Higher Education – Which Institution is more important?

Yesterday's Higher Education Appropriations Sub-Committee was filled with additional testimonials of why education should be protected. As the meeting went on, it was obvious battle lines were beginning to be drawn to protect one's own constituent institution of higher education. The two ideas drawn out of the committee now head into today's Executive Appropriation meeting. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Rep. Brent Wallis, from our own District 10, was very vocal about returning money back to higher education in a fair and equitable manner. There is a potential of a nearly 3.5 percent (or less) "put back" of funds to higher education before we are done with this legislative session. Rep. Wallis has been encouraging his colleagues to put the money back where it came from pro-rata. If we took 3.5 percent from Weber, give them 3.5 percent back. Everyone's portion would be the same. It appeared he has rallied a lot of support from a number of other legislators on the methodology of giving institutions back what they put in (or gave up). Since the money has been removed pro-rata it should be returned so.

The challenge comes from institutions with smaller budgets or higher enrollment. The 7 percent cut is devastating to small schools like College of Eastern Utah. It is also tough on schools like Dixie and UVU whom have seen huge growth and would need more than 3.5 percent back to fund that growth. A number of legislatures want funds for their institutions based on this rational. Rep. Daw (Orem, R) has argued the institution he represents [UVU] has the most enrollment in the state and deserves extra funds. Essentially he would be against a pro-rata system of putting the money back.

It is easy to see why a pro-rata system would be beneficial and fair to the every institution. Giving money based on certain parameters or priorities would be unfair. Weber State (like other schools) is facing huge layoffs. With a pro-rata system they are cut the same and will get the same back, hence savings jobs and programs. If we went away with the pro-rata system and Weber State is not high on the priority list because enrollment is lower than Dixie, UVU, U of U and Utah State, Weber could get only 1 percent back. That is a loss we cannot afford. Push for the pro-rata "put back: of funds.

I welcome a health discussion and comments on the topic.