of the Board. In 1858 the change was complete as to the Board itself, its secretary, and its treasurer; and of the Regents who took office in 1858, only J. E. Johnson remained after 1864. The defect in organization which made possible these recurring shocks to University government was corrected by a constitutional amendment and special laws in 1862 and 1863 (Bylaws, 1883, p. 6), which afforded essential continuity in the personnel, Page 156and thus indirectly in the policy, of the Board of Regents. Specifically, section 6, Article XIII, of the constitution was changed so as to provide that eight Regents should be elected in 1863, at the time of the election of a justice of the Supreme Court; that of these, two should hold office for two years, two for four years, two for six years, and two for eight years; and that thereafter, two Regents should be elected every two years, for eight-year terms, at each regular election of a justice of the Supreme Court. The former provision that there must be a Regent from each judicial district of the state was discontinued; thereafter, although the law contained no explicit statement to this effect, Regents were to be drawn from any part of the state and to be elected by the people at large. Vacancies were to be filled, as they still are, by appointment of the governor. By the Constitution of 1908 the number of Regents was again fixed at eight, independently of the judicial circuits, the term of office remained eight years, and it was provided that there should be elected "at each regular biennial spring election two members of such board" (sec. 3, Art. XI).
Under the provisions of the Constitution of 1850, the amendment of 1862, and the Constitution of 1908, the list of Regents was as follows:
The lack of a settled personnel policy as to officers of the Board during the Tappan and Haven administrations is obvious. Of all the secretaries and treasurers of the Board of Regents, Charles Henry Palmer, Secretary in 1852, was the only one to hold the office while he was serving as a regular member of the Board. Donald McIntyre, on the other hand, was following the example of John J. Adam in serving the Board as treasurer after his term as Regent had expired. The secretary from 1854 to 1856 was Professor Alexander Winchell, the only person who ever served simultaneously as a full-time member of the teaching staff and as an officer of the Board. Page 158Secretary John L. Tappan and Steward Joseph Vance, however, were librarians of the University while they were officers of the Board.
To prevent confusion it should perhaps be pointed out that Secretary D. L. Wood was Daniel Wood, not the University's well-known engineering professor of that period, DeVolson Wood; and also that the Regent George Duffield of 1877-86 was not the Regent George Duffield of 1839-48, but his son.
By-Laws of the Department of Science, Literature and the Arts … Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1855.
Constitutional Provisions, Laws and By-Laws of the University of Michigan …, 1864. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1864.
Constitutional Provisions, Laws and By-Laws of the University of Michigan …, 1883. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1883. (Bylaws, 1883.)
General Rules and Regulations, and By-Laws of the University of Michigan … Detroit: Univ. Mich., 1859.
Laws, Ordinances, By-Laws and Regulations …, University of Michigan. Detroit, 1861.
Michigan. Acts of the Legislature of the State of …, Passed at the First and Extra Sessions of 1835 and 1836. Detroit: State of Mich., 1836. (Laws, 1835-36.)
Michigan. Constitution [of] 1835.
Michigan. Constitution [of] 1850.
Michigan. Constitution [of] 1908.
Michigan. Dept. of State. Michigan Official Directory and Legislative Manual, 1939-40.
Michigan. Laws [of the Session of …], 1837-73. (Laws.)
Michigan. Laws of the Territory of … Lansing, Mich.: State of Mich., 1871-84. 4 vols. (Terr. Laws.)
Michigan. "Opinions of the Attorney General," 1836-1940. Usually in the Report of the Attorney General (beginning 1836) but published separately in certain years.
Michigan. Public Acts [of the Session of …], 1874-1940.
Michigan. Revised Statutes of the State of …, 1846. Detroit: State of Mich., 1846. (Mich. Rev. Stat., 1846.)
Organization and Aims of the University of Michigan as Reflected in Its By-Laws …, 1922. Comp. by Lucius L. Hubbard. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1923. Pp. i-xix, 1-94.
President's Report, Univ. Mich., 1852-1940.
Proceedings of the Board of Regents …, 1864-1940. (R.P.)
Records of the University of Michigan, 1817-1837. Ed. by Frank E. Robbins. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1935. (Early Records.)
Records of the University of Michigan. Journal of the Executive Committee of the Regents, 1845-1851, and Proceedings of the Building Committee, 1847. Ed. by Frank E. Robbins. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1937.
Report of the Proceedings and Debates in the Convention to Revise the Constitution of the State of Michigan, 1850. Lansing, Mich.: State of Mich., 1850.
University of Michigan: Its Origin, Growth, and Principles of Government. Comp. by Lucius L. Hubbard. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1923. Pp. 1-50. (Origin and Government.)
University of Michigan Regents' Proceedings, with Appendices and Index, 1837-1864. Ed. by Isaac N. Demmon. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich., 1915. (R.P., 1837-64.)