A Year-End Letter: Opportunities, Challenges, Impressions
By Chancellor Biddy Martin

1. Preamble
2. The Madison Initiative for Undergraduates
3. Great People Scholarship Campaign
4. Research Administration and Funding
5. Graduate Student Funding
6. UW Foundation Presidential Search
7. Global Health and Sustainability
8. Diversity
9. Faculty and Academic Staff Salaries
10. Collaboration with WAA and UWF
11. University Relations/Communications
12. Looking Forward

- Eds.

A Year-End Letter: Opportunities, Challenges, Impressions

By Chancellor Biddy Martin

Dear Members of the UW-Madison Community,

Before the semester ends and many of you leave for summer jobs and research activities, I want to summarize some of the important issues that have engaged us this year, share some of the impressions I have formed over two academic years, and look to the opportunities and the challenges ahead.

Among the major issues we addressed this year, I include: 1) the implementation of the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates, 2) efforts to build support for the Great People Scholarship campaign, 3) studies of the organization and effectiveness of our research administration, 4) the need to increase graduate student funding, 5) the search for a new president of the UW Foundation, 6) Global Health and Sustainability, two university-wide interdisciplinary initiatives, 7) re-dedication to our diversity efforts and to extending our reach internationally, 8 ) the activation of new tools to address salary issues, 9) collaborative efforts with our partners –  the Wisconsin Alumni Association and the UW Foundation — to achieve greater coordination and enhance our alumni and donor base, and 10) changes in university relations/communications to similar ends.

As is always the case with my letters, this one is too long. For that reason, I have divided it into sections. At the end, I will re-emphasize the balance we need to achieve between quality and affordability, and I will share my view of where we need to head. This letter covers some of the important issues that have engaged me as chancellor this academic year, but they are a tiny fraction of the critically important activities, achievements and opportunities in which you are involved. I want to thank all of you for the extraordinary work you do on so many fronts to make this one of the most vibrant universities in the world.

The Madison Initiative for Undergraduates

Let me start by thanking all members of the community who developed proposals for the first two rounds of the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates. We saw a range of impressive ideas aimed not only at enhancing, but also transforming, aspects of undergraduate education and the student experience on campus. We set out not simply to fill gaps or address bottlenecks in courses and majors, as important as those goals are, but also to have an impact on the way students are taught and how they learn, both in and outside the classroom. We also made the diversity of the faculty who teach them a high priority for the initiative.

The student board and the general oversight committee have worked long and hard, reading, assessing, ranking and trying to add value to your proposals. At the end of the first two rounds, we have approved initiatives that take us over the $10 million mark. In the fall, we will call for a third round of proposals and will be able to spend another $4 million. We are on track to add as many as 75 faculty positions. We have funded a range of important student and academic service initiatives, including additional Freshman Interest Groups, new residential learning communities and internship programs. We have set aside well over $1 million in ongoing funding in anticipation of a proposal that takes a holistic and innovative approach to student advising. Money has also been held aside for a promising proposal to establish spaces for technology-assisted teaching and learning.

I regret the fact that we are unable to approve even more proposals. I know it is disappointing to those of you whose proposals were not supported, not only because of the time and energy you gave to the process, but also because you have serious needs for additional funding. There are great needs all over campus. I thank you for caring enough about undergraduate education and the overall quality of the university to do the work you did. I hope we can find other funds over time, private as well as public, to enable the improvements you seek to make. For information on the proposals and our decisions, please visit http://www.madisoninitiative.wisc.edu.

Great People Scholarship Campaign

As you know, $20 million of ongoing funding from the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates is being allocated to need-based financial aid. This year we were able to add $5 million, and next year we will add another $5 million in ongoing funds.

Need-based aid has become our highest university-wide fundraising priority for several reasons. It is absolutely essential that we keep UW-Madison affordable to students from low- and low-to-middle-income backgrounds, for the good of every one of our students and for the sake of the communities we serve. Each student needs to interact and build networks with peers from every conceivable background and the families of this great state need to be able to afford an education for their children at one of the worlds great research universities.

