facnews

EXIT INTERVIEW, Part Three: "The Soul of the College"

2007-09-03T16:50:22Z

The third kind of issue which we have faced in the last year - indeed which we face very year - goes to the heart of out mission in the college: The assertion by the faculty of true leadership in the college, a role which we assume by the nature of our standing as faculty, not by the permission of the administration or the Board of Trustees.

This assertion of leadership appears in many ways, including the following:

Aggressively pursuing opportunities for recognition and professional development:
- Piper Professor Awards: These very competitive awards (they come with a $5,000 cash prize) are given out every year to 15 full-time faculty at texas colleges and universities. Each college may nominate one professor a year for this award. The nomination must be made by the president. Some colleges have elaborate procedures for making nominations, which involve input from faculty and students. (As an example of this, check out the procedure at University of Houston, Clear Lake City). Currently, as far as I can tell, HCC has no set procedure for soliciting these nominations, of which we are entitled to six (one for each college in the system). The Faculty Senate should take the lead in pressing HCC to renew and enhance its commitment to participating in this prestigious competition.
- Faculty Excellence Awards. Until recently, the Faculty Senate has had the proud tradition of awarding a number of Teaching Excellence awards to deserving professors, librarians and counselors, based on nominations from students and faculty colleagues. In the last three years, this practice has fallen into oblivion, and the faculty's representative body has made no contribution towards recognizing the most excellent colleagues among us. It is time to reverse this trend. I propose a revived Faculty Excellence award, including a cash award, to be funded by the Bedichek /Orman Fund.
- Bedichek Awards and Grants. Several years ago, the Bedichek Fund, an HCC faculty development fund managed by an independently chosen Board of Directors, dissolved itself and turned over its sizeable fund to the Faculty Senate for management. At the same time, the Fuynd received a matching Title V grant which required that we not spend the principle of the donated money for a number of years. The fund (now named the Bedichek/Orman Fund in honor of the late Helen Orman, English professor at Southwest College) is now managed by the HCC Foundation (it is currently the largest endowed fund in their portfolio), and it is imperative that the Faculty Senate make provisions for spending the money wisely. The Bedichek Fund has decided to disburse funds at 6-month intervals rather than annually: this is a wise step, because it enables Bedichek to put itself before the public more often, with a corresponding increase of proposals submitted by faculty colleagues.

EXIT INTERVIEW: PART TWO

2007-08-24T06:05:59Z

Continuing with the inventory of issues facing the faculty at HCC:

2. "WE'RE A COLLEGE, SO ACT LIKE ONE!" ISSUES. This category deals with non-monetary issues in which the faculty defend their prerogatives in the realm of the community college's educational mission. This is a vital function of the organized faculty, because faculty initiative, not to say control, of the educational realm of the college is what separates real colleges from training schools and other crypto-educational organizations.

Department Chair Caucus: This time last year, or to be more exact, since Spring 2006, faculty have fought a series of skirmishes against tentative moves by the Administration to reduce the faculty's role in the front-line management of education. The main front of these skirmishes centered on the role of department chairs. Facing continual Board inquiries on the amount of released time being given to faculty, the administration sent out signals that it viewed the status of department chairs as a fertile field for reductions in non-teaching assignments. To begin with, Dr. Cook announced that the formula by which released time available for chairs needed to be revisited. Other voices in the administration questioned the entire role of chairs, and argued that, as faculty needed to spend their itme in the classroom, the college ought to revisit the entire concept of faculty chairs elected by their department colleagues. The arrival of the PEP was further grist for the mills of the anti-chair elements, who wondered how elected chairs could possibly be releid on to evaluate their colleagues objectively, especially in light of the imminent pay-for-performance plan.

The first step which the Faculty Senate leadership took to parry this campaign was to take advantage of our meetings with the various chancellors, especially Dr. Nielsen, to point out some fairly salient facts concerning the chair controversy:
We stated that, to wrest front-line control of instruction from faculty and created a new layer of administrators would be a crushing blow to faculty morale, as it would reverse over a decade of progress in empowering the faculty to exercise more influence in the actual ground-level educational functions of the college;
We pointed out that, in any case, a downgrading of the chair role was unlikely to achieve much in the way of fiscal economies, since new adminsitrators would have to be hired (undoubtedly at higher salaries than current chairs), who would then rehire many of the original chairs as assistant chairs or lead instructors to carry out the hiring, staffing, interfacing with students, etc. that chairs currently do.
The second step that I took was to revive the Department Chairs Caucus. This body, affiliated with the Faculty Senate but composed of department chairs, originally served as a forum for chairs to develop common areas of concern at the time when the chair concept was just being fleshed out. Now, the Caucus' mission was to serve as a body who could discuss issues of workload and policy directly with the administration, and serve as the principal advocate for the faculty role in department management. Under the very able leadership of Alan Ainsworth, the Chair Caucus has met regularly and has opened useful lines of communication with Dr. Cook and with Human Resources on a variety of policy and procedural issues. I count this development as a big PLUS.

Another PLUS is that discussion about reorganizing chairs out of existence appears to be off the table, at least for the foreseeable future (one should never use "forever" around here).

Budget Considerations: The biggest PLUS here is that the new leadership fo the college is committed to a new approach for creating the college's budget. In the last few years, the budget process has become an increasingly annoying and even traumatic comedy-drama in which individual budget lines were set by computer based on opaque mathematical algorithms which led to logic-defying results. it was then up to presidents and deans to challenge these results in ill-tempered meetings with the budget director, leading to wasteful expenditure of gastric juices just in order to reverse, say, a zeroing out of new books for a college library, or an elimination of the supplies budget for an award-winning drama department.

We in the Faculty Senate leadership have raised this issue with both Dr. Spangler and Dr. Arthur Tyler, the newly-hired deputy chancellor and C.O.O., and both have emphatically stated that they want a new budget process, one which involves a lot more effective input from the colleges and presumably the units within the colleges. The QUESTION MARK is whether this new process, coming in an era of tight revenue, will really allow resources to be shifted to the instruction side of the ledger and away from the 3100 Main colossus. I am guardedly optimistic.

Information Technology: The biggest PLUS in my view on this front has been the arrival of the Vice Chancellor for Information Technology, Bill Carter. I can confidently state that V.C. Carter is the first technology leader that I can remember in HCC history who is truly committed to placing instruction and learning at the center of an IT strategy. This commitment has appeared in several ways, of which the following are the most noteworthy:

Vice Chancellor Carter has re-established the IT Advisory Steering Committee (a new name for the old IT Governance Committee), on which faculty, staff, deans and technical people are represented. The monthly meetings of this committee are valuable forums for discussing the priorities that will guide IT in the future.
Carter has also outlined a plan for systematic replacement of all instructional computing hardware as this hardware goes off warranty. If the plan is implemented, old, broken-down and obsolete, slow-as-molasses equipment will be a thing of the past.

The big QUESTION MARKS for IT: Will restoration of budget cuts caused by Governor Perry's veto allow this plan to go forward? Will the HCC Board fund this ambitious but common-sense replacement plan? Inquiring minds want to know!

EXIT INTERVIEW: PART ONE

2007-08-24T05:35:52Z

I would like to report on the main issues which occupied my attention during my year in office as president of the Faculty Senate:

The numerous problems which faculty have to deal with in H.C.C. can be divided into three general categories:

"Where's-My-Stuff?" Issues
"We're a College, So Act Like It" issues
"We Are the True Leaders" issues

1."WHERE'S MY STUFF?" ISSUES (with apologies to Saturday Night Live)

This category deals with pay, benefits and workload.

The biggest PLUS in this area was the raise for adjunct instructors of $150 per 3-credit course (with an additional $50 to come next year). It would be less than honest for me to claim much credit for this achievement: The word got out to the administration through the December issue of the TCCTA Messenger that HCCS was dead last in adjunct pay (3-credit academic course with a master's degree), and there was no dissent among vice-chancellors that a major pay increase was necessary.

