In the past weeks, I have seen quite a shake up in University leadership with the recent firing of President Richard Lariviere.
I will say that I understand the Oregon State Board of Higher Education’s rationale for not renewing Lariviere’s contract — the lack of trust between both parties, most especially. However, to me, his firing was surprising and, to say the least, rather unprofessional (“Let’s fire him so we don’t have to deal with Lariviere and his supporters anymore” is what it said to me).
I have been able to understand, too, why much of the community in and outside of the University has supported Lariviere during his short tenure here — most notably, with the pay raises he gave to faculty and the creation of the University Office of Public Records.
Personally, I have not had a chance to shake hands and speak one-on-one to Lariviere since he has been in office, as I had once done with former President Dave Frohnmayer. It is a powerful experience, no doubt, doing so. By all accounts — from news reports, comments, etc. — Lariviere seems like a genuinely nice guy with good intentions for the University.
But, all things considered, I think who he is and what the Board did and, ultimately, what the news media has covered is largely avoiding the elephant in the room, which Lariviere’s New Partnership plan touched on tangentially.
What Oregon’s universities need is money.
Lariviere is correct when he writes to the board that for the past 30 years, “public higher education in Oregon has experienced a continual decline in state funding and a continual increase in costs to students.”
Why is this?
The passage of Measure 5 in 1990 was a keystone in the shift of public education funding in the state. Though not entirely responsible for the shift, this measure was significant and represented a symptom of a much larger problem that began in the late 1960s.
First, local property taxes had been the main source of local funding outside higher ed, public education in this state for years up until 1990. According to the Oregon Department of Education, before Measure 5 was passed, 67 percent of local school districts’ funding came from property taxes with the rest largely made up by the State of Oregon from its general fund (money not only collected from personal income taxes but also used to fund higher education).
In the years after the measure’s passage, which capped the amount of money raised from a property’s assessed value, these source of funding percentages have flipped.
So in other words, money raised from local property taxes stagnated and funding for K-12 public education became more dependent on the state’s general fund — which decreased the amount of money allocated to, among other things, Oregon’s universities.
Second, in the late 1960s, homeowners paid over 25 percent of all Oregon property taxes collected, with businesses — including landlords — picking up the remaining percentage. By the late 1980s and before Measure 5, homeowners were carrying a larger property tax burden at 42 percent; they now pay 55 percent, with businesses and landlords paying the remaining 45 percent. Additionally, according to Willamette Week, Measure 5 also created tax breaks for out-of-state corporations with property in Oregon.@@http://www.nwlaborpress.org/1997/taxsystem.html@@
Overall, what this means is that the source of funding for education in Oregon has fallen more and more on the backs of an individual’s personal income tax, who may or may not own property.
This is quite a sizable shift from when businesses and landlords were paying the bulk of property taxes and where taxes collected from personal income were largely used for other public needs and services, including funding Oregon’s higher education institutions.
So, when the University community, the Board and media speak of all the problems with who did or didn’t do what, I think the conversation needs to shift in a different direction. This shift needs to be heading towards a discussion of a funding model that does not just benefit one university in a system with others while placing the burden more on students, their families and private donors — but to one that does the opposite.
To begin the process, repeal Measure 5 and start shifting the local property tax burden back onto businesses and landlords so more personal income taxes will be free to not only take better care of Oregonians but also free up more dollars for Oregon’s higher education — our University included. This is a win-win situation.
Bowers: Reform higher ed funding in wake of Lariviere’s firing
Daily Emerald
December 3, 2011
0
More to Discover