University of Michigan regents concerned over House bill that puts $41M in funding at risk
University of Michigan is at risk of losing $41 million due to a state House subcommittee's proposal that ties the school's state funding to its labor bargaining — and some regents aren't happy about it.
A proposed fiscal 2014 higher education budget —passed by a 4-3 party-line vote of the state House subcommittee on higher education Tuesday— punishes universities that enter into labor contracts "under certain circumstances" prior to right-to-work legislation taking effect on March, 28, 2013, and don't achieve a 10 percent cost savings.
The university has signed off on five labor agreements, many of which are in the process of ratification. If the agreements are ratified, the university could lose the money.
University of Michigan Board of Regents Chair Denise Ilitch says the university is autonomous.
Melanie Maxwell I AnnArbor.com
"It is appalling to threaten the university with 'If you don't do 'A' we're going to cut your appropriations.' All that does is harm Michigan students and Michigan families," said U-M Board of Regents chair Denise Ilitch, who added that the legislature is trying to "run the university" and not respecting its constitutional autonomy.
Ilitch said the proposed stipulation reminded her of last year, when the committee proposed tying U-M funding to disclosure of the school's stem cell research. That measure didn't make it through the full legislative process. The fiscal 2013 funding bill included language that implored U-M to disclose stem cell information, but didn't penalize U-M financially if it withheld. That language remains in this year's proposed budget.
"That's also what's so challenging about this," Ilitch said. "They just changed the topic and the university can't respond to threats."
Regent Andrea Fischer Newman said she is "concerned greatly by the legislation and the impact it could have on this institution."
University of Michigan regent Andrea Fischer Newman at a meeting in 2012.
Melanie Maxwell I AnnArbor.com
Newman said the risk of losing funding, and of possible litigation surrounding the contracts, concerns her.
U-M teams reached tentative agreements with the nurses, health officers, lecturers, graduate employees and government workers unions. Bargaining with lecturers began in November, prior to the right-to-work law's passage in December, and was necessary as the union's contract is set to expire soon. With other unions, such as the nurse's union, the school opened negotiations early.
"The university's thought [was] that they would have bargaining leverage," Newman said. "My preference would have been to wait."
The Board of Regents has designated the approval of tentative agreements to university administrators, and thus labor contracts do not go before the board for approval. The university won't publicly disclose information about the agreements unless they are ratified.
Newman continued: "I think it's really, really scary and I think there are protections that we could have taken in these contracts to protect the university that we did not take."
Newman said the university could have bargained for a clause that voided the contract if there was a material impact from the legislature.
U-M's head of government relations Cynthia Wilbanks has said the committee's proposal was disappointing, but that it's early in the process. It's unclear if the stipulation will have enough support to survive the legislative process.
Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@annarbor.com or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.
Comments
sttc
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 9:40 p.m.
washtenaw county just did the same thing a few days ago and i don't see the state legislature harassing them. why do our state universities need to be singled out for abuse? their contributions to the economy and vitality of our state far outweigh the rapidly shrinking appropriation they get from the legislature.
Judy
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 3:01 p.m.
I love the way people thumb down my question, "Can anyone tell me how many times before RTW has the U of M negotiated 10 year or more contracts with any of the unions?" But can not or will not answer the question.
blue85
Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 1:32 a.m.
Senator Roger Kahn, R- 32nd district, head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Senate leadership doesn't support the right-to-work penalty and is composing a letter to House leadership saying just that. "We will not be supporting the penalties," Kahn said in an interview. "The law allowed 90 days for parties affected by this to decide whether they wanted to renegotiate and some of them did. That seems part-and-parcel of why the law didn't have immediate effect."
nursereadytogo
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 6:43 p.m.
none that I can recall in the 27 years that I have worked for the University. They have been limited to 3 years, at least the Nursing Contracts.
YouSaidWhat?
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.
Oh please Ms. Ilitch! These contracts are just further evidence that higher education is corrupt and the vested interests are all in cahoots with each other. Management and labor are one in the same. All greedy! Rock on state legislature use the power of the purse.....that contains OUR money!
bobslowson
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 4:24 p.m.