As I have argued since I arrived at UW-Madison, keeping tuition near the bottom of our peer group is not the answer to those needs. Over the long term, balancing quality with affordability will mean marking out a path that puts tuition at the median of our peer group and provides much higher amounts of need-based aid. The desire to keep tuition at the low end is understandable, but it has a number of problematic and often unintended consequences: It ends up subsidizing those who can more easily afford an education at UW-Madison, and it threatens the university with a potential deterioration in quality, putting the value of our students degrees at risk over time.

I do not believe there is anything more important to our long-term success than the appropriate balance between affordability and quality. We will need to establish a new compact with the state of Wisconsin, one that recognizes our reliance on revenues from the private sector, from the federal government and from tuition, and one that, therefore, allows us the flexibility to use our funds in ways that will keep the university strong, for the good of the state, the nation and the world. The new compact with the state would provide us greater freedom to manage our resources and clearer forms of accountability to the state. I expect to spend a significant amount of time working with you, with business leaders, with political and government leaders, and with the general public to develop and promote change of this kind.

Given the importance of financial aid, I want to thank UW-Madison faculty and staff again for your generous contributions to the Great People campaign. You have raised almost $619,000. The match from the UW Foundation brings your contributions to more than $1 million. While the magnitude is impressive, the amount is less important than the number of contributors among our faculty and staff. In my fundraising activities this past year, I have observed the strong impression it makes on our alumni and donors that so many of you would contribute at a time when your own salaries not only are not growing, but also have temporarily shrunk as a result of furloughs.

Research Administration and Funding

UW-Madison, as a research powerhouse, has a significant economic impact on the region and the state as a whole. We are one of only two universities in the United States, including both public and private institutions, to be ranked in the top five in total research expenditures for 20 consecutive years. Over the course of the past two decades, the administration of research has become a much larger and more complicated responsibility, in part because the nature of research has changed, and in part because of unfunded regulatory mandates from the federal government.

During my first year as chancellor, I heard from a large number of faculty members that our infrastructure has failed to keep pace. As you know, the provost presented a plan for the reorganization of research administration early in the fall semester. That plan grew out of a sense of urgency about changes that need to be made in the management of what is both a traditional strength and a major priority for this campus.

The University Committee (UC) was charged by the Faculty Senate with establishing a faculty task force to consider the proposal and make recommendations of its own about the administration of research. At the same time, the Academic Staff Executive Committee (ASEC) charged a committee with a similar task. Both groups have now reported –  one to the UC and the other to ASEC. Both favor the continuing integration of research with graduate education, and reject the proposal that research and graduate training be separate management activities. The ASEC-sponsored report called for more study and offered excellent recommendations for improvements in our processes. The faculty task force made a series of recommendations that became the foundation for the motion offered by the UC for the Faculty Senate.

The university administration has accepted the wisdom of the faculty and staff on the integration of research and graduate education. They will remain under one roof. Provost Paul DeLuca and I worked with the UC on the motion that was approved, overwhelmingly, with minor revision by the Faculty Senate on May 3. I am confident we have emerged from this year’s deliberations with a structure, a set of process improvements and an industry-relations program that, together, will ensure the university’s continued leadership in research, discovery and technology transfer.

The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) has provided the margin of excellence in research for many years. Despite the hit on its endowment in 2008-09, WARF provided a $53.4 million grant to the Graduate School for 2009-2010 to support research and graduate education. In addition, WARF has made a long-term commitment to the Morgridge Institute for Research, the private partner to the state-funded Wisconsin Institute for Discovery; together, they form the Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery. WARF has spent the year developing plans for the institutes and for the town center, to which the entire first floor of the building is dedicated. I hope the town center will become a destination not only for faculty, staff and students, but also for a larger public. It has the potential to build community, enliven intellectual exchange and increase interest in science and scientific literacy far beyond the campus.

I have just returned from the spring meeting of the American Association of Universities where we heard from Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and John Holdren, chief science adviser to President Obama. It was clear from both presentations and from subsequent discussions that the current administration understands the importance of scientific research, both basic and applied, and is doing, what it can to find funding in a budget that the president has promised to freeze for the next three years. The president’s budget proposes increases for NIH (3.2 percent), the National Science Foundation (8 percent), the Department of Energy (4.4 percent), the Department of Defense (7 percent), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (11.4 percent), and a decrease of 3.7 percent for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Base funding for the various federal agencies is up, but, as you know, we also face a cliff when American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding ends.