However, the original proposal came with a rider that distinctions between bachelor's, master's and doctor's degrees would be ended, and adjuncts would be paid a flat fee. The Senate passed a resolution calling for the distinctions to be preserved, and the eventual pay raise maintained the differential among degrees.

A QUESTION MARK that arises in connection with this pay raise for adjuncts is whether adjunct librarians and counselors are also included. If adjunct instructors have been overlooked for some time, it is likely that the adjuncts in the non-teaching faculty domain are even further in the shadows.

The biggest NEGATIVE in the compensation sector was the deferral of the Senate-approved salary compensation proposal for full-time salaries. This proposal, which called for implementation of a 27-step salary schedule, addressed two critical issues for full-time faculty at H.C.C:
By placing faculty on the step scale based on longevity with HCCS (with an additional allowance for pre-HCCS teaching experience of up to 6 years), the faculty plan would have permanently addressed the vex-level ing problem of salary compression, which the Board had committed to solving, but has since backed off from the remediation plan (to read aninstructive report on salary compression at the University of Houston, click here);
By pegging the entry level salaries to the the average of the major urban community colleges in Texas, we will finally develop a competitive salary schedule which is not crowding the bottom of the community colleges in the state. (For the definitive analysis of the salary situation in Texas community colleges, please check out the December 2006 issue of the TCCTA Messenger.)

Unfortunately, as the year progressed, we faces the perfect storm: the triple whammy of multiple new chief executives, the departure of the compensation director and the Governor's veto of benefits for community college employees. I do not believe that the cause is lost: Dr. Spangler and the new Deputy Chancellor, Dr. Arthur Tyler, have both expressed a desire to meet with the Faculty Senate Compensation Committee to hear a more detailed presentation of our side of the issue. But there is no escaping the fact that a major initiative of ours has temporarily stalled.

Another negative, or perhaps a QUESTION MARK is the new practice of Human Resources to refuse to allow full-time faculty on summer extensions to draw sick leave. I refer to this as a new policy, despite HR's insistence that this policy has always been in effect. However, from my 6 years as a department chair, and from my inquiries of other department chairs and their secretaries, I can attest with certainty that prior to this summer, I have never had a leave credit bounce back. In any case, it is colossally unfair and arbitrary to extend a contract for the summer and then strip it of meaningful benefits. The administration must address this inequitable initiative by Human Resources.

WONK WITH A SMILE: DUBYA INTERLUDE

2007-08-19T14:15:52Z

Thanks to our stalwart compensation committee chair, Linda Burch for the following diversion from the cares of community college governance:

The Secretary of Defense briefed the President this morning.

He told Bush that three Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq.

To everyone's amazement, all the color drained from Bush's face, then

he collapsed onto his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.

Finally, he composed himself and asked,

"Just exactly how many is a Brazilian"?

MORE SKINNY ON THE CAMPAIGN TO ELIMINATE THE "WINDFALL ELIMINATION" FOR RETIRED TEACHERS

2007-08-06T21:28:42Z

Here is a little more detail about the Windfall Offset Provision of the Social Security code, which snatches a handfull out of the modest retirement benefits that teachers in texas and a number of other states can look forward to.

This comes from the National Education Association http://www.nea.org/socialsecurity/index.html
(Wait a second! Weren't these the folks that Rod Paige referred to as terrorists? You'd better clock thislink with caution!!)

*****

NEA Seeks Repeal of Offset Provisions

In the meantime, NEA will continue its effort to repeal two little known amendments to the Social Security Act that are dramatically and unfairly slashing the retirement benefits of tens of thousands of Americans -- teachers and other public school employees, firefighters, police, social workers, and other civil servants -- who are being penalized for their public service. It's just plain wrong and the NEA is committed to working for an end to the injustices of these two provisions.

For NEA members, the hurt is massive. The Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) affect at least one-third of America's education workforce, concentrated in 15 "non-Social Security" states, literally from Maine to Alaska. The list also includes highly populated states like California, Massachusetts, Ohio and Texas. But, because people move from state to state, there are affected individuals everywhere.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Government Pension Offset alone reduces benefits for some 300,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year.

A small victory came in 2005 with enactment of an NEA-supported law that requires the Social Security Administration and employers to warn employees in jobs not covered by Social Security that their benefits will be reduced.

In the past, because the provisions are not widely known, the pension reductions they mandate usually came as a surprise when affected individuals applied for the benefits they had anticipated in their retirement planning.

Unintended Consequences Victimize the Most Vulnerable

The Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision aren't simple to explain. Congress adopted them in 1977 and 1983, respectively, out of congressional zeal to reduce federal budget deficits at the time and as a quick solution to pension "double dipping" abuses.

Their unintended consequences have been victimizing relatively low-paid public servants ever since.

In brief, here's how these provisions work. Social Security law prevents "dual entitlement"-or receipt of full Social Security and spousal benefits at the same time. In 1977, Congress began treating government pensions, such as those earned by educators, as Social Security benefits. The effect of this change was a dollar for dollar reduction in Social Security survivor benefits for anyone also earning a public pension.

In 1983, Congress amended the law to a two-thirds offset. The WEP was enacted in 1983 to prevent people with relatively high-compensated government service and relatively low-paying Social Security-covered employment from having their Social Security benefits determined under the more favorable formula used for retirees with the lowest Social Security earnings.

In practice, however, both provisions are hurting those who can afford it least and are now exacerbating what is widely acknowledged as a national teacher shortage growing to crisis proportions.

Record enrollments in public schools and the projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers are driving an urgent need for teacher recruitment. Critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring additional teachers. Estimates for the number of new teachers needed range from 2.2 to 2.7 million by 2009.

The GPO and WEP are impacting the recruitment of quality teachers to meet these urgent shortages. At the same time that policymakers are encouraging experienced people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, individuals who have worked in other careers are less likely to want to become teachers if doing so will mean a loss of Social Security benefits they have earned. Some states seeking to entice retired teachers to return to the classroom have found them reluctant to return to teaching because of the impact of the GPO and WEP. In addition, current teachers are increasingly likely to leave the profession to reduce the penalty they will incur upon retirement.

What Can Be Done to Address the GPO and WEP?

NEA, working closely with members of Congress, has secured the re-introduction of legislation to completely repeal both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision. H.R. 82 has been introduced in the House and already has more than 100 bipartisan cosponsors!

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) have introduced S. 206 in the Senate, where Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) also are cosponsors.

Congress can fix the problem. The NEA urges everyone to join in the effort by urging their representatives in Congress to sign on to the new bill as cosponsors.

TEACHERS TO CONGRESS: PLEASE REMOVE YOUR THUMB FROM MY EYE!

2007-08-06T19:25:17Z

Undoubtedly, many of you are aware of "Windfall Elimination Provision" (WEP) and "Government Pension Offset" (GPO) provisions of the Social Security Code. These laws are designed to penalize teachers who work in school districts and states where teachers contribute to retirement plans other than social security (e.g. Texas, where college professors in public universities and colleges have a choice of paying into TRS or an ORP of their choosing, but not Social Security). The GPO and WEP state that a person who works for an employer who doesn't contribute to social security shall have have his/her social security benefits reduced by a percentage of his/her other pension.

This is a provision which unfairly targets teachers because they constitute the bulk of the population falling into this category. Community college faculty, especially workforce colleagues, are very likely to have accumulated enough quarters to qualify for social security before working for the community college, thus dooming them to reduced pension bneefits when they retire.

There is a light on the horizon: Two bills, HR 82 in the House of Representatives and S 206 in the Senate, aim to repeal the GPO and the WEP. There is hope that Congress will take action on these bills during this session. Fortunately, both bills have bipartisan support (HR 82 is cos-onsored by Republican Ted Poe as well as Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee).

Go to the following website to learn how you can join the fight to remove these unfair penalties aimed at teachers.

http://www.nea.org/lac/socsec/index.html

"WHAT FRESH HELL IS THIS" DEPARTMENT: IT'S NOT JUST H.C.C....

2007-08-06T18:58:43Z

...that is scrambling to change its processes as a result of goofy legislative interpretation by the Internal Revenue Service. Here is an informative memo from the TSTA (Texas State Teachers Association) to its members on the very same subject (view the entire issue at http://www.tsta.org/news/current/.

