University President Dave Frohnmayer came before the University Senate on Wednesday afternoon to discuss Gov. John Kitzhaber’s proposed higher education budget.
The budget proposal recommends $94.3 million less than what the Oregon University System requested for the 2001-2003 funding biennium and has left many administrators and educators worried the state’s universities will be left scrambling to cover holes in their programs.
Senate President and English Professor James Earl introduced Frohnmayer by saying reports of the budget situation have left an atmosphere of “upcoming crisis” hanging over the University.
Frohnmayer began his speech by saying painting an accurate picture of the budget at this early stage is like “nailing Jell-O to a wall,” because after a budget passes through the legislative wringer, it rarely resembles its first draft.
Despite assuring the crowd of about 100 faculty members that he was not being alarmist, Frohnmayer could not say the budget proposal was the best for higher education.
“I can not tell you, notwithstanding my long friendship with the governor, that I am encouraged by his budget,” he said. “The budget that has been proposed is not, in my view, satisfactory.”
While making clear that he was not criticizing Gov. Kitzhaber’s efforts to balance the state’s budget, Frohnmayer also said those in higher education “intend to fight for the best budget we can find.”
The aspects of the budget proposal that most concerned Frohnmayer were the drop in funding and a planned tuition increase that will end a four-year tuition freeze. Frohnmayer said the amount of the tuition increase is still unknown, but he added higher education officials will work to ensure that it will not overprice a college education or hurt university revenue.
To help explain the budget situation to the group of assembled educators, Frohnmayer went to the blackboard in 100 Willamette Hall to dissect how higher education funding is currently appropriated.
He used diagrams to illustrate how the funding drop will hurt specific programs based on a system of the lowest to highest cost. Many specific budget request items like the Bend branch campus and engineering education improvement request, however, are not likely to be affected by the budget process because of the political weight of their backers.
David Conley, an education professor who has worked on several state education funding projects, told the faculty members a “policy dynamics” change following the passage of Measure 5 has left Oregon’s varied education systems squabbling over different sections of the budget pie.
“Higher Ed is definitely impacted by this change,” he said. “We are in direct competition with K-12.”
Conley also said it has become clear that Kitzhaber would like to make K-12 the hallmark of his education legacy in this, his last term of office.
Frohnmayer concluded his speech by asking the faculty members to impart on their legislators the importance of the University in the Southern Willamette valley, and how fewer resources for the school could mean negative economic impacts on the rest of the area.
Most in the crowd left after Frohnmayer delivered his speech, but those who stayed heard a report by Vice Provost for Research Richard Linton, who heads up the Riverfront Research Park. He said the University has made great gains in its quest to open up venues for entrepreneurial professors who want to place their discoveries on the open market through the park.
Professors questioned why the University has not declared open space off-limits to future development when there is a movement in the city of Eugene to open up a green space area along both banks of the Willamette flowing through downtown. Linton said that it was in the best interest of the University to leave all options open in regards to the research park.