AG Opinions re Authority of Regents

Transcription

1 AG Opinions re Authority of Regents 984 WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. LE HR AGANQ AG File No. OHR /ANQ November 28, 1984 RE: Constitutional impediments to legislative action concerning the reorganization of higher education in Colorado *5 2. and 3. As discussed above, the regents are on the same legal footing as the other governing boards with respect to the supervision and control of their respective institutions. Two recent cases interpreting subsection (2) of article VIII, section 5 have held that the authority of the governing boards (and specifically the regents) may be circumscribed by a legislative enactment expressly aimed at doing so. Uberoi v. University of Colorado, et al., 83 SA 101 (Colo. August 27, 1984); Associated Students of the University of Colorado v. Regents, 189 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59 (Colo.1975). The general assembly's power to modify by legislative enactment the supervisory authority of the governing boards coupled with its power to establish, manage, and abolish the state institutions makes it clear that no constitutional amendment need be adopted in order to alter the governance of any of the institutions presently under the supervision of the regents. The general assembly's power to establish institutions under the jurisdiction of the regents is no less than its power to remove them. Thus, not only may the general assembly make an institution currently under the regents part of a governance system apart from the regents, but it may add institutions to the jurisdiction of the regents as well. 4. Prior to 1973, article IX, section 14 of the constitution specified the power of the board of regents to supervise its institutions as follows: The board of regents shall have the general supervision of the University and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to, the University. The case law interpreting this provision established that the general assembly could not invade, by legislation, this broad grant of authority to the regents. In re Inheritance Tax, Mackey Estate, 46 Colo. 79, 102 P (1909); Burnside v. Regents, 281 F.Supp. 280 (D.Colo.1968). The 1972 amendments repealed article IX, section 14 without the enactment of any equivalent language. As a result, the powers of the board of regents are determined by subsection (2) of article VIII, section 5 as a governing board established by this constitution and, as such, its powers may be expressly circumscribed by the general assembly. Uberoi, supra; Associated Students, supra. Although the regent's governance of the University of Colorado may be modified by express legislative enactment, the General Assembly has neither the intent nor the desire to oversee the specific operations of the schools themselves. Organization of State Government at 8; An Analysis of 1972 Ballot Proposals at 8 (argument 1 for adoption of the proposal amendment). Although the internal affairs of the University of Colorado remain within the exclusive control of the regents, the general assembly has broad authority to carefully plan and manage state educational programs, with one exception. Article VIII, section 5 rests the right to control programs affecting the medical center at Denver in the board of regents

2 1994 WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. LE AU AGATY AG File No. OHR ATY Formal Opinion No February 9, 1994 RE: Whether the funds collected, disbursed, and managed by the University of Colorado Treasurer are subject to the provisions of Colo. Const. art. X, 12, and and 107, C.R.S. (1988). the University of Colorado's organic act vests control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to the university with the CU Regents, with the exclusive exception of fiscal rules promulgated pursuant to , C.R.S. (1988), which are not pertinent to this opinion. Section , C.R.S. (1988). Furthermore, this act creates the post of Treasurer of the University of Colorado, who shall keep a true and faithful account of all moneys received and paid out by him and shall pay all warrants in the order of presentation. Section , C.R.S. (1988). Pursuant to the CU Regents' authority to enact laws for the government of the university, , C.R.S. (1988), the Regents have provided that [a] ll university funds are to be kept by the university treasurer except as expressly authorized by the Board of Regents. Law of the Regents, 1990, 13.B.3.(C). Section (3), C.R.S. (1972). The language of this section, repealed by the Legislature in 1975, was clearly intended to bring that section into conformance with the requirements of Colo. Const. art. IX, 13, which prior to the 1972 constitutional amendments granted the CU Board of Regents the following authority: Control of University. The board of regents shall have the general supervision of the university, and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of, and appropriations to, the university. Id. Prior to 1972, the CU Board of Regents was the only governing board of a state institution of higher education that derived its authority from the state constitution, placing CU on a different legal basis than other state colleges and universities. However, in November of 1972, Colorado voters approved a ballot proposal extending this constitutional status to the governing boards of other institutions of higher education and establishing the General Assembly's prerogative to modify that control by statute. See Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, an Analysis of 1972 Ballot Proposals, at 8. Art. IX, 13 was repealed and the new constitutional language read as follows: The governing boards of the state institutions of higher education, whether established by this constitution or by law, shall have the general supervision of their respective institutions and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to their respective institutions, unless otherwise provided by law. Colo. Const. art. VIII, 5(2). Although this change took place in 1972, the State Treasurer has not, until now, asserted that this change transferred authority over CU funds to his control.