*****

August 3, 2007
Important Notice about New IRS Regulations
Recent changes have been made to income tax regulations which may affect school employees who are paid out over twelve months. Many public school employees who work less than a full year choose to have their salary evenly distributed over twelve months. This is commonly referred to as “annualized compensation.”

New IRS regulations state that annualized compensation may be subject to an additional 20% excise tax. The new IRS regulations regarding annualized compensation apply to both contracted and non-contracted school employees. After consultation with several Texas school districts, TSTA Legal Staff, and a deferred compensation tax expert, TSTA has determined there are two ways employees may avoid the additional 20% excise tax. First, employees may avoid the additional tax if they elect, in writing, to have their compensation annualized before they begin work for the 2007-2008 school year. Second, if a school district does not allow employees to make an election to have their compensation annualized, the employees will still be protected from the additional tax if the employees’ school district operates under a policy that is in place before the start of the school year, and that policy establishes that the school district will pay employees on an annualized schedule.

If your school district does not allow you to elect to have your compensation annualized, you need to determine whether the school district has a policy in place that makes the election for you, as detailed above. In any event, it is important that you attempt to have your school district address this issue in writing so you know whether you need to make the election yourself or the school district has made the election for you. If neither of these things has occurred by the first day of school, the safest course of action would be to request non-annualized payments (receive pay on a ten or eleven month basis, as applicable.)

Most school districts are aware of these new regulations and should provide employees with an election form by the first day of work. If your district does not have such a form, as detailed above, determine whether your school district through policy has unilaterally made the election to annualize compensation.

If no election has been made by or on behalf of an employee by the first day of work of the new school year, the safest course of action would be to request non-annualized payments (receive pay on a ten- or eleven-month basis, as applicable).

Once an employee makes the election to annualize compensation, it may not be revoked during that school year. Employees who elect to have their compensation annualized, must make that election at the beginning of each new school year

GOVERNOR'S VETO: MORE OPTIMISM?

2007-08-01T20:38:06Z

Eye on Austin: Veto spurs House letter

The state's community college system has reason to be optimistic.

It looks as if the $154 million Gov. Rick Perry vetoed last month stands a good chance of getting restored.

Perry is under growing pressure to restore the funding he cut from the 2009 budget and it's coming from everywhere, not just from the presidents of the 50 community colleges and the legislators who represent such schools.

Last week, the two-year institutions found a powerful ally in Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, leader of the Texas Senate. Dewhurst wants to solve the issue as quickly as possibly. For starters, he will soon convene a group of senators - including Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock - and other interested parties, including Perry's staff, to address the issue.

The day after Dewhurst went public with his pledge to help the junior colleges, Perry also received a letter signed by 47 House Democrats urging him to restore the funding. In addition, in a letter to House Speaker Tom Craddick, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, leader of the House Democratic Caucus, urged Craddick, R-Midland, to get involved with Dewhurst and others in finding a solution to the problem.

Perry did not respond to Dewhurst's proposal or to the Democrats' letter. But in a recent op-ed article published in the Amarillo Globe-News and several other newspapers, he justified the veto on grounds that community colleges used deceptive methods to get the funding. The accusation outraged Amarillo College President Steven Jones, South Plains College President Kelvin Sharp and other community college presidents, as well as Duncan and other legislators.

If Perry's veto stands, AC will lose $3.8 million and SPC $3.3 million.

facnews @ 2007-08-01T15:34:00

2007-08-01T20:36:44Z

The distant drumbeat of approaching cavalry hoofs .... Will Dewhurst ride to the rescue?

*****

Dewhurst calls for reallocation of community college funds vetoed by Perry

Thursday, July 26, 2007

By David Doerr

Tribune-Herald staff writer

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst made a public plea Wednesday for state leaders to find a way to reallocate $154 million in vetoed funds for community college health insurance.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the funds last month, and officials from the state’s 50 community college districts have responded with anger, saying they’ll have to consider tuition increases, local tax increases or enrollment restrictions.

>> Read the
Dewhurst letter

At McLennan Community College, the cut amounts to a loss of $2.7 million.

“I want this issue addressed now . . . before the impact of these funding cuts are felt,” Dewhurst wrote in a Wednesday letter to senators. He added that he didn’t want to see community colleges take “drastic measures” to make up for the cut at this time.

“I’ve had enough of this,” Dewhurst later said of the quarreling over the funding. “I want to see $154 million go back into our community colleges.”

Lawmakers did not address the issue during the legislative session that ended in May, and they’re not scheduled to meet again until 2009.

A legislative budget panel that includes Perry, Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick can decide to reallocate the funds with a majority vote and agreement from Perry, but no meeting is scheduled.

Dewhurst said he’ll designate a working group of state senators, staff from Perry’s office and community college representatives to find a solution.

“Certainly, the governor welcomes input from our legislators,” Perry spokeswoman Krista Moody said. “The governor’s office has already begun working with the Higher Education Coordinating Board and community college leaders . . . to address the concerns of community colleges.”

Who’s responsible?

“Make no mistake, Gov. Perry has continuously proposed increased funding for our community colleges,” she said. “They are an important factor in Texas’ educational structure. However, the governor wants to ensure that solutions to their concerns fall within the scope of the law.”

The dispute between Perry and college officials centers on how the governor views who should be responsible for the cost of fringe benefits. Perry insists that those benefits, including health insurance coverage, should be covered by the entity that pays for the employees’ salaries, the same way employees at four-year colleges are treated.

But community college officials say state lawmakers have historically differentiated their institutions from four-year universities.

The state traditionally has funded the benefits for employees directly involved in education at community colleges, such as professors and administrators. The colleges have been responsible for using local revenue from property taxes, tuition and fees to pay for the benefits of employees who support noneducational operations, such as physical plant employees and custodians.

Lawmakers have been critical of Perry’s decision to cut the funding without consulting them during the legislative session.

State Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, said he will be one of the lawmakers on Dewhurst’s group, which likely will meet within the next few weeks to attempt to find a solution.

“Probably by the end of the day, there will be 31 senators on there,” Averitt said. “Everybody is real concerned about it.”

Although it remains to be seen if Perry would agree to a compromise, Averitt urged community college officials to refrain from taking any drastic measures before the group has had a chance to tackle the issue.

“We’ve been looking at it for some time, and I think we do have some options,” he said. “If they give us some time, maybe we can come up with a better proposal.”

However, community colleges are operating under a short timeline to find ways to make up for the cuts as they approach the deadline for setting their budgets at the end of August.

MCC’s board of trustees, which has adamantly opposed a tax increase after voters approved a $74.5 million bond issue in November, has proposed raising tuition in the spring and cutting various programs to make up for the loss in state revenue.

Johnette McKown, MCC’s executive vice president, said Dewhurst’s rhetoric is encouraging but that the school will have to settle on a budget long before the community college funding could be restored. But if a compromise is reached and the state funding returned, then the program cuts and tuition hike could be reversed before taking effect, she said.

“We’re probably in a better position than most community colleges are, from that standpoint,” she said.

‘A pretty strong signal’

MCC president Dennis Michaelis said he is appreciative of the efforts of lawmakers such as Averritt to restore the funding. The simple fact Dewhurst is encouraging community colleges not to raise taxes or tuition “sends a pretty strong signal,” he said.

“I’m encouraged,” Michaelis said. “It’s better news than it was yesterday, but it’s still not a done deal.”

Regardless, he said, the school will continue to plan for the upcoming school year as though nothing will change, with any budget restorations coming after the money definitely has been returned to its coffers.

“If you don’t raise tuition and the funding restoration doesn’t happen, then you’re going to run a deficit budget,” he said.

Tribune-Herald staff writer Tim Woods, Cox News Service and the Associated Press contributed to this story.

Play By Play from the Wonk!

2007-07-27T00:42:10Z

The distant drumbeat of approaching cavalry hoofs .... Will Dewhurst ride to the rescue?

