December 17-21, 2013
Dec 17 00:25 Chicago on the Mississippi Dec 17 10:56 Chicago on the Mississippi, Part II Dec 17 12:30 DFL on MnSure: Don't worry, be happy Dec 18 00:21 St. Cloud State's budget battle continues Dec 19 02:55 Five questions Dec 19 14:12 Kessler: "I think they lied to us" Dec 19 15:54 Johnson calls for Oversight chairs resignation Dec 20 09:34 Explaining SCSU's enrollment Dec 21 02:06 Is SCSU a great place to work?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Chicago on the Mississippi
Two weeks ago, we learned that there were some discouraging irregularities during the student fees vote at St. Cloud State. That was only the start of things. Later that weekend, St. Cloud State put out this wierd-looking press release:
At the time, I questioned how the administration would know that the referendum had passed but it didn't have the final vote count. Further, clicking on the links brought me to blank pages. As unsettling as that information is, that's just the beginning. This article takes things to another level:
In a press release from Student Government, the decision to investigate the results came when members of Student Government saw reason to invalidate a portion of the ballot items based on claims of inappropriate campaigning behavior within proximity of the polling place.
Currently the results have not been validated by the Judicial Council as there are not enough members on the council to validate the results, with one member being terminated and another stepping down. The impact of these results will not be felt until the next academic year.
That there aren't enough members on the Judicial Council is odd enough but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Here's additional information on why the Judicial Council is short members:
With one member being terminated and another stepping down, the Judicial Council is unable to validate the results as there are not enough members on the council to do so.
Those members are Courtney Downing, Minnesota State University Student Association representative, SG parliamentarian and SG Constitution representative, and Chief Justice of the Judicial Committee and SG chair Devon Bowker.
I'm confident that people are shaking their heads in disbelief at what's happening. Fasten those seatbelts because we're just starting. Check this out:
Downing was made aware that students were allegedly soliciting votes at voting stands. Solicitation during voting is legal, but must be done at least 50 feet away from stands.
If this was true the voting results could possibly be considered invalid.
'We were looking for any written documentation that would have been used to invalidate any of the elections,' Petersen said. 'We had no written documentation to invalidate any portion.'
Downing claims to have witnessed this personally.
In an open statement at the Dec. 12 SG meeting she spoke of a meeting between Petersen, herself and Vice President of Student Life and Development Wanda Overland.
'When I got to her office she brought in Eric Petersen, and the two of them began accusing me of tampering with the elections results, and informed me that any case we tried to make against Athletics was invalid because it did not follow the schedule timeline that neither the chief justice or I were made aware of on the due dates of the Judicial cases,' Downing said. 'Then they got on the topic of my own moral and ethical standard causing a problem and then spoke of the chief justice and myself being part of a group to take down Athletics.'
That's proof that a little paranoia goes a long way. It isn't just that Petersen and Overland attempted to intimidate Ms. Downing. It's that their accusation is without merit. According to SCSU's balance sheet posted on the MnSCU website, SCSU made almost $500,000 last year. If Question 1 doesn't pass, that means the SCSU Athletic Department would be about $10,000 in the red.
It isn't credible to say that a student could take down the SCSU Athletic Department when, at worst, it's losing $10,000 a year. Put a different way, it's a BS accusation. What makes it rich is that Overland and Petersen accused Ms. Downing of having "no written documentation" of the things she witnessed personally. It's incredible that they'd accuse her of not having documentation when their accusation is refuted by MnSCU documentation.
Bullying a student is bad enough. Bullying a student with faulty information is worse. In light of this information, I'd like to apologize to Chicago. As awful as their elections are, they could learn from St. Cloud State.
Posted Tuesday, December 17, 2013 12:25 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 17-Dec-13 09:08 AM
Intimidation at SCSU, say it aint so! Well this one time, Aviation students got yelled at by someone at the highest level. Faculty and staff have been bullied and intimidated. Then there are others who said, the heck with it - we quit - rather than endure that kind of treatment. Anyone seeing a pattern here?
