In recent months, the UNC Board of Governors has increasingly become divided on a number of contentious issues. Normally this presents no large problem, as the board has a history of bipartisanship.

However, this increasing tension in the board highlights the ways in which the board functions without a mandate from its constituents. Board members are able to make a political grab for power without facing the consequences of public dissatisfaction. This problem has its root in the fact that not only are board members appointed by the General Assembly, and not elected directly by the public, but they also select their own president.

There is no democratic check on their power.

Unfortunately, the board’s policies do not always align with those of the public. In order to address this problem, the board needs to become a more democratic institution. The president of the board should be elected by the constituents of North Carolina through popular vote.

Rising tensions in the board were put on full display Friday during the last meeting before they reconvene in March. During the meeting, board member Bob Rucho directly called out Chairman W. Louis Bissette. This was a rare demonstration of their internal issues revolving around an op-ed Bissette wrote claiming that the board has become too involved in politics.

Rucho himself represents larger problems within the Board of Governors. He is a far-right conservative who is pushing to increase the board’s involvement in politics compared to its bipartisan past. The result is his unchecked desire to consolidate power.

There have been substantial impacts on the students of the UNC System in recent years, namely, the approval of the free-speech policy that I mentioned in a Technician column published in October. Additionally, the Board of Governors voted to close the Center on Work, Poverty and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill, the Center for Biodiversity at ECU and NCCU’s Institute for Civic Engagement and Social Change in February of 2015.

An elected president on the board would serve as a representative of public opinion to defend the interests of the citizens from the interests of the unelected board members. Logically the most effective and efficient way to do this would be to replace the position of board president with an elected official to defend public interests by power of veto.

Regardless of party, this elected official would represent the interests of the people or face being voted out of office.

This individual could serve as a check on the rest of the board to make sure that they never consolidate their power or act in a way that seems blatantly against the interest of the people or the well-being of the university system, a system that touches 17 different institutions in NC.

Instead of students and those affected by the board’s policies simply voicing their concerns, they would now have a route to effectively change the actions taken by the board.

A similar system is seen in lower levels of education. The superintendent of North Carolina is elected by citizens of North Carolina and presides over the public school system. It would reason that higher education should emulate this involvement of elections to make sure that public opinion regarding issues is satisfied.

The current operation of the board is both unrepresentative of the people and blatantly used to advance political ideas. This is a fundamental problem within the board and should be addressed in a way that creates a new form of governing for the board that better represents constituents – students like us at NC State.