Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on March 2, 2005, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 higher education budget. This appropriates $1.706 billion in unadjusted gross spending, compared to $1.690 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $1.556 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $1.600 billion. The budget cuts funding for Northern Michigan and Wayne State Universities, and increases it for other schools

The vote was 23 in favor, 14 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 256 at Senate Journal 58)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Schauer's statement is as follows: I rise to oppose this higher education budget bill. The majority party has certainly done a good job of picking winner and losers with this budget. I think in many cases students will lose, some communities will lose, and I think efforts to jump-start our economy will lose as well. I heard a previous speaker speaking to the Emerson amendment talk about how this budget values education, or engineering education, and education that would support jobs of the future. But as I look at the Senate Fiscal Agency's spreadsheet, I notice a 22.3 percent increase for Grand Valley University, Oakland University at 8.8 percent, and Saginaw Valley at 8.6 percent. I look at institutions that I know, specifically, are doing incredible work in the areas mentioned, particularly in engineering, like Michigan Tech University. We get less than a 1 percent increase. Western Michigan University, in my area, in fact, the aviation college in my area--part of the Smart Zone, by the way--but they are doing incredible things. They built a new engineering college; they built a new business technology research park, and we just passed a statute to put in statute for a life sciences corridor to support their business technology and commercialization center. Western would get .3 percent increase, less than a half percent increase. What are we doing to our economic development efforts? This budget makes no sense at all. There are a few glimmers of good work in that the tuition grant program is largely kept whole. I support that for sure, but these other winners and losers, really, I think this is bad for our economy. I will vote "no" and urge my colleagues to vote "no."

Senator Cherry's statement is as follows: I urge that my colleagues vote "no" on this budget. This budget treats various universities unfairly. Specifically, the two that are cut hardest are Wayne State and Northern Michigan. It is based on a formula that I believe is flawed, and it does little, I also believe, in terms of improving access. I believe that this budget could be much better. We've talked a lot about how we could have spread these dollars a little more fairly and not created such a division in terms of what universities are getting compared to what they get now. We might have had the opportunity to increase financial aid even more, but we've decided not to do that. So because of these reasons, I will be voting "no," and I hope members will also join me in that.

Senator Johnson's statement is as follows: Had I known what I was voting on, I would have voted "yes."

Senator Clark-Coleman's statement is as follows: This amendment would restore the 5 percent cut to Wayne State University. It is unjustifiable that one institution receives a 22 percent increase and another is given a 5 percent cut. After years of funding cuts to Wayne State University, they simply cannot afford this further cut in state appropriations. Budgets have already been formulated, and this cut will hinder the university's ability to provide crucial services. Students and families would be forced to shoulder the burden through higher tuition rates, and in that community, they certainly cannot afford to do that. This cut does little to further the state's goals of increasing accessibility to higher education. Wayne State serves a unique, diverse community and provides this state with well-rounded graduates; graduates we need for our new economy, such as myself. who is a graduate of Wayne State University with both bachelor's and master's degrees. Furthermore, not only will Wayne State and their students suffer, but the community around it will be negatively affected as well. This community needs uplifting, not deeper and deeper cuts. While I understand the desire to provide a fair and level playing field for all of our higher education institutions, I believe that this plan falls short. Correcting a perceived political wrong with this solution is punitive and unfair. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows: I rise in support of Senate Bill No.273, and more specifically, I rise to thank the chairman for his hard and thoughtful work on this budget. There have been some controversies, and whether or not you agree with the direction, I think that it is very obvious that he has put a lot of thought into putting together this budget bill and placing that before the subcommittee, which I serve on. I would like to point out a couple things. We've had a lot of discussion on which university gains and which university loses. Those are important discussions. Some would say, yes, there ought to be some changes, but let's do them over a longer period of time. The chairman has looked at this and decided to move forward right now. I would like to point out a couple of other things. There is a formula here that I think is very important. There is floor funding, which I believe is important for all universities in this state and all residents to have that kind of support behind them at the higher education level. But there are also rewards for graduating students and also placing students in good jobs, as well as many other elements. These are important in a new economy. I do appreciate the hard work. I'm not pleased with every element of this budget. The cut to the tuition grant program is something I'm not pleased with, but I can support the bill and will support the bill. I want to thank the chairman for his hard work and the other committee members for their work.

