Thank you for sharing this article. The situation at the rest of Oregon's universities (and community colleges) is just as bad, and in some cases worse. There was significant progress made during the last legislative session, but it was only the beginning of the complete turnaround that is needed. I've seen and heard from several folks who aren't focusing on state funding this year because it isn't a "legislative year". Again we are dealing with the mistaken impression that "woohoo! we did it!" that permeates many issues these days. The resulting complacency is just as damaging as if there had been no effort to begin with. The dire condition that our public institutions of higher learning are in took years to develop. It isn't going to be fixed in one. The increase in funding this last session is helping to fix some of the broken windows of our educational house, but that crack in the foundation hasn't even been touched...and continues to grow.

Dave Frohnmayer is spot-on with regard to the lack of investment in public universties in Oregon. The 2007 legislature did more than the Governor asked with regard to funding for higher ed, but they need to come up with additional long-term funding for Oregon universities.

And, of course, the backdrop for this conversation is that Federal funding for higher education has remained stagnant throughout the Bush era, and that many programs -- like Pell Grants, which enabled people like me to attend college -- have been eliminated or seriously cut back.

As Dave's brother has noted on several occasions, this problem extend beyond Oregon. China graduates 6 times as many engineers and scientists than the United States, and South Korea graduates as many with 1/6th the population. If we want to be competitive over the next 20-30 years, we need to find a way to restore the competitive balance.

I've seen absolutely no evidence of complacency in the House Democratic Caucus when it comes to state funding for higher education.

It is well-understood that the 2007-09 higher education budgets (and yes, community colleges constitute higher education - last I checked it's all college credit), were a significant reinvestment in public education at all levels, yet this follows over a decade of disinvestment and neglect.

Even with a 20% increase for OUS and 18% for Oregon community colleges, tuition won't be dropping and could even rise slightly. Still, this most recent investment, in combination with the Shared Responsibility Model, moves us in the direction of expanding opportunity for Oregonians seeking higher education.

Still, we've got a great deal of catching up to do. Although our university faculty are the 7th most productive in the nation when measured by the amount of grant money they procure, our faculty salaries are inadequate when compared to like institutions.

Having good football programs are useful and fun, but we desperately need to alter the playbook and strengthen the core functions of our institutions of higher education first.

This will be a bit of blasphemy - but dare I say that we might do well to look South for a model. My alma mater boasts both a top rated football program (currently ranked #3 but should be #1 or #2 after this weekend) and is considered one of the top public research institutions in the world.

I don't believe that complacency is the problem, it's more complicated than that. We need structural tax reform which includes an increase in the corporate minimum tax; we need political leadership in Salem that views our 2007 reinvestment as simply a beginning; and we need a citizenry that not only demands greater investment in our institutions of higher education, but one that continues to turn down fiscally disastrous ballot measures emanating from the initiative-industrial complex.

Rep. Galizio, thanks for your leadership on this issue. As a college teacher (as my wife is), I think you understand this issue as well as anyone in the state.

Do you have any other ideas beyond increasing the corporate minimum tax to find additional, long-term, stable revenue streams for higher education in Oregon?

Mr. Galizio, First of all I thank you for your work during this last session. The times that I met with you were great examples of the Democrats' commitment to education. When I speak of complacency, I'm actually referring more to the public and the students' points of view. Students from all over the state put alot of effort into raising this issue to a level of high importance, and it is a too-relaxed atitude on their part that concerns me most.

My alma mater boasts both a top rated football program (currently ranked #3 but should be #1 or #2 after this weekend)

Yeah, after they stole an Oregon football coach. :)

I love it... GOPer Dave Frohnmayer cries we need more money for higher education, but is member of a party whose mantra and entire political clout for decades (and right up to this minute) comes from getting their base to go positively ape-shit when anyone mentions that responsibly spending more means raising more revenue in the form of taxes.

I guess Frohnmayer is also of the faith-based political school of thought where the state can simply prestodigitate money out of thin air.

What a fraud.