In response to questions about the administration’s top science priorities, John Holdren commented that the U.S. cannot attempt to lead in every domain. He then listed four areas in which it will be important that we do lead: low-carbon economy, life sciences, information and communication technologies, and new materials. It seemed evident that a low-carbon economy is this administration’s highest priority. Our strengths at UW-Madison put us in an excellent position to take advantage of the administration’s focus on energy, environment, and climate change; the life sciences and health; information technologies; and materials.

Graduate Student Funding

Our ability to compete for the best graduate students is critical to our research enterprise, as well as to faculty recruitment and retention. Our offers of support fall short of those of our peers in some fields. In those fields where grant funding is not available and there is no discretionary funding for graduate education, the problem is particularly grave. This year, we found the funds to address the shortfall in NIH training grants. Darrell Bazzell, vice chancellor for administration, is working with the University Committee to develop a biennial budget proposal that would allow us to address the problem.

In addition, we have submitted a request for graduate funding and for tuition remissions as part of our contribution to the UW System’s Educational Attainment Initiative. We also will submit a proposal for new graduate student funding as part of our participation in the system’s Research to Jobs Initiative. We are working with the UW System on other possible approaches to the challenge we face. Meanwhile, we continue to educate our donors about the importance of graduate student funding, and we are encouraging them to consider linking graduate fellowships to professorships. The Madison Initiative for Undergraduates also will provide a number of departments with additional teaching assistantships, and the Great People campaign is a good platform for educating our donors about the need for graduate student aid.

I will suggest that the new vice chancellor for research and graduate education undertake a study of the sizes of our graduate programs in relation to faculty research needs, departmental and program teaching needs, the job market in various disciplines and sources of funding.

UW Foundation Presidential Search

As you know, the University of Wisconsin Foundation (UWF) is currently searching for a successor to Sandy Wilcox, UWF’s very successful current president. I consider this to be one of the most important appointments that will be made during my tenure as chancellor. I have been consulting with the search committee and will be fully involved in the process once the search firm (Spencer Stuart) has developed a list of prospects for review by the committee. The committee hopes to present a candidate for the UWF Board’s consideration by the end of the summer. I encourage you to nominate promising candidates. For the position description, visit http://www.uwfoundation.wisc.edu/home/employment/currentpositions/president /president.aspx.

Global Health and Sustainability

We have chosen as two interdisciplinary, university-wide initiatives areas of campus strength and societal need that also integrate research, education, policy and action — Global Health and Sustainability. In each case, we seek to help identify the full breadth of campus capabilities and bring them to bear on pivotal issues. The provost’s office is providing leadership, staff support and funding for these areas.

Jeannette Roberts, dean of the School of Pharmacy, and Jeremi Suri, professor of history, are co-chairing the Global Health Initiative. For Global Health, we anticipate an inclusive initiative that brings together the sciences, social sciences and the humanities to address what is one of the most challenging problems of the new century.

The Sustainability Initiative is co-sponsored by the provost and vice chancellor for administration and will ensure a fusion of academic and functional/administrative initiatives campuswide. Led by Gregg Mitman, interim director of the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, and spearheaded by the institute, this initiative includes faculty, staff and students, and is focused not only on research and education, but also on having our campus serve as a laboratory for best practices. Initial subject-matter retreats for each initiative attracted hundreds of faculty and staff, and generated strong interest and enthusiasm. Both initiatives are open to participation, and we encourage you to get involved.

Diversity

Our efforts to diversify the faculty, staff and student bodies will be aided by the expectations we have set for the use of funds from the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates (MIU). Departments and programs will be held accountable for the proactive recruitment of underrepresented scholars and scientists, as well as for innovations in undergraduate curricula. Funding from the MIU will open up opportunities for students to study and find internships abroad. It will also help us establish exchanges that bring students from other countries to UW-Madison. Each student deserves the opportunity to study with peers from all over the world; we intend to create more of those opportunities.

In an effort to ensure that we are more actively recruiting a diverse student body, we have invested additional funding (from reallocations) to initiatives coordinated by the offices of the Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate, the Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, and the Vice Provost for Faculty and Staff.

