Rise in Sticker Price at Public Colleges Outpaces That at Private Colleges for 5th Year in a Row, by Beckie Supiano, October 26, 2011

The average price for tuition and fees at public four-year colleges was $8,244 for in-state students in 2011-12, up from $7,613 in 2010-11, an 8.3-percent increase. That percentage change drops to 7.0 percent if California—which had a 21-percent increase in tuition in that one-year period—is excluded.

Here in Wisconsin, in-state tuition and fees for the University of Wisconsin-Madison for the fall 2011 semester totaled $4,832.50, compared with $4,491.60 for the fall 2010 semester; in-state tuition and fees for UW-Milwaukee for the fall 2011 semester totaled $4,337.70, compared with $4,075.63 for the fall 2010 semester.   In percentage terms, the increases are 7.6% and 6.4%, respectively.

The basic message in this is that UW-Madison’s in-state tuition is still well below the national average, but the percentage increase is comparable to that experienced elsewhere.  In short, like elsewhere, the investment by the state of Wisconsin in making higher education affordable for all of its citizens is being dialed back.

We already knew this, of course.  But the latest massive hits to the UW-System budget, not reflected in the above figures,  are virtually certain to sharply accelerate the cost increases.    In fact,  if current trends continue, we can expect to see the distinction between private and public institutions become almost meaningless.

Is this really what the citizens of Wisconsin want?

To recap, news accounts in all major media initially stated that the UW-System would be subject to about $65 million in cuts over the biennium as a part of an overall state budget reduction of $174 million. (UW-Madison’s share of the reduction would be $24.6 million.) The Dept of Administration, which apportions the cuts, did not explain why UW would shoulder 37% of the reduction despite the fact that it constitutes only 7% of the state budget.

Today, the other shoe dropped. The other shoe in this instance is the probable loss of $111 million over the biennium; our share of an overall budget reduction of $300 million. Madison’s loss would be $42.6 million. This loss alone could not be “made up” if tuition for every student was increased $1000/ year. This is, of course, in addition to the $250 million loss to the System (and Madison) in the budget passed last summer. In contrast, aid to local government ($1.9 billion) is only nicked ($3 million) as is aid to K-12 education, the biggest item in the budget. Under the “$300 million scenario”, the UWS would still lose a disproportionate share of its state funding at a ratio of 5:1.

While the budget reduction of $300 million has not been ordered, agencies have been told to prepare for the loss. The reduction will be ordered if tax revenues do not increase in the next few months.

Under the $300 million reduction scenario, the Dept of Corrections would reduce its budget by $23 million or 1.4%. This would result in the UW receiving 6.7% of the state budget and the Dept of Corrections receiving 6.8%. The trend lines have crossed.

DMA

With the announcement of the new round of budget cuts ($65 million for the System, $13 million for Corrections), I reviewed LFB publications to see if indeed the UW is still #1 in the purse, if not the hearts, of Wisconsin.

I found (see table below) that although UWS funding will be $48M greater than that of Corrections (after the cuts), they are not only in the same ballpark, they are almost on the same base. UWS receives 7% of the total share of state funding while Corrections receives 6.8%. The budgetary trend lines of the two agencies have nearly merged because the budget reduction of UW is four times greater (as a percent of their budget) than that imposed on Corrections.

With additional inequitable budget reductions probable due to inflated revenue estimates, will Badger fans yell, “We’re Number Two! We’re Number Two!”

DMA

Coverage of the news conference will presumably be carried here, among other local outlets.

While it had been anticipated that the state would end the deduction for the unions, the end of the deduction for organizations that do not engage in collective bargaining comes as a surprise. In Walker’s initial budget, the prohibiting language was limited to “labor organizations” which are defined as “an organization that engages in collective bargaining.”  However, when the bill was amended in Joint Finance a more expansive amendment was added that prohibited dues deduction for any employee organization other than those representing public safety employees.

The unions have been preparing for the end of their dues deduction for some time. Their response has been to ask their members for monthly bank or credit card deductions. (Bank deductions are preferable because of fewer problems of changes in credit card numbers.) It is too early to tell their level of success but predictably, many members are not enthusiastic about signing an authorization for a 1% reduction in pay at the same time they are suffering a 10% reduction in pay.

In contrast, the voluntary organizations such as PROFS, WUU , ASPRO charge only nominal fees of one-tenth of 1% or in some cases only $5. Additionally, their memberships, as a whole, have significantly higher incomes.

The real issue here, however, is organization. We need it, and our employer, the State of Wisconsin, is doing everything possible to prevent organization or even effective participation of an opponent. Whether it requires photo ID of voters, defunding potentially oppositional non-profits or stripping the rights of employee organizations- the tactics change but the strategy is consistent.

