By
Katie McVicker
December 9, 2009
With the legislative session just around the corner, President Emmert told members of the Faculty Senate last week what to expect in terms of budget cuts to higher education, noting that Gov. Gregoire said state need-based financial aid will likely be cut in order to balance the budget.
In a special meeting of the Board of Regents on Nov. 28, Emmert met with Gov. Gregoire to discuss her forecast for the state budget. He said her first task this month is to bring out “book one,” which means creating a budgeting plan for the coming cycle without incorporating any new revenue.
The university receives around $41 million in need-based financial aid for undergraduates, which is the largest source of the UW’s financial aid and the cornerstone of Husky Promise, which supports 70,000 students.
“If significant cuts were to be made in that account and they are allowed to stand through the legislative process, depending upon its magnitude, it would either significantly or dramatically change the student profile at the UW,” Emmert said.
It’s estimated that the governor will have to cut $2.6 billion from the budget, and since a significant portion of state money is constitutionally protected or guarded by other restrictions and since she can’t project any new revenue, Emmert said higher education will probably get reduced by $100 million on top of the cuts to state need-based financial aid.
Unlike the previous years, however, Gregoire said she plans to spread the cuts in a proportionate fashion across all higher-education institutions.
“Should that occur, that would shockingly be good news also because in the past, the four-year institutions have been hit much, much harder than the community colleges,” Emmert said.
UW spokesperson Norm Arkans said that the proportion of cuts to the UW is expected to be roughly 21 million.
This comes shortly after ASUW and GPSS set their legislative agendas to stop any additional cuts. UW lobbyists plan to use the disproportionate cuts that were made last year to public baccalaureate institutions as one of the talking points for no additional cuts to the university.
During the legislative session, Emmert plans to lobby for four things. The first thing he plans to do is “stop the bleeding” by finding ways to put on figurative tourniquets and stop the Legislature from continuing to cut the university’s funding.
Secondly, Emmert wants to be able to manage in-state tuition more effectively and wants the tuition cap set around the 60th or 75th percentile of our national peer group, allowing for a 14- or 15-percent tuition increase.
“I have no desire to raise the tuition for anyone, but when the state continues to reduce our resources at the rate at which they’re doing it, we are left with bloody few options,” he said.
Emmert also plans to request a cap that keeps the university from being able to raise tuition too dramatically in one year, like the recent 32-percent tuition increase in California, and a requirement that the university recycle some of its tuition back into the financial-aid fund.
Furthermore, Emmert wants greater flexibility in how the university gets to manage its costs, particularly in the way it deals with capital construction. The last time the state funded a building on campus was in 1997. Every building since then has been paid for with research money, tuition, fees or gifts. Emmert explained that though the buildings aren’t paid for by state tax dollars, the school still has to build them under state laws that add about 20–25 percent to the building cost.
“If [the state isn’t] going to pay for it, at least let us build them under rules that allow us to be as efficient as completely possible,” he said.
Lastly, Emmert wants to be able to better manage the revenue that comes into the university, specifically regarding the Metropolitan Tract downtown. The UW owns 10 acres downtown that have been appraised at $1–2 billion, but the revenue that comes from it is appropriated, meaning that in order to see more revenue, the school has to petition the Legislature. As of now, the UW only gets $8 million of net-free cash flow each year from the land.
“I would encourage you to do the arithmetic,” Emmert told the faculty. “It is the worst business deal on the planet.”
Gregoire will release “book one” later this week; in the meantime, Emmert will hold to his four agenda items.
“If we can do those things, and I think we have reasonable chances of doing all of those things, then I think we will be fine,” he said. “It will not be fun; we will have yet another round of budget cuts in the spring, but the good news is we know how to do this now.”
Reach reporter Katie McVicker at news@dailyuw.com.
