Mr. DELLENBACK. One of the prior witnesses said something that concerned me. That it was his feelings if we had a commission which had direct first-line representation of postsecondary vocational schools, technical institutes, public and private nonprofit proprietary institutions, this kind of thing, it was his concern that what we might end up with was a series of warring factions who would each try to protect their own interest and we would not really be talking about a broad meshing together of objectives. That is why I am pushing. I don't mean to be pushing into North Carolina's situation critically at all. But do you already have on this board that you think might qualify as a commission direct first-line representation from a proprietary institution, for example.

Dr. FRIDAY. Only in the sense that one member of the board is counsel for that group of institutions, if that would be the type of representation that would qualify.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Let us assume that you had this kind of direct first-line representation. Do you anticipate that they would find it difficult to really sit down and amicably decide what ought to be the goals for postsecondary education in your State?

Dr. FRIDAY. I can share with you the experience we have had doing this kind of thing with degree-granting institutions of all types, 4year, 5-year, Ph. D. level. For years we had the warring tension you refer to. The general assembly under Mr. Andrews' leadership in 1971 created a government mechanism that has the power to award degrees, allocate funds, appoint personnel, and so on.

Now in the months that have followed the enactment of that legislation, the historic tensions have disappeared to some extent, the reason being that this board set up a budgetary process to choose one area of examination in which there is no institutional identification of money. It goes into program identification. That is all. The funds awarded by the legislature now sitting will go to this board in a $5 million budget. It will be up to this board to decide how it is to be allocated or distributed. This moves it out of the legislative arena in contesting who gets what appropriation.

Mr. DELLENBACK. When they allocate the moneys, will they have this internecine warfare again?

Dr. FRIDAY. It is only one board of 32 people that will make these decisions with a staff that I am part of.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Are the people that make up that board so tied to one branch or another of postsecondary education that each, in making the decision to the single board, will be fighting for his or her community of interest..

Dr. FRIDAY. I think in truth, since it is a new board and the original composition is institutionally identified, yes, there will be some of that. But in putting together the budget that is now before the legislature the same people made the hard decisions that cut institutional petitions. One would come in with a request for $900,000. This group cut it to $300,000 and did it acting on a mandate that says to cach of them, "You are State trustees; that is of the State system. You are no longer institutionally identified." It takes time to move out of one role to another, but I am confident this will happen. Particularly because this session of the legislature is going to replace a fourth of the board with newly appointed people.

Mr. DELLENBACK. And you feel that as this happens, they will in effect become broadly representative of the public interest instead of being narrowly directed toward specific interests.

Dr. FRIDAY. I think that is true now. Not as much as I would like to see, but I am sure it is coming. I think once the legislature elects a group of people known to be at-large members, and this will be the case, you will see this change dramatically.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Do the members of the board take their position by virtue of election or selection?

Dr. FRIDAY. They are in classes of eight, each elected by the general assembly. That is the way they will be replaced through a foursession cycle.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So it is an election, but by the general assembly? Dr. FRIDAY. Yes, sir. There are local boards for each of the constituent campuses, with 12 lay members on each board, they are 12 in number, plus the student body president. Of those 12, 8 are appointed by this parent governing board and 4 are appointed by the Governor. This gives the parent board control through the appointment of twothirds of the membership on the local boards.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Will the assembly and particularly the eight who will come on next year be looking back to this language and will they look at the composition of the board and say, "Look we got rid of the man who was the tie to the proprietary institution so we must get somebody from the proprietary field, we do not have anything from a technical institute so we must get somebody from a technical institute." Is the assembly reaching any guideline to work in that direction?

Dr. FRIDAY. No, sir. The information I have from the last edition of the guidelines is that this particular mechanism created by the legislature in North Carolina could itself create the 1202 commission. That is their power by virtue of legal action.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So it would take no more legislation.

Dr. FRIDAY. That is correct.

Mr. DELLENBACK. And the creature of the legislature might itself not qualify, but it would have the power to create the commission that would qualify.

Dr. FRIDAY. The first question was whether or not the board itself would qualify. We don't know, but the interpretation I am provided is that under the new guidelines it certainly could create the new mechanism. Here is where you would accommodate the areas you were talking about and that should be represented. It could draw from its own constituency for at large representation..

Mr. DELLENBACK. A number of us at least who served on the conference committee when we were writing the language in the 1972 amendments are trying to make it broad. We were not trying to set up the blueprint that must be adhered to meticulously by each State. We were trying to set up certain basic requirements, but to give great flexibility, and what might work out in North Carolina might be different than what would be true in Oregon or some other State. But in your State you do not feel it would take more legislation to bring about a commission that would comply in either the first or second step as you have outlined.

The laws in North Carolina are now adequate to take care of it. Dr. FRIDAY. That is the point I make. First, we should be given the opportunity to see the latest edition to be sure we are on sound ground and, second, recognizing the individuality of States and the very distinctive character of institutions within States, it is terribly important to keep the arrangement as local in its adaptation as you can. The reason I stress the first point, for example, is that in our State now we have gone through this process. If we are implementing this mechanism, and if we are at the point where something ought to be done with reference to community colleges and other areas, we ought to know that now.

Mr. DELLENBACK. One of the concerns I have felt as a Member of the Congress on this and as a former member of the State legislature in my State is that in a State where legislature generally meets only 2 months if they do not know fairly soon-and there are many other States that fit into this pattern as Oregon does whether or not laws need to be changed they will be in a heck of a spot if in the middle of 1974, or the late part of 1973, they find they need some changes in statute and the legislature has gone out of session.

So at least in North Carolina that may not be necessary, but I would assume that speaking for the ACE, you would be saying, in effect, that in a great many States there may be legislative changes that may be necessary and part of the reason you would like to see early action would be so that individual States which do need legislation in order to create an instrumentality that would come into compliance could go about doing the job.