The best students for UW-Madison represent the global marketplace. The Vice Provost for Enrollment Management is working with University Relations to create a new marketing plan for the university that specifically focuses on increasing numbers in each of the following populations: first-generation students, geographically diverse students (urban, rural, in- and out-of-state), economically disadvantaged (in particular, more Pell-eligible students), targeted ethnic minorities, international students, transfer students, Women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields and Wisconsin high-achievers.

Building the new marketing and recruitment strategy will involve rethinking how the admissions office handles inquiries, how and when admission decisions are made and communicated, how financial aid plays into our success and how we maintain a close relationship with every applicant at every step of the process.

Our goal is not only to enroll a more diverse student body, but also to ensure that students from every background succeed once they are here. Working together, we can eliminate the achievement gap between majority and minority students –  a commitment we made to one another in our strategic plan and reaccreditation self-study.

Finally, after more than a year of consultation about how best to coordinate and enhance existing diversity programs, we are moving toward a new structure whereby the Vice Provost for Diversity and Climate will assume responsibility for the oversight of several key programs that currently report elsewhere.

Faculty and Academic Staff Salaries

Faculty/staff compensation has been a high priority for the provost’s office this year. Under the leadership of Vice Provost Steve Stern, we have made a serious effort to identify, review, revise and use the tools at our disposal to adjust salaries in the absence of a faculty/staff pay plan. The purpose of the initiative was to develop a set of tools that allow frequent review and appropriate adjustments in compensation in response to retention and market pressures. At the same time, we have increased the amount added to faculty salaries at the time of promotion to associate professor and to full professor. We also added a periodic post-full professor review that can lead to salary increases. We would like to be able to do more, but, as you know, we are prohibited by the state from implementing salary increases that would appear “pay-plan-like” when no pay plan exists. I hope that a new understanding with the state will eventually allow us considerably more freedom when it comes to compensation practices.

Vice Provost Stern has also been working with Stephen Lund, director of the Academic Personnel Office, and academic staff on a set of initiatives that could give us tools to reward and enhance excellence, and to introduce clarity about job security among our academic staff. That work is ongoing; we will ensure that any developments are communicated to the community as a whole.

Collaboration with WAA and UWF

The university will be increasingly dependent on private funding. With that in mind, I charged a task force with considering how the university; its schools, colleges and departments; the Wisconsin Alumni Association (WAA) and the University of Wisconsin Foundation (UWF) could be more closely coordinate and enhance our joint efforts to build our alumni and donor base. The task force met for several months and presented a set of recommendations at the end of the fall semester. They included the formation of a steering committee with representation from all three organizations charged with developing “an enterprise-wide approach to development and engagement”; charging a group with the task of recommending new technology platforms that would enable us to reach and communicate with our alumni, friends and donors; and developing a culture of giving among our current students. I expect to get recommendations from the members of three different committees by the end of the summer.

University Relations/Communications

Last year I established a new position, vice chancellor for university relations, and named Vince Sweeney to the position. This position is intended to coordinate the university’s messaging and relationship-building strategies across a broad range of audiences. That’s a tall task, but we are making progress. From a state-relations level, for example, I’m pleased to report that we’ve been in direct dialogue with the three major candidates for governor, and we have had ongoing conversations with Gov. Jim Doyle, legislative leadership and industry lobbyists — all in an effort to share our priorities and nurture those relationships. On the internal and external communications level, you’ll soon see a redesigned front page on our university’s website, with improved functionality and a new and exciting look that will better reflect the excitement and energy of this great university. On a daily basis, I continue to see the benefits of our efforts to articulate and communicate our priorities and goals more effectively and more consistently across a range of different audiences. We are approaching our relationships with a greater degree of intentionality and with more coherent messages.

Looking Forward

As you know, this summer the UW System Board of Regents will discuss our next biennial budget request. At the moment, the UW System is working to develop two initiatives — Educational Attainment and Research to Jobs — for which the regents are expected to ask for new funding. UW-Madison has submitted a report to UW System showing the means by which we could increase the number of graduates. We included an increase in transfer students, elimination of the achievement gap and overall decreases in time to graduation. We also estimated the number of new freshmen we could serve if, and only if, new funding existed to support the increased instructional costs as well as infrastructure. We made graduate student funding a central part of our report and proposal to UW System.

