thumbnail of Idaho Reports; State Board of Education Report
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+.
Funding for Idaho reports is provided by the Friends of four 10 and 12. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by a grant from the laurel Moore Cunningham foundation. Good evening. The Idaho State Board of Education today officially adopted a controversial report from a team of outside consultants a report that recommends some significant changes in higher education in Idaho among other things the report contemplates some major changes for the financially plagued pharmacy school at Idaho State University in Pocatello. The report which was first made public last month has sparked sharp reaction in southeastern Idaho where many people already believe the Pocatello school is receiving a raw deal at the hands of the State Board of Education. The most recent reaction a call earlier this week for the resignation from a prominent official resignation of the state board's executive director Dr. Charles McQuillan. That
call for resignation came from a prominent Pocatello attorney and an official in the Idaho State University Foundation McQuillan was accused among other things of attempting to divide the state's institutions and to make himself chancellor of a statewide higher education system. Tonight we'll be looking again into this brewing controversy with the man who headed up the team that produced the report that's been stirring up all the dust. We'll talk also with the president of the State Board of Education and with the Pocatello legislator who serves on the legislature's Budget Committee. The review team that produced the report that was received today was charged officially with examining the health science engineering and graduate programs at Idaho's higher education facilities. The team was headed by Dr. Frank Dickey a former president of the University of Kentucky. And there is no individual or institution that is so perfect that he's not subject to criticism that is. And one last one happens to be saying that great old song Oh Lord it's hard to be humble when I'm perfect in every way.
That disclaimer aside criticism of the report Dickie discussed today has been particularly strong in southeastern Idaho where many people apparently view the recommendations as being anti ISU. Of course some of these differences of opinion stem from a certain amount of defensiveness. At first hearing of some of the comments about the report we as team members almost became equally defensive and somewhat contentious perhaps. However upon reflection I realized that if I were in someone else's shoes I too would wish to defend what might be looked upon as my domain or my offspring. In fact if I were the chief executive officer of an institution here I would be most apprehensive if my Deans Department chairpersons and faculty did not exhibit a bit of defensiveness. The future of Idaho State University has clearly become a major community and political issue in the Pocatello area. Many southeastern Idaho legislators and legislative candidates were in this audience today but at least one Pocatello legislator seemed
relieved by what he had heard. Well I'm much more encouraged that I have been up to this time. I think we have a lot of misinformation a lot to report he said. I'm sure. I do think that if you would look at the enrollments in the school that you will find that I'd been perhaps getting more and therefore fair share of the education dollars in this state for the number of students they were educating. And I think that this probably is the first time that they've come to cope with reality and realize that those dollars should go in that is not a politically popular opinion and it's called paranoia.
Meanwhile the board's executive director Dr. Charles McAllen wasn't saying much of anything today about the report or about the call for his resignation. But board members were defending MCCLELLAN I think people are frustrated here. I think they are very frustrated. They want better education. And you know I think people are kind of zeroing in on one person and you know I don't think it's that simple. If there were simple answers which there never are then you could say oh yes you know let's blame this on to you know turn the feeling that you know it's not turning the Quinns fault that's accusing anyone in the room. That has not that has done its part for Idaho state things stand up and throw rocks and Dr. McClellan. But if you haven't done your part why then you have to stand with him and accept some responsibility which I think says the university has to accept some alumni in the community. The Board of Education the legislature it might have been built small two years ago. The grace is here in McAllen happens to be the man in a in the position. But we all have to bear some of the
responsibility in getting rid of Charlie McClellan does not solve the problem with you I think was an improper statement made by a gentleman that should have known better. I neglected to point out of course that the state board is meeting today and tomorrow on the campus of Idaho State University in Pocatello. We continue our look now at this higher education story with Dr. Frank Dickey. He is the former University of Kentucky president who was hired by the state board to examine health engineering and graduate programs in Idaho and Dr. Dickey joins us tonight in Pocatello. Doctor Dickie you said there on the videotape that there was some under some misunderstanding about your reporting exactly what you were trying to do. Could you elaborate on that a bit more please. Yes I think that perhaps one of the most basic misunderstandings has been that people have said this is a pharmacy report. In reality that is only one phase of the report. It's only one of the several problems that seems to be confronting the State Board of
Education and I had a hoe in the legislature and certainly the report says that there are a number of areas that need additional support and need further study. And one would hope that there are decisions that the state board would make based on this report and this review would bring about improvement in the educational programs for the state. I appreciate what you're saying but in the community where you sit tonight there is a strong feeling among a lot of people apparently that the report comes out giving ISU the negative in the bad into the stack comment on that. I would merely say that that's been termed potations I think it's an erroneous one in that other institutions were reviewed suggestions recommendations pertain to other areas as well as to ISU. And in reality the
