News and Updates

Last Thursday during my live chat on the budget there were a number of questions related to layoffs.  I passed those questions along to our Vice President of Human Resources Mindy Kornberg, who prepared the answers below —

__________________________________________________

Randy, thank you for passing on the HR-related questions from your web chat last week. UWHR is taking the lead on investigating workforce reduction options and alternatives and advising President Emmert on the likely effects and constraints of reduction options related to staff positions. Every option that produces salary savings for the University has been on the table–salary reductions, reduced schedules, furloughs, shortened work weeks or work year, job sharing, and layoffs. As the budget situation grows more dire, the advantages and disadvantages of each option become more pronounced.

Web chat participants raised several good questions about different budget reduction options that people have been hearing about in the news as well as concern about leveraging reductions fairly across the University. I have answered the HR-related questions from the web chat below.  Please continue to share HR-related concerns and suggestions with my office via email — uwhr@u.washington.edu.

[Comment From UW Employee]
I am wondering about the layoffs that will occur and the thought process of many who think that state employees make large salaries. We are in fact paid less than County and City workers. Has there been any thought to 4 day work weeks or other factors that the County has utilized?

Yes, we have conducted a preliminary exploration of reducing pay by shortening the work week. This concept may work for individual departments or units along with other cost reduction measures, but is insufficient at a University level to meet the challenges of the state budget cut.

[Comment From Vanessa]
I’ve heard that options for staff reductions that include temporarily losing one day from their schedules or taking furloughs is off the table vs. just laying off people completely or reducing them to half-time. Is this true? And if so, why?

Human Resources is working closely with organization leaders on reviewing all reduction options – both temporary and permanent. We expect that most organizations will use a variety of reduction options to meet their financial objectives.

[Comment From juan]
Is there a way to share concerns about furloughs where those of us that oppose being asked to do the same amount of work in less time for less money can make our case AGAINST furloughs (and salary reductions)?

I understand and share your concern. In planning reductions, organizations must carefully examine the work and services that are essential, ensuring that reductions include revising job responsibilities to align with revisions to service levels or service offerings. Salaries need to remain competitive with the local market and with our peer institutions or, as an institution, we will have a tremendous retention and recruitment problem.

Thanks to Mindy Kornberg and her staff for providing these answers.  We will continue to provide as much information we can in a very fluid and challenging environment.

Over the last few days we have been posting stories and editorials about proposed higher education budget cuts.  Here is summary of the key articles to date —

The Seattle Times, April 8
Keep the “higher” in higher education

In a guest editorial, UW President Mark Emmert advocates that the state’s public universities be given more flexibility on handling tuition increases to help address budget cuts.

Seattle pi.com, April 8
Reality-challenged legislators threaten our universities

Columnist David Horsey compares the state’s public universities to the geese that laid golden eggs. He calls the proposed cuts to higher education,” Dumb, dumb, dumb.”

Yakima Herald-Republic, April 8
State higher ed cuts run counter to need

The Herald-Republic editorial board decries the budget proposals for higher education cuts in both the house and senate, saying the tradition of providing access is under assault, and that the future prosperity of the state is threatened.

Everett Herald, April 5
Tuition rates must go higher

The Herald editorial board writes: “If Washington is to emerge from the recession and the current budget crisis with a stable, competitive economy, state budget negotiators must minimize the damage to higher education.”

The News Tribune, April 5
House, Senate threaten too much ruin to higher ed

The News Tribune editorial board writes: “If lawmakers must swing a wrecking ball into Washington’s higher education system, they should at least pad it with more tuition money.”

KING-TV, April 1
Emmert: UW could lose 1/3 of state funding

Both the Washington state House and Senate budget plans call for major cuts in funding for higher education this year. University of Washington President Mark Emmert said Wednesday that the cuts are roughly one-third of the money the UW gets from the state.

TVW, April 1                                                                                                               The Impact: An in-depth look at higher ed budget cuts

A special edition of The Impact focuses on the house and senate budget proposals. UW President Mark Emmert is interviewed about the proposals’ potential impact on the UW and higher education.

The Seattle Times, March 31
Tuition wars coming

The Seattle Times editorial board writes that tuition for higher education “will have to rise even more than the state Senate proposed to protect quality and access for Washington resident undergraduates.”

Most of the budget news we have reported here has been directly related to the UW, but it’s important to note that some of our key partners also are facing drastic budget cuts.  The Life Sciences Discovery Fund, which was established in 2005 to strengthen the state’s competitive standing in biotech and medical device research, is facing over a 40 percent cut and reports that it would have to dramatically curtail or suspend operations.

You can find the complete story here.

Today’s Seattle Times features an opinion piece by President Mark Emmert.  In calling for higher tuition to mitigate the worst of proposed budget cuts, President Emmert notes:

The task before the Legislature is daunting, to say the least. I know our legislators are struggling mightily to do the right thing, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of their efforts. But as well-intentioned as they are, enacting either of the two legislative budget proposals would send a clear message that Washington is waving the white flag not only in the global competition of the knowledge economy, but on the future of our children.

Virtually all economists recognize there is no greater engine for creating good-paying jobs and building a state’s economy than high-quality colleges and universities, especially research universities. The Legislature’s budget proposals would cripple the state’s capacity to build our economy at just the worst moment. Under either proposal, our state would be left to choose one of two options: deny 10,000 Washington students access to higher education, or dilute quality so badly that we have to remove the “higher” from higher education. Either one would mean that a great many Washingtonians would not be able to achieve their financial and professional dreams.

