Kansas University Chancellor Robert Hemenway spoke to the Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on higher education Thursday. The following are his prepared remarks.
Senate Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Higher Education
Thursday, March 7, 2002
Room 123-S, State Capitol
Testimony by Robert Hemenway, chancellor, the University of Kansas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks today will be brief. I am joined by
executive vice chancellors Donald Hagen and Janet Murguia. Feel free to
direct questions to any of us for a response.
It’s my privilege to speak on behalf of the University of Kansas, a state
university whose reputation has never been stronger — nationally or
regionally — in four major categories.
Students: The quality of our student body, as measured by freshman test
scores, is increasing every year. For the past three years, we have ranked
among the top 10 public universities in the country in the number of
freshman National Merit Scholars we enroll. In addition, we’ve enrolled the
second- and third-largest freshman classes in our history the past two
years.
Faculty research: The amount of funded research we carry out has more than
doubled in the past decade, reaching $224 million in fiscal year 2001. That
amount is only slightly less than this year’s $243 million state
appropriation. We now rank 51st among all public universities in the amount
of federal grants received for science and engineering research.
Teaching: Excellent teaching is one outcome of achievement in research. At
KU, students are frequently taught by the professor who wrote the textbook,
rather than the professor who merely read the textbook. That’s a major
difference, in terms of the impact on students.
Service to the state: KU remains the state’s principal source of continuing
education for local law enforcement officers, firefighters and wastewater
treatment workers. Our Kansas Audio-Reader Network provides daily news
services to the blind and visually impaired statewide. The Robert J. Dole
Institute of Politics (now under construction) promises to be a national
focal point for timely discussion and research on a host of major public
affairs issues.
(And you may be aware that our men’s basketball team is doing rather well!)
Clearly, by many important measures, KU is stronger than it’s ever been. But
in other ways, it has seldom been more vulnerable. Why do I say that?
Here’s a case in point: As things now stand, KU faces a budget shortfall in
the coming year of $15.4 million. That’s a 6.4 percent reduction in funding,
the largest one-year reduction ever proposed for the University of Kansas.
There are two parts to that 6.4 percent cut: the previously announced $9.6
million (3.94 percent) base reduction and a less visible — but no less
damaging — $5.8 million (2.4 percent) obligation to pay unavoidable, fixed
employer costs, such as the annualization of current-year salary increases
and increased health insurance premiums.
These costs, which were funded in the budgets of all state agencies other
than the regents universities, won’t go away simply because the state
chooses to ignore them. They will have to be met by someone in some fashion.
Here’s the bottom line: To maintain our current level of services in fiscal
year 2003, the university would require $15.4 million in state funding. That
would erase the 3.94 percent base reduction and pay those fixed employer
costs.
If the legislature does nothing to resolve this shortfall, however, KU will
take a budget cut of historic proportions during fiscal year 2003, and it’s
a bigger cut than most other state agencies are being required to absorb. We
urge you to address the $15.4 million shortfall so that we can at least
maintain our current level of services during fiscal year 2003.
(Most Kansans would support maintaining the current level of services,
according to a recent statewide poll conducted by the Policy Research
Institute. When asked their preferences for state spending on state colleges
and universities, 52 percent of those surveyed favored keeping it at the
present level, while another 38 percent favored increased spending. Fewer
than 6 percent supported decreased spending.)
So we are not asking the state for a major new investment this year. But we
should all ask ourselves what permanent harm a 6.4 percent budget cut would
inflict on KU — a university whose research work, faculty expertise,
skilled graduates and national reputation make it a vital — but fragile —
resource for the state in terms of intellectual capital and economic
development.
At KU, we have experience in tightening our belts. For example, when we
construct a needed new building, it costs additional money to provide that
building with utilities, custodial services and other basic operating
expenses. Yet the last time we received state funding for this purpose was
in fiscal year 2000.
The newly renovated School of Education building, for instance, Pearson
Hall, opened in August 2000. Since fiscal year 2001, we have asked the state
without success for funding to cover its annual operating costs of about
$310,000. That’s a very real form of belt tightening.
What concerns me is that there seems to be a pattern of underfunding here.
