Although the members of the MSU Board of Trustees are well into adulthood, they could use a little motherly advice. For example, respect each other, even in disagreement.

For a group of elected officials representing all of the citizens of Michigan, this should go without saying; they should have learned this long ago. Evidently, this is not the case.

At the July 21 meeting, Dorothy Gonzales was the only trustee to vote against the 2005-06 tuition hike. After she cast her dissenting vote, a fellow trustee shot a disgusted grimace her way, showing disapproval.

We believe this was an immature gesture that has no place at a board meeting, let alone an elementary school.

This particular group of individuals, which presides over a university educating thousands of students, needs to display some respect for each other. If they can't do this, how can they be expected to handle their important duties?

The issue that sparked the incident was whether or not tuition hikes would make MSU increasingly unaffordable for students from working-class families.

Gonzales was of the opinion that the hike would push these people away, but the other trustees felt that the new budget's provisions to increase financial aid were enough to prevent this from happening.

Sounds like a prospect for an interesting, multifaceted debate. Instead, what happened appears more like simple contradiction. Trustee Joel Ferguson, for example, said Gonzales' views are "outrageous and inaccurate." Gonzales, on the other hand, said that the new fees weren't clearly presented prior to voting on the tuition increase.

Although Gonzales was the lone dissenter, her views should carry some weight because of her experiences with poverty as the director of Wayne County's Health and Human Services Department and her own background. In contrast, many of the other board members are quite well-off and possibly out of touch with people of different backgrounds.

In any case, we are curious to know why there is no apparent consensus on the accuracy or relevancy of the information the trustees used to make their decision. In spite of the tuition increase, it ought to be clear whether the new financial aid will help more underprivileged students pay for college or not.

The fact that there was no such consensus means there needs to be a more thorough investigation.

In addition, the public needs to be kept in the loop. Often, no in-depth discussion occurs at the Board of Trustees meetings, cuing us to think that the real decisions are made behind closed doors.

Of course, this might not be the case. Perhaps the shallow open discourse at the meetings is all there is. That would be even worse.

The trustees need to keep their discussions professional and friendly. They can work on the rest later.