You can read the entire article here.

Writing on the SeattlePI.com site, David Horsey makes a strong case for preserving higher education funding, through increased tuition if needed.  Discussing the budget cuts proposed last week, Horsey notes:

The only way to make it work is to cheapen the education the students receive, to embrace mediocrity and let Washington’s higher education system settle to the level of Mississippi. What we have right now is a half dozen diverse universities spread around the state that, over the last decade, have become better and better, thanks, in part, to more adequate funding from the state. The University of Washington, in particular, has achieved a level of excellence that has earned it recognition as one of the top research universities, not just in the country, but on the planet. As smarter people than I have observed, the UW is one of the biggest engines we have to drive our economy. Do legislators really want to shut that engine down right when we need it the most?

The entire piece, which is well worth reading, is here.

Earlier today Governor Chris Gregoire announced her support for a 14% tuition increase as a way to offset some of the cuts contained in the legislative budgets proposed last week.  You can read more about the Governor’s announcement in the Seattle Times and the Tacoma News Tribune.  While a 14% increase would still require major budget cuts, it would be significant and the effect on students would be mitigated by increased financial aid.  More as it develops.

With the last committee cutoff now passed, action will turn almost exclusively to the floor for the remainder of the session.  All of our request bills remain active.  Our bill to protect private investment information provided to the endowment has cleared both chambers, but awaits final action to reconcile some slight language differences.  Our bill on tuition setting authority for out-of-state and graduate students was deemed “necessary to implement the budget” — a designation that exempts it from the cutoff and allows it to be considered as part of final budget votes.  Our bill to streamline public works contraction cleared its House committee with an amendment; we are working with lawmakers on final bill language.

Also, the bill to fix unintended consequences caused by the spending freeze put in place earlier in the session has cleared its House committee and now awaits floor action.

As always, we will continue to post updates on bill status and budget negotiations here as soon as they are available.

Two faculty members from Western Washington University authored a strong op-ed piece in the Sunday Bellingham Herald on the effect of proposed budget cuts on higher education.  It’s worth a look.  They say in part:

Universities cannot be turned on and off – it will take decades to recover from cuts of this magnitude. The classes, programs, professors, and students who disappear now won’t be coming back with the next uptick in the economy.

Despite the fact that almost everyone – including President Obama, Governor Gregoire, economic experts, and the business community – agrees that higher education is a key to economic recovery, the Washington state legislature is making it clear that education is not a priority for them.

They are obviously making very difficult choices in very tough times. But times are tough across the country, and no other state is cutting higher education as dramatically as Washington. The 21 percent to 25 percent cuts that the Legislature is proposing are, by a wide margin, the highest in the nation. In California, where the state budget situation is far worse than Washington, the cuts to higher education will probably be around 10 percent.

You can find the entire opinion piece here.

Today’s news has two strong editorials calling for lawmakers to raise tuition in order to reduce the effect of budget cuts proposed last week.  The Tacoma News Tribune says in part:

Olympia needs a mental adjustment. In good times, when direct appropriations are easier to come by, capping tuition might make sense. In this emergency, business as usual could be disastrous.

A 14 percent tuition hike would not be the burden it sounds like. With Congress expanding Pell grants and the federal tuition tax credit, the increase in financial assistance will more than offset another 14 percent in tuition – which would be $875 a year at the UW.

Emmert calculates that only families with incomes greater than $160,000 would pay more after the tuition increase than they do now.

Lawmakers first face a threshold decision: Do they genuinely want to preserve college opportunity for the state’s citizens in this fiscal firestorm? If the answer is yes, the very least they can do is let these schools charge what’s necessary to keep their doors open.

You can read the entire Tacoma editorial here.

The Everett Herald also supports higher tuition, saying in part:

If Washington is to emerge from the recession and the current budget crisis with a stable, competitive economy, state budget negotiators must minimize the damage to higher education.

Budget proposals released by the Senate and House last week would gravely undermine a central cog in the state’s economic engine: its four-year universities. The sheer size of the budget hole — more than $9 billion over the next 27 months, before counting around $3 billion in federal stimulus backfill — makes painful spending cuts unavoidable. For state universities, though, a considerable portion of that pain can and should be offset by tuition increases, an option made more palatable by planned increases in student financial aid.

The complete Everett Herald editorial can be found here.

We are hopeful that as budget negotiations continue, support will grow for the idea of reducing some of the most devastating effects of the proposed cuts through higher tuition, especially since financial aid improvements mean that the net effect on most students will be zero.  Expect this conversation to continue in the coming days.

Rep. Hans Dunshee, Chairman of the House Capital Budget Committee, has unveiled a proposal to ask voters to approve a $3 billion bond package, targeted at school construction.  The idea is to provide a shot in the arm for construction, improve schools, and support green building.  You can read more about the idea here.  UW projects totalling $79 million are included in the proposal.  Rep. Dunshee has scheduled a press conference Monday to lay out his idea in more detail.

Also, lawmakers are working on a bill with the Office of Financial Management to fix some of the problems raised by the freeze bill that was enacted earlier in session.  HB 2328 was introduced last week and is on track for quick action.