The following testimony was presented by Kansas University Chancellor Robert Hemenway to the House Education and Legislative Budget Committee, Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2002, Room 514-S, State Capitol.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am joined today by the three executive vice chancellors David Shulenburger, Donald Hagen, and Janet Murguia. At the conclusion of my remarks, feel free to direct questions to any of us for a response.

It’s my privilege, on behalf of the University of Kansas, to speak with you today about the future of our state and the funding of public higher education.

The two issues are always closely linked, but never more so than during the current session of the Legislature.

The crafting of any budget for a family, a university or a state involves choices and decisions that will shape the future in ways that are sometimes irreversible.

As you deliberate in the coming weeks on the budget for public higher education, I have confidence that you will be thinking of the next generation of Kansans.

The choices you make and the decisions you reach this spring will be a legacy to the children of Lindsborg, Cherokee, Rolla, Kansas City, and a hundred other Kansas towns for years to come. The challenge will be to make that legacy a visionary plan for the future.

The past few years have seen dramatic and often positive changes in the relationship between the state and its universities.

In 1999, the coordination and governance of postsecondary education in Kansas was restructured with the enactment of SB-345. In 2001, a block grant funding model was adopted for the Regents institutions.

SB-345 promised additional funding for faculty salaries. For the past two years, the Governor and Legislature have honored that commitment. This sent a strong message of support for public higher education, and we are grateful for it.

The Regents universities have received budget increases during the past two years. Additional funding provided under SB-345 has enabled us to keep pace somewhat with our competition in terms of faculty salaries.

During the past two decades, the trend in state support per student has been downward at KU, as the chart I’ve provided shows. There has been some improvement in this regard since the passage of SB-345, but KU’s students still lag behind students at most comparable public universities in the amount of support they receive from the state.

It may be unrealistic to expect that our level of state support can immediately return to what it was 20 years ago. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to hold up the goal of modest annual improvements in state support per student.

Under the projected budget for FY2003, the very welcome funding increases of recent years would largely be erased, and the amount of state support per student would drop back to the downward leading trend line.

Losing the recent, hard-won momentum, I would submit, would be a mistake for a state that must attract and hold talented people, growing businesses and creative leaders in order to improve or maintain our existing quality of life.

By all indications, the general public and opinion leaders are well aware that education is the heart of Kansas. The K-12 schools and the state’s universities together provide our children with outstanding preparation for the world as it is and the world as it will be when they someday take our places.

[Incidentally, that’s the message that other Regents university presidents and I will be sharing with reporters when we visit Silver Lake Elementary School tomorrow morning.]

A major nationwide survey, released last week by the American Council on Education, underscores the high value placed on public higher education by people across the country.

More than two thirds of those surveyed said they would “oppose a cut in state funding for public colleges and universities”;

Half said that states “should spend more on public higher education”;

69% believe the “quality of education would decline” if funding for state colleges and universities is cut, while 61% believe “the state’s economy would suffer.” These were viewed as the two worst outcomes of such an action by their state government.

This was a nationwide survey, but the responses parallel the results of similar surveys conducted in individual states across the country.

Also last week, I spoke to the trustees of the William Allen White Foundation during their annual gathering in Lawrence. I offered my assessment of the state budget situation, and some of what I said was reported in newspapers around the state.

“The university has never been in greater peril,” I said. I believe that, and I think you, other legislators, the Governor, and the people of Kansas need to hear that.

The peril is financial. The charts I’ve provided tell the story. Currently, state appropriations per student in Kansas ranks sixth among the seven Big 12 Conference states. Iowa, for example, has provided 50% more state money per student than Kansas.

At KU alone, the level of state appropriations per student, adjusted for inflation, has declined over the past 15 years. In FY2000, state support for our students was worth $667 less than it was in FY1985. It has since dropped by another $200, and would drop by another $400 in FY2003 under the existing budget proposal.

The statutory proposal that is currently on the table contains the largest budget cuts ever recommended for higher education in Kansas. The chart we’ve provided gives a graphic depiction of what that means.

