Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/26/1997 09:06 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES
COMMITTEE
March 26, 1997
9:06 a.m.
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gary Wilken, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice Chairman
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Jerry Ward
Senator Johnny Ellis
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice-Chairman
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Tom Brice
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Al Vezey
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA BOARD OF REGENTS
WITNESS REGISTER
Dr. Jerome Komisar, President
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 755000
Fairbanks, AK 99775
Sharon Gagnon
Board of Regents
University of Alaska
7001 Tree Top Circle
Anchorage, AK 99516
Chancy Croft
Board of Regents
University of Alaska
738 H Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
R. Danforth Ogg
Board of Regents
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 2754
Kodiak, AK 99615
Wendy Redman, Vice President
Statewide University System
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 755000
Fairbanks, AK 99775
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-34, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN WILKEN called the joint meeting of the Senate and House
Health, Education and Social Services Committees to order at 9:06
a.m. He welcomed Jerome Komisar, President of the University of
Alaska, and three regents of the university to the meeting and
announced the purpose of the meeting was to have a dialogue with
the University of Alaska Board of Regents.
Number 040
SHARON GAGNON, Board of Regents, University of Alaska, said there
have been reports that legislators are unclear about the goals of
the university, the planning that is taking place, and its vision
for the future. She said planning for the university is a dynamic
process; it is never static, but has to have a flexible structure
to it because conditions change, and expectations, however well
founded, are not always realized. The university plans have to be
attached, very closely, to the educational and economic realities,
both of which change constantly in an ever-changing world. Also,
there is a difference between planning and creating a plan which
satisfies everyone's special concern of special interests.
Ms. Gagnon related that the current basis for planning in the
university includes the following elements:
(1) The university is a comprehensive, multi-mission statewide
system with strong regional presences in Anchorage, Fairbanks and
Juneau;
(2) The university is accessible to all Alaskans;
(3) The university must deliver high quality instruction, research
and public service;
(4) The university must serve the state and the citizens; and
(5) The university must be efficient in its use of resources, and
to be so must work as one unified system and seek innovative ways
to deliver its program such as through partnerships, distance
delivery and consolidated programs.
The planning required to put these goals into effect takes place on
the major administrative unit level (MAU), which is Anchorage,
Fairbanks and Juneau, as well on the statewide level. The Board of
Regents is involved at each level and has final approval of any
plans.
Ms. Gagnon said each MAU has undertaken strategic planning which
reflects the goals, as described, and which targets the areas in
which each of these campuses believes it has its strengths and
needs to serve the state. In preparing these plans, each MAU
included faculty, staff, students and the community and very
enthusiastically identified directions into the next century.
These plans were then presented to the Board of Regents and
approved.
Strategic planning such as this sets the goals, but a different
kind of planning was necessary to address the realities of
declining revenues and growing student and state needs. The Board
of Regents, on the recommendation of President Komisar, directed
the university to undertake a different kind of planning called
"program assessment." The success of the plan relied on the
assumption that the university would find considerable outside
funding through sponsored research, fund raising, resource
management, tuition increases, and that there would be an increase
of 1 percent each year from the state's general fund.
Ms. Gagnon pointed out that the university has succeeded in raising
outside funds and in raising tuitions significantly, but funds from
the state general fund have not increased and, as a result, what
was viewed as a reallocation of funds has become a system for
cutting. A number of schools and departments have been
consolidated and administrative costs have been reduced, but areas
as defined as necessary to the students and state are not growing
and are eroding.
Ms. Gagnon said program assessment reductions were scheduled over
a three-year period and are monitored by the Board of Regents. She
directed attention to a program assessment document tracking its
progression through the first two years and into the third year.
Ms. Gagnon informed the committee that another type of planning has
been occurring systemwide. For example, the board recognized its
responsibility to plan for diminished state revenues so it
identified fixed costs which must be met such as operation,
maintenance and salaries, and it has adopted policies which require
the campuses to dedicate a percentage of their budgets to prevent
future deferred maintenance. She referenced a chart which she said
shows the effect that this defacto planning has on funding for
programs at the university and at the MAU's. The board also
adopted a multitude of policies which identify and contain costs,
and the board planned for future growth by adopting in 1993 a six-
year capital plan. However, she pointed out that the plan probably
won't come to fruition because the funds have not been available.
In approving its annual budget, Ms. Gagnon said the board has
shifted resources throughout the system to the areas which data
indicate are underfunded, but with no incremental funding coming
from the state, the reallocation has often resulted only in cuts in
one area and no new money in the regions of the state, such as the
Anchorage MAU which has experienced rapid growth.
