The details of the Governor’s 2020 Commission report are provided on pages 1 and 2 of this issue; here I would like to provide some background and context for the ideas and initiatives suggested by the commission.

This report is far more supportive of sustained funding and maintaining quality for higher education than I would have dared to hope during the many sessions of the commission I attended in the past eight months. The viewpoints were so various, the personalities so strong-willed, and the extreme positions so polarized, that I could not envision how the Commission would be able to generate a productive, positive document. As the summer progressed, however, an emerging consensus of agreement on the need for access, funding and advocacy began to emerge, and this final report reflects those issues.

The most crucial elements are the recommendations that per-student funding be at the average of our peers and that incentive funding be made available for innovation. This last suggestion would move us from the current “punitive” funding model of accountability (meet standards or lose funding) to an “incentive” model (improve the institution and gain new funding).

The recommendation regarding per-student funding is one that has caused some concern on the part of faculty not familiar with our current situation, because the report recommends that we have per-student funding based on the “average” of our peers, rather than the current goal of funding at the 75th percentile of our peers. As the report notes, we are very far from achieving the current goal. Even getting to the average per-student funding of our eight Office of Financial Management (OFM) peers (Michigan, UNC-Chapel Hill, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Arizona, Iowa, Illinois, Oregon) would require an increase of $2,117 per student, which would generate an additional $70 million per year for the UW. Just getting to the average would be a huge leap and a great financial boost to the institution.

Another area of concern is the method for funding everything that the commission has recommended. If the commission had taken the time to develop a complete funding plan, two outcomes would be likely: the report never would have been issued, or it would have been far more pessimistic about the future of higher education in this state. It’s the job of the Legislature and Governor to make decisions about priorities and the ways to fund them—the commission has taken a much more visionary approach. Staff advisors to the commission had been quite negative about making innovative recommendations without identifying funding sources, but following that advice would have led to a fairly stringent report.

Compare this situation to the recent Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) history: Two years ago, the HECB made quite stingy recommendations for the 1997-99 higher education budget, and we had to fight those parsimonious recommendations all through the session. This year, the HECB has viewed itself as the advocate of higher education and has provided a very generous set of budget recommendations for 1999-2001. Why the difference? In 1997, the HECB was attempting to act in loco Legislature, and to make higher education cuts in light of reduced resources. In contrast, for the 1999 session the HECB has declared itself an advocate for higher education and made recommendations that urge the Legislature to come up with the funding needed for HECB and institutional goals in the areas of salary and enrollments.

Similarly, the 2020 Commission (co-chaired by the HECB chair Bob Craves) has taken a more idealistic approach, and placed the onus on the Legislature to develop a funding plan.

The co-chairs of the commission are currently concerned with the next tactical moves in order to further the agenda of higher education. The members of the commission, who clearly view themselves as advocates for higher education and its funding, are already lobbying on our behalf in Olympia and around the state. Because of the tight funding for the 1999-2001 biennium, we will need all the advocacy we can get.

Great credit for the final version of the report must be given to President McCormick, who invited each individual serving on the commission to campus (some several times) to make them aware of our concerns and innovations. Our Regent Daniel Evans also was a tremendous resource during the commission meetings, providing rich background and incisive comments throughout the process. Many faculty also responded to my invitations to meet with and make presentations to members of the 2020 Commission throughout the summer—my thanks to all of you! ¶

JoAnn Taricani, Faculty Legislative Representative

olympia@u.washington.edu