Dr. FRIDAY. Most of us want to do what we understand the will of the Congress to be. All we want to know is what are the guidelines and ground rules we must work with.

Mr. DELLENBACK. I would assume the ACE would have within its purview a number of States which would need changes in legislation and States which might be meeting in 1973 which will not be meeting in 1974 which is another reason, as I see it, for the Office of Education to get out those proposed regulations so we can get them in final form as soon as possible and States can know what they need to do. Dr. FRIDAY. I agree.

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. O'Hara is absent today, but he posed a question yesterday which, on his behalf, I would like to pursue with you. The Office of Education has simply not yet issued any regulations or guidelines or anything else. Do you feel that it is plausible to say that, given that situation, the State is then free to go ahead and follow the actions of the Congress, create a 1202 commission and that that State action would have to be considered valid at least until and unless the agency should decide to issue regulations.

Is there anything in the absence of regulations to prevent the States from going ahead and setting up their own 1202 commissions assuming that all the guidance they need is what the law states?

Dr. FRIDAY. I don't think there is anything to prevent it. I think the element of stimulation would be removed though. There would be groups that would not want to do it. You can find States that have had the experience our State has had, which has been in a long and tedious and sometimes very difficult debate, but it has been resolved. But we

certainly do not want to go through that again. I do not interpret it to be required.

Mr. HARRISON. Piling hypothesis upon hypothesis, assuming Congress were to go ahead and fund these other programs and assuming that no other 1202 commission regulations had been promulgated by the agency, don't you think the States then would qualify under the requirements of the law for assistance under title X even in the absence of further 1202 regulations?

Dr. FRIDAY. As a lawyer I don't know that I could agree. I don't know the law well enough to answer that question.

Mr. HARRISON. Well, it was a hypothetical question.

Mr. ANDREWS. Anything further?

Mr. DELLENBACK. NO.

Mr. ANDREWS. If not, we thank you again, Dr. Friday.

Our next and second witness is Mr. Warren Hill, Chancellor of Higher Education for the State of Connecticut, who is testifying in two capacities today.

Chancellor Hill is appearing before us as vice-chairman of the Education Commission of the States, and president-elect of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.

Chancellor Hill has served as chancellor of Connecticut's system since 1966, and for 3 years prior to that he was president of Trenton State College in Trenton, N.J.

Mr. Hill, we welcome you here and look forward to your statements.

STATEMENT OF WARREN G. HILL, PRESIDENT-ELECT, STATE HIGHER EDUCATION EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. HILL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Dellenback.

I would like to point out I have been joined at the table by Dick Millard of ECS staff. He is director of higher education services for ECS and in that capacity works very closely with both of these organizations.

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before your committee and speak on behalf of these associations.

I am sure that you are aware that the States constitute by far the largest single funding source for higher and postsecondary education in the Nation. Total State appropriations, not including postsecondary Vocational-technical education apart from community colleges, exceeded $8.5 billion in 1972-73. This funding not only included direct support of public postsecondary educational institutions but considerable amounts of aid to private institutions and grant aids to students at both public and private institutions. The primary responsibility for funding and for planning for postsecondary education in this country rather clearly rests with the States.

I might say they are putting significant effort into it.

Although the amounts and types of statewide planning have and do vary from State to State, the States on the whole have not been negligent in recognizing and effectuating their planning responsibilities. While there was a relative handful of States with higher education planning, coordinating and/or governing agencies at the end of

the 1950's, during the 1960's and into the 1970's, 47 of the States strengthened or developed State higher education agencies with_responsibilities for at least some aspects of the planning process. They did so in the 1960's to meet the needs of rapidly expanding numbers of students and continuing into the 1970's to insure orderly development, adequate diversification, and effective use of limited resources in postsecondary education. Of these agencies 27 are coordinating boards and 20 are unified governing boards. Two of the additional three States have voluntary State associations.

I might note which these are because they are so few in number, that is Vermont which has none, and Nebraska and Delaware, of the three that are omitted. While in most instances these State agencies are primarily responsible for public postsecondary education, in a number of States they have at least some responsibility for taking private higher education into account in the planning process and in more than a few cases their responsibility extends to providing State funding to private institutions. The trend over the last number of years has been in the direction of strengthening such agencies and increasing the scope of their responsibilities. On the State level such agencies tend to be under constant review and some 32 States during this last year have strengthened or modified the agencies to meet changing conditions. There seems to be little question that the States on the whole are committed to effective planning and coordination as a prerequisite for adequately meeting the postsecondary educational needs of their citizens.

The Education Amendments of 1972 clearly recognized State responsibility for postsecondary educational planning. They further underlined the recognized need for broadening the scope of such planning to cover the range of postsecondary education-public, private and proprietary-and for the involvement of the various types of postsecondary education in the planning process.

One of the most significant features of the Education Amendments of 1972 was the provision for comprehensive postsecondary planning agencies as provided in sections 1202 and 1203 of the law. This was not a wholly new Federal initiative since assistance for facilities planning had been provided through the facilities commissions since 1963, but it did significantly broaden the concept of planning and provided for an agency that could address a whole range of planning issues in postsecondary education and not just one or a few categorical programs.

Guidelines for the development of the planning commissions have been held up because the administration has indicated that they do not intend to fund the title X programs in the Education Amendments of 1972 and, therefore, the administration sees no need for funding any planning for these programs.

This was reflected in a letter from Acting Commissioner Ottina, a "dear colleague" letter that came out 12 months ago

The purpose stated for the 1202 commissions in the law, particularly in section 1203, is much broader than planning for specific categorical programs and it is the position of the State higher education executive officers and the education commission of the States that the need for comprehensive planning is at least as great if the Federal Government