02/12/1998 03:47 PM House HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL
SERVICES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 1998
3:47 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Con Bunde, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman (Via teleconference)
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Brian Porter
Representative J. Allen Kemplen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 302
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 367
"An Act relating to part-time public school students; and providing
for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Relating to Step Family Day.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 302
SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA OPERATING BUDGET
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) BUNDE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/98 2023 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/98
01/12/98 2023 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/12/98 2023 (H) HES, FINANCE
02/12/98 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
PATTI SWENSON, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Con Bunde
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-6824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 302.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice-President
Statewide Programs and Services
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 755000
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-7582
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 302.
DR. MARY P. MCKEOWN-MOAK, Associate Executive Director
for Financial Affairs
Arizona Board of Regents
Address Not Provided
Austin, TX
Telephone: (602) 229-2520
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 302.
LAURA BURLESON, Student
University of Alaska Fairbanks
1716 University, Apartment B
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 474-6036
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 302.
PATRICK CASEY
2154 Noah Court
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-6729
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 302.
MARY JANE FATE
750 Farmer's Loop Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-6860
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 302.
DAN OGG, Vice President
Board of Regents
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 2754
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Telephone: (907) 486-4711
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 302.
DAVID CREAMER, Vice President
for Finance and Planning
Statewide Programs and Services
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 755120
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-7448
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 302.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-8, SIDE A
Number 0002
CHAIRMAN CON BUNDE reconvened the House Health, Education and
Social Services Standing Committee meeting at 3:47 p.m. Members
present were Representatives Bunde, Vezey, Dyson and Brice.
Representative Green participated via teleconference and
Representatives Porter and Kemplen were absent.
HB 302 - UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA OPERATING BUDGET
Number 0008
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the committee would hear House Bill 302,
"An Act relating to the University of Alaska; and providing for an
effective date." Chairman Bunde, sponsor, read the following
sponsor statement: "The purpose of HB 302 is to provide equitable
funding for each University of Alaska campus. The University of
Alaska is important to the people, the economy, and the future of
our state. The debate over equitably funding each campus needs to
be resolved. If it is not, the needs of our University of Alaska
students will not be met adequately now or in the future.
"House Bill 302 begins to address the question of equitable funding
for all university campuses. The purpose of this legislation is to
direct the Board of Regents to allocate funds based on enrollment
at each campus.
"House Bill 302 is one way to balance our limited funds and meet
the needs of our growing student population. It is my intent to
urge the legislature, the university officials, students and others
who are interested in seeing our university prosper and grow, to
join in the debate and ultimately help me resolve the issues of
equity in the funding for our university."
CHAIRMAN BUNDE noted he had provided for the committee's
information, a study entitled, "Achieving Productivity and
Accountability at UAA" which indicates some of the productivity and
accountability problems in one of the university branches. He
urged the other branches to consider doing a similar study.
Number 0214
CHAIRMAN BUNDE directed the committee's attention to a pie chart
from the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner which shows the state budget
for the university and how those funds are allocated: 50 percent
to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF); 35.2 percent to the
University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA); 6.4 percent goes to the
statewide function; and 7.9 percent to the University of Alaska
Southeast (UAS). The chart also indicates that 29 percent of the
students are at UAF, 68.5 percent at UAA, and nearly 24 percent at
UAS. He said it's overly-simplistic to think the dollars can be
allocated by dividing the number of students in the total system
into the total dollars going to the university system. Obviously,
the cost of teaching a graduate class is considerably more than a
beginning class. House Bill 302 allows for weighting by subject
and by years; i.e., the first years are cheaper than upper division
classes.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE invited Patti Swenson to add her comments.
Number 0382
PATTI SWENSON, Legislative Assistant to Representative Con Bunde,
pointed out that the committee packets contained information from
Dr. Mary McKeown-Moak who has completed a number of studies of
postsecondary education formula funding and productivity.