In other words...Yeah...i want my taxpayer money being used as a weapon by the GOP!
Judy
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:37 p.m.
Can anyone tell me how many times before RTW has the U of M negotiated 10 year or more contracts with any of the unions? My guess is "never."
Judy
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 3 p.m.
I love the way people thumb down but can or will not answer the question.
Judy
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:31 p.m.
"The Board of Regents has designated the approval of tentative agreements to university administrators, and thus labor contracts do not go before the board for approval." Well, here is part of the problem no one is watching the hen house!
tigger1960
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:20 p.m.
What I don't like is that RTW should have been voted on by the people not a handful of people in lansing. Less money for the state will be less money for the cities bet they didn't think of that one or maybe they did and don't care, only looking out for big business. Funny how taking care of contracts now is a crime what a joke.
AMOC
Sat, Mar 23, 2013 : 12:34 p.m.
tigger - RTW was voted on by the people. The voters rejected inserting a "right to unionize" into the state constitution by almost 2 to 1 in November of 2012. Without that dramatic a defeat of "forced unionization" in Michigan, I doubt the legislature would have moved during the lame duck session.
Matt
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:51 p.m.
This is just another silly proposal by the same Republican legislature that would like to loosen gun laws after the Sandy Hook tragedy. Why are Ann Arborites happy about this? This will mean cutting jobs, which means less money for people living in the city, which is bad for the economy of Ann Arbor. Also another note: people that complain about the endowment and research grants are uninformed. The endowment and most grants are tied to specific purposes; the money can't be spent on the general operation of the university as the state dollars or tuition dollars can. It is not legally possible for the university to redirect endowment funds or grant money to make up the shortfall here, so this ham-fisted state budget cut would go directly to cutting jobs or raising tuition.
Great Lakes Lady
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:23 p.m.
I don't get it. Why is it that those of us who work / worked in private industry have suffered tremendous financial losses due to the dismal state of the economy......and the education sector is supposed to be spared of the financial pain and the suffering? .....while we read of the billions of dollars of endowments???
Sparty
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 10:11 p.m.
Have you not seen the incredible cuts in higher education funding from the State? Are you kidding? Please educate yourself about the history and size of the higher education cuts and cost funding shift from the State. Those endowments you refer to are DONATIONS from Alumni and Corporations, and others. They are not taxpayer funds, so don't worry yourself about that, Great Lakes Lady.
Matt
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.
If it were just cutting funding, that would be more understandable and it's what the state has done for the last 30 years. What's deplorable is the blatant intrusion on the university's ability to decide its own policies. Republicans believe in local autonomy, no? That's what Paul Ryan advocates for when he talks about block health care grants to states.
Great Lakes Lady
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:24 p.m.
And they try to skirt the laws to get the money from us taxpayers.......doesn't sound ethical.....
GoNavy
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:18 p.m.
It's a question then of competing concerns, as in which are they more concerned about? Michigan's right to work laws, the unions that the University deals with? Money is one of those things which helps clarify decisionmaking.
Barzoom
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 10:44 a.m.
There are consequences to actions. When the contract negotiations were speeded up to circumvent "right to work" the state responded with the budget cuts.
Ignatz
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 11:44 a.m.
You are correct, there are consequences to actions. The consequence to the Repubs slamming through the so-called right to work law is that workers, through their unions, seek long term contracts.
RUKiddingMe
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 10:12 a.m.
What the University needs to do is apply some kind of sense to their spending and lower their tuition. Its building/spending is completely out of control and beyond reason, has very little to do with education, and needs to be reined in. It could be a successful institution with the same or better reputation it has now with half the money.
blue85
Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 1:30 a.m.
Please feel free to provide us with your in-depth analysis of the 550 building physical plant and the $6Bn budget covering 40,000 staff and 40,000 students. I seriously doubt that you have a glimmer about a clue about anything.
