The governor’s rationale for bypassing well-respected members of the Kansas Board of Regents just doesn’t add up.

The justification offered by Gov. Bill Graves for not retaining three Kansas Board of Regents members who were eligible for reappointment just doesn’t ring true for many observers around the state.

When announcing his appointment of three new regents on Friday, Graves indicated his decision “was not personal or political.” It was, he said, simply a matter of giving other people an opportunity to serve.

The advantages of creating more than the necessary turnover on an appointed board aren’t immediately apparent to many people who have served on such boards. And the fact that the governor hasn’t been consistent in this supposed preference for “new blood” on the board of regents continues to raise questions about what other motivations he might have had.

Most appointed boards, whether they are state boards or nonprofit boards, spell out a set term of office for members. It is not uncommon, however, to allow members to be reappointed at least once. If a term of office is three or four years, that would mean a dedicated board member could serve up to six or eight years.

Anyone who has served on such a board would tell you that, in most cases, it takes as much as two years to grasp the scope and duties of a board and become a fully contributing member. People who lose interest in a board or become overcommitted with other activities may choose to bypass reappointment, but those who remain dedicated and accept reappointment often are the most effective and dynamic members of the board. They provide insight, experience and history that help guide the board and move it forward.

If officials are looking for boards that will simply rubber-stamp the policies of paid administrators, an inexperienced board with lots of turnover certainly can fill that role. That model, however, doesn’t seem to fit the needs of the Board of Regents, which should be made up of active, involved, contributing members who are dedicated to higher education.

As is true with most boards, the Kansas Board of Regents has had a certain amount of unplanned turnover from resignations. Clay Blair is just completing a one-year appointment to fill the unexpired term of a regent who resigned early.

And the way that appointment was handled brings up the question of consistency by the governor. Blair and Bill Docking both were serving as regents when the board was reorganized in 1999. At that time, both were reappointed to two-year terms. However, in 2001, when those terms expired, the governor appointed Docking to another four-year term while allocating Blair only a one-year term. So although Graves seemed unconcerned about clearing Docking’s seat to give “other people a chance to serve,” he apparently did have that concern about Blair’s seat.

It’s easy to understand why some observers would connect Graves’ choice to a possible desire to make room on the regents board for his friend and political supporter, Dick Bond. State law prohibits having two regents from a single county, and since Bond and Blair both live in Johnson County, Bond could not have been appointed while Blair remained.

Bond and the other regents appointed on Friday may do a fabulous job of promoting and supporting higher education in Kansas. But the governor’s justification for bypassing active, involved regents who were willing to continue to serve still strikes many Kansans as disingenuous and a bit contrived.