UW System also established a Competitive Workforce Commission to study compensation and make recommendations about the changes that they deem necessary. I was asked to speak to the commission and I gave a presentation several weeks ago, providing comparative data on UW-Madison faculty salaries and establishing the context in which I think that data should be viewed. I believe the commission, which is made up of business leaders and representatives from various campuses, will recommend strong measures to improve faculty and staff salaries in the UW System.

Given the budget deficit in the state of Wisconsin and the slow rate of recovery from the recession, I am not optimistic about increased funding for the UW System for this next biennium. In addition to the cost to continue, I believe a pay plan and graduate student funding should be at the top of our priority list. We will, of course, have time in the fall to discuss priorities and tactics. At the moment, we are considering inviting an outside consultant to study how we might effectively organize some of our administrative functions and services, and realize savings in the process. Should we pursue such a course of action, faculty, staff and students will be involved in the work and in any consideration of recommended changes. All of us should be thinking about how we can manage effectively in the face of ongoing budget challenges and possible cuts. What we have achieved over the past two years under significant budget pressures is remarkable. Though the outlook is beginning to brighten, I anticipate that we will face another two years of pressure.

Let me end with a few observations and a perspective on the longer term. Our trip to China this semester was gratifying for a number of reasons, among them the high regard in which UW-Madison is held there. In addition to historical reasons for the university’s reputation, the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings of world universities, which place UW-Madison 17th in the world, also contribute to our high standing. The unique attributes of this university attracted attention in China, including not only the talent of our faculty, staff and students, but also our commitment to the Wisconsin Idea. As China considers its goals for higher education, its students, faculty and academic leaders displayed a great deal of interest in the notion that the university could be, at once, preeminent in the quality of its research and education, and also committed to partnerships with people and institutions outside the university dedicated to addressing the state’s, the nation’s and the world’s most vexing problems.

After two academic years as chancellor of this university, I have come to see UW-Madison as a uniquely open and engaged intellectual community. Our faculty, staff and students are deeply engaged with the larger public, fiercely devoted to “sifting and winnowing” and willing to work not only at the cutting edge, but at the heart of things. The larger community, which includes the city of Madison, the surrounding region, the state of Wisconsin and all of our alumni, is involved in the university to a remarkable degree. It is our responsibility to preserve the quality and uniqueness of this great institution and to enhance its impact.

That requires that we find the right economic model for the university — the right balance of quality and affordability. Over time, we will need to establish a new relationship with the state of Wisconsin, one that recognizes how reliant we are on revenues from the private sector, from the federal government and from tuition; one that would, therefore, allow us the flexibility to use our funds in more effective ways that make sense for us, for the larger UW System and for the state. A new compact with the state would provide greater freedom to manage our resources and clearer forms of accountability to the state.

I expect to spend a significant amount of time working with you, with business leaders, with political and government leaders, and with the general public to develop and promote such a compact. I believe the issue of increased flexibilities for the university will become a topic of discussion in the context of the gubernatorial election. It will be important that we be active, informed and thoughtful participants in that discussion. I look forward to working with you toward that end.

The spirit, energy and dedication of our faculty, staff and students make this university worthy of celebration. I celebrate all of you, and I hope you have a wonderful summer.

For the benefit of those who could not attend, we are now belatedly posting (courtesy of CAPE) a link to the complete video record (157 MB) of the presentations by the three distinguished speakers: Noel Radomski, director of the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE); Andrew Reschovsky, professor at the La Follette School of Public Affairs;  and Kevin Reilly, President of the University of Wisconsin System.

All three presentations made clear that the budget problems facing the state of Wisconsin, and therefore the University, will be with us for some time to come and will require difficult choices.

Planning for the second forum in the series, which will likely take place in early Fall 2010, is now underway.

[T]his is the overarching policy issue of the decade (century?) and we need all members of the university community, as well as those in the wider public, to understand the inexorable trends that are driving the university’s future and what it can expect to do for the state in the future.