programs that I issue came in for their share of praise as well as some of the criticisms. Let me just for a moment look at this pharmacy school situation because it has been so much in the news here as you well know the school basically is facing a loss of accreditation and facing a major need for infusion of money to upgrade faculty salaries among other things. You made three different recommendations in your report to the board one of which was to phase out the school and go to some cooperative arrangement to educate pharmacy students in other states. But I think I heard you say today that that's not necessarily the preferred alternative. It is only one of the three alternatives and obviously if funds are available to strengthen and to improve the program and to bring it back into a condition where it would be fully a creditable then I think one would always say that the preference would be to let it remain right here
as it stands with the improved situation. The other two alternatives were listed only because there was some assumptions. There were some assumptions that the resources of the state were not. Sufficient to enable the needed improvements to be made. But the thrust of your recommendation not only in the pharmacy area but across the board was that if the programs are going to exist they have to be quality programs that can be accredited. That is correct and it's particularly true in pharmacy because if the program is not accredited then the individuals who graduate from that institution in that program are not eligible for sitting for licensure so it would be foolhardy for anyone to attend a program that is not fully accredited. But again I think you emphasized to the board today that whatever is done with the pharmacy school should not detract from other programs somewhere else. That is true it seems unfair to take it out of the hide of other programs and
put them in jeopardy just to save one so it's going to and necessitate an increase in funds are the adoption of one of the other alternatives that has been listed to have co-operative programs for students how sighed the state Dr. Dicky the. As you know the last segment of your report was not made public. The last section dealing with governance issues it was made public because we were we were able to obtain a copy of it we talked about on this program about a month ago. You did not respond to any questions today or did not discuss that before the board was that by design. I responded to questions from some of the legislators in a session later on and the situation is essentially this as the review teams made their studies of the three programs in engineering and Health Sciences in graduate programs. We found that some of the problems were not necessarily just institutional problems but
were involved in relationships between the board and the staff and the institutions and as a consequence some of the comments that were made in the draft form were ones dealing with governance after the draft form had been sent for comment and I assume that that is the form in which you sought the draft form and not any final form. The comments were made to remind the review team that governance really was not one of the charges given to the team for making a report on what we just interrupt you right there though because one of the themes that runs through all of your report not just the part that was not made public is a talk about a lack of cooperation among the institutions there some call for a better system of keeping track of what one institution is doing as opposed to the next. That relates directly to some of the concerns that you that you've talked about the
pharmacy school just one of one of many. Does it not. To a degree but I remind you that this was not a part of the charge and as a consequence the final report did not include the section on governance and the final report consisted of the three elements the engineering section the Health Sciences section and the graduate programs. The draft of the section on governance was revised to some extent and was sent in revised form to a few individuals but was not and will not be unless the board so their ranks will not be presented to the board for any consideration just in a word I guess that's OK with you. That is OK. OK. We'll come back sir thank you. Let's turn now to another view of this and that comes tonight from Clint hoops the president of the State Board of Education. Mr. Hoops is from to Tony and he's also joining us tonight in Pocatello. Mr. Hoops is this an anti
ISU report. Mark I wouldn't believe that was and I and I surely part I do believe that you happen to be. A school that has to have the program studied engineering and health science which included pharmacy. We chose these three things because we felt we had some serious problems both of them are rated as high cost programs and consequently it looks like maybe it came down heavy on you. Simply because they had these two programs. Well you know I'm sure after having been through a meeting there today that a lot of folks in Pocatello in the area are really concerned about about this and about what they perceive as the state board's attitude toward ISU. Mark I'm pleased that they're concerned about it. And and I guess this is part of the job if they misconceive which
I think they do our attitude towards ISU. I think a lot of us recognize that we have problems in this day and it just seemed like nothing could be done. Maybe the board didn't present these problems and this is the reason we chose these three subjects areas to have some outside consultants come in maybe we were too close to it and we asked them to please tell it like it was. And sometimes. When we hear the situation it is in the long run. Someone comes out better and I honestly feel this is probably going to be the case with you in the videotape you heard a moment ago two of your fellow board members rather strongly defending Dr. McClellan I assume that you're in the same position. I guess I have to be because. We went through the process of selecting Dr. McClellan at the time
small that we set up a job description. It certainly wasn't a chancellor and I. Know that the majority of the board do not believe in this job description was stronger than Mel Smalls and it was simply so that our office could handle some of the materials that a lowly lay board needs. And and that position had to be so that we were able to obtain those in a statewide manner. So these calls for his resignation are blaming him for whatever perceived attitude that the state board might have toward i issue they're misplaced. I'm certainly feel they're misplaced and and certain at least some of the accusations about Mr. McClellan want to be Chancellor. He has never asked that and never. And in fact he recommended that in our annual review this year we had three new board members since the time we eyed him.