Currently, state appropriations per student in the state of Kansas ranks
sixth among the seven Big 12 Conference states. Iowa, for example, has
provided 50 percent more state money per student than Kansas.
Or consider the level of state appropriations per student at KU
specifically. Adjusted for inflation, it has declined over the past 15
years. In fiscal year 2000, state support for our students was worth $667
less than it was in fiscal year 1985. It has since dropped by another $200
and would drop by another $400 in fiscal year 2003 under the existing budget
proposal.
The brunt of these shortfalls has been borne by the university, its faculty
and staff, and its students. Given these circumstances, it’s remarkable that
the University of Kansas continues to achieve at the level it does.
We cannot sustain that level, however, with “chewing gum and baling wire.”
Inevitably, the quality of a KU education is going to suffer if this pattern
of underfunding continues. We’ve run out of chewing gum and baling wire.
A recent series of articles in a Phoenix newspaper about Arizona’s budget
crisis put this issue in its proper perspective. According to a growing
number of state leaders there, Arizona “is committing slow economic suicide
by underfunding its universities in the face of fierce competition from
other states for the workers and revenues of today’s knowledge economy.” The
same can be said of Kansas.
Toward that end, we continue to urge this legislature to fully fund the
Board of Regents’ proposed 4.5 percent operating grant increase, as well as
the third year of the commitment made to our faculty under SB 345.
But enough of the present. What about the future? KU, along with Kansas
State University and Wichita State University, seeks bonding authority for a
major research building initiative on our campuses. The KU Medical Center
portion of the project already has a $27 million private commitment of
funding from the Hall Family Foundation. These projects are essential if the
state and its three largest universities are to fully realize their
potential as sources of economic development and service for our state and
nation.
I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of research facilities in
retaining good faculty. In the past month, the KU Medical Center has lost
two of its most distinguished and well-funded research scientists (i.e.,
Billy Hudson and S.K. Dey) because they did not have the equipment and
facilities they needed to take their research to the next level.
We cannot continue to suffer these kinds of losses. Students lose, patients
lose, and Kansas loses when such faculty leave because of better facilities
elsewhere.
Approval of the research initiative during this session is vital, as are the
budget restorations I’ve already touched on. But I would point out that the
required bonding authority for those projects involves no state funding
during fiscal year 2003. It is not a question of whether you should restore
budget cuts or pass the research initiative: We need both.
Failure to authorize the research initiative would be an irretrievably lost
opportunity for Kansas. The economic effects would reverberate to every
corner of our state.
Failure to address the $15.4 million shortfall would have more immediate
consequences, including layoffs of existing staff, fewer and more crowded
classes, the elimination or severe reduction of basic services for students
and the public, and the shutting down of some academic and outreach
programs.
It would also mean our students and faculty will use computer equipment
that’s out of date, our ability to support economic development activities
will be limited, and the overall quality of a KU education will decline for
current and future students.
Specifically, at Lawrence we anticipate meeting $9.5 million in budget cuts
by leaving unfilled, or eliminating, as many as 175 faculty and staff
positions. We would also cut departmental operating budgets and the
operating hours of certain museums and public service units.
At the KU Medical Center, we have already sought permission from the state
to begin a reduction in force this summer for classified employees. It’s
only a precautionary measure, but a $6 million budget reduction there will
likely require:
Last month, the editor of the Iola Register wrote about these issues more
clearly than I can, and I want to share them with you in closing. In an
editorial, he said:
“What a tragedy it will be if Kansas lawmakers can’t see beyond one year’s
recession-induced shortfall and focus instead on how vital excellent
universities are to the progress of Kansas and to the future of Kansas
students.
“The money invested in them every year pays dividends immediately and from
that point forward. And if they are allowed to reverse course and head
downhill, it will take years to repair the damage and regain forward
momentum.”
I know you and your colleagues face many difficult challenges this spring as
you act on the state’s budget. We at the university are public servants and
we will do our best. But we would be liars if we told you there would be no
ill effects.
As you proceed, I hope you’ll remember that this is a budget not only for
this year but for many years — and many lives — to come.
If we don’t find a way to support higher education adequately in Kansas, our
fate may be the “slow economic suicide” I spoke of a moment ago. I hope you
will not let that happen.
