January 27-29, 2015
Jan 27 05:15 SCSU Admission Reports Jan 27 05:50 MSNBC and the Freedom Summit Jan 27 07:23 GOP presidential brackets Jan 27 08:29 Dayton breaks 'Tax the rich' promise Jan 27 11:00 #DeflateGate, Super Bowl edition Jan 28 06:08 SCSU's sinking ship Jan 28 11:16 Dayton/DFL infighting exposed Jan 29 02:57 Who is Move MN? Jan 29 11:14 President Potter's Inconsistency
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
SCSU Admission Reports
How Good Is The Data In The Weekly Admission Reports?
by Silence Dogood
Weekly Admission Progress Reports are typically circulated by the Office of Strategy, Planning, & Effectiveness that give a picture about the ongoing admissions of New Entering First-Year Students (NEF) and New Entering Transfer Students (NET). These progress reports contain data about the number of applications (complete and incomplete), some demographic data (numbers of students of color and international students), as well as some information that might give an indication about the numbers that might actually enroll (making an advising appointment or completing a housing application). All of these numbers are compared to the data from the same date the prior year, which allows for a point of comparison.
All of this information gives a partial picture of the potential for enrollment. It's a partial picture because the numbers of NEF and NET entering in Spring Semester is a very small percentage of the total number of students enrolled. Last spring, the enrollment was 5,294 FYE. The total number of admission offers to NEF (185) and NET (622), totaled 807 students. If all of these students enrolled at SCSU and each took 15 credits this would add 404 FYE, which would represent 7.6% of the total FYE. The average number of credits taken is typically around 12 credits so using the typical pattern of enrollment would add 323 FYE instead of 404 FYE, which reduces to 6.1% of the total FYE contributed by new entering students. However, not all of the students who are offered admission actually attend so the "yield," which is the percentage of students admitted who actually enroll, is much less than 100%. A good average is in the range of 37% (or less). Using a 37% yield would result in, at most, an additional 120 FYE, corresponding to only 2.3% of the FYE for Spring Semester. Clearly the effect of NEF and NET on Spring semester enrollment is small.
Although small in impact, the data is useful in the sense that it can provide information relating to trends. Over winter break, the weekly reports were not forwarded but resumed on January 6, 2015 with reports for December 19th, December 26th and January 2nd all coming on the same day. Normally, the reports come each week but, in this case, all three came at the same time. As a result, it was very easy to do a simple comparison of the data contained in these reports, which were the three most current reports available at the time.
Upon examination of the reports, I noticed that the number of NEF admission offers decreased from being down 1.1% on December 19th to being down 3.2% on December 26th to finally being down 3.6% on January 2nd. For SCSU, if the goal is to increase enrollment, this trend is going in the wrong direction! However, when looking at the actual numbers, it is the difference of being down 2 students to being down 6 students to being down 7 students. These numbers are so small that the change of only a couple of students can affect the percentages significantly! Again, the data must be put into the proper context. Since the numbers themselves are small, ANY change will not be too significant overall.
A portion of the three reports for the NEF applications are reproduced below:
I don't know why but in looking at the three reports simultaneously, I happened to notice that the total number of NEF applications for Spring 2015 on December 19th, 2014 was 376 students. On December 26th, 2014 this number decreased to 375 students and on January 2nd, 2015 decreased even further to 374 students. The total number of applications is the sum of the complete plus the incomplete applications. As applications are completed, the number of incomplete applications should decrease and the number of complete applications should increase. However, the total number of applications must remain the same OR increase.
The problem is, it is simply not possible for the total number of applications to actually decrease - unless of course, the applications were written in disappearing ink! The decrease is in the number of applications is certainly small but makes one question the accuracy of the data in the report.
Apparently, there was no Weekly Admission Progress Report for January 9th. On January 20th, the Weekly Admission Progress Report for January 16th was distributed. The good news is that the decline in the number of NEF applications for Spring semester seems to have stabilized at 374. Since this latest report comes one week AFTER the beginning of classes for Spring Semester, there won't be too many more applications for Spring semester and the number is unlikely to change.