3 2003 WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. HE CU AGBAY Formal Opinion No June 17, 2003 RE: Regents Enforcement of CU Weapons Control Policy *3 The Legal Authority of the Regents to Regulate Campus Conduct. The Colorado Constitution grants to the Regents substantial authority to govern the internal affairs of the University. It says: The governing boards of the state institutions of higher education, whether established by this constitution or by law, shall have the general supervision of their respective institutions and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to their respective institutions, unless otherwise provided by law. Colo. Const. Art. VIII 5 (emphasis added). Colorado's statutes confirm this authority. Section , C.R.S. (2002) confers upon the Regents general supervision of the university and control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to the university... A separate provision, section , C.R.S. (2002), declares that [t]he board of regents shall enact laws for the government of the university... Finally, the Regents, as well as other governing boards of state institutions of higher education, are delegated the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the safety and welfare of students, employees, and property (1), C.R.S. (2002). In a line of cases more than twenty-five years old, the Colorado Supreme Court has concluded that the legal authority granted to the Regents can be overridden by the General Assembly only through legislation that is expressly aimed at doing so. ***************************************************************************** 2003 WL (Colo.A.G.) Formal Opinion No AG Alpha No. HE CU AGBAW September 17, 2003 RE: Authority of CU Regents to transfer certain assets from TUIC to CUREF The Regents occupy a unique constitutional position in state government. The Colorado Constitution grants the Regents a significant measure of institutional autonomy, and the Colorado Supreme Court has held that laws of general application do not limit that authority unless expressly and unmistakably intended to do so. The Colorado Constitution establishes the Regents as a body corporate, Colo. Const. Art. IX, 12, and grants the Regents significant authority to govern the internal affairs of the University:

4 The governing boards of the state institutions of higher education, whether established by this constitution or by law, shall have the general supervision of their respective institutions and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to their respective institutions, unless otherwise provided by law. Colo. Const. Art. VIII, 5. Additionally, , C.R.S. (2002) confers on the Regents general supervision of the university and control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to the university... General power to govern the University is conferred upon the Regents by , C.R.S. (2002), which states that [t]he board of regents shall enact laws for the government of the university... Also, the Regents, as well as other governing boards of state institutions of higher education, are granted the authority to promulgate rules and regulations for the safety and welfare of students, employees, and property... Colorado courts have held that the authority granted to the Regents by the Colorado Constitution and pursuant to state statute to govern the University and enact laws for University governance can only be nullified by a legislative enactment expressly aimed at doing so. Associated Students of University of Colorado v. Regents of University of Colorado, 543 P.2d 59 (Colo. 1975) WL (Colo.A.G.) AG File No. OHR ASU December 31, 1992 RE: University of Colorado Insurance Corporation A. Constitutional Analysis Article IX, 12 of the Colorado Constitution establishes the University Regents as a constitutional entity with broad discretion as a governing board. Associated Students of the University of Colorado v. Regents of University of Colorado, 189 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59, 61 (1975). The Regents function not only as an agency of the state, but also enjoy rights and responsibilities analogous to those of a private corporation. People ex rel. Jerome v. Regents of University of Colorado, 24 Colo. 175, , 49 P. 286, (1897); Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 759 P.2d 726, 731 (Colo. 1988). The Regents retain the general supervision of their respective institutions and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to their respective institutions, unless otherwise provided by law. Colo. Const. art. VIII, 5(2) (emphasis added). The Regents' statutory authority encompasses the enactment of laws for the government of the University, the appointment of teaching and other personnel, fixing salaries, employment of medical personnel and the conferring of various degrees. Sections to 115, C.R.S. (1988); see also Kreith v. University of Colorado, 689 P.2d 718, 719 (Colo. App. 1984). The Regents also have the authority to hold investments in one or more consolidated investment funds, and to hold certificates of stock in the name of a nominee in a fiduciary capacity. Sections to 119, C.R.S. (1988).

