March 4-5, 2014
Mar 04 01:31 MnSCU Spring enrollment, Part II Mar 04 01:33 Sen. Ortman sounds like Franken Mar 04 01:26 Will Dorholt's tax increase vote hurt him? Mar 04 13:57 St. Cloud Times, veiled threats edition Mar 04 15:13 The UAW, silencing the opposition edition Mar 04 16:02 Obama was wrong, Putin edition Mar 05 03:46 Jim Knoblach enters HD-14B race
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
MnSCU Spring enrollment, Part II
Spring MnSCU Enrollments Part 2
by Silence Dogood
Tuesday was the 30th day for enrollment for Spring Semester. Figure 1 below shows the change in the FYE enrollment from S'13 to S'14 for all of the MnSCU universities (FY14 is current as of 2/27/14). All of the data is from the MnSCU website.
Figure 1. FYE Enrollment Change from S'13 to S'14:
It's clear that one university stands out from the rest. The decline in FYE for spring semester at SCSU (350) is substantially bigger than the decline for all of the other MnSCU universities when added together (238)! These aren't final enrollments but the final numbers won't change much!
President Potter frequently cites that the enrollment decline has been anticipated. Yes, last fall President Potter announced that the ACE program would be accepting 160 fewer students this year, which will negatively impact enrollment. In one semester, 160 students accounts for approximately 80 FYE. As a result, the planned decline in the enrollment in the ACE program accounts for only 22.9% of the FYE decline for S'14. Nothing has been put forward to explain the reason for the remaining 77.1% of the decline.
Because all of the universities in the MnSCU system are different in size, it is probably more appropriate to look at the enrollment changes on a percentage basis. Figure 2 shows the percent change in FYE enrollment from S'13 to S'14 for the MnSCU universities.
Figure 2. Percent Change in FYE Enrollment from S'13 to S'14:
SCSU still stands out significantly from the other MnSCU universities.
Because of enrollment declines over the past three years, Minnesota Statue University - Moorhead is in the process of cutting 10% of its faculty and staff. The faculty at Bemidji has been told to expect cuts and consolidations to be announced this spring. Based on this information, the faculty at Southwest Minnesota State University and Winona might expect to hear some bad news as well.
On January 31, 2104, Provost Devinder Malhotra emailed the campus communityWith the enrollment predictions, the university's budget is manageable and we are on sound financial footings. We are not planning staff reductions to balance this year's budget. We have met the tuition and fee goals and details will be provided by the Finance and Administrative Affairs office to the Budget Advisory Committee.If the enrollment decline at SCSU was a one-time event, you might believe the Provost's words. However, the mathematics of the situation is quite clear; for four years, the enrollment at SCSU has been heading in the wrong direction. The only reason that the train wreck hasn't already occurred at SCSU is a result of having made greater cuts than necessary when the university was reorganized in FY10 and in having left a number of positions unfilled. Those positions have now been filled and the declines in enrollment in recent years have eaten up the 'surplus' that had accumulated.
Devinder
Presented late last fall, the university's budget document shows a $4,567,769 surplus in FY13, and the administration predicting a balanced budget (net $0) for FY'14. The public budget, which is available from the website for the Office of Finance and Administration, is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. SCSU's Budget from the Office of Finance and Administration (November 2013)
This projection of SCSU's balance sheet at the end of fiscal year 2014 does not account for the actual decline in tuition revenue. The budget document presented in September is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2. SCSU's Budget Adjustments (Meet and Confer September 2013)
In this document, the lost tuition due to declining enrollment is $3,140326. The current budget document shows an anticipated decline of $2,802,500 in tuition so if the difference of $337,826 is put into the budget, it now shows a deficit of $337,826. Additionally, the tuition/enrollment adjustment number is based on a projection of a 5% decline in enrollment. The current decline is 5.3%.
In an email to the campus community on September, 19, 2013, Provost Malhotra stated that an "additional 1.0% enrollment shift, which equals about $620,000." With this number, it is easy to show that a 0.3% decline translates into $180,000. When these two numbers are added together ($337,826 and $180,000), it looks like SCSU's budget is not balanced but rather short $517,826. While this figure might not seem like a lot in an overall budget of $210,000,000, it clearly continues a pattern of overestimating revenues and underestimating expenses. It is also unlikely the expenditure budget planned for the added cost of heating during the coldest winter in 35 years. As a result, the university's budget is probably going to show an even larger deficit and will likely have to dig into its reserves to meet its obligations.
