Slog Comments
Why Won't Washington's University Presidents Step Up and Take the Lead on Higher Education Funding?
1
It would certainly be helpful for our University presidents to advocate for new revenue as a way to restore funding for higher education and stop tuition hikes.
This year student leaders from all of the public four-year institutions have put new and dedicated revenue at the top of our legislative agenda, through the Washington Student Association. We realize that with a $900 million budget shortfall and a $1 billion price tag for the McCleary ruling for K-12 education, new revenue, such as a capital gains tax, is the only way to restore funding.
UW students held a press conference in November on this subject. Read about it here: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsno….
Voters and families need to realize that having great public services like Universities and community colleges costs sometimes requires raising revenue, but it's an investment that's worth it.
Melanie Mayock
Vice President, UW Graduate and Professional Student Senate
This year student leaders from all of the public four-year institutions have put new and dedicated revenue at the top of our legislative agenda, through the Washington Student Association. We realize that with a $900 million budget shortfall and a $1 billion price tag for the McCleary ruling for K-12 education, new revenue, such as a capital gains tax, is the only way to restore funding.
UW students held a press conference in November on this subject. Read about it here: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsno….
Voters and families need to realize that having great public services like Universities and community colleges costs sometimes requires raising revenue, but it's an investment that's worth it.
Melanie Mayock
Vice President, UW Graduate and Professional Student Senate
2
It would certainly be helpful for our University presidents to advocate for new revenue as a way to restore funding for higher education and stop tuition hikes.
This year student leaders from all of the public four-year institutions have put new and dedicated revenue at the top of our legislative agenda, through the Washington Student Association. We realize that with a $900 million budget shortfall and a $1 billion price tag for the McCleary ruling for K-12 education, new revenue, such as a capital gains tax, is the only way to restore funding.
UW students held a press conference in November on this subject. Read about it here: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsno….
Voters and families need to realize that having great public services like Universities and community colleges costs sometimes requires raising revenue, but it's an investment that's worth it.
Melanie Mayock
Vice President, UW Graduate and Professional Student Senate
This year student leaders from all of the public four-year institutions have put new and dedicated revenue at the top of our legislative agenda, through the Washington Student Association. We realize that with a $900 million budget shortfall and a $1 billion price tag for the McCleary ruling for K-12 education, new revenue, such as a capital gains tax, is the only way to restore funding.
UW students held a press conference in November on this subject. Read about it here: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/politicsno….
Voters and families need to realize that having great public services like Universities and community colleges costs sometimes requires raising revenue, but it's an investment that's worth it.
Melanie Mayock
Vice President, UW Graduate and Professional Student Senate
4
@3
Like when the former UW provost and the former UW president (now head of the NCAA) picked up a few hundred extra thousand bucks for sitting on corporate boards of directors?
I'm thinking that certain well-paid administrators don't have an interest one raising taxes, especially when it affects those who are well-paid.
Like when the former UW provost and the former UW president (now head of the NCAA) picked up a few hundred extra thousand bucks for sitting on corporate boards of directors?
I'm thinking that certain well-paid administrators don't have an interest one raising taxes, especially when it affects those who are well-paid.
5
Odd question, given that the present prez at UW clerked for Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, and the position now occupied by the last prez of UW, Marky Mark....
7
This is one of the more practical and on-topic suggestions i have seen for a while. As another poster mentioned, the main job of a u prez is considered fundraising... to which tax rates are absolutely apropos. And frankly, they have very little to lose compared to elected politicians on this issue.
Taxes per se have been reviled and vilified for too long. Of course excessive taxes or unfair ones are bad; but there needs to be a concerted effort to aknowledge that taxes can do real good for real people, and are a vital part of our society and everything we collectively hold dear.
I look forward to politicians being able to run on a platform of rational tax increases and allocations, instead of hysterical proclamations about the gov'mt taking YOUR money. ...
Taxes per se have been reviled and vilified for too long. Of course excessive taxes or unfair ones are bad; but there needs to be a concerted effort to aknowledge that taxes can do real good for real people, and are a vital part of our society and everything we collectively hold dear.
I look forward to politicians being able to run on a platform of rational tax increases and allocations, instead of hysterical proclamations about the gov'mt taking YOUR money. ...
8
As @4 notes, university presidents get their palms greased all the time by corporations.
Here's my suggestion: make their detailed calendars public. They claim to spend 60-70% of their time schmoozing; let people know whom they're schmoozing, how, and how often.
Yes, I know that "development" types get nervous that publicity will scare donors away. Maybe the potential donors who would be embarrassed at the extent to which they attempt to pull the strings in higher education SHOULD be scared away.
Here, read up on what the Dayton Daily News was able to dig up about Ohio State president Gordon Gee's compensation and expenses ($16.3 million since October 2007):
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news…
Here's my suggestion: make their detailed calendars public. They claim to spend 60-70% of their time schmoozing; let people know whom they're schmoozing, how, and how often.