If it hasn’t been clear yet to faculty and academic staff that we are in the same boat as our campus colleagues with blue and pink collars, this should be the final piece of evidence. The end of the dues deduction for non-bargaining employee organization is another message that from the perspective of the new rulers at the other end of State St. we are a single indistinguishable mass. We are the enemy that must be disenfranchised by whatever means are at hand.

Is it obvious that our response to this attack must be to join every available organization and pay the dues? What are less clear are the strategies of campus organizations. How shall we organize? What shall we do?

I would argue that the administration’s campaign for the NBP was premised on the notion that state support was declining and would continue to decline in the future and thus that the “new flexibilities” were necessary to stay afloat. One would guess that if she was saying that to the campus audience she must have been saying that and more to Walker, et. al.  There was no discuss of alternatives including (dare we say it!) higher taxes.

Looking at the budget process this year, we can see a number of cases where protests from those who were going to be on the short end of funding forced Joint Finance to change Walker’s proposed budget: the recyling program was restored (outcry from cities) ban on phosphorus repealed (from environmentalists), $100 million restored to K-12, etc.

Compare these responses to the almost-welcoming reaction to our loss of $100 million. (Note this was the same passive response from Reilly in the last budget). Clearly, the legislators know that if a constituency will sit still for this one time they will come back and cut and cut and cut.

If anything, the passivity of the administration and the entire higher education community (and that includes US) to this and prior reductions will have laid the groundwork for continued disinvestment in higher education even if the economy begins to grow.

One theme is that System bleeds state funding to Madison, diverts money from the flagship to other campuses and that as budgets get cut, Madison suffers disproportionately. There’s evidence on this: the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau has just provided vast amounts about higher ed funding in Wisconsin. (Here are the links, with a little context.) #690 lays out the material on public authority. Check out this passage from paragraph 10 (p. 4):

When adjusted for inflation, state funding provided for UW-Madison and for all other UW System institutions decreased from 1990-91 to 2010-11. Over that period of time, state funding for UW-Madison decreased by 2.8% while state funding for all other UW System institutions decreased by 6.8%. At the same time, enrollment at UW-Madison increased by 1.5% while enrollments at all other UW System institutions increased by 23.4%. When these increases in enrollment are controlled for, state funding for UW-Madison decreased by 4.2% while state funding for all other UW System institutions decreased by 24.4%.

As I understand this, over the last 20 years, Madison has had a tiny increase in enrollments while other campuses have grown by a quarter, yet other campuses have been hit far harder by budget cuts.

Despite that spreading belief, which was also shared by Paul Fanlund of the Capital Times and others, lobbying for the NBP continued unabated, with one observer likening the Public Authority to Monty Python’s dead parrot.

Subsequently, the “compromise” proposal was floated that UW-Madison remain within the System but get its own Board of Trustees, an idea that was sharply criticized by almost everyone who knew anything about it, including former UW-Madison adminstrator Harry Peterson.

A report this afternoon by the Cap Times’ Todd Finkelmeyer seems to make the deaths of both the Public Authority and the two-boards proposal official:

Walker’s plan to split off UW-Madison is dead

With that news,  the closing comments from Joe Salmon’s May 5 post seem worth reposting:

Whether you are profoundly disturbed or greatly relieved by this, we need to acknowledge that this is where things stand. And we need to think about what we’ll do when it’s officially dead and buried. I’d suggest things like these:

• Heal the divisions on campus. We have allowed ourselves to be terribly divided and cannot afford it at this critical moment. Let’s rally around our shared commitment to top-quality, affordable, accessible public higher education and move forward.
• Work to make amends with System,  not just to get back the extra $30 million cut that Madison would take with public authority, but just to live within System after what’s happened.
• Work for changes that are most valuable to us and consistent with top-quality, affordable and accessible public higher education. Some of the ‘flexibilities’ that drove the New Badger Partnership are possible with or without changes to state law.

I understand that there is no significant legislative support to break away the UW-Madison from the UW System and provide the UW-Madison its own governing board.  I have been told that a “compromise” approach would provide a governing board for the UW-Madison and have that university remain in the UW System.

I do not know with whom such a “compromise” would be struck, but, this idea fails badly and is seriously flawed. 

There are two possibilities with such a proposal.  The first possibility is that the UW-Madison board would be advisory.  If this is the case, no legislation is needed.

The UW-Madison has benefited for many years by having advisory boards, usually composed of successful graduates of the University.  Indeed, late last month Chancellor Martin convened a “Summit” of all of the advisory boards  throughout the University.  Over 500 people gathered for lunch at the Kohl Center as part of that meeting.  They represented successful graduates who are advising and supporting all of the schools and colleges at the UW-Madison, including Law, Medicine, Education, Letters and Sciences and Education.  Those 500 people came from around the country as a show of devotion to their university.

