Viable solutions for the University of Maine System

In the May 4, 1992 issue of the Bangor Daily News my Oped letter summarized the miserable fiscal condition of the Universtiy of Maine, the failure of the board of trustees and chancellor to advocate for the university and deal effectively with the issues, and made specific recommendations to address the issues. Four years later, the flurry of letters and editorials about the University is about the same issues, but now the situation is worse. The problem has again been articulated; now it is time for meaningful discussion of solutions.

ISSUE ONE: Support for higher education in Maine.

Two governors have invoked poverty as justification for reducing state support for the University of Maine System. In reality, state spending has increased by 26 percent since 1990, while the system budget has been repreatedly cut. The system share of state spending has shrunk by 36 percent from 5.6 to 3.6 percent. Higher education has declined from 7.1 percent of the state budget to only 4.9 percent today, a cut disproportionate to other state spending. Other small and/or poor states spend an average of 13 percent — almost triple what Maine spends — of their budgets on higher education. Maine’s leaders have not chosen to invest in the future. I propose that our local legislators introduce a bill in the next legislature with content similar to the following:

RECOMMENDATION I:

As an investment for our economic future the state of Maine must allocate at least 13 percent of state revenues to higher education by the year 2005. This goal will be accomplished by increasing state allocations to higher education by one percent of the state budget each year until 2005.

This plan will only bring Maine up to the average of some rather undistinguished states, but atleast it is a start. How about it, Gov. King and legislators, will you support our future?

ISSUE TWO: Recognize the diverse and unique mission of the Orono campus.

Within the Unversity of Maine System, Orono confers all of the doctoral degrees, 67 percent of the master’s degrees, 46 percent of the undergraduate degrees, does 86 percent of the research, and serves a unique public service role through Cooperative Extension and many other outreach activities. In science and technology, Orono graduates 74 percent of the undergraduates, 92 percent of the masters, and all of the doctrates. These multiple roles are in addition to, and more expensive than, those of the other campuses in the university system, yet Orono receives barely half of the university system budget. An outdated funding formula (established in 1968) provides Orono with a budget that is proportional to the number of students, rather than reflecting its unique missions.

It is easy to understand why Orono has eliminated nearly 500 positions since 1990, while other campuses have added 125. Allocating funds among campuses on the basis of enrollment rather than on function and quality is a formula for mediocrity. The trustees and the chancellors have been neither advocates for the university, nor willing to make tough, realistic choices to support quality programs. As a first step, I call on the board of trustees and the chancellor to devise a more relistic funding formula similar to the following:

RECCOMMENDATION II:

In a formula to be phased in by 1999, the board of trustees will allocate funds to each campus as follows: a) 75 percent on total student credit hours; and b) 25 percent based on the productivity of each campus in public service, research grants, publications, and graduate degrees conferred.

In contrast to automatic funding based on enrollment, this formula also creates incentives for improved productivity and quality on all the campuses. how about it Trustees, will you encourage quality?

ISSUE THREE: Can we afford “Super-U”?

Maine overextended itself 28 years ago when the University of Maine “Super-U” system was created. Mainers certainly need accessible education, but most of us recognize that Maine can’t adequately support the system of campuses as it is presently operated. However, the seven original campuses make large cultural and financial contributions to their regions, and cannot simply be eliminated without major local impacts. What Maine taxpayers should not be paying for is another campus in Lewiston just minutes from both USM — Portland and UM — Augusta, nor a cadre of bureaucrats in Bangor.

Note that I advocate eliminating system administrators, while keeping the centralized system for payroll and computer services (an important distinction compared to some recent legislative proposals). The following “downsizing” receommendation will divert resources back to teaching, research, and public service and ultimately lead to better support of quality programs wherever they are (they are not all in Orono):

RECOMMENDATION III:

The trustees should 1) combine UMPI and UMFK into the University of Northern Maine under one president and administration; 2) close the campus in Lewiston-Auburn (recall that Mainers voted not to create that campus 14 years ago); 3) close the Bangor system office with its $13 million budget, eliminate several vice chancellors, sell the Bangor property, and move essential functions to Orono; and 4) when Fred Hutchinson retires, appoint the next president at Orono as the systemwide chancellor/president.

Recommendation I would be an investment in the future of Maine’s young people and our economy. Recommendations II and III would show that the trustees can move beyond the decision paralysis that has afflicted the board for years.

How about it, trustees, can you make a real choice to support quality programs rather than mediocrity? The present system and its funding formulas are almost 30 years old. It’s time for an update!

Steve Kahl lives in Old Town.