VANGUARD EDITORIAL: Support Senate Bill 242

At a campus-wide forum on Tuesday, Portland State officials announced that the Oregon University System faces a possible 23.7 percent budget cut—a $17.7 million budget shortfall for PSU. With more budget cuts and tuition spikes looming ominously in Oregon’s future, it’s certain that the state must restructure its university system if it hopes to continue promising quality education at a reasonable price.

Though legislators in Salem are considering several higher education restructuring bills—including the University of Oregon’s lofty call for its own separate governing board—one proposal has generated near unanimous support: Senate Bill 242.

If passed, SB242 would provide OUS with the autonomy it needs to function efficiently. As it currently stands, the university system is a state agency and is subject to bureaucratic red tape, similar to the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Post Office.

The Vanguard supports this measure as a great first step in establishing a well funded, flexible university system able to meet the needs of students.

The bill proposes that OUS function as a public university system, similar to Oregon’s community colleges. It would be granted more freedom in areas such as tuition setting, budgeting and purchasing. In addition, the state would be prohibited from tapping into OUS’ tuition reserves for use by other state agencies.

A common opposition to current restructuring efforts has been a stand against the “privatization” of higher public education. However, the Vanguard cannot identify any aspects of this bill that will result in such an effect. If anything, this bill will only modify OUS to mirror the successful public university systems of other states.

Currently, OUS is at the mercy of the Legislature. Not only does the university system have to appeal to the Legislature before spending its tuition dollars—the money you pay for your education—but the state often “sweeps” tuition reserves and redirects the funds to other state agencies, such as the Department of Corrections. At Tuesday’s forum, President Wim Wiewel sadly noted that PSU is weary of cushioning itself with too much reserve money, which could be an important safety net for the university. Instead, it must spend what it doesn’t use before the state snatches it up. A large sum of money is just too alluring.

Similarly, OUS institutions such as PSU must appeal to the Legislature before purchasing property. In the case of PSU’s recently acquired Market Street Building, which now houses the university’s administrative offices, PSU had to seek legislative approval before buying the building. This means making its maximum bid public, weakening PSU’s bargaining abilities. If it didn’t have to jump through bureaucratic loopholes, PSU could have purchased the building two years ago, which would have freed up much-needed classroom space closer to campus and saved the university money.

Of course, with a possible 9.4 percent tuition increase in the works, one of the most heated topics is how restructuring would affect tuition. SB242 proposes that each campus adopt a tuition setting committee on which students could serve—but just how this committee will operate is vague. If OUS is to truly promise inclusiveness, students need to be given a formal platform to voice their concerns.

One of the bill’s main assets is that its proposed increase in flexibility would help OUS achieve its goal of making higher education more affordable for Oregonians. Currently, the OUS’ budget has thousands of line items that can be micromanaged by the state. However, the bill addresses the need for a block grant budget that OUS could allocate as it chooses. This would free up money to be used toward awarding need-based tuition discounts to students, as well as hiring more faculty members, increasing course options and investing in research.

But OUS universities will have to do their part; with the passage of SB242, OUS would enter into a performance compact with the state. This would require the universities within the system to meet certain standards, such as specified graduation and retention rates.

According to OUS Communications Director Di Saunders, each institution would be held to the same performance rubric, and would be allocated funds accordingly. However, this poses a problem for some schools, including PSU. Unlike universities such as U of O, many students come to PSU with the intent of transferring after two years. This significantly lowers PSU’s retention and graduation rates, potentially putting us at a financial disadvantage.

If performance benchmarks are to be mandated, the state will have to uphold its end of the bargain as well. Despite previous support, SB242 does not include any provisions for a state-funding floor—a minimum percentage of money promised to OUS by the state. Today, there is no funding floor; OUS just happens to currently receive approximately 14 percent of its money from the state. In a future biennium there is nothing stopping the state from further reducing its monetary support. How can OUS meet expectations if it is not guaranteed a reasonable amount of funding? This is an issue that needs to be addressed in the future.

University officials are relatively confident that the bill, now on the Senate floor, will pass. Though it would not solve the issue of funding—an unrealistic goal given the current economic climate—SB242 is a viable step toward comprehensive education reform, and the Vanguard stands behind it.

Virginia Vickery Editor-in-Chief Corie Charnley News Editor   

Nicholas Kula Arts & Culture Editor  Richard Oxley Opinion Editor

Kevin Fong Sports Editor Kristin Pugmire Copy Chief