State higher education officials shouldn’t have to choose between maintaining current services and building for the future.

At first glance it may seem that university officials and the Kansas Board of Regents are working at cross-purposes as they approach the Kansas Legislature in search of budget relief this year.

Much of the effort of Regents Chair Clay Blair has been focused on a plan for the state to support bonds that would finance new research facilities at Kansas University, Kansas State University and Wichita State University. On the other hand, university officials, including KU’s executive vice chancellor for university relations, Janet Murguia, are telling legislators that although the research bond plan is a good one, the universities’ top priority is to avoid cuts in their annual budgets.

So which is it? Research or restoring budgets? It’s truly a Hobson’s choice.

Should Kansas fund state university budgets at a level that at least will keep them from falling further behind their peers? Or should the state invest in its future by funding important research facilities?

The answer is “yes.” Regents and state universities officials shouldn’t be forced to put one priority ahead of the other.

Speaking in Topeka Wednesday, Murguia put the focus on university budget shortfalls. Under Gov. Bill Graves’ official balanced budget, state universities, community colleges and vocational-technical schools would take budget cuts of $20 million in the next fiscal year. Another budget plan, now in the Senate, would cut higher education by $8 million in the current fiscal year and $27 million in the next.

In addition to these cuts, the Legislature also is backing off the funding commitment made in the Higher Education Coordination Act that brought community colleges and vo-tech schools under the regents’ umbrella. In the current funding situation, almost no one is expecting the Legislature to approve the $46 million pledged as part of that legislation to help raise university faculty salaries and decrease community colleges’ dependence on local property tax levies.

Instead of enhancing budgets, the Legislature is considering cuts that will make it impossible for universities to hold their own. In desperation, universities are looking at proposals that would as much as double tuition in the next five years. KU has made a strong case that tuition increases accompanied by increased financial aid are justified, but how much burden should students and their families bear?

Officials should acknowledge the vital role that state universities play in the Kansas economy and not only keep current funding stable but make an investment in our future. The research facilities plan would take advantage of current interest rates to borrow money to fund a $60 million biomedical research center at KU, a $45 million food safety research facility at KSU and $10 in expanded aviation safety research facilities at WSU.

The state would pay back the bonds for five years, after which the universities would pick up the tab using anticipated funds from increased research grants. With a relatively small initial investment, the state would be able to fuel research that will benefit Kansas for many years.

It’s a matter of vision. Are state legislators so determined to derail any effort to raise taxes or revenue that they are willing to put the state’s education system into a downward spiral that will suck the state’s economic vitality down with it? Is that the vision we want to support for the future of Kansas?

Blair clarified for legislators that although regents are pushing the plan for research facilities that their top priority is to restore base budget cuts for higher education. That may be the right choice, but it’s a choice that higher education officials shouldn’t be forced to make.