News
UB 2020 hinges on SUNY reforms
-
Print -
Comments
(10)
-
Multimedia
Failure of the state Legislature to enact the Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act (PHEEIA) will mean the end of UB 2020, President John B. Simpson warned today.
Speaking at a news conference at UB’s New York State Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Life Sciences on the university’s Downtown Campus, Simpson urged Western New Yorkers to do whatever they can to get the message to elected officials that UB 2020 “is Western New York’s strategy for its future.”
The university’s strategic plan for achieving academic excellence—which Simpson called “the community’s plan”—means 6,700 jobs at UB, 20,000 construction jobs and nearly $2 billion in additional economic impact, he said.
“To do this, we need elected officials in Albany to change policy, to let UB live by the same rules that virtually every other major public university in the U.S. lives by. These are nothing more than common sense reforms.”
These reforms, which he stressed are policy, not financial, are key features of PHEEIA, he said. They include a predictable, differential tuition plan that keeps tuition dollars at UB, rather than going into state coffers, and the ability to enter into partnerships to leverage private-sector funding “to create economic growth in the Buffalo-Niagara region.”
“If Western New York and SUNY do not get these reforms, we simply cannot do Western New York’s UB 2020 plan,” he said. “That means our community doesn’t get the jobs and it means building the downtown Buffalo medical campus that is so crucial for UB 2020 and for Buffalo’s future is at great risk.”
Simpson pointed out that while the Western New York’s legislative delegation is behind PHEEIA, and Gov. David Paterson, SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher and the SUNY Board of Trustees all support the reforms, the legislation so far has received a mixed reception from other legislators. While the Senate included the reforms in its budget resolution, the Assembly did not. And although these resolutions are non-binding, they indicate where each chamber stands at the start of negotiations with the governor about the budget, he said.
Moreover, neither chamber’s resolution restores any funding for higher education, he added.
Simpson implored Western New Yorkers to make a case for UB 2020 with elected officials.
“We need to help state leaders and legislators to understand how important this is for our community,” he said. “We need them to understand that the community’s plan—UB 2020—is in absolute jeopardy if this legislation does not pass.
“We need to let our elected officials and all of Albany know that the community demands this. We need everyone in Western New York to tell our elected officials that now is the time for action; we cannot let this moment pass,” he said.
“If it does, then our plan—which is about jobs, excellence in education and our community’s well being—will be lost. We have come too far to lose these jobs and this plan,” he said. “Our moment is now.”
Reader Comments
Bruce Acker says:
Undergraduate in-state tuition and fees at the University of Washington for 2009-2010 were $7,692. Undergraduate in-state tuition and fees (comprehensive and student activity fees) at UB for 2009-2010 were $7,014. Even given the likelihood that "fees" are calculated differently at the two universities, a previous reader's fears about the UW model seem unwarranted. As a graduate of UW, I would say that it is an excellent public institution.
Posted by Bruce Acker, Assistant Director of Asian Studies, 05/07/10
Brian Borncamp says:
I was at a 'Town Hall' meeting some time in the Fall 2009 semester. At this meeting Simpson made the point that the funding for UB 2020 was separate from the revenue brought in through the students. He also explicitly mentioned that funding in this nature arose through previously existing bonds and other things of this nature. What those other things were I'm not sure. However, what I'm failing to see is how is it the case that UB 2020 is now suddenly in jeopardy. Why is it the case that we need this new legislation when supposedly last semester, UB 2020 was fiscally separate from student tuition?
Posted by Brian Borncamp, . , 04/06/10
Kevin Langdon says:
@ Jim Holstun: Modest increases in state income tax could solve many problems. However If you added up increases from all such problems, it would result in troubling figures.
Posted by Kevin Langdon, Undergraduate Student, 04/05/10
David Hadbawnik says:
No one can convincingly argue that the current system is working. However, scrapping SUNY and privatizing UB -- and yes, that's what this effectively means -- is not the answer. Flagship universities like UW are public in name only, with tuition well beyond the means of the average household. That's not acceptable for Buffalo or UB.
