|
Mother,
May I?
Public
universities squander untold millions running
routine proposals through administrators in
Richmond. A chartered university law would spare
them much of the red tape.
A
few years ago, every time the president of
the College of William and Mary--America's second-oldest university--wanted to erect a temporary riser on campus
for a special event, he had to seek permission
from a state bureaucrat in Richmond.
Thankfully,
that sort of annoying “Mother, May I?”
regulation has been abandoned (as long as he sends
a list of events at the start of the year), but
the more expensive and inflexible regulations that
stifle growth remain–-and are the subject of the
“Chartered University” concept now being
discussed in the Commonwealth (see "More
Than Money," July 12, 2004).
In
a nutshell, the Chartered
University
idea would give any of Virginia’s
15 four-year higher education institutions more
financial flexibility and regulatory freedom. Universities would receive the
institutional agility necessary to attract more
research funding, accommodate increased student
growth, and more efficiently and effectively
secure cost savings that could hold down tuition
increases or strengthen university programs.
Sadly,
Governor Warner has been reluctant to endorse this
move towards 21st century Higher
Education governance--despite similar moves to
grant university flexibility in other states,
among them Massachusetts, Texas, Arizona,
and North Dakota. In fact, Virginia has already
granted virtual independence at the
University
of Virginia and Virginia
Commonwealth
University
teaching hospitals in recognition of the
adaptability needed in modern medicine. Education in this new century is no
different.
Accountability
would still remain, in the form of boards
appointed by and accountable to the Governor with
oversight reports still submitted to the General
Assembly and to state agencies.
But
a carefully-crafted individualized charter
agreement- a contract between the state and the
university-–could go a long way towards
expanding Virginians’ accessibility to higher
education by enabling universities to enhance
financial aid packages and supply additional
funding to accommodate the burgeoning number of Virginia
high school seniors.
Unfortunately,
this last point appears to have unnerved some
state conservatives who view “additional
funding” as a surrogate for “higher taxes.”
As one put it:
“Somehow, somewhere, the taxpayer is
going to be screwed by this scheme.”
But
the argument is even clearer that taxpayers are already
ill-served by the current scheme of
over-regulation on state university functions. University construction programs are
hamstrung by procedures requiring approval from Richmond
for every project or change in that project--adding
20 percent or more to the cost of construction and
creating significant project delays.
For
example, one state college has complained that the
cost of a simple roof replacement skyrocketed by
$40,000 because of interference from Richmond.
Longwood
University’s
replacement of its Rotunda (destroyed by fire) was
delayed by months because of the need to route
everything through the bureaucrats.
George
Mason
University
arranged for its partner foundation to build its
most recent dormitory building. By using private
funds, the Northern
Virginia
campus avoided the “two-fisted supervision”
that squanders so much state money coming out of
Richmond.
Result: The
building was completed five months early at a
savings of $7 million. The downside, of course, is that private
foundations aren’t in a position to do that
everywhere, on every building--so the waste of
taxpayer money goes on and on.
Under
a charter, colleges would have the option of
managing their own Human Resource, Information
Technology and Financial Management operations,
and would be permitted to invest all tuition, fees
and other locally generated money and plow the
investment yield back into the university--currently
the state grabs the funds and doles it back to the
colleges--all of which imposes a market discipline
currently lacking in college management.
In
the end, the battle over the chartered
universities proposal comes down to a battle over
control, and whether that control should be
centralized in
Richmond
or responsibility placed at the university level. Those who believe that accountability and
responsibility should go hand in hand, who support
placing decision-making closest to the customer,
and who know from experience there is nothing
magical about edicts from the state capitol should
have no doubt about what needs to be done.
--
November 29, 2004
|