*****

Dewhurst calls for reallocation of community college funds vetoed by Perry

Thursday, July 26, 2007

By David Doerr

Tribune-Herald staff writer

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst made a public plea Wednesday for state leaders to find a way to reallocate $154 million in vetoed funds for community college health insurance.

>> Read the
Dewhurst letter

At McLennan Community College, the cut amounts to a loss of $2.7 million.

“I’ve had enough of this,” Dewhurst later said of the quarreling over the funding. “I want to see $154 million go back into our community colleges.”

Lawmakers did not address the issue during the legislative session that ended in May, and they’re not scheduled to meet again until 2009.

A legislative budget panel that includes Perry, Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick can decide to reallocate the funds with a majority vote and agreement from Perry, but no meeting is scheduled.

Dewhurst said he’ll designate a working group of state senators, staff from Perry’s office and community college representatives to find a solution.

Who’s responsible?

But community college officials say state lawmakers have historically differentiated their institutions from four-year universities.

Lawmakers have been critical of Perry’s decision to cut the funding without consulting them during the legislative session.

State Sen. Kip Averitt, R-Waco, said he will be one of the lawmakers on Dewhurst’s group, which likely will meet within the next few weeks to attempt to find a solution.

“Probably by the end of the day, there will be 31 senators on there,” Averitt said. “Everybody is real concerned about it.”

“We’ve been looking at it for some time, and I think we do have some options,” he said. “If they give us some time, maybe we can come up with a better proposal.”

However, community colleges are operating under a short timeline to find ways to make up for the cuts as they approach the deadline for setting their budgets at the end of August.

“We’re probably in a better position than most community colleges are, from that standpoint,” she said.

‘A pretty strong signal’

“I’m encouraged,” Michaelis said. “It’s better news than it was yesterday, but it’s still not a done deal.”

“If you don’t raise tuition and the funding restoration doesn’t happen, then you’re going to run a deficit budget,” he said.

Tribune-Herald staff writer Tim Woods, Cox News Service and the Associated Press contributed to this story.

Is the Tide Turning on the Governor's Veto?

2007-07-27T00:34:28Z

Is help on the way? Recently, the reporting about the Governor's veto of has focused less on outrage at Perry's action and faulty rationale for it and more on steps that other Austin politicians are taking to mitigate the damage. To start with, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, heir presumptive to His Perryship, takes the spotlight:

*****

Dewhurst: Restore funding for colleges

$154 million vetoed from budget was to be used for health benefits

12:00 AM CDT on Thursday, July 26, 2007

By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News
tstutz@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst called Wednesday for restoration of $154 million in funding for Texas community colleges that was vetoed last month by Gov. Rick Perry.

Mr. Dewhurst said he has asked the governor, legislative leaders and community college officials to try to reach an agreement on a plan that would allow the money to go to the state's 50 community college districts while addressing Mr. Perry's objections to the original appropriation.

The governor axed the $154 million in funding – which was to be used to pay for group health insurance premiums – because of what the governor said were gross overestimates of how many community college employees were entitled to state-paid health coverage.

Community college officials have blasted the governor for his veto, saying the loss of money would force them to consider tuition hikes, property tax increases and possible staffing cutbacks.

"We have seen a lot of bickering going on over the health insurance funding for our community colleges that was vetoed – and I have had enough of this," Mr. Dewhurst said. "I want to see the $154 million go back into our community colleges. I don't want to see tuition increases, local tax increases or restricted enrollment.

"Whether we put it back in the [funding] formulas or work out a hybrid solution that is acceptable to the Legislature, governor and community college presidents ... we need to get it done. This is not that complex."

Mr. Dewhurst said he would like to convene a meeting of the Legislature Budget Board in September or October to consider a plan that would restore the vetoed funds to community colleges. The board comprises Mr. Dewhurst, House Speaker Tom Craddick and four members each from the House and Senate.

But restoration of the funds also requires the approval of the governor, whose concerns must be met, the lieutenant governor said.

Krista Moody, a spokeswoman for Mr. Perry, said the governor is ready to look at the situation again, but she emphasized, "Any proposal to address the concerns of community colleges needs to align with the spirit of the law."

Her reference was to a requirement that says state agencies can't use state funds to pay benefits for employees who are paid from sources other than state revenue.

Mr. Dewhurst said he has no particular plan to resolve the disagreement, adding, "I'm wide open on a solution."

He also said he would ask Mr. Craddick to join him in appointing a committee of lawmakers and college officials to consider various options, such as redirecting the vetoed money into the regular funding formulas for community colleges instead of earmarking it for health insurance payments.

In addition, he said, "If community college presidents want this $154 million, they are going to have to help us" find a solution. He also urged restraint by college officials in considering tuition increases and enrollment cutbacks "because help is on the way."

EARLY ALERT: HOW CAN FACULTY BENEFIT FROM THIS TOOL?

2007-07-23T16:50:06Z

The OnLine Early Alert Program was implemented this year throughout the HCC System by counseling departments in conjunction with the Admissions Office and a number of faculty consultants. This new program will allow faculty to communicate with counselors in their colleges about students who may need counseling intervention before the class has proceeded so far that help will be useless.

Faculty may access the form at the following location, or at their college's website.

http://www.hccs.edu/indev/early_alert/index.html

The following article about the uses and benefits of the Early Alert Program comes from the Central College counseling department:

Is An Early Alert System Viable At HCC?

Dr. Patricia Ugwu, Counseling Chair, Central College

Ms. Tamara Griffin, Early Alert Counselor

Mr. Touhid Chowdhury, Student Service Associate

The Early Alert Program is an effective system for identifying and effectively intervening with students who are struggling academically. It has worked and continues to work in colleges and universities around the nation. If the key stakeholders (administrators, instructional and counseling faculty, student development personnel and students) understand and make the commitment to do their part, it can work better at HCC too.

When Early Alert was first introduced at HCC it was ad hoc and unfunded. Each college implemented the program with varying degrees of success. In the 2006-2007 academic year things changed. The administrators allocated money for Early Alert Activities. A system committee made up of instructional and counseling faculty, staff and administrators was charged to develop an online Early Alert process that all faculty across the system could use. In collaboration with the system Instructional Media Department a viable online form is now available. This new form is designed to facilitate communications between referring faculty and the Early Alert specialist at the colleges. Unlike before, the new system-wide form includes an option to let referring faculty know that their alert has been received and what the initial plan of action will be.

In order to expand and further develop the Early Alert System at Central a new counselor has been hired to coordinate the program. During a recent Early Alert Appreciation ceremony, faculty members were asked to complete a survey evaluating the program. We are excited about the feedback we received from participating faculty. Those who used the system say they would use it again and they would encourage other faculty to participate. Best of all, we learned that many of the faculty are willing to utilize the option of scheduling a 10-15 minutes seminar in class, before or after lecture, providing students with test taking strategies, memory skills, management of test anxiety, or time management skills. The survey also indicated that faculty would like to know whether the students referred received help. We now plan to share outcome information with participating faculty.

We know that the success of the Early Alert System is dependent on all stakeholders doing their part. Here is an example of an Early Alert referral that worked well.

One of our Early Alert advisors stated, “I had a student referred due to a low first test score in Math 0308, spring 2007. During our appointment, I noticed she had a fear of math and had not yet opened her textbook. I explained that she was not alone, with tutoring and improved skills she could do well in math. I gave her the math tutoring schedule and really encouraged her to attend tutorial sessions every week. We discussed time management skills and together we made a study schedule.” After several weeks, the student emailed the advisor to share the results of her last two test (a B and an A). At the end of the semester the student e-mailed again to thank the advisor for helping her be one of only six students in her class who completed Math 0308 successfully. The student passed the class with a B.

Working together we can help more HCC students experience similar success. Early Alert at HCC can become a viable intervention strategy as research suggest, but we have to be willing to invest the time, effort and resources necessary to make it happen.

Dr. Spangler Speaks Out on Governor's Veto

2007-07-20T21:27:41Z

Houston Community College has released the following statement by Chancellor Mary Spangler concerning Governor Perry's unjustified veto of 50% of the funding for community college employee benefits.