Beginning with our current base operating grant of $243 million, for the Lawrence campus and the KU Medical Center, we would need about $15.4 million more next year simply to maintain our current level of service.

$15.4 million would erase the 3.94% base reduction something Governor Graves also requested in his State of the State Address and pay for $5.8 million in unavoidable, fixed, employer costs. I ask you to provide these funds.

These unavoidable costs including the salary annualization mandated by the legislature won’t go away simply because the state chooses to ignore them. They will have to be met by someone in some fashion.

The $15.4 million, then, enables us to “stand still” for a year: nothing more. “Stand Still” is not the motto of the University of Kansas or any other university worth its salt. I’ll spare you the Latin, but translated into English, the KU motto begins with these words: “I saw this great vision.”

Even in times of fiscal stress, there must be “this great vision” of a university that cares about Kansas and which serves the whole state through teaching and research at the highest levels.

Even in times of war, when immediate threats dominate our thinking, that vision must guide us.

Even in times of peace, when those threats seem diminished, we have to press forward. Learning does not take a holiday. The need for new knowledge never takes a year off. The war against disease knows no armistice.

Even when it seems politically expedient to cut today’s higher education budget, we must have the courage to take the longer view the view you only get once you have reached the stars, “through difficulty.”

The state’s motto doesn’t compel us to reach for the status quo. We continue to urge this legislature to fully fund the Board of Regents’ proposed 4.5% operating grant increase, as well as the third year of the commitment made to our faculty under SB-345.

In a different category, we (along with Kansas State University and Wichita State University) also seek bonding authority for a major research building initiative on our campuses. The KU Medical Center portion of the project already has a $27 million private commitment of funding from the Hall Family Foundation. These projects are essential if the state and its three largest universities are to fully realize their potential as sources of economic development and service for our state and nation.

I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of research facilities in retaining good faculty. In the past month, the KU Medical Center has lost two of its most distinguished and well-funded research scientists (i.e., Billy Hudson and S. K. Dey) because they did not have the equipment and facilities they needed to take their research to the next level. We cannot continue to suffer these kinds of losses. Students lose; patients lose; and Kansas loses when such faculty leave because of better facilities elsewhere.

Approval of the research initiative during this session is vital, as are the budget adjustments I’ve already touched on. But the required bonding authority for those projects involves very little state funding during FY2003. It is not a question of whether you should provide budget adjustments or the research initiative: we need both. The research initiative helps secure the future. The stand still budget gets us through the current storm. Thus, we regard adoption of the research initiative as a high priority for the state for the spring.

Failure to authorize the research initiative would be an irretrievably lost opportunity for Kansas. The economic effects would reverberate from Kansas City and Wichita, and Manhattan and Lawrence, to every corner of our state.

Failure to restore the base reduction or accomplish the other restorations required to maintain the status quo would also have consequences.

Let us be clear. We are public servants and we will do our best. But, we would be liars if we told you there will be no ill effects.

These could include layoffs of existing staff, fewer and more-crowded classes, the elimination or severe reduction of basic services for students and the public, and the shutting down of some academic and outreach programs.

It would also mean our students and faculty will use computer equipment that’s out of date, our ability to support economic development activities will be limited, and the overall quality of a KU education will decline for current and future students.

Last Thursday, the editor of the Iola Register wrote about these issues more clearly than I can, and I want to share them with you in closing. In an editorial, he said:

“What a tragedy it will be if Kansas lawmakers can’t see beyond one year’s recession-induced shortfall and focus instead on how vital excellent universities are to the progress of Kansas and to the future of Kansas students.”

“The money invested in them every year pays dividends immediately and from that point forward. And if they are allowed to reverse course and head downhill, it will take years to repair the damage and regain forward momentum.”

I know you and your colleagues face many difficult challenges this spring as you act on the state’s budget.

As you proceed, I hope you’ll remember that this is a budget not only for this year but for many years and many lives — to come.

The future of the state and the funding of public higher education are closely linked, and you have an opportunity to ensure the future by the actions you ultimately take.