12/7/2011: Allan Brettman of the Oregonian has a good piece:
For donors like Lorry Lokey and Vinton “Slim” Sommerville, Lariviere’s ouster was a stunning blow that no amount of explanation of process and political niceties can soothe. “It’s the governor’s fault and I hope the voters remember this two years from now and knock him out,” said Lokey, the founder of the Business Wire news service who has pledged or paid about $134 million to UO.
Lokey said he will wait until spring — when emotions have subsided and when the Legislature convenes — to decide on the future of his gifts to UO. “I’m not in a position to say what I’m going to do,” said Lokey, a Stanford University graduate who grew up in Portland. “I don’t know. I want to wait six months to see things evolve.”
Lokey, a University of Oregon Foundation trustee, said it was essential for the Legislature to approve an independent governing board for at least UO. “If it all works out, great,” Lokey said, a California resident. “I’ll be glad to pledge even more money.”
Donors are too smart to give their money to Pernsteiner, which is essentially what happens now. He reacts to UO’s success by cutting UO’s state allotment and funneling the money to EOU, WOU, SOU, and IOU – after a tithe for George’s personal expenses, of course. Thanks to a reader for the link.
Glad that Lokey is waiting to decide whether to give more money — that will keep pressure on the state to come to its senses, if that is possible for this state to do.
I wish Phil Knight would say more about his plans and how this has affected things — of course with a PR guy nearby to keep him from adding the usual disastrous things, like about the New Partnership being about raising in-state tuition.
“He reacts to UO’s success by cutting UO’s state allotment and funneling the money to EOU, WOU, SOU, and IOU – after a tithe for George’s personal expenses, of course.”
Please cite exactly how Pernsteiner, OUS, the Board, or any other bogeyman are cutting UO’s state allotment, in reaction to their success, and funneling the money to SOU, WOU, SOU, etc. UO’s allotment has been reduced over time due to simple math. In-state enrollment (credit hours taught for each CIP code by academic year) X stated allotment value (for each CIP code by academic year) = allotment. UO’s program mix, lower cost (based on national averages of program cost) than some other campuses, along with their declining in-state enrollment reduces the total allotment value. UO’s move to enroll more non-res makes total revenues from the state lower as a percentage of total.
None of the above is intended to defend the current funding model. But to say that there is some kind of intentional theft of UO revenues to distribute to other campuses is not true.
UOMatters: Is it possible to find out what percentage of funding each OUS institution receives from the state? I heard that OSU got much more than UO, even though UO has a higher enrollment.
Enrollment of Oregon resident students is what drives state funding. Percentage of total funding is somewhat of a misnomer to determine whether an institution is getting their “fair share.” For example, if total enrollment is identical in FTE, student level, and program mix from year to year, but their is a shift away from resident students to non-resident students, the state funding amount will decline, total revenues will increase because the non-resident tuition is higher than resident tuition + state funding. This will accentuate the decline of state funding as a percentage of total revenues. The state funding might decline 10% in amount, but a higher percentage when compared to total revenues.
The UO has moved steadily toward enrollment of non-resident students as a way to increase total revenues and minimize the impact of state funding declines. This has worked. But to then blame the board and Chancellor for the outcome that is quite predictable is disingenuous (sp?).
Thanks for this sensible comment. I will dig into these data and post some numbers next week. A lot of the reports are at ous.edu in the meeting packets.
Another driver is total appropriation to OUS. If that number decreases in total, it will also affect the amounts alloted to each campus via the funding model.
Another driver is how much is taken off the top to fund specific programs. If small campuses subsidies increase, and the total state funding to OUS stays the same, the allotments to all campuses via the model will decrease. The small campuses come out ahead with the net of direct subsidy increase and per-student funding decrease…if this makes sense.
It is simple in theory but somewhat complex when you try to make sense of it…..