In House Bill 5000, Genetski proposes the creation of a commission, which would analyze the structure of universities to include the state boards. The 11-member commission would examine if Michigan’s current higher education system is cost-effective.

Taking a look at the current tuition models at universities across Michigan, it’s clear some questions need to be asked.

Can universities continue to raise tuition at such inflated rates to pay for projects while students and tax-payers foot the bill?

Should those same projects outweigh the current infrastructure of a university?

When will a market bust happen, where graduating high school students can no longer afford to attend state universities and the number of students sharply decline?

In fact, in an editorial in the Grand Rapids Press, one question was directly aimed toward Central Michigan University.

“Does Michigan really need as many medical schools as it currently has — with Western Michigan University, Central Michigan University and Oakland University recent entrants into the med school market? Are those schools duplicating programs already provided by Michigan State University, University of Michigan and Wayne State University?” the editorial asked.

It’s important that state-appointed boards for universities, as well as the three that are voted on, understand they are accountable to a higher power too, and projects just for the sake of spending money cannot be tolerated during these hard economic times.

It’s easy for administrators to say they are being “fiscally responsible,” but when push comes to shove, are they really?

The example can be made at Central Michigan University as CMU is currently in a contract conflict with the Faculty Association and claims they are pushing for the fiscally conservative approach, yet two weeks ago its board of trustees approved a renovation with a price tag of $1.5 million to the Real Food on Campus in the Towers residence hall.

Is that a good example of the “fiscally responsible” approach, when two other dining complexes on campus are certainly in tougher shape than the RFoC?

Although students deserve modern facilities, the addition of a Mongolian barbecue to an already excellent dining hall does little to improve the experience of the majority of CMU students, and it certainly fails to fit the message of conservative spending being repeated by the administration.

However, many steps need to be taken to ensure Genetski’s commission wouldn’t overstep it’s bounds, or become focused on pet-projects.

Another question is how will they take on the responsibility of looking at 15 universities, which focus in very different areas.

CMU Board of Trustees Chairowman Sarah Opperman provided a good point, telling Central Michigan Life, “As complex as CMU is, I can’t imagine one board being able to look at 15 different universities.”

For this proposed committee to work, it will need to understand each university individually. Having an unbiased board focused on the short and long-term goals of Michigan universities has the potential to reduce wasteful competition between schools, while reducing the dangerously inflated cost of tuition.

Though the committee would have to be carefully selected to address the institutions it would oversee, it is at least a solid proposal to move past the current untenable system of often part-time trustees who have failed to address the looming problems facing higher education.