Number 0430
CHAIRMAN BUNDE added that Alaska is not breaking new ground with
this legislation. About half the states allocate postsecondary
education funding on some type of formula based on per student, per
discipline. He noted that perhaps the recently completed area cost
differential on public schools could be translated for the
university.
Number 0487
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked how much of the total budget for UAA
is general fund monies.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Wendy Redman to come forward.
Number 0548
WENDY REDMAN, Vice-President, Statewide Programs and Services,
University of Alaska, responded in the FY97 actuals for UAA, the
total budget was $109 million of which about $51 million was
general fund monies. She added of the $109 million, about $23
million is tuition.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the breakdown was for UAF and UAS.
MS. REDMAN replied the FY 97 actuals for UAF were $184 million of
which $72 million was general fund monies, and $13.5 million was
tuition. At the UAF, a much smaller proportion of the total is
tuition and a much higher proportion is federal receipts. She
noted federal receipts for the University of Alaska Fairbanks were
$31 million versus $10 million for the University of Alaska
Anchorage.
MS. REDMAN said the University of Alaska Southeast has a total
budget of $16.8 million, and $10 million of that is general fund
monies.
Number 0634
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Ms. Redman to repeat the general
fund contribution for the three university campuses.
MS. REDMAN said the FY 97 actuals are as follows: $50.8 million
for UAA, $72.2 million for UAF, and $10.3 for UAS.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked for the total budget of each of the three
campuses.
MS. REDMAN replied $109.1 million for UAA, $184.2 million for UAF,
and $16.8 million for UAS.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked if Ms. Redman had a cost per student for each
campus.
MS. REDMAN commented she did not have that information with her.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE recalled that it was approximately $14,000 per
student at UAA, $20,000 at UAF, and $22,000 at UAS.
Number 0730
MS. REDMAN commented the university does not calculate the cost per
student by taking the total budget and dividing it by the number of
students. She added the university is working at a formula
internal to the university, which she would address later.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced that Dr. Mary McKeown-Moak was available
to testify offnet.
Number 0806
DR. MARY P. MCKEOWN-MOAK, Associate Executive Director for
Financial Affairs, Arizona Board of Regents, testified that in
1996, 30 of the 50 states reportedly were using a funding formula.
She added funding formulas for higher education are somewhat
different from formulas used for elementary and secondary
education, although the goal is basically the same. Funding
formulas were developed for higher education about 50 years ago,
after World War II, when there was a big influx of students into
higher education and states were having difficulty determining an
equitable distribution of the available resources to fund higher
education. The states looked to a funding formula that would give
an objective method of distributing funding adequately. She
remarked that formulas, of course, have pluses and minuses.
Number 0881
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK said there are basically three ways of calculating
formula amounts: 1) the rate per base factor, which would be a
dollar per credit hour or a dollar per student; 2) the percentage
of base factor is, for example, where you would take the
instructional support component of the budget and take 5 percent or
10 percent of the instructional costs and allocate that amount to
each institution based on the formula; and 3) rate per base factor
where a salary range is based on a predetermined optimum ratio
between a base ratio and a number of personnel; for example, ratios
such as student/faculty and credit hours per faculty member are
used. This is a very complex method to calculate a funding
formula. The advantages of the productivity method of calculating
are that it does bring productivity factors into the formula, a
differentiation can be made between the levels of students, and it
can be done by discipline. The advantage of looking at a variety
of factors is that every institution in the United States is very
different, so in order to distribute resources equitably to the
institutions, the differences and uniqueness of each university
campus must be taken into consideration.
Number 1029
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK said of the number of states that have used
funding formulas, a great deal of difference exists between what is
funded by formula and what isn't funded by formula. Universities
typically have budget programs, and technically all report their
expenditures and revenues by programs, which are defined as
instruction, research, public service, academic support and
institutional support to the National Center for Education
Statistics in the United States Department of Education. She noted
that throughout the United States there is quite a bit of (indisc.)
using formulas for all components of a university's budget or just
parts of a university's budget.
Number 1084
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK indicated during the last two years since she last
looked at funding formulas across the United States, there has been
a very significant shift. There are states that have used funding
formulas for 40 years that have gone to productivity or performance
funding. South Carolina is the most extreme example of a state
which went from a very well-developed, and very complex funding
formula that had 14 separate formulas to calculate all the
different components of a university's funding to 100 percent of
the funding for the universities being based on productivity
factors or performance funding. They experienced some difficulty
in defining those productivity factors and determining how much
will be distributed based on productivity factors. Arkansas
abandoned formula funding in 1996 and went to performance funding,
but went back to the formula funding last year because performance
funding or productivity funding wasn't working for the state of
Arkansas. The legislature contended the formula wasn't
distributing the money in a way that adequately addressed the goals
set by the legislature for the Arkansas university system.
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK said that productivity or performance funding is
not new. The state of Tennessee started using performance funding
or productivity funding prior to 1980. The state of Tennessee
distributes only a small part, 5 percent, of the university's
funding based on achievement of certain productivity goals and if
the university doesn't reach these goals, then the university does
not recceive 1 percent of its funding level that would be
calculated by subject formula.
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK remarked there are many different "bells and
whistles" that can be put on a formula to meet the specific needs
of Alaska. She recommended that Alaska examine the performance
funding or productivity funding of other states should Alaska
decide to go this way. She noted that in her research over the
last 25 years, Alaska has been a funding formula state off and on,
at least that's what has been reported to her. She commented there
are a number of very good methods available, so Alaska wouldn't
have to reinvent the wheel.
Number 1243
CHAIRMAN BUNDE recalled that productivity could be made a part of
a formula and asked if Dr. McKeown-Moak was aware of any state that
had experienced problems with developing a usable productivity
formula, to go with or without additional funding formulas, that
addresses the high level of remedial classes students seem to be
requiring upon entering college.
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK responded there is at least one state, either
Colorado or Florida, that had a productivity factor for remedial
education.
Number 1300
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Dr. McKeown-Moak to comment on the theory of
the simpler the formula, the more support or long lasting the
formula would be.
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK said one of the factors looked at in evaluating
whether a formula is a "good funding formula" is simplicity. On
the one hand, a formula should be easily understood by the public,
the legislature and the administration, but if the formula is too
simple, it indicates that important differences which exist in the
cost of providing goods and services at the different campuses
haven't been considered. It's important to balance simplicity with
the need to recognize the differences.
Number 1355
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked, based on Dr. McKeown-Moak's experience, has
there been any correlation between states that have moved a funding
formula and the amount of state financial support for postsecondary
education in that state?
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK replied, "Well, there is a significant difference
- there's 30 states that are using funding formulas, and they move
off and on. I'd have to look at in terms of a percentage, and I
think it varies from state to state. But typically if you're going
to start a new formula, it needs new money because if you're merely
redistributing the old money, somebody's (indisc.).
Number 1394
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said, "And so, it would be your experience that for
formulas to work, you end up with a higher level of funding for the
university system when you institute a formula."
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK replied there are notable cases where funding
formulas have been instituted because there is a very significant
reduction in the amount of state support. About 10-15 years ago,
the state of Ohio significantly reduced state funding for higher
education and came up with a new funding formula system to
redistribute that money.
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked, via teleconference, if states which
have a funding formula generally follow some sort of an (indisc.)
and are the percentages allocated somewnat uniformly or does it
vary widely.
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK responded it varies widely because every state is
different and the public policy goals for higher education are
different.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that Alaska is essentially a "brain
drain" state in that many of the young people go outside Alaska to
seek their fortune. He asked if that would be a relatively high or
relatively insignificant factor in determining how a funding
formula would be (indisc.)
DR. MCKEOWN-MOAK said, "If the goal is to keep students in the
state, I'm not sure you would address that goal by the formula
funding unless you put students' financial aid in as a component of
your formula to make it more attractive for students to stay in the
state."
Number 1526
CHAIRMAN BUNDE indicated there were no further questions of Dr.
McKeown-Moak at this time but asked her to stay on line. He asked
Ms. Redman for her comments.
Number 1554
MS. REDMAN began, "I'd like to, I think, acknowledge, I hope what
I believe is Representative Bunde's good intentions with this piece
of legislation in generating and supporting a discussion that has
been going on within the university and between the university and
the legislature for the last year. We believe quite strongly that
this piece of legislation is not the correct direction that we
should be going at this time, but I think as a vehicle for
discussion, I support it, and I think that it, in fact, is
supportive of what has been happening within the university."
During the course of the summer, the Board of Regents established
three major review committees which have been working on various
aspects of reviewing and relooking at the university. First, is an
administrative restructuring and reorganizing for which a target
has been set to reallocate $6 million to $10 million over the next
three years from administration back into instruction. The second
committee, chaired by Chancellor Gorsuch, is looking at the
allocation of existing resources between campuses. The third
committee, chaired by Marshall Lind, is reviewing the
organizational structure of the extended campuses. The reports
will be forwarded to the Board of Regents over the next several
months.
Number 1629
MS. REDMAN noted that David Creamer, Vice President for Finance and
Planning, was available to discuss work of the committee chaired by
Chancellor Gorsuch, which has been looking at a formula internal to
the university, using much of Dr. McKeown's work. The University
of Alaska system is very complex in terms of the diversity of the
institutions; from a category II research institution at UAF to
baccalaureate-level institutions in community colleges and
vocational institutions. It is the broadest possible complex of
postsecondary education, so trying to find a formula that will
address that complexity of need is indeed difficult, as Dr.
McKeown-Moak pointed out.
Number 1665
MS. REDMAN conveyed the university is eager to work in a
partnership with the state. She is hopeful the meetings held this
summer will continue so the process continues jointly in order to
avoid the legislature mandating how the university should allocate
its resources. She worked at the university when it was done that
way, and said that's part of the reason for the current inequity of
funding at the campuses. In her opinion, it is crucial the Board
of Regents be allowed to deal with the allocation of resources, and
even though it is frustrating at times, it is better than throwing
it open to a political process. She noted that formulas can be
positive, and the university is on that road of developing a
formula for funding within the university, as well as looking at
performance measures. The public, as well as the legislature, is
expecting much higher levels of accountability from postsecondary
education, than in the past. She said that much of this has come
from the K-12 movement, and she is confident it will have a
positive outcome on higher education. However, it's a new world
for the university to have to answer many of those questions.
Things like graduation rates, how many people get jobs, and
employer satisfaction with the quality of education students are
receiving are very hot topics all over the country. As Dr.
McKeown-Moak pointed out, some states are beginning to work those
issues into the funding formulas.
Number 1801
CHAIRMAN BUNDE asked Ms. Redman to furnish the committee with
information on the number of tri-part faculty, bi-part faculty, and
non-teaching faculty for each of the three campuses.
Number 1816
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON inquired what mechanisms were available to the
Board of Regents for changing the way the university does business
and if the Board of Regents decisions had the force of law.
MS. REDMAN commented it's always difficult to change large
institutions, but the Board of Regents' policy is "law" within the
university. It is, in most cases, incorporated into the collective
bargaining agreements, so the university is bound by Board of
Regents' policy.
Number 1871
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he has heard from regents that "they
can't make the monster move."
MS. REDMAN said the frustration is that it is always difficult to
move large institutions because they are subject to political
pressures as well, but the fact is, the Board of Regents can make
the determination; the Board of Regents is constitutionally charged
with the responsibility for the University of Alaska.
Number 1893
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked what happens when university
administration doesn't comply with what the Board of Regents wants;
do they go to jail?
MS. REDMAN commented the individual wouldn't go to jail unless the
law was broken, but the individual would certainly be fired. She
recalled a time when the university had five presidents in a period
of approximately three years. She reiterated her earlier comments
about the importance of working in partnership with the
legislature, which as the representative body of the whole state,
has an important perspective from the constituent viewpoint that is
valuable. She added, "What undergirds any kind of a formula or
funding allocation approach is what we all agree to in terms of
what is the mission of higher education in Alaska. We have a very
small state; we only have a half million people in this state. We
have 3 major universities and 12 extended campuses. The geography
has dictated, or we have allowed it to dictate, a structure that is
in fact a very expensive structure in order to ensure access in
this state. But there are a lot of important public policy
questions about higher education that really require a discussion;
it can't be done alone."
Number 1978
CHAIRMAN BUNDE announced the committee would begin taking testimony
via teleconference from Fairbanks.
Number 2094
LAURA BURLESON, Student, University of Alaska Fairbanks, testified
via teleconference from Fairbanks, that she doesn't support HB 302.
As a student of the university for a fairly long time, she can
appreciate the need for full and equitable funding for the
University of Alaska, but HB 302 in its current form, isn't the way
to accomplish that. She said that funding the university by a head
count system is going to be detrimental to UAF and UAS. She
remarked the University of Alaska is somewhat of a unique
situation; there are more part-time students, more returning
students, and students who are taking different paths in their
education. Conducting a head count to assess the population of
students at the different campuses, doesn't fully represent what
the university is trying to do and the mission of the university.
For example, a student taking a one credit aerobics class would
count the same as a student taking 13 credits toward a degree. The
university grants doctoral and masters degrees and accepts federal
grants. Federal funding is largely based on the amount of state
funding. She maintained that allocating funds in this manner will
erode the quality of degrees received from the university system,
especially in the smaller schools like UAF and UAS, not to mention
the rural campuses. She said the Board of Regents needs a suitable
amount of autonomy to make changes, cut the budget and shape the
University of Alaska to meet the needs of the state. Alaska
doesn't need a "brain drain" but needs to keep the best and most
qualified people within the state. She indicated that changing to
this kind of funding formula now would be incredibly detrimental.
She urged the committee not to pass HB 302.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Burleson for testifying and noted the
formula would involve weighting for type of class and level of
class. For example, an introductory survey English class would not
be expected to be funded like a masters engineering program.
Chairman Bunde asked Patrick Casey for his testimony.
Number 2246
PATRICK CASEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks and
reiterated the comments of Ms. Burleson. He urged the committee
not the pass HB 302.
Number 2307
MARY JANE FATE noted she is a member of the Board of Regents of the
University of Alaska, but was testifying on her own behalf in
opposition to HB 302. She said there are many complexities and
reasons why she opposes this legislation. She noted the Board of
Regents are experienced and very dedicated to the students, the
graduation of students, and the outcome in terms of placement in
jobs.
TAPE 98-8, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. FATE said, "I think that we should really be aware of the
complexity of the higher education, not only of the University of
Alaska, but our competitors who are delivering higher education in
the state presently and have been in the past years. And this is
not only private, charter; it could be military, as well as our own
proposed university as a tribal university, and so forth."
MS. FATE reassured the committee that the Board of Regents is
working diligently on behalf of the students and on behalf of the
state of Alaska and will continue to do so. She invited all
legislators to attend a meeting with the Board of Regents on
February 19 at 7:00 a.m. at the Baranof Hotel in Juneau.
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked Ms. Fate for her comments and asked Dan Ogg
from Kodiak to present his testimony.
Number 0099
DAN OGG, Vice President, Board of Regents, University of Alaska,
testified from Kodiak via teleconference. He found the discussion
on HB 302 interesting and Dr. McKeown-Moak's comments substantiated
that Alaska's situation is different from other states. He
referred to her remarks that formulas tend to vary widely and that
each state is different, and he sensed that Alaska wouldn't be able
to quickly come up with a formula that would fit Alaska. He
recommended that more time be spent working on this, especially in
terms of policy. He thanked the committee for this opportunity to
participate in the discussion.
Number 0134
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said that concluded the teleconference testimony and
invited David Creamer to come forward and present his remarks.
Number 0157
DAVID CREAMER, Vice President for Finance and Planning, University
of Alaska, said he is a member of the committee assigned to review
resource allocation for the university system. The committee has
been in place since November and has been taking into consideration
a number of the issues that Dr. McKeown-Moak mentioned earlier, as
well as exploring some of the points that have been raised in this
meeting. The models that are being examined are trying to look at
the complete scope of the university mission, extending beyond just
instruction into other areas of public service and research to
ensure that the funding formulas would adequately consider those
areas. In developing the funding formulas, areas being looked at
are discipline, level of program the student would be taking, and
the associated cost. In developing costs, the committee is looking
at existing costs and standard costs outside the system, examining
costs of other universities to see how the University of Alaska's
costs match those and how that would potentially influence the
funding formula that would be developed.
Number 0209
MR. CREAMER stated currently, the formula process is about
midstream. The committee is beginning to bring the data together
and it is expected that by the end of this month or early next
month some calculations will have been done. He explained that
multiple calculations will be used so the reasonableness of each
outcome can be determined, and also determine whether there are
factors that potentially exist in the university system that may be
unique to the formula so those factors can be incorporated into the
formula. At this time, the committee expects to complete a report
by late March and distribute it to the Board of Regents in April.
Number 0238
CHAIRMAN BUNDE remarked that the committee would be interested in
receiving a briefing on that report.
MR. CREAMER responded that would be possible.
Number 0248
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said that one of the ongoing concerns about the
university system is the high administrative costs. He referred to
Ms. Redman's remarks regarding the committee's review of an
administrative restructuring and reorganizing to reallocate $6
million to $10 million and asked if that would bring the University
of Alaska in line with other university systems.
MR. CREAMER responded the Board of Regents have mandated at this
point in time that the $10 million goal be achieved. If that is
indeed accomplished, the university's administrative costs would be
very much in line with other states.
Number 0291
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY referred to the pie chart from the
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and asked if the numbers in that chart
added up to the total general fund dollars appropriated to the
university.
MR. CREAMER said it was just the general fund appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that the chart indicates that $11.4
million was allocated to the statewide program with 11,000 full
time students. He asked which campus administered the statewide
program.
MR. CREAMER said it was primarily out of Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY questioned how much of UAF's allocation was
going to statewide programs.
MS. REDMAN commented there were multiple problems with the chart
and suggested the committee ignore it. One of the difficulties
which is never pointed out regarding the cost of the statewide
administration, is that functions are centralized and 50 percent of
what is being carried in statewide administration is the computing
function of the entire university system. Much of the
administrative costs for the campuses are hidden because it's
included in statewide administration. She referred to the "student
credit hours" under the statewide administration on the graph and
said that could possibly be some of the distance delivered courses.
Number 0392
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the total budget was for the
University of Alaska.
MR. CREAMER replied, "The authorized budget is about $440 million.
We actually spend of that somewhere in the area of about $370
million."
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how that was allocated among campuses.
MR. CREAMER recalled the predominent share would be at the
Fairbanks campus; somewhere in the neighborhood of $220 million.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Creamer to explain the different
funding sources.
MR. CREAMER said the sources of funding are federal, instructional
tuition funds from students, and state appropriation dollars are
the primary areas of funding.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY inquired if state appropriation funds were
included in the $220 million.
MR. CREAMER corrected his previous statement. The Fairbanks campus
allocation was $184 million, and the total Fairbanks unit,
including rural colleges assigned to the Fairbanks campus, was
slightly over $200 million.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY inquired if that was $200 million of non-
general fund monies.
Number 0480
CHAIRMAN BUNDE said, "Isn't that $200 million of total funds. The
GF is only $72 million."
Number 0507
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if receipts from extra-curricular
activities, such as sporting events, were included in the figures.
MR. CREAMER responded it included all sources of funds.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the committee could get a breakdown
of the research grants and the academic background of the faculty
for each of the campuses.
Number 0575
CHAIRMAN BUNDE thanked everyone for their testimony and announced
that HB 302 would be held in committee and heard again at a later
date.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0591
CHAIRMAN BUNDE adjourned the House Health, Education and Social
Services Standing Committee at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|