Yes, I know that "development" types get nervous that publicity will scare donors away. Maybe the potential donors who would be embarrassed at the extent to which they attempt to pull the strings in higher education SHOULD be scared away.
Here, read up on what the Dayton Daily News was able to dig up about Ohio State president Gordon Gee's compensation and expenses ($16.3 million since October 2007):
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news…
...The university spends tens of thousands of dollars alone branding Gee around his signature bow ties. Since 2007, Ohio State has spent more than $64,000 on bow ties, bow tie cookies and O-H and bow tie pins for Gee and others to distribute, the newspaper found.
“It’s a nice icebreaker. The freshmen show up on campus and President Gee hands them a cookie. They love it. The students love it,” OSU spokesman Jim Lynch said. He noted that people show off their Buckeye pride with O-H lapel pins all across the country.
Gee did not make himself available for an interview...
9
@7 In Washington State, in order to run on RATIONAL tax increases, you have to change the tax system. Right now we run the most regressive tax system, and in writing letters to our legislator I discovered they have barely a plan to fix the regression. They're dependent on one type of tax to fix the regression: capital gains taxes. Which makes me laugh. There isn't enough money in that to cover the regressive gap that we have in this state.
But, I'm trying to be rational about it, and have no hope for anybody in our state senate to touch this topic in a manner that will actually benefit their constituency and may hurt their donations.
But, I'm trying to be rational about it, and have no hope for anybody in our state senate to touch this topic in a manner that will actually benefit their constituency and may hurt their donations.
10
There might be a relatively weak explanation for their silence on revenue: State employees aren't supposed to use their positions to advocate for any position that could be interpreted as political while on the job or while using state resources.
So technically they are prohibited from purposefully advocating for higher taxes.
The Governor's budget office, and then the legislature, will send out test balloons to the public institutions "Plan for a 20% reduction in state support and a 15% reduction and a 10% reduction."
Then as the legislature meets, they convene meetings with the presidents who tell them what they will have to give up in the various scenarios. At which point, the legislative education committees turn a deaf ear and cut. This is followed by a listing of the salaries of top officials at the various institutions or their football coaches, if they have a football team, or comments about the uselessness of liberal arts by people who cannot spell. Repeat year after year, probably more than once a year as there are take backs.
Washington has never really had a legislature that values higher education and the presidents know this. If the president is relatively new to the state, there are plenty of people in his or her top group of leaders who is aware of this fact. So advocating for higher taxes will get you a ethics violation fine and no where with the legislature.
So technically they are prohibited from purposefully advocating for higher taxes.
The Governor's budget office, and then the legislature, will send out test balloons to the public institutions "Plan for a 20% reduction in state support and a 15% reduction and a 10% reduction."
Then as the legislature meets, they convene meetings with the presidents who tell them what they will have to give up in the various scenarios. At which point, the legislative education committees turn a deaf ear and cut. This is followed by a listing of the salaries of top officials at the various institutions or their football coaches, if they have a football team, or comments about the uselessness of liberal arts by people who cannot spell. Repeat year after year, probably more than once a year as there are take backs.
Washington has never really had a legislature that values higher education and the presidents know this. If the president is relatively new to the state, there are plenty of people in his or her top group of leaders who is aware of this fact. So advocating for higher taxes will get you a ethics violation fine and no where with the legislature.
11
Higher ed is a scam as now organized. Anyone with half a brain should do it online. Western Governors University is the wave of the future.
12
A pay-cut for university presidents would be a good start. This lack of leadership is nothing new for them...Most of their staff and VPs do all the heavy lifting, while they go out and play golf. What do we need these guys for again? Oh right, academia is structured off the fuedal lord system. Maybe it is time for an update of how higher education is structured.
13
They're complaining about Gregoire's budget because it's the only one in sight right now. But they know that it means nothing since Inslee will be issuing his own budget, and he's committed (so far) to no new revenue. They're simply waiting to see what the weather's like after he's in office.
14
I'm not sure we should expect different when we pay the university president enough to put them into the top 1%.
15
Any state university in a half decent or even desirable state like Washington makes more money per seat if it brings in a foreign student at maximum tuition, usually associated with some dictatorship, in at full price than selling it to the son or daughter of some local accountant.
16
This is probably a stupid question, but what prevents us from making pay cuts to the top earners in universities? It seems absurd to me that students are asked to make up the gap first, via increased tuition, and not someone making 400k a year. And I presume the other executives make close to that.
Would no one take that job at 100k a year? I'm legitimately asking, as I continue to read about increases for students, cuts for bottom rung employees, but nothing but bonuses and life as usual for people making bank.
Would no one take that job at 100k a year? I'm legitimately asking, as I continue to read about increases for students, cuts for bottom rung employees, but nothing but bonuses and life as usual for people making bank.
Comments (16) RSS