Also, comparing what happened at Washington with what might happen at UB is apples and oranges. Seattle has a thriving tech industry and a burgeoning population. The vision of a university on a hill is not going to work here.
Finally, if PHEEIA were so great, then Pres. Simpson wouldn't be afraid to have a town-hall style debate about its merits, rather than the top-down style of presenting it as the only solution.
Posted by David Hadbawnik, No wonder..., 04/05/10
Roxanne Janecki says:
The system that is currently in place needs to reformed as it is not working. Money generated from tuition, instead of going to UB directly, goes into a state coffer. Previous tuition hikes have not been a benefit either to the students or the University. I stand behind the direction and intent of UB2020.
What is so wrong with allowing the private sector to work in conjunction with UB? It takes the burden off of tax payers and allows for a closer working relationship between UB and the businesses in and around Buffalo. Buffalo needs this!
All one has to do is look at Simpson's previous accomplishments at the University of Washington. He united Seattle with the major PUBLIC University within it and both have benefited. UofW is now a leading public University as a result.
Posted by Roxanne Janecki, English Major, Entrepreneur, 04/02/10
Jeff Hall says:
President Simpson clearly states the problem - that funding for UB2020 is not going to be enough the way things are going. What he doesn't do is state why his solution is the best (as opposed to other solutions that have been posted previously).
There seems to be a lot of (perhaps justified) fear about privatization, rising costs, etc. I guess I don't know enough about the issue to commit to any side, but I am highly hesitant to decentralize the SUNY tuition decisions. It seems to me that Simpson would be wise to directly address these concerns - if his plan is really in the best intrest of the SUNY system, the students, etc, then it should be apparent through an open discussion of all alternatives.
Posted by Jeff Hall, Undergraduate Student, 03/31/10
John Northrup says:
Instead of representing the "community" President Simpson should be representing the University, which is his job. Most of the current and future students will not be able to afford tuition if it gets raised to support this plan. President Simpson should forget UB 2020 and start a new plan UB 2012. Give the current students something, make it better for the students now instead of making them feel like they are just a bridge.
Posted by John Northrup, says, 03/31/10
Mike Rienti says:
The UB administration needs to focus more on securing public education at this campus and ensuring the quality of its programs for current students and those entering in the near future. The future of UB and Western New York is important, but not at the expense of the tens of thousands of students who will attend UB in the next decade. Privitization will lead to increased student costs and debts. How does making it more difficult for students to attend college, and more difficult for them achieve financial security upon graduating foster improving the economic situation of the region?
Posted by Mike Rienti, PhD Student, Anthropology, 03/31/10
Jim Holstun says:
Why doesn't President Simpson advocate for supporting public education, rather than for privatizing it? A modest increase in state income tax rates, aimed primarily at those wealthy New Yorkers whose rates have been cut so dramatically in the past thirty years, would save SUNY and the rest of the state's public responsibilities.
A quick look at the homepage of the New York Fiscal Policy Institute will show how this can be done: http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/.
Posted by Jim Holstun, jamesholstun@hotmail.com, 03/30/10
Chris Buckman says:
The cuts have resulted in a real strain on SUNY’s ability to provide the people of New York with high quality, accessible education. Unfortunately, President Simpson and Chancellor Zimpher have chosen to exploit the funding crisis in an attempt to push through unwise changes to state law. These changes, embodied in PHEEIA, would allow SUNY to break away from New York State controls on tuition and business partnerships. SUNY would drastically increase tuition and open its campuses to private, profit-driven interests that would treat the student body as a cash cow. President Simpson should be fighting to save SUNY from death by underfunding instead of opportunistically jumping at the chance to forward his agenda.
Posted by Chris Buckman, Teaching Assistant, Philosophy, 03/29/10