On Student Government Shenanigans

Bernward: Good evening, Mr. Woodstein.

For the sake of sporting debate I would like to shift our subject matter gears slightly.

We will stay with the topic of government, but move to student government. Specifically, to Louisiana State University's Student Government's interactions with the state government.

The Student Government at LSU has been increasingly involved with the budget crisis over the past year with letter writing campaigns and public information sessions, but its members face a funding issue. School and state rules prohibit SG from spending any of its alloted funds lobbying state government.

So, to get around this issue and get funding for their exploits, SG officials created a proxy group known as the Flagship Advocates. This group works as a normal student group, but it is comprised primarily of SG members and it speaks primarily using SG opinions. It is headed by SG Vice President Dani Borel.

So does it peeve you that they would seek to lobby with funds that Student Government isn't allowed to lobby with?

Woodstein: An interesting question, Mr. Bernward.

While I’ve certainly quibbled with SG’s “policies” in the past, I don’t know that I have a problem in this case.

It’s important to point out that most of the Advocates’ time is dedicated to a grass-roots movement. While Hudson and Borel run it, most of their work involves funneling student letters and student voices to the Capitol. And most of their costs are going to pay for postage, as I understand it.

If Hudson and Borel were using state money to buy advertising, that would be one thing. But their current use of the funds -- to directly convey students’ message to policymakers -- seems like they’re fulfilling their role exactly. It certainly doesn’t seem unethical.

Bernwood: So how does one define lobbying? The actions of these students would certainly be considered lobbying and it is being facilitated by state dollars.

I’m not saying all groups who receive state funds should be put under a microscope. It just doesn’t quite sit with me that a representative group like SG would take state money to lobby state government.

I understand it is not technically SG that is doing it so this sits perfectly within the rules, but it doesn’t quite jive with me.

I would think most students would disagree with SG President J Hudson’s rosy opinion of tuition increases so I doubt they would want to see any state or student funds used to lobby his opinions.

Woodstein: If students care enough about tuition getting raised to protest arcane SG maneuverings like this, those students should care enough to send letters. And J and Dani have repeatedly said they don’t censor letters -- they just send them.

So if the message legislators are getting from the Advocates’ letter-writing campaign is that students are okay with tuition increases -- and I’m not convinced legislators are -- that’s because those are the students that took the effort to send letters.

Bernwood: I’m sure money is spent in other ways. And I’m pretty sure nobody listens to SG anyways. But we can agree to disagree.

Martin -- Tuition Hikes Build Character.

LSU Chancellor Michael Martin apparently thinks Bobby Jindal is doing a heckuva job.

“We are very pleased with the bold proposals Governor Jindal offered this afternoon for higher education in Louisiana. These proposals are not short-term, quick fixes; they are thoughtful initiatives that will set Louisiana on a long-term path to a high-performing higher education system."

That's a pretty ringing endorsement.

Martin has never outright criticized Jindal, but he and other higher education officials have long opined that state leaders in general need to be more active in budget cuts. And he's often spoken in such a way that blasts Jindal's policies while painstakingly construed in a way

Now we see very little complaining from Martin now that Jindal has announced his higher education legislation agenda. But that's hardly surprising.

After all, he might as well have written the agenda himself.

Notice the end to Martin's statement:

“Finally, we thank Louisiana’s Flagship Coalition for the hard work they have done on behalf of LSU and all of higher education.”

Why would Martin give a shout-out to the Coalition in a statement ostensibly about Jindal's policies? It's simple -- Jindal's policies for the most part are the Coalition's policies. Which means they are also LSU's policies.

It's difficult to argue that Jindal's agenda isn't good for LSU as a institution.

The more difficult question is -- are these policies good for LSU students?

The mantra of Jindal's proposed legislation is "granting institutions more independence." While that frequently-used buzzword means cutting down on bureaucratic waste, it also means giving universities "independence" to raise tuition and fees.

Martin, for his part, isn't shy about saying increased tuition is better for students. He routinely argues that, if the University relied more on tuition than on state dollars, students would see a less volatile budget.

And let's be clear here -- raising tuition is good for Martin and the rest of LSU's administration. It takes a lot more effort to battle the state for funding than it does to simply raise tuition on students.

Increased tuition is also better for the state. If the state bears a smaller funding responsibility, it has more money to spend on other things probably tax cuts.).

But students (and their parents) need to look hard at these proposals and ask the question most relevant to them -- is increased tuition actually better for those that have to pay it?

That's a whole different column for a whole different day. But, unless tuition is increasing significantly more than state funding is decreasing, it seems unlikely that students will be getting much more value for their increased costs.

Arguments exist that tuition increases are beneficial to students in the long term. But it takes one hell of an argument to convince somebody paying more money is in their best interests, especially if there's no clear sign they're going to be getting a better product.

The Great TOPS Debate

Woodstein: Good evening, Mr. Bernwood.

As you’re no doubt aware, the Louisiana Budget Project recently recommended that TOPS requirements be toughened, making the program more merit-based. The Project argued that money should be going towards more need-based scholarships, because the state is “wasting money” on higher education for wealthier students.

