This is an action for a declaratory judgment. The Student Government Association (“SGA”) of the Louisiana State University’s Baton Rouge campus prays that La.R.S. 17:1803, providing for a maximum parking fine of $1.00, be recognized as applying to L.S.U. and as thus overriding a university regulation providing for a parking fine of $5.00 in certain instances.
The district court and the court of appeal held that the statute did not infringe upon the constitutional authority of the de*853fendant Board oí Supervisors to administer the university. 251 So.2d 428 (La. App.1st Cir. 1971). We granted certiorari, 259 La. 875, 253 So.2d 213 (1971), to review the broad holding of the intermediate court that Art. XII, Sec. 7, Louisiana Constitution, was not self-executing and that, therefore, its provision for supervision and control of the university by its Board of Supervisors contemplated and permitted supplemental legislation, such as that provided by La.R.S. 17:1803, here attacked.
The Narrow Issue for Decision
As we view this litigation, the particular issue before us is considerably narrower than those issues argued and those decided by the previous courts. The issue before us is only whether the statute attacked infringes upon the power given the university governing board by the state constitution to administer the relationships and activities of the university’s students in their capacity as students on the university campus,1 We hold that the statute does so infringe and that it is therefore unconstitutional.
The issue before us is set in this context:
Since 1940, the Louisiana constitution has provided that Louisiana State University “shall be under the direction, control; supervision and management” of its Board, of Supervisors. La.Constitution, Article-XII, Section 7. In 1958, the Legislature provided that: “The fine which may be imposed for violation of any parking regu-' lation established by the governing authority of any state supported college or univer-. sity in this state, including Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanic cal College, where the violation occurred upon the streets and roadways of such college or university, shall not exceed the sum of one dollar.” La.R.S. 17:1803, as added by Act 297 of 1958. ;.
The issue, then, is whether such attempted statutory restriction upon the power of the governing authority of L.S.U., the defendant Board of Supervisors, to impose administrative penalties for violation of parking regulations is unconstitutional insofar as being contrary to administrative regulations adopted by that Board which provided for penalties in excess of $1.00 for improper student parking.
The governing authorities of the univer-' sity adopted certain “Traffic and Parking Regulations”. They provide for penalties, including, for certain violations, a “fine” or penalty of $5.00 for student parking in *855restricted area.2 The regulations provide for administrative enforcement of the penalties for parking violations by “fines” payable at the Bursar’s office. The sanction for non-payment before the end of a semester is that the student will not be allowed to re-register nor to secure a transcript of credits until he has paid the sum due.
The Student Government Association (SGA) is composed of all fulltime students at the Baton Rouge campus of the University. By this action, the SGA prays for a declaratory judgment declaring the provisions of La.R.S. 17:1803 binding upon the Board of Supervisors and its employees and agents; and it further prays that the defendant Board and the defendant university officials shall hereafter be prohibited from imposing fines of more than $1.00 for the violation of any parking regulation.
The cause of action of the SGA is essentially based upon the detriment, injury and disadvantage caused to its student members by these parking regulations and collection of the fines. The issue before us thus concerns solely the right of the Board of Supervisors to penalize students for violation of administrative regulations adopted by the Board.
We view as before Us, therefore, solely the question of whether the legislature may provide for administrative penalties contrary to (greater than or less than) those affecting students duly adopted under authority of the University’s Board of Supervisors.
Intent of Section 7.
As amended in 1940, Article XII, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution provided: “The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College shall be under the direction, control, supervision and management of a body corporate to be known as the 'Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College,’ * * (Italics ours.)
The history of this constitutional provision is well known. In his 1940 message to the Legislature, the Governor of Louisiana recommended legislation “which will guarantee a depoliticalization of our *857. universities.” Later in the message, he noted that Louisiana State University had been “the storm center” of a politicalized educational system.3
To carry out this recommendation, four members of the Senate introduced a Joint Resolution amending Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution vesting the “direction, control, supervision and management” of the affairs of the University in the Board of Supervisors. Adopted by the legislature as Act 397 of 1940, this amendment to our Constitution was ratified by the People in general election. It is quite clear that the purpose of this amending, in keeping with the executive recommendation, was to remove the administration of the daily affairs of the University from both the Governor and Legislature and place them under a nonpolitical board..
Act No. 668 of 1968 amending Section 7 fortifies the above construction. To provide for the Louisiana Coordinating Council for Higher Education, the constitutional amendment was enacted creating the Council and defining its powers. The following words were added at the beginning of the section: “Except as otherwise provided in this Section . . . ” This means, in context, that no governmental authority other than the Coordinating Council for Higher Education (created by Subdivision C, added to Section 7 by the 1968 amendment) can intrude into the administration of the affairs of the University. Under the terms of the amendment, even the right of the Coordinating Council to do so is severely limited.