Kellie Woodhouse
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 9:49 a.m.
It appears the roughly 1,500-member Lecturers Employee Organization has ratified their contract. From a release they distributed last night: Elizabeth Axelson, chairperson of LEO's Bargaining Team, observed that the team "worked very hard to bring a good contract to the membership. We spent four months at the bargaining table and had to work under difficult conditions. The passage of "Right-to-Work" in December, the looming impact of sequestration, and threats of budget cuts from the Michigan Legislature made for a very tense situation for both LEO and the UM Administration."
JBK
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 3:28 a.m.
Denise - "It is appalling to G"It is appalling to threaten the university with 'If you don't do 'A' we're going to cut your appropriations.' All that does is harm Michigan students and Michigan families," said U-M Board of Regents chair Denise Ilitch, Got news for you Denise. An attempted end around of the law will not work. There is something called the SPIRIT of the law, UM, WSU and others attempted to get around it. The problem is that thte GOP owns both bodies. You played with fire and got burned! get over it!
blue85
Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 1:28 a.m.
As noted above, you are wrong about both the law and the implementation of the law...this according to a Republican: "Senator Roger Kahn, R- 32nd district, head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Senate leadership doesn't support the right-to-work penalty and is composing a letter to House leadership saying just that. "We will not be supporting the penalties," Kahn said in an interview. "The law allowed 90 days for parties affected by this to decide whether they wanted to renegotiate and some of them did. That seems part-and-parcel of why the law didn't have immediate effect."
johnnya2
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:12 p.m.
@ Jay Thomas You said "Denise believes that the University is "autonomous" " Umm she believes that because it is FACTUALLY and LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY correct. Let's put this in perspective. The Regents are elected (jjust the same as the legislators). They are voted on by the ENTIRE state. They are in effect the Board of Directors for the U. The governor, the legislators or the U president can not tell them what to do on ANY issue. Imagine Rick Snyder doesn't like the football coach and days, unless they fire Brady Hoke, he is pulling funding. The legislature can not say you MUST do this in order to get your funding. It is clear cut telling the University how to manage its INDEPENDENT business.
Evan Smith
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 7:31 a.m.
@Jay Thomas Constitutionally speaking, she's right. The University of Michigan Board of Regents is a democratically elected legal corporation responsible for the governing of the University of Michigan. Michigan's constitution guarantees the board practically complete autonomy from the legislature. The only constitutional responsibility of the legislature when it comes to dealing with the University of Michigan is to provide adequate funding.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 7:08 a.m.
Denise believes that the University is "autonomous" and therefore immune from the decision making of the democratically elected state legislature. To people like her the state is only a wallet (and a stingy one at that). Detroiters tend to think that way as well.
easy123
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 2:51 a.m.
An regualr middle class worker ;ost at least 20% of this wages during thsi fiecal down turn - and these folks think that should be sheltered - lol I have 0 sympathy
Sparty
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 10:05 p.m.
And the DOW doubled; the auto industry is revitalized employing hundreds of thousands of people in it's industry up and down it's distibution channels, dealerships, suppliers, and external independent businesses; unemployment is down below where it was when Obama became President and continues to decline; housing is improving, etc. etc. etc.
Jay Thomas
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:58 a.m.
All of these regents have "gone native" and identify more with the people they are supposed to be overseeing than the rest of us. If they instructed the administration not to skirt the law in any way, this possible loss of funding wouldn't even be an issue. So who are they really looking out for? They should be making sure the law is enforced and employees have the right to decide on their union dues money. Making sure people illegally in the country aren't admitted to U would be in the interest of Michiganders too. But that would be mean! And they are just there to be popular...
Sparty
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 10 p.m.
EIGHT YEAR TERMS .... not toast. LoL.
JBK
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 3:11 a.m.
Amen! They knew this was coming yet forged ahead. They are a joke! If they had the best interest of the students in mind, they would NOT have approved these ludicrous Union contracts that go far beyond anything in recent history. TOAST!
Mike
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:35 a.m.