5 Although the Board of Regents enjoys broad discretion, its specific and particular powers granted by these constitutional and statutory provisions, Uberoi v. University of Colorado, 713 P.2d 894, 898 (Colo. 1986), have never been interpreted to encompass the creation and operation of private, for-profit, entities separate and distinct from the University. See Associated Students of the University of Colorado v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 189 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59 (Colo. 1975) ( General supervision powers preclude application of sunshine law to executive sessions of the Regents) (later overturned by statute); City of Boulder v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 179 Colo. 420, 501 P.2d 123 (Colo. 1972) (municipal law requiring University to collect municipal admissions tax upon charges made to attend University events held to interfere with exclusive control and direction of all funds and general supervision of the University, since requiring collection would interfere with financial conduct and allocation of man-power for statewide educational duties, and because public university events are part of the education process); SIGMA CHI Fraternity v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 258 F. Supp. 515, 526 (D. Colo. 1966) (power to regulate affairs of University includes resolution mandating probationary status for fraternities denying membership to any person due to race, color or religion); Buttny v. Smiley, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968) (Regents have power to place restrictions on certain student conduct) WL (Colo.A.G.) Formal Opinion No AG Alpha No. PE AD AGBBA October 15, 2003 RE: Authority of General Assembly Concerning Employee Positions in Institutions of Higher Education Constitutional Provisions. The General Assembly and Higher Education. The first Colorado Constitution directed that the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado was responsible for the general supervision of the University. Colo. Const. art. IX, 14 (1876). This broad grant of authority to the Regents governed for nearly one hundred years. In 1972, the citizens of Colorado amended Articles VIII and IX of the state constitution. Under these amendments, state institutions of higher education, including the University of Colorado, are to be governed and supervised by their respective boards unless otherwise provided by law. Colo. Const. art. VIII, 5(2) (2002). Accordingly, the governing boards of state colleges and universities possess general authority over school administration, but are subject to legislation enacted by the General Assembly: The governing boards of the state institutions of higher education, whether established by this constitution or by law, shall have the general supervision of their respective institutions and the

6 exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to their respective institutions, unless otherwise provided by law. Colo. Const. art. VIII, 5(2). Furthermore, state institutions of higher education, in general, shall be subject to the control of the state, under the provisions of the constitution and such laws and regulations as the general assembly may provide. Colo. Const. art. VIII, 5(1). The 1972 amendment extends constitutional status to all governing boards for institutions of higher education and clarifies the prerogative of the General Assembly to modify that control by statute. Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, An Analysis of 1972 Ballot Proposals, Research Publication No. 185 at 8 (1972). The 1972 amendment repealed the original grant of authority to the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado contained in Article IX, 14. *2 The phrase unless otherwise provided by law that is now contained in Article VIII, 5(2) refers to legislation that specifically affects state colleges and universities. City of Littleton v. State, 855 P.2d 448, 454 (Colo. 1993). Thus, the Regents' general power of supervision is a limited power of general supervision only. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n ex rel. Ramos v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo., 759 P.2d 726, 730 (Colo. 1988). State colleges and universities are subject to legislation that is intended by the General Assembly to apply to institutions of higher education. Id WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. 79 LE HR AGBBV AG File No. CHR/AGBBV/CE April 12, 1979 RE: Governance of the University of Colorado The above language makes it abundantly clear that the General Assembly fully intended to control the establishment and abolition of the various higher educational institutions. This desire to give the General Assembly authority over these educational institutions was a response to the special constitutional governance prerogatives of the Board of Regents. On page 6 of the Organization of State Government Report, the interim committee stated: The Committee believes there are a number of compelling reasons for change in the present constitutional status of the University of Colorado. In a single general statement of the rationale, the following is an accurate observation: Divisions within the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado have been interpreted as contributing to unrest within the University and instability in the presidential office at the University. Inability of the legislature to modify the structure and essential powers of the Regents because of the Board's constitutional position has influenced the content and format of several proposals for restructuring of higher education more than have concepts of sound organization structure. The special constitutional status of the Board of Regents was created by article IX, section 14 of the constitution. Prior to 1973, it provided as follows:

7 The board of regents shall have the general supervision of the University and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to, the University. A long history of case law had established that legislation which conflicted with this broad grant of constitutional authority was inapplicable. In re Inheritance Tax, Macky Estate, 46 Colo. 79, 102 P (1909); Burnside v. Regents, 281 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1968). Thus, the only way to alter the grant of authority to the Regents was by constitutional amendment. Denver v. Rinker, 148 Colo. 441, 366 P.2d 548 (1961). Article VIII, section 5 was the means to that end. When it was ratified by the electorate, article IX, section 14 was simultaneously repealed. Since the Board of Regents is the specific governing board having general supervision and control, its authority can only be circumscribed by a legislative enactment or constitutional amendment expressly aimed at doing so. Associated Students of University of Colorado v. Regents, 543 P.2d 59 (Colo. 1975) WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. 79 LE AU AGBCI AG File No. DLS/AGBCI/CW July 9, 1979 RE: Fiscal Rules as they apply to University of Colorado ANALYSIS The constitution vests the regents, and other governing boards of institutions of higher education, with great authority as stated in article VIII, section 5(2): The governing boards of the state institutions of higher education, whether established by this constitution or by law, shall have the general supervision of their respective institutions and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to their respective institutions, unless otherwise provided by law. Perhaps the most recent apparent contradiction may be found in this year's Long Bill, S.B Footnote 85 therein makes it clear that the general assembly intends all of the institutions of higher education, including the University of Colorado, to comply with the fiscal rules. While this is a direct expression of legislative intent, such a footnote cannot amend or repeal substantive legislation, Anderson v. Lamm, Colo., 579 P.2d 620 (1978). In this instance, the footnote would act to amend C.R.S. 1973, , for example. The general assembly has the express authority to subject the regents at the University of Colorado to the fiscal rules. However, the general assembly has not yet done so in a legally binding manner. Rather than otherwise provid/ing/ by law and specifically amending or limiting the exclusive control vested in the regents by article VIII, section 5(2), the general assembly has left unamended C.R.S. 1973, , which expressly grants the regents that exclusive control:

8 The board of regents has general supervision of the university and exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to the university. This statute is specific and clear, and pertains only to the regents and the University of Colorado. Being specific, it is not repealed or amended by the more general legislation in C.R.S. 1973, (13) and (22), and (1)(a). See, e.g., Associated Students of the University of Colorado v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 189 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59 (1975). *2 Therefore, it appears the general assembly did not clearly and unmistakably intend to restrict the constitutional and statutory authority of the regents to exercise exclusive control over the funds and appropriations to the University of Colorado by imposing the controller's fiscal rules on their financial administration WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. 79 HE BA AGBAF AG File No. CHR/AGBAF/ED October 16, 1979 RE: The legality of footnote 85(c) to the Long Appropriation Bill The board of regents of the University of Colorado has similar statutory directives. C.R.S. 1973, , states that the board of regents has general supervision of the university and exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to the university. Section further provides that: The board of regents shall enact laws for the government of the university; appoint the requisite number of professors, tutors, and all other officers; and determine the salaries of such officers and the amount to be paid for tuition in accordance with the level of appropriations set by the general assembly for the university... (Emphasis supplied.) Footnote 85(c) cannot be interpreted as a level of appropriation set by the General Assembly. Such an interpretation would completely negate the authority granted to the regents by the remainder of the statute. Footnote 85(c), therefore, if not construed as a policy guideline only, would constitute an impermissible attempt to repeal these existing statutes, in violation of article V, section 32 of the Colorado Constitution. Third, article VIII, section 5(2) of the Colorado Constitution provides that: The governing boards of the state institutions of higher education, whether established by this constitution or by law, shall have the general supervision of their respective institutions and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to their respective institutions, unless otherwise provided by law. (Emphasis supplied.) Footnote 85(c) cannot otherwise provide by law, because it is not a substantive law. In Associated Students of the University of Colorado v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 189