Ms. Gagnon said the board has voted to reactivate its planning and
development committee, which she will chair, to review the planning
that has taken place to date, and, if necessary, go to a new level
of system-wide review and planning. Some of the issues that will
be under consideration by the committee consist of: administrative
structure and costs; community college and vocational education
missions; quality of the student experience and student retention;
quality of the academic program; the relationship of the university
to Alaska's primary needs; prioritization of programs within the
university; allocation of resources across the system and delivery
of mission; centralization and decentralization of operations;
stabilization and growth of the university's endowment; and
relationship between capital and academic planning.
The regents have put in place an ad hoc committee to review the
three schools of education in the system to determine how their
programs can be consolidated to deliver an excellent teacher
education program throughout the state. The Professional
Educators' Coordinating Committee, which is made up of university
school of education representatives with additional representation
from the State Board of Education and from communities, will be
working with the ad hoc committee to develop a program responsive
to the needs of the state.
Ms. Gagnon distributed a U.S. map to committee members showing the
percentage of increase or decrease in state funding for
universities. It shows that Alaska is one of six states which has
experienced a decrease in funding. She noted other states, much
less wealthy than Alaska, have chosen not to cut higher education
but to increase its funding. The board hopes for an increased
commitment from the state of Alaska to its university and
recognition that cutting government and cutting education are two
different actions with different effects.
In her closing remarks, Ms. Gagnon pointed out that the university
is bringing in over half of its own budget so it is contributing to
the state not only in human resources but in real dollars. The
university is making important linkages between Alaska and the rest
of the nation, as well as the Pacific Rim. She said it is an asset
for the state which should be developed and expanding, and cutting
this budget is not good planning.
Number 245
CHANCY CROFT, Board of Regents, University of Alaska, said he would
discuss a few of the specific programs that are taking place within
the university system.
Mr. Croft noted the University of Alaska Fairbanks math department
has been a perennial powerhouse at national competitions beating
such presumed excellent universities as Harvard and Stanford. Not
only did they win first place, but for the first time in the
history of the competition an all-female team from the University
of Alaska Fairbanks won first place.
Turning to the Juneau campus, Mr. Croft said it offers a bachelor
of business administration which is available to any student at any
place in the state. All upper division courses are required for
the bachelor degrees and they are offered via distance technology.
Despite the flat funding that the university has had for 10 years
from the Legislature, the Juneau campus has been able to expand the
educational opportunities to all Alaskans.
Mr. Croft related that through a partnership the Bethel campus has
with the Lower Kuskokwim School District, there are now over 70
certified teachers in that region who were born and raised in that
region. For the first time in the state's history, instead of
every teacher having a different cultural background than the
students being taught, they have 70 teachers who were born and
raised in that district.
The Ketchikan campus has the only computer-based radar observer
program in the state. It is serving as a pilot site for the
Northwest Merchant Training School. The program is Coast Guard
approved and its instructors are masters in the Alaska Marine
Highway System. It is planned to offer training that will meet the
new regulation for all ship officers. A Wrangell Narrows piloting
class was recently provided for members of the Coast Guard Cutter
Storis.
The Bristol Bay Campus has a very active adult basic education
program which was formed 15 years ago as a consortium between the
regions four school districts and the campus. It receives not only
support from those school districts but from the Lake & Peninsula
School District who donates the use of a contract plane to fly
people around to four or five different villages in that region to
provide adult basic education.
In Nome, the university has a computer program in accounting taught
by the director of the Nome campus, and because it is done by
distance delivery, students as far away as Wrangell, Tok, Dot Lake,
Kotzebue, Healy, Dillingham, and Dutch Harbor have participated in
the course.
This spring at the Sitka campus 11 former mill workers in Wrangell
will be awarded the University of Alaska associate degree in
business administration and in health information management, all
entirely learned through a distance education program conducted by
the Sitka campus.
Mr. Croft said the distance education program offered by the Sitka
campus is a good example of having been able to accomplish this
despite the fact that for 10 years there has been no significant
increase in the general funding from the university. More than
half of the money that operates the Sitka campus comes from non
general fund sources. He said not only do you have a university
that has made a tremendous effort to define where it is going and
what it wants to be, but no longer does the state of Alaska provide
at least half of the funds to operate this university.
Mr. Croft pointed out that on a percentage basis, fewer students in
Alaska go on to higher education than almost any other state; less
than 40 percent of the high school graduates go on to higher
education. Alaska also has the lowest percentage of the college
graduates that go on to higher education within their state.
Mr. Croft said not only does the university get less than half of
its appropriation for operating from the general fund, but now that
is against a backdrop in which people have paid lip service to the
number one priority of the state, being education. In the last 10
years, funding for the public school foundation has increased $120
million while at the same time funding for higher education has
remained flat. He asserted that there has not been a balanced
approach to education in the state of Alaska .
Mr. Croft noted that upwards to half of the entering freshman at
the university are unable to compete in beginning English and math
courses, and they are having to spend an increasing amount of their
resources on remedial and developmental education. He suggested if
the public school foundation program is to be amended, to consider
funding for a program that brings people with a high school degree
up to actual performance at that level.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Croft noted that the University of
Alaska Anchorage gets no support from the municipality or the
school district in Anchorage, and he suggested maybe amendments to
the Municipal Revenue Sharing Program are in order to encourage
that.
Number 405
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that it seems to him that remedial
English would not be a university function, and he suggested that
perhaps we're trying to educate people that are not college
material.
MR. CROFT said Alaska is part of a national phenomenon in which a
lot of people are now going back to school. They are going back to
school because they may have had some learning disability that
wasn't recognized, or they may need the additional education for
employment, etc. Whatever the cause, the university is getting
people with a high school degree that can't do their program, and
they know that with remedial or developmental education they often
can go on. These individuals might not end up with a doctorate in
business administration, but they can end up with an associate
degree that considerably increases their employability.
DR. KOMISAR agreed that a lot of these people are taking programs
that do not end up in a baccalaureate degree. He said there are
hardly any jobs left that pay reasonable salaries in our economy
that don't entail some postsecondary education.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN questioned if it wasn't a mistake years ago to
eliminate the community colleges, and he wondered if this state
might be heading in the wrong direction if we're trying to get
funding for a university, in the true sense of the word a truly
higher education level, than there are markets for in the state.
He thinks the market for the graduates would be more in the trade
school level.
MS. GAGNON answered that when that decision was made in 1987 the
idea was that the university would continue to serve the community
college mission. The greatest category of degrees that she sees
awarded at commencements are in the associate level, so she
believes the people are coming to what was the community college
and achieving their goals. She added that it is an unusual
configuration to have the two merged, but it was done to save
administrative costs, and she thinks it is working as well as it
can.
MR. CROFT stressed that despite all they are doing with
partnerships, municipal participation and private funds they don't
have enough resources to offer more associate degrees than other
states of a comparable population.
Number 489
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University System,
University of Alaska, said the community colleges continue to
exist, but there have been problems and there continues to be
problems in terms of being able to identify those programs to the
public. She pointed out that the majority of the adult vocational
education in the state is done by the University of Alaska.
Number 515
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if there was anything the Legislature
can do to help the university gain more income from university-
owned or controlled lands that are not being used for educational
purposes.
MS. GAGNON replied that the regents are putting a considerable
effort in trying to increase the endowment of the university, and
one way to do that is to increase their land grant. Legislation
doing so has passed the Legislature twice in recent history, but
was vetoed by the governor.
MS. REDMAN added that other than giving the university an
appropriate level of base funding, she thinks the Legislature has
been very responsive to the university's needs.
MS. GAGNON said the efforts made in finding more creative ways to
fund deferred maintenance and fund student housing have been very
helpful. She also informed the committee that Senator Murkowski is
working on getting a federal land grant to set aside additional
federal land for the University of Alaska, which may have a
matching provision for the state.
MR. CROFT noted the House proposal cuts the university budget by $2
million and the Senate cap cuts it $4 million, and he pointed out
that there is nothing in there for deferred maintenance, and the
university's deferred maintenance obligation right now is more than
$100 million.
TAPE 97-34, SIDE B
Number 585
SENATOR WARD asked how many communities participate in the sharing
of the operation of their campuses, and how many students that
involved,
MR. CROFT related there are six communities that share in the
operating expenses of their campuses, but he did not know how many
students that involved.
SENATOR WARD asked if the Board of Regents has looked at an overall
plan to someday scaling back on the outlying campuses and having
just two or three campuses.
MS. GAGNON said the packet the members will get contains a report
on program assessment and it shows that reductions did occur,
especially in administrative costs, and there are more that can be
made. This is compensated through the increase of distance
delivery so that those campuses have better access than ever to the
total program without the addition of faculty and administration.
DR. KOMISAR commented that in most states there is a very broad
spectrum of institutions all across the states that offer services
in trying to reach the high proportion of the population. An
analysis was completed recently on the university's key campuses,
as well all of their extended campuses, looking at what proportion
of the population cannot get to one of their campuses. Even with
the extended campuses it turns out that over 30 percent of the
total population of the state can't come to the campuses now. If
that was cut back further, it would simply be adding to the number
of people that will not have access to the job training programs
that are so necessary, the introductory educational programs that
can lead them on to a baccalaureate degree, etc. He added that the
university tries to serve these people through distance education
means, and they are trying to increase that capacity to reach
people all across the state.
MR. CROFT said the state of Alaska set up a single statewide
institution for higher education in the entire state, and he
doesn't think the Board of Regents would ever adopt a policy nor
could it adopt a policy that they were going to deliberately deny
educational opportunities to a significant portion of the
population. He noted there has already been one such lawsuit at
the K-12 level and it was found to be unconstitutional.
Number 522
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked which programs have been consolidated
and which ones are getting to the point of being phased out, as
well as the impact on the various campuses with the student growth
leveling off. He also asked for comments on a House bill that has
been introduced that would provide bonding for a UAA library, as
well if the regents have considered entrance requirements for the
university. Because House members had to leave the meeting for a
floor session, he said answers to these questions could be
submitted in writing.
MR. CROFT responded it is an open admissions university, but
students are assessed to get into a degree. However, programs at
the vocational tech level do not require an initial assessment.
Number 493
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said that as an alumnus of the University of
Alaska, one of the weaknesses he has seen with the system is its
weak connection with business. He suggested that with the
development of value-added products that are specific to the
state's sub-arctic and arctic environment, that is really where the
university system should be applying its knowledge.
Number 458
SENATOR LEMAN voiced his concern that something must be wrong at
the high school level, or even before, if students are entering the
university system who are not prepared.
MS. GAGNON said in the past there were jobs students could go to
even if they did or did complete high school, but now the training
and preparation is so important for any job so they need the
postsecondary education.
MR. CROFT pointed out that less than half of the university's
students are in the 18 to 25 traditional age group.
DR. KOMISAR said there was national concern about how to guarantee
that when a student arrives at college he is ready to do the work.
There is now a movement to monitor the heads of the higher
education systems around the country and to do two things: one is
to raise the standards in the high schools to make sure that
students that do get their degrees have these sets of
accomplishments, and then to get the entrance requirements of the
university at the same point so that you have a tradition at a very
high level.
MR. CROFT related that the Board of Regents has a subcommittee that
meets periodically with a subcommittee of the State Board of
Education, and that is one of the items that has been discussed.
Number 376
SENATOR LEMAN commented that he supported previous legislation for
land grants because he believes that Alaska's resources should be
put in the hands of the people who will use them for the benefit of
the people of this state even though it may be 10 to 15 years
before a benefit from it is seen, but the state's future will be
better. He sees a need to move ahead with a land grant in a way
that can be very productive.
Number 356
CHAIRMAN WILKEN said he came to the Legislature with the
predisposition that everybody knows and appreciates a university as
he does, but in the 12 weeks he has been in Juneau, he has been
surprised and distressed that there are people in the Legislature
that don't have that appreciation. He said what that tells him is
that the Legislature and the university have to engender some
trust, and he suggested that this kind of meeting and discussion
needs to be held more than once a year.
Number 300
DR. R. DANFORTH OGG, Board of Regents, University of Alaska, said
that in the four years that he has been on the Board of Regents the
dialogue between the regents and the Legislature has not taken
place, and he is a firm believer that the university needs to have
a good picture for the Legislature to look it and one that they can
understand. He said it is geometric; once the door is opened and
the first step is taken, the increase is incredible. Once that
language barrier is eliminated, it will result in a program for
the future of the state of Alaska and its economy where the
university becomes an important part financially. Dr. Ogg said the
university has an obligation to educate the people of Alaska for
the future, and, as regents, they have an obligation to express to
the Legislature if they are able to do that or not.
In closing Dr. Ogg said the university has had 10 years of flat
funding, and he believes that if the funding goes down this year,
the repercussions from that over the next couple of years will be
severely felt by the public. He concluded that if you fail to
educate, you lose your future.
Number 267
MS. GAGNON expressed her appreciation to the committee for meeting
with the Board of Regents, and concluded it was good meeting and a
good exchange.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|