Kansas University Chancellor Robert Hemenway spoke to the Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on higher education Thursday. The following are his prepared remarks.
Senate Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Higher Education
Thursday, March 7, 2002
Room 123-S, State Capitol
Testimony by Robert Hemenway, chancellor, the University of Kansas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks today will be brief. I am joined by
executive vice chancellors Donald Hagen and Janet Murguia. Feel free to
direct questions to any of us for a response.
It’s my privilege to speak on behalf of the University of Kansas, a state
university whose reputation has never been stronger — nationally or
regionally — in four major categories.
Students: The quality of our student body, as measured by freshman test
scores, is increasing every year. For the past three years, we have ranked
among the top 10 public universities in the country in the number of
freshman National Merit Scholars we enroll. In addition, we’ve enrolled the
second- and third-largest freshman classes in our history the past two
years.
Faculty research: The amount of funded research we carry out has more than
doubled in the past decade, reaching $224 million in fiscal year 2001. That
amount is only slightly less than this year’s $243 million state
appropriation. We now rank 51st among all public universities in the amount
of federal grants received for science and engineering research.
Teaching: Excellent teaching is one outcome of achievement in research. At
KU, students are frequently taught by the professor who wrote the textbook,
rather than the professor who merely read the textbook. That’s a major
difference, in terms of the impact on students.
Service to the state: KU remains the state’s principal source of continuing
education for local law enforcement officers, firefighters and wastewater
treatment workers. Our Kansas Audio-Reader Network provides daily news
services to the blind and visually impaired statewide. The Robert J. Dole
Institute of Politics (now under construction) promises to be a national
focal point for timely discussion and research on a host of major public
affairs issues.
(And you may be aware that our men’s basketball team is doing rather well!)
Clearly, by many important measures, KU is stronger than it’s ever been. But
in other ways, it has seldom been more vulnerable. Why do I say that?
Here’s a case in point: As things now stand, KU faces a budget shortfall in
the coming year of $15.4 million. That’s a 6.4 percent reduction in funding,
the largest one-year reduction ever proposed for the University of Kansas.
There are two parts to that 6.4 percent cut: the previously announced $9.6
million (3.94 percent) base reduction and a less visible — but no less
damaging — $5.8 million (2.4 percent) obligation to pay unavoidable, fixed
employer costs, such as the annualization of current-year salary increases
and increased health insurance premiums.
These costs, which were funded in the budgets of all state agencies other
than the regents universities, won’t go away simply because the state
chooses to ignore them. They will have to be met by someone in some fashion.
Here’s the bottom line: To maintain our current level of services in fiscal
year 2003, the university would require $15.4 million in state funding. That
would erase the 3.94 percent base reduction and pay those fixed employer
costs.
If the legislature does nothing to resolve this shortfall, however, KU will
take a budget cut of historic proportions during fiscal year 2003, and it’s
a bigger cut than most other state agencies are being required to absorb. We
urge you to address the $15.4 million shortfall so that we can at least
maintain our current level of services during fiscal year 2003.
(Most Kansans would support maintaining the current level of services,
according to a recent statewide poll conducted by the Policy Research
Institute. When asked their preferences for state spending on state colleges
and universities, 52 percent of those surveyed favored keeping it at the
present level, while another 38 percent favored increased spending. Fewer
than 6 percent supported decreased spending.)
So we are not asking the state for a major new investment this year. But we
should all ask ourselves what permanent harm a 6.4 percent budget cut would
inflict on KU — a university whose research work, faculty expertise,
skilled graduates and national reputation make it a vital — but fragile —
resource for the state in terms of intellectual capital and economic
development.
At KU, we have experience in tightening our belts. For example, when we
construct a needed new building, it costs additional money to provide that
building with utilities, custodial services and other basic operating
expenses. Yet the last time we received state funding for this purpose was
in fiscal year 2000.
The newly renovated School of Education building, for instance, Pearson
Hall, opened in August 2000. Since fiscal year 2001, we have asked the state
without success for funding to cover its annual operating costs of about
$310,000. That’s a very real form of belt tightening.
What concerns me is that there seems to be a pattern of underfunding here.
Currently, state appropriations per student in the state of Kansas ranks
sixth among the seven Big 12 Conference states. Iowa, for example, has
provided 50 percent more state money per student than Kansas.
Or consider the level of state appropriations per student at KU
specifically. Adjusted for inflation, it has declined over the past 15
years. In fiscal year 2000, state support for our students was worth $667
less than it was in fiscal year 1985. It has since dropped by another $200
and would drop by another $400 in fiscal year 2003 under the existing budget
proposal.
The brunt of these shortfalls has been borne by the university, its faculty
and staff, and its students. Given these circumstances, it’s remarkable that
the University of Kansas continues to achieve at the level it does.
We cannot sustain that level, however, with “chewing gum and baling wire.”
Inevitably, the quality of a KU education is going to suffer if this pattern
of underfunding continues. We’ve run out of chewing gum and baling wire.
A recent series of articles in a Phoenix newspaper about Arizona’s budget
crisis put this issue in its proper perspective. According to a growing
number of state leaders there, Arizona “is committing slow economic suicide
by underfunding its universities in the face of fierce competition from
other states for the workers and revenues of today’s knowledge economy.” The
same can be said of Kansas.
Toward that end, we continue to urge this legislature to fully fund the
Board of Regents’ proposed 4.5 percent operating grant increase, as well as
the third year of the commitment made to our faculty under SB 345.
But enough of the present. What about the future? KU, along with Kansas
State University and Wichita State University, seeks bonding authority for a
major research building initiative on our campuses. The KU Medical Center
portion of the project already has a $27 million private commitment of
funding from the Hall Family Foundation. These projects are essential if the
state and its three largest universities are to fully realize their
potential as sources of economic development and service for our state and
nation.
I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of research facilities in
retaining good faculty. In the past month, the KU Medical Center has lost
two of its most distinguished and well-funded research scientists (i.e.,
Billy Hudson and S.K. Dey) because they did not have the equipment and
facilities they needed to take their research to the next level.
We cannot continue to suffer these kinds of losses. Students lose, patients
lose, and Kansas loses when such faculty leave because of better facilities
elsewhere.
Approval of the research initiative during this session is vital, as are the
budget restorations I’ve already touched on. But I would point out that the
required bonding authority for those projects involves no state funding
during fiscal year 2003. It is not a question of whether you should restore
budget cuts or pass the research initiative: We need both.
Failure to authorize the research initiative would be an irretrievably lost
opportunity for Kansas. The economic effects would reverberate to every
corner of our state.
Failure to address the $15.4 million shortfall would have more immediate
consequences, including layoffs of existing staff, fewer and more crowded
classes, the elimination or severe reduction of basic services for students
and the public, and the shutting down of some academic and outreach
programs.
It would also mean our students and faculty will use computer equipment
that’s out of date, our ability to support economic development activities
will be limited, and the overall quality of a KU education will decline for
current and future students.
Specifically, at Lawrence we anticipate meeting $9.5 million in budget cuts
by leaving unfilled, or eliminating, as many as 175 faculty and staff
positions. We would also cut departmental operating budgets and the
operating hours of certain museums and public service units.
At the KU Medical Center, we have already sought permission from the state
to begin a reduction in force this summer for classified employees. It’s
only a precautionary measure, but a $6 million budget reduction there will
likely require:
Last month, the editor of the Iola Register wrote about these issues more
clearly than I can, and I want to share them with you in closing. In an
editorial, he said:
“What a tragedy it will be if Kansas lawmakers can’t see beyond one year’s
recession-induced shortfall and focus instead on how vital excellent
universities are to the progress of Kansas and to the future of Kansas
students.
“The money invested in them every year pays dividends immediately and from
that point forward. And if they are allowed to reverse course and head
downhill, it will take years to repair the damage and regain forward
momentum.”
I know you and your colleagues face many difficult challenges this spring as
you act on the state’s budget. We at the university are public servants and
we will do our best. But we would be liars if we told you there would be no
ill effects.
As you proceed, I hope you’ll remember that this is a budget not only for
this year but for many years — and many lives — to come.
If we don’t find a way to support higher education adequately in Kansas, our
fate may be the “slow economic suicide” I spoke of a moment ago. I hope you
will not let that happen.