This statement appeared in the Monday, July 23 editionof the Houston Chronicle, as a letter to the editor.

HCCS.NEWS SPECIAL EDITION VOL. 10 NO. 131, THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2007

(The following opinion piece was written by HCC Chancellor Dr. Mary S. Spangler for dissemination to local media outlets.)

HCC CHANCELLOR REBUTS GOVERNOR’S EDITORIAL

    Houston Community College continues to be deeply concerned about the erosion of support of the most important sector of higher education that keeps Houston and Texas at the forefront of economic development for the region. State funding for higher education makes it possible for community colleges to offer an affordable education to its citizens.
    Thus, while the Governor has expressed his belief that community colleges are the “backbone” of our higher education system and he supports increased formula funding for them, it is ironic that his veto of the very funding he sent forward to the state legislature for approval might well result in an increase in taxes and tuition to offset the loss.
    An even greater irony is that community colleges are part of the bedrock of this state’s economic and social prosperity, and these actions seriously undermine the engagement we in education developed over many years – a connection with those who are traditionally disenfranchised from the educational process: the high school graduate who does not qualify for financial aid because his parents earn too much but live just above the poverty line; the single young mother juggling time between a job, motherhood and getting an education; the worker who has been laid-off and is training for a second career while collecting unemployment, which is just about to run out.
    Governor Perry’s actions leave Houston Community College and our sister institutions with few choices. We are carefully monitoring the situation, while making fiscal management decisions that have the least amount of impact on taxpayers or students. We also rely on the alliances with those elected to office and appreciate their continuing support, including Senator Whitmire, Senator Gallegos, and Senator Williams and Rep. Smith, Rep. Otto, and Rep. Eiland, as well as the other members of the Texas House of Representatives and Texas Senate who support us. Their due diligence in the arduous appropriations process will keep the dialogue going until commonsense prevails.
    In the meantime, students from all walks of life can come through the doors of all our educational institutions knowing that we will work hard to continue to offer quality education at an affordable price, no matter the final outcome.

Dr. Mary S. Spangler, Chancellor
Houston Community College

GOVERNOR-WATCH: AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE REACTS TO VETO

2007-07-11T14:21:52Z

Trustees at Austin Community College have voted to raise tuition and fees to make up the shortfall caused by the Governor's veto of last month.

*****

ACC raises fees $2 per credit hour

Increase needed to compensate for vetoed state funding, college officials say

Click-2-Listen

By Katie Humphrey
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Austin Community College students will pay $2 more in fees for each credit hour they take to help make up for Gov. Rick Perry's veto of legislation that would have aided the state's two-year colleges, ACC officials said.

The decision by the ACC Board of Trustees was part of a $185.5 million budget that it approved Monday night in a 6-2 vote.

A total of $3.8 million disappeared for ACC when Perry vetoed $154 million for community college health benefits statewide, and the board's budget is a combination of fee increases, tuition hikes and cuts that will be announced later to make up for that money.

The board's new budget includes an $8 per credit hour tuition increase for students outside the college's taxing district and a $24 per credit hour tuition increase for out-of-state students. Students from outside Texas make up 2 percent of the student body.

Tuition for in-district students — about 71 percent of ACC students — will not go up.

All students will pay the $2 general fee increase starting in the fall. It will raise the cost of a typical three-credit course $6.

Over a two-year period, Perry's veto cost ACC $7.6 million, college officials said. Another of his vetoes axed $390,000 that lawmakers had allocated to help cover costs at the new South Austin campus.

The college relies on a combination of funding from the state, local taxpayers and student tuition and fees. If state funding shrinks, the college must raise taxes or student tuition and fees to compensate, ACC President Steve Kinslow said.

"That expense doesn't go away," he said. "It gets displaced."

Kinslow said the college does not plan to cut student services and will look for ways to reduce the budget for deferred maintenance and expansion of the college district. Discussions about additional cuts are under way, he said.

College staff members had recommended that the board raise the general fee $5, but the board chose a lower amount to put less of a burden on students, board Chairman John Hernandez said.

The fee will rise from $13 to $15. The cost of a typical three-credit course for an in-district student in the fall will be $162.

"We hated to do it," Hernandez said. "We're just glad that it was a smaller impact than was initially projected on the students."

Trustees James McGuffee and Allen Kaplan voted against the budget. Lillian Davis was absent.

Kaplan said he would have preferred a $5 increase to avoid having to make cuts as the college attempts to expand.

"We are a growing college, and we have to pay more dollars for expanding our programs," Kaplan said. "If it doesn't stop momentum that the college has had for the last few years, it certainly slows it down."

Is it Attitude you're looking for...?

2007-07-03T04:18:19Z

Well, you'll have to wait, because it's late and I need to get some sleep! Check back in the morning!

WONK, ETC.... GOVERNOR'S VETO DOESN'T SIT WELL IN EL PASO

2007-06-28T14:16:49Z

Here's the word from El Paso Community College, as reported in the El Paso Times:

*****

Perry veto costs EPCC $6 million; tax, tuition hikes loom

By Brandi Grissom / Austin Bureau
El Paso Times

Article Launched:06/28/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT

El Paso Community College will have to do some serious belt-tightening and might have to raise taxes and tuition because of a Gov. Rick Perry veto that will cost the school $6 million, officials said Wednesday.

"We will get through it," said Ernst Roberts, executive assistant to EPCC President Richard Rhodes. "And we've dealt with cuts in state money before, so we are not unaccustomed to having to deal with this."

Perry vetoed more than $150 million in the state budget that lawmakers had approved for community colleges statewide. He said the schools used inflated numbers to request more money than they needed.

"Community colleges falsified their appropriations requests," he wrote in a statement explaining the veto.

Perry spokesman Robert Black said community colleges requested state money to pay for health insurance for employees that should have been paid for out of dollars raised locally from tuition and property taxes. He said that Perry had warned college officials about the problem since 2003 but that they continued to request more money than they were due.

"The governor finally put his foot down," Black said.

But in a letter sent Friday to Perry, Rhodes said the veto came as a "financial kick in the stomach."

Rhodes' executive assistant said Perry had mentioned concerns about the health insurance issue, but he and other school officials thought the matter had been set aside.

School officials also took offense at Perry's allegations that appropriations requests were falsified. "There is no effort on our part to ask for that which we don't deserve," Roberts said.

EPCC officials are now writing the school's budget for the next school year, and Roberts said they were trying to decide how to save $3 million. They will have to find another $3 million to cut next year.

In his letter to the governor, Rhodes said officials would consider freezing hiring and restricting travel and would examine purchasing.

Roberts said they might also have to increase the community college's tax rate, which hasn't happened for two years, and to raise student tuition. Those, he said, would be last resorts.

Nicolas Dominguez, a member of EPCC Board of Trust ees, said he didn't want to increase tuition. "We shouldn't do this on the backs of the students," he said.

State Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said he planned to talk to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board this week about options to help community colleges

WONK ON THE WATCHTOWER: Governor's Veto: We'll Always Have Paris

2007-06-27T16:26:25Z

Bellows of rage from Paris, Texas

*****

Homer: 'I'm at a loss'

By Mary Madewell
The Paris News

Published June 26, 2007

State Rep. Mark Homer, D-Paris, slammed Gov. Rick Perry on Monday for his recent veto of community college health care funding, saying the governor’s action is representative of “lunacy” in Austin.

The Democrat also took swipes at House Speaker Tom Craddick, a republican, during a video conference with Paris Junior College faculty and staff in Paris, Greenville and Sulphur Springs.

“I am at a loss as to what to say other than how horrible this is,” Homer said from the PJC campus.

The District 3 representative said the veto gives more credibility for the need for a brief special session following the gubernatorial veto time period to give lawmakers override power. A bill calling for such a session stalled in the 80th Legislative session.

“I am seeing all the more need for something like that,” Homer said. “You hate to see the structure of government change so drastically, but I guess our forefathers never foresaw the lunacy of some of the people that would come to power.”

Perry’s action demonstrates a disturbing trend, Homer said.

“Political favoritism has become such a big part of how he handles himself in office and it is shameful,” Homer said. “I will assure you I will be writing a letter to the governor.”