Everyone makes mistakes. However, BEFORE decisions are made which have significant impact, it is important to make sure that data upon which decisions are being made is absolutely the best and most accurate data possible. Anything less is simply unacceptable. Clearly, in this case, there is an error with the collection or reporting of the data. But even assuming the most recent reports have corrected the error, the trend in the number of admission offers remains in a state of decline. The BIG question is when will we finally hit 'bottom?'
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:15 AM
Comment 1 by MtkaMoose at 28-Jan-15 04:38 AM
How do you like it that Gov. Flint-Smith (oops) Dayton's budget is not giving any new funds to MNSCU because of the no confidence votes? At least bad behavior isn't getting rewarded.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Jan-15 06:16 AM
That will change the minute the IFO & MnSCU kiss & make up. MnSCU will get some sort of increase.
MSNBC and the Freedom Summit
Steve Kornacki did his best to (somewhat) subtly accuse Republican presidential candidates as hating Hispanics in this interview:
The big takeaway from this interview is Kellyanne Conway's statement that "Republicans aren't afraid of running against Bill and Hillary." Simply put, there's more fear amongst Beltway Republicans and GOP consultants than there is with heartland governors.
At this point, Hillary will have a difficult time running as an agent of change or as the candidate of youthful vigor. Hillary has been a fixture in DC for a quarter century. She might've been young when she arrived but she isn't anymore. Fair or unfair, the reality is that she can't play the agent-of-change-card at this point. She's reached her sell-by date.
Of course, that's irrelevant to MSNBC. They're fixating on Rep. Steve King and Hispanic voters. It's predictable but it's a fool's errand. When the Republican National Convention is held in July, 2016, there's a distinct possibility that the ticket will be Scott Walker as the nominee and either Marco Rubio or Susana Martinez is his running mate. It's virtually guaranteed that Martinez, Rubio, Brian Sandoval, Mia Love and Tim Scott will deliver primetime speeches at the convention.
People won't think "Ohmigod. Republicans are the party of Steve King. I can't vote for Scott Walker." Democrats will do everything to paint Republicans as the party that hates Hispanics. That'll be a difficult task when each night, Republicans will feature a Susana Martinez or a Marco Rubio or a Brian Sandoval, who will likely be in the middle of a fight to unseat Harry Reid at that point.
The excitement in that building will be the buzz. The applause will be frequent, the emotions will be high.
If you want to know what the Republican National Convention will look like, just watch the speeches delivered by Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Scott Walker. The enthusiasm during those speeches was noticeable and raucous.
Meanwhile, at the Democrats' convention, the atmosphere won't be electric. People will be able to contain their energy. The contrast between the two conventions will be stark. That contrast won't put the Democrats in a positive light.
In the movie Rocky 3, Apollo Creed told Rocky that "When we fought, I trained hard but I didn't have that look in my eyes. You had it and you won."
I didn't say that because I love the movie. I mention it because it's a lesson between complacency and enthusiasm. There's no question that, in 2016, the Democrats will work hard. There's little question that Democrats will be a little complacent, too. If Republicans nominate one of their rising star governors, there's no question that the 2016 Republican National Convention will be a great launching pad to a GOP victory.
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:50 AM
No comments.
GOP presidential brackets
Charlie Cook's latest article on the state of the GOP presidential race has more than a few flaws in it. He got this part right:
First there is the establishment bracket, with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and possibly former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney competing for that semifinal slot.
Despite the MSM's 'reporting', this isn't where the action is. It's mostly a sideshow that'll keep the DC pundits entertained. Think of this as the 'vastly overrated' part of the race.
Cook didn't get this part right:
Then there is the conservative governor/former governor slot - with, potentially, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker competing, all seeking to be non-Washington and non-Congress candidates, but each with more conservative, or at least better conservative, credentials than Bush, Christie, or Romney.