12 Comments
#1 Joe D.
on December 9, 2009 at 12:24 p.m.There is a second budget coming AND the union employees of the UW are pushing hard to keep enrollment up and non teaching non curing administrators down as well as a package of closing tax loop holes. president Emmert promised members of the house and senate "administrative cuts" last session-well we can't find any adminstrators who've felt the axe-only the line staff that do the repairs and maintain our buildings and systems have been cut not one associate VP or program coordinator or manger of any type has been let go that we can find. In fact if the feds had not provided money he was going to cut your TA pool even deeper and reduce the number of classes further while keeping all his golf pals.
#2 Rebecca_F
on December 9, 2009 at 12:37 p.m.#1
In this context, I think administrative could be understood as contrasting with instructional. If you don't think the way cuts were distributed wasn't fair regardless of what the administration did or didn't claim that they'd cut, then argue that. If Emmert outlined more specifically what he would cut and then reversed himself, perhaps your argument would be more convincing if you provided those details. At the moment, it just sounds like you and Mr. Emmert had a misunderstanding.
#3 Rebecca_F
on December 9, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.Let's get this straight . . . This past year they increased our tuition: This coming year they will consider decreasing our financial aid? Did I understand that correctly?
#4 Ali G
on December 9, 2009 at 1:09 p.m.Well, the UW could save some money by not giving away so much money to students that don't deserve it. I've heard way too many stories of students from low income areas getting full scholarships with a measley 2.7 high school gpa. Ridiculous. In America, it's the middle class families that have to pay the price. No aid goes to them.
#5 Thomas E. Fowler
on December 9, 2009 at 9:13 p.m.Serious about Saving money at the U.W.
If you are serious about saving the University of Washington all you need to do is to take a very hard look at Facilities management organizational structure and realize that we operate with more supervisors, directors, assistant directors, and middle managers than actual on the ground employees who do the work, for the University Of Washington
It’s a ratio of 1to 3 management to employee, which makes no economic sense nor cost effectiveness. If you had to run a business.
Secondly, over the last three years U>W> facilities services has lost 30 to 40 percent of its staff, I mean the staff worker who does the front line work for the University Of Washington and not sit behind a desk doing nothing to solve maintenance of existing U.W. building.
For the last six years Fac/Man describes problems and money need to repair and upgrade our U.W. facilities, yet these managers have done little in six years. Deferred maintenance is 5 million dollars.
If you are able to get a copy of the KPMG report which was done during the Facilities Director Mc Cray time it will describe that the University Of Washington spent 3 million for it will support these facts that the University Of Washington is Top Heavy at the management level
What is the University of Washington doing with all the state funds when FTE full time staff [Worker’s who do the work are not being replaced.] yet management continues to receive their raises and no proportional layoff or cut in divisional staff. Where is the money when the U.W. upper divisional managers do not replace those positions?
Why are there several HR divisions, why are they not centralized?
If the University Of Washington seriously wants to streamline a budget take a hard look at higher management at U.W. facilities and elsewhere?
The truth of the matter is that one working employee cannot support the wage of 3 divisional managers. Does that make sense or business practice?
#6 Rebecca_F
on December 9, 2009 at 9:54 p.m.In response to #5:
You make some interesting points. Obviously without personally verifying the facts or hearing any explanations the administration may have for its organizational structure and budget, I don't feel prepared to commit myself to a position on the specifics of the budget. But the situation you described does not sound like an effective business model.
If it is really is that bad and if this has been going on before the budget cuts, then maybe we should have slashed the budget long ago or reworked our organizational structure to get better mileage out of those dollars. And please, I'm not saying we should have cut TA's or raised tuition long ago. I'm just saying that bureaucratic waste - i.e. expenses not related to quality of service or offering fair wages and benefits for the work done, but rather related to a complicated organizational structure with unnecessary positions - is a shame, especially when it involves taxpayer dollars. And you probably would prefer that your tuition fund the best education possible for your penny, right?