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 17-Dec-13 09:23 AM
Patrick: yes...the pattern is all too clear when it comes to bullying and intimidation.
President Potter unhinged, part II
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=14740
Chicago on the Mississippi, Part II
Earlier this morning, I wrote this post about the recent vote on whether to extend the increased student fees that started in 2010. This post will ask lots of questions about the election that was just held. First, though, it's important to remind people of the administration's recent behavior:
In an open statement at the Dec. 12 SG meeting she spoke of a meeting between Petersen, herself and Vice President of Student Life and Development Wanda Overland.
'When I got to her office she brought in Eric Petersen, and the two of them began accusing me of tampering with the elections results, and informed me that any case we tried to make against Athletics was invalid because it did not follow the schedule timeline that neither the chief justice or I were made aware of on the due dates of the Judicial cases,' Downing said. 'Then they got on the topic of my own moral and ethical standard causing a problem and then spoke of the chief justice and myself being part of a group to take down Athletics.'
First, Vice President Overland and Student Government President Petersen rejected Ms. Downing's claims because Ms. Downing allegedly didn't document the electioneering. That's rich because she witnessed the electioneering first hand. If that isn't enough, then Overland and Petersen allegedly accused Ms. Downing of being part of a group that wanted to "take down Athletics." What's disgusting is the fact that they made this accusation without any documentation.
What's wrong with this picture? Courtney Downing witnessed the electioneering but didn't follow the rules that nobody knew about and is vilified and intimidated. Ms. Downing's intimidators accuse her of a wild conspiracy theory that they can't document. Not only does the administration side with Ms. Downing's accusers but they're participants in this intimidation.
What's particularly upsetting is that VP Overland cared more about Ms. Downing not following procedures than she cared about the fact that some students had been accused of electioneering. Had I been in VP Overland's position, my first objective would've been to find out if the accusations were verifiable. It wouldn't have been to intimidate (bully is another verb that fits) a student over not following process.
It's also noteworthy that VP Borland and SG President Petersen eventually resorted to personal attacks. That's the quintessential definition of the politics of personal destruction. It's true, too, that this is a case of shooting the messenger.
That's upsetting but that's just the tip of the iceberg. This student fee increase started in FY2010. At the time, President Potter said that the fee increase was needed. If they didn't pass it, he said they might have to eliminate the football program. It's important that we put this in historical context. FY2010 was the peak year of SCSU enrollment. That year, the FYE enrollment was 15,096. That year, the dorms were 96% full. Tuition revenues should've been the highest they've ever been. Dorm rental revenues should've been through the roof, too.
With SCSU having that much revenue flowing in, why would they need to close the football program if the student fee increase didn't pass?
Here's another question that hasn't been asked, much less answered. If the SG and the administration were worried about documenting the wrongdoing, why didn't they care that voting was electronic? Electronic voting can't be reconstructed the vote if it's a tight vote and a recount is required.
Here's another question: why didn't the SG and the administration publicize the vote so all students could participate and cast an informed vote? The student fee increase literally affects every student on campus. Shouldn't the SG and the administration work to make sure everyone knows what's happening and the possible ramifications? If they shouldn't have publicized it, why shouldn't they have publicized it more?
One possibility is obvious: athletes were certain to turn out. If other students didn't know about the vote, student-athletes could win in a landslide. That appears to be what happened.
Here's another question: Why was the vote held near the end of the semester? End of semester is a terrible time for student participation because it's the most hectic time of the semester. Had the SG wanted greater student participation, they should've held the vote in late January, not early December.
The more I think about the timing of the vote and the almost non-existent publicity of this important vote, coupled with the threats and intimidation against Ms. Downing for doing the right thing, the more I question the integrity of this vote.
If the SG is genuinely interested in a clean vote with greater student participation, they should announce that this vote won't be certified and that a new vote will be held in January. Further, the SG and the administration should publicize the next election so the students can cast informed votes.
