Funding talks get tense between Alaska legislators, university officials
Originally published Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 12:00 a.m.
Updated Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 11:41 a.m.
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS — The Senate Finance Committee launched a two-day work session in Fairbanks on Wednesday with a goal of better understanding the process the University of Alaska uses to craft its budget.
The work session, held at the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Elvey Building, examined items such as the UA credit rating, accounting system and method for setting budget priorities.
Wednesday morning’s meeting also included a tense exchange between several legislators and UA officials about funding. Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, and Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, both grumbled about the unfair perception that the Legislature had “short-funded” the university system in recent years.
Both senators said they should be credited for fully funding the governor’s budget request for UA, not criticized because they didn’t give the UA Board of Regents everything it requested. Stedman, the co-chairman of the Finance Committee, said the regents and UA President Mark Hamilton helped fuel the criticism.
“A little off base, to say the least,” he said. “Political games, I guess.”
Stedman also questioned the regents’ role in directly lobbying the Legislature, rather than letting the governor’s UA budget request speak for itself.
“If we were to practice that process with every department, there’d be complete chaos,” Stedman said.
Fuller Cowell, a regent from Anchorgage, defended the lobbying practice. He said the Alaska Constitution created the Board of Regents to give additional oversight to UA, and that gives them a responsibility to be involved in the process.
“We really believe it’s our job to advocate for the best budget possible,” Cowell said.
The work session continues this morning with an overview of how UA is spending state funding. The meeting will be from 9 a.m. to noon at the Elvey Building Globe Room at UAF.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I agree with Senator Stedman's point about Regents (and all of the other agencies) lobbying the legislature after they've their budget request to the governor. Lobbying pressure 'corrupts' the budget setting process by adding unnecessary confusion and making it considerably more difficult for our elected representatives to integrate the the various demands on our state budget.
A proposition called "The Anti-Corruption Act" will be on the August primary election ballot. It addresses this problem by preventing special interests from using the public's money to lobby for more public money. Implementing that act will enable our elected representatives to engage in a more deliberative and reasonable budget setting process by reducing special interest lobbying. You can read more about the act at www.akcorruption.com.
Make them sell their land.
twain: beat me to it.
If it's ok for the people, it's ok for corporations, government bodies...and even the university. If you have the means to support yourself, don't come sniffing around for free money!!!
Shokd: does that mean you and everyone else with a job should stop applying for dividends? Land isn't funding.
Hamilton knew it was time to retire because the fact is the University System will be facing harder financial times and it is expected that the budget will be flat lined by the legislature for the next several years. Anchorage is already making noise about changing the center of the University to them and allowing more degrees to be offered in Anchorage. The fact is the UAF is a major part of Fairbank's economy, like it or not. The flat line budgets will have an impact on this community. The potential swift of administration of the statewide system and degrees will impact Fairbanks. The choice is which community will benefit from the appropriations, Fairbanks or Anchorage. Don't be surprised if Anchorage wins this one too.
The bloated UA system needs to take serious cuts....it has been out of control for many years...77% percent increase between 2000 and 2007. The funny thing is these same liberal nuts are the ones complaining about health insurance cost increases.
How does this have anything to do with health insurance....
twain and Shokd,
The University has to GET the land before they can sell it. Alaska is the largest state in the US, and yet UA has one of the smallest land grants in the country. Legislation in 2005 was supposed to get UA a portion of the land it was supposed to get (a century ago at that!), but the Alaska Supreme Court declared in unconstitutional.
It doesn't matter how much the costs increase for health insurance if you're on the public payroll. It's written into the state constitution that public employees must be funded. You really think it's a liberal/conservative thing?
It doesn't matter how much the costs increase for health insurance if you're on the public payroll. It's written into the state constitution that public employees must be funded. You really think it's a liberal/conservative thing
__________________________
It's written in the state constitution that public employees have a specific health plan with specific deductible and out of pocket expense? BullShi_. State employees need to deal with rising health care costs just like private employees, expect to have a higher deductible. Of course they can just join the Public Option!
If my research is right, it was Senator Hoffman who has directed millions of dollars to bush campuses - like in Bethel of all places. Of course, the legislature has tried for years to micro-manage the university system. Senator Steadman, bless his heart, wants more money for his district - no matter where it comes from. Check out the per-person funding these two Senators have steered into their districts the last three years. And then check how little Interior Alaska got. Our Senators are either asleep at the wheel or are powerless. I don't know but it sure seems that way to this old timer.
