Divided regents approve fee increase

May 07, 2012
Trevor Stevens | The Battalion Online

Tuition to remain at 2011-2012 levels

In a sea of suits, administrators and a sprinkling of students from across the Texas A&M System attended the A&M System board of regents meeting late last week in the MSC ballroom to set tuition and mandatory fees rates.
 
The board held designated tuition flat at the System’s flagship university for the 2012-2013 academic year, but approved an increase in differential tuition for the College of Education and Human Development, four mandatory fees and the establishment of a “student success fee.”
 
The nine voting members on the board of regents did not consider each case individually, but voted on tuition and fee requests from each of the 12 System campuses. Three of the nine voted against the agenda to increase tuition and fees Friday morning. Non-voting student regent Fernando Trevino Jr., junior political science major, had mixed reactions to the vote.
 
“There’s a difference between wants and needs, and I saw a clear need for tuition increase in places such as Texarkana where their population has just boomed in the last two years,” Trevino said. “On the other hand, I feel that an increase in cost at Texas A&M was much more of a want.”
 
Texas A&M University was the only institution in the System to hold designated tuition flat. Regents approved differential tuition of $300 per semester for a full-time student in the College of Education and Human Development — a $100 increase.
 
The board also approved an increase of about 1 percent in total cost to students by way of mandatory fees.
 
There will be a $43.58 increase in fees for both the fall and spring. The fees that were raised were the computer access fee ($22.50 increase), library use fee ($15 increase), Student Recreation Center fee ($4.08 increase) and University Writing Center fee ($2 increase).
 
The student success fee that regents approved was the center of much question and concern for both regents and students.
 
Jason Cook, A&M vice president for marketing and communication, said the student success fee will address issues such as graduation rates, student retention and high-impact learning experiences such as study abroad and undergraduate research. The fee will be funded through the reallocation of existing mandatory fees, and not increase the net cost to students, Cook said.
 
Trevino said the reason for his opposition to the fee increase was because the student success fee itself is not going to increase costs to students, but overall the new fees that were created in addition to that fee do increase the cost to students.
 
“There was some confusion calling the student success fee budget-neutral and not increasing cost to students,” Trevino said. “While that may be true, there’s more to the story, and the other part of the story is that there were $87 in other fees [per academic year] that were also proposed.”
 
The approved fee increases will generate about $3.87 million.
 
“The goal is to analyze and reduce certain existing mandatory fees, with any reductions going toward the student success fee,” Cook said.
 
University President R. Bowen Loftin intends to establish a “working group” to address the new fee, Cook said.
 
The exact funding structure of the new fee has not been determined at this point. Loftin indicated to the board that he is looking at a two-year process to generate funds. A 10 percent reduction to current mandatory fees the first year would generate $14 million, while a 15 percent reduction the second year would generate $22 million.
 
“That fee allows some flexibility, and it allows for the University to go through all of our existing fees and find areas where we have extra money,” Trevino said. “By creating the ‘success fee’ they are able to make it more ‘liquid’ … in order to do things that obviously would enhance our educational experience at A&M.”
 
During his presentation of the Tuition and Fee Advisory Committee, which is made up of students and faculty, Loftin expressed a need to increase designated tuition to afford merit raises for faculty and staff, who have been without raises for more than two years.
 
Cook said the student success fee will not fund faculty merit raises. He indicated the funding will come from internal prioritizations in each department and interest earned on University assets. 
 
In a memo to University faculty and staff, Loftin said there would be merit funding for the upcoming fiscal year for both faculty and staff. 
 
“Our budgets are complex and burdened already, and funds available are often highly constrained on how they can be used. We will have to postpone some plans and reduce the scope of some efforts, all of which are important, but we are committed to identifying the funds for a merit-based compensation program,” the memo said.
 
In the memo Loftin said the pool for merit compensation, from “every unit on campus,” will total about 3 percent of the total value of salaries and wages. Loftin expressed concern due to the fact that some faculty members have decided to leave the University, and thanked those who are remaining.
 
“Our budgets have been cut, our value to the public has been questioned, and our morale has been tested. And yet, in spite of these challenges, people of exceptional quality have opted to come and join our ranks,” the memo said.
 
