Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Crumbling Academic Infrastructure

Falling (Far) Behind Part II

"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.  If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass (1871)

In the 2018 legislative session the U of M administration will submit a $200 million request for HEAPR funds to restore existing facilities--the largest such request ever made.  See p. 11 of the SEP 2017 FIN Docket. 

Almost one-third of the buildings on the Twin Cities campus (7.5 million square feet) are rated in poor or critical condition.  See p. 9 of the SEP 2017 FIN Docket (above).  In February 2016 a University assistant vice president reported that the administration should be spending twice as much as it currently spends simply to maintain University facilities in their current condition!  See p. 8 of the February 23, 2016 Senate Committee on Finance & Planning report.  It would cost a staggering $1 billion to restore all University facilities to at least fair condition.  See p. 23 of the OCT 2014 BOR FRI Docket. 

The administration acknowledges that the "growing deferred renewal backlog has widespread impacts on academic programs, research initiatives, student experience, and general competitiveness."  See p. 41 of the SEP 2017 FIN Docket (above)(emphasis added). 

This is the consequence of the decades long failure of the administration to allocate sufficient funds for the maintenance of academic facilities.  At a recent meeting the University vice president responsible for infrastructure described to Regents how insufficient stewardship has increased the backlog of necessary maintenance.  See p. 3 of the OCT 2017 BOR Docket. 

During those same decades the costs of administration skyrocketed.  In fiscal year 2016 those costs exceeded an astounding $993 million.  See the January 26, 2017 commentary in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on The (Almost) Billion Dollar Administration.  The current chair of the Board of Regents has declared that the current business model is unsustainable!  See the final paragraph on p. 14 of the SEP 2017 BOR FRI Docket.   

If it seems difficult to comprehend the magnitude of both the $1 billion backlog of deferred maintenance and the spending on administration, consider that a 50% reduction in the costs of administration would provide the funds to restore nearly all the University buildings in the first two years--even without any HEAPR funds from the legislature!  And in the third year we could have a significant reduction in tuition.  (Yes, we can.  It just takes the will and the leadership to do so.) 

Just as the maintenance of roads and bridges is an essential task for state and local governments, the maintenance of academic facilities should be a priority for an institution of higher education.  We need an administration and a Board of Regents that will allocate the substantial resources of the University to the right priorities.  See The (Almost) Billion Dollar Administration Part II.

Michael W. McNabb 
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974 
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member 

Monday, August 28, 2017

A Penchant for Secrecy Part II

A Penchant for Secrecy Part II

In September 2015 The Periodic Table described violations of the Open Meeting Law by the U of M administration. See, A Penchant for Secrecy.
The violations of the Open Meeting Law are continuing.  See, for example: 

July 13, 2017  No record of discussions during the 2017 annual retreat of Board of Regents (the second day of their July meeting).  

May 4, 2017   The Faculty Consultative Committee (the major faculty committee) closed its meeting for discussion of a previous meeting with the Board of Regents chair and for a discussion of the University strategic plan; see section 2 at p. 2 of the May 4, 2017 FCC report. 

March 21, 2017  The Senate Committee on Finance & Planning held an off the record discussion about the Board of Regents and direct management of the University; see section 4 at p. 6 of the March 21, 2017 SCFP report. 

A paragraph of the Open Meeting Law requires that meetings of the governing body of a public body must be open to the public.  Minn. Stat. 13D.01 subd. 1(b).  In 2004 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U of M is a "public body" and applied the law to meetings of the Board of Regents (the governing body of the University).  Star Tribune Co. v. University of Minnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. 2004).   

The next paragraph of the Open Meeting Law requires that the meetings of any committee of a public body must be open to the public.  Minn. Stat. 13D.01 subd. 1(c).  In 2010 the former U of M general counsel attempted to limit the application of this paragraph with the argument that it applies only to committees that have authority to make final policy decisions (a distinction not found in the statute or in the opinion of the state supreme court).  See the final paragraph on p. 4 of the September 16, 2010 FCC Report. This limitation would exempt most, if not all, committees, as committees usually only make recommendations to the governing body of an organization. 

The argument of the former general counsel does not square with the statutory language that includes any committee of a public body in its scope.  When the words of a statute are not ambiguous, the letter of the law may not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.  Minn. Stat. 645.16.  But the administration applies statutory language the same way as Humpty Dumpty, who said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

The failure to comply with the plain language of the statute does not serve the University well when the administration goes to the legislature to seek increases in state appropriations.

Michael W. McNabb 
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974 
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

Monday, June 5, 2017

Twenty questions for politicians about healthcare

Editors Note: The following material has been provided to me by my sister Eileen Gleason.  Eileen is a retired federal prosecutor and has also been a judge and in private practice.  She lives in Louisiana which currently has extremely serious problems with health care finance.  I thought that the points she made in a recent letter to a Louisiana newspaper might be generally applicable and useful points to think about concerning our health care situation in Minnesota.

