October 10, 2006

 

 

Erskine Bowles

President

The University of North Carolina

CB 9000

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27515

 

Dear President Bowles:

 

Thank you for the opportunity to share faculty perspectives on the tuition policy plan.  

These resolutions came at a time when we had had no meaningful salary improvements for four years, and when benefits continued to weaken. We believed, however, that students should come first and that the concerns underlying the present plan—affordability, flexibility, and predictability—needed to be addressed before precipitous hikes were adopted. We thought you would want to know of this history, so that you are aware that many faculty share the underlying policy and moral concerns that you so ably voiced.

 

2.       Faculty leaders still strongly believe that student tuition and fees should be kept as low as possible.  As the State Constitution says: “The General Assembly shall provide that the benefits of The University of North Carolina and other public institutions of higher education, as far as practicable, be extended to the people of the State free of expense.” One faculty senate leader noted that this is a difficult benchmark to calibrate. This comment went on to say that it was necessary to establish a clear understanding of the relative proportion of funding from tuition and fees as compared to legislative appropriations. It’s clear you have that in mind as well.

 

3.       Faculty leaders also stress the importance of adequate need-based financial aid. Many faculty leaders have voiced support for the fundamental commitment that all campuses reserve at least 25% of tuition increases to address need-based aid and are grateful that you have reiterated your firm expectations on this point. We are very grateful that you have also placed a high priority on requesting increased legislative appropriations for need-based aid for all students, regardless of their campus. It’s heartening too that this legislative goal would allow students to have their needs met without artificial deadlines, and that you intend to assure that those with need will be held harmless in the face of tuition and fee increases on their individual campuses. As all of us know, financial aid calculations are complex and patterns of student need and expenditure are not always well understood. Many families must also juggle living expenses which have climbed in light of expectations about standards of living The discussion in the Board of Governors’ Tuition Task Force meeting earlier today was illuminating, and we appreciate your attention to the issues of family contribution and self-help. We also thank you for looking into the future. You stressed the level of need experienced by both low and moderate-income students, and noted the increased proportion receiving Pell Grants (more than 80%). As Ms. Gage mentioned prior to the meeting, we also need to plan for changes in affordability and access given anticipated demographic trends. In addition, we appreciate the Board of Governors’ commitment to giving close scrutiny to debt service fees in coming years. 

 

4.       Institutional quality should not be compromised. State legislative funding will remain critical to provide the quality education that our students deserve. As you know, we are facing critical challenges in recruiting and retaining top faculty, who are essential in helping students learn and mature into effective citizens. We must also prepare the next generation of teachers, nurses, other professionals, entrepreneurs and researchers through our work with and support for graduate and professional students. Libraries, laboratories, and classrooms are essential, as is adequate technological support. All of us appreciate the success in addressing faculty salary needs during the short legislative session and are delighted that you intend to seek additional state support that is essential in recruiting and retaining outstanding faculty and providing necessary funding for research. We risk a further decline in the quality of education and student achievement if the legislature does not rise to the need to address these issues, since they cannot fully be resolved by relying on tuition and fee support.

 

5.       Institutional missions play a critical role and a number of faculty feel that the current base allocations may need readjustment to allow effective performance of campus missions. This concern was raised from several campuses, including those that have been designated as “focused growth,” those with substantial research responsibilities, and those already pushing the limit of allowable tuition increases based on the proportion of state funding they receive. We did not receive comments from the HMI campuses (perhaps due to the short time frame available) but they might well raise similar themes. We appreciate what you have said about addressing particular needs at ASU, ECU, UNCW and UNCC through a separate budget request. You should be aware, however, that recurring cuts in recent years have taken their toll everywhere and that even enrollment growth funds do not compensate for what appears to be at least perceived structural under-funding on many campuses. It will be very important to think through the adequacy of base state appropriations for each of the campuses in connection with the ongoing work about meeting the State’s needs.

 

6.       Faculty leaders appreciate your efforts to reduce administrative costs and your commitment to ask campuses to reallocate resulting savings to address the educational mission.  Many faculty members have expressed concern about the impact of recent state budget cuts and limited appropriations, since these forces have put untoward pressure on campuses’ abilities to engage in needed teaching and research. Faculty members also hope that a better balance can be struck in terms of administrative costs. It was good to hear your comments at the Task Force meeting concerning ways in which cost-efficiency may be gained through more intensive collaboration among campuses. The Faculty Assembly looks forward to hearing more about the other anticipated results of the PACE initiative.

 

7.       Faculty leaders appreciate your commitment to transparency in budget and policy decisions.   It is apparent that many faculty members would like further background on the existing base funding model and its historical application, as well as the implications of special campus designations (such as “focused growth” or authority to confer doctoral degrees). There are also questions about the interplay between recent budget cuts and enrollment growth funding. In addition, faculty leaders would like to understand how well student financial aid needs are being met (from federal grants, state appropriated aid, private giving, tuition and other sources). Pending proposals for design and funding of distance education initiatives also raise important questions, and faculty need deeper understanding of the financial underpinning of changes such as these. We hope that our commitment to respond promptly to your requests for comments and information demonstrate our desire to continue to be involved in challenging deliberations such as those related to tuition policy and accountability measures. We would welcome the opportunity to become more knowledgeable through more intensive review of underlying information such as that just described.   We thank and commend Jeff Davies, Rob Nelson, and other General Administration’s leaders and staff for their responsiveness to our questions and their ongoing work with the Assembly’s executive officers and relevant committees. We hope that we can work even more effectively together in days to come.

I hope that these comments prove helpful to you and to the members of the Board of Governors when they meet later this week. Members of the Faculty Assembly’s Executive Committee and I look forward to seeing you and members of the Board of Governors at the upcoming Board meeting and reception October 12 and 13.

Sincerely,

 

Brenda L. Killingsworth

Chair, Faculty Assembly

 

 

Cc:  Board of Governors Chair Jim W. Phillips, Jr.

       Faculty Senate Presidents