Kansas University Chancellor Robert Hemenway spoke to the Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on higher education Thursday. The following are his prepared remarks.
Senate Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Higher Education
Thursday, March 7, 2002
Room 123-S, State Capitol
Testimony by Robert Hemenway, chancellor, the University of Kansas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks today will be brief. I am joined by
executive vice chancellors Donald Hagen and Janet Murguia. Feel free to
direct questions to any of us for a response.
It’s my privilege to speak on behalf of the University of Kansas, a state
university whose reputation has never been stronger — nationally or
regionally — in four major categories.
Students: The quality of our student body, as measured by freshman test
scores, is increasing every year. For the past three years, we have ranked
among the top 10 public universities in the country in the number of
freshman National Merit Scholars we enroll. In addition, we’ve enrolled the
second- and third-largest freshman classes in our history the past two
years.
Faculty research: The amount of funded research we carry out has more than
doubled in the past decade, reaching $224 million in fiscal year 2001. That
amount is only slightly less than this year’s $243 million state
appropriation. We now rank 51st among all public universities in the amount
of federal grants received for science and engineering research.
Teaching: Excellent teaching is one outcome of achievement in research. At
KU, students are frequently taught by the professor who wrote the textbook,
rather than the professor who merely read the textbook. That’s a major
difference, in terms of the impact on students.
Service to the state: KU remains the state’s principal source of continuing
education for local law enforcement officers, firefighters and wastewater
treatment workers. Our Kansas Audio-Reader Network provides daily news
services to the blind and visually impaired statewide. The Robert J. Dole
Institute of Politics (now under construction) promises to be a national
focal point for timely discussion and research on a host of major public
affairs issues.
(And you may be aware that our men’s basketball team is doing rather well!)
Clearly, by many important measures, KU is stronger than it’s ever been. But
in other ways, it has seldom been more vulnerable. Why do I say that?
Here’s a case in point: As things now stand, KU faces a budget shortfall in
the coming year of $15.4 million. That’s a 6.4 percent reduction in funding,
the largest one-year reduction ever proposed for the University of Kansas.
There are two parts to that 6.4 percent cut: the previously announced $9.6
million (3.94 percent) base reduction and a less visible — but no less
damaging — $5.8 million (2.4 percent) obligation to pay unavoidable, fixed
employer costs, such as the annualization of current-year salary increases
and increased health insurance premiums.
These costs, which were funded in the budgets of all state agencies other
than the regents universities, won’t go away simply because the state
chooses to ignore them. They will have to be met by someone in some fashion.
Here’s the bottom line: To maintain our current level of services in fiscal
year 2003, the university would require $15.4 million in state funding. That
would erase the 3.94 percent base reduction and pay those fixed employer
costs.
If the legislature does nothing to resolve this shortfall, however, KU will
take a budget cut of historic proportions during fiscal year 2003, and it’s
a bigger cut than most other state agencies are being required to absorb. We
urge you to address the $15.4 million shortfall so that we can at least
maintain our current level of services during fiscal year 2003.
(Most Kansans would support maintaining the current level of services,
according to a recent statewide poll conducted by the Policy Research
Institute. When asked their preferences for state spending on state colleges
and universities, 52 percent of those surveyed favored keeping it at the
present level, while another 38 percent favored increased spending. Fewer
than 6 percent supported decreased spending.)
So we are not asking the state for a major new investment this year. But we
should all ask ourselves what permanent harm a 6.4 percent budget cut would
inflict on KU — a university whose research work, faculty expertise,
skilled graduates and national reputation make it a vital — but fragile —
resource for the state in terms of intellectual capital and economic
development.
At KU, we have experience in tightening our belts. For example, when we
construct a needed new building, it costs additional money to provide that
building with utilities, custodial services and other basic operating
expenses. Yet the last time we received state funding for this purpose was
in fiscal year 2000.
The newly renovated School of Education building, for instance, Pearson
Hall, opened in August 2000. Since fiscal year 2001, we have asked the state
without success for funding to cover its annual operating costs of about
$310,000. That’s a very real form of belt tightening.
What concerns me is that there seems to be a pattern of underfunding here.
