The Mail-Journal, Volume 6, Number 21, Milford, Kosciusko County, 25 June 1969 — Page 29

Appraisal Os Indiana Higher Education Controversy

By THAMES MAUZY State Representative In the light of the present student protest over tuition increases, there is merit in reviewing the actions of the 1969 Legislature in funding higher education toward clearing up a great deal of confusion J and misunderstanding. Among other aspects of the confusion is the question as to whether the student protest should properly be directed at university officials or at the Indiana General Assembly. It is true that the Legislature did not appropriate all the funds requested by the universities. The same can be said in respect to all agencies of state government. That’s the job of the legislature: to make sure that the most important needs are met by fitting those needs into available revenues. To put it another way, if all the requests of all state agencies had been approved, the biennial budget of approximately $2,600,000,000 Would have been $1,000,000,000 greater! (would increase state tax 30 per cent.) Further analysis indicates that there is adequate funding to meet higher education needs. A big increase in appropriations by

Kessie's Uptown Barber Shop Dick Kessie Ron Gillum Open 8-6 Every Weekday North Webster, Indiana

Land 0’ Lakes Barn Sportswear . * I Mlßa MM Bit .wl Ml -■.-•■- ri I > je „ I -—— — -—... *• SHOES LAND-O-LJ -3s SHOES 4ms.KtSJ 3MS> t> f ♦»•»»« *«>« ■ _____ ” .-. PIZZAR —W..OMU.W— — p~|< HMMMMM ’ 'flfl| WEwBrJH i I" •’ 4 . <s■ "■' ' .jh.'-imts *3p Sv^'-rw—l X. '■ ■> . '. ■ . I ’ X SPORTING GOODS - LIVE BAIT - PAINT - SHOES fl ‘PotdvtoM, tywtttk I || /# TWF MFASr OF fIVSMMTX MAD O' MOW IL II S JF 11—we I 1 II / J Rdnderdsa camp x 1 H f a 1 Grounds m 1 J 7 I lt>a^—l Y^***** 4 1 fl I •"*•* I In | I I I -~ j u, E~Wi / I ■ n 1! J I Fin T’* i ll—iMl* CW Uft uus M ■ owtrniT «e wen wmtu I I '■ K .W 2% MILES SOUTHEAST OF NORTH WEBSTER 1 ? f Heated Showers Picnic Table* I 1* Inside Rest Rooms ® n Bie Water I Recreation Areas Boat Rentals f Clean Grounds Camp Supervision I Fire Wood Free Boat Ramp M I Ice Utilities I

the General Assembly coupled with modest increases in tuition of SIOO per year for in-state students and realistic increases in tuition for out-of-state students would have provided adequate revenues for all 15 Indiana campuses This assumption presupposes realistic budgeting by the administrative officials at each institution. The other agencies of state government (who have no sources of outside income such as tuition) are forced to tailor their budgets to the funds the Legislature allocates them. They live within their means because they have no alternative. Not so Purdue and I. U., wb'ere sizable tuition increases for in-state students were made (S3OO per year and $260 per year respectively and comparable increases on the regional campuses controlled by Purdue and IU) with statements being issued that there was no alternative. More modest increases in tuition of $l5O and $l2B per year were made by Ball State and ISU. It is perhaps significant that little or no protest has been made by students of these two institutions. It has been widely indicated by university officials particu-

larly at Purdue and I.U. that the 1969 General Assembly failed to provide adequate support for higher education. In some statements it has even been implied that funding from state tax revenues was sharply cut. On the contrary, the recent legislative session provided far more state tax funds than ever before to higher education. The 1969 Legislature probably conducted a more thorough analysis of the needs of higher education than has ever been made by any previous session of the General Assembly. It specifically avoided intruding on those matters which are the prerogatives of university officials, such as the setting of tuition rates, but it certainly made clear its intent and the guidelines it used in reaching its funding decisions. FUNDING ACTION BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY The 1969 Legislature implemented its strong backing of higher education in the following way: 1. Appropriation of state tax revenues for the operation of state universities in the 1969-71 Biennium will be $305,135,000. In the previous two-year period (1967-69) the appropriation was $265,000,000. That’s an increase of $40,135,000 or 15.1 per cent. These appropriations are for university operations only and do not include money for any new buildings. (The budget as presented to the General Assembly when it convened in January. as a final recommendation of the Branigin Administration, was for total funding from tiie state of only $300,000,000.) 2. Governor Whitcomb had recommended funding from state

