Could a Connecticut university student senate choose its president as the student representative on the university foundation board?

Plain-English summary

A Connecticut senator asked whether Western Connecticut State University's faculty and student representatives had been chosen for its foundation board in accordance with Public Act 89-267. The Attorney General reached different answers for the two seats. The faculty election complied: the entire faculty chose its representative, who was not a faculty-senate member. The interim student selection did not comply: the student senate chose its president to serve, but the student body's earlier vote had elected that person to the senate presidency, not to the foundation board.

The 1989 act required a public university's foundation board to include nonvoting representatives elected by enrolled students and by the faculty. The Connecticut State University trustees' first policy had confined the selection to the respective student and faculty senates. The Attorney General said that policy conflicted with the act because the statute did not limit either the electorate or the pool of representatives to senate members. The trustees had revised the policy in March 1990 to conform to the act. The opinion reported that students did not vote for their foundation representative until April 1990, after the interim senate choice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

For students and student senates: The opinion distinguished a campus-wide vote for senate president from a vote for foundation-board representative. It found that the student senate's interim appointment did not meet the act's election requirement.

For faculty and university trustees: The entire faculty had elected its representative, so that election complied. The trustees' revised election policy allowed all eligible students and the whole faculty to vote and did not require representatives to be senate members.

Common questions

Could a student senate elect the university foundation-board representative in 1990?

Not under the act the opinion applied. It required election by the students enrolled at the institution, rather than only by student senators.

Did electing the student senate president also elect that person to the foundation board?

No. The Attorney General said the student body had voted for a senate president, not for a foundation-board representative. The senate's later interim selection therefore did not satisfy the act.

Was the faculty representative's election valid?

Yes. The whole faculty elected the representative, and the person did not need to be a faculty-senate member.

Could the university trustees set procedures for these elections?

Yes, the act assigned election procedures to the relevant constituent unit's board of trustees. The opinion said those procedures had to conform to the act's requirement that students and faculty elect their respective representatives.

Background and statutory framework

Public Act 89-267 concerned private foundations benefiting state agencies and institutions. For foundations of public higher-education institutions, it required a nonvoting student member elected by enrolled students and a nonvoting faculty member elected by faculty, along with the institution's executive authority or designee. It let the constituent unit's trustees establish election procedures.

The trustees' September 1989 policy called for foundation representatives from the student and faculty senates and for the student senate to choose its representative. The Attorney General found those limits inconsistent with the act. The trustees changed the policy in March 1990. At Western Connecticut State University, the faculty's campus-wide vote satisfied the act, while the student senate's interim choice did not. The opinion's official HTML refers to a revised-policy attachment but does not provide that attachment.

Citations and references

The opinion quotes Public Act 89-267 and cites State ex rel. Huntington v. McNulty for the rule that the act controls the trustees' policy. The official HTML renders several digits in the reporter citation as “l”; no corrected reporter citation is supplied here.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1990-formal-opinions/senator-reginald-j-smith-state-capitol-1990018-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticut

Original opinion text

Senator Reginald J. Smith, State Capitol, 1990-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

June 5, 1990

Senator Reginald J. Smith

State Capitol

Hartford, Connecticut 06l06

Dear Senator Smith:

You have requested our opinion as to whether the procedure followed for the election of faculty and student representatives to the foundation board at Western Connecticut State University (WCSU) was consistent with state statutes. We conclude that while the election for the faculty representative held during this academic year did comply with Public Act 89-267, the election for the student representative did not. Further, the policy initially adopted by the Connecticut State University (CSU) to govern the elections was not in accord with the statute. However, that policy has been revised to bring it into compliance with Public Act 89-267.

Public Act 89-267, effective June 29, l989, concerns private foundations which benefit state agencies and institutions. The portion of that act which governs the elections in question is as follows:

(3) If the state agency is a public institution of higher education, the following persons shall serve as nonvoting members of the governing board of the foundation: The executive authority of the institution, or his designee, a student enrolled at the institution, who shall be elected by the students enrolled in the institution and a member of the faculty of the institution, who shall be elected by the faculty of the institution. Elections pursuant to this subdivision shall be conducted in accordance with procedures for such elections established by the board of trustees of the constituent unit which has jurisdiction over the institution;

Western Connecticut State University (WCSU) is a public institution of higher education and Connecticut State University (CSU) is the constituent unit of the State Board of Higher Education which has jurisdiction over it.

Pursuant to the act, CSU, through its Board of Trustees, adopted a policy, on September 8, l989, to govern the elections for faculty and student foundation board representatives. The relevant portions of the resolution are as follows:

C. Election of Students to the Foundation Board

(1) Each foundation shall have an elected student representative who shall serve as a nonvoting member of the governing board of the foundation

...

3) The student representatives to the campus foundations shall be elected for a one-year term by the respective student senate from their memberships

...

D. Election of Faculty Members to the Foundation Board

(1) Each foundation shall have an elected faculty member who shall serve as a nonvoting member of the governing board of the foundation

...

(3) The faculty representative to the campus foundation shall be elected from the corresponding campus faculty senate for a one-year term

...

The CSU policy contemplates that the faculty and student representatives will be members of the respective senates and, at least in the case of the student representative, will be elected only by members of the senate.

Public Act 89-267 does not limit the voting for faculty and student representatives to members of the respective senates. Nor does the public act limit the selection of the representatives from among members of the respective senates. Instead, student representatives shall be "elected by the students enrolled in the institution..." and faculty representatives shall be elected by "the faculty of the institution." The CSU policy, therefore, does not comply with the provisions of Public Act 89-267. The Board of Trustees of CSU reviewed these policies and revised them on March 30, 1990. The revisions, effective on March 30, 1990, will ensure that the entire faculty votes on its representative, who need not be a member of the faculty senate (see attachment). All students eligible to vote will elect the student representative, who need not be a member of the student senate. The policy has been revised to conform to the public act because the act controls the policy. State ex rel. Huntington v. McNulty, l5l Conn. 447, l99 A.2d 5 (l964).

The elections for the academic year, 1989-1990, at WCSU were conducted as follows. The entire faculty elected their representative, who is not a member of the faculty senate. That election conforms to the public act. The student senate voted to have the student senate president serve as the interim student representative. Although that person was elected by the entire student body eligible to vote, the vote of the student body was for president of the student senate, not for student representative to the foundation board of directors. Since the student body did not vote to elect a representative to the foundation board of directors until April 1990, the vote taken by the student senate for the interim student representative did not conform to the provisions of the public act.

Very truly yours,

CLARINE NARDI RIDDLE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Diane W. Whitney

Assistant Attorney General

CNR/DWW/esm