John Kasich lost his conservative credentials over the weekend when he fought for Common Core. That's a deal-buster with conservatives. It isn't likely that Rick Snyder and Mike Pence will run so they can be ignored. That leaves us with Rick Perry and Scott Walker. That's the real bracket. Let's call this the conservatives with credentials bracket.
The MSM is writing off Rick Perry. That's a major mistake. He's a much more serious candidate this time than in 2012. He's got a lengthy list of conservative reforms under his belt. He's definitely anti-Washington. He's definitely pro-border enforcement, which plays well with conservative activists. He's signed tort reform, which has led to a major influx of doctors into Texas. While most of the nation worries about doctor shortages, that isn't a worry in Texas.
That leaves Scott Walker in this bracket. Activists see him as the giant-killer who took on the public employee unions and beat them. Then the PEUs got upset with him and tried defeating him in a recall election. The PEUs took another thumping in 2012. They didn't have their fill so they returned for another shot in 2014. Gov. Walker's Act 10 reforms were so popular that Mary Burke, the Democrats' candidate, didn't even mention the subject.
That's one of the brackets where the excitement will be.
Then there's the youthful senators bracket. This bracket features Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. I don't know that any of these candidates will advance to the finals but they'll generate lots of excitement.
At the end of the day, I suspect that the finalists will be Walker and someone else. I'd be surprised if that someone else is Jeb Bush. Bush is definitely more formidable with the media than with activists.
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2015 7:23 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Jan-15 04:26 PM
Gary:
I have a different bracket that should be considered. I call it, "Don't ignore the base!" bracket. That is why Bush, Romney, and Christie might never get the nomination. Not to mention this bracket wants dramatic changes such as protect the border, end Obamacare, lower taxes, cut spending, stop the global warming regs that are trying to kill the economy, and a few other things. That's why the candidate you start mentioning in other brackets probably have the best chance of winning.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Jan-15 04:56 PM
I have that bracket, Walter. It's the bracket Scott Walker is in.
Dayton breaks 'Tax the rich' promise
It's clear that Gov. Dayton's Tax-the-Rich promise is history :
Minnesota drivers would pay more at the pump and at the Department of Motor Vehicles under a plan formally rolled out by Gov. Mark Dayton on Monday, but he says the money would provide vitally needed improvements to roads, bridges and mass transit in Minnesota.
In 2010, Gov. Dayton harshly criticized Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner's cigarette tax, saying that Minnesota needed a more progressive tax system. More importantly, where's the proof that Minnesota's transit system has a lengthy list of "vitally needed improvements"? I'll stipulate that Minnesota's transit lobbyists have a lengthy wish list of transit projects but I won't stipulate that there's a lengthy list of transit needs .
It's indisputable that roads and bridges need fixing. It's disputable that we need another DFL middle class tax increase to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges. It's indisputable fact that the DFL raised taxes and fees by $2.4 billion for the biennium that started on July 1, 2013. It's indisputable that Gov. Dayton, the DFL and the transit lobbyist wing of the DFL want to raise taxes on the middle class by $1.7 billion for the biennium that starts on July 1, 2015.
That's more than $4,000,000,000 in tax increases that the DFL wants to punish the middle class with in each biennium. The DFL's thirst for increasing taxes is insatiable.
Think of it this way. Oil companies took advantage of the fracking boom, which led to a dramatic drop in gas prices. Gas is less than $2.00/gallon, compared with $3.50/gallon before the fracking boom. The free market giveth cheap oil prices. DFL politicians want to make gas more expensive.
In addition to DFL politicians like Gov. Dayton wanting to punish middle class car drivers with higher gas prices and higher taxes, these same DFL politicians want to force outstate Minnesotans to pay for a transit system they don't want and will never use.
I don't care about expanding Twin Cities transit options. They're virtually invisible to me. I want the DFL to stop focusing on transit. I'd rather they focused on what's important, namely fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. The top 3 priorities for Minnesota's politicians should be a) fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges, b) fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges and c) fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges.
