The appointment of former Saskatchewan Premier Grant Devine to the University of Saskatchewan's board of governors has sent shock waves across campus.

The former U of S graduate and professor was named to the university's board last week. The provincial NDP called the appointment "the latest in a series of crass partisan appointments" by the Saskatchewan Party. Other people said Devine's record of large deficits made him a poor choice to advise the university during turbulent financial times.

Q&A

​Saskatoon Morning host Julianne Hazlewood asked the show's political panel, comprised of U of S Political Science professors Greg Poelzer and Charles Smith, about the announcement and what it means for the university.

What do you think about the appointment?

Greg Poelzer: In some ways, it was a little bit of a surprise, given the past legacy, about 25 or 30 years ago, but on the other hand, it makes a lot of sense. He is a former premier, who is an office holder of some importance in our country, and somebody who has a lot of direct experience with the University of Saskatchewan, both as an alumnus and as a teaching faculty member, in an area that's very important to the university in terms of agriculture. He's eminently qualified.

Charles Smith: I think I disagree completely. I think you have to separate the individual from the legacy. When you look at Mr. Devine's legacy, it's toxic. There's no other way to describe it. Being a former premier doesn't automatically grant you a seat on the board of governors; that's a political decision ... I think this is the Sask. Party [delegating] the most toxic legacy in the province, almost in the country, when you look at scandals of government in the last century. There's a reason why the Conservative Party of Canada would not touch Mr. Devine's nomination in 2004, because of that toxic legacy. It's the legacy, I think, we should be critical of, and I think it's a very poor appointment.

Greg, do you think enough time has passed for people to look beyond that?

GP: Time will tell. It's interesting — when Grant Devine ran as an independent when he couldn't get the Conservative Party nomination, he garnered nearly 30 per cent of the vote, which is quite high as an independent. It shows, perhaps, there is a sense in at least a part of Saskatchewan of forgiveness and turning the page. If we look at just the economic times, another former premier, Bob Rae, who had very difficult times, he wasn't perceived as a good economic manager, and time over time, people have respected Bob Rae, and what he brings to the table with his leadership and experience. Rae said your mistakes, and even the big ones, are sometimes as, or more important, than your successes. There clearly were mistakes, both on the economic front and the management of some of those caucus members who were ultimately charged, and those kinds of things can be beneficial.

CS: Sure, but while Bob Rae hobbled his party and the NDP in Ontario is a shell of its former self, primarily because of Mr. Rae's legacy, Grant Devine destroyed his party. The PC Party no longer exists, or is a shell of its former self. It's not the individual. With the individual's CV, I think you could probably make a case, but it's the legacy of that government and how toxic it was, and I want to come back to the idea that just because he's a former premier, he should automatically get an appointment to the board. If that's the case, put it in the Act. I think the bigger problem is that this is, at the provincial level, just like the federal level, [it] would appoint partisans to the senate. This is a problem. We could talk about democratizing the Board of Governors at the University of Saskatchewan, making it much more open and transparent, as opposed to just a partisan appointment, and if the Sask. Party was looking for representatives on the board, they could have gone with far less toxic personalities than Mr. Devine. For example, Rob Norris is a former MLA, former cabinet minister, has some problematic public policy record, but a professor, so there are people they could have appointed, and they chose this one, and I think it's a deliberate thumb in the eye of a community the Saskatchewan Party has not been supported by.

So, that's why you think this appointment was made? What drove the appointment?

CS: It's hard to know. I think, personally, the government was looking to give a thumb in the eye of the university community proper, that they don't like very much, or don't have a lot of respect for ... there's clearly a partisan nature to this, and it's a way to mull their critics, and perhaps change the channel on a number of bad news stories that have been coming out for the last six months.

GP: That's just not true. If you look at the Sask. Party's record up until last budget, no other government has invested as much in capital expenditure in the university sector, particularly for the University of Saskatchewan. We've had the largest salary increase under a Sask. Party government. The government sets fiscal constraints on what to invest in, and they've been spending a lot on public education ... it is a controversial appointment, and quite frankly, I was surprised by it, for all the reasons you identified, but it's going to be interesting to see what's going to happen over the next few years.