Going forward into FY15, is also important to understand that the budget document in Table 2 shows a permanent increase to the base state allocation of $2,629,015 (allocated by the legislature as a result of not raising tuition). However, the decrease in tuition revenue of $3,140,326 when subtracted from the increased revenue base state allocation represents a loss of $511,210, which then becomes an annual loss that continues each and every year.
It doesn't take a CPA to recognize that the lost tuition from previous enrollment declines (FY11, FY12, and FY13), the mismatch between the lost tuition and increase in base state allocation for holding tuition constant (FY14), continuing declining enrollment going forward, coupled with ongoing expenses of $1,000,000 to cover the annual loss on the Coborn's Plaza Apartments, $240,000 for additional police services, $150,000 for the Confucius Institute, debt service for ISELF and the Brooks Center all combine to place tremendous additional stress on the university's financial resources. It's also important to admit that the cost of any contract settlement with the teaching faculty and increases in cost of health insurance will likely add to SCSU's challenges.
As a result, unless the over $4,000,000 spent to upgrade the broadcast television equipment to high definition included high end digital copiers and the university is in the business of printing money, it seems likely that the revenues are going to run out before all the bills are paid. It is not only illegal to print money, it is illegal to spend money you do not have. That means expenditures are going to have to be curtailed. At a university, expenditure reductions typically means fewer employees.
An old joke says that an optimist is someone who doesn't carry an umbrella because they think it's not going to rain and a pessimist is a wet optimist. I'm a pessimist because I think it's pouring and I don't see a lot of umbrellas.
Posted Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:31 AM
Comment 1 by Yeager at 04-Mar-14 05:31 AM
A single drop in enrollment for a freshman class will result in 4+ years of declining enrollment even if subsequent years have enrollment at regular levels. I guess that means that Silence has material for at least another two years due to the lower NEF two years ago (that resulted in Saffari's termination).
What it also means is that SCSU can anticipate the decline to a pretty accurate degree, which results in a much less dramatic reaction to declining budgets (see Duluth, Moorehead, Southwest, etc). Perhaps now Silence will believe the administration when they repeat that there will be no retrenchment this year (or next)?
The Mass Comm upgrades were programmatically necessary and came from a different part of the budget.
Comment 2 by Bob Goreland at 14-Mar-14 08:15 AM
"A single drop in enrollment for a freshman class will result in 4+ years of declining enrollment even if subsequent years have enrollment at regular levels." This would be true if there is no change in the number of transfer students from year to year. The current transfer rates will likely continue to follow the overall decline in enrollment.
Comment 3 by Patrick-M at 14-Mar-14 09:03 AM
Yeager said "The Mass Comm upgrades were programmatically necessary and came from a different part of the budget."
So why didn't Potter use the same argument to keep the aviation program open? That would have cost far less than the $4 million spent on the Mass Comm department. and many students came to SCSU BECAUSE there was a unique program - Aviation. Plus Aviation students paid the fess for the equipment! How much do Mass Comm students pay to use the new equipment?
You want to know the real reason behind the Aviation closing.... Potter was weak in his leadership and accepted a Dean's biased recommendation. The Dean did not want to deal with personnel issues (even though it was his job) and instead destroyed one of the best programs SCSU had. Now look you have all three rewarded for their action - Potter got bonuses, Maholtra got a new job and DeGroote got a cushy job in the Admin bldg with a fancy title.
Comment 4 by Crimson Trace at 14-Mar-14 09:17 AM
Patrick: to top it off, President Potter got caught on video tape changing his story about the aviation closure. http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=12549
Sen. Ortman sounds like Franken
The more she speaks, the more Sen. Ortman sounds like Al Franken on health care. During an interview with KSTP's Tom Hauser, Sen. Ortman said "Whether you agreed with Obamacare or not, it was passed by Congress, it was signed by the President. It was his initiative. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court."
Compare that with Al Franken's statement :
But it's the law of the land. We should be moving forward, not re-fighting the same old fights. And we certainly shouldn't shut down the government just because you wish Obamacare weren't the law.
Ms. Ortman, we know that Democrats in Congress shoved the bill down America's throats. We know that the Supreme Court ruled, incorrectly I believe, that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional.
Sounding like Al Franken won't change people's hearts and minds about the ACA. The best way to do that is by laying out a vision that's different from Al Franken's vision, which is Obamacare. Saying that Obamacare is the law of the land doesn't highlight the fact that, under the ACA, health insurance premiums and deductibles are higher. Saying that it's the law of the land doesn't highlight the fact that people's networks are smaller under Obamacare.
Most importantly, saying that the ACA is the law of the land doesn't highlight the fact that Al Franken's vote for the Affordable Care Act gave the federal government permission to tell families what coverages would be required for their health insurance policies.
To win the health care fight, Republicans need to offer Minnesotans lots of health insurance options. That starts with the premise that families, working with their physicians, are best suited to make the right decisions. It doesn't start with the premise that Al Franken's one-size-fits-all plan is best for Minnesotans.
As for Franken, his gibberish about moving forward is fluff. I'd love hearing his explanation of what that specifically entails. Does that mean keeping Obamacare as is? Does that mean making the exchanges work better? Would Franken vote to change the Essential Health Benefits requirements so catastrophic policies would qualify as Acceptable Health Plans?
It's time to tell Al Franken and the Democrats that the 2014 elections will be about who'll cling to the failed status quo, aka Obamacare, vs. who's willing to propose a plan that gives families the options that will cover their needs while lowering health insurance premiums.
Candidates that aren't willing to fight for a patient-centered plan don't deserve the people's votes. It's just that simple.
Posted Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:33 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 04-Mar-14 11:00 AM
Gary:
I wish Republicans will point out that if it's the law of the land why doesn't Obama obey the law of the land instead of changing it without Congressional approval. That is part of why we're so mad!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Patrick-M at 04-Mar-14 11:18 AM
Walter
Perhaps the macro view is lost on most of the low information voters. What I think the Republicans must do is take it to the personal level. For instance the last two months I had almost $8,000 in medical bills; TRICARE paid 10% and my part was 5%. Not many will want to work in the medical system with those reimbursement rates. Once the medical system collapses (starting already, doctors, clinics and hospitals not in 'network') only then will people realize the horrible mistake this O-Care was. By then I fear it will be too late. Maybe I should start a travel agency that specializes in medical tourism.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 05-Mar-14 04:56 PM
Patrick:
It will be fun once those Candians and others can't run to the USA. Where will they run?
Oh their foreing donations probably helped elect Obama and this horrible system.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Will Dorholt's tax increase vote hurt him?
Last spring, Zach Dorholt willingly voted for the DFL's tax increase bill. This year, Rep. Dorholt is trying to wiggle out of that vote with a little spin:
For local Republicans, the DFLer in the crosshairs on this issue is St. Cloud Rep. Zachary Dorholt. He's among the DFLers who voted for last year's broad-ranging tax measure that included the business-to-business taxes.
Dorholt since has lobbied to repeal those taxes.
'I'm encouraged to see that Rep. Dorholt has changed his mind,' Sen. John Pederson, R-St. Cloud, said last week. 'He originally supported those business-to-business taxes coming out of the House.'
Well, yes and no.
There's no question Dorholt voted for the measure that put the taxes into law. He says the measure, which also raised taxes on wealthy people and tobacco, made other priorities possible, such as boosting funding for schools and freezing tuition at state colleges and universities.
'I'm not somebody who's going to vote against a bill when it has much more good in it than bad,' Dorholt said.
But Dorholt says he never supported the business-to-business taxes.
Actually, it's yes, no and yes again. Rep. Dorholt allegedly promised Teresa Bohnen, the president of the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce, that he wouldn't vote for the B2B taxes. Then he voted for the B2B sales taxes. That's bad enough but it's more than that, though. Rep. Dorholt said that he wouldn't "vote against a bill" that "has much more good in it than bad."
That sounds relatively reasonable. Unfortunately, further investigation of the bill shows that the bill didn't have more good than bad in it. The final tax bill that Rep. Dorholt voted for didn't just include the B2B sales taxes in it. That tax bill also had the Senate Office Building appropriations in it.
Did Rep. Dorholt think it was right to impose sales taxes on farmers and small businesses that rent warehouses? I'd love hearing Rep. Dorholt's explanation on that. The B2B taxes were awful enough. Rep. Dorholt didn't just vote for those taxes. He voted to fund a Taj Mahal building that the legislature didn't need, too. He also voted to raise income taxes on small businesses.
Rep. Dorholt isn't voting to repeal those B2B taxes. He's voting to hide his mistake. He doesn't want taxpayers noticing the fact that he voted to raise taxes on small businesses, farmers and the middle class while voting to fund a palace for Senate fat cats.
That isn't the definition of voting for something that "has much more good in it than bad' in it. That's voting to raise taxes regardless of the details.