Gov. Dayton's spin is nauseating:
"It takes some political courage" to approve tax increases, he said, which in this case would not only add a new gas tax but also but also raise vehicle license fees, charge $10 more for car registrations and increase a Twin Cities sales tax. He also pledges to find $600 million from the Minnesota Department of Transportation doing things more efficiently.
That's stunning. When House Republicans offered their proposal, it included a call for greater efficiencies within MnDOT. At the time, Gov. Dayton insisted that the Republicans' plans were " pure fantasy ." Now that he's proposing greater efficiency within MnDOT, he's dropped the mean-spirited accusations.
Imagine that.
Further, it doesn't take political courage to raise taxes. If DFL is behind your name, raising taxes is virtually reflexive. It's like you can raise taxes without blinking an eyelash. If you're a Republican, raising taxes doesn't require courage. It requires a brief bout of insanity.
Gov. Dayton's latest middle class tax increase is his latest attempt to punish the middle class. Gov. Dayton and the DFL should be ashamed of themselves for inflicting this much punishment on the middle class.
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2015 8:29 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Jan-15 04:16 PM
Hey Mark I know how to do things more efficiently. Just stop all mass transit projects until you do all the roads and bridges that need to be fixed since that is where the money should go first!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
#DeflateGate, Super Bowl edition
It's getting tiresome listening to Bill Belichick's spin. Thankfully, Jay Glazer's article sheds new light into #DeflateGate. First, though, here's Belichick's latest offensive spin:
New England head coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady both have proclaimed innocence and said they were unaware how the footballs became underinflated.
"At no time was there any intent whatsoever to try to compromise the integrity of the game or to gain an advantage," Belichick said in an unscheduled availability on Saturday afternoon.
"Quite the opposite: we feel like we followed the rules of the game to the letter," he said. "We try to do everything right. We err on the side of caution. It's been that way now for many years. Anything that's close, we stay as far away from the line as we can."
Notice Belichick's weasel words in that last paragraph. "We feel like we followed the rules of the game to the letter." That's totally irrelevant and subjective. The NFL has confirmed that the Patriots' footballs a) complied with the NFL's rules before the game and b) didn't comply with the NFL's rules at halftime. That's an objective standard. Either the Patriots' footballs complied with the NFL's rules or they didn't. In this instance, they didn't.
That isn't the only objectionable thing Belichick said. Here's another statement worth ignoring:
"We try to do everything right. We err on the side of caution. It's been that way now for many years. Anything that's close, we stay as far away from the line as we can."
Coach Belichick, are you saying that the Patriots stay well within the lines of the NFL's rules? If that's what you're insisting, I'd love hearing your explanation for how the Patriots organization was fined for videotaping the Jets' defensive signals, which isn't permitted by the NFL's rules. It isn't permitted because it gives a team a major competitive advantage.
If the Patriots knew what the Jets were doing before they did it, the Patriots could install plays to take advantage of the Jets' play-calling. That's a major advantage.
What's insulting is that Coach Belichick was personally fined $500,000 and the NFL confiscated the Patriots' first round draft pick for breaking the NFL's rules. So much for the Patriots erring "on the side of caution" and staying "as far away from the line" as possible.
Tom Brady used some slippery words in his attempt to explain this away:
"I didn't alter the ball in any way," Brady said. "I have a process before every game where I take the footballs I want to use for the game. Our equipment guys do a great job breaking the balls in for the game. Our equipment guys have a process they go through."
Nobody accused Brady of altering the balls. Here's what John Madden said :
'That would have to be driven by the quarterback,' Madden told The Sports Xchange on Wednesday. 'That's something that wouldn't be driven by a coach or just the equipment guy. Nobody, not even the head coach, would do anything to a football unilaterally, such as adjust the amount of pressure in a ball, without the quarterback not knowing. It would have to be the quarterback's idea.'
Madden's position makes a lot of sense. Quarterbacks are particular about their footballs. Anybody doing anything to the footballs without the quarterback's knowledge or consent would be asking for a tongue lashing. In Brady's case, his tongue wouldn't be needed to formulate the various 'F' words that would be hurled at he who messes with the quarterback's primary tool.
