I'm sure you all are, like me, hearing about more budget cuts to higher education this year and just trying to figure out how it is all going to shake down. Because of cuts, and in taking the Finance class this semester, I have been paying closer attention to more state actions towards educational funding in general. So I was paying attention to Prop 103. Reading about it, talking with others about it. And when I saw it made national news in The Chronicle today, I thought what I found would be interesting to share through this blog.
If you have not read recent voting results, Prop 103 failed BIG TIME. Only 35% of people supported the bill. As someone who understands and is feeling the fiscal impacts from the state at first I wanted 103 to do well. But after doing some asking and learning, while it will be more challenging that 103 failed, it is better for the long run for Higher Education.
Prop 103 would have increased sales tax in Colorado with funding towards education. I am in a presidential leadership program on my campus where once a month a select group of people get together to learn more about our institution to advance our leadership. This past Friday our topic was Metro State in the Bigger Picture, which means we looked at how Metro State is partnered with the Denver Metro community. One of the places we visited was the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. There, we met with the Chamber Executive Director who talked with us about the functions of the Chamber and their three main areas of focus: transportation, healthcare and education. (if you don't know about the closest chamber to you, check it out they really encourage involvement from education and what a great way to create connections to our colleges!)
While there, we started talking about 103 and the chamber, who has interest in supporting education for economic development in Colorado, was not in support of 103. They felt 103 was a band aid for funding that would not truly create a strong source of funding for education, espcially higher education in the state. The feeling was if 103 passed, there would be people who would think there would be no other reason to increase funding for education.
I walked away thinking. I thought I should vote yes on 103 so we can increase our budget, keep up with operating costs, not have to raise tuition, get out of hiring freezes (and in a utopic way maybe get a raise!- my dream world). I wondered what others thought... so I asked our President who I happen to spend the rest of the day with on Friday. He is so close to all of these decisions and I really respect his decision making process for our college and within the community of Denver. He agreed that 103 was not the best solution for higher education.
So in the last few days I have just been reflecting on the politics of funding and how even a bill with wording that voters might get behind, in the long run may not be the best option. I wondered why I did not see campaigning about 103- now I understand. Our president told me that 103 would not have helped our students in the best ways possible. He wanted to make sure that funding in the state is as permanent as possible and not always tied to public dollars because just as easy as taxes are raised, they can be cut as well.
Now I don't know where the funding for higher education is going to come from if it does not come from public dollars and some sort of public contribution. I cannot even begin to offer solutions to this budget crisis but this new information has made me think in different ways about how education is connected to the community and government.This small experience has jump started a new thinking process for me as a practitioner and I am excited to see where it takes me.
Amy, I really like your post! One of the things that was a great benefit to me while working at Metro was that I learned a lot about the budget issues that Colorado is working through. A lot of what I learned was from the presentations that Dr. Jordan (Metro President, for those who are unfamiliar) gave. I find it interesting that he thinks prop 103 was not the best solution. Given how much he knows about Colorado funding for higher education, his opinion means a lot.
ReplyDeleteI find myself evolving as my years in Colorado higher education grow longer. I used to not be high enough on the totem pole to understand how the funding affected me. Now, I am needing to know because I work at a Community College where the funding is even worse per student than it was at Metro. And that is saying something.
Your post and the recent 103 defeat, is making me wonder what my solution would be if they asked me to fix it. I don't totally know. Which means I still have a lot to learn.
Thanks for shedding some light from another viewpoint on the failed Prop 103, Amy. The majority of what I have read and heard about Prop 103 had been in support of it. Especially in light of the discussions in the last weekend class surrounding the complexities involved in the finance of higher education, I appreciate your big picture perspective. However, I feel compelled to point out that the intention of Prop 103 was to be a “band aid for funding that would not truly create a strong source of funding for education” as you related in your blog. It was never intended as a solution to the fiscal ills of higher education but rather a temporary answer for a specific limited period of five years while a solution is sought. Just as your president expressed that the higher education “funding in the state is as permanent as possible and not always tied to public dollars because just as easy as taxes are raised, they can be cut as well,” advocates of Prop 103 favored a long term solution independent of tax dollars.
ReplyDeletegreat insight. I had mixed feelings about this voting measure, so it's good to hear some different ideas on it.
ReplyDelete