One member of the Iowa Board of Regents told the board Thursday she would not support proposed tuition increases, saying the process to determine the rate of increase was not inclusive and there could be other options when determining costs for university students.
During the first reading of potential tuition increases at the board’s February meeting, Regent Christine Hensley said she learned of the proposal’s details not from the board, but from the news.
The University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa are proposing to raise tuition by 3% for resident undergraduate students.
“I learned about the proposed tuition increases via the media, which I have a real problem with, because it reported that the board of regents had considered this at the 3% level, and I think that’s extremely difficult, to ask us to vote when not all of us participated in the discussions,” Hensley said.
Proposed tuition rates, as well as cost of fees, residence on campus and dining, will have their final reading at the board’s April meeting. The board released reports on the proposed increases Feb. 17, just over one week ahead of the board’s meeting Feb. 26-27.
This is not how a board should operate, Hensley said, especially with a topic that is so significant to the board and the universities it governs. She added that she doesn’t believe the process to develop the tuition rate increases “has been inclusive.”
Other student expenses are also set to increase, Hensley said, with 3% increase in room and board proposed at the UI and 3.5% increases at both ISU and UNI. Affordability was at the top of the list of issues in higher education identified by a recent Gallup poll, she said.
Hensley said “there are a lot of pieces in the puzzle right now,” including moves by the Iowa Legislature to freeze tuition for some or all students and to increase per-pupil funding by 2% for K-12 education, and maybe the board should look at increases closer to 1.5% or 1.75%.
“I’m not saying I wouldn’t support something, but the process that we have gone through, and not including every single board member here, is problematic,” Hensley said. “I think that there will be some other opportunities — we don’t have to take final reading on this until April 30, what I would ask is that maybe there be a committee that sits down and has some discussions.”
Board President Robert Cramer apologized to Hensley for not involving her in the process and agreed that further discussion by committees between now and April would be a good thing.
He added that factors brought into play when discussing the rate increases included ensuring they fall under the Higher Education Price Index’s three-year average, the current budget ratios of two-thirds tuition and one-third state appropriations and how much of tuition goes back to the students in forms of financial aid and other supports.
“When you think about 3% on the budget, if we’ve got a third of our budget coming from the state and two-thirds from tuition, and we were concerned that the third from the state might be flat at zero, that means a 3% increase on tuition results in a 2% increase overall, for the overall deal,” Cramer said.
Board Executive Director Mark Braun said during the meeting that board policy requires at least 18% of tuition revenue at state universities be rewarded as financial aid, a minimum they are “vastly exceeding” by offering roughly 25% of that revenue as aid.
Regent Steve Lacy, in his first meeting since being appointed to replace former board president Sherry Bates, suggested to board staff that laying out the numbers for lawmakers would present a different picture than what is currently presented in board documents.
“I think we have to be very cautious, because … one of the important things that this group is supposed to do is what we’re talking about, and if we sort of allow that to be abdicated to the Legislature, I think that’s a real slippery slope that we don’t want to be involved with,” Lacy said.
Cramer made multiple comments throughout the meeting about the proposed tuition freeze legislation currently making its way through the Statehouse, saying he “would love to be able to keep tuition down,” but first the board needs to find out if it can.
With efforts by board members, staff and university officials to identify revenue streams and implement cost-cutting procedures, including the study being led by Regent Kurt Tjaden and development of a strategy to address deferred maintenance, Cramer said it’s important to not move too quickly and leave universities in a financial bind.
“Instead of freeze first and see what happens, I believe it is more responsible to save first and then reduce or freeze tuition while ensuring we have the resources necessary to maintain the value of a degree from our Iowa’s public institutions,” Cramer said.