Currently, state appropriations per student in the state of Kansas ranks
sixth among the seven Big 12 Conference states. Iowa, for example, has
provided 50 percent more state money per student than Kansas.
Or consider the level of state appropriations per student at KU
specifically. Adjusted for inflation, it has declined over the past 15
years. In fiscal year 2000, state support for our students was worth $667
less than it was in fiscal year 1985. It has since dropped by another $200
and would drop by another $400 in fiscal year 2003 under the existing budget
proposal.
The brunt of these shortfalls has been borne by the university, its faculty
and staff, and its students. Given these circumstances, it’s remarkable that
the University of Kansas continues to achieve at the level it does.
We cannot sustain that level, however, with “chewing gum and baling wire.”
Inevitably, the quality of a KU education is going to suffer if this pattern
of underfunding continues. We’ve run out of chewing gum and baling wire.
A recent series of articles in a Phoenix newspaper about Arizona’s budget
crisis put this issue in its proper perspective. According to a growing
number of state leaders there, Arizona “is committing slow economic suicide
by underfunding its universities in the face of fierce competition from
other states for the workers and revenues of today’s knowledge economy.” The
same can be said of Kansas.
Toward that end, we continue to urge this legislature to fully fund the
Board of Regents’ proposed 4.5 percent operating grant increase, as well as
the third year of the commitment made to our faculty under SB 345.
But enough of the present. What about the future? KU, along with Kansas
State University and Wichita State University, seeks bonding authority for a
major research building initiative on our campuses. The KU Medical Center
portion of the project already has a $27 million private commitment of
funding from the Hall Family Foundation. These projects are essential if the
state and its three largest universities are to fully realize their
potential as sources of economic development and service for our state and
nation.
I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of research facilities in
retaining good faculty. In the past month, the KU Medical Center has lost
two of its most distinguished and well-funded research scientists (i.e.,
Billy Hudson and S.K. Dey) because they did not have the equipment and
facilities they needed to take their research to the next level.
We cannot continue to suffer these kinds of losses. Students lose, patients
lose, and Kansas loses when such faculty leave because of better facilities
elsewhere.
Approval of the research initiative during this session is vital, as are the
budget restorations I’ve already touched on. But I would point out that the
required bonding authority for those projects involves no state funding
during fiscal year 2003. It is not a question of whether you should restore
budget cuts or pass the research initiative: We need both.
Failure to authorize the research initiative would be an irretrievably lost
opportunity for Kansas. The economic effects would reverberate to every
corner of our state.
Failure to address the $15.4 million shortfall would have more immediate
consequences, including layoffs of existing staff, fewer and more crowded
classes, the elimination or severe reduction of basic services for students
and the public, and the shutting down of some academic and outreach
programs.
It would also mean our students and faculty will use computer equipment
that’s out of date, our ability to support economic development activities
will be limited, and the overall quality of a KU education will decline for
current and future students.
Specifically, at Lawrence we anticipate meeting $9.5 million in budget cuts
by leaving unfilled, or eliminating, as many as 175 faculty and staff
positions. We would also cut departmental operating budgets and the
operating hours of certain museums and public service units.
At the KU Medical Center, we have already sought permission from the state
to begin a reduction in force this summer for classified employees. It’s
only a precautionary measure, but a $6 million budget reduction there will
likely require:
Last month, the editor of the Iola Register wrote about these issues more
clearly than I can, and I want to share them with you in closing. In an
editorial, he said:
“What a tragedy it will be if Kansas lawmakers can’t see beyond one year’s
recession-induced shortfall and focus instead on how vital excellent
universities are to the progress of Kansas and to the future of Kansas
students.
“The money invested in them every year pays dividends immediately and from
that point forward. And if they are allowed to reverse course and head
downhill, it will take years to repair the damage and regain forward
momentum.”
I know you and your colleagues face many difficult challenges this spring as
you act on the state’s budget. We at the university are public servants and
we will do our best. But we would be liars if we told you there would be no
ill effects.
As you proceed, I hope you’ll remember that this is a budget not only for
this year but for many years — and many lives — to come.
If we don’t find a way to support higher education adequately in Kansas, our
fate may be the “slow economic suicide” I spoke of a moment ago. I hope you
will not let that happen.