Three separate campus organizations — PROFS, UFAS, and CAPE — have come together to jointly sponsor the first of a planned series of public forums on the subject, to be held Tuesday, February 23, 4:00-5:30 pm at the Memorial Union (check Today in the Union to confirm the room location; tentatively the Wisconsin Inn).

The press release from PROFS can be viewed here.

Distinguished panelists include Kevin Reilly, President of the University of Wisconsin System; Andrew Reschovsky, professor at the La Follette School of Public Affairs; and Noel Radomski, director of the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE).

From the press release:

Financing of higher education has changed significantly over the past several decades. Shrinking state support and sharply increased costs have forced campuses to chart new courses for survival. Are our only alternatives hyper-inflationary tuition increases and bigger classes?

“The financing of public higher education has changed dramatically and continues to change. How great universities – UW-Madison, in particular – continue to respond to those changes is among the most important issues we face on campus and nationally,” says Joe Salmons, president of PROFS. “This forum will launch an important conversation for faculty, the university community and our state.”

According to Prof. Salmons, this first forum, which will concentrate on  identifying and explaining the current fiscal challenges, will consist of approximately 15 minute presentations by each of the three panelists, with additional time for questions by the audience.  Future planned forums in the series will dissect proposed solutions.

The campus community and Wisconsin citizens alike have an enormous stake in sustaining the educational, outreach, and research missions of the University, all of which are major drivers of long-term economic stability and prosperity in the state.

We urge everyone to attend this forum.

- the Editors

Of greater interest than the Chronicle posting itself is one reader’s response, a short excerpt of which follows:

The real story here is not the restructuring of research supporting systems but the broader issue of disintegrating research administration infrastructures at Wisconsin, and indeed across the United States. Offices that manage sponsored programs (grants, contracts, research fellowships, etc.) universally have had flat budgets for the past decade, and yet this period saw an unprecedented growth in research funding (e.g., doubling of NIH grants) as well as a torrent of new regulatory requirements governing all aspects of research (electronic submission of proposals, research subjects, animal care, conflict of interest, export controls, accounting, reporting, auditing, technology transfer, etc.).

(continue reading comments)

From our vantage point at S&W at least, this is indeed a new perspective on the restructuring issue.   We hope more  readers will weigh in.

The full text is reproduced below for the convenience of S&W readers.  While we have not had time to digest the details, our impression at first reading is that the problems facing the SUNY system are very comparable to those facing us here at UW and that similar dramatic action and creative leadership are urgently needed.  As always, reader comments are invited.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 15, 2010

GOVERNOR PATERSON PROPOSES MOST SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION REFORMS IN A GENERATION

Sweeping Reform Package Would Provide SUNY and CUNY the Flexibility Needed to Become Centers of Job Creation
Measures Would Rationalize Tuition Policy; End Overregulation; Improve Accountability
Governor Paterson: ‘Strengthening the Public Education System Critical to the New Economy’

Governor David A. Paterson today announced that his 2010-11 Executive Budget will include the most significant reforms to the State’s system of public higher education in a generation. The Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act will provide the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY) the flexibility needed to become centers of job creation. The proposed reforms would enable New York’s public higher education system to become the new model of excellence that better prepares students for the jobs of the future, while also developing the jobs of today. In addition, the measures would foster the type of innovative public-private research and development partnerships that will drive New York’s future prosperity.

“Currently, Albany micromanages everything from the chalk campuses purchase to the cost of tuition that students pay. This burdensome overregulation threatens the ability of our public higher education systems to promote economic development and successfully adapt to changing educational and fiscal circumstances,” Governor Paterson said. “We must provide our institutions of public higher education with the freedom and flexibility they need to drive development both on campus and off, preparing our students for the New Economy jobs that will propel New York forward.”

Governor Paterson’s proposal would take politics out of tuition setting and institute a rational policy that makes the cost of public higher education more equitable and predictable for students and families. The reforms would also provide SUNY and CUNY with greater operational independence consistent with their mission so that they can adapt and thrive in an ever-changing innovation economy. The measures would eliminate numerous overregulations on contracting, procurement, land use, and other areas, while still maintaining appropriate accountability and State oversight.

These reforms would create more than 2,200 faculty positions, 7,000 staff positions, 43,000 construction jobs on SUNY university and medical centers, according to SUNY estimate. They will also expand access to higher education by allowing campuses to accommodate an additional 20,000 students above planned targets.