One question I do have is whether perhaps some supervisors are also ground-level workers. E.g. If you have three custodians on duty for a given shift, would one of them be designated as a shift manager, while still performing many of the same duties as the others on shift? If so, that could skew the statistics, and wouldn't necessarily be a bad practice. But if someone's primary role is supervising the work of others, then I would think they should generally be able to supervise more than three people.
#7 Rebecca_F
on December 9, 2009 at 10 p.m.Apparently Gregoire submitted this budget to comply with a legal requirement that her budget proposal be balanced. But she says she plans to suggest revenue increases (taxes) and it looks like she might support less or no cuts to financial aid if she's able to get the tax hikes she wants. But isn't there any other option between raising taxes and cutting financial aid?
#8 Jane W
on December 9, 2009 at 10:23 p.m.The situation is impossible to sustain. The State of Washington clings to a collapsing tax system. Seven states of the Union lack an income tax: Alaska, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, and Washington. The first four have oil, the other two have tourists. We are cursed with billionaires.
Tuition is in hyper-inflation throughout the country. The promise of a financially secure life after a university education is fast becoming an illusion. The jobs we are working toward will be no better than the jobs we already have to pay our way through school. Close to three-quarters of students work, many full-time.
The President of the University of Washington says we need "a new financial model and new, more entrepreneurial approaches to doing business." He asks for "greater management flexibility." His pay is fifty times that of a janitor at the university.
No longer are schools or governments run as public trusts. They are run as corporations.
We, anonymous public college students of Washington State, call for a walkout on April 1, 2010. Join us as we dance in the streets of downtown Seattle and on the Capitol campus in Olympia.
Abolish tuition. Restore the budget. These are not radical demands. In Europe, public universities are free and well-funded.
#9 Greg W.
on December 10, 2009 at 12:02 p.m.#8 do you really think the state is not getting their money? Although its true that Washington doesn't have a state income tax, it is made up for by having a business and occupation (B&O) tax (a revenue tax) and a substantial sales tax (6.5% at the state level - counties set and cities set higher percentages)
From the states point of view they have to cut something. Unlike the federal government states must, under law, balance their budgets. When the economy went into the tank investment values took a huge hit and in turn the cash flows provided from these took a hit.
Although it is very unfortunate that financial aide will drop and tuition will go up the government has no choice!
#10 Matt
on December 10, 2009 at 11:18 p.m.Workers and students are organizing to fight these budget cuts, tuition hikes, top heavy management, and inhuman speed up of the work process for custodians, tradespeople, and other staff. Working class students will not sit by and let Olympia, Emmert, and the Board of Regents jack up tuition AND cut financial aid in the same year. They're not standing for it in California and they won't stand for it here.
To find out more and get involved, please email d.insurg@gmail.com or check out:
http://nobudgetcutsuw.blogspot.com/
http://www.democracyinsurgent.org/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid...
#11 Kuzma
on December 18, 2009 at 1:15 p.m.End the Husky Promise! No more free rides!
#12 Rebecca_F
on December 24, 2009 at 12:47 p.m.Remember the big picture. Remember that education is one of many projects the state funds and cutting those other programs may affect real people as well. If you don't want financial aid cut, what is your alternative? I'm not necessarily arguing that financial aid should be cut. But there's more to the question than whether we want financial aid.
The problem calls for a solution, not just a complaint. Letting your representatives know that this will negatively affect you is fine. But remember that someone needs to offer a viable solution.
Remember why you came to college in the first place. You probably have a career or something you hope to do after you graduate and you hope this will help you toward that goal. Maybe you don't know exactly what you hope to do, but you hope the time you spend in college will give you a better future.
Remember that you are a member of society first and a student for a time. Don't forget your core values and don't forget your neighbors.
Be careful what groups and causes you identify yourself with. Don't sacrifice the things that matter most for the things that matter less. Don't give up a greater value for a lesser one.
If you are going to join a group, make sure you understand their purpose and how your participation would support that, before you involve yourself. Remember that your reputation will follow you. Remember that others will be affected by your actions.
- Rebecca Faust
Post a comment