Kansas University Chancellor Robert Hemenway spoke to the Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on higher education Thursday. The following are his prepared remarks.
Senate Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Higher Education
Thursday, March 7, 2002
Room 123-S, State Capitol
Testimony by Robert Hemenway, chancellor, the University of Kansas
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks today will be brief. I am joined by
executive vice chancellors Donald Hagen and Janet Murguia. Feel free to
direct questions to any of us for a response.
It’s my privilege to speak on behalf of the University of Kansas, a state
university whose reputation has never been stronger — nationally or
regionally — in four major categories.
Students: The quality of our student body, as measured by freshman test
scores, is increasing every year. For the past three years, we have ranked
among the top 10 public universities in the country in the number of
freshman National Merit Scholars we enroll. In addition, we’ve enrolled the
second- and third-largest freshman classes in our history the past two
years.
Faculty research: The amount of funded research we carry out has more than
doubled in the past decade, reaching $224 million in fiscal year 2001. That
amount is only slightly less than this year’s $243 million state
appropriation. We now rank 51st among all public universities in the amount
of federal grants received for science and engineering research.
Teaching: Excellent teaching is one outcome of achievement in research. At
KU, students are frequently taught by the professor who wrote the textbook,
rather than the professor who merely read the textbook. That’s a major
difference, in terms of the impact on students.
Service to the state: KU remains the state’s principal source of continuing
education for local law enforcement officers, firefighters and wastewater
treatment workers. Our Kansas Audio-Reader Network provides daily news
services to the blind and visually impaired statewide. The Robert J. Dole
Institute of Politics (now under construction) promises to be a national
focal point for timely discussion and research on a host of major public
affairs issues.
(And you may be aware that our men’s basketball team is doing rather well!)
Clearly, by many important measures, KU is stronger than it’s ever been. But
in other ways, it has seldom been more vulnerable. Why do I say that?
Here’s a case in point: As things now stand, KU faces a budget shortfall in
the coming year of $15.4 million. That’s a 6.4 percent reduction in funding,
the largest one-year reduction ever proposed for the University of Kansas.
There are two parts to that 6.4 percent cut: the previously announced $9.6
million (3.94 percent) base reduction and a less visible — but no less
damaging — $5.8 million (2.4 percent) obligation to pay unavoidable, fixed
employer costs, such as the annualization of current-year salary increases
and increased health insurance premiums.
These costs, which were funded in the budgets of all state agencies other
than the regents universities, won’t go away simply because the state
chooses to ignore them. They will have to be met by someone in some fashion.
Here’s the bottom line: To maintain our current level of services in fiscal
year 2003, the university would require $15.4 million in state funding. That
would erase the 3.94 percent base reduction and pay those fixed employer
costs.
If the legislature does nothing to resolve this shortfall, however, KU will
take a budget cut of historic proportions during fiscal year 2003, and it’s
a bigger cut than most other state agencies are being required to absorb. We
urge you to address the $15.4 million shortfall so that we can at least
maintain our current level of services during fiscal year 2003.
(Most Kansans would support maintaining the current level of services,
according to a recent statewide poll conducted by the Policy Research
Institute. When asked their preferences for state spending on state colleges
and universities, 52 percent of those surveyed favored keeping it at the
present level, while another 38 percent favored increased spending. Fewer
than 6 percent supported decreased spending.)
So we are not asking the state for a major new investment this year. But we
should all ask ourselves what permanent harm a 6.4 percent budget cut would
inflict on KU — a university whose research work, faculty expertise,
skilled graduates and national reputation make it a vital — but fragile —
resource for the state in terms of intellectual capital and economic
development.
At KU, we have experience in tightening our belts. For example, when we
construct a needed new building, it costs additional money to provide that
building with utilities, custodial services and other basic operating
expenses. Yet the last time we received state funding for this purpose was
in fiscal year 2000.
The newly renovated School of Education building, for instance, Pearson
Hall, opened in August 2000. Since fiscal year 2001, we have asked the state
without success for funding to cover its annual operating costs of about
$310,000. That’s a very real form of belt tightening.
What concerns me is that there seems to be a pattern of underfunding here.