'He is the effected,' Madden said. 'He is the only guy. I heard some of the pundits saying the ball is easier to catch, but that would never, ever, ever be done for that unless the quarterback wanted it. You wouldn't do something for a receiver to catch the ball if the quarterback couldn't throw it. So it's going to be done for the quarterback.'
Brady and Bill Belichick. One lies. The other one swears to it.
Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2015 11:00 AM
No comments.
SCSU's sinking ship
Fall Semester Enrollments at SCSU
by Silence Dogood
On the website for SCSU's Office of Strategy, Planning and Effectiveness, you can find the following graph of the historical Fall FYE enrollment.
The Fall 2014 enrollment is now in and the result is 5,806 FYE. This is not the 'final' enrollment number because that is not due until 45 days after the end of the semester. However, for all intents and purposes, since there aren't a whole lot of people still being registered for classes, which ended on December 19th, 2014, this is pretty darn close to the final enrollment number for Fall 2014.
At 5,806 FYE, the Fall enrollment will be smaller than at any time at least since Fall 1999, which goes back fifteen years! In fact, it is the first time that the enrollment will be below 6,000 FYE in the past fifteen years as well.
Since the peak Fall enrollment in Fall 2010 through Fall 2014, the enrollment has fallen 1,377 FYE, which corresponds to a loss of 19.2% over four years!
A misattributed (but frequently cited) quote of former Sen. Everett Dirksen (Republican from Illinois):
"A million here, a million there, pretty soon, you're talking real money."
is quite appropriate. After losing 481 FYE in Fall 2011, 336 FYE in Fall 2012, 288 FYE in Fall 2013 and 272 FYE in Fall 2014, pretty soon you're talking real enrollment losses. That translates into real money.
As a rough estimate, each FYE is worth about $11,500 in tuition, fees and state appropriation. Consequently, a 1,377 FYE enrollment loss corresponds to a loss of approximately $15,800,000. For a university with a budget of just over $200,000,000, these kinds of losses mean we're "talking real money." Since SCSU is not in the business of printing money, these kinds of losses add up to real problems ahead for SCSU. For FY15, a budget shortfall of $9,542,000 has led President Potter to state that there is the potential for the loss of 125 positions. These are not happy times at the university "high on oak crowned banks."
Posted Wednesday, January 28, 2015 6:08 AM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 28-Jan-15 12:28 PM
Where is the St Cloud business community? As SCSU goes, so goes the City.There should be a massive effort for change in the current inept leadership. More diversity, more refugees and a local Newspaper that is a clueless (possibly) Co conspirator will NOT WORK ANY MORE.
Kleis had better get unfocused a departing airline partner with empty flights to Chicago from an empty airport to the plummeting enrollment of the cash cow, pothole filled roads, expanding goat markets and 88% lunch assistance programs due to the ever welcoming of resettled refugees. He and Potter are " ex military thing bud's". The mentality of "admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness" is a one way highway to nowhere FAST. The wispered conversations are now FACT
Dayton/DFL infighting exposed
One of the worst-kept political secrets is that the DFL is fighting with itself. That isn't secret anymore because Gov. Dayton announced that he's cutting the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's budget :
Dayton was nothing if not transparent about the move. The budget materials given to reporters before the late-morning briefing stated that the total of $3.77 million in reductions to the Park Board over the two-year budget period was due to 'the Board's continuing efforts to obstruct progress on the Southwest Light Rail Transit project.'
Of the total, $1.26 million would have come out of the state general fund and $2.51 million out of the natural resources fund, money intended to help the Met Council and 10 local park agencies develop and maintain parks that are regional destinations (think Minnehaha Falls). The money that would be lost by the Minneapolis board goes toward annual operating costs.
When asked about it, Dayton said it was possible he would support restoring the money, if the Park Board ended it opposition. 'In my view, if they have all this money to hire consultants, they don't need all the state money that's been allocated to them.' Dayton said. He described the board's actions so far as 'very irresponsible.'