That we go through these 18 I think it's approximately 18 points in the job description and there was about five or maybe 100 when they agreed. We as a board said we need this in an executive secretary and we think the job description as it now stands as what we need to function as a board. Let me just interrupt you there and ask you for a quick comment then we'll come back to some of these points. A quick comment on the quality of this report that Dr. Dicky presented to you today I said you received it I think more Kerr accepted it more correctly the word should be you received it which implies I guess that you're not obviously endorsing all that is said here. What do you have. Just in general what do you think of this report. I think the report in general this was exceptional and and specially when I see the reaction in the state about from the people of the state saying we must do something about
education. And I'm I'm really feeling good about that. The majority of the report is right. If you take the assumption the doctor and the team dead maybe we're not going to fare any better than we had the last six years. Then there are some things that we need to do. We can't keep cannibalizing each other from one institution to another or from one program to another. The basic fact is we just haven't totally enough resources. Well we'll come back sir thank you. Our final guest tonight also in Pocatello is State Representative Larry Echo Hawk a Democrat and a member of the House Appropriations Committee. One of the two committees of the legislature that determines how much money is going to be spent on higher education. Director Hawk I want to ask you for a comment generally speaking for your constituents and maybe other number of other members of the legislature from the Pocatello area. How did you feel after what you heard today and after having a chance to hear what Dr. Dicky Mr. Hooper just
said here. They were in our community starting to face reality and realizing that the result of low funding over the past several years has brought us to the point now where we're starting to pay the price and that is to see our quality of education in Idaho and particularly at Idaho State University being questioned and having our talk about program cuts and reduction in what we can offer the citizens in Idaho. You heard Mrs. Bill your member of the board say a few moments ago on videotape that people are just really frustrated. Is that a good word to describe how people feel about this situation. I think so. We're frustrated here because we have a strong delegation of Representatives here that have vigorously supported Idaho State University but it seems like where we've we suffered in our community is overall with the higher education appropriation being
quite a bit less than what the state board is recommending. Legislature being unwilling to appropriate an adequate level. Secondly Idaho State University has been treated I think unfairly through the formula's funding process. That's the formula that divides up when Essence divides up all of the higher education money among the four institutions. That's right. It's not the function of the legislature to divide the money. The legislature appropriates that. It's the state board's responsibility to divide the money and the formula as it's known is been used to make that decision. And who's responsible for that the state border. Dr. McClellan ultimately. Well I think ultimately it's the state board I think Dr. McClellan had quite a bit of hand in developing the formula. But I don't think that in criticizing Dr. McClellan we ought to lose sight of what the real problem is and that is the adequacy of
funding statewide for higher education. The state board comes in and asked for you know 84 million dollars in the legislature appropriates 45 million dollars less. We're just not doing the job in the legislature that we need to be doing. Well let me ask you why were so many members of the legislature there today. We had by one count I think 25 different members of fully a quarter of the members of the legislature were in that room today. Well Mark I think that higher education is starting to take on a more major status of an issue. In the last session. Public education was in the forefront and I think that people are realizing that higher education is quite important too and that the legislature in funding higher education hasn't done justice in the past few years so I think that this coming session it will be the major issue. Let me ask you finally Mr. Eko I can and will open this up what would you specifically like to see done now with that major problem that's received so much attention right now and that's the pharmacy school at
ISU. What should be done there. Well I think that the pharmacy's girl should definitely be maintained. I would personally like to see through the permanent building design. A new facility built through state money and have a new program developed to make them not only what they have been in the past but actually open it up beyond that to attract other people into the state as Idaho participates in some of the regional program programs I think that we ought to make. Gado State University's pharmacy program a regional program that attracts outsiders there OK well on that point let's open it up let me go back to Mr. Hoopes for a comment on that what I know the board is in the process of weighing what should be done with the pharmacy school. Do you have some preliminary notion of that tonight Michael. I could say that in all fairness we will weigh every alternative. But we really must not forget
that. The added benefits even though it might be cost saving to take one of the first two options. There's enough added bad benefits Didos State University when we've declared dead center for health science and that we must look very close at the fringe benefits. And I am and I have the feeling that we have support from the rest of the state. Even in this endeavor if we recognize that not only in engineering and health science that maybe pharmacy is most visible but I could cite examples of things that are very close. Credit patient problems. To pharmacy and there are other institutions of the state. So as I said before and as a representative echo Hart said. It's our total resources that is the problem of this. Maybe we can patch it over