If these things aren't done, we'll understand what the SG and the administration wanted to do.
Posted Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:56 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Dec-13 03:39 PM
Gary:
I think we know the answer to two of the questions. School districts always threaten to cut something that parents want to get a levy increase when the money is already being assigned to things which aren't needed or if the parents wanted to have a direct say will be likely to vote no.
As for the timing some school districts don't do it on an election time or at an odd time when they think it will be easier to get their voters out and opposition isn't likely to form.
Sounds like normal procedure in action to answer your two questions.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DFL on MnSure: Don't worry, be happy
Despite the news that MnSure isn't working properly, the DFL committee tasked with its oversight hasn't met in months:
Sen. Sean Nienow has highlighted MnSure's security difficulties. Despite that attention, the DFL-led committee hasn't met since September :
Senator Nienow says the committee is not meeting frequently enough and is not providing adequate oversight. He points to a four page letter he sent MnSure prior to the September meeting. The letter contained dozens of questions about data security.
That's only part of the problem:
Nienow has waited months for answers. That wait is now over though as Mnsure says it emailed Nienow answers to his questions a couple hours prior to our report being broadcast.
In short, MnSure was stonewalling, most likely because they had something nasty to hide.
On a mostly unrelated note, this article is disturbing:
About 1,000 MNsure users are being told they must redo their applications -- quickly -- in order to obtain federal tax credits to discount their health insurance costs next year.
That's only part of MNsure's problems:
Meanwhile, officials confirmed that MNsure call center callers who are put on hold are automatically disconnected after 60 minutes.
"Within the last two weeks, there are four times that I've been disconnected after an hour," said Judy Johnson, 63, of North St. Paul. "It's not very good customer service."
John Reich, a MNsure spokesman, attributed the dropped calls to "a state standard for state-run call centers." He said MNsure was in talks to adjust the threshold.
Liberal pundits have tried peddling the notion that MNsure is working significantly better than HealthCare.gov. Based on this information, I'd argue that MNsure and HealthCare.gov are total failures, especially in terms of information security, customer service rates and giving customers the wrong information about subsidies and tax credits.
As for the MNsure oversight committee, their work ethic doesn't seem to exist. It's like they don't want the public to know just how broken MNsure is. That's unacceptable.
Posted Tuesday, December 17, 2013 12:30 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Dec-13 03:33 PM
Well this is what you get when you believe in the program, that it can't do harm, and the party in power is a democrat so you don't want to embarrass your party.
However if I'm a demcrat who barely won in the House or the Senate in 2012 I wouldn't want this to be an issue for my reelection. The Republican can say I guess we need real oversight and we can't get it as long as this Democrat keeps their seat.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
St. Cloud State's budget battle continues
Is SCSU's Financial Roadmap Taking It to a Good Place?
by Silence Dogood
On December 12, 2013, the following "public budget" for SCSU appeared on the website for the Office of Finance and Administration:
This document is certainly less than complete and it does not match prior documents released by the administration.
If you look at the MnSCU website under Management Reports and select the report category Finance, it is possible to see the "Projected Fund Balances" for each MnSCU institution. The following report was obtained for SCSU for FY14:
While I claim no financial expertise other than being able to balance my checkbook, the number on the bottom right of the page is a bit scary--it shows a deficit of $9,515,358. It is hard to imagine that a big red number here is a good thing.
Looking back at the projected balance for FY09 through FY14, the projected balances are shown in the following figure:
Clearly, the trend from FY09 through FY12 is going in a good direction for SCSU. For FY13, it appears that the net projected balance declined slightly but was still positive to the tune of $37,300,000. However, it is scary to see a projected deficit of $9,500,000. The difference from FY13 to FY14 amounts to a change of $46,900,000.
One can only hope that this is not complete data for FY14 and that there is additional revenue that will be added as the year proceeds. However, omitting FY12, the projected balance for FY14, based on the extrapolation of the results for FY09 through FY13, should be approximately $40,000,000. If indeed the projected balance is positive to the tune of $40,000,000 why would the administration present at Meet and Confer on September 5, 2013 and again on October 9, 2013 a document showing a deficit of $2,861,117?
The only thing that is clear is the budget information provided to the Faculty Association has been less than "open and transparent." Considering that Moorhead has eliminated 41 faculty positions with six faculty being retrenched and Bemidji and Southwest are facing financial challenges of their own, it would be useful to have good financial data for making decisions.
The decision to close the Aviation Program at SCSU was made using financial data that was clearly erroneous - the flight simulators were erroneously considered as an expense to the university when they were actually paid for by the students themselves. Additionally, even the data on the number of students graduating from the program was not correct. It was nice to see President Potter provide data on the number of graduates from the aviation program at the last Meet and Confer on December 12, 2013:
The number of graduates from aviation has consistently averaged just over thirty-five (35.6) graduates a year in the thirteen years reported. Even over the last five years, the number of graduates was twenty-nine (29.0). In light of the significant overall decline in enrollment at SCSU the past three years, it is hard to understand why the university wants to send students to the University of North Dakota. It is even more troubling when it is understood that the vast majority of programs at SCSU do not average twenty-nine graduates a year.
Let's hope that SCSU gets a better financial roadmap and that the financial and enrollment results are better than the recent past. If program closure is going to be part of a budget-balancing plan at SCSU, there is great deal of work that needs to be done.
Posted Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:21 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 18-Dec-13 05:32 AM
One has to wonder why a cost-effective, successful program was led out to the chopping block. Perhaps the Administration (read Dean) had a personal agenda to resolve and/or was given a marching order - 'find me a sacrificial lamb'. Inquiring minds want to know.
Note: In the last paragraph this sentence, I think, should read average number of graduates was twenty-nine (29.0); not total number of...
Five questions
Five Budget Questions That Need To Be Answered
by Silence Dogood
From the MnSCU website, the "Projected Fund Balances" for SCSU for each fiscal year can be viewed. The following report was obtained for SCSU for FY14.
A similar document for SCSU for FY13 is shown below.
From the website for the Office of Finance and Administration, SCSU's public budget for FY13 and FY14 can be viewed:
In reviewing these three documents, five questions come to mind. There are actually quite a few more than five but these five are critical to understanding the budget information or perhaps more properly misinformation presented.
Question 1 Why is there a discrepancy between the general fund budget for FY14 in the public budget ($146,116,203) and Fund Code 110 for the General Fund Projected Fund Balance ($126,672,764)? The difference between the two numbers is $19,443,439, which is a non-trivial amount of money.
Question 2 In the Projected Fund Balance for FY13, there is a projected balance for Customized Training (Fund Code 120) of $1,524,648. However, in the Projected Fund Balance for FY14, there is a Budget Amount Forward (Fund Code 120) of $10,020,330. Why is there a difference between the two numbers? The difference is $8,495,682, which again is a non-trivial amount.
Question 3 In FY13, did SCSU actually lose $1,573,973 on the bookstore (Fund Code 235) as indicated on the Projected Fund Balances? If so, that means the university lost almost $100 for each and every student on campus.
Question 4 The National Hockey and Event Center (Fund Code 216) shows a balance of $2,777,194 in FY13, and a Budget Amount Forward for FY14 of only $804,439. Where did the $1,972,755 generated in FY13 go?
Question 5 For the General Fund (Fund Code 110) for FY 13, it shows a Budget Amount Forward of $37,189,592 and a Projected Balance of $32,807,952. The difference appears to be a decline of $4,381,640. The public budget on the website for Finance and Administration shows a net gain for FY13 of $4,556,769. Was a there a sign error somewhere or did the budget actually reverse by a total of $9,938,409?
Please understand these questions are being raised by someone other than a CPA, whose only interest in having the best financial information available upon which to make decisions. Short of having accurate and clear financial information, it might be just as successful making decisions by flipping a coin. Let's hope that those folks whose job it is to provide the financial information can admit that this information is quite confusing and perhaps even misleading. In my opinion, we can do better, much better!
