Despite an unprecedented show of disapproval from students, the Board of Regents Finance and Facilities Committee unanimously approved a 8.3 percent tuition increase for next year during its monthly meeting Monday.
The decision provides for a 6.5 percent staff and faculty salary increase and sets the stage for a final decision on the matter today at the full Board of Regents meeting at 1 p.m. in the Roberts Room, room 230, of Scholes Hall.
About 20 students attended the meeting, with five speaking about the ramifications of a tuition increase.
UNM student Ben Tucker told the Board of Regents that UNM is heading down a dangerous path by potentially pricing tuition so high that is no longer a viable option for students.
ASUNM Sen. David Padilla, who is running to serve as vice president of the student government, told the committee he is concerned and upset that the Board of Regents will considering the matter without proper student input.
“I didn’t know about this increase until recently, and I know a lot of students who knew nothing about it,” he said.
ASUNM Sen. Steve Aguilar, who also is running to serve as vice president of the student government, told the regents that he respected that certain tuition increases are inherently necessary because of the nature of UNM funding process through the Legislature.
“If we could just keep the increase to single digits, that would really help students a lot,” he said.
Julie Weaks, interim vice president for Business and Finance, then went through a lengthy presentation explaining why University administrators recommended the tuition increase. She told the regents that the University Planning Council, a group that included three student representatives, considered 15 different funding possibilities before deciding on the 8.3 increase.
Weaks said that several factors shaped the decision.
The first was the Legislature’s decision to impose a 5 percent tuition credit, which means it expects the University to use a 5 percent tuition increase to meet its budget needs. The second was the Legislature’s decision not to help pay utilities for this past year, which left UNM to foot the bill for soaring gas prices.
Another reason Weaks pointed to was that the Legislature’s decision to adopted one of UNM’s two proposed formula fixes. The state has not updated the formula used to calculate the actual cost to educate students in 10 years, and Weaks said the formula needs to updated at least every five years.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
“It’s like doing your taxes on 10-year-old tax forms — it just doesn’t balance out and the numbers don’t add up,” she said.
She said the Faculty Senate and Staff Council pushed for equal salary increases, which the University recognized at 6.5 percent.
“We really just have very few options left with so many demands in our budget,” she said. “There’s not a whole lot we can do.”
The regents asked Weaks to explain what the impact deciding not to raise tuition would have on students.
“Basically, we would have to cut back on a lot of student services and would have to cut back salary increases, and those are two options that are not very appealing,” she said. “We have to keep the lights on, and we have to continue to keep quality faculty and staff we cannot replace.”
Regent Richard Toliver said before voting for the increase that the University put in an excruciating amount of effort and asked some difficult questions, but could find no other way to meet its needs than by raising tuition.
“There’s just no wiggle room here,” he said. “We can’t cut services that make this University what it is, so as pain as this decision is, I feel we have to raise tuition.”
Student Regent Eric Anaya thanked the students for voicing their concerns but said he saw no other way to solve the problem.
“We need to go back to the Legislature and make sure it is aware of the impact its funding decisions have on students, but right now the regents’ hands are tied,” he said. “We have to keep the world-class faculty and staff we have because they are a big part of what makes this a great institution.”
Regent Larry Willard said that the faculty, staff and students should be praised for getting such a promising budget on the table, with better funding options than those he has seen in his time on the board.
Following the meeting, Tucker said he was not surprised by the decision but was disappointed by it. He said he was not satisfied with the University’s assertion that the budget could not be trimmed.
“When you spend $1.5 million on expanding a stadium that is never filled with 10,000 more seats, you’re not exactly helping students,” he said.
Tucker said he knew the stadium funding came from a separate legislative bill, but added that it showed that the University needs a more uniform lobbying effort with clear priorities.
“I’m not against athletes,” he said. “I just don’t believe that adding 10,000 seats will help any student-athletes, and it certainly won’t help any students.”
