The results of the most recent legislative session may not have satisfied all of the University鈥檚 aspirations for enhanced support, but it was certainly better than most experts would have predicted four months ago.
In January, when the session began, the state was faced with a projected budget deficit of about $1.8 billion for the 2005-07 biennium. In addition, a difficult and hotly contested gubernatorial contest seemed to have created a highly polarized political climate in which the Democrats, although having the majority in both houses, might find governance difficult.
A gloomy situation appeared even worse when the state Supreme Court threw out the state鈥檚 estate tax and ordered the state to repay some of the tax it had already collected, swelling the deficit to an estimated $2.2 billion.
So, when did things begin to turn around?
For the first time in many years, there was a 鈥渂uzz鈥� around higher education issues even from the very beginning of the session, said Randy Hodgins, director of state relations.
鈥淓ven legislators who did not sit on the budget or policy committees were realizing that something needed to be done about the access crisis,鈥� he says. 鈥淎lthough the Legislature had been slow to recognize the demographic bulge that was leading to qualified students being turned away from state universities and colleges, when it did, higher education quickly moved to the 鈥楢鈥� list of problems that needed to be addressed.鈥�
A favorable revenue forecast in March, projecting twice as much growth as had been intimated, buoyed legislators鈥� spirits. While it made a big dent in the deficit, by itself the revenue growth couldn鈥檛 solve all the state鈥檚 budget problems,鈥� Hodgins notes.
Gov. Gregoire鈥檚 budget was a major milestone, calling for a modified restoration of the state estate tax, along with increased taxes on cigarettes, thus implicitly giving the Democrat-controlled legislature 鈥減ermission鈥� to consider revenue enhancements.
鈥淭he governor made higher education a priority in her budget, and she emphasized higher education in the remarks that accompanied the budget鈥檚 unveiling,鈥� Hodgins says. 鈥淗er budget was very good for higher education institutions. Not only that, but several other pieces of her legislative agenda were important for higher education, including the Life Sciences Discovery Fund, changes in the state ethics law to promote technology transfer, and expanding the UW Tacoma and UW Bothell to four-year institutions.鈥�
Legislators鈥� attention was also focused on higher education, with two days of hearings in the House of Representatives led by Rep. Phyllis Kenney and Rep. Jeff Morris on the relationship between the research universities and economic development, and a very successful Higher Education Day in Olympia on February 15.
Expectations ran high as the Democrats in the Senate prepared to announce their budget. 鈥淲e believed that the Senate budget would be even better for higher education than the governor鈥檚, but it turned out to be just the opposite,鈥� Hodgins says. 鈥淲e thought the budget would build on the Governor鈥檚 foundation with higher enrollments and more core funding for the institutions.鈥�
But the budget the Senate proposed, while increasing enrollments in higher education, was much worse than expected, increasing funding significantly for student financial aid but gaining this through what has been termed a 鈥渃lawback鈥� of about half the recommended increase in tuition, as well as a 鈥渘on-instructional鈥� budget cut of 1 percent across the board. To many in higher education, the budget seemed to continue an all-too-familiar pattern of increasing tuition without actually increasing institutions鈥� capabilities for providing a high-quality education.
The next move on the legislative see-saw was decidedly up, with the unveiling of the House budget 鈥� even more new enrollments than the Senate budget and higher funding per student, and no 鈥渃lawback.鈥� Then the negotiations began. The final compromise budget did include a 鈥渃lawback鈥� that was one-fifth the size of the Senate鈥檚, with a 7 percent tuition increase, and funding of new enrollments in Seattle (280 undergraduates, 80 graduate students) Bothell (275 undergraduates, including 125 lower division students in 2007) and Tacoma (325 undergraduates, including 125 lower division in 2007).
The branch campus legislation was also a major gain in the session. 鈥淲e鈥檇 like to credit both Rep. Phyllis Kenney and Rep. Helen Sommers for their key role in promoting the expansion of the branch campuses,鈥� Hodgins says.
Early in the session, it looked as if only WSU-Vancouver would be expanded for lower-division enrollments. The Higher Education Coordinating Board then recommended adding the UW Tacoma. 鈥淩ep. Sommers and Rep. Kenney made expansion of UW Bothell a priority. They worked to get funding for admission of the first lower division students at the branch campuses,鈥� Hodgins says.
One disappointment in the state budget was the failure of a request for operating and maintenance money for the Bioengineering Genome Sciences Building and research facilities in south Lake Union. 鈥淕iven that there was so much discussion about the research universities鈥� contributions to the state economy, and the allocation of tobacco settlement money for the Life Sciences Discovery Fund, we thought this request would receive more favorable treatment,鈥� Hodgins says.
The request was fully funded in the governor鈥檚 budget, but it was partially funded in the House and the Senate and was unfunded in the final compromise legislation.
UW Bothell finally received funding for a freeway off-ramp that will reach the south part of campus. The money, proposed by Rep. Mark Ericks, was added to the state transportation budget in the waning days of the session.
The UW received about half of what it requested in the capital budget, which was about the same success rate as the other four-year institutions. Seattle campus restoration phase 2, which includes renovation of Guggenheim, Architecture and Health Sciences H-wing, as well as design funds for renovation of Savery and Clark halls, and the Playhouse, were all included in the final capital budget. UW Tacoma received funding for its new assembly hall but was denied money for additional land acquisition. The capital budget provided little money for 鈥渕inor works,鈥� which includes campus deferred maintenance; and a $20 million request for enhanced computing infrastructure was denied.
The Tacoma Autism Center received permanent funding of $700,000 for the coming biennium. The Burke Museum received a permanent allocation of $292,000 for public outreach. A Korean studies chair received a one-time state allocation of $500,000.聽 Research at the Harry Bridges Center received a $60,000 appropriation, and the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences received $250,000.
The final budget also includes modified language drawn from the concept of performance contracts: It specifies six outcomes that the UW should achieve. University officials will be discussing the details of how this will be measured with the governor鈥檚 staff.
鈥淲e have managed to tie core funding increases to increases in specific outcomes,鈥� Hodgins says, 鈥渨hich gives the basic concept of the performance contract some visibility, and means that our proposal was a modest success.鈥� Measurement of outcomes was included in the budget document for all four-year institutions.