Don't Bush campuses count?
Kathleeninthearctic ... I think you have misinterpreted the Constitution. Take another look at it.
Power -
I used to work with someone whose wife worked for UAF counting birds or some such thing...
her monthly bill for full health/dental/etc was 25 bucks....(if I remember correctly)
I currently self-insure (being a responsible individual) at $191/month for just health with a high-deductible plan....this seems a more typical figure for most Americans...
so why do our public servants get a much better deal? I know counting birds is vital to the success of our economy up here...but please...
and don't give me the typical 'if you want it you could work there too' crap...OUR government is out of control
With the amount of tuition increases the university has passed for the last several years, the state should be concerned about the accounting and budgeting practices of the university. They are taking millions more from the state every year, and 7-10% more in tuition income from the students, but they never have enough money and keep asking for more. It is absolutely ridiculous. But in the end the legislature will do nothing, UA will get everything it asks for, and will then raise tuition again next year. It is sickening.
@akguy: "I currently self-insure (being a responsible individual) at $191/month for just health with a high-deductible plan....this seems a more typical figure for most Americans...
so why do our public servants get a much better deal?"
You need to compare apples with apples: How do the total compensation packages compare between university employees and private sector employees with similar responsibilities, experience, and education levels? All else being equal, public sector wages tend to be lower than private sector wages, but fringe benefits tend to be better. And if you want to have incompetent public employees, the surest way to get there is to cut their compensation packages so all the good ones go elsewhere.
All else being equal, public sector wages tend to be lower than private sector wages
___________________________
That maybe true...except of course for tenured porfessors at UAF. Actually it would be hard to compare since there really isn't a private sector job that involves giving a one hour lecture each day, and having a TA do the rest of your work. All while making a $100K per year.
The biggest drivers of the UA budget increases since 2000 have been personnel (in the form of health care and retirement) and utilities (takes a lot to heat and power all those buildings).
robb - all organization faces those issues. The difference is that the private sector makes cuts when necessary. The goverment just keeps on growing...
Not saying I'm siding with or against the U. Just pointing these things out so that people don't get sidetracked on other issues.
robb - I understand. Its just that I hear it all the time from Goverment types...our budget HAS to increase to pay for increases in wages, benefits, utilities, etc....
Actaully the budgets do not HAVE to increase. It just takes strong willed elected government officials who are not in the pocket of government employee.
It's a bit hard to decrease the utilities bill. Heat, water, and electricity are more or less fixed costs without some massive remodeling. About the only option there would be to sell a building or two (and who would buy it?). As for the personnel issues, they can't decrease retirement costs for those who are already retired. That would be a breach of faith. But they can reduce the amount they will pay for the future retirees (which they have done some of through the changes in PERS/TRS the state has implemented).
What the regents are probably complaining about is how the state won't fund these huge projects that they have in mind (new biosciences building, etc).
robb - there are other options. Like getting rid of useless professors and staff. Cutting salaries. Cut overhead. The private sector does it every day. Granted the University system has greater challenges since by tenuring professors after such a short period of time. Time to make changes.
Oh yeah one other thing that might help. Try to ecnourage your employees to not actively campaign against the further development of resources that provides the vast majority of the funding for the university system!
Ironic, isn't it? The legislature gave the U of A land, but Knowles vetoed it. Then they gave it again, and the greenies sued to stop it. These same people...liberals, basically...are the ones whining about not enough support for the university system. I say don't give that place another dime. The liberals can't have it both ways - crying about funding but sueing to stop the land transfers. Some of you have mentioned the constitution. The constitution says develop the land to support our public institutions!
If only the university would stop burning fossil fuel, then I would concider them a credible source for global warming speak.
"77% percent increase between 2000 and 2007"
Well, considering the cost of nearly everything has doubled in that same time frame, a 77% increase does not seem so bad.
Well, considering the cost of nearly everything has doubled in that same time frame, a 77% increase does not seem so bad.
-----------------------
Get real.
CPI inflation between 2000 and 2007 was 20%.
Power of the Poo: 20% inflation. A 15%+ increase in enrollment. A tripling in the cost of fuel. All these things add up. A 77% increase may be too much, but it's hardly the skyrocket you've tried so desperately to portray.
I know full well it doesn't matter what the truth is here. You will continue to see things through your blinders of ignorance.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.