The University is thumbing it's nose at the legislators and trying to skirt the new law. The University should be there to serve the students, not the unions. I understand they are a left leaning bunch and like the money pumped into political campaigns (kind of a legal money laundering scheme). The unions donate lots of money and get good things from the politicians they help elect; the taxpayers are left out of the process...........Nobody represents us.
blue85
Fri, Apr 12, 2013 : 1:26 a.m.
"Senator Roger Kahn, R- 32nd district, head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Senate leadership doesn't support the right-to-work penalty and is composing a letter to House leadership saying just that. "We will not be supporting the penalties," Kahn said in an interview. "The law allowed 90 days for parties affected by this to decide whether they wanted to renegotiate and some of them did. That seems part-and-parcel of why the law didn't have immediate effect."" So, according to a Republican, the law was followed by those who renegotiated and that renegotiation was done under an EXPLICIT component of the PENDING law as framed. Want to try again?
easy123
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 2:53 a.m.
So Dennis, how do you justify the exhorbitant tuition increases at these universities - They are/ripping people off
Mercutio
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 2:28 a.m.
"The taxpayers....nobody represents us." That's an interesting statement, since, despite the fact that I'm one of these apparently evil union members whose contract is currently under negotiation at UM, I thought I also happened to be a taxpaying citizen of Michigan. Oh, but you forgot about that. And, this being a democracy with a STATE CONSTITUTION that makes the statewide DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED boards of regents the governors of the state universities, I believe that means that they do represent you, too, since presumably you participated in that election. And, as was pointed out in the other comment, the "right to work" was slammed through by a lame-duck congress in a manner that never would have otherwise passed, I think it could be said that it's far less representative of the taxpaying Michigan citizens' wishes than that the universities are bargaining with their unions.
Dennis
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:51 a.m.
Your argument might hold water if right-to-work hadn't been rushed though by a lame duck congress after it had been rejected by voters.
Evan Smith
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:08 a.m.
There's no way the legislature would let this pass. Cutting funding to universities just shifts the burden to the students. Unless the republican legislature wants to even further damage their reputation with the college-age generation, they would be insane to let this bill progress any further.
dsponini
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:28 p.m.
Really? Seems the GOP is all about sticking it to the middle class lately, the GOP's reputation is beyond repair with young folks. The legislature in Lansing are vindictive children
Angry Moderate
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:25 a.m.
The students are stuck with the bill no matter what. They're going to be paying the tax $$ for these union handouts down the road.
Stephen Landes
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 12:01 a.m.
Negotiating these contracts with long contract terms and rushing to beat the clock is simply union bosses working with primarily Democrat Regents to preserve union power and money. The unions will certainly funnel money to Democrat Regent candidates as a pay back for helping to preserve their power. I doubt there is anything in these new contracts that benefits tax payers or employees required/coerced into union membership. I hope this comes back to bite the unions: I can see them trying to reopen contracts when inflation rises and personnel at other universities are receiving greater increases than U of M personnel.
johnnya2
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 1:03 p.m.
What a crock. Nobody is EVER coerced or forced to join a union EVER. Those that get the BENEFITS of the union contract SHOULD have to pay for getting those benefits. The ONLY thing RTW does is say, any employee can get the benefit without paying. As a CONSTITUTIONAL matter, the House and Senate are on very shaky grounds. The Michigan constitution is clear as to the INDEPENDENCE of the University of Michigan and how it does business. This would be like saying, we won;t give you money unless you run the business how WE tell you to. That is unconstitutional on its face. Of course the right wing never has any care about the law as long as they think they can lower peoples wages and give more to the upper 1%. By the way, where are all the jobs that Ricky promised if we redid the taxes and made people on pensions start paying more while cutting business taxes. Michigan is STILL over 1 point higher than the nation.
JBK
Fri, Mar 22, 2013 : 3 a.m.
Stephen - Play with fire and you get burned. UM knew going into this that they would catch the eye of the GOP controlled House and Senate. They just got burned!:)