2008 Woodie Awards
Cracks in the system
Kansas universities should steer private dollars to practical needs
Jeremy Johnson/Guest Columnist
Issue date: 2/28/08 Section: Opinion
Two weeks ago, Student Government Association took a few students to Topeka for Higher Education Day on the Hill, which had all of the Regents in the state lobbying for issues in higher education.
The main topics we discussed were deferred maintenance funding and the governor's budget proposal. Basically, we kindly told the legislators that the universities want more money.
The discussion on deferred maintenance (backlogged maintenance on campus buildings) has remained fairly static over the course of the three years it's been talked about. The universities (primarily the administrations) say that it's not their problem because the state owns the buildings, so they should take care of the problems, and have thus done nothing about it themselves. The legislators say the universities should have been more financially responsible along the way and not let the buildings get as bad as they have, though they did end up allocating some funding to start in on the problem.
Being a member of the university community, I'm supposed to take the side of the universities and tell the legislators it's their problem, but I've always had some trouble swallowing that belief. Truth be told, the more I hear the legislators, the more I think they're on to something.
Legislators point out that the universities are constantly expanding - recent examples for PSU include the Polymer Research Center, the student recreation center, and the three (soon to be four) expansions to the football stadium in the previous seven years - but are unwilling to keep up on maintenance on existing buildings. Hence, the backlog of more than $800 million at all of the six Regents universities.
The universities counter that all those expansions are comprised mostly of private funding, and using private funds for fixing backlogged maintenance is something that all of the universities have a major aversion to.
The university policy for collecting private money is this: The gift officer from one of the colleges (generally the one that a donor graduated from) or the newly hired athletics gift officer will go to donors and tell them all about the exciting stuff being done in their respective college, and then see how much they'll give.
But as soon as the donor hints at what they want to contribute to, the university backs off and takes what it can get, without regard of need. Which is to say, the university won't come out and tell someone no about giving to something that doesn't need it, such as a program, building addition, or fund, even though that means more pressing problems are going to be pushed farther and farther into the background.
The main topics we discussed were deferred maintenance funding and the governor's budget proposal. Basically, we kindly told the legislators that the universities want more money.
The discussion on deferred maintenance (backlogged maintenance on campus buildings) has remained fairly static over the course of the three years it's been talked about. The universities (primarily the administrations) say that it's not their problem because the state owns the buildings, so they should take care of the problems, and have thus done nothing about it themselves. The legislators say the universities should have been more financially responsible along the way and not let the buildings get as bad as they have, though they did end up allocating some funding to start in on the problem.
Being a member of the university community, I'm supposed to take the side of the universities and tell the legislators it's their problem, but I've always had some trouble swallowing that belief. Truth be told, the more I hear the legislators, the more I think they're on to something.
Legislators point out that the universities are constantly expanding - recent examples for PSU include the Polymer Research Center, the student recreation center, and the three (soon to be four) expansions to the football stadium in the previous seven years - but are unwilling to keep up on maintenance on existing buildings. Hence, the backlog of more than $800 million at all of the six Regents universities.
The universities counter that all those expansions are comprised mostly of private funding, and using private funds for fixing backlogged maintenance is something that all of the universities have a major aversion to.
The university policy for collecting private money is this: The gift officer from one of the colleges (generally the one that a donor graduated from) or the newly hired athletics gift officer will go to donors and tell them all about the exciting stuff being done in their respective college, and then see how much they'll give.
But as soon as the donor hints at what they want to contribute to, the university backs off and takes what it can get, without regard of need. Which is to say, the university won't come out and tell someone no about giving to something that doesn't need it, such as a program, building addition, or fund, even though that means more pressing problems are going to be pushed farther and farther into the background.
Be the first to comment on this story