Posted Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:26 AM
No comments.
St. Cloud Times, veiled threats edition
When the SC Times published this Our View Editorial , they crossed a line they shouldn't have crossed. Here's what I'm talking about:
Faculty and staff leaders need to get engaged, too. They must start by demanding accountability of employees who seek anonymity in making potentially damaging claims but offer no proof of what they are saying.
That's a cheap shot at Silence Dogood, a cowardly act on the Times' behalf and intellectually dishonest. The Times didn't even have the political courage to name names.
First, I've willingly published Silence's articles on LFR because they're well-researched and because the Times hasn't covered the things that Silence has written about. Admittedly, some of the things that Silence has written about will sting President Potter and SCSU but that isn't Silence's fault. That'll happen because President Potter made some foolish decisions that've literally cost SCSU millions of dollars that shouldn't have been spent.
Second, when the Times said that Silence has made "potentially damaging claims" without offering "proof of what they're saying", they're being intellectually dishonest. At the start of each of Silence's posts, Silence has said where the data for the article came from. In all instances, the information used in Silence's articls was either from official SCSU budget reports or they've been from MnSCU's enrollment database . In both instances, they're public documents.
Why wouldn't the Times identify the person they were accusing? In the first sentence, they insist that faculty must demand accountability for anonymous people "making potentially damaging claims", then they don't refer to the only person they could possibly be refering to. That's the epitome of being gutless.
The biggest reason why Silence stepped forward was because the Times wasn't covering the stories Silence wrote about. The next biggest reason why Silence wrote those articles is because Silence hated seeing the University needlessly deteriorate into where it's at today.
In FY2010, FYE enrollment was 15096, the highest in University history. Last year, FY2013, FYE enrollment was 13,053, a drop of 13.5%. Why hasn't the Times reported this? In their article about first semester enrollment, the Times acted like President Potter's off-campus PR firm :
For fall 2013, enrollment is at 16,245. Last year, it was 16,457. That's a 1.3 percent drop. It dropped 4.8 percent from 2011 to 2012. St. Cloud State had enjoyed five years of growth previously.
What's disappointing is that the Times reported headcount enrollment, which is sometimes called show-and-tell enrollment. It's what universities show the media right before telling them that things aren't tanking. Budgets, however, are based on FYE enrollments because they're more accurate in telling the financial health of a university.
Since its peak in FY2010, FYE enrollment at St. Cloud State has dropped almost 19%. As the previous quote shows, the Times didn't report the whole truth. The only question they haven't answered is why they haven't reported the whole truth.
Rather than cheap-shotting people who care about the University, perhaps the Times should consider the idea of not accepting everything President Potter says as though it was etched in stone with God's finger on top of Mount Sinai.
That'd be a refreshing change.
Posted Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:57 PM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 04-Mar-14 04:28 PM
Shorter SCTimes- whistleblower good if it a GOP administrator.....bad when it's a Democrat.
The UAW, silencing the opposition edition
It isn't surprising that the UAW would run to the NLRB for a shoulder to cry on after suffering a humiliating defeat in its attempt to unionize the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee. It isn't even surprising that the UAW is attempting to silence opposition to the unionization movement :
On Feb. 14, the workers made their voices heard, with 53% voting against allowing the UAW to represent them. I believe that the workers understood that they were nothing more than dollar signs for the UAW. Obviously, I could not have been happier for the Volkswagen employees, for the community and for Tennessee.
Unfortunately, the UAW has chosen to ignore the employees' decision and has filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board, charging that elected officials like me should not be allowed to make public comments expressing our opinion and sharing information with our constituents. It is telling that the UAW complaint does not mention President Obama's public statement urging the employees to vote for the union.
Ordinarily, the NLRB's rulings aren't reviewed by the courts. If the NLRB rules that it was improper for public officials to speak about the UAW's unionization drive, their ruling will get taken to court, where they'll lose badly.
If the NLRB issues such a ruling, they'll be exposed as Big Labor's corrupt shills. They'll lose credibility in the eyes of the average citizen.
Most importantly, the UAW will be exposed as sore losers who had run of the VW plant for 2 years and who didn't face management opposition for that time but still couldn't win the organizing election. That's pretty pathetic.
Posted Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:13 PM
No comments.
Obama was wrong, Putin edition
Just when President Obama, Vice President Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton thought it couldn't get worse, it did. This article provides the salt for these clowns' open wounds:
First, Sarah Palin. In 2008, the Alaskan conservative warned that Putin was on the prowl . Quote: "After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of moral indecision and equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."
