Senate Bill 637, seeking to reverse a state constitutional provision for semi-autonomy of the University of Hawaii, should be received as a wakeup call by the UH Board of Regents and administrators, a signal of public dissatisfaction with the way they’ve been fulfilling the mission of higher education.

The measure should not be passed, however, because returning more of UH governance back to the Legislature will not deliver what’s needed: a more efficient and accountable university system.

Nobody would question the notorious failures of recent years — the "Wonder Blunder" fundraiser scandal, athletics budget deficits, dysfunction at the UH Cancer Center and repair backlog of deteriorating facilities rise to the top of the list.

However, returning to the additional micromanaging layers of oversight by lawmakers, the system that was in place before 2000, merely leaves UH prey to even more political pressures. The Legislature itself has a less than stellar record where management of the university system is concerned.

The cure is far more difficult and nuanced, which is why lawmakers have seized the opportunity to take easy action, albeit through a "fix" that ultimately won’t fix anything.

SB 637 proposes an amendment to Article X, Section 6 of the Constitution. The principal change is reflected in the wording of the proposed ballot question: "Shall the Board of Regents of the University of Hawaii be divested of exclusive jurisdiction over the internal structure, management and operation of the University of Hawaii?"

The Senate committees have voted to move the bill along, asserting in their committee report their concern about management and the need for "proper oversight and transparency," adding that "this measure opens the conversation" about UH autonomy.

Unfortunately, the public that would be making the decision hasn’t been privy to all of this conversation, because politicians themselves so frequently work in secret. Sub rosa interventions by elected officials for or against various UH administrators were par for the course, even during the last 15 years of "autonomy."

More recent attempts to redirect the course of UH management — the proposed cancellation of degree programs graduating below a certain threshold of students — was a sledgehammer approach to budgeting. It arose from a well-founded frustration among lawmakers, to be sure, but offered no real solution.

In their own defense, the UH regents and administration pointed out how the university raises more of its own funds and is far less reliant on tax revenue than in the past, has launched initiatives to improve access to degree programs across its campuses, and has made progress in facilities renovations and expansions.

Nationally, best practices where university management is concerned are to have a healthy degree of autonomy. The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges issued an updated statement to this effect in 2010.

According to that statement, "America’s public and private institutions also depend on government, but they historically have been accorded autonomy in carrying out their educational functions through the medium of independent governing boards, working collaboratively with presidents, senior administrators and faculty leaders."

If anything, SB 637 should push UH leadership — hard — toward adopting more streamlined channels of authority, as well as more collaboration with and openness to its constituencies.

Further, the last thing this university needs after all the recent upheaval is another round of organizational disruption.

The UH record of achievement clearly needs improvement, but pulling out the rug at this stage won’t advance any such goal.