Stanton
Calvert
The member institutions of The Texas A&M University System depend heavily on critically important basic operational funding that is set by the Texas Legislature when it meets biennially each January to June during odd-numbered years, as well as periodically in special sessions as called by the governor. The 80th Regular Session of the Legislature convened Jan. 9.
Here, Stanton Calvert, System vice chancellor for governmental relations, shares a few observations on the last session and some of the factors that will affect A&M System’s prospects during the Session.
How does your office help the chancellor and institutions to prepare and position themselves to advantage for each session?
My office and the state governmental relations team have the responsibility to furnish the chancellor and CEOs information that provides them perspective and context; that is, perspective on the policy and fiscal issues that are of concern and interest to the executive and legislative leaders and their staffs. If we in the GR Office do our jobs properly, the chancellor and CEOs are better equipped to frame their educational, research and service initiatives and needs in context with the priorities of the state’s elected policy makers.
Of course, this means that a great deal of internal review and analysis must take place BEFORE the system’s legislative program is ready to submit to the Board and the Legislature. In fact, we begin the early preparations for each session during the last hours of the prior session, because as each session draws to a close, we know then that some of our system’s funding and policy initiatives will probably not be included in the appropriations bill and that time has expired on some legislative bills.
However, there is somewhat of a “cooling off” period following each session and the formal start of the next budget cycle doesn’t actually begin in earnest until about a year prior to each session.
So, in the late winter/early spring of each even-numbered year, we begin to ramp up for the next session, which means an ever-increasing amount of time and attention is demanded from the system’s and institutions’ budget and finance officials, as well as from the chancellor, university presidents and agency directors.
Early on prior to the session, and intensely during, the Capitol legislative and executive offices require a great deal of analytical and supporting information from the System Offices and our institutions. And, it is very much in our interest to provide it timely, accurately, completely and cheerfully, for while we are barred by statute from advocating for or against a bill, elected officials want to make good policy and budget decisions and thankfully they often ask us to tell the impact of their proposals on our institutions.
During the session and throughout the interim, the Governmental Relations Office has the responsibility to act as a “one-stop shop” for interface between the Capitol offices and A&M System institutions to make sure that the System and its members are well coordinated and responsive to Capitol officials.
All the members of the Governmental Relations team and I take this responsibility seriously and try to always carry out this duty so that the programs and services of our system and its members are well understood and appreciated for their valuable contributions.
How did we fare in the last session?
The A&M System and its institutions were treated fairly by the legislature last session. Specifically, general revenue appropriations for 2006-2007 were in line with the appropriations to the other systems’ academic and health-related institutions.
Likewise, from 1996 to 2007, our institutions received an overall funding increase of 31.4 percent, which was a few percentage points above the increase received by other university systems.
During the last session, formula funding comprised 77 percent of the funding appropriated to all general academic institutions and 58 percent of the funding for all health science institutions. Funding for special items, institutional enhancement, and Tuition Revenue Bond (TRB) debt service typically makes up the balance of the remaining general revenue appropriations to higher education institutions.
On the other hand, programmatic funding for the A&M System research and service agencies is largely based on specific proposals rather than by formulas. During the last session, agency-specific programmatic funding comprised 88 percent of the total general revenue appropriated for the A&M System agencies as a group.
What are the major priorities for the current session?
While the Texas economy is strong, and the comptroller has projected a healthy surplus going into the 80th Session, the legislature has already committed to a number of other urgent funding demands, including the use of general revenue to take the place of the property tax cut. These prior demands will affect the prospects for higher education appropriations this session.
We do know that about $900 million will be needed just to maintain current services across the A&M System. These include:
- Restoring the 10 percent non-formula reductions mandated in the budget instructions from the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker’s offices. SB1 as filed—the base bill for the appropriations decision process—as of Jan. 26 proposed the funding to restore the 10 percent reductions.
- Increasing formula funds to cover enrollment growth. SB1 as filed proposes to fund enrollment growth.
- Funding of TRB debt service for capital projects approved in the third called session last spring. SB1 as filed proposes to fund all TRB debt service, including the eligible projects in HB153 passed in the fourth called session in the spring.
