Chancellor Biddy Martin's Response to Alumni and Friends

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Wisconsin
1

<p>Wisconsin</a> Alumni Association <em>-</em>10734 Campus Events&chapterid=&chaptername=</p>

<p>Dear UW-Madison Alumni and Friends,</p>

<p>The past week has been marked by passionate reactions to the release of the state budget repair bill last Friday. You have seen the various communications on that bill and its potential impact on our campus.</p>

<p>During the past couple of days, media attention has also begun to focus on next Tuesday's release of the governor's 2011-13 biennial budget. I write to correct some of the misinformation in the media and on the rumor mill about the New Badger Partnership and the process through which it has been advanced.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I have been promoting an integrated case for greater flexibility for more than a year.</p></li>
<li><p>UW System has been advocating for flexibility for a very long time with a number of governors of different parties, without significant success.</p></li>
<li><p>I have said repeatedly that all three gubernatorial candidates expressed interest in and support for the basic premises set forth in the argument for flexibility. In 2011, lack of interest in moving forward with flexibility is a recipe for even greater economic pain.</p></li>
<li><p>In late December, members of the governor-elect's team asked for a meeting at which they expressed ongoing interest in flexibility for UW-Madison. They also announced interest in exploring a public authority model.</p></li>
<li><p>In response to hypothetical questions posed by the governor's team, we provided responses in a memo dated Jan. 7, 2011. That memo contains no decisions. It provides answers to questions we were asked about what it would take to offset 75 percent of a $50 million cut with tuition; it states unequivocally that the tuition increases required to offset 75 percent of a $50 million cut would be unacceptable to us. We made very tentative suggestions about other ways to deal with such a cut. We made no decisions or commitments about tuition rates or about anything else.</p></li>
<li><p>Neither the governor's team nor the UW-Madison administration made any commitments to public authority status or to any other change of that sort at the meetings cited in the memo, nor did they or we agree to any particular cut or tuition numbers. Meetings in January were exploratory.</p></li>
<li><p>In the meantime, as you know, we have worked with representatives of on-campus constituents on the principles that would guide discussions with the governor's office.</p></li>
<li><p>In the absence of a strong, timely system-wide proposal on behalf of all the institutions, my staff and I continued working with the governor's staff on their suggested approach to UW-Madison.</p></li>
<li><p>I made President Reilly aware of the fact that we had met with the governor's staff and had been asked for information. I did not share the content of the exchanges that ensued. I believed and still believe that it was the governor's prerogative to speak with system leadership about what he was willing to consider for the system and for UW-Madison. I was told that the governor's staff had input from system back in January and had let President Reilly know they were open to ideas, and were considering a different approach for UW-Madison.</p></li>
<li><p>Our advocacy for greater flexibility and fewer layers of bureaucracy has always had as its goal the preservation of UW-Madison's world-class quality at a time of enormous fiscal challenge. In our discussions, we have consistently emphasized the importance of flexibility for the other universities in the system. I do not agree with those who say that changes in the administration of the campuses will damage the state. The state will be irreparably damaged if the universities in the system deteriorate because of significant budget cuts and the absence of new tools. Innovations in structure are essential to avoiding that damage. The merits of the campuses' argument for appropriate levels of flexibility and more decision-making ability on the local level outweigh defenses of the existing administrative set-up, in my view.</p></li>
<li><p>Regardless of the administrative structure with which we end up, UW-Madison will not only honor all its joint programs and partnerships with other system institutions, it will enhance them, including transfer programs, educational and research collaborations, and shared outreach commitments.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Our interest in the public authority status is based on its potential to help us realize the principles that we established in the New Badger Partnership:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The state needs a world-class research university that offers education to its citizens, attracts talent from around the world, promotes the ability to think analytically and synthetically, conducts first-rate research, and applies its discoveries to solving society's most urgent problems. It needs a research university that supports existing industries and turns discovery into innovation and job creation.</p></li>
<li><p>UW-Madison needs new tools if it is to retain and enhance its quality and its capacity for innovation in service of the public.</p></li>
<li><p>Removing excess bureaucratic layers is critical to the university's ability to fulfill its mission.</p></li>
<li><p>Every region in the world is rushing to establish a major research university because of the value of those universities in a knowledge-based economy. Wisconsin needs to preserve the one it has.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Going forward:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I believe that Governor Walker will propose public authority status for UW-Madison in his budget bill, when it is released in the near future. I also believe he supports greater flexibility for other universities in the system.</p></li>
<li><p>We will provide whatever information and clarity about the bill and its implications as soon as we can. Please watch for updates at budget.wisc.edu and newbadgerpartnership.wisc.edu. </p></li>
<li><p>During the next several months, the campus community will have the opportunity to work with the administration on features of a potentially new model.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Chancellor Biddy Martin</p>