Primary Reference:  Eileen  Gleason, Twenty questions on GOP insurance, The Advocate, May 31, 2017.
link: https://goo.gl/Sok8t3

Twenty Question for Politicians About Healthcare 

1. Who asked you to strip health insurance from 23 million Americans? Really, exactly who? And why? 
2. Do Americans want the freedom to not have insurance they cannot afford?  They had this freedom all their lives and didn’t like it. 
3. Why hand out windfalls to the wealthy? Why not write a bill providing the most protection using funds available without a tax cut? 
4. Why not fix the problems with the ACA? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the baby was dubbed Obamacare?
5. Why rush to vote without a Congressional Budget Office score? Now that it is out, why not repudiate this bill? 
6. Do those with mental illnesses want no coverage for mental illness or lifetime coverage limits? 
7. After this bill, who will care for the uninsured mentally ill? Prisons? Homeless shelters? 
8. Why abolish the Medicaid expansion, which allowed life-threatening conditions to be diagnosed and treated, and saved lives? 
9. Why shift the risk of the expanding population and increasing healthcare costs to  Louisiana, which is in dire straits without the burden of reduced Medicaid funding? 
10. The experience of states with underfunded high-risk insurance pools is not good. Will you commit to adequately fund these pools? 
11. Instead of spreading risk through insurance, why are you isolating people in high-risk insurance pools? 
12. Why allow discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions, when 30% of Louisianans have one? 
13. Why leave it to fifteen MALE Republican senators to negotiate behind closed doors about this important issue? Why are birth control and maternity services in jeopardy? 
14. Why defund women’s health services at Planned Parenthood, while funding treatment of men’s health conditions, (erectile dysfunction, prostate cancer), without limiting where men can be treated? 
15. Why are Republicans threatening to withhold cost-sharing insurer subsidies and destabilizing the insurance marketplace? 
16. Why let insurers charge the elderly five times the premiums charged to the young? 
17. Why permit the sale of policies which do not cover the current essential health benefits, thereby sharply increasing costs to those covered? 
18. Why are the AMA and AARP, among others, against this bill?  
19. How about a waiting period of one week between finalizing the Senate bill and voting on it? Are you afraid of the feedback? 
20. Many Republicans refuse to hold town hall meetings. Is that because their constituents get mad at them and yell at them?  Ask yourself why constituents get mad and yell.  
Please vote “NO” on the House bill, or I will ask, “Why again did I vote for my senator?” and “What other candidate can I support in the next election?”
The twenty questions are available for download as a pdf document.

Friday, April 28, 2017

The (Almost) Billion Dollar Administration Part II

The (Almost) Billion Dollar Administration Part II

There was some discussion about the January 26 St. Paul Pioneer Press commentary on costs of administration at the meeting of the Board of Regents on March 24, 2017.  The vice president for finance "emphasized that items in mission support are not the same as administration, referring to the cost of facilities as an example."  See p. 32 of the March 2017 BOR Docket.

The calculation of the costs of administration in the January 26 commentary does not include the cost of facilities.  See The Almost Billion Dollar Administration.    Either the vice president did not read the commentary carefully or he intentionally misled the Regents.  Neither action (or omission) is acceptable for a person in that position.

In a February 2 Pioneer Press commentary (written by the vice president) the university administration asserts that the costs of administration are less than 9% of the university budget.  See  U of M Real Administrative Costs Are Not Nearly That High.  This calculation is limited to the personnel and non-personnel expenses in the leadership and oversight category.  Even with this limitation the total amount is a staggering $289,878,000.  See line 24(f) of the Expense Summary in the Administrative Cost Benchmarking Report at p. 32 of the December 2016 FIN Docket.  (The administration did not include any dollar amounts in its February 2 commentary.)

So the administration does not include any expenses in the mission support category when counting spending on costs of administration.  But the administration does include those expenses when counting any reduction in costs of administration:

See pp.41-42 of the December 2016 FIN Docket. The administration uses words the same way as Humpty Dumpty, who said to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

In its calculation of the costs of administration the administration omits all the expenses in the mission support category.  That category includes such items as the personnel expense of $186,944,000 for audit/finance/HR/IT/legal and the expense of $47,081,000 for administrative consulting and professional services (which is separate from the expense of $86,511,000 for consulting and professional services in the mission category).  

The rationale of the administration for omitting all the expenses in the mission support category is that these expenses assist in carrying out the direct mission activities of instruction, research, and public service.  The same may be said of the expenses in the leadership and oversight category.  But the administration acknowledges that those expenses are properly classified as costs of administration.  So the classification of an expense as a cost of administration does not depend on whether the expense assists the direct mission activities.

The issue is not whether the expenses in either the mission support category or in the leadership and oversight category assist the direct mission activities.  The issue is the amount of those expenses.

We need to start to imagine a different way to operate and to finance higher education.

The state legislature should establish a task force with members of the higher education committees, university administrators and faculty and staff members, Minnesota Office of Higher Education staff members, and informed students and parents.

The work of the task force should include an analysis of the rise in the costs of administration at the U of M over the past 40 years.  If there has been an increase in the number of administrators that is disproportionate to any increase in the number of students or research, we should ask why.  If there has been a substantial increase (in constant dollars) in the compensation of any administrator, we should ask why. 

We should also compare the compensation paid to University administrators to the compensation of senior administrators in state government who have similar qualifications and duties.  For example, the annual salary of the state commissioner of human rights is $145,000.  The annual salary of the vice president of the U of M Office for Equity & Diversity is more than 50% greater at $241,000.  

Each biennium the citizens of our state now invest more than $1 billion in the U of M in general appropriations.  With that much at stake the legislature should appoint a qualified person to monitor on a continuing basis the operations of the University and the use of state appropriations.  This legislative liaison (or watchdog) should have the responsibility to review information produced by senior administrators, to collect additional information through his or her own independent research, and to meet with all groups at the University so that the perspectives of other well-informed and thoughtful members of the University community are presented to the legislature. 

Michael W. McNabb 
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member