SUNY Chancellor Nancy L. Zimpher said: “I commend Governor Paterson for his leadership in bringing forward the Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act. This legislation harnesses high-impact, zero-cost solutions that will create jobs, build the foundation for tomorrow’s economy and strengthen public higher education – while saving millions of taxpayer dollars.

“With the unprecedented cooperation and energetic partnership of SUNY and CUNY, we have taken a major step in unleashing the public university sector to achieve the promise of economic growth through top quality education, from community college to research center. This will positively impact every community in the state with the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs and through billions of dollars in local investment.”

CUNY Chancellor Matthew Goldstein said: “We commend Governor Paterson for his exemplary efforts to address flexibility in the financing of public higher education. CUNY is experiencing record student enrollments as we now serve over 260,000 degree-seeking students–the highest level in CUNY’s history and a 7 percent increase over the past year. In addition, 2010 Spring enrollments are up 14 percent. Freshman applications for Fall 2010 are up 10 percent. In these difficult fiscal times, budget flexibility will enable the University to strengthen its responsiveness to the changing needs of students and to the changing economy. In order for New York State to compete effectively nationally and in the global marketplace of careers and ideas, its public higher education systems must have the necessary flexibility and investment to carry out their educational mission. We are pleased to continue working with the Governor and the State Legislature to accomplish that vital goal.”

Rational Tuition Policy – Ending Tuition Roulette

Currently, SUNY and CUNY tuition rates are determined by the State budget process. This has created a system in which tuition increases occur almost exclusively to close State budget gaps and offset General Fund support during periods of economic distress – a time when students and their families are least able to afford additional costs.

Moreover, these long periods between tuition rate increases result in some students completing their degree programs without experiencing a tuition increase, while those attending college during fiscal downturns experience significant tuition hikes. This is an unfair system that many independent experts have derided as “tuition roulette” and makes the cost of education unpredictable for students and families.

Governor Paterson’s Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act addresses these issues by instituting a rational tuition policy that:

• Moves tuition outside the State budget process, allowing SUNY and CUNY to receive and disburse revenues from tuition and self-supporting program activities without an appropriation.
• Authorizes the boards of trustees for SUNY and CUNY to implement a fair, equitable and responsible tuition policy that would provide the universities with the discretion to raise tuition incrementally up to an annual cap of two and one half times the five-year rolling average of the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), making it easier for students and families to anticipate and plan for the true cost of attendance over the course of a degree program.
• Authorizes the SUNY and CUNY trustees to implement differential tuition rates for programs and campuses within their systems to enhance academic quality, based on the recommendation of the college president and in accordance with specific guidelines promulgated by the trustees.

Ending Overregulation, Ensuring Accountability

Under the current system, overregulation stifles both SUNY and CUNY’s ability to innovate and compete with peer institutions in other states. Governor Paterson’s proposed reforms would provide SUNY and CUNY with greater operational flexibility regarding the procurement of goods and contractual services; the procurement and financing of construction services; and the lease of campus property. The Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act would also:

• Authorize the lease of real property under the jurisdiction of SUNY to other entities in support of its educational purpose, and the participation in public/private partnerships that would benefit SUNY’s mission, and diversify its revenue streams, subject to approval of a newly created State University Asset Maximization Review Board. This will help encourage greater business opportunities and innovative research partnerships, since many potential private companies are unwilling or unable to wait the months or years it takes for a project to wind its way through the legislative and political process.
• Remove provisions of law subjecting SUNY and CUNY to pre-approval of contracts by the Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) in order to streamline the procurement of goods and services, while maintaining provisions requiring the post-audit of such contracts by OSC.
• Allow post-audit in lieu of pre-audit requirements for Attorney General approval of leases between SUNY and its alumni associations in support of dormitory projects.
• Prescribe specific semi-annual reporting requirements on revenues and expenditures at a campus-specific level to ensure continued transparency and accountability.

“These are significant measures, but if we are to make New York the center for job creation, research and development in the New Economy, it is critical that we strengthen our public education system,” Governor Paterson added.

