arblogger.com

(Cross-posted from Michigan Liberal) 

         As I’ve noted to some friends, the elitist and segregative idea of putting the three self-declared “research universities” (UM, MSU, WSU) in a special silver-platter tier above other Michigan universities is not a good idea, cf. the ruffled feathers already in this 3/1 Freep article, 

         “…Treating the state’s Big Three of higher education differently than its other 12 public universities is unsettling for some educators who fear they may get a smaller slice of the pie.
         “There’s a finite amount of money in the higher education pot; we all understand that. And the state is strapped. We all understand that, too,” said Freman Hendrix, the chief government relations officer for Eastern Michigan University. “The universities are all trying to inoculate themselves from budget cuts. But to do that at the expense of other universities would not be a good thing.”
         Others said splitting appropriations would increase competition between the top universities and the state’s other schools.
         “We all want more money,” said Greg Rosine, vice president of legislative affairs for Western Michigan University. “It’s disheartening to watch some universities want to pull away from others….
         Rosine and Hendrix both pointed out that the 12 smaller universities serve two-thirds of the students in the state. …” 

         Perhaps the “top universities” should drop the attitude and focus on their own problems instead, e.g., giving UM CFO Timothy Slottow an outrageous 41% raise last year. That’s right, 41%, in the middle of a state fiscal crisis.
         Some of these college people simply can’t be trusted much with state money, unless they agree to keep admin salary and other expenses WAY down. 

         Are Dems themselves able to do this, though?
 

         Dillon’s dilly of an example 

         Look at this in DetNews today, House Democrats want to trim lawmakers’ lifetime health care, 

         “Future lawmakers wouldn’t be able to count on getting free health care coverage at age 55 after leaving office under cost-cutting measures unveiled Monday.
         House Democratic leaders told reporters that they want to end the legislative perk for future lawmakers. They also want to require current lawmakers and House employees to pay the same health care premiums other state employees pay. …
         House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford, said the state constitution bans taking away the health care benefit from current lawmakers because they’ve already been promised the coverage. …
         But future lawmakers would have to pay for that coverage if legislation is passed changing the benefit. …” 

         Wow. 

         Now THAT’s what I’m talking about. And if Dems are courageous enough to cut their own expenses, they can certainly cut other bloated state expenses as well.
         Thank you Speaker Dillon and other Dem leaders! 

         (By the way, I think Dillon is not doing that badly, re wizardkitten’s post with a different opinion; see also my recent post Visit from House Speaker Andy Dillon! (… “but where’s Steve Tobocman?”) for some other thought on Dillon and the budget process etc.)

         Popular opinion on waste of state money by universities 

         But never mind me: look at this comment below the Freep article I link to above (and there are many similar comments),

- - -
“mkennedy15
Joined: 15 Feb 2007

Posts: 6

Location: Davison, MI

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:57 am  Post subject: Cut Your Outrageous Salaries and Bonuses
——————————————————————————–
Maybe the key to recovery is to cut the outrageous salaries and bonuses to these

university presidents and directories. _________________

Have a great day!!
- - - 

         Michiganders know well that there is plenty of waste in higher education, especially on the administrative end.
         (And don’t get me started on UM-Ann Arbor not being fully audited by the state Auditor General in 23 years or so, from what I hear; and the bloated $200-million-plus Michigan Stadium luxury box project which *is discriminating against*  

DISABLED MILITARY VETERANS, 

see the Michigan Daily article Vets vow lawsuit on stadium: Group ups rhetoric, calls on ‘U’ to add more seats for disabled. 

         Do the Dems, including the Governor, want to associate themselves with the kind of university administration that makes these kinds of embarrassing moves, consistently? What’s the upside? (Besides flattering the egos of some college presidents whom I shall not name at the moment…)

         Julie jumps ship 

         Some UM admins, by the way, may be seeing the potential wreckage and swimming away, see the Mich. Daily, Interim VP for Communications jumps ship, ”The University of Chicago announced today that it has hired Julie Peterson, the University of Michigan’s interim vice president for communications, as its vice president for communications.
         [the following portion was cut from the article, but is still visible in the Google cache here:]” …It seems the University is having a hard time retaining its top public relations officials. Perhaps contentious University decisions like the University’s response to Proposal 2 and the plan to renovate Michigan Stadium have made the job difficult and unattractive. …”
 

         Scrapping the segregative system, plus solutions 

         The “two-tier college system” should not be implemented (even if the three research universities would still get much of the funding they want); we don’t need a horrible system of second-class citizenship for most Mich state colleges.
         If the Dems and Gov wanted to kill two birds with one stone, they could, without having to create the two-tier status-segregated system at all,

a. increase research funding for the “Big Three” schools (and others, too: I’m sure SOME research happens at the other schools), 

but also 

b. announce that there should be a crackdown/investigation on the outrageous waste etc. at Michigan schools, which might include among its solutions/conclusions
  

1. agreed-on salary caps for university administrators;
2. better treatment of our heroic disabled military veterans;
3. more government scrutiny of unnecessary school construction projects;
4. a full audit of UM-Ann Arbor for the first time in decades;
5. etc.  

         I don’t see what would stop the Dems/Gov from doing this, or something like it. They would look

a. pro-research and pro-education 

and ALSO 

b. pro-fiscal hawk and pro-”average taxpayer”.  

         What would they have to lose? 

         In conclusion: these are difficult economic times, but that demands *more* cracking down on unnecessary luxuries and waste, not *less*. That way we have *more* resources left to give to necessities like research, tuition reduction, and other key parts of higher education, to move the state forward. And forward is where we all want to go, is it not?

 

This entry was posted on Monday, March 5th, 2007 at 5:29 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.