Kansas University Chancellor Robert Hemenway spoke to the Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee’s subcommittee on higher education Thursday. The following are his prepared remarks.

Senate Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Higher Education

Thursday, March 7, 2002

Room 123-S, State Capitol

Testimony by Robert Hemenway, chancellor, the University of Kansas

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My remarks today will be brief. I am joined by

executive vice chancellors Donald Hagen and Janet Murguia. Feel free to

direct questions to any of us for a response.

It’s my privilege to speak on behalf of the University of Kansas, a state

university whose reputation has never been stronger — nationally or

regionally — in four major categories.

Students: The quality of our student body, as measured by freshman test

scores, is increasing every year. For the past three years, we have ranked

among the top 10 public universities in the country in the number of

freshman National Merit Scholars we enroll. In addition, we’ve enrolled the

second- and third-largest freshman classes in our history the past two

years.

Faculty research: The amount of funded research we carry out has more than

doubled in the past decade, reaching $224 million in fiscal year 2001. That

amount is only slightly less than this year’s $243 million state

appropriation. We now rank 51st among all public universities in the amount

of federal grants received for science and engineering research.

Teaching: Excellent teaching is one outcome of achievement in research. At

KU, students are frequently taught by the professor who wrote the textbook,

rather than the professor who merely read the textbook. That’s a major

difference, in terms of the impact on students.

Service to the state: KU remains the state’s principal source of continuing

education for local law enforcement officers, firefighters and wastewater

treatment workers. Our Kansas Audio-Reader Network provides daily news

services to the blind and visually impaired statewide. The Robert J. Dole

Institute of Politics (now under construction) promises to be a national

focal point for timely discussion and research on a host of major public

affairs issues.

(And you may be aware that our men’s basketball team is doing rather well!)

Clearly, by many important measures, KU is stronger than it’s ever been. But

in other ways, it has seldom been more vulnerable. Why do I say that?

Here’s a case in point: As things now stand, KU faces a budget shortfall in

the coming year of $15.4 million. That’s a 6.4 percent reduction in funding,

the largest one-year reduction ever proposed for the University of Kansas.

There are two parts to that 6.4 percent cut: the previously announced $9.6

million (3.94 percent) base reduction and a less visible — but no less

damaging — $5.8 million (2.4 percent) obligation to pay unavoidable, fixed

employer costs, such as the annualization of current-year salary increases

and increased health insurance premiums.

These costs, which were funded in the budgets of all state agencies other

than the regents universities, won’t go away simply because the state

chooses to ignore them. They will have to be met by someone in some fashion.

Here’s the bottom line: To maintain our current level of services in fiscal

year 2003, the university would require $15.4 million in state funding. That

would erase the 3.94 percent base reduction and pay those fixed employer

costs.

If the legislature does nothing to resolve this shortfall, however, KU will

take a budget cut of historic proportions during fiscal year 2003, and it’s

a bigger cut than most other state agencies are being required to absorb. We

urge you to address the $15.4 million shortfall so that we can at least

maintain our current level of services during fiscal year 2003.

(Most Kansans would support maintaining the current level of services,

according to a recent statewide poll conducted by the Policy Research

Institute. When asked their preferences for state spending on state colleges

and universities, 52 percent of those surveyed favored keeping it at the

present level, while another 38 percent favored increased spending. Fewer

than 6 percent supported decreased spending.)

So we are not asking the state for a major new investment this year. But we

should all ask ourselves what permanent harm a 6.4 percent budget cut would

inflict on KU — a university whose research work, faculty expertise,

skilled graduates and national reputation make it a vital — but fragile —

resource for the state in terms of intellectual capital and economic

development.

At KU, we have experience in tightening our belts. For example, when we

construct a needed new building, it costs additional money to provide that

building with utilities, custodial services and other basic operating

expenses. Yet the last time we received state funding for this purpose was

in fiscal year 2000.

The newly renovated School of Education building, for instance, Pearson

Hall, opened in August 2000. Since fiscal year 2001, we have asked the state

without success for funding to cover its annual operating costs of about

$310,000. That’s a very real form of belt tightening.

What concerns me is that there seems to be a pattern of underfunding here.

Currently, state appropriations per student in the state of Kansas ranks

sixth among the seven Big 12 Conference states. Iowa, for example, has

provided 50 percent more state money per student than Kansas.

Or consider the level of state appropriations per student at KU

specifically. Adjusted for inflation, it has declined over the past 15

years. In fiscal year 2000, state support for our students was worth $667

less than it was in fiscal year 1985. It has since dropped by another $200

and would drop by another $400 in fiscal year 2003 under the existing budget

proposal.

The brunt of these shortfalls has been borne by the university, its faculty

and staff, and its students. Given these circumstances, it’s remarkable that

the University of Kansas continues to achieve at the level it does.

We cannot sustain that level, however, with “chewing gum and baling wire.”

Inevitably, the quality of a KU education is going to suffer if this pattern

of underfunding continues. We’ve run out of chewing gum and baling wire.

A recent series of articles in a Phoenix newspaper about Arizona’s budget

crisis put this issue in its proper perspective. According to a growing

number of state leaders there, Arizona “is committing slow economic suicide

by underfunding its universities in the face of fierce competition from

other states for the workers and revenues of today’s knowledge economy.” The

same can be said of Kansas.

Toward that end, we continue to urge this legislature to fully fund the

Board of Regents’ proposed 4.5 percent operating grant increase, as well as

the third year of the commitment made to our faculty under SB 345.

But enough of the present. What about the future? KU, along with Kansas

State University and Wichita State University, seeks 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 restorations I’ve already touched on. But I would point out that the

required bonding authority for those projects involves no state funding

during fiscal year 2003. It is not a question of whether you should restore

budget cuts or pass the research initiative: We need both.

Failure to authorize the research initiative would be an irretrievably lost

opportunity for Kansas. The economic effects would reverberate to every

corner of our state.

Failure to address the $15.4 million shortfall would have more immediate

consequences, including 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.

Specifically, at Lawrence we anticipate meeting $9.5 million in budget cuts

by leaving unfilled, or eliminating, as many as 175 faculty and staff

positions. We would also cut departmental operating budgets and the

operating hours of certain museums and public service units.

At the KU Medical Center, we have already sought permission from the state

to begin a reduction in force this summer for classified employees. It’s

only a precautionary measure, but a $6 million budget reduction there will

likely require:

• elimination of as many as 90 classified and unclassified staff positions;
• including the elimination or reduction in state support for about 20

faculty positions (about 5 percent of the total);

• phasing out of the physical therapy program conducted at Pittsburg State

University via distance education;

• elimination of the nursing program in neo-natal care; and
• possible cutting back of outreach efforts statewide, including a program

that supplies temporary replacement doctors to rural communities.

Last month, 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. We at the university are public servants and

we will do our best. But we would be liars if we told you there would be no

ill effects.

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.

If we don’t find a way to support higher education adequately in Kansas, our

fate may be the “slow economic suicide” I spoke of a moment ago. I hope you

will not let that happen.