Should regents have to live in Iowa?

Halfway through her six-year term on Iowa's Board of Regents, Nicole C. Carroll in November resigned after her family moved to Texas. But according to state law, she didn't necessarily have to.

Over the summer, the Board of Regents voted on several high-profile issues — including a new way of funding Iowa's public universities using enrollment and performance metrics and a systemwide efficiency review expected to save tens of millions of dollars and cut up to 250 positions on the three campuses.

However, Iowa Code does not explicitly require its nine volunteer members to live in the state, according to Jimmy Centers, communications director for Gov. Terry Branstad's office.

State code does say eight members must be 'selected from the state at large' and can be removed for 'any cause which would render the member ineligible for appointment.' The law also requires one regent to be a full-time graduate of or undergraduate student at one of the universities at the time of appointment.

But where other public boards in Iowa might require members to live in the state and be state electors, Centers said, the Board of Regents does not. And some lawmakers said perhaps it should.

Former regent Carroll announced her immediate resignation Nov. 20, the same day The Gazette began asking questions about whether she still lived in Iowa. Public records show she and her husband sold their Iowa property in Carroll County in May and bought a house in Corpus Christie, Texas, in September.

Centers told The Gazette in November that Branstad's office was made aware 'some time' ago that Carroll's husband, John Carroll, had accepted a job in another state and Regent Carroll's family would move there eventually.

But he said the governor's understanding was that Carroll was not moving immediately. And the Board of Regents Office said Carroll lived in Iowa with family 'throughout her term as a member of the Board of Regents.'

The issue has come up before — even making it to the Supreme Court of Iowa over the summer. In a 2010 case, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation asked for a judicial review of standards and procedures approved by the state's Environmental Protection Commission, arguing they were approved at a time the commission was invalid.

According to court documents, the petition argued one commissioner had a conflict of interest, and another, Carrie La Seur, should have been disqualified to serve because she had moved to Montana and registered to vote there — voiding her status as an eligible voter in Iowa.

The Iowa District Court for Polk County sided with the commission in the La Seur case and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision in July, saying La Seur was an elector when appointed to the commission.

Further, according to the ruling, the commission approved the standards and procedures in question only five months after she moved and while she still owned a home in Iowa.

The court said it would not undo any action based on La Seur's residency, pointing to 'stronger public policy' for maintaining order and functioning government than reversing decisions based on a defect.

That case differs from Carroll's situation, in that the former regent was not registered to vote in Texas while on the board, according to public records, and that was not spelled out as a requirement.

'A connection to the state'

But one expert said he's surprised it's not.

'That's something where you want someone to have a connection to the state,' University of Iowa political science professor Tim Hagle said of higher education governance.

He said one could make an argument for appointing a prominent Iowan, with a background in the state, who now lives elsewhere. But Hagle said one also could argue that enough qualified people live in the state to fill the nine seats with Iowa residents.

Because there are no mandates around the residency of regents, Hagle said, the issue remains a political one. Should a board member move from Iowa and continue to serve, the public could use that as ammunition to criticize specific decisions, Hagle said.

Citizens could say the board member isn't living in Iowa and therefore won't have to live with the consequences of his or her governing decisions.

'They could say, 'That's not very Iowan' or 'That's not reflecting our values,'' he said. 'It's the kind of thing where you could make an argument as to why you don't like a person.'

Rick Legon, president of the Association of Governing Boards, said he believes Iowa is in a 'good space' on the issue.

'I think there is some value in allowing non-residents who might have some other affinity or interest in the institutions to serve,' Legon said. 'That doesn't mean you want to have an overwhelming preponderance of nonstate folks serving on the board. But the state shouldn't be limited.'

Balance

'I don't think you can enforce how many days (a regent) spends in the district,' Sen. Bob Dvorsky, D-Iowa said. 'But they should have an address in the state and be able to say that's their legal address.'

Iowa is among 29 states that do not have rules around where members of their public education governing boards live. The other 21 states do have some type of residency requirements, according to the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Centers in the governor's office said even though the law doesn't explicitly require regents be Iowa residents, 'the governor believes Iowans — or Iowa residents — are best suited to serve on the Board of Regents.'

Iowa Code does mandate the Board of Regents be balanced by gender and political affiliation, meaning not more than five members can be of the same party or sex. The governor appoints and can remove members.

Dvorsky said it might be time to clarify language around board appointments — not just for the Board of Regents and not just regarding residency requirements.

'We also might look at the way they appoint people based on being a Democrat, Republican or Independent,' Dvorsky said.