TUITION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE

RECORD OF MEETING

Legislative Office Building

Hartford, CT

June 12, 2003

Members Present:      K. Guay, K. Krapek, L. McHugh, M. Meotti, A. Vertefeuille, L. Zollo

1.   Call to Order

Chairman Meotti called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

2.   Discussion of Chairman’s Discussion Draft

Chairman Meotti updated the Committee on the discussion that took place at the last Tuition Policy Committee (TPRC) meeting.  He noted that the discussion draft was developed on his own and not meant to be a detailed action plan.  He reported that he would like to focus more attention to the following areas:  1) relationship between the state appropriation supporting higher education and tuition levels, 2) the consideration of state tax dollars channeled to the student and 3) achievement of more clarity in the overall system.  Chairman Meotti reviewed the following specific draft points:

1. Deregulate tuition and fee policy

2. Systems submit tuition and fee schedule with budget request to General Assembly

3. State expands financial aid program for state residents attending CT public institutions

4. Establish clear guidelines for non-need based financial aid

5. Develop new approach for targeted investments for state appropriations

6. Benchmark system/institutions response to identified priorities

7. Develop complete cost accounting system for higher education

8. Explore integration of support functions at system level

9. Review of under-enrolled programs

10. Explore opportunities to promote a national effort to consider current practices and cultures that add cost without commensurate value

K. Guay reviewed the Office of Policy and Management’s (OPM) response to the discussion draft.  She reported that OPM objects to eliminating executive branch authority for the formulation and execution of budgets for the constituent units and omitting discussions and possible solutions to major cost drivers in Connecticut higher education such as the quantity and cost of personnel.  OPM would support considering a new method of funding financial aid and developing targets for strategic higher education investments financed by the elimination of under-enrolled programs.  She reviewed other comments made by OPM.

L. McHugh requested information on how many state residents are graduating from public colleges compared to private colleges.  The Department will supply this information.

K. Krapek reported that Connecticut State University (CSU) in 2003-04 had collective bargaining increases of five percent.  To break even with the state’s rescission, they would have had to raise tuition 21.5 percent, they raised it 15 percent.  K. Guay stated that personnel (non faculty) are the major cost drivers. 

Vicky Green, Director of Finance, Community-Technical College System (CTC System) stated that direct academic student support services such as counseling, admissions, registration, etc., is another large component of costs.  K. Guay noted that the $23 million Banner System at CSU was supposed to make the process easier.  So far CSU and the CTC System have needed more staff to administer the system.  Chairman Meotti noted that it would be interesting to see staff changes over time.

Chairman Meotti reviewed a letter from Marc Herzog, Chancellor, CTC System, which commented on the discussion draft.  He inquired if there was a need for any players other than the governing boards of the constituent units to make the decisions where tuition and fees are concerned.  He asked if people were happy with the current tuition policy.

Lorraine Arronson, Vice-President for Financial Planning and Research, University of Connecticut, talked about the problem of tuition rates tied to action by the General Assembly and students not knowing what their tuition was until August.

William Cibes, Chancellor, CSU, gave his views of various scenarios.  To him the best possible scenario is to take away the review from the Board of Governors and give the constituent units the power to set their tuition policy and rates.  The second most preferable scenario is to retain the existing policy with certain tweaks including the elimination of the cap in certain circumstances and permitting some differential tuition.  The third most appealing being the current policy without the tweaks.  His most objectionable scenario is to give the legislature not only the power to reduce state support for higher education but to freeze tuition.  He reviewed a letter that shared CSU’s position in regards to the discussion draft.

There was some discussion whether the 15 percent cap was acceptable.  Commissioner Lewis reported that by statute the Board of Governors must set the statewide policy for public higher education tuition and fees.  She noted that each of the constituent units were at the table when the tuition policy was developed and subsequently revised.  The objective of having a cap is to give customers an idea of how much costs can increase from year to year.

V. Greene reported that she believed procedural specifics do not belong in a policy document.  L. McHugh expressed that he would like to see more flexibility in the cap in the case of legislative recissions.  L. Zollo stated that a cap of 15 percent could penalize student enrollment.  A. Vertefeuille spoke to Chancellor Cibes’s second choice and reported that the current policy has worked well for nine years until this year because of budget constraints.  His choice would be to tweak the current policy.

Chairman Meotti reported that he sensed a strong momentum not to change the current framework, but changes were needed to the current system.

There was some discussion concerning the idea of changing the current set-aside requirements on tuition in a way that enhances the decision role of the student.  Merle Harris, President, Charter Oak State College, addressed the following concerns: 1) programs tend to address the needs traditional students, 2) packaging and 3) added administrative costs.

Chairman Meotti expressed that that he would like to test the market place concept by exploring the idea further.  He suggested a recommendation to the Board of Governors that deals with advancing the issue of creating a more competitive market place with financial aid.

Chairman Meotti will revise the draft, based on the Committee’s comments, to be voted upon at the next TPRC meeting.  He will distribute draft recommendations prior to the next meeting.

3.   Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary K. Johnson

Secretary

/lml