Based on Gov. Perry's published statements and the interim charges of the Texas Legislature, we know that "proportionality" will be back. TCCTA plans to offer testimony on the subject when hearings are held in various House and Senate committees, leading up to the next Regular Session of the Legislature in January.
In a nutshell, proportionality would fund the health benefits for community college educators based on the state's "share" of the cost in funding these schools. There is more than one way to calculate this percentage. Ironically, as the state's share has decreased, the potential damage of proportionality has gone up for community colleges.
TCCTA has consistently opposed proportionality.
For background information on the governor's veto of these funds last summer, and their restoration last fall, visit here. This site also contains a recent article by TCCTA lobbyist Beaman Floyd.
While we are still months away from formulating the TCCTA legislative program for 2009, below are some points our association makes when discussing proportionality with public officials. You may find them useful in communicating with lawmakers while they are "at home" in the districts, especially when they are campaigning.
You are also encouraged to consult the Guide to Political Participation for useful strategies.
IMPORTANT: Do not use college equipment, e-mail addresses, or stationery when communicating with state policy makers. Also, it is important to always be constructive when communicating with public officials. Be sure to thank them for their hard work on behalf of the people of Texas.
Proportionality “Talking Points" for State Policy MakersIf the state reduces appropriations for community college health benefits, the revenue must be replaced with local funds. Inevitably, this means increased property taxes, higher fees, and diminished instructional support for students. Proportionality would hence jeopardize the Closing the Gaps initiative, a state program that recognizes explicitly the vital role of community colleges.
Proportionality would penalize colleges for subsidizing instructional programs with local revenue—in effect punishing them for good behavior.
Proportionality would not be an issue for community colleges if the state fully funded the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s instructional formula, which is based on actual student enrollment and associated costs.
For many years, community college educators have been hired under an assumption of state responsibility for health benefits. Applying proportionality would “change the rules in the middle of the game.” Any perceived loss of security could hinder recruitment of talented professionals from the private sector, other states, and universities.
Community college educators ask to remain full participants in the Group Benefits Program (GBP) for state and higher education employees under the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS).
Dear Senator Averitt,
Thank you for your dedicated service to your district and state during the past years. In these difficult times, I especially appreciate the devotion to duty that you and your colleague citizen legislators represent.
As a constituent and educator, I wanted to strongly urge you to reject "proportionality" at your Education Committee meeting this Monday. I am currently serving as Vice President of the Faculty Council at McLennan Community College and am an Instructor in the Management Department of the College. I have voted for you since moving to your district and expect your support on this issue. To me, this is the most important vote you will cast this session.
As I am sure you are aware, community colleges are an absolutely vital part of our higher education system. Through them, hundreds of thousands of Texans are provided the crucial technical and college courses which are so necessary to our state’s economic development. No other set of educational institutions so efficiently provide Texas’ population the skills imperative for our continuing competitive advantage in this global economy. As compared to our university partners, we educate a difficult student population at a fraction of the cost. Simply stated, we are the best return on higher education dollars spent by the legislature. There is no debate on this matter among even those legislators and officials who support proportionality.
Additionally, there are principles of justice involved in this issue. First, when the legislature first chartered community colleges it made a covenant– the communities would fund the physical plants and non-instructional costs, the state would fund the instructional costs. The legislature has been backsliding on this promise ever since. To require proportional funding of health insurance is to break this covenant once and for all. It would mean shifting a huge part of the state’s responsibility onto the communities. McLennan Community College District has recently issued more than seventy-five million dollars in bonds to improve its physical plants to better serve the more than nine thousand students enrolled in our college. What message does it send to the residents of our community to further burden them with costs which are a black-letter part of the state’s responsibility? At MCC, this will hurt us badly. It will shift tens of millions of dollars per decade from the state to the community.
The second justice issue involves our student population. We serve the neediest students in the higher education system. We serve the poor, the single mothers, and the minority population which our university partners are simply not able or willing to accommodate. Through our developmental courses, we help students who have not succeeded in developing academic skills in high school to raise themselves to a level sufficient to gain full access to higher education. We do this mission willingly because it is in our state’s and communities’ interest to have more productive citizens and less public assistance recipients, more taxpayers and less prisoners, more middle class working mothers and less underclass welfare moms. What messages do you send to these students if you vote for proportionality? You send some clear ones: “I don’t care as much about you as I do about real university students. It’s not the state’s responsibility to help you help yourself.” What messages do you send those instructors and administrators who serve these students? You send some clear ones: “I don’t care as much about you as I do about real university professionals. The state is going to cut its support for your health care despite the fact that you are the most productive and efficient educators in the higher education system.”
Senator Averitt, I am sure these are not the unjust and unwise messages you wish to send. There are more than two hundred full time faculty members at McLennan Community College that expect your support in this matter. Please, please vote “NO!” on proportionality. It’s not good for Texas.
Sincerely,
M. Blake Hargrove
Faculty Council Vice President
Instructor, Business Management
McLennan Community College
Posted by: M. Blake Hargrove | March 07, 2009 at 01:28 PM