Senate reform proposal a threat to all public universities' independence, University of Michigan president says
A budget reform plan that would include cutting all public university employees' salaries by 5 percent for three years isn't sitting well with University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman.
"I am very concerned about any proposal that would threaten the independence of the university," Coleman said at a faculty governance meeting in Ann Arbor Tuesday.
Coleman was referring to a budget reform plan proposed in January by Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester. His is one of several proposals circulating Lansing, leading up to the budget planning process for the next fiscal year. That process is set to begin this month.Â
Of the $2 billion in proposed savings in Bishop's plan, $1.2 billion would come from salary reductions, and $615 million would come from health care reforms. All state employees, including those at public universities, would be impacted.
A representative from Bishop's office could not be reached for comment today.
An amendment to the state constitution that would suspend the collective bargaining rights of all public employees - including professors, school teachers and local government workers - would be necessary to implement the changes.
U-M President Mary Sue Coleman
Coleman also took issue with part of the proposal handing over control of U-M's health care options to the state. The proposal would require public employees to pay 20 percent of their health care costs.
"It would mandate that all government employees, including universities, have to move to a state-determined health care plan, so that we couldn't offer our own health care plan," Coleman said.
Health care is an area the university is currently targeting for savings, with employees contributing a greater share of the cost, as well as other changes, beginning this year.
Michigan faces a budget shortfall of at least $1.6 billion for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to shed more light on her own budget proposal at Wednesday's State of the State address and during an announcement Feb. 11. Coleman said she plans to attend Granholm's address in Lansing Wednesday.
"It's impossible to predict what the state might do, but clearly, I'm going to be arguing for the survivability of this state to keep a reasonable amount of money for higher education," Coleman said.
Since 1960, funding to U-M from the state has gone from 77 percent of the university's general fund budget - which funds academic programming - to 22 percent. Officials attribute yearly tuition increases to the continued decrease in state support.
Comments
Fred
Thu, Feb 4, 2010 : 12:18 a.m.
I think anyone making more than $50k should have their salaries frozen. The "little people" keep the UM going while the management door goes round and round in seeking more LGBTQ community members to fill positions. That's the "minority de jour" @ the U. There are those LGBTQ members in management who love like-minded lips pursed against their bottoms. It would appear that it's better to be a brown-nose than actually qualified to fill the position. They'll do anything to remove a straight individual to replace them with a woman, a gay, or better yet, a trans-gendered individual. Ultra-Liberal Ann Arbor let's them get away w/it. A shame, really.
YpsiLivin
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 2:06 p.m.
I know that the raises given out to higher ed employees are indeed in the 1%-3% range, in the years they're even given, and base pay starts about 25% below what one could find for comparable employment in the private sector. For the past eight years, we've watched higher ed get shafted during every budget cycle, from decreased state allocations to mid-year adjustments. There have even been years when Granny promised NOT to change the budget allocation if the colleges held their tuition constant for the year, only to pull the rug out from under them when her incompetent administration discovered yet another unanticipated financial hole somewhere in the state budget. Our higher ed institutions have been called upon to admit more students and provide more financial aid while simultaneously getting their state appropriation slashed and retracted mid-year. Were we talking about corporations, at a 20%-22% investment level, the State would be considered a "minority shareholder" and its proposals would be viewed as little more than noise. After eight years of sheer incompetence in Lansing, perhaps it's time for higher ed to start treating the state accordingly. Likewise, if you look at the other agencies and organizations that would be affected by this, by their own taxing authority, municipalities and counties also have their own non-state sources of revenue, which the State shouldn't have any say over how it gets spent. In order to make this proposal happen, the State Constitution (a document designed to protect the citizens) would need to be amended and collective bargaining would need to be suspended. That, by itself, should indicate that something is seriously wrong with this approach. If this proposal is the right thing to do, why is it currently against the law?
MjC
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.
Mike Bishop continues to come up with unbelievable proposals (if anyone out there is really paying attention to him). The universities and colleges in this State are about all we have going for us these days. If the government of this State could operate as well as UM, MSU, Central, Wayne State, Mich Tech, and even WCC, it wouldn't be in the financial mess it's in now. Bishop is once again searching for a way to get his name in the press. If he really cared about this State and the people who live and work here, he would be demanding that funding levels be restored to all our public schools/colleges.
Otis
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.
I agree that state dollars for U of M are a small amount of their entire overall funding. Why is it then when state funding is trimmed U of M increases titution and says it's because Lansing reduced funding? They can't have it both way either.
YpsiLivin
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 10:35 a.m.
Community colleges are in a similar position; about 20% of their revenue comes from the state (even less for the larger institutions). The lion's share of funding comes from local property taxes and tuition, but it appears as though certain representatives want to simultaneously cut the budget for higher ed, withdraw promised funding mid-year and yet still claim a right to maintain 100% control over 100% of the institutions' money.
catfishrisin
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 10:21 a.m.
Let's see if I got this straight. The state only contributes 22% of the university budget while at the same time wants the power to dictate staff salaries and health care??? I don't think so. Can't have it both ways. Either pay up or shut up.
Awakened
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.
Since the majority of U of M students are from out of state and only 6% of their funding comes from the state maybe the state should just cut it loose to be private. Saves them the meddling and us the cost.
Lynn Liston
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.