Noting Perry claims to be “the economic governor,” Homer said he stood with Perry in creating the enterprise fund and the emerging technologies fund. Homer said he thinks because other governors have monies to lure industries, Texas needs the same leverage.

“Now to see him turn around and knock the legs out from under such an integral part of the whole economic development picture is unbelievable,” Homer said.

The Democrat criticized Perry’s support of what Homer termed “payback” for Craddick supporters.

“I initially wanted to vote against the budget because I was so mad about all the special items,” Homer said. He mentioned 18 new parks funded for “10 or so of my colleagues that recommitted their pledge to Speaker Craddick.”

“He demanded while the budget was in conference committee that he get another $200 million to settle his debt with members that committed to him, or he would not let the budget come to the House floor,” Homer said.

The representative mentioned $10 million in funding to build a parking lot for a fine arts building at a college campus in Midland campus, where. Craddick resides.

“Did the governor line-item special requests — maybe a few, but I don’t believe Speaker Craddick’s special items got vetoed,” Homer said.

Politics has taken over in Austin, Homer said.

“It’s not like the days when Sen. A.M. Aikin’s actions were for the betterment of Texas,” Homer said. “Instead, unfortunately, what is happening now is for the betterment of the party of for individual political gain.”

Colleagues from both sides of the aisle are alarmed, Homer said.

“That’s what you saw late in the session,” he said, referring to a campaign to oust Craddick.

“It would have been a large step in the right direction of stopping political favoritism that is going on down there today,” Homer said.

WONK ON THE WATCHTOWER: Governor's Veto: HCCS Takes a Stand

2007-06-27T16:24:41Z

HCCS comes out swinging ... in Katy. There are a lot of Perry supporters there who need to read this:

*****

HCC officials determined to fight governor's funding vetoes

By Nick Georgandis
Times Managing Editor

Houston Community College officials announced Thursday that they will explore all options, including calling a special session of congress, to combat Governor Rick Perry's community college funding vetoes. HCC estimates Perry's actions will cut $11 million in funds for the system of campuses - which includes two in the greater Katy area - over the next two years.

“The governor leaves us with very few choices by cutting this funding," HCC Chancellor Mary Spangler said on Thursday afternoon. "We either cut services or raise revenue through increased tuition, fees or taxes.”

HCC is a huge source of continuing education for the Katy and West Houston areas. HCC Northwest is one of the five major branches of the system and is made up of campuses at Katy Mills Mall, on Foxlake Drive just east of North Fry Road and in the Town and Country Mall just inside Beltway 8.

As of the Fall, 2006 semester, HCC Northwest tallied 11,500 students taking classes.

Perry used his line-item veto power to cut by half the funds used to pay health insurance benefits for community college faculty and administrators, a sum of $154 million state wide spread across 50 colleges.

“I believe the Governor's veto was erroneous and call on him to convene a special legislative session to restore this much-needed funding,” HCC Board Chairman Christopher W. Oliver said in a released statement Thursday.

Oliver, retaliated to Perry's written release that claimed colleges "falsified their appropriation requests by saying, "I can assure the governor that we follow all the regulatory requirements for submitting Legislative Appropriations Requests. I categorically refute the allegation of defraud to the State of Texas.”

The $11 million will be cut from HCC budgets between 2007-2009 if the vetoes stand. Smaller colleges across the state have expressed bigger concerns about their ability to even remain functional based on Perry's decision.

WONK ON THE WATCHTOWER: THE COASTAL BEND WEIGHS IN

2007-06-25T16:18:39Z

This article from the Coastal Bend and Corpus Christi shows what a major impact the Governor's ill-considered veto will have on the community colleges in this area.

Community colleges veto cuts health funds

Schools must find new way to insure

By Israel Saenz
Originally published 01:00 a.m., June 25, 2007
Updated 03:07 a.m., June 25, 2007

Brockman says Coastal Bend College already is hit hard by a shortfall.

Garcia says Del Mar must consider tax and tuition increases.

John Brockman, Coastal Bend College's outgoing president, put it succinctly.

"He just took a pen and put a line through a number," he said last week.

Area community colleges say that number -- $153,979,799 -- means an area loss of $5.5 million in health insurance funding from the state for community college staff, faculty and administration. Now, colleges have about a year to take a hard look at how they'll shift the money they have to cover the decrease and maintain health benefits.

Del Mar College officials said Gov. Rick Perry's line-item veto June 15 means the loss of insurance funding, $4 million, planned for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Coastal Bend College officials said the governor slashed $1.4 million to insure its employees that same year.

While the governor's office left intact appropriations of those same amounts for the fiscal year that begins this fall, college officials are left with questions as to how they will insure employees after that.

Joe Alaniz, Del Mar College vice president of business and finance, said last week the college has a number of options for footing the insurance bill for the campus' nearly 700 employees, and that none of them are ideal. They include charging employees more out-of-pocket health costs, raising tuition, hiking property taxes and cutting funding to other areas, including academic programs.

Alaniz said funding health insurance after the upcoming school year would have to come through a combination of those measures. President Carlos Garcia said a tax increase and increased tuition could fall on the upcoming year's budget, which will be discussed and set in August.

"There's too many variables we need to be looking at right now in terms of how we will be approaching funding for the next year," Alaniz said. "We could say we will increase taxes or raise tuition -- that's one extreme. The other extreme is reducing services and finding a balance that is workable and still will meet the needs of the institution.

Alaniz said the college also must address the needs of the employees, because it is required by law to provide health coverage, he said.

The governor's office reports community colleges statewide must use locally raised funds to pay for employee insurance costs for those employees whose salaries are not paid by the state. Governor's office spokesman Robert Black said many colleges -- including Del Mar College and Coastal Bend College -- have inflated the number of state-paid employees on their campuses for years to receive more funding.

"It's important to point out the governor has said we need to have a very strong, vibrant community college system in the state, but they need to play by prescribed appropriations rules the state puts down," Black said. "The state says, depending on how they're paid, if they are paid by locally raised dollars then their insurance should be paid for with locally raised dollars as well."

Alaniz said he and other college officials have not received figures from the governor's office backing up this statement.

"(The governor's office) won't tell us specifics," Alaniz said. "We have not falsified data. It's an insult that he can accuse us of such tactics."

Some Del Mar College and Coastal Bend College's employees are paid with state funds, while others are paid with locally generated revenue. Of Del Mar College's current full-time employees, 64 are maintenance or physical plant employees whose salary and health benefits are paid using local tax revenue.

The college's remaining 609 full-time employees are paid using state funds, Del Mar officials said.

Alaniz said the state has paid insurance costs for all non-physical plant employees for years.

Black said the health appropriations for the 2007-2008 year were left intact to give colleges "a year to deal with how they were going to shift their books."

For Coastal Bend College, which recently reported a $1.2 million budget shortfall that resulted in the college cutting 35 faculty and staff positions, Brockman said relying on property taxes alone to make up for the loss would result in a 113 percent tax rate increase and relying on only a tuition increase would mean a 45 percent increase.

Neither is an option, he said.

"The chances are very good we will want to do something to help us save money for the year after that," he said. "If we hadn't already had cuts, this would be easier to deal with.

"We've already cut to the bone; the only thing left is major amputation."

Del Mar College officials, as well as officials with other community colleges throughout the state, have begun a letter-writing campaign to the governor's office and are seeking a retraction.

"How this thing got translated into us making this huge error I don't understand at all," Garcia said. "The letter we wrote to the governor reflects that we take offense to that statement."

Rep. Solomon Ortiz Jr., D-Corpus Christi, said the governor did not hint at cutting the funding during the legislative session, which ended May 28.

"He never brought this up in the session or budget process," Ortiz said. "Community colleges already operate on such thin margins."

Del Mar College employees currently pay out-of-pocket costs only if their children and spouses are included in health plans. The state has paid all of employees' monthly insurance premiums.

Del Mar College administrative assistant Jessica Alaniz -- who is unmarried and has no children -- does not pay any premiums. The prospect of having to do so in the future, however, has her thinking ahead about expenses.

