Task force recommended three-board model for state higher education; legislation to implement it failed

A multi-year review of higher-education governance convened by the governor and supported by external consultants recommended changing North Dakota's structure from a single State Board of Higher Education to a three-board model, but legislative efforts to implement the recommendation failed in session.

System staff recounted the legal history of the state's higher-education institutions and governance framework, including the constitutional designation of several campuses, earlier reorganizations and repeated attempts to alter governance and shared services. The timeline traced major governance changes from the 19th century through recent decades and highlighted prior experiments in shared administration and branch-campus status.

Jace Spieler, who served as chief of staff to the governor during the task force, described the 2017'19 process: an open application for membership, external analysis by the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) and consultations across campuses, the legislature and the business community. The task force identified seven features of high-functioning boards (for example, nimbleness, technological awareness and partnership orientation) and considered seven initial structure options before narrowing the choices to four.

"All 15 of the board members did vote that there was a need for change to the governance structure," Spieler said. After additional analysis the task force recommended a three-board approach: a board for community and regional institutions and separate boards for UND and NDSU. Supporters said the change would give each institutional sector greater governance focus and attract board members with relevant expertise.

What happened in session Staff and the task force worked with legislative sponsors to draft a bill that would have implemented the new structure and made related appointment and chancellor-office changes. That proposal was amended during the legislative process (including a shift to a two-board version in later drafts) and ultimately did not pass the House. Testimony in the committee hearing explained that the proposal sparked debate over costs, the mechanics of board appointment and how to preserve coordinated system functions such as transferability and appropriations.

Why it matters The task force concluded that governance should enable institutional autonomy while promoting shared services where it makes sense. The debate over structure reflects long-standing tensions in North Dakota higher education between centralized system oversight and local campus autonomy, and it affects board recruitment, accountability and the system's ability to respond quickly to workforce needs.

What to watch next System leaders and the board continue to evaluate committee and governance structures internally. Any further legislative action would require renewed sponsorship and careful balancing of costs, board composition and the preservation of system-wide services such as credit transfer and the funding formula.