Posted Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:55 AM
No comments.
Kessler: "I think they lied to us"
Pat Kessler is a cautious man when it comes to choosing his words. When he puts a campaign ad through his truth detector, he'll often say that the ad is deceptive. When the ad is worse than that, he'll say that the claims in the ad are false. In this interview, Kessler zoomed past those terms. Check it out:
Here's the transcript from the interview:
KESSLER: Suddenly -- and it was very odd to me -- suddenly around December first, second, third, right around that time right after Thanksgiving, we suddenly at WCCO, were flooded, inundated with literally hundreds of people calling, saying "I can't get on. This is crazy." And I'll just say it, I think they lied to us. I think they misled us. I think they misdirected, they camoflaged. They said "No there's no problems, when, in fact, behind the scenes, they were sweating bullets because they couldn't fix the problems. I think that this is one of the most closed, obtuse, misdirecting, camoflaging agencies I have ever dealt with.
That isn't what I'd expect from Pat Kessler. I'd expect more cautious wording from him. That he'd jump there from the outset speaks volumes about what he thinks happened within MNsure.
Sunday night, KSTP ran an article about the lack of oversight into MNsure, which I wrote about here . According to KSTP's Nick Winkler, "the MNsure oversight committee hasn't met in 3 months and isn't planning to do so for the rest of the year." This information is especially lame:
Rep. Joe Atkins, a committee co-chair, said scheduling conflicts and holidays prevented meetings in November or December.
Scheduling a meeting isn't that difficult, especially after questions about website security were raised. If people have other things going on, then those things need to be given a lower priority. Based on what we know now, I think it isn't a stretch to think they just made excuses to protect Gov. Dayton's signature 'accomplishment.' After the federal government shutdown ended, attention shifted to HealthCare.gov's disastrous rollout. Gov. Dayton, Sen. Franken and other high profile Democrats quickly emphasized as fact that MNsure wasn't the disaster that HealthCare.gov was.
The truth is that MNsure was a disaster from the start. It just didn't get the scrutiny that it's getting this week. The oversight committee not meeting might well have been the DFL's tactic to keep attention away from MNsure's difficulties. With the DFL, there's 3 ways of doing things: the right way, the wrong way and the way that helps them most politically.
Clearly, the committee didn't want Todd-Malmlov to face difficult questions from Sen. Nienow. Clearly, Todd-Malmlov didn't want to testify that they were doing everything they could to avoid answering the question in the letter Sen. Nienow and Sen. Benson sent her about website security.
Now that she's resigned, MNsure and Gov. Dayton will be in the spotlight. Todd-Malmlov's vacation was just the catalyst. Now that it's out that MNsure is a disaster, Republicans will highlight the fact that Gov. Dayton championed the exchange. While he wasn't the person who messed the thing up, he's certainly to blame for pushing a state-run exchange.
Posted Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:12 PM
No comments.
Johnson calls for Oversight chairs resignation
GOP gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson stepped into the MNsure mess:
Thursday, December 19, Plymouth, Minn. -- Saying that they've completely failed to provide any oversight of Minnesota's deeply troubled health insurance exchange, Republican gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson today called for the resignations of the two co-chairs of the MNsure Legislative Oversight Committee - Rep. Joe Atkins (DFL-Inver Grove Heights) and Sen. Tony Lourey (DFL-Kerrick).
'Abysmal failure. There's no other way to accurately describe the performance of the co-chairs charged with leading legislative oversight of Minnesota's insurance exchange,' Johnson said. 'The MNsure Legislative Oversight Committee has not met in three months. Meanwhile, the exchange's website has melted down, MNsure's executive director has been forced to resign and thousands of Minnesotans are about to be without health insurance come January 1. It was never appropriate to have the two legislative authors of MNsure charged with its oversight, as they have an inherent interest in avoiding any discussion of its problems or failures. It's time to bring in new, conflict-of-interest-free co-chairs, preferably ones who do not have rooms named after them at MNsure's office.'