First, I'm totally fine with cutting the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's appropriation through the state budget. If Minneapolis wants a Park and Recreation Board, let them pay for it. In fact, eliminating the state government appropriation is justifiable, in my opinion.
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board's advocates will argue that they add value to the state. That's disputable at best. It might help Minnesota tangentially. In fact, I don't know that a compelling case can be made that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board makes Minneapolis substantially better.
Most importantly, this is a perfect example of why Speaker Daudt shouldn't consider funding the Southwest Light Rail Transit project, aka the SWLRT project. The DFL is still fighting with itself on the SWLRT project. Next, regardless of whether the DFL is fighting amongst itself, the SWLRT project is a major waste of money. It's spending tons of Minnesota taxpayers' money on something that isn't a priority with Minnesota's taxpayers.
The DFL a) is proposing a massive middle class tax increase, b) is still fighting with itself on how to spend your money on their friends and c) is telling Minnesota that paying off their political allies is more important than spending your money wisely.
To use Scott Walker's words, going big and being bold is the way to differentiate between the DFL's payoffs and the conservatives' priorities. Going bold is the way for Republicans to win the legislative fight in 2015, then win the 2016 election.
A political party divided against itself will soon be defeated.
Posted Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:16 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 28-Jan-15 04:17 PM
I should know better, but my first reaction when I saw this in the Strib was: the State of Minnesota is funding the Minneapolis Park Board? Sounds like an easy and obvious item to totally strip out of the budget. Truth be told, Minneapolis property taxes cover this, so Mpls is really spending this money on something else.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Jan-15 06:16 PM
Why am I not even slightly surprised?
Who is Move MN?
I've written several articles about Move MN's proposal to raise taxes on the middle class in the name of "transportation." See here and here . I've written about Move MN's agenda, which they write about here :
Accessible Transit Statewide
Transit is important to every community in Minnesota. Move MN supports closing a sales tax loophole by dedicating all of the sales tax from leased vehicles to suburban highways and Greater Minnesota transit.
The Twin Cities metro's sales tax would be increased by fraction of a cent and extended to the seven county metro area. It would fund improved transit connections in the metro area, increasing transit service hours and coverage. Ten percent would be set aside for bike/walk connection planning and implementation.
Additional Efficiencies & Greater Transparency
Move MN supports greater efficiency and transparency with transportation projects, in addition to finding new funding sources that meet long-term obligations for all modes. Move MN believes efficiency includes finding cost savings; minimizing construction impact on traffic, businesses and customers; using 21st century materials and practices; and prioritizing projects with the greatest community benefit.
Tuesday afternoon, Dan Ochsner interviewed Bethany Winkels, a field director with Move MN. During the interview, Ms. Winkels focused on fixing roads and bridges. Move MN's website, however, talks about developing a comprehensive transportation strategy.
Talking up fixing roads and bridges in interviews but writing legislation that raises taxes to support transit expansion is deceptive, if not dishonest.
During the interview, Ms. Winkels spoke of Move MN's 200 coalition partners. I've recreated that list of partners in these photos:
While many of the coalition members are directly associated with fixing roads and bridges, many aren't. I've created a list of those organizations in this photo:
There's no disputing that the vast majority of these coalition members are environmental activist organizations. Their agenda doesn't put a high priority on fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges. That's as accurate of a picture as I can create of who Move MN is and what their agenda is.
Originally posted Thursday, January 29, 2015, revised 18-Mar 12:23 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 29-Jan-15 07:00 AM
I work in the Road and Bridge Industry as a supplier and I do not feel a need for a tax increase to pay for infrastructure improvements. What needs to happen is higher rider fees for mass transit riders, the elimination of the North Star heavy rail, the repeal of the transportation amendment that funnels drivers fees and taxes to mass transit, and stop funneling gas tax money at the federal level to mass transit and pathway projects.