one more year but that isn't a permanent solution. Can you do it as Dr. Dicky suggests you must by not taking away from some other program even on a one year basis. That's something the Board will just have to weigh. And and I say that because we have been doing that now. For four or five years the percentage of for higher education of the general fund budget since 1978 has dropped from nineteen point something to fourteen point five. If we had that nineteen point something percent of the general fund this year we could fund all I recall a quest for higher education in Idaho. Mr Eko hoc I guess you would agree with that. Yes Mark as I said I think the real problem is in the legislature with the appropriation level the formula. No matter how much criticism it receives is really aimed at an adequate appropriation level. I don't think you'd hear all the criticism about the
formula. If the legislature was doing its job and pro-British money for higher education Dr. Dicky Friday let me go back to you. We've heard some discussion here of of a chancellor or at least the need and your governance the governance section of your report talks about the need to make the state board stronger and the executive director stronger. Do we need to move toward a chancellor system in Idaho in your opinion. That's a decision that the board has to make. There are states comparable to Idaho in size and complexity and with the number of institutions that have transfers there are other states that have no centralized state system at all. There are others that have modifications that would approximate this one and it's an individual state proposition that has to be the decision of the board. So there's not any formula that one can plug into these situations and say a chancellor would work well with four institutions and a million population not necessarily any
formula at all and that depends entirely upon the situation and the terrain as the old army saying goes. When people ask questions everything depends on the situation of the Doraine and in this case it does because every state has different personalities or different institutions are different and the heritage and the background of the state and institutions might mean that chance or system would never work here. Am I right though when I say that. Do you believe in the members of your committee believe that Idaho needs better coordination among its institutions. It needs more cooperation let's put it that way I am not sure that coordination is necessarily the best word. I think that the geographic distances between the institutions makes for a very difficult situation and one that does not always promote full cooperation and it would be our hope that the future would bring
forth more cooperative programs so that new programs would not have to be established in each of institutions but rather if they could deal with each other on a cooperative basis. We just get a quick comment on that on that point from Mr. Hoops first and then Representative Echo are with us. Yes I would like to comment on that very much because in any international meeting a lot of people have said how lucky we are to have one state lawyer who can not only govern but cooperate and work. And I do think that this is the ideal situation even though we are all white people from different walks of life. I think the one thing that we do need as a strengthening at that small 10 and a half office to not to govern but to bring information to to the members so that maybe they can hear OK Mr Eko hoc more cooperation coordination the chancellor or any of those things or all of those things.
Well Mark I might say that it may be a rather inappropriate time to talk about the Chancellorship idea when Dr. McClellan has been under fire. I would say that I was impressed personally with the study that was done by the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry. And I don't think that the legislature is really had a fair hearing on a variety of the points that were raised in that study so I for one would keep an open mind on that question which among other things I report recommended a tougher system of governance better governance of the education system. Well gentlemen I'm afraid we're out of time but I want to thank you all for taking time to be with us tonight. Dr. Dickey thank you sir. Mr. Hope said enough so that I can walk in and question our government. That's our time for tonight. We'll be back here tomorrow night with other news permitting that interview with former West concent Senator Gaylord Nelson. He's now chairman of the Wilderness Society. I'm Mark Johnson. Good night. Funding for Idaho reports is provided by the Friends of four 10 and
12. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by a grant from the laurel Moore coming him foundation.
Idaho Reports
State Board of Education Report
Producing Organization
Idaho Public Television
Contributing Organization
Idaho Public Television (Boise, Idaho)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/328-515mkrf5).
Episode Description
This episode of Idaho Reports examines a recent report regarding recommended changes to Idaho's higher education. The guests on this episode are: Dr Frank Dickey who is the chair of the review committee, Clint Hoopes the president of the state Board of Education, and State Representative Larry Echohawk who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee.
Series Description
Idaho Reports is a talk show featuring conversations with panels of experts about Idaho state politics.
Copyright Date
Asset type
Talk Show
Public Affairs
Politics and Government
Copyright 1984
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Director: Eisele, Ted
Director: Spain, Russ
Executive Producer: McNeil, Jean
Guest: Echohawk, Larry
Guest: Dickey, Frank
Guest: Hoopes, Clint
Host: Johnson, Marc
Interviewee: Mitchell, Mike
Interviewee: Bilyeu, Diane
Producer: Wissel, Paula
Producing Organization: Idaho Public Television
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Idaho Public Television
Identifier: 136.0 (Idaho PTV Tape #)
Format: U-matic
Duration: 01:00:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Idaho Reports; State Board of Education Report,” 1984-01-01, Idaho Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed July 25, 2024,
MLA: “Idaho Reports; State Board of Education Report.” 1984-01-01. Idaho Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. July 25, 2024. <>.
APA: Idaho Reports; State Board of Education Report. Boston, MA: Idaho Public Television, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from