- Funding to cover increases in health care costs covered by higher education health insurance. SB1 as filed addresses this in part.
- Funding the statutorily mandated increase for the Higher Education Fund, which provides some capital resources for six A&M System institutions that are not eligible to participate in the Permanent University Fund. SB1 as filed proposes to fund this increase.
- Other issues including utilities cost increases, built-in costs of doing business (inflation), and needed increased funding of TEXAS Grants and other financial aid.
In addition, other base funding needs include:
- Continued funding of the programs initiated by Prairie View A&M University under the State of Texas’ Commitment to the Office of Civil Rights.
- $6 million in bridge funding for new students in the Texas A&M Health Science Center’s new Pharmacy School. SB1 as filed proposes this funding.
- $20 million for class size expansion of the Texas A&M Health Science Center’s College of Medicine.
- $10.2 million for the System center in San Antonio and $10.8 million for the System center in Central Texas (Fort Hood/Killeen area).
- $20 million for the final installment of Texas A&M University’s faculty reinvestment program.
- $2.8 million for the special maritime mission related programs of Texas A&M University at Galveston.
- At least $7.4 million at current rates to achieve equity funding for agency infrastructure located in Brazos County, plus an unknown amount to achieve parity with academic rates for the next biennium.
Institution-specific funding requests among System institutions total more than $180 million for new and/or enhanced special items, including:
- $90 million for the universities;
- $17 million for the Texas A&M System Health Science Center; and
- $72 million for agencies, including funding for Texas Task Force 1, a Statewide Wildfire Protection Plan, and new biofuels initiatives of the Agriculture and Engineering Programs.
What factors will contribute to our success during the legislative process?
Success depends on the combined, coordinated and focused efforts of the Board of Regents, the chancellor, the presidents and their principal staffs.
We need to make sure our institutions stay on message with accurate, responsive and timely information responses that are well coordinated—in other words, that we “get it right” in our interactions with members of the legislature. In addition, we need to maintain close and trustworthy working relationships with a number of other constituencies, including other university systems, the staffs of the legislative and executive offices and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
It’s the responsibility of the Governmental Relations Office to bring it all together and get the right information to the right members of the legislature at the right time.
In addition to these responsive and relationship elements, one other element is vitally important in carrying out our legislative work: good judgment. This quality, intangible as it may be, means knowing when to push, when to lay back, when to change tactics, and whom to contact, because the legislative process is both slow-moving and lightning fast at decision time—and it is unforgiving, too.
What are your staff members’ areas of focus, and how is their work structured?
Governmental Relations staff members focus primarily on the needs and goals of their assigned institutions, dividing their time and duties between their “home” institution(s) and their offices in Austin at the Hirshfeld-Moore House.
Between sessions, the balance of work lies more heavily within their institutions and with legislators out in their districts, and during the session, the balance shifts sharply back to Austin.
In addition to myself, the governmental relations team members and their areas of institutional and policy/budget focus include:
Lauri Deviney— statewide/Systemwide issues related to the state budget, appropriations and formula, tuition and fees, human resources and benefits, and special assignments;
Greg Garcia—Texas A&M International University, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, South Texas and border issues;
Frank Jackson—Prairie View A&M University as well as issues related to recruitment and retention issues, and the Office of Civil Rights;
Michael O’Quinn—Texas A&M University and Texas A&M University at Galveston, as well as academic, student, and tuition and fee issues;
Cathy Reiley—the Engineering Program and related agencies and issues, including transportation, workforce development, environmental, technology and emergency response;
David Rejino—Texas A&M University-Commerce, Texas A&M-Texarkana, Tarleton State University, West Texas A&M University, and Systemwide issues relating to general operations, human resources and benefits, construction and facilities;
Courtney Trolinger—the Agriculture Program and related agencies and issues relating to water and public health;
Jenny Young—Texas A&M System Health Science Center, including public policy issues relating to medical, dental, public health and biomedical research.
Providing integral assistance as support staff in the Austin office are Tamara Batts, staff assistant; Justin Cochran, clerk; Jalna Gayle, assistant to the vice chancellor; and Teresa Marquez, administrative secretary.
