Higher
Education
Partnership
Volume 3 Issue
In support of and working together with
Alabama A & M Univ
Alabama State Univ
Univ of Alabama
Univ of Ala at Bham
Univ of Ala at Huntsville
Auburn Univ
Auburn Univ at Mtgy
Jacksonville State Univ
Univ.of Montevallo
Univ of North Alabama
Univ of South Alabama
Troy State Univ
Troy State Univ Dothan
Troy State Univ Mtgy
Univ of West Alabama
Inside this Issue
Partnership meets membership challenge
Partnership Update
Partnership Update |
1999 LEGISLATIVE
SESSION IN REVIEW
The 1999 legislative session was a success for Alabama's 15 public universities! The hard work of the university lobbyists was a critical part of the accomplishments. They are to be congratulated for the 1999 session. Additionally, the presence of the Higher Education Partnership's grassroots network was an obvious strength that helped the universities accomplish more in 1999.
Lottery
The Partnership began
the year by announcing that it would aggressively work to see
that the lottery proposals were in the best interests of the
state's four-year, public universities.
The lottery bills, which are
the cornerstone in the Siegelman Administration's plan for education,
were introduced with many features that were pleasing to the
universities. The Partnership, which was the first, statewide
organization to endorse the people's right to vote on the lottery,
had an opportunity to provide input during the development of
the initial lottery bills.
However, while the bills traveled through the legislative process,
they underwent politically-motivated changes. The changes had
the impact of endangering many of the pro-university features.
Nevertheless, as a result of a cooperative relationship between
the Partnership, the Siegelman Administration, Mr. Rick Dent
(an expert on the Georgia Lottery who served as the Partnership's
consultant), and the university lobbyists, the final products
allow the universities to achieve the necessary outcome.
While there are still issues to be resolved once the lottery is passed and the regulations are developed, the Partnership is pleased to have been able to advocate for the university issues like merit-based scholarships and to help prevent a raid on the scholarship proposal that would have taken much of the benefit away from the universities.
Now, it is important that the Partnership continue to build strong relationships with all of the lottery proponents so the university positions can be effectively included in the regulations.
Currently, the universities have the opportunity to benefit from the technology funding to be generated by the lottery. This is a change that the Partnership was able to advocate during the drafting of the lottery bills. Other good things can be achieved. Therefore, the Partnership will continue to advocate for the lottery as a first step in addressing the long-term funding concerns of the universities.
Funding
At the beginning of
the 1999 legislative session, the Higher Education Partnership
announced support for funding the requests that the Council of
College and University Presidents had forwarded to the legislature.
The governor and the legislative leadership were asked by the
universities to improve higher education funding in three areas.
The following is an issue-by-issue
analysis of what happened with each item:
1. The universities asked for funding for the increased costs
of retirement that will start in 1999-2000. While issues are
still unresolved for the University of Alabama at Birmingham
and the University of South Alabama, the majority of the universities
were pleased that their appropriations provided adequate funding
for the retirement cost increases. The retirement funding issue
was especially sticky because of the concern that legislators
might have an unrealistic expectation that Alabama had extra
revenue resulting from the Retirement Systems of Alabama’s
1998 accounting changes. Last year, the Partnership advocated
for legislators and other political leaders to realize that the
extra money was temporary. The good news is that the message
was heard.
2. The universities also asked for a 6% increase in their Operations and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations. While some calculations may vary, the majority of the analyses show that each of the universities accomplished this goal. Actually, some of the institutions were closer to a 7% increase. While a 6% increase is not enough to offset the serious cuts of the past four years, it is a good start. From 1995, when the James Administration suggested a 12% cut, the budget recommendations were a huge step forward for the universities. The Siegelman Administration is congratulated for proposing approximately a 6% increase.
3. The 1999 requests also included a call for the legislature to return to the two-thirds K-12 and one-third higher education formula for distributing the amount of new or growth money in the Education Trust Fund. The new or growth money describes the funds that are available for appropriations above the amount that was utilized in the previous budget cycle. Although final analysis remains, the distribution appears to be very close to following the traditional split. While no guarantee exists that the two-third/one-third distribution will continue, the guidelines set by the current legislature are encouraging.
Other Proposals
There are many aspects
of a successful legislative session. In addition to achieving
a number of stated funding goals, the universities also were
able to overcome some dangerous proposals
from other groups. One of the most controversial bills to be introduced during the 1999 legislative session was the proposal to raise K-12 teachers' salaries to the national level in a five-year period. While the Partnership supports the improvement of salaries for all of the state's educational employees, the mechanism proposed in this bill was fiscally unworkable. It would have consumed every dollar of growth in the Education Trust Fund for the next five years and would have set university funding on a backward spiral reminiscent of what happened during the previous four years.
Will this and other similar types of revenue funding challenges return in future legislative years? Absolutely, there will always be reasons for the universities to be alert for budget challenges. The growing pressure on revenue is illustrated by the cutbacks that occurred in Alabama's General Fund budget. The state lost over $100 million dollars in tax revenue due to a court decision overturning a significant portion of the franchise taxes on out-of-state businesses. This loss of funding could still wreak havoc on the Education Trust Fund. If legislative leaders decide to shift certain costs from the general fund to the education fund, Alabama's universities and their people will suffer.
The constant threat will continue as long as the state does not address the issue of tax-reform. Therefore, Alabama's public universities need to be prepared to defend and promote their work.
What is next?
In political circles,
it is important to build and preserve good relationships. Having
a positive relationship with Governor Don Siegelman and legislative
leaders like Speaker Seth Hammett, Representative Howard Hawk,
and Senator Hank Sanders made the success of 1999 a reality.
University supporters are very grateful for their strong endorsement
of higher education.
The Partnership is also pleased to have worked closely with the
university lobbyists and Mr. Gary Smith, Chair of the Higher
Education Governmental Affairs Council, to make the 1999 legislative
year a success. In addition, the Council of College and University
Presidents, led by its chair, Dr. William Harris, President of
Alabama State University, and its vice chair and chair-elect,
Dr. Jack Hawkins, Chancellor of the Troy State University System,
was a key participant in the success of the recent session. Dr.
Tennant McWilliams, Chair of the Partnership's Board of Directors,
and Dr. Robert McChesney, Chair of the Partnership Advisory Council,
are also to be congratulated for their outstanding leadership.
Making a difference for Alabama's universities requires teamwork. The university supporters within the Partnership form a great team. The example of Higher Education Day is a perfect illustration. The student leaders in the Student Government Associations and the Student Teams Advocating Realistic Solutions (STARS) groups played pivotal roles in Higher Education Day. Also, prominent during the day were the faculty and staff participants. Specifically, the faculty senate leaders at the universities and the University Relations offices on the campuses have helped spread the advocacy messages of the Partnership. All of these participants are vitally important! Finally, as the Partnership's membership grows, the advocacy strength of the universities improves. The need for continued work on the lottery and funding issues strengthens the case for growing the Partnership.
The recent success of the
membership campaign that was sponsored by Mr. Wallace Malone
is the first step in what needs to be a strong and constant push
for all university faculty, staff and students to join the Partnership.
Now is the time to prepare for 2002! Getting organized and building
membership numbers are the keys! For more information on how
you can help with each of these areas of interest, call or email
the Partnership.
P. O. Box 761, Montgomery, AL 36101-0761
334-832-9911Fax 334-832-9995