Today, however, the state side of the partnership is failing. State support of public universities, on a per student basis, has been declining for over two decades. Even before the current economic crisis, it was at the lowest level in 25 years. As the global recession has deepened, lower tax revenues have driven state after state to further reduce appropriations, with cuts ranging as high as 20 percent to 30 percent threatening to cripple many leading public universities and erode their world-class quality.

…

The declining priority that states have given to public higher education makes sense for them but is a disaster for the nation. The growing mismatch between state priorities and national needs suggests that it’s time once again to realign responsibilities between the state and the nation for higher education and provide adequate resources to sustain American leadership.

Here is a taste of the solution proposed by the author of the article:

Once more, it is time for the federal government to step in and provide the support necessary to keep our crucial graduate programs among the best in the world. Educating scientists and engineers, physicians and teachers, business leaders and entrepreneurs is vital to developing the human capital that is now key to national prosperity and security in the global, knowledge-driven economy. It cannot be left dependent on shifting state priorities and declining state support.

We are certain that the future financing of the UW system will be hotly discussed during the coming months in view of larger-than-expected shortfalls in state revenues. Now is the time to begin considering a range of proposed solutions from privatization to federal funding and to anticipate the intended and unintended consequences of each.

Please click here for the complete article from the PROFS website.

Please comment either here or on the PROFS page, or both.

Never in my life have I witnessed such a vast beehive of cranes, cement trucks, earth moving equipment, and, of course,  thousands of construction workers, all swarming over vast tracts of excavated urban real estate and dozens of steel building frames in various stages of completion. In one massive effort,  21st century architectural wonders were springing up everywhere to evict, once and for all, the lingering ghosts of 1945.

Yesterday, I walked once again (as I do almost daily) through another construction zone that never fails to remind me of Potsdamer Platz, albeit on a much smaller scale: the UW-Madison campus. And on that occasion the same questions occurred to me that always do:

• Where, in this time of fiscal stress for the University, did all the money for this construction come from?
• And more importantly perhaps, how much will the new construction continue to cost the University after it’s all built?

I realized that I had never consciously run across any document, official or otherwise, that directly addressed these questions, especially the latter one.   I surmised that if I had these questions, lots of other campus citizens might too, especially students facing tuition hikes and faculty and staff experiencing pay rescissions and mandatory furloughs (that’s pretty much everyone, isn’t it?).

So I did some digging and found the following:

First:  In case you never manage to get out of your own particular corner of campus and therefore can’t appreciate the full scale of what’s going on, here’s a birds-eye overview of ongoing major construction projects.  Swing by each of the listed sites sometime and persuade yourself that these are not mere renovations of existing buildings.

And from this quarterly report from Facilities Planning & Management, we learn that

“The University of Wisconsin – Madison currently has approximately $1.5 billion worth of capital projects at various phases of planning, design, and construction. Since 2005, 39 major projects at a total cost of $738 million have been completed. Currently, 5 major projects budgeted at $44 million total are in planning, 17 major projects budgeted at $624 million total are in design, 30 major projects budgeted at $822 million total are in construction, and 10 major projects budgeted at $253 million total are enumerated in the campus six year plan.”

Folks, that is real money.

As to where all this money comes from, we get a partial picture from this September 2009 article from UW-Madison News and this May 2009 article from Wisconsin State Journal.   In the latter, for example, we learn that “[b]oth the Chazen and Education projects are fully funded by gifts, while the biochemistry building will get about half of its funding — roughly $50 million — through gifts.”

Not discussed in any document I could find (in an admittedly cursory search) is the question of recurring costs associated with new building space:

For every new office or lab space, for every new square foot of floor space, the University presumably must have plans to staff those spaces and to provide janitorial and maintenance support.  As far as I know, private donations for new construction rarely include provisions for those expenses.

So who is hiring the new people and paying for the maintenance resources that all these new buildings presumably imply, and what will be the impact, if any, on future University budgets?

A related question:  Is it always in the University’s best (fiscal) interest to accept private donations for new construction, or are there situations in which accepting a multi-million dollar building donation might actually mean a net negative for the University’s bottom line?

If any reader has information relevant to any of the above questions, please use the “reply” space below to educate the rest of us.

View of the construction site of the Union South and the new Discovery Center (May 2009).