9 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59 (1975) the Colorado Supreme Court said expressly that the phrase unless otherwise provided by law : operates so that any qualifications of the constitutional grant is to be construed as divesting the supervision and control granted only when a legislative enactment expressly so provides. Implied repeals are thereby intended to be guarded against. (Emphasis supplied.) If 85(c) were construed as such a legislative enactment it would be, once again, substantive legislation which the general assembly cannot include in the Long Bill WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. 78 AD PU AGCAU AG File No. DHR/AGCAU/KL May 16, 1978 RE: Duty of institutions of higher education to purchase goods and services produced by the division of correctional industries *2 This amendment repealed section 13 of article IX, which provided: The board of regents shall have the general supervision of the university, and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of, and appropriations to, the university. One of the primary effects of this constitutional amendment was to grant control of all funds and appropriations to the governing boards of state institutions of higher education, unless otherwise provided by law. The issue to be decided is whether the requirements of the Correctional Industries Act fall within the meaning of the phrase unless otherwise provided by law. One must look for guidance to the case of Associated Students of the University of Colorado v. Regents of the University of Colorado, et al., Colo. 543 P.2d 59 (1975). In that case the Board of Regents had adopted a rule providing for closed meetings of the board under certain circumstances. The Open Meetings Law of the Colorado Sunshine Act provides in part that All meetings of two or more members of any board... or other policy making body of any state agency or authority... are declared to be public meetings. The court held that the Open Meetings Law did not fall within the phrase unless otherwise provided by law, and thus did not apply to the Regents, reasoning that: This phrase operates so that any qualification of the constitutional grant is to be construed as divesting the supervision and control granted only when a legislative enactment expressly so provides... This phrase refers to the provisions of particular and special applicable laws... It should be noted that the court found that the Open Meetings Law would infringe upon the Regent's authority to govern the university because the application of the law would invalidate a law of the Regents. Here, no rule or law of the Regents exists which would conflict with the requirements of the Correctional Industries Act, specifically C.R.S. 1973, Thus, there is a serious question as to whether the reasoning and holding of the Regents case is herein applicable. Assuming, for future guidance, that the board were to adopt a rule exempting the

10 board from the requirements of , its validity would be doubtful in view of the provisions of S.B. 76 (Laws 1976, p. 583) which provides in part that: (8)(a) No rule shall be issued except within the power delegated to the agency and as authorized by law. A rule shall not be deemed to be within the statutory authority and jurisdiction of any agency merely because such rule is not contrary to the specific provisions of a statute. Any rule or amendment to an existing rule issued by any agency, including state institutions of higher education administered pursuant to title 23, C.R.S. 1973, which conflicts with a statute shall be void WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. 77 RG PU AGBGF AG File No. DRL/AGBGF/KL August 31, 1977 RE: Whether work papers constitute public records 1. Does Article 72, Title 24 C.R.S. 1973, Apply to the Records Made or Maintained By the Commission? One may suggest that since the Public Utilities Commission derives some of its regulatory authority from the Colorado Constitution (Article XXV), the case of Associated Students of University of Colorado v. Regents of Univ., Colo., 543 P.2d 59 (1975), may have some application to this issue. In the Regents case, the Colorado Supreme Court held the Open Meetings Law (C.R.S. 1973, ) inapplicable to the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado. The Court reasoned therein that the special constitutional and statutory authority provided the Regents to exercise... the general supervision of (the university)... (Colo. Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5) and to... enact laws for the government of the university (C.R.S. 1973, ) empowered the Regents to enact laws limiting the application of general legislation, such as the Open Meetings Law. Here, however, the constitutional grant of authority to the Public Utilities Commission was solely... to regulate the facilities, service, and rates and charges therefor... until the General Assembly designates another agency to do so. (Article XXV, Colo. Constitution.) 1995 WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. HE CU AGAUN AG File No. TABOR2.ED Formal Opinion No December 22, 1995