It’s not a new complaint; the ever-cheery LSU System President John Lombardi has famously complained that “he sees too many nice cars out in the parking lot” for this many students to have the scholarship. Lombardi has often argued that merit-based scholarships would be more efficient for the state.

What’s your opinion on this? Should the state toughen the requirements and use the money it saves for more need-based scholarships? Are there too many rich kids driving their Cadillacs to school for their free ride?

Bernwood: What I think is not necessarily important here. What legislators see as the purpose of the TOPS program is important. The program in its current form is defined as a merit-based program. The purpose is said to be to keep the best and brightest Louisiana students going to school in the state.

But the requirements of the program make it seem more of a state-funded entitlement program than merit program.

To receive benefits from TOPS, a high school student must graduate with a 2.5 GPA — equivalent to a C average — and a 20 on the ACT. These are hardly tough standards, so the program not only benefits those select few who do excel academically, but also the much more abundant average student.

Woodstein: I’ll certainly admit that a 2.5 GPA and a 20 on the ACT aren’t the most stringent requirements for academic achievement. But at some point you have to try to determine just how stringent those requirements are.

Does the state benefit from only giving the highest-achieving students a chance at college? I wouldn’t say so. The state doesn’t just benefit from having its 4.0s and 33 ACT scores in the state -- it benefits from keeping its 3.0s and 25s. And, yes, it even benefits from keeping its its 20s and 2.5s in as well.

Bernwood: So if TOPS is a merit program, why not just award those who are meritorious? The state may benefit a bit from having less than brilliant students stay in Louisiana, but at what cost?

I’m not sure how much you read the news, Mr. Woodstein, but perhaps you have noticed Louisiana is in quite the monetary mire. You should also consider that tuition has increased for years on the trot and is set to increase sharply over the next six years.

In such a time, the question becomes how much does the Louisiana taxpayer want to pay for a mediocre student’s education? What should be the standard of merit when even the University’s state appropriations are decreasing?

What does one do if faced with a budget crisis? If you are Bobby Jindal, you cut things. This means having priorities and finding things or people that can survive without money.

According to this report, nearly 40 percent of students with TOPS have families that make more than $100,000 a year. Surely the average taxpayer would like to see a student who is both average academically and well-off financially fend for themselves when other vital state services are at risk.

Last year, the TOPS program cost the state a little more than $130 million. I understand that is but a fraction of the overall budget deficit, but in desperate times one must prioritize.

Woodstein: But it’s also important to remember that just because a student gets TOPS doesn’t mean they get to pick their university. LSU, for example requires a 3.0 and an ACT of 22. So students who barely qualify to get TOPS qualify to attend only the less-prestigious -- and less expensive Universities. They (theoretically) end up at the places they belong, so the state pays for the value of the student.

Additionally, it’s important to remember that TOPS is tiered; a student with a 20 doesn’t get the same rewards as a student who gets a 30. So TOPS has built in mechanisms to reward students for higher achievement.

Finally, we need to remember that keeping students in state for higher education generally means keeping better-educated workers in the state.

So I don’t think it’s fair to say TOPS is shoveling out cash to people who don’t deserve it. TOPS pays for the state’s young people to get an education -- that seems like a government investment that isn’t just charitable, it’s economically smart in the long-term.

Bernwood: It seems we will have to agree to disagree and let state legislators hash out this debate once again this spring.

The Salary Hate Machine

So Chad Rogers is at it again.

Rogers' claim here -- that higher education administrators are making too much despite continuing cuts to their institutions -- is hardly a new one.

Also, anytime you see this:

"Our informants in the Southwest Louisiana Tea Party contributed to this report!"

you should be wary.

Still, his other sources seem legit, although I haven't double-checked his numbers yet.

A few issues:

1.) He posts big numbers for Lombardi, Layzell, and others, but he only posts a historical salary comparison for Clausen. Why didn't he post any of the others? Are the trends not as damning? Or was he just too lazy?

2.) Did Rogers forget that Clausen isn't Commissioner of Higher Education anymore? In fact, did he forget that we don't have a commissioner of higher education at all right now because the legislature rejected the Regents' candidate for that position?

Did he forget why the legislature rejected that candidate? Oh yeah, it's because they thought he was going to get paid too much -- even though he was getting paid less than Clausen was.

Read that article. The legislature rejected Layzell's proposed salary at $319,000; that's more than $100,000 less than the pay package Rogers attributes to Clausen.

Not only is he only applying past trends to one administrator, he's applying those trends to a position that currently doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist exactly because the state is being fiscally conservative in paying for it.

Hardly the most convincing argument for rampant waste.

3.) Even if Rogers could prove that higher education officials were getting paid too much -- and he can't -- that's not anywhere near a substantive solution to higher ed's budget issues. LSU's budget alone has been cut by more than $43 million in the past two years -- knocking even a few hundred thousand off each of the supposedly offensive salaries wouldn't come near touching that.

It certainly doesn't come anywhere near the more than $300 million that higher education in general has been cut.

Again, Rogers isn't the only conservative guilty of trying to use administrator salaries as scapegoats for budget cuts. It's an argument we've heard before, over and over.

It's also an argument with little substance and even less real significance.