|
|
Tired
of unpredictable politics and unstable state
appropriations, Virginia Tech, the University
of
Virginia
and the
College
of William and Mary campaigned
hard in 2004 to gain more power to control
revenues and expenses, enrollments, faculty
positions, financial aid and research efforts.
Entering the 2005 session of the General Assembly,
Virginia’s oldest
universities hoped to win charter status.
But lots of things
happened on the way to Charterland. The fears of
some newer public institutions, faculties and
staff prompted the General Assembly to open the
change process to every public college and
university, not just the three national list
toppers. Weighing relative financial strength and
the capability to manage operations, legislators
suggested three levels of autonomy, each more
progressive, as an alternative to charter status.
Institutions are to negotiate their levels of
autonomy even as they develop six-year academic,
financial and enrollment plans starting this year.
Those
still working from the Dillon Rule, “State
Government Knows Best” school of management
responded that the institutions detail plans for
meeting statewide objectives and accept
accountability measures, guarantee student access
and keep a college education in Virginia
affordable. The criteria include expanding degrees awarded, not just
enrollments, and working actively to improve
public schools and fill shortages in specific
academic disciplines, professions and geographic
regions of
Virginia.
University leaders have been trying to
get thrown into that briar patch after a difficult
decade of tuition freezes, tuition reductions and
tuition increases either demanded or driven by
General Assembly budget wars. By agreeing to these
benchmarks, state institutions of higher learning
also accomplished what wrestling fans know as
reversal and back points in the process. The
General Assembly for the first time will be
accountable to the same measures and benchmarks,
which could drive a positive consensus on the
future of higher education in Virginia.
None of the parties under the new plan
can just sit back with a “wait and see what kind
of revenues come in next year” attitude. The
financial plans required will include anticipated
tuition and fee increases where any shortfalls in
state general fund support occur. The Assembly
also promises some incentives to the institutions
that meet the benchmarks, including paying
interest on tuition and fees held in the state
treasury, allowing a carry forward of appropriated
funds to the next fiscal year and sharing a pro
rata share of rebates on Commonwealth credit card
purchases.
Remember why there was a charter campaign
in the first place. The landscape of higher
education is rapidly changing and increasingly
competitive. As is the case in the private sector,
state universities and colleges need to make
business decisions more rapidly on the one hand
and more strategically on the other. Procurement,
personnel and capital outlay are three areas that
offer prospects for efficiencies if managed more
closely at the institutional level. Current
practice, for example, calls for each institution
to dispose of surplus property through state
government instead of locally and for all
institutions to mirror state agency performance
pay plans. More local decision-making promises
both savings and added investment in institutional
priorities. Post audits by university internal
auditors, the Auditor of Public Accounts and the
Joint Legislative and Audit Review Commission will
replace some inefficient prior approval and
reporting requirements.
The broad goal is to create a new
management model for higher education in Virginia
centered on boards of visitors and institutional
leaders, who are both in charge and accountable to
the Commonwealth. This also works to make the
General Assembly and Governor more accountable to
the institutions through memoranda of
understanding. Such a model will allow multi-year
plans to support more faculty, more financial aid
for students and more research dollars that help
create jobs and generate indirect support funds
for facilities, equipment and graduate assistants.
Together, the plans generated by universities,
colleges and community colleges will make
realistic coordination of enrollments, tuition,
fees and financial aid possible and keep
institutions viable, growing and competitive for
the long term. The model allows predictable
adjustments as necessary to pre-paid tuition
plans, such as the Virginia College Savings Plan.
The challenge ahead, of course, is for
Virginia’s public universities, colleges and
community colleges to keep those three levels of
autonomy from turning into Dante’s circles of
hell, in which boards of visitors and academic
leaders endlessly churn out strategic plans that
change nothing. “Be careful how you negotiate”
was the dinnertime advice from the chairman of the
board of supervisors of a large Virginia county
last week to the president of a large Virginia
university. Counties, cities and towns in Virginia
know firsthand how severe the limitations of a
gaining just a little state permission to do just
a few little things can be.
Insiders expect Gov. Mark R. Warner to
tweak the final legislation produced under the
patronage of Del. Vince Callahan, R-McLean, and
Sen. Thomas Norment, R-Williamsburg, before the
General Assembly returns April 6 for its one-day
“Veto Session.” And the State Council on
Higher Education in Virginia will have a
continuing responsibility to review the plans of
each institution and ensure gaps don’t open up
statewide. But the spirit of cooperation
engendered by a common understanding of goals,
objectives and excellence with roots in the
charter campaign is what will keep the levels of
autonomy from degenerating into new levels of
frustration. Then every Virginian can win.
--
February 28, 2005
|