<p>Click here to read a statement issued in support of the New Badger Partnership by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin Alumni Association.</p>

2

<p>As a Wisconsin Tax Payer, I fully support this initiative.</p>

3

<p>As a middle class Wisconsin taxpayer, to whom the idea of buying a condo for my student would never occur, I’ll withhold judgement at this time. I don’t think that need based aid for middle and lower income students will offset tuition increases enough thereby reducing the number of those folks able to attend. Reducing the pool could reduce the quality of admitted students. There appears to be enough demand to limit OOS students to even higher income folks though again the quality of admittees may drop there also. UMinn could be a big beneficiary though I’m not sure tuition reciprocity will continue for long.</p>

4

<p>Somehow and in some way or form, I would like to see that brilliant students who are from lower income family get financial aid from the state. The dream would be that WI adopts need-blind admission policy. I know it is easily said than done. But it is a worthwhile goal.</p>

5

<p>Perhaps you meant meets need. Need blind admissions does nothing if the people can’t afford to attend. The thing is it’s not just lower income people but solidly middle class people that do and will struggle to pay additional costs given the increasing need to contribute to retirements, rising health care costs etc. Unless you meant lower income as in lower income than wealthy folks.</p>

6

<p>School like Harvard acceps students regardless the ablity to pay. The school makes up the rest. This would require the school having enough resources. The alumini donation is the key for Harvard.</p>

7

<p>This is another reason I support the freedom for UW Madison plan. Under current UW System budgeting rules Madison cannot give tuition waivers AKA scholarships by just granting them as the System has rights to all the tuition paid and then doles it back to each campus by a complex system that takes money from Madison tuition and gives it to the poor campuses. If madison ran its own tuition it could decide to “discount” or not collect tuition from certain desirable parties such as poor kids with great stats. Right now a dollar has to be raised elsewhere for every dollar of scholarship money. What most schools do is just have a target total tuition take and they can discount some students. Typically that discount can be anywhere from 10% to 40% and more at many privates. This is how other B10 schools like Indiana and UMinn are providing so much merit aid.</p>

8

<p>Based on the description, the Current UW System runs like what was described in a communist system. In an idealized world, people would “take (from the system) based on need and contribute (to the system) based on capability”. Sounds brilliant, but never works in the real world.</p>

9

<p>I’d prefer to just call it a hidden tax. Our entire government finance sytem is based on the higher income paying for more than their pro-rata share in taxes to provide services to all–many of which are used more by those paying in the least. But that’s the way it works and it would be harder to do it differently.</p>

10

<p>On the topic of “Need-blind” admission’s policy, there is a lot of untold truth as well. Here is a paper about the subject. It is an eye-opener for me. Unless you are really good, this policy may not be as good as advertised.</p>

<p>[Buying</a> Your Way Into College - WSJ.com](<a href=“Buying Your Way Into College - WSJ”>Buying Your Way Into College - WSJ)</p>

11

<p>Forgive my ignorance, but what does the chancellor mean by “flexibility”?</p>

12

<p>Key areas would be setting salaries, purchasing rules, building new facilities, and tuition setting/budgeting. Right now even if they have non state money to do things it still all goes through the UW Sytem and state processes. If sombody gives $40 Million to completely fund a new building it still takes 2+ years to get it through the process of System and state approval. They cannot even take research grant money to buy the items they need to do research. It all has to go through the state purchasing and you might ask for Clorox bleach and get some off brand that does not work as well just because somebody at the state thinks it’s just as good–even when results have show it is not–true case thereby screwing up research experiments. </p>

<p>Most of it could be done without complete separation but they had to start somewhere and that’s where the Governor started.</p>