Having worked at the U-M for many years and received ever-diminishing annual raises, sometimes 1-3 % across the board, and some years of NO pay raises across the board, because of ever increasing State funding cuts and take-backs, I look at the University's charts on funding sources and wonder- why does Lansing think it needs to tell the University how to spend the paltry 6% (overall State funds received) it provides? Perhaps it is time for the State of Michigan to drop its pretense that U-M is a state-funded school subject to the whims of uninformed elected officials. Obviously, the only way for U-M to retain it's integrity as an educational institution and remain a quality,world-class university is to become a private school. And for those of us who actually care about the quality of higher education in Michigan to vote a pay cut for some of our legislators by not re-electing them.
Cash
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 8:57 a.m.
I liked the House plan to use a pool for state insurance plans. It leaves the separation there and treats all state employees the same. A 5% cut for lawmakers for instance, has little impact as primary source of income for them is not salary but allowances, etc. While a custodian at UM takes a FULL cut at 5% and truly loses a higher percentage of income. I think health insurance should be pooled first.
A Concerned Citized
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 8:55 a.m.
Isn't it interesting that our State government is finally putting forward a bill to take away life time health insurance from legislatures. They receive this perk after 6 years of employment. Mike Bishop is in favor of doing away with this perk for FUTURE legislatures, just not himself. I don't know of any job other then theirs that you can have a cadillac health plan for life after only working six years. I'm really tired of our pennywise and pound folish government. Get rid of them all.
Feat of Clay
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 8:49 a.m.
This issue is not whether the state can, will, or should cut university funding. They already have, drastically. And they will continue to do so. That's reality. The issue is whether or not the state can or should tell constitutionally autonomous entities like U-M HOW to absorb those cuts. I am not sure someone in Lansing, who is preoccupied with the huge problems the state faces, is in a knowledgeable position to do that. You might not shed tears over a professor getting a pay cut and no raises for five years, but what about lower-paid employees?
AMOC
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 8:24 a.m.
I think an overall 5% pay cut for state employees, including university employees, is a very fair and reasonable way to start reducing our state's budget deficit. That's far less draconian than the cuts which other states, many of which are in better shape economically than Michigan is, have been imposing on their employees. It's also a much better deal for more people than the 15-25% pay (or number of employees) cuts that many Michigan businesses have experienced over the past few years. Perhaps a way to shield part-time graduate student instructors/ research assistants from this cut should be allowed, or the pay cut made up with additional credits toward University tuition and other fees. What part of "all State employees" using a single provider of state-provided health care is so difficult for so many people? The waste and expense of administering so many different programs is obvious. Bishop's plan tackles the high and rising cost of government employee (and retiree) benefits. His plan, for once, includes the legislators themselves in the changes being proposed. While it may nor be pleasant for state employees, most of them have been shielded from having to make sacrifices of this kind before now.
FreedomLover
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 4:34 a.m.
The state needs to balance the budget. I think they should just cut the contributions to the universities and let them decide how they want to absorb the cuts. As for state employees, if the state needs to impose a temporary pay cut to balance the budget then so be it. If a state employee doesn't like it, there are plenty of skilled people in this state looking for work. Life's tough sometimes!
mmggttnn
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 7:45 p.m.
Mary Sue Coleman, if you don't want the State to interfere, then you need to cut costs. Tuitions are outrageously high. Certainly you can trim expenses like so many governments, businesses and families are doing and reduce tuitions. Do It for the Students!
st.julian
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 6:24 p.m.
Another mronic proposal from a dysfunctional hypocrit Senator. Perhaps he hopes to encourage outward migration of intellectual capital. Othe public and private Universities would welcome the outflow.
Top Cat
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 4:38 p.m.
uawisok's point regarding health care is on the mark. However, the dollar amounts in question here are relatively small. Mike Bishop has done better than most in talking about ideas that get a whole lot closer to the bottom line we need to address. The current Governor has wasted 7 years as a toady for all the constituencies that are feeding at the public trough. The fact that Mary Sue is complaining says to me that Mike Bishop might be on to something.
Matthew R.
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.
U-M has an interesting site on funding: http://vpcomm.umich.edu/budget/fundingsnapshot/2.html It's a concise overview of where the money comes from and where it goes. It's interesting that state support amounts to 6% of U-M funding in FY2010, but Bishop feels that's a majority stake and gives him the right to dictate salary and benefits for the over 35K U-M employees, few of whom make salaries anywhere near Bishop's.
Stephen Landes
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 3:53 p.m.
PS: A big "thank you" to Mike Bishop and the State Senate for holding the line on tax and fee increases. If not for their steadfastness we would be up to our eyebrows in new Democrat taxes and spending.
Stephen Landes
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 3:50 p.m.
So Mary Sue doesn't want the State to tell the U which health insurance to offer? Interesting as I am willing to bet that MSC is in support of the ObamaCare proposal in Congress which is designed to wind up with ALL of us losing our freedom of choice. If the goal is to reduce state employee costs by 5% and the U wants to remain "independent" then lets just reduce state funding to the U by 5%. We have all taken huge hits to our personal and business finances; the U of M can not be an exception. By the way, I chose not to vote in the opinion poll because the choices are too limited. I'm in favor of reducing costs, thouogh not necessarily by having the Legislature specify how that should be done within each university.
treetowncartel
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 3:39 p.m.
Itsd our money, put it to a vote and lets decide it without adminsitrators, lobbyists, special interests and politicians.
Smiley
Tue, Feb 2, 2010 : 3:09 p.m.
By the time Lansing figures out what it wants to do, the issue will have come and gone. Perhaps that's by design.