Over these last several days, Wisconsin has begun a debate about the size of possible cuts to the UW System, to public school districts, and other parts of the state budget.
Some of the discussion stems from a 2.3.15 analysis from the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Fiscal Analyst Emily Pope, in reply to State Sen. Janet Bewley, offered an assessment of how cuts in this biennial budget might look, using the allocation employed in the last budget.
Why local publications, all of which are online, haven’t posted Ms. Pope’s document online I’ve no idea. (Shouldn’t being online encourage publications to post original documents for readers’ easy review? It’s a common practice at the Journal Sentinel and State Journal, but far less so in our part of the state.)
I’m quite sure readers can, on their own, assess this document. (One sees that at the Gazette, the paper affords Chancellor Telfer an opportunity to urge caution when reviewing percentage budgetary reductions for UW-Whitewater. See, subscription req’d, UW-Whitewater Chancellor Richard Telfer cautious with budget cut numbers.)
He’s right about that, of course. (Ms. Pope applies the method used last time to this time’s proposal; the legislature may use a different method of apportioning cuts for the upcoming biennium. Her analysis clearly explains how she’s reached these absolute and percentage figures.)
None of this should reassure Chancellor Telfer.
His administration spent years toadying to the WEDC and other state programs-of-the-moment, and yet it’s probable that UW-Whitewater will lose millions on top of the state money the school’s already wasted on undeserving, white-collar projects.
That WEDC money didn’t make UW-Whitewater stronger, it didn’t make Whitewater stronger, and it’s produced a paltry number of jobs for millions in spending and debt.
Educational spending should be used for substantive learning, not sketchy, thinly-disguised public-relations efforts. These projects are risible to well-read or properly-educated people. They’re an insult to those who believe in America’s long tradition of serious learning in the humanities and sciences.
Worse, UW-Whitewater’s heavier-than-average reliance on funding through tuition is a liability at a time when both legislative and competitive pressures leave tuition increases as an unlikely avenue to make up a shortfall.
It’s Chancellor Telfer’s budget director, Aimee Arnold, who candidly explains UW-Whitewater’s particular vulnerability: “What makes this so significant is that the primary purpose of the dollars being cut from our budget is for our primary mission.”
It’s possible that none of these cuts will come to pass, or perhaps only some of them.
But of whatever size these cuts might be, it’s evident that much of the fate of the institution over which Chancellor Telfer has been responsible these last years is, after all, beyond his grasp.
See, immediately below, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s analysis:
In reading your article, it is obvious that your view is that Chancellor Telfer sqandered funds [on unnecessary projects – namely, the Innovation Center] that could have/should have been put towards the core mission of the University: educating students. This of course could be debated in and of itself. The underlying tone however, seems to me that your opinion is ‘if Telfer had re-directed these funds, the proposed budget cut at the state level would not have as negative of an effect on the University’. Perhaps, that is not how you meant it, but as a reader, that is how I percieve it. I think the bigger story is: How are these proposed cuts (both at the post-secondary level and at the primary/secondary level) beneficial in terms of meeting the educational needs of the next generation? School administrators at all levels have been dealing with reduced funding for most of the last decade. While yes, schools largely look unchanged, it is unreasonable to expect them to be able to continue to operate and provide a proper, well-balanced education to the students they serve while continuing to deal with reduced funding. (It should also be noted that much of the past cuts have been made up by tuition increases at the post-secondary level and by referendum at the district level.) At some point though, the final proverbial feather is going to break the camel’s back. Should the [or even some of] cuts to education come to pass as proposed, I think we will see our first true casualties of the war against education. And at that time, no amount of finger-pointing at administration will change the fact that it is the constant reduction of, not the misappropriation of funds that is the real issue.
Good evening – thanks very much for your comments.
There’s much here to consider, needless to say all of it reasonable and deserving of reply. I’ll post tomorrow several paragraphs that answer some of the questions explicit or implicit, I think, in your post. What you’ve written deserves an answer, about both university and K-12 education spending, including views on (1) whether Act 10 was budgetarily justified, (2) whether Act 10 was justified as a matter of labor policy, (3) how WEDC spending matters within a budget, (4) how WEDC spending over time affects budgeting, (5) what a commitment to WEDC spending says about education, (6) state budget cuts, generally, (7) state university or K-12 education cuts, specifically, (8) autonomy for the UW System, and (9) tuition freezes when legislatively-imposed.
I’ll post on those topics tomorrow morning. If I’ve missed something, in today’s post, this reply, or tomorrow’s post, the fault is mine – misperceptions and omissions (even if unintentional) are principally a writer’s, not a reader’s, responsibility. I’ll respectfully and humbly modify Truman: The buck stops with the writer-blogger.