11 RE: Amendment One, Higher Education Revenue Bonds The designated enterprises at issue here (telecommunications center, cogeneration facilities, insurance operations and animal resource center) clearly appear to qualify as being governmentowned. The Colorado Supreme Court recently held that [t]he term government-owned,' as its plain language implies, is commonly used to indicate ownership by a governmental entity. Nicholl v. E-470 Public Highway Authority, 896 P.2d 859, 868 (Colo. 1995). The Board of Regents has responsibility under Article VIII, Section 5 of the Colorado Constitution for the general supervision of the University and the exclusive control and direction of its funds and appropriations. See also section , C.R.S. (1988). The Regents possess authority over the disposition of property of the University, section , C.R.S. (1988), as well as authority to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the governance of the University and its property. Section , C.R.S. (1988). Consequently, the designated enterprises seem clearly to be owned by the University for purposes of Colo. Const. art. X, sec. 20(2)(d) WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. HE HE AGANX AG File No. OHR /ANX December 26, 1984 RE: Applicability of Colorado Open Meetings and Open Records Acts to state institutions of higher education In Associated Students v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 189 Colo. 482, 543 P.2d 59 (1975), the supreme court held that the Open Meetings Act did not prevent the regents from conducting executive sessions pursuant to their own procedures, rather than those set forth in the Open Meetings Act, because that Act was not (and is not) expressly applicable to them. The court, after analyzing section 5(2) of article VIII of the Colorado Constitution, concluded that any nullification of the regents' authority to govern the University of Colorado could only be accomplished by legislative enactment expressly aimed at doing so. Similarly, in Uberoi v. University of Colorado, 686 P.2d 788 (Colo.1984), the supreme court held that the Open Records Act did not apply to internal university records, since that Act was not (and is not) expressly applicable to institutions of higher education. Thus, the university was free to adopt its own procedures dealing with the production of records and other materials under its control pursuant to its powers under article VIII, section 5(2) of the constitution. Since the other state institutions of higher education have equal autonomy under article VIII, section 5(2), supra, they are free to regulate their internal affairs by conducting meetings and providing for public disclosure of their records pursuant to their own procedures, rather than those contained in the Open Meetings and Open Records Acts.

12 1990 WL (Colo.A.G.) AG Alpha No. LE AU AGARD AG File No. OLS ARD April 11, 1990 RE: Investment Authority of the University of Colorado and Other State Colleges The University of Colorado (hereafter, the university ) is a state institution of higher education created by the state constitution. Colo.Const. art. VIII, 5. It is governed by a Board of Regents (hereafter, the board ), Colo.Const. art. IX, 12, which has exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations to {the university}, unless otherwise provided by law. Colo.Const. art. VIII, 5(2) (emphasis added). See also , C.R.S. (1987) (board has control over university funds and appropriations, subject to controller's authority to promulgate fiscal rules). The Colorado Supreme Court has noted that the controlling constitutional and statutory provisions grant broad discretion to the board with respect to its authority to operate the university; that the phrase unless otherwise provided by law in Colo.Const. art. VIII, 5(2) does not have the effect of making any general statute or even any specific statute automatically applicable to the university and the board's authority; and, that a general statute will not be interpreted to repeal a conflicting special provision *2... unless the intent to do so is clear and unmistakable. { (Citations omitted.} Thus, the specific supervisory control over the university granted to the regents can be divested only by a legislative enactment expressly so providing.