An open forum was held for discussion on the proposed amendment to the North Dakota constitution called Measure 3 this Tuesday. The open forum took place in the Loading Dock at the Memorial Union on campus. A moderator was present to relay questions from the audience, around 20 people, to Grant Schaft and Dan Rice, who are both against Measure 3. Dana Harsel, a professor at UND, was the moderator for the forum and noted the absence of supporters of the amendment but said “not for lack of trying.”

Measure 3 has been in the news frequently with just under a month until voting. The amendment would eliminate the current eight-member education board and replace it with a three-member board. The major concern with the measure is it eliminates the eight-member citizen board with three members who are full time, this would eliminate the citizens voice on the board.

Before the floor was opened to questions from the audience, Grant Schaft and Rice both shared their background and opinion on the amendment. Dr. Rice, a professor at UND, voiced his concerns first.

Rice’s main concerns seem to be about how quickly the amendment was formed and pushed through to get to the voting stage.

“The measure came from a growing sense of frustration” said Rice.

Rice explained how because the current board is looked at as ineffective in some people’s eyes, the amendment was written quickly to make changes quickly and therefore there are many flaws in the amendment.

“The medicine is worse than the disease,” said Rice.

His concern is that the bill was written so quickly that many things were overlooked and it will do more harm than good.

Grant Schaft, a member of the current education board, made it clear that he was speaking on behalf of himself and was not representing the view of the board.

Schaft, who has been on the board for eight years, has been through a lot on the board and knows what works and what does not. When this amendment was being written, Schaft explained the opinion of the current board was never asked.

“No one ever asked how we felt about Measure 3,” Schaft said.

As Rice explained that the measure came from frustration and by not including the current members of the board shows that the creators of the bill just want change right now and believe anything will work.

As questions were opened to the audience, someone asked, “If the current board is viewed as ineffective, then what is wrong with change?”

Schaft answered the question first, claiming that the current board does need some changes but by switching from an eight member to a three member board it would do more harm than good.

“With a three-person committee, you have no chance of diversity and you have a lack of outside opinion,” said Schaft.

Being able to have the diversity of an eight-member board allows for citizens to be properly represented. The current board is made up of professors, citizens and even a student.

The other point that was talked about was how much the new members on the board would be getting paid. The current board are all part time and are not driven by a paycheck. If the new board is adapted the members would be making a considerable amount more.

Both Rice and Schaft are worried the increase in pay would lead to the members rushing through decisions because they get paid either way.

The open forum was an opportunity to allow some important questions to be asked and more awareness raised before the voting takes place on Nov. 4.

Because the amendment could bring about some serious changes, the main message of the forum was simply to be informed and cast an educated vote.

Parker Payne is a staff writer for The Dakota Student. He can be reached at [email protected].