U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 02, 2021 01:24 PM UTC
5 Comments
At the risk of another dismissal from any former regents out there, I still think the board should expand to 11, for a few basic reasons.
Having one statewide regent for 5.8 million people just isn't great representation, and it's not like this single regent would hold an executive position.
The mechanism for having 3 statewide regents still exists in statute, it was just updated with a new section when we got the 7th district. Of course you'd have to amend the Constitution to go from 9 to 11 total members. You already have to do something with statutes to account for an 8th district.
Colorado's gone from about 4.1 million in 2000 to about 5.8 million now. Growth can justify more representation, and more representation can provide additional voices or capacity to take input from the people.
Frankly, 2Jung, a bigger board would be unwieldy. How do you "represent" six million people? In any event, how is the need of a student from Haxtun different than one from Pueblo?
Frankly, I think the appointed trustees of the state colleges and CSU have done better than the elected regents.
Agreed on the trustees part.
I don't think going from 9 to 11 would be that unwieldy. CU's got like a $4.5 billion annual budget, 104,000 square miles, approaching 6 million people – there would still be plenty of work and stuff to talk about if split 11 ways, and I've seen other local governments with nearly as many members yet for far smaller budgets and areas.
The student from Haxtun still has a different congressional district regent than Pueblo (for now), so they have regional representation in that way. Not being from Haxtun or anywhere close, I'm not sure what their regional needs are, but their district regent can provide a localized voice and try to better meet localized needs.
Maybe 1, 2, or 3 statewide regents wouldn't really "represent" 6 million people, but having more than one would probably provide some diversity, at least geographical if not otherwise. If we go back to one we get a statewide regent from Boulder (incumbent in 2024 if she runs again too) to go with the Boulder regent from the 2nd district. Great if you're from Boulder, you get 2 of 9 on the board as has been the case several times in the past, but maybe that's not so great for others.
If we went to more statewide seats, the statewide regents might split up the work that isn't regional in nature, more candidates would campaign throughout the state, maybe there could be better constituent interaction, maybe more interest in what the CU system does.
And I frankly don't care that much, but my main thought was that I don't like the idea of only one statewide regent. Two was OK but keeping that would create an even-numbered board. So I'm interested in 3.
Increasingly, I gotta wonder about the benefits of having an elected Board of Regents for the University of Colorado's 4 campuses. What do they DO? How do they add value?
Back when there was substantial state-based funding for the schools, control by the Regents made sense. In FY 2020-21, however, Direct State Funding to the schools is $120.0 million, which is 2.6% of the overall budget. If you add in CARES Fund revenues pushed through the state (and making up for the state budget cuts this year), there is another $153.5 million, 3.4% — a total of ~6%.
We pretty much need to have some type of governing board. CU regents oversee a huge budget, even if the revenue isn't very much from the state government, and budgeting is very much about allocation.
The possible benefits of an elected board – they have to campaign before "the people," once elected they give the people a representative to contact and provide input, and if they don't do what the people want they can be pressured while in office or voted out. CU's got a president and high-level staff, and if there isn't a board to question the system's decisions, the system might have carte blanche to carry out what the people who elect the regents might not want. As we've seen, regents hire or fire presidents, and there can be staff or organizational changes with new administrations that influence the university's operations.
Now, let's say we go to an appointed board of regents, and Ganahl wins the governor's race, becoming able to make regent appointments. We might learn to appreciate elected regents real quick!
Your question – do the regents add value – is fair and I'm not sure the last board didn't actually do some damage to the university's reputation. The regent's website has some info, and if you check this link you might ponder their university affairs committee or governance committee to get insight into what they do beyond finance.