TUITION POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECORD OF MEETING
Members Present: W. Bevacqua, Senator Cappiello, Representative Farr, K. Fox, W. Johnson, K. Krapek, L. McHugh, M. Meotti, T. Ritter, A. Vertefeuille, D. Yoia, L. Zollo
1. Call to Order
Chairman Meotti called the meeting
to order at
2. Issues with Tuition Policy
Chairman Meotti reported on the following specific issues that were raised by the Connecticut State University System and called on Chancellor Cibes, Connecticut State University (CSU), to join the group for comment.
a. Treatment of Fees
Chancellor Cibes, reported that the current tuition and fee policy has different definitions of tuition by constituent unit. CSU is proposing that the Board of Governors adopt a common definition of tuition that falls under the policy cap and not include other fees (i.e., University General Fee).
M. Johnson was asked to clarify the current policy status. She reported that the current policy looks only at tuition and fees that support the educational and general (E&G) budget. Auxiliary enterprises that are self-supporting (i.e., intercollegiate athletics) are outside the definition of tuition. In the early 1990s, the University General Fee at CSU was split since they were able to identify self-supporting costs. However, CSU had requested the distinction be eliminated because none of their athletics or any other programs was truly self-supporting. During that same time period, UConn shifted some if its E&G costs out of its University General Fee into tuition to comply with the policy definition of tuition. Similarly, the College Services Fee at the Community Colleges supports E&G expenses.
Chancellor Cibes said that he believes there is differential treatment of fees by the three different constituent units. He believes certain CSU fees are not related to tuition or activities of E&G costs (i.e, athletics, parking garages, student accident insurance, etc.). Furthermore, tuition is subject to the 15 percent set-aside for student financial aid and the University General Fee is not subject to the set-aside. For these reasons, CSU is asking to exclude its University General Fee from the cap.
Representative Farr suggested that CSU use UConn’s approach in its treatment of fees for consistency. There was a general consensus with this approach. DHE noted its willingness to review the issue of consistency of categorization.
b. Treatment of Tuition/Fees for Extension/Continuing Education Programs
Chancellor Cibes reported that at CSU there is distinction between the tuition that full-time and part-time students pay. Therefore, he proposed part-time students revenues be excluded from the definition of tuition at CSU, UConn and the CTC System.
Chairman Meotti asked Chancellor Herzog, CTC System, to comment on this issue. Chancellor Herzog reported that the extension/continuing education programs are self-supporting at the Community Colleges, but the regular part-timers pay a prorated tuition rate. UConn does not differentiate between full-time and part-time students. However, it does have a group of academic programs that come under extension and are self-supporting. K. Fox reported that it would be detrimental to have a cap on those fees because they are tied to what is needed to be self-sufficient. The CSU System is the only piece of the public system that charges its part-time students more across the board.
Senator Cappiello noted the different levels of state support across the units (CSU - 53%, UConn - 60% and 67% at the CTC System) when looking at funding in terms of full-time equivalency (FTE). He noted that if CSU treated its part-time and full-time student equally, funding would still be lower than the other units. Commissioner Lewis noted that a stated goal of the Board of Governors is to get equitable state support for each unit from the legislature. She also stated, however, that when state funds decline, it is the job of the units to try first to mitigate the fund loss before passing costs on to students.
Chairman Meotti suggested that the consensus of the Committee was to recommend, as its preference, to have system sufficiently funded to remove any inequitable conditions for part-time to full-time students.
c. Differentiation by Level
Chancellor Cibes suggested that the CSU Board of Trustees be able to establish differential tuition and fees for different graduate programs.
Commissioner Lewis noted that she thought the policy around graduate study may be outdated and does need to recognize market forces in respect to graduate education. Commissioner Lewis asked the Committee to think about the impact of the units charging whatever that wanted for a graduate education noting that one downside is potentially high costs for programs in critical workforce areas.
Following the discussion, Chairman Meotti inferred that the consensus was to deregulate the graduate tuition policy and give the constituent units independence in that area with the Board of Governors monitoring utilization.
d. Discussion
of Tuition Cap
Chancellor Cibes noted that CSU was recommending that the tuition cap not apply when the legislature does not appropriate the full amount of collective bargaining increases for employees paid under the block grant.
Commissioner Lewis asked if it would be fair to ask the consumer to bare the full burden of state reduction since this constitutes a special tax. W. Bevacqua expressed his concern that the units need to look at the expenditure side of the equation. In order to make an effective argument for raising tuitions, one has to make an equally effective argument for the fact that money is being spent for efficiently and effectiveness.
Representative Farr noted that tuition if increases are capped, they could force programs to be eliminated making it difficult for the consumer to complete degrees within four years.
Senator Cappiello reported that he thought the cap should be left intact since it is a tool in making sure money is being spent wisely and can act as a damper when negotiating. He also stated that Connecticut gives more money to higher education than any other state as a percentage of instructive costs.
Chairman Meotti noted that there were legitimate points made on all sides. He suggested that rather than have an automatic lifting of the cap, Board of Governors might develop specific criteria to take into consideration when approving increases above 15 percent. The state budget not fully funding approved collective bargaining agreements might be a factor for consideration in waiving the cap.
3. Remaining
Steps for the Committee
Chairman Meotti stated that the
issues identified above would be incorporated into the discussion draft and
circulated to members prior to the last meeting for to adoption.
4. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
/lml