EmailEmail
PrintPrint
Public or private: State-related universities can't have it both ways
Friday, February 29, 2008

One of the sour notes in Gov. Ed Rendell's budget is his proposal to give the four state-related universities a funding increase of only 1.5 percent, less than the rate of inflation.

Pitt, Penn State, Temple and Lincoln universities responded predictably at a House Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday, which is to say with deep disappointment and threats of tuition hikes.

While higher education deserves adequate state funding and the governor's spokesman said Mr. Rendell may negotiate, we think the universities stand a greater chance of scoring more public dollars if they'd act more like public institutions.

Penn State, for instance, just lost a five-year battle to keep secret the salary of football coach Joe Paterno. Pitt was not forthcoming in explaining the huge cost overruns in the construction of the Petersen Events Center. The new Pennsylvania open records law will require much disclosure from the 14 state-owned universities (Indiana, Slippery Rock, Edinboro, etc.), but little from those that are state-related.

Pennsylvania's four state-related schools have handsome endowments, operate apart from the state and rely on the public for a slim share of total funding. In raw dollars, the $600 million in annual state subsidies shared by the four universities is enormous, but, even so, Pitt derives 11 percent of its funding from state taxpayers while Penn State gets 9 percent.

The universities are happy to cite these percentages and strut their independence when asked to make a public accounting. But when it's appropriations time in Harrisburg, the schools trek hat-in-hand to the Capitol and argue the need for the public's generosity.

This is not to say that Pitt, Penn State, Temple and Lincoln aren't valued education centers, engines of jobs and commerce and forums for innovation and ideas. They are all that and more.

But if they want to make the case for more public dollars, they stand to win over more hearts and wallets by showing more fealty to the public. That means greater and more routine disclosure.

First published on February 29, 2008 at 12:00 am