In addition to calling for Atkins and Lourey to resign from the oversight committee, Johnson also called for their replacements to be bipartisan - with one co-chair appointed by DFL legislative leaders and the other appointed by Republican legislative leaders.
'While I don't believe a government-controlled exchange will ever work, the Democrats have given us one for now, so an all DFL-led committee will never give Minnesotans the oversight of this super-secret quasi-government agency that we need. Only a bipartisan-led committee - not just of cheerleaders but also of skeptics - can provide true oversight.'
The co-chairs need to be one Republican, one Democrat because Democrats have refused to hold oversight hearings to protect Gov. Dayton, former globetrotter April Todd-Malmlov and the Democrats who voted for MNsure-enabling legislation.
At the Sept. 24th meeting, the last meeting held by the committee, Sen. Sean Nienow demanded answers to his questions about website security. He got his answers less than 36 hours before Malmlov's resignation this week.
Clearly, Sen. Lourey and Rep. Atkins did everything possible run interference for Malmlov and the exchange. The public's distrust is justified by the chair's actions.
Commissioner Johnson's recommendation that the chairs be bipartisan should've been adopted from the start. Having the people who wrote the legislation chair the oversight committee offers too great an opportunity for them to hide the exchange's problems. Now that the Democrats have earned our distrust, it's time to do things right. If the DFL won't provide oversight, the GOP will be the adults in the room and ask the tough, legitimate questions.
Posted Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:54 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Dec-13 04:56 PM
Simple solution would be to simply elect enough GOP that they become the chairs. Of course, thousands will die for lack of health insurance before that can happen. Small price to pay for DFL victory, eh?
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 19-Dec-13 07:38 PM
Absolutely more heads should roll. But I would caution the GOP about getting involved in this fiasco other than further pry into these many lapses in hiring and project management.
Another thought: maybe, just maybe Tim Pawlenty snookered the DFL by signing that bill authorizing the option to embrace Obamacare full on. If the GOP held control, nothing happens (good!). And when the DFL won, they couldn't help themselves, tripping over their incompetence and need to spread the money around.
Explaining SCSU's enrollment
Deceived by Headcount Enrollment
by Silence Dogood
If you look at the Fall semester headcount (often called enrollment) for SCSU from the MnSCU website from Fall 2005 through Fall 2013, you obtain the following plot:
SCSU's enrollment reached a peak of 18,611 in the Fall of 2010 and has declined significantly the past three years. Based on the data on the MnSCU website as of December 19, 2013, the enrollment for Fall 2013 is down 210 students compared with Fall 2012. This translates into a decline of 1.24%. Even the St. Cloud Times reported this as 'good news' because the administration had projected a 5% decline. Based on the plot and a decline of only 1.24% for Fall 2013 you might think that enrollment at SCSU is bottoming out and things are going to be just fine given a little time. You'd be wrong in making that assumption!
The Minnesota Legislature created the Post-Secondary Enrollment Option (PSEO) program in 1985, which allows juniors and seniors still in high school to earn college credit. The following plot shows the fall enrollment of PSEO students at SCSU from Fall 2005 through Fall 2013.
As illustrated in the figure, the enrollment growth since the Fall of 2005 has been amazing! John Bergeson, Dean of the Center for Continuing Studies is nothing less than a miracle worker. Under his leadership, enrollment in PSEO for high school students has grown a total of 265% over this time period.
However, if you take a look the total enrollment shown in the first figure and then subtract the PSEO enrollment in the second figure, you get a very different picture of St. Cloud State's enrollment.
When you compare this plot with the one shown in the first figure, this plot shows that the vast majority of the growth in the enrollment from Fall 2005 through Fall 2010 was due to the growth of the PSEO enrollment and the rate of decline in enrollment for Fall 2011 through Fall 2013 has been masked by the significant growth in PSEO enrollment. These effects can easily be shown by calculating the percentage of the total enrollment due to PSEO students.