I love it... GOPer Dave Frohnmayer cries we need more money for higher education, but is member of a party whose mantra and entire political clout for decades (and right up to this minute) comes from getting their base to go positively ape-shit when anyone mentions that responsibly spending more means raising more revenue in the form of taxes.

Mitch,

Let's at least be accurate and fair about the shifts that we've seen in Republican politics over the last 15 years:

Republican Mark Hatfield nearly lost his chairmanship of the appropriations committee in 1994 because he refused to support tabor-like policies at the federal level.

Dave Frohnmayer warned about the effects of ballot Measure 5, and was a leader in opposing Measure 47 in 1996.

His defeat in 1990 was caused, more than anything, by his refusal to adhere to the extremism and rigid dogma that characterizes the modern Republican party.

Attacking people like Dave, who has been a consistent critic of the kind of partisanship you are attributing to him, is not only fundamentally unfair, but is itself a sign that some folks on the left have become as doctrinaire and partisan as the Bill Sizemore's of the world.

Here's something Dave had to say a few years ago as a member of the Public Commission on the Legislature. I agree with it 100%:

Political partisanship. Observers as well as participants have seen a sharp increase in partisanship and disregard of other views as a major source of decline in Oregon's legislative process and performance, leading the legislature to make faulty decisions or preventing any decision at all. Long-time observers of the legislature blame the emergence of government through caucus discipline, which creates confrontational positions and conflicts that otherwise would yield to reasonable compromise.

As usual, Rep. Galizio has it right. As Chair of the Education Sub-Committee of the Ways and Means Committee this year, Larry worked hard and effectively to force an increase in the Higher Ed and Community College Budgets.

He is absolutely correct that the "increase" of the 2007-09 budget must be just the beginning to restore the programs our students deserve and Oregon needs.

Measures 5, 47, 50 and 11 in the 90s significantly reduced the funds available for our Universities and Community Colleges. We must have tax reform that returns the overall state and local revenue to what we had before Measure 5 in order to fix the problem. Nothing less will do. He is also right that we have made a beginning, but we have a long long way to go.

The Republican legislatures of the last 16 years neglected their duty to maintain essential services in Oregon. It will not be easy to restore them, but is essential for our children's future that we do.

We must have tax reform that returns the overall state and local revenue to what we had before Measure 5 in order to fix the problem. Nothing less will do. He is also right that we have made a beginning, but we have a long long way to go.

Rep Barnhart, I think that most of the readers of this blog, myself included, agree with your description of the problem. What proposals are you or the Democratic caucus putting on the table to find long term stable funding for higher education?

Along with Sal, I'd be interested in hearing solutions. This problem, it seems to me, goes so deep and has been around so long, I can't see an easy way out.

It's roots go at least as far back as a decision reached in the early 1960s not to merge OSU and UO. Yes, heresy to many alums, but we have two research universities located > 2 hours away from our major urban center, and our major urban center without a major R1.

We also lack major corporate partners, other than Nike (and that only for sports), or perhaps put better, decades of underfunding our universities has also hurt the business sector.

Final comment: a weak university system doesn't just hurt the public schools, it hurts the privates as well. There are lots of academic couples out there, and spousal hires are made much more difficult w/o decent research schools in the state.

Kari,

Actually, Cal didn't "steal" Jeff Tedford; they had the good sense to offer him the top job.

And on a related matter, how bout' your Trojans? I guess that 41-point underdog Stanford was a tad too tough for the boys from Troy?

Looking forward to November 10th......

:(

Back on topic... I'm just riffing here, and I don't know a damn thing about bond financing, but could we float a massive bond measure? I dunno, maybe $1 billion - to be paid back by corporate taxes, with all the money paid out over a decade for capital improvements, research grants, and endowed faculty chairs.

As I see it, the problem isn't whether we can get a one-biennium boost in funding - though we can and should - but whether we can set up a long-term, dedicated funding source that shows prospective faculty, prospective students, and prospective corporate partners that we're serious about a long-term investment.

I don't actually think anyone's confusing Frohnmayers here. Dave is the one that recently spoke at City Club.