for durations or INDIAMA HIGHER BDUCATION COMPARISON OF FUNDING FROM STATE REVBNUB SOURCES rni-w Ri—»un - 1363-71 iw 1367-63 IMI-U 1550822 Fur-lu. - nai* Caepu* 61.278.505 — Regional Caepu*** 14.675.063 18,152,000 3,518,831 Indian* University - Main C*epu* 76,131,517 83,275,000 7,143.483 “ 12,810,807 17,118.000 4,308,183 Ind lan*polla Regional caepu* Included In 4,874,800 4,874,800 (Adelnietered by both Purdue 4 Purdue—l.U. IU) regional figure* Indiana State - Main Caapua 27,243,417 32,058,000 - Regional canpu* 723,438 2,350,000 1,424,564 Ball State 28,887,450 35.100,000 4.202,330 Profeaelonal Graduate School* 23,233,588 25,248,200 2,012,602 at Indlanapoll* K * RECAP OF FUNDING INCREASES BY CATEGORY Main C**pu***i purdue I 3.838.455 Indiana Unlveralty 7,143,483 Indiana State 4,810,583 Ball Stat* 6,202,350 » 23.884,811 Regional Canpuaeai Purdue 8 3,516.831 Indiana Unlveralty 4,308,183 Indlanapoll* 4,6761800 Indian* Stat* 1,624,56.4 * 14,126,488 Professional Graduate . , School* at Indlanapoll* * 2,012,602

tax sources at $310,000,000. The Legislature arrived at the level of $305,135,000 because Senate Finance concluded the difference could be made up by more realistic tuition rates for out-of-state students than had been applied in the past. 3. In addition, authorization of $47,500,000 was made for construction of campus buildings on all fifteen main and regional campuses. Ball State and Indiana State, since the Bloomington and Lafayette campuses have a lesser need for new buildings. (The final Branigin budget called for authorization of only $25,000,000 for construction.) 4. The main campuses of Purdue and IU received an increas ed appropriation of $12,961,978 as their share of the $40,135,000 increase in operating funds for the new biennium. Construction of one building on each campus was authorized with total funding at $5,066,000. 5. The professional schools at Indianapolis received increased operating funds of $2,012,602 and construction authorization of $4,900,000. 6. Instead of a decrease in operating funding to the Bloomington campus and the main Purdue campus (as stated by officials at Bloomington and Purdue) the Legislature actually increased its appropriation to Bloomington by $7,143,483 for

V I ■ '■-., 'f- ■ -" .-.i Mr -jk ... —— " * I & Full Line of Marine Suppliers JOHNSON MOTORS AND BOATS _ IMP BOATS —G-W INVADER — RIVIERA CRUISER PONTOON — GLASTON BOATS c - CYPRESS GARDEN SKIS & STARCRAFT TRAVEL TRAILERS and CAMPERS (Formerly Whisler Marine) • 6 - North Webster Marine Rd. 13, South Phone: 834-2333 North Webster

the new biennium and to Purdue by $5,838,495. The allocation of the funds between the two years did yield a slight decrease for the f irst year of the biennium at each of the two campuses. This decrease in funding for the first year has been proclaimed by university officials at Bloomington and Lafayette with little or no comment being made on the total increase for the two-year period. Why the officials at Bloomington and Lafayette chose to plead hardship and thereby justify big tuition increases is understandable but unfortunate. 7. Since, the 1969 General Assembly has been labeled in some quarters as being unresponsive to the needs of education, it may be well here to mention the extent of increased funding from state tax revenues for education at various levels. In addition to an increased appropriation of $40,135,000 to the universities, there was increased state unding of $3,119,425 for other higher education, $2,440,651 for college scholarships, and $109,443,121 for local schools. These increases in appropriations for education at all levels total $155,122,622.. Let it also be remembered that this huge increase-*in support was provided with -we increase in general state taxes pursuant to the oft-repeated pledge of Governor Whitcomb to veto any*general state tax increase.

GUIDELINES FOR FUNDING BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY The 1969 Legislature accepted the budget as enacted by the State Senate. The Senate Finance Committee (and its buscommittee on the budget) prepared this budget. It spent a very large part of its time on the budgets for the state universities. It met formally* with officials from those institutions on three separate occasions. Informally it was in almost constant contact with university representatives. A great deal of time and energy was devoted to wrestling with the problems of allocating resources in higher education on an equitable basis. Without question such allocations could be better made by a coordinating group for higher education functioning on a year - round basis, such as a state Board of Regents. But in the absence of such an agency, it is the total responsibility of the Legislature to analyze all the state - wide needs of higher education and through appropriations imple. ment a program which will provide students in all parts of the state with the greatest possible opportunity to benefit from the Indiana higher education network. After lengthy review and discussion Senate Finance determined to make a switch from the approach taken in the past in emphasis among the state universities and their regional campuses. Several previous General Assemblies had attempted to convey the message that such a switch should be made by the universities. The messages had largely been disregarded. This time the message was sent through specific funding allocations. That may well be why officials at Bloomington and Lafayette over - reacted with excessive in-state tuition creases. This approach was arrived at for the following reasons: 1. It is the responsibility of the State to subsidize a large part of the cost of higher education for Indiana citizens through use of Indiana tax revenues. Should Indiana taxpayers be asked to subsidize out-of-state students? Since surrounding states have substantially increased out-of-state tuition, is it not wise for Indiana to do so, too? Senate Finance reached the conclusion that tuition for out-cf-state students should approximate the actual cost of educating that student. At Purdue and IW cost per student was indicated to approximate SI6OO per year. At Ball State and ISU

