PROPOSED HOUSE OPERATING BUDGET
PROVIDES LESS FUNDING TO WSU THAN GOVERNOR OR SENATE
A proposed House operating budget released this morning by House
Appropriations Chairman Tom Huff, R-Gig Harbor, provides about $6.3 million
less in state funding for Washington State University than the budget which
is now being considered by the state Senate and about $7.7 million less
than the operating budget recommended by Gov. Gary Locke.
There are similarities between the
House and Senate budgets. For instance, both provide general state employee
salary increases of 3 percent, effective July 1, 1997. The difference in
funding means that a number of issues for WSU will hang in the balance
as the House and the Senate begin negotiations on a final biennial operating
budget for the university.
POSITIVE POINTS ABOUT THE HOUSE
BUDGET
- The House budget provides for
increased student access, increasing student enrollment by 745 FTE
compared to 976 FTE recommended by Gov. Locke, 766 FTE recommended by the
Senate budget and 806 FTE recommended by former Gov. Mike Lowry.
- It allows a 3% under-enrollment
for the WSU system before imposing fiscal penalties. The
Senate budget did not allow this tolerance band and requires each campus
to exactly hit its enrollment target each year. In the past, WSU campuses
have been significantly over-enrolled or under-enrolled and may have been
forced to return large amounts of money in some years. The Locke budget
also allowed a 3 percent tolerance.
- The House budget does not require
specific levels of funding for each campus, giving the university
flexibility to shift enrollment funding to campuses where it is in greatest
demand.
- While there are a number of budget
cuts in the House budget, it still leaves WSU with about 8 percent more
state funds for the next biennium than in the current budget.
The House proposal, coupled with positive budgets proposed by the Senate
and Gov. Locke, seems to virtually assure WSU a final 1997-99 budget that
will be an improvement over its current spending level.
- Tuition monies are not off-set
by the general fund or earmarked for particular purposes. These funds will
be available for University priorities.
CONCERNS ABOUT THE HOUSE BUDGET
- Salary increases are minimal, and there is no flexibility, such
as provided in the Senate budget, to reallocate existing funds or use tuition
monies for additional salary improvements for faculty, librarians, counselors,
and other professionals. A single 3% increase in 1997-99 will bring total
increases to only 6% in six years. WSU salaries will continue to fall further
behind those paid at universities in other states.
- The House proposal provides less
money for retaining qualified WSU faculty members. The Senate
provided $2.1 million to WSU and the Locke budget provided $750,000. The
House proposal provides just $730,000. While helpful, this funding would
provide a 5% increase for only about eight percent of the faculty (or an
average increase of about four tenths of one percent).
- The House budget eliminates funding
for graduate assistant health benefits totaling $1.4 million
at WSU. These are health benefits for student research assistants and teaching
assistants. The Locke and Senate budgets fully funded these benefits.
- Like the Locke and Senate budgets,
the House budget provides for a 2 percent cut in existing
WSU programs. The House allows WSU to reapply for these funds in competition
with other institutions through the Higher Education Coordinating Board.
WSU prefers the Senate approach which allocates the funds back to WSU but
does not allow their expenditure until certain accountability measures
are achieved.
- There is no predictability to
tuition increases. Institutions will have the authority to
raise tuition up to 10% per year by program or location. WSU has concerns
about the affordability of this tuition model.
- Accountability requirements in
the budget set goals that might be impractical to achieve.