"The way my budget is now, I'm a homeowner so a large portion of my monthly check goes to that and my homeowners' insurance," she said. "Also being a recent graduate, I have to pay for student loans. If I factor in the added costs of health insurance, I would have to make some sacrifices and move some things around."

Shifting priorities is now a major theme for college administrators as well.

"Obviously, we're going to have to pay for health benefits for all of our employees," Alaniz said. "Costs are going to have to be paid by someone.

"Things are going to be different from now on."

WONK ON THE WATCHTOWER: GOVERNOR'S VETO REACTION, WEEK 2

2007-06-25T16:13:37Z

Here is a pretty miffed local news editorial from Brazoria County:

By Yvonne Mintz
The Facts

Published June 24, 2007

Gov. Rick Perry acted irresponsibly in his decision to slash funding for group health insurance for community college staff and has gone beyond his usual reactionary politics to what, unless he gives us a better reason than he has so far, can only be seen as misdirected payback.

There’s not much Perry did this session that made sense. His premature and rabid push to mandate the HPV vaccine for all young girls in Texas left even the least cynical among us wondering what drug maker Merck had done to curry such favor with the governor.

Now, with the sweep of his veto pen and his half-baked reason for using it, Perry has managed to lump all community colleges together and paint them as rule-breakers who have misused state funds. Last week, Perry cut $154 million in funding that had been earmarked for group health insurance for faculty and administrators at the state’s 50 community colleges. By way of explanation, he accused community colleges of falsifying appropriation requests to use state money on benefits for employees who are not eligible to receive it, such as groundskeepers, custodians and faculty whose positions are funded through grants.

Local officials deny that charge, of course. We see it as a convenient and mean-spirited excuse when what Perry really was trying to do was assert his power, in case we and legislators who largely undercut him this session, forgot he can.

Had Perry really been concerned about widespread misuse of state funds, the correct course of action would have been a warning and an audit of those colleges suspected. That he instead cut off this substantial funding source was irresponsible and will lead to significant repercussions.

At Brazosport College, the cut funds amount to about $1.37 million for 2008-09, and Alvin Community College officials estimate their loss will be about $1.5 million.

Perhaps most galling is that while officials at the colleges will twist themselves and their budgets inside out to make up the difference, having to either raise taxes, raise tuition or both, the money they should have gotten will just sit as an unused balance.

We have confidence the colleges will find a way, and we all should remind our legislators that we want the funding restored somehow, though by the time they meet again it will be too late for the 2008-09 budget year. Both State Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, and State Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, who represent parts of Brazoria County, have expressed outrage at the governor’s veto.

Access to higher education and lower taxes have been high on Perry’s list of stated priorities, but as we most recently witnessed with his veto of eminent domain legislation that would have protected property rights he supposedly holds so dear, what Perry says and what he does are often opposites.

The just-closed legislative session was not a pleasant one for Perry, we know, but it’s time he stop making things worse.

This editorial was written by Yvonne Mintz, managing editor of The Facts.

THE EDITORIALS POUR IN...HERE'S AMARILLO

2007-06-21T14:16:17Z

Governor Perry's veto has raised the ire of educators and policymakers all across the state. Here, the Amarillo Globe vents its rage.

*****

Editorial: Perry's veto ax cuts too deep

Amarillo College gets stuck with blame

"Our process of funding higher education is seriously flawed."

- Texas Gov. Rick Perry

Make no mistake about it, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has a problem with how the state pays for higher education.

The governor stated clearly and concisely his thoughts on higher education funding when he chopped $154 million in such funds from the 2008-09 budget last week.

Perry's veto ax hit close to home.

Amarillo College stands to lose $3.8 million in health insurance funds, a serious financial blow.

Understandably, AC is not thrilled with Perry's veto.

AC President Steven Jones said Tuesday that the college was not expecting this massive slashing, and the only options are to get Perry to change his mind or locate other financial sources.

Here's how the governor explained his vicious veto on his Web site: "This veto deletes fiscal year 2009 funding for Higher Education Employees Group Insurance Contributions for Public Community/Junior Colleges. A budget rider states that 'the funds appropriated by this Act out of the General Revenue Fund may not be expended for employee benefit costs, or other indirect costs, associated with the payment of salaries or wages if the salaries or wages are paid from a source other than the General Revenue Fund.' Community colleges have violated this provision, using millions of state dollars annually to pay the benefits of non-state-paid employees. To get money for these employees, community colleges falsified their appropriations requests. As a result, their appropriation for fiscal years 2008-09 is approximately $126 million too high. Community colleges have unexpended balance authority, so they can apply proportionality in fiscal year 2008 and fund most of fiscal year 2009 with fiscal year 2008 savings and the rest with increases provided for instruction and operations."

Give the governor credit for sticking to his guns. His target, however, seems a bit large.

When Perry states that "community colleges falsified their appropriations requests" does he mean all of them?

Because all of them - including AC - will pay the price. And this veto could end up hitting Amarillo taxpayers in the wallet.

It seems unlikely that 50 colleges were falsifying appropriations requests. And a veto that punishes everyone seems heavy-handed, if not unfair.

WONK ON THE WATCHTOWER: THE EDITORIALS POUR IN

2007-06-21T14:15:09Z

*****

From the Galveston Daily News:

Gov. Perry’s veto is irresponsible

By Heber Taylor
The Daily News

Published June 21, 2007

Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to veto funding for the state’s share of health insurance premiums at community colleges was senseless and irresponsible.

The claim that he saved taxpayers money by cutting $154 million to community colleges is preposterous.

What he did was shift a recurring expense from one level of government to another without warning.

What that means in Austin is that the state’s financial position looks marginally better.

What that means here at home is that the College of the Mainland was blindsided by a $2 million bill the state has traditionally paid. Galveston College is facing an unexpected expense of about $940,000.

State law requires that employees of community colleges in Texas have health insurance. It’s not likely that community colleges across Texas are going to “save” money by canceling benefits that have been promised to employees and included in contracts.

And cutting health insurance is certainly an odd notion of cutting pork, which was what Perry claimed to be doing.

He also made some extraordinarily broad accusations that community colleges had falsified records to get the state to pay for purely local employees — workers whose salaries aren’t covered, in part, by the state.

The governor could make a case for cutting funds if he offered real evidence of systematic abuse. But he didn’t.

Also, note that he cut funding for these payments in the second year of the biennium, but not the first. If there really were evidence of widespread fraud and abuse, who in his right mind would continue funding for another year?

Local folks should know that officials at College of the Mainland and Galveston College have flatly denied that any of the alleged problems occurred at their institutions.

It would be interesting, after hearing the broad accusations about fraud, to see whether the governor could cite a single example of this kind of problem at a college in Galveston County. And, if not, why cut $3 million in appropriations to those colleges?

If you ignore the governor’s rhetoric, the muddled picture gets remarkably clear.

The veto shifted a recurring expense from the state to the local level. That’s all it did.

It’s a bit like ordering a big meal in a restaurant for a large group — and then leaving the table before the bill arrives.

If that’s what being a fiscal conservative has come to mean in this state, we’re all in trouble.

WONK ON THE WATCHTOWER: THE GOVERNOR VS HIGHER EDUCATION, DAY TWO (PART 1)

2007-06-21T14:06:20Z

June 21, 2007

Uproar over College Funds Veto Raises
Specter of Special Legislative Session

By Mike Hailey
Capitol Inside Editor

Some state lawmakers want Governor Rick Perry to call a summer special session in hopes of heading off tuition hikes, budget cuts or property tax increases that they fear will be necessary as a result of his decision late last week to slash community college funding with his line-item veto authority.

The furor over Perry's vetoes intensified Wednesday amid speculation that the governor was intentionally setting the stage for a special session in an attempt to force an overhaul in the way the state's public colleges and universities are funded.