In Fall 2005, PSEO enrollment accounted for 6.59% of the total enrollment. For Fall 2013, the percentage of the enrollment due to PSEO students has grown to an amazing 19.7%. I would be willing to just about bet anything that very few people on campus actually know that the percentage of headcount due to PSEO students is approaching 20% or one in five students!
As a comparison, it is interesting to see a similar plot for Minnesota State University - Mankato:
Clearly, the percentage enrollment due to PSEO students is much smaller at MSU - Mankato and while generally increasing the rate of increase is much smaller than at SCSU. From MnSCU data for Fall 2013, the percentage of the enrollment at MSU - Mankato due to PSEO students is 4.71% compared to SCSU's 19.7%.
In looking at enrollment, there are two different numbers to consider: Headcount and Full Year Equivalent (FYE). Headcount (often just called enrollment) simply counts each different student who is enrolled. FYE enrollment is the total number of credits generated divided by 30 for undergraduate students and 20 for graduate students. Because part-time students are only taking one or two courses, headcount is always significantly larger than the FYE numbers. Since part-time students can significantly distort the enrollment number's impact on the revenue side of a university's budget, MnSCU bases a university's base budget on FYE rather than headcount.
Guess how post secondary enrollment students impact enrollment? If you guessed they increase headcount and only slightly increase FYE, you would be correct.
At SCSU in the Fall of 2013, PSEO students are taking an average of 5.1 credits so each PSEO student is equivalent to about 1/6th of an FYE. So, if you want to make enrollment look larger, you talk about headcount. However, remember budgets are based on FYE so headcount is really just a 'feel good' statistic. Headcount is also easier to understand and easier to report but when it comes to determining the budget impact of enrollment easier is not better!
If you really want to see a true picture of the enrollment's impact on the financial health of a university, take a look at FYE enrollments. If you want to see the financial impact of PSEO you can take the FYE enrollment for SCSU and subtract the FYE for PSEO.
Clearly, without the FYE added from the PSEO students, the FYE Enrollment at SCSU falls from a peak of 6,760 FYE in Fall 2010 to 5,523 FYE in Fall 2013, which corresponds to a drop of 1,237 FYE or a drop of 18.30% over 3 years. So without the PSEO students, our enrollment would look much worse than it is!
However, accounting for PSEO students is not only important when looking the mix of students attending SCSU, it is probably more import when considering the revenue and expense impact of PSEO on the university's budget. There is a small addition to the revenue budget that result from a state appropriation that is loosely tied to FYE enrollments. The impact on tuition revenue is much more dramatic since the PSEO students do not pay tuition. A quick back of the envelope calculation using the Senior to Sophomore (S2S) contract revenue total for the Fall of 2013 and dividing by the number of credits taken by S2S students this fall shows an estimate of revenue per credit that is about 1/3 of the full tuition normally charged. Unfortunately, it is not possible to have an exact calculation because the administration has never provided a balance sheet for the PSEO program.
So back to Dean Burgeson. Give him a pay raise because without the headcount and small revenue the PSEO program raises, SCSU's headcount would be significantly smaller and lower in revenue production. However, let's think about it for a minute. Without considering the expenses of delivery of programs like S2S, it is impossible to know if the net effect of Dean Burgeson's work is a positive or a negative. It is entirely possible that SCSU's costs for delivery of S2S exceed the revenue produced. If that is the case another kind of distortion occurs and SCSU's financial health as gauged simply by enrollment may be significantly flawed.
In addition to finding answers to some of the financial questions, perhaps pedagogical questions also need asking. Who is really teaching the Senior to Sophomore students? While for each class there is a faculty mentor at SCSU, the classroom teaching is done at the high school by the high school teacher. Was the rapid expansion of PSEO at SCSU intended? Are adequate safeguards in place to insure the quality of the experience high school students receive worth of college credit? Finally, what will be the long-term impact on SCSU and the greater St. Cloud community if nearly 20% of the students included as attending SCSU never come to St. Cloud?