Wow. Mrs Palin not only got the country that Putin would threaten right, she also predicted the reason behind it. Obama's "indecision and equivalence" over Iran, Egypt and, most importantly, Syria, has probably encouraged Putin to believe that there would be next-to-no Western response to an attack on Ukraine.
This was highly predictable. It's only surprising to the children at Foggy Bottom and in the West Wing. They either didn't see this coming or they didn't care. History won't award a gold star to any of these fools for their decisions prior to Russia's invading Crimea. (A dunce's cap for each is the better fit.)
Unfortunately for the Feckless Foursome, the humiliation doesn't (and shouldn't) stop there:
Second, Mitt Romney. Romney's foreign policy approach was broadly mocked in 2012. The country was keen to withdraw from overseas conflict in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan and Mitt's vague neo-conservatism seemed out of step with the public mood. Sometimes, said the critics, it came off as something that his advisers were coaching him to say; a nod and a hint to AIPAC rather than a strongly held belief. Rachel Maddow concluded, "It's not just that Romney is uninformed; it's that he hasn't figured out how to fake it."
Romney confirmed the sceptics' worst fears when he described Russia as America's "number one geopolitical foe." Barack Obama lashed out with some adolescent sass: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because. The Cold War's been over for 20 years.'
Actually, people who lived through the 80's are praying that we'd that type of leadership back. That was when Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John-Paul II brought down the Soviet Empire. That was when Jeane Kirkpatrick and Lech Walesa contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Feckless Foursome didn't notice or didn't care that Putin still thinks that the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the collapse of the century ":
Mr Putin therefore went out of his way to extol the virtues of democracy and talk up Russia's potential for foreign investment. He lamented, however, the collapse of the USSR in 1991, calling it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe".
That's quite the contrast in sobriety. The Feckless Foursome insisted that Russia was a friend that didn't have expansionist goals, despite Putin's expansionist rhetoric. While Rachel Maddow was making herself look stupid, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin said unpopular things that turned out to be 100% right.
Finally, I'd love asking Mrs. Clinton how that reset button thingy is working out lately.
Posted Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:02 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 04-Mar-14 08:17 PM
Not just "feckless" - openly MOCKED....
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-general-obamas-threats-are-the-joke-of-the-year/#ixzz2v1bF22DF
LL
Jim Knoblach enters HD-14B race
Tuesday, Jim Knoblach officially announced his candidacy for the House seat in HD-14B, currently held by DFL freshman Zach Dorholt:
Knoblach, a St. Cloud real estate investor, served in the state House from 1995 to 2006, when he chose not to run again.
He said last month that he was considering a run for the 14B seat. In a news release Tuesday, Knoblach said he wants 'to put some balance and common sense back in the Legislature.'
First things first: I will be supporting Jim at next week's endorsing convention. I'm not part of Jim's campaign team but I'll enthusiastically support Jim, partially because I've considered Jim as a friend for years, partially because he's one of the smartest policymakers I've ever met.
Immediately, Jim started defining the race against Dorholt:
'Unlike Mr. Dorholt, you won't find me voting for new job-killing taxes one year, and then claiming to be a tax cutter by suggesting they should be repealed the next year,' Knoblach said in his release.
It isn't just that Rep. Dorholt is attempting to make his vote for the Democrats' Tax (increase) Bill disappear. It's true that, in voting for the bill, he voted for funding Tom Bakk's $90,000,000 office building. Not only that but Dorholt voted for the Business-to-Business tax increases that he's now hoping to repeal.
With Jim, I know that I won't see him changing his mind moment-to-moment to fit his political needs. The great thing about Jim is that he's a man of principle who thinks things through first. Jim's willing to fund important priorities that Minnesota's Constitution madates. He just won't vote for things like $90,000.000 office buildings for part-time politicians.
Recently, Rep. Dorholt tried explaining away his vote for the Democrats' tax increases this way:
'I'm not somebody who's going to vote against a bill when it has much more good in it than bad,' Dorholt said.
Shame on Dorholt for saying that. The Democrats' tax increase bill included middle class tax increases, the funding for a politician's pork palace and a sales tax on farmers. If that's Dorholt's idea of a bill that "has much more good in it than bad", then it's time to question Dorholt's priorities.
Posted Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:46 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 05-Mar-14 04:54 PM
Is that King B's former seat?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Mar-14 11:20 PM
Yes. Hopefully, it'll soon be Dorholt's former seat, too.