While higher education officials and their hometown lawmakers expressed disappointment, frustration and anger over the vetoed college funds, Perry is also catching increasing heat for vetoing an eminent domain bill that was designed to protect property rights, a school bus idling measure and a bill that would have increased retirement benefits for some legislative employees such as House and Senate clerks, cooks and parliamentarians including two who resigned during a revolt in the House on the session's final weekend. The Republican governor vetoed 51 bills that had been approved during the regular session and $646 million in spending in two appropriations bills.

Perry has been upset about the methods that higher education officials have used to justify legislative appropriation requests - and he's been unhappy with the Legislature's resistance to his demands for more accountability and spending restraints on special items that he calls pork.

Despite Perry's increasing protests, higher education officials were stunned when he vetoed $156 million that had been targeted for group health insurance contributions at 49 community and junior colleges across the state and an additional $32 million in special item outlays at more than a dozen four-year universities and health science centers in San Antonio and Houston. The governor also vetoed more than a half-dozen separate bills that would have affected the state's system of higher education including a measure that would have made it easier for several relatively small state universities to qualify for revenue bonds and higher appropriations by lowering enrollment thresholds.

The surprise cuts sparked an outcry that's led to headlines across the state this week about drastic measures that community colleges say they will have to take to plug gaps left by the veto. Community college officials have been especially incensed over the governor's allegation that they'd falsified requests to the Legislature for funding in a scheme to secure state dollars to use on insurance contributions to employees whose positions are funded by the college district instead of the state. Lawmakers who represent the cities where community colleges are located have joined in the chorus of criticism as well.

State Rep. Dennis Bonnen, an Angleton Republican whose district includes Brazosport College, called Perry's actions "grossly irresponsible and frankly punitive."

Republican State Rep. Tommy Merritt of Longview urged Perry to summon lawmakers back to Austin for an immediate special session to prevent a budget crisis at community colleges including two that he represents - Kilgore College and Tyler Junior College - which stand to lose about more than $2 million each as a result of the insurance contributions veto. Merritt also asked House Speaker Tom Craddick to be prepared to seek emerging funding from the Legislative Budget Board through use of the budget execution power that is has during the interim when lawmakers are not in session.

Newspapers that carried stories this week about their local college officials' concerns were starting to run editorials by Thursday condemning Perry's veto of two-year college funds.

The Galveston Daily News accused Perry in a scathing editorial of playing a shell game that shifted a state expense to the local level without warning. "Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to veto funding for the state’s share of health insurance premiums at community colleges was senseless and irresponsible.The claim that he saved taxpayers money by cutting $154 million to community colleges is preposterous," the Daily News Editor Heber Taylor wrote.

" The presumptive Gov. Rick Perry has struck again," a Waco Tribune-Herald editorial declared Wednesday. "The governor, who tends to take too many matters into his own hands without consulting with the Legislature, has socked it to Texas community colleges on a matter that could have and should have been resolved in the budget process."

Perry's office hasn't shown much sympathy so far for college officials who it contends had ample warning during the past two regular sessions but continued to be greedy and refused to heed them.

The governor, however, did leave the door open to a possible special session when assessing the Legislature's work the day after it adjourned late last month. Perry at the time said he would have a better idea on whether a special session would be needed after having an opportunity to go through the state budget.

The college funding veto and the uproar it triggered could conceivably put Perry in a better position to deal with legislators on the changes he wants in the process by which colleges and universities are funded in Texas. But it also has the potential to backfire if lawmakers want to play hardball and decided to move more higher education funding back into lump sums that make it more immune to the governor's red pen.

Perry called three special sessions after the regular session in 2003 on congressional redistricting and two special sessions on school finance during the summer following the regular session in 2005. The governor summoned lawmakers back to the Capitol again for a special session in 2004 to work on school finance and a new business tax.

facnews @ 2007-06-21T09:04:00

2007-06-21T14:04:53Z

Here is the latest update on the Governor's Veto situation from the Executive Director and President of TCCTA

*****

A MESSAGE FROM THE TCCTA STATE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Dear Colleague,

Since our last Update, on Monday, we have been in close contact with college presidents, other organizations, TCCTA members, and the media regarding the Governor's shocking decision to veto an appropriation by the Legislature of $154 million for community college health insurance costs. Included in this message is information about this issue, answers to questions we have been receiving in our office, as well as actions we strongly urge members to take in response.

WHAT HAPPENED

On the evening of Friday, June 15, the Governor announced his veto of a portion of the appropriations bill that provided funding for community college group health insurance benefits. This appropriation was based on a budget request from our colleges, in keeping with similar budget requests over many previous legislative sessions. There were no substantive changes in this year's request compared to requests in previous years. The only difference this time was the Governor's decision to invoke the arguments of "proportionality" -- an obscure doctrine rejected in two consecutive sessions of the Texas Legislature -- to veto funding.

It is clear through press reports that the Governor is alone in his views on this issue.

The Governor's decision came as a surprise to community colleges, interested organizations such as TCCTA, and members of the Legislature. Rey Garcia, President of the Texas Association of Community Colleges, said in an interview, "We were blindsided." The Chancellor of the Dallas County Community College District, Wright Lassiter, said in a statement, "To assert that this action came as a total surprise is an understatement."

Carl Isett, a member of the House Appropriations Committee expressed his concern: "I am disappointed because I thought we passed a very fiscally responsible budget." TCCTA is unaware of any individual or group that was notified in advance of the Governor's intentions.

In his veto proclamation, the Governor accuses community colleges of falsifying their budget requests for group health insurance, a charge college officials strongly deny.

Warren Chisum (R-Pampa), chair of the House Committee on Appropriations said of the accusation, "That's pretty strong stuff," adding, "I question what his opposition is to community colleges. They're over half of the higher education enrollment and not even a third of the higher education budget."

Bill Holda, President of Kilgore College stated, "We have documented repeatedly to various House and Senate committees that we are in compliance and do not receive excessive or inappropriate funds for health insurance. Both the House and Senate have concurred that we are in compliance."

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

The Governor's decision to wait until after the end of the session to execute this veto severely limits the remedies for the problems this creates. However, constructive possibilities still exist, and there are still important actions you can take.

(1) Some have suggested the Governor exceeded his veto authority by striking certain provisions of Article III, while leaving others intact. At this point, we don't know if that is the case, but it is a question worth pursuing, and TCCTA plans to work with its attorneys and other organizations on it.

(2) Senator Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) has suggested the Legislative Budget Board may have the authority to restore these funds and, as a member of that Board, is encouraging the LBB to work on a solution.

(3) The funding cuts outlined in the veto are to go into effect Sept. 1, 2009, the second year of the coming biennium. Thus, the Legislature could allocate a "supplemental appropriation" early in the next legislative session, prior to that date. While this would ultimately avert the cuts, it would be difficult for colleges to plan their budget, not knowing whether the funds would be restored until very late.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

While the "possible solutions" are far from certain, we believe that members of the Legislature are keenly interested in fixing the problem the Governor has created. Your early involvement will be essential to the success of whatever solution is ultimately found.

(1) As we suggested in Monday's Legislative Update, members are urged to contact their senators and representatives, thanking them for their original appropriation supporting community colleges, and apprising them of the likely impact these cuts will have on our students, taxpayers, and employees. Lawmakers should also be urged to contact the governor's office to voice their strong displeasure with the veto. (To find out "Who Represents Me," click here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/.)

(2) Contact the Governor's Office directly, to express your concerns about the veto. It is important the Governor be aware of the impact his veto will have on our colleges and our students. Members may reach the Governor's Office by e-mail, at http://www.governor.state.tx.us/contact, or by phone at (800) 252-9600.

(3) Contact member of the Legislative Budget Board. This body is charged with making budget recommendations to the Governor and Leglsiature, and is composed of the Lt. Goveror, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Chairs of the House Committees on Appropriations and Ways and Means, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, two House members, and three Senate members. The LBB may play a pivotal role in this issue. Contact information is available here: http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/The_LBB/Agency/Members.htm.

(PLEASE NOTE: Employees of community colleges should not use college equipment, postage, or e-mail addresses when communicating with legislators.)

TCCTA will continue to keep members updated as this issue develops.

WONK ON THE WATCHTOWER: TCCTA UPDATE.

2007-06-20T18:29:12Z