Of course we could also eliminate 75% of the social engineering/welfare programs and could stop throwing billions at our failing education system too and use that money to rebuild the infrastructure but that will never happen in a Dayton administration.
President Potter's Inconsistency
President Potter's Inconsistency
by Silence Dogood
At the beginning of the 2015 legislative session, MnSCU released its budget proposal entitled "Prosperity for All."
MnSCU's thirty-seven page budget proposal contains information about the system's request for $142 million in additional funding.
On Tuesday, January 28, 2015, Gov. Dayton released his initial budget proposal for the funding of higher education in Minnesota for the next biennium. In his proposal, Gov. Dayton stated that he won't include additional funding for MnSCU in his budget proposals until the parties work out their "differences." Specifically, the Governor is referring to the dispute between Chancellor Rosenstone and the seven MnSCU universities that have taken votes of no confidence in his leadership.
An article about Gov. Dayton's budget recommendation that MnSCU not receive any additional funding appeared in the St. Cloud Times on Wednesday, January 28, 2015. When President Potter was questioned about the impact of receiving no additional funding, according to the article,
"He wouldn't speculate on the impact on St. Cloud State if MnSCU receives no new funding."
In the thirty-seven page proposal produced by MnSCU, each college/university has its own page. SCSU's page is reproduced below:
In MnSCU's Legislative Request, SCSU is asking for $14,825,000 ($10,850,000 for faculty and staff salary and benefits increases plus $3,975,000 for other inflationary and operating costs) in new revenue for the FY2016-FY2017 biennium.
Right below the Legislative Request is a section entitled: "Impact of Legislative Request Shortfall," which has been enlarged:
Clearly, it states the consequences of not giving MnSCU the additional $142,000,000:
"If the request is not fully funded, one or more of the following will be necessary."
Unless President Potter wasn't aware of the content of the page that was included in MnSCU's budget proposal for the Minnesota Legislature or his memory is failing him or he is not being truthful, all of which are troubling if true, because the four bullet points listed are in fact speculations about what would happen if MnSCU received no additional funding. The four items on the list are pretty specific.
Each MnSCU President was probably instructed by Chancellor Rosenstone to present the worst-case scenario about receiving no additional funding. In my opinion, that was probably not a good decision politically because most legislators do not like to publically be made to feel like they are being held hostage and if not funded there will be dire consequences. However, President Potter or his subordinates did as he was instructed.
What's worse than memory lapse, disengagement from what a subordinate did or simply not being truthful is that President Potter is prepared to blame the Legislature for not fully funding MnSCU and hence SCSU. He specifically stated this during his convocation address back in January. Unfortunately, regardless of legislative action, cuts are coming to SCSU!
The general fund budget for FY15 presented on October 22, 2014 showed a deficit in the General Fund of $9,542,000. In the most recent budget document presented January 8, 2015, the total operating budget shows a deficit in the Net Operating Income of $7,431,000. These are huge numbers. Even if MnSCU got all of what it is asking for, it would still require significant and painful reductions.
If MnSCU got all the additional money it asked for in their request, the total amount of money in the request for SCSU that is not going to faculty and staff salary and benefit increases is only $3,975,000 over two years. As a result, this will only provide $1,987,500 for each year of the biennium to cover SCSU's FY15 deficit of at least $7,431,000. Preliminary budget numbers for FY16 show a deficit in the low range of $12,000,000, which is frightening. However, the high range is truly frightening!
Despite all of the information showing that there is a significant financial problem at SCSU, President Potter seems to still be presenting a public face that everything is just fine. The employees at SCSU need to have accurate and complete budget information showing the financial condition of the university. More importantly, SCSU needs leadership that gets the story right. Refusing to speculate on the implications of MnSCU receiving no new additional funding at the same time the MnSCU's legislative budget request spells out the implications pretty clearly is simply unacceptable. SCSU, perhaps now more than ever, needs leadership if it will ever regain the "flagship" status within MnSCU it so proudly proclaimed in the past.
Posted Thursday, January 29, 2015 11:14 AM
No comments.