Senator Goschka's first statement is as follows: I rise in opposition to this amendment. I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker, and I will say that, clearly, Wayne State University is one of the premier universities not only in our state, but, I think, throughout the country. They perform a remarkable service for higher education, something of which we all can be proud. Unfortunately, during a decline in enrollment in the '80s, there was no substantive decline in the funding to match the decline in enrollment, and hence, the funding per student is dramatically higher. In fact, the highest-funded school in the state per student is Wayne State University. What the reduction in the budget has done is to bring them much more in line with their peer schools within our state. Again, I can't say enough good about Wayne State University. They are a wonderful university. They perform an excellent service. This is not in any way punitive, and contrary to the earlier remarks, this is by no means to right a perceived political wrong. It is, however, to reassess how we could justify so many dollars per student going to one university, really, at the expense of others. It can't be justified. On that basis, I would urge rejection of this amendment.

Senator Goschka's second statement is as follows: I rise in opposition to this amendment. Northern Michigan University is another university that we all can be proud of. It does a very good job and is a quality school in the state of Michigan; one that, with is peers, has stepped up to the plate and done a very good job. Again, this is not in any fashion to be punitive. The previous speaker did talk about, "We'll do this at another time when there is money available." What is the "We'll do this?" That is making things right as they should have been decades ago. Northern, again, and in a moment, I will cite certain enrollment numbers. I could do the same with Wayne, but for time's sake, take note that it applies to both schools. At a time when Northern has been losing its enrollment, the state never lowered their funding. So, in effect, their funding per student continued to rise. Take note that in 1977, Northern had an enrollment of 8,055. A year later, they were down to 7,804. In 1984, they were down to 6,704; a year later, down to 6,411; by 1986, 6,207. Take note again they were at 8,055. And now, in just nine years, they are down to 6,207. They've lost about 1,800 students by then. Funding continued to either go up markedly or in slight amounts. The previous speaker is not wrong when he cites percentages, but percentages can tell a certain story depending on what we want it to say. The bottom line is what are the enrollment numbers; what is the funding per student? That is what we have to concern ourselves with today. By 1996, they were at 6,243. So the issue here is that over a period of time when the enrollment had gone down, funding hadn't gone up for this school, so it inherently increased their funding per student. In fact, if this bill were to be adopted into law, as it is currently written with the 10 percent decrease to Northern Michigan University, to adopt the floor that we've put into this bill for floor funding to give Grand Valley, for instance, their 22.3 percent increase. Again, they are funded right now at $3,072 per student. Their peer school Northern receives $5,415 per student. It is way overdue to correct this wrong. In fact, Central Michigan University, which is a peer school with Northern, if we were to bring them into the same very funding per student under this plan, we would have given Northern a 20.6 percent reduction--20.6 percent. They are still $1,113 per student ahead of Central in this plan. They are $1,106 still--if this plan goes into effect--ahead of Eastern per student; $512 more per student than Western; $985 per student more than Eastern. I will tell you that there are universities all across this state that would love to take the situation as it is and trade places with Northern, at a drop of the hat. So we did exercise restraint, frankly, in limiting it to a 10 percent cut. But even if this goes into effect, take note that with all of its peer schools, Northern is still a $1,000-plus ahead of any other school, other than Western and Eastern, again, at $985, but they're more than $1,000 ahead per student even if this plan goes into effect. With that, I respectfully ask this body to reject this amendment.

Senator Goschka's third statement is as follows: I respectfully rise to oppose this amendment. Other than restoring Wayne and Northern to their amounts, it actually does reduce in this budget the amounts given to the other 13 universities. It literally destroys the floor funding model that has been constructed in this bill. It destroys the bill as it is written. I appreciate the intent, but it is lacking, and I would urge that we vote this amendment down.

Senator Goschka's fourth statement is as follows: What we have before us is a bill that establishes floor funding at $3,750 per student. Regardless of where you go to a university in this state, it would seem appropriate that a student would be able to count on from the state a minimum amount of dollars toward their education. Right now, Grand Valley is at $3,072. The highest-funded school currently is Wayne State University at $9,665; clearly a disparity. This bill does not call for parity of all schools. It recognizes the different missions that schools have. Some have medical schools, some have law schools, some are in engineering and the health field, and so many other areas. We recognize those differences. Another important part of this bill is it restores most of the Michigan tuition grant dollars, but we know that they will be left whole for next year as Senate Fiscal has shared in terms of the numbers to give them the opportunity to still give $2,000 scholarships to students who are eligible for that program. They are Michigan kids and it's need-based. It fully restores the agricultural experiment station and the cooperative extension service--very vital in this state. I fully believe that part of the puzzle in turning our state around economically is to stand up for our universities. They are the economic hub, the economic engine in so many cases in their local areas and for our entire state. This is a budget of which I am most proud, and I would urge adoption of Senate Bill No.273, the higher education bill.