Wed., June 25, 1969—THE MAIL-JOURNAL

r ~ date; WSiits- ■ 4* • ■ ' • J HjSfili HLbL i contestant must enter either a float or decorated convertible in the annual festival parade. Above is the pretty convertible entered la*t year by Mary Beth Gaskill, Miss North Webster. Prizes are awarded for the best convertibles and the best floats in the parade.

th? per student cost was reported to be about SBOO. In establishing new out-of-state tuition rates. Purdue recognized the cost factor with tuition at SI6OO. Ball State and ISU exceeded cost with their out-of-state tuition set at SIOBO and $1024. Indiana university is still apparently below cost with tuition set at $1490 per year. Out-of-state tuition at cost ($1600) at the hafayett? and Bloomington campuses would yield at least $2,000,000 of additional income per year at each campus. 2. Indiana taxpayers are asked to bear a big share of the everincreasing cost of higher education. Modest tuition increases, for in-state students approxima&ly SSO per semester or SIOO year, appeared equitable in Sharing these educational costs between Students and Indiana taxpayers. Guideline * for this level of tuition increase came from*, one of Governor Whitcomb’s first speeches to a joint session of the General Assembly early in January, at which time he recommended SIOO as the approximate amount of annual tuition increase. All calculations indicated tuition increases at this level would be adequate. In fact, no indication was given Senate Finance by the administrators of the universities that greater tuition increases than approximately SSO per semester were contemplated for in-state students. (Apparently it can be done, for ISU has raised tuition only s6l per semester.) 3. During its deliberations and budgetary review the subcommittee on the budget of Finance frequently gave voice to the need for creation of a state Board of Regents, a body now functioning in mpst other states. There was unanimous agreement that budget recommendations submitted by such a statewide board operating on a, year-round basis for all elements of higher education in Indiana would greatly facilitate the budgetary process. A properly constituted supervising Board of Regents could greatly enhance higher education in the state and very possible prevent the kind of controversy now prevailing. 4. From a practical standpoint it is impossible to review the operating budgets of the state universities in detail during the bried legislative session. Furthermore, detailed budget review is actually the responsibility of the respective university administrators and boards of trusties. (Such review on a yearround basis would be a major function of a Board of Regents.) Sources available to the Legislature moreover led Senate Finance to the conclusion that reductions in operating budgets, particularly at Purdue and I. U. could be made. Further, such cutting of overhead costs could be made without hurting the quality of education at these institutions. Senate Finance took the position that while budget

Beamer & Sons LAKE LINE CABINETS QUALITY CUSTOM BUILT KITCH ENS Lavanetts, Bookcases, Etc. We Build And Install — "ONE MAN TELLS ANOTHER" DU PONT PAINTS 1 Mile North Os North Webeter On Highway 13 Phone: 834-4261

cutting is never easy, if diligently and conscientiously pursued. economies would result; Such economies would make the load lighter for both tuition! • paying students and tax-paying Indiana citizens. SUMMARY Perhaps the situation in which manufacturing industry often finds itself may be helpful in looking at the present controversy at th? state universities. The economics of education aid that of business are recognized to be different. Superior public education is an essertial goal of society, but that same society is likewise entitled to be sure its tax funds will at all times be efficiently used. Detailed analysis of available budgetary alternatives is at least mandatory in higher education. In business, on the other hand, it is a requirement for survival itself. If business finds its profits tw low, it has three courses of action it can take: 1) it can lower costs by cheating the product, but this generally backfires when customers eventually tujrri to better quality competitiveproducts; 2) it car take the easiest course and raise prices, but this angle may only cause protest by the cus omer and eventually drive him to a competitive product; 3) it can start the hard job of pruning unnecessary expenses, particularly overhead, and by so doing moke an adequate profit and still keep satisfied by retaining the,quality oi': th? product at a competitive price. Maybe Indiana taxpayers, students, and parents need to ask whether “raising prices” (increasing tuition) wasn’t just the easiest course of action for the universities to take. !

Our Beat Wiohe* To The North Webster Lions Club Far A Jeb Well Done L . . And The MESMAIO FESTIVAL From The John Bockman Family 1WT1: FRONT GROCERY Downtown North Wetater

3