April 3, 2003
Olympia efforts continue in ‘toughest session’
For many legislators and lobbyists, the current legislative session is the toughest of their lifetime. Faced with a potential budget deficit of $2.4 billion, Gov. Gary Locke presented a proposal that called for budget cuts and no tax increases, a proposal that would continue an alarming trend in reduced funding for higher education.
Efforts to achieve equitable funding for the UW began well before January and will continue until the session is gaveled to a close. Director of Government Relations Dick Thompson discusses what has been done, and what will be done, to make the case for better funding.
Q: What has been the UW’s strategy to convince voters and the Legislature that higher education funding needs to grow?
A: The efforts began nearly a year ago, when we created Cougars and Huskies for Higher Education (now Cougars and Huskies for our Economic Future — see http://www.washington.edu/univrel/cougarsandhuskies/ ). This took then-President McCormick and later Interim President Huntsman, around the state with WSU President Lane Rawlins, to meet with key leaders and with newspaper editorial boards, to increase public awareness about the needs for funding for higher education and particularly the needs of the research universities.
We’ve received a lot of feedback from people in Olympia who have seen the published news articles — including an entire week of editorials in the P-I. They’ve heard the radio ads — one series featured Rep. George Nethercutt and Rep. Norm Dicks, and another featured Lee Huntsman and Lane Rawlins. The “buzz” is up. There’s more discussion of higher education as a valuable component of economic development. The campaign has raised the level of discussion about both access and tuition.
Since the start of the session in January, Interim President Huntsman has testified at least five times before legislative policy and fiscal committees. On three of those occasions, he testified with President Rawlins. They presented their joint message: the importance of core funding for the institutions and not expanding enrollment until funding per student is adequate, and providing the institutions with the flexibility to manage the resources they have.
Q: What’s been the reaction from legislators?
A: The feedback from legislators has been that they agree with what the presidents have said, but where is the money going to come from? There’s no disagreement with the policy arguments, but they are concerned that the resources just aren’t there to deal with the issues.
Legislators marvel at the extent of the UW’s research and its contributions to the economy. But this has not generated legislative suggestions for enhanced state funding.
Q: Do legislators understand the connection between adequate core funding and maintaining the UW’s research engine?
A: We’ve tried to make that connection at every meeting we’ve attended and in all our written materials. But it’s not clear that all legislators have made that connection. In many cases, legislators see those missions as very distinct and even disconnected.
Q: Other than the operating and capital budgets, are there other bills in the Legislature that are important to the UW?
A: It seems there have been a large number of bills filed on a variety of subjects, many of which would have an unintended negative impact on the UW if adopted. So we spend a good deal of time talking to legislators and informing them of our views.
For example, there is a bill that would mandate performance audits of all state agencies. In principle, the UW has no qualms at all about being accountable. But we have developed a number of ways to measure the UW’s performance and cost-effectiveness, including the many accreditation reviews we undergo. We have concerns that an additional audit would use funds that otherwise would go to classroom instruction, public service or patient care.
We have to track many bills because the UW is a diverse and complex institution. For example, another bill would limit our ability to use our own elevator mechanics. We have good folks who do a good job and don’t want to change what we’re doing. So we have to put time in to explaining why certain provisions of the bill would be harmful to the University.
The UW does have a short legislative agenda outside of the budget. We’d like tuition-setting authority for graduate, professional and nonresident students. We’d like the ability in very limited cases (gallery openings and other special events, for example) to sell alcohol by the drink. We’d like to fix the language in previous legislation regarding the financing of certain research facilities — there was a mistake in the bill that affects us adversely, but unintentionally.
Q: Other than you and Interim President Huntsman, who else has been involved in making the case to the Legislature?
A: Jim Severson, the new vice provost for intellectual property, has testified twice on the connection between research and economic development. Both the ASUW and GPSS have been active and supportive and consistent around the University’s key message regarding core funding. They have done a really good job supporting the student positions. The students obviously have a different view on tuition-setting authority, but that’s the only issue on which we don’t agree. The representatives of the Faculty Senate have been strong and consistent in their support on key issues.
The Regents have been very supportive and will play an increasingly active role as we go forward. And there are a series of other friends who have demonstrated active support for us. That includes the WSA (Washington Software Alliance), the Washington Technology Alliance, the Business Roundtable, and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Q: Given the state’s budget problems, what would be a good outcome from this session for the UW?
A: We’d certainly like to see some of our key legislation passed. We’d like to see no new restrictions on our ability to manage the institution. We’d like to see funding for the University protected as much as possible, so that we have the ability to grant salary increases to faculty and professional staff. And we’d like to see an across-the-board salary increase for classified staff as well. When we testify about salaries, we always include all of our employees. We don’t suggest that any of our employees should be left out of salary increases. We’d also like to see the benefits of employees protected as much as possible — although I think there’s a strong likelihood that there will be some reductions in benefit coverage.
Q: We haven’t heard much talk of any possible tax increases. Are new taxes off the table?
A: There’s a real concern in the House, in the Democratic caucus, to save Initiative 732 (granting public school teachers an annual cost of living increase) and 728 (which directed funds to reduce class size in public schools). I would not be surprised if there were provisions in the budget coming out of the House that would include a significant tax increase to fund these initiatives. That doesn’t mean that it will pass the Legislature, that the Republican leadership in the Senate will allow it to pass, or that the governor will sign it.
Q: Is there much squabbling among the higher education community over funding?
A: There has been nothing visible in this regard yet, though it is of course possible. But I think most in higher education, especially among the four-year institutions, comprehend the advantage of a unified front. For example on the capital budget, a plan for increased capital funding proposed by Regent Dan Evans and Governor Booth Gardner was endorsed by the community colleges as well as the four-year institutions.
On the operating side, because we haven’t seen an operating budget proposal in the Legislature the institutions have been in the position of explaining the needs and demonstrating the consequences of reduced funding.
For some institutions, funding is a zero-sum game, with any funding not directed to higher education of little interest to the institution. The University of Washington is affected by many parts of the budget outside of higher education funding, particularly in health and human services. Cuts in the funding for adult dental care, for example, would affect the teaching mission in the School of Dentistry.
Q: As citizens, what should faculty and staff do?
A: Because we are a state agency, state employees have to be mindful of the prohibition against grass roots lobbying and the use of public resources in lobbying. But any faculty members, staff members or students who are concerned about the underfunding of this University should let their elected representatives know that this is a concern. Legislators tell me they don’t hear as much about higher education as they do about other issues. Part of this is the nature of different organizations: We don’t have a PTA, we don’t have a Children’s Alliance, which have a lobbying component built into their organizations.
In my experience, what I call “organized volume,” thousands of people writing the same card to legislators, doesn’t have a lot of impact. Effective lobbying needs to be constituents talking to their legislators about their own concerns, not some scripted thing. Obviously, it’s helpful for the University to have those kinds of activities going on. But they can’t occur during normal working hours, and they can’t be done with University resources, including e-mail.
Q: When are we likely to see a budget bill in the Legislature?
A: Things should pick up soon. However, I think it’s very likely that there will be a special session to deal with the budget. (The end of the regular session is April 27.)