Our interpretation that the intent of the constitution is to grant exclusive administrative power to the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University is reinforced by the quite different provision with regard to the State Board of Education. This latter board is constitutionally recognized by the same Section 7 as having “supervision of all other higher educational institutions, subject to such lazos as the Legislature may enact." Thus, Section 7 provides unambiguously for “direction, control, supervision and management” of Louisiana State University (only) by its Board of Supervisors, but at the same time the Section provides for legislative oversight and regulation of the State Board of Education’s administration of other higher educational institutions.
The “Self-Executing" Question
The previous courts felt that the constitutional provision could not be “self-executing” since the same legislature which adopted it also provided ancillary legislation. La.R.S. 17:421-74 (Act 196 of 1940). This enactment sets forth certain general principles for the administration of the University by the Board of Supervisors: *859This legislation, incidentally, is not inconsistent with exclusive internal administration of the university’s affairs by the Board.
The characterization of a constitutional provision as “self-executing” or not is generally only a conclusion as to whether the constitutional intent is to provide a presently effective rule, by means of which the right given may be enjoyed and protected and the duties imposed may be enforced without supplementary legislation. 1 Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, pp. 165-172 (8th Ed., 1927; Carrington, ed.); 16 C.J.S. “Constitutional Law” §§ 48-60; 16 Am.Jur.2d, “Constitutional Law”, Sections 93-100. However, as the cited sources note, a constitutional provision may be only partially self-executing and, further, the self-executing character of a constitutional provision does not necessarily preclude supplementary legislation for the better protection of the right secured and in furtherance of the purposes and of the enforcement of the provisions of the constitutional enactment. These sources also indicate that, if the purposes of the constitutional enactment will be frustrated unless immediately effective without legislation, it may be regarded as “self-executing”.
The ultimate question, actually, is one of constitutional intent: Whether the enactment is intended to provide a rule to go into immediate effect at the time of adoption.
We do not read State ex rel. Holcombe v. City of Lake Charles, 175 La. 803, 144 So. 502 (1932), relied upon by the plaintiff, nor Coguenham v. Avoca Drainage District, 130 La. 323, 57 So. 989 (1912), relied upon by the court of appeal, as holding contrary to, or inconsistent with, the views above expressed. In both instances, implementing regulatory state legislation was held valid as not inconsistent with a grant by the constitution of authority to a local' governmental unit. In each instance, the constitutional intent was held not to be to exclude the legislative implementation in question.
In the present case, we hold that the intent of Article XII, Section 7 was, upon ratification of the constitutional amendment, to grant to the university’s Board of Supervisors exclusive administrative authority over operation of the university. This constitutional grant was intended to be immediately effective upon ratification, without any necessity for 'implementing legislation with regard to the exclusiveness of such administrative power.
Conclusion
Especially in view of the specific intent underlying Section 7’s adoption, we find that this constitutional provision unambiguously grants the Board of .Supervisors full administrative control of the university. The power of “direction, control, *861supervision and management” includes not only the power to prescribe courses and decrees, to select faculty, and to hire and fire employees (subject to other provisions of the constitution), but also the power to adopt and to enforce, administratively, reasonable regulations governing the on-campus activity and conduct of faculty, employees, and students.
The power to regulate student parking, and to enforce such reasonable parking regulations by administrative penalties (including fines), is clearly within this grant to the Board of Supervisors of exclusive administrative authority over students in their relationship with the university and in their use of the university campus. The legislative act seeking to limit the Board’s administrative regulation of student parking is therefore invalid, since by it the legislature sought to interfere with the Board’s exclusive administrative power over university affairs, granted to it by our constitution.
Decree
For the reasons assigned, we therefore reverse the judgments of the trial and intermediate courts, and we enter judgment dismissing this action and rejecting its demand that we declare the university parking regulations invalid insofar as imposing a fine exceeding the $1.00 maximum provided by La.R.S. 17:1803. The plaintiffappellee-relator is to pay all costs for which it is responsible by law.
Reversed and dismissed.
. Thus we do not believe before us, for instance, is the issue of the legislature’s i-ight to exercise the police power with regard to crimes decurang on the univer1 sity campus.
. The parking regulations purport to affect only students, faculty, and employees of the University. The regulations specifically provide that visitors to the campus are entitled to use all regular parking spaces. Regulation 30, Tr. 43. The spouses of students and parents transporting students to the campus may be considered as violating such a parking rule, Regulation 30, apparently to avoid students evading the parking regulations through their spouse or through use of their parents’ car. From the regulations, we cannot ascribe any mechanism against enforcing fines or vehicle bans against others than students, employees, or faculty. We therefore (see text of opinion) do not consider the possible invalidity of this regulation if sought to bo applied against any such others.
. Official Journal of the Senate (1940) pp. 24, 2G.