After originally looking at a plan that would have raised tuition and fees by 3.7 percent for 2007-08 at two-year campuses and 4.2 percent at four-year campuses, the MnSCU Board of Trustees will consider using money previously earmarked for technology upgrades to hold down those rates of increase for the next two school years.
Wait a second here!
Four POINT-TWO percent? The message was communicated all year long from MnSCU and campus comptrollers that the maximum tuition increase was going to be four percent and no larger. Not to be a nit, but after all of these years of double-digit tuition increase can someone tell me why students have to be nickel-and-dimed after all sorts of promises were given regarding tuition relief? Honestly this is what I was scared of.
The press and legislators all widely reported that tuition increases would be "limited" to four percent each year of the biennium. Unfortunately, the language of the bill said the following:
9.10It is the expectation of the legislature that the
9.11board will hold tuition increases to no more
9.12than four percent per year for fiscal years
9.132008 and 2009.
This sounds like "do this, or else!" This doesn't sound like a tuition cap and it doesn't sound like one because, well, it isn't. The initial House higher-ed bill had tuition increases capped at two percent the first year and zero percent the following year. The Senate, however, refused to budge because of potential fiscal emergancies, as Sen. Sandy Pappas put it, because "their technology is so antiquated and you never know when the whole system might crash."
Is it? Well according to the article in the Star Tribune, the $63 million allocation may goto tuition relief. Not everyone was on-board with the technology allocation anyway, with perhaps the most vocal opponent being Rep. Gene Pelowski (DFL-Winona), who continuously brought up the fact that 70 new employees would be added to the MnSCU central office with this allocation, further increasing the bureaucracy at MnSCU.
I hope this proposal passes and that tuition increases can be kept to 3.5 percent at four-year state universities. I still think it is funny, though, that a decrease of an increase is a "win." With the double-digit increases this decade that essentially balanced the state budget on the shoulders of students, tuition increases (or even a decrease!) should be lower than inflation to provide for relief.
This issue will be decided (or it might have already been decided by the time I write this) by the MnSCU board of trustees. Soon, Michael Boulton's term will end as four-year state university student to the board and a replacement will have to be appointed.
Make no mistake about it: this is NOT a worthless, throwaway position. State college university students have the unique opportunity (is there even one like it elsewhere in the nation?) to serve as members of the board of trustees.
Not as "delegates" or "student advisors," but as actual full voting members. Mr. Boulton even served in a leadership role as treasurer of the board. This appointment is far too important to have partisan politics play the most important role in who the appointee is.
In the interest in full disclosure, I know all three candidates, Ezra Kazee, Adam Weigold and Luke Hellier, personally. I have gotten to know Ezra Kazee over the years at the Winona State campus and he has been a tremendous advocate for students in regards to disabilities, free speech and expression and other areas, and if there is a such thing as a "MnSCU policy wonk," he is it.
I have gotten to know Adam Weigold in our time serving the Minnesota State University Student Association where he served on the board of directors and I served as a member of the delegates assembly. He has been a tireless advocate in the areas of fiscal responsibility, and, while I don't always agree with his positions regarding them, academic freedom and the "academic bill of rights." He is however a conservative and I disagree unapologetically with some of his policy positions and his support of some candidates in the past (particularly Gil Gutknecht), and this is exactly my point.
THIS APPOINTMENT SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT PARTISANSHIP!
I have never worked with Luke Hellier in any sort of student government or political position and in fact I know him through a completely different realm: professional wrestling.
Yes, I ring announced for his father, Ed Hellier, who promoted Steel Domain Wrestling, which ran shows at venues like the West St. Paul Armory and Treasure Island Casino and had a weekly Saturday afternoon television show on KSTC 45. Luke, much younger back then, served as a referee named "Frank Stool."
Even a half-decade or more ago when I was first getting to know Luke and his family, it was clear that they were GOP through and through. I even remember Luke wearing a "Tim Pawlenty for Governor" t-shirt in 2002 following an event in West St. Paul. And that's all fine, as long as his support of the GOP is not the major factor regarding this appointment.
I have not spoken with Luke regarding this situation, so even I do not know his motivations are and will not assume what they are here. Having said that, it is clear though that this position is too important to be manned by someone wanting to beef up a resume, have political glory or to enjoy added benefits surrounding the position such as travel (as far as this one is concerned, pay is not one of them; trustees are only reimbursed for expenses). These are all reasons why students are often attracted to these types of positions.
The fact that Luke never even approached MSUSA for a recommendation, I believe, raises questions about his motivation in seeking this position. As someone involved in the process of selecting candidates for this recommendation (MSUSA could recommend between two and four), the organization would have given him fair consideration after giving him a chance to state his reasons for applying and to answer questions. Maybe he couldn't attend that particular MSUSA conference that weekend in March? A conference call could have been arranged, which actually did occur for another candidate.
What is important is this: if questions such as the one's Hal raised are not answered before the appointment occurs and Luke's motivations made clear (as someone who has yet to attend a state college or university), they will have to be answered afterward, perhaps by the media, which would be nothing short of embarrassing for a governor who is trying to increase his national political spotlight. |