The other possibility is that this proposal would provide statutory authority to the UW-Madison governing board to make budget decisions, hire and evaluate the Chancellor, or other important responsibilities.

To have two governing boards for the UW-Madison, the largest, most complicated and important public organization in Wisconsin, would violate every sound practice of management in either the public or the private sector.  It would cause confusion about who was in charge.  It represents the worst aspects of what we see with some committees—if everyone is in charge—no one is in charge.  If no one is in charge no one is accountable.

While there may be some business people who would support such a proposal for the UW-Madison and the UW System, I am confident that none of these individuals would  permit such an unaccountable system for their own organization because it would make it less effective.

If the President of the UW System appears before a legislative committee to explain a System Policy, will members of the legislature find it acceptable if that president says he or she cannot speak for the UW-Madison because the authority has been removed?  (Who would want to be President of the UW System under such an arrangement?)

Administrative and leadership responsibilities are enumerated in the Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 36.

Board of Regents:  36.09 (1) The primary responsibility for governance of the system shall be vested in the board.

System President:  36.09(2) (a) The president shall be president of all of the faculty and shall be vested with the responsibility of administering the system under board policies… .

Chancellors:  36.09 (3)(a)  The chancellors shall be the executive heads of their respective faculties and institutions and shall be vested with the responsibility of administering board policies under the coordinating direction of the president and be accountable and report to the president and the board on the operation and administration of their institutions.

The responsibilities are clear and unambiguous.  Is the legislature prepared to change these statutes to accommodate a separate governing board within the UW System?

Aims McGuinnes, the nation’s leading expert on higher education systems states that there are at least two states that have boards within system governing boards—and they are having problems.  They are the University of Maine and the University of Utah.

Aims has consulted on this subject with virtually every state over the years:

“Campus boards get really confused about their role:  they soon think that they, not the system board, are the principal governing body and their advocacy is definitely only for their particular campus, not the broader public interest.  It is especially difficult if the major research university campus (with its political power through big-time sports and influential graduates) has a board with major players on it who are appointed and encouraged by the chancellor/president to act like the real governing board and ignore the system.”

In Maine, McGuinness reports, local boards of advisors were established, which McGuinness believes only amplified problems with system cohesion.    He further reports, “ The Utah system campus boards have been a constant source of confusion between their role and that of the Utah Board of Regents.”

If the University of Maine and the University of Utah are having problems, how do their “big-time sports and influential graduates,” compare with the athletic program and the influential graduates at the UW-Madison.  If it is happening in those states, it would happen in Wisconsin.

A review of the governing systems of the Big Ten Universities (plus Penn State University), in detailed materials from the Association of Governing Boards, reveals no such dual governing programs at those universities.  If there are such programs, they are not sufficiently important to appear in the information from AGB.

Aims McGuinness writes:  “In fact, I am quite sure that in none of the systems do the campus executives actually report to the campus boards rather than the system executive.  In other words, the campus boards are strictly advisory on matters delegated by the system board—and the campus executive does not report to the system executive through the campus board.”  (emphasis McGuinness)

Such a system does not exist in the Big Ten.  Where it is in place, in Utah and Maine, there are problems.

Chancellor Martin is seeking a separate board, in exchange for an additional $30 million in budget cuts beyond what her university would receive.  Could any changes that Chancellor Martin propose possibly be worth the loss of $30 million in the UW-Madison base budget, beyond what her university would experience without such a provision?  She has already committed to not increasing tuition beyond the Board of Regents authorized increase.  To recover that $30 million loss would require a $600 million dollar increase in the endowment at the UW Foundation.

If Chancellor Martin wants to appoint a campus-wide  board  to advise her on matters of her choice, such a board would be very consistent with the traditions of the UW-Madison and could be very helpful.

To make any changes to Chapter 36 of the Wisconsin Statutes to divert authority from the UW System and assign it to the UW-Madison would cause confusion and would create a tension between the UW-Madison and the UW System.  Worst of all, it would put it in law.

The result would be confusion and tension and, based on the experience in Utah, increase efforts by the UW-Madison board to compound its authority at the expense of the UW System.

Two systems of higher education were merged in 1971 because there was fighting between those two systems.  In 2011 the legislature could make the pre-merger problems look minor in comparison to changing the statutes to create permanent fighting within the UW System.  There is nothing so damaging as a fight within a family.

Leading and managing 15 universities in our state is a difficult job, done well now by an underappreciated Board of Regents and System.  The legislature should not make it impossible.  There is too much at stake.

Harry Peterson

UW Madison administrator 1978-1990
Chief of Staff, Donna Shalala 1988-1990

President Emeritus
Western State College of Colorado