Currently, state appropriations per student in the state of Kansas ranks
sixth among the seven Big 12 Conference states. Iowa, for example, has
provided 50 percent more state money per student than Kansas.
Or consider the level of state appropriations per student at KU
specifically. Adjusted for inflation, it has declined over the past 15
years. In fiscal year 2000, state support for our students was worth $667
less than it was in fiscal year 1985. It has since dropped by another $200
and would drop by another $400 in fiscal year 2003 under the existing budget
proposal.
The brunt of these shortfalls has been borne by the university, its faculty
and staff, and its students. Given these circumstances, it’s remarkable that
the University of Kansas continues to achieve at the level it does.
We cannot sustain that level, however, with “chewing gum and baling wire.”
Inevitably, the quality of a KU education is going to suffer if this pattern
of underfunding continues. We’ve run out of chewing gum and baling wire.
A recent series of articles in a Phoenix newspaper about Arizona’s budget
crisis put this issue in its proper perspective. According to a growing
number of state leaders there, Arizona “is committing slow economic suicide
by underfunding its universities in the face of fierce competition from
other states for the workers and revenues of today’s knowledge economy.” The
same can be said of Kansas.
Toward that end, we continue to urge this legislature to fully fund the
Board of Regents’ proposed 4.5 percent operating grant increase, as well as
the third year of the commitment made to our faculty under SB 345.
But enough of the present. What about the future? KU, along with Kansas
State University and Wichita State University, seeks bonding authority for a
major research building initiative on our campuses. The KU Medical Center
portion of the project already has a $27 million private commitment of
funding from the Hall Family Foundation. These projects are essential if the
state and its three largest universities are to fully realize their
potential as sources of economic development and service for our state and
nation.
I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of research facilities in
retaining good faculty. In the past month, the KU Medical Center has lost
two of its most distinguished and well-funded research scientists (i.e.,
Billy Hudson and S.K. Dey) because they did not have the equipment and
facilities they needed to take their research to the next level.
We cannot continue to suffer these kinds of losses. Students lose, patients
lose, and Kansas loses when such faculty leave because of better facilities
elsewhere.
Approval of the research initiative during this session is vital, as are the
budget restorations I’ve already touched on. But I would point out that the
required bonding authority for those projects involves no state funding
during fiscal year 2003. It is not a question of whether you should restore
budget cuts or pass the research initiative: We need both.
Failure to authorize the research initiative would be an irretrievably lost
opportunity for Kansas. The economic effects would reverberate to every
corner of our state.
Failure to address the $15.4 million shortfall would have more immediate
consequences, including layoffs of existing staff, fewer and more crowded
classes, the elimination or severe reduction of basic services for students
and the public, and the shutting down of some academic and outreach
programs.
It would also mean our students and faculty will use computer equipment
that’s out of date, our ability to support economic development activities
will be limited, and the overall quality of a KU education will decline for
current and future students.
Specifically, at Lawrence we anticipate meeting $9.5 million in budget cuts
by leaving unfilled, or eliminating, as many as 175 faculty and staff
positions. We would also cut departmental operating budgets and the
operating hours of certain museums and public service units.
At the KU Medical Center, we have already sought permission from the state
to begin a reduction in force this summer for classified employees. It’s
only a precautionary measure, but a $6 million budget reduction there will
likely require:
Last month, the editor of the Iola Register wrote about these issues more
clearly than I can, and I want to share them with you in closing. In an
editorial, he said:
“What a tragedy it will be if Kansas lawmakers can’t see beyond one year’s
recession-induced shortfall and focus instead on how vital excellent
universities are to the progress of Kansas and to the future of Kansas
students.
“The money invested in them every year pays dividends immediately and from
that point forward. And if they are allowed to reverse course and head
downhill, it will take years to repair the damage and regain forward
momentum.”
I know you and your colleagues face many difficult challenges this spring as
you act on the state’s budget. We at the university are public servants and
we will do our best. But we would be liars if we told you there would be no
ill effects.
As you proceed, I hope you’ll remember that this is a budget not only for
this year but for many years — and many lives — to come.
If we don’t find a way to support higher education adequately in Kansas, our
fate may be the “slow economic suicide” I spoke of a moment ago. I hope you
will not let that happen.