Posted Friday, December 20, 2013 9:34 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 20-Dec-13 04:40 PM
Gary:
Of course since the DFL doesn't care about performance you can bet next year no one from SCSU will be there to answer questions let alone be forced to answer questions.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Alexandria DuFresne at 27-Dec-13 05:23 PM
Obviously, the person who prepared this report failed to mention that at SCSU, the Senior to Sophomore program is self-supporting. That program generates the revenue that covers payments to faculty (including their benefits) who participate, program operating costs and salaries/benefits for the individuals who support the program. On campus PSEO is different from concurrent enrollment. Perhaps Mr. Dogood should know what he is talking about before he publishes something and bears false witness about a program he knows nothing about.
Is SCSU a great place to work?
This afternoon, I got an email from one of my friends on the St. Cloud State campus. This link was included in that email. Here's the text of the link:
Save Kircher and Stilwell
Petition published by Jan Kircher on Dec 20, 2013
Target: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, St. Cloud State University,Inter faculty Organization
Petition Background (Preamble):
Drs. Kircher and Stilwell were targets of a hostile work environment at St Cloud State University and as a result were denied tenure. This is their terminal year. Drs. Kircher and Stilwell made several attempts to change the overall hostile work environment and to bring equity and equality to their department. Drs. Kircher and Stilwell are considered to be whistle blowers and troublemakers. The facts document clear retaliation by the social work department and the university. The union did not adequately protect them. This petition will be sent to the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, St. Cloud State University, and the Inter faculty Organization.
Petition:
We, the undersigned, call on MnScu and SCSU to reverse their decision about Drs. Kircher and Stilwell's tenure and promotion and to rectify the hostile work environment in the social work department.
Lots of SCSU employees have already signed the petition. I've talked with these professors. They're understating things when they say that they worked in a hostile work environment. It took a ton of bravery for them to take this step because of the hostile work environment they dealt with.
Based on what I've been told by other professors, tenured professors, I might add, that these ladies did the work to earn tenure. The petition said that they "are considered whistle blowers" as though that's a strike against them. It isn't. They blew the whistle when they saw wrongdoing. In the America that still has integrity, that's called doing the right thing. In the America that asks 'what's in it for me', that's supposedly a bad thing.
What's most disgusting is the fact that the provost's letters denying these professors tenure were form letters, complete with identical spelling mistakes. The letters didn't say why they weren't given tenure. They weren't even told what they needed to do to get tenure.
At the October 9th Meet & Confer, Holly Schoenherr announced that SCSU had signed a contract with the Great Place to Work Institute, which cost the University an estimated $50,000. I say estimated because the administration has used multiple figures. Regardless, it's apparent that the Great Place to Work logo only applies to their PR strategy. It's meaningless from a substantive standpoint.
These professors are living proof of that.
Posted Saturday, December 21, 2013 2:06 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 22-Dec-13 05:11 PM
There has been no shortage of SCSU coverage when it comes to taxpayer waste and ethical lapses. LFR should be commended for its work. MPR covered the transcript scandal and KSTP Channel 5 covered the empty 45 million dollar science building are just two other examples that people are taking notice. In this post, what can be quickly proven or disproven is the two letters given to these two women with the "identical spelling mistakes." How a provost who probably easily makes a 6 digit income could make this kind of mistake is unfathomable. Is it incompetence, malevolence or a combination of both? How SCSU has not motivated the area legislatures to act is a mystery. Isn't Rep. Zach Dorholt still a member of a higher education committee?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-13 06:18 PM
Simply put, the Times has been utterly worthless. They're stenographers, not reporters. They didn't even bother covering the transcript scandal.
I see the Higher Ed committees as Chancellor Rosenstone's lap puppies. Like the Board of Trustees, they do what they're told by the lobbyists rather than being the taxpayers' watchdog.