Student Body President John Claybrook said it’s hard to discern whether the new fee is purposeful when it isn’t known exactly what the money is going toward.
 
“Obviously we are excited to see tuition staying the same. It’s important for A&M to continue to offer one of the best-valued educations in the country,” Claybrook said.
 
He said it is important to offer faculty incentives, especially if the University is going to meet its goals.
 
“With faculty, it’s kind of a give-and-take relationship; we haven’t increased anything in three years, and I think that faculty retention and recruitment is extremely important, and if we are going to meet our Vision 2020 goals we’re going to have to have faculty to get us there,” Claybrook said.

Latest Updates

  • Big Government, Top 10 Percent and Tom Brady

    In a push to regain more state control of higher education, a number of bills have been introduced this Session that would limit individual institutions’ authority and give power back to The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The Texas Tribune cited a number of efforts from tuition increases to regional expansions and new programs, which have made lawmakers rethink a 2013 move that limited the powers of the Coordinating Board under the belief that individual institutions could best make decisions about their campuses. Raymund Paredes, whose office stands to regain old power and add in some new res[responsibilities if some of these bills pass, supports the moves. “We need some oversight,” he said, “and I think the coordinating board was intended to fill that role.”
     
    One of a number of higher education bills passed by the Senate this week included a revision to the top 10 percent law, which would allow all universities (not just UT Austin) to cap at 30 percent the number of students admitted under the law. This bill is a step back from earlier efforts to repeal it altogether, in what State Sen. Kel Seliger, higher ed chair and the bill’s author, said was a response to “political realities.” Some lawmakers have expressed concern that eliminating the automatic admissions policy would have an adverse impact on diversity. But Seliger has questioned if this is a proper role for the state. “Is it the role of government to run the admissions department of any university?” he said. “It’s just another example of big government.”
     
    One of the nine researchers headed to Texas as a result of the Governor’s University Research Initiative (GURI) is chemical engineering professor Joan Brennecke, who UT Austin was able to recruit from Notre Dame. Brennecke specializes in researching how to make fossil fuels “greener” and will bring with her a lab, equipment, and endless possibilities for innovation and commercialization that will attract new talent and industry to Texas. “It is really amazing that [GURI] exists,” Brennecke said. “I don’t know of any other states where the state is committed to attracting top people into their academic institutions and is committed to doing that by putting their money behind what they say.” However, the Legislature has neglected to fund GURI for the next biennium, something that may change when House and Senate budget negotiators begin meeting in the coming weeks.
     
    John Sharp may be on track to be the Texas A&M System’s longest serving chancellor. His contract isn’t up until 2020, but this week regents have submitted a proposal to extend his contract through 2023. The proposal does not include a pay increase. Citing the “tough decisions” the Legislature is making about university budgets, the regents cite transparency and consistency of leadership as important for the system moving forward. Using a professional sports analogy, [Regent Charles] Schwartz said the extension is an opportunity to "lock in a high performer at the current level." "The Patriots don't get to do that with Tom Brady, and we have an opportunity to do so," Schwartz said.
     
    Both the House and Senate have introduced legislation aimed at reducing teen pregnancy by requiring state institutions of higher education to “develop and implement a strategic plan for the prevention of sexual assault and unplanned pregnancy.” The legislation is based on similar efforts in Mississippi and Arkansas, which rank number one and three respectively, when it comes to teen pregnancy. Texas has the fifth highest rate of teen pregnancy nationally, a statistic, which has long term impacts on our economy. “If we want an educated workforce in Texas, students have to stay in school to get an education. And the reality is that the burden of being a teen parent makes that nearly impossible.”

    Continue reading
  • “Eating Your Seed Corn”

    Ahead of conference committees to hammer out differences between the House and Senate budgets, Columnists and editorial writers around the state have been lambasting the deep cuts to higher education proposed in the Senate version. Chris Tomlinson of the Houston Chronicle wrote, “The technical term is ‘eating your seed corn.’ That's what Texas state senators proposed when they voted to gut public universities, drive away talented scientists and stunt the future workforce …” The San Antonio Express-News wrote, “Higher education is an investment with the potential for tremendous returns for students and the state. It’s a false calculation to think reducing higher education funding is in the best interest of a state looking to grow its economy.”

    Continue reading

Share This Page: