Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 18, 1990 TAG: 9004180489
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But one excellent amendment, to block a power grab by senior Democratic legislators, may run into opposition. And another, to cap tuition increases at state colleges and universities, ought at least to give pause.
The power grab is a budget provision naming the localities that are to receive 46 new positions funded for prosecutors' and court clerks' offices. Because the measure was not adopted separately, but rather as part of the huge budget bill, Wilder could not veto it outright. But if the assembly agrees to his amendment, the effect will be the same as a veto.
The odor given off by the provision's legislative history is no less unpleasant than the odor given off by the provision itself. It was a last-minute deal, arranged behind closed doors by the six Democrats on the conference committee that reconciled differences in the House and Senate versions of the budget.
Traditionally, the state Compensation Board has determined where such new positions would go. Perhaps on occasion the board has erred. But the idea at least is to allot deputy clerks, assistant prosecutors and the like according to priorities based on demonstrated need.
In its best light, which is none too good, the provision reflects an attempt by a select handful of legislators to micromanage the commonwealth. In its worst light, it reflects patronage politics. In either light, it is unsightly and unhealthy, and should be consigned to the toxic-waste dump.
The cap on tuition increases - also in the form of a proposed budget-bill amendment - addresses a serious issue, skyrocketing tuition at state colleges and universities.
If that continues indefinitely, the law of diminishing returns eventually will kick in. At some point, the institutions could find they've priced themselves out of the market, particularly for higher-paying students from out of state. The could reach the point that further tuition increases would cut rather than boost revenues.
Already, higher-than-inflation tuition increases in recent years have been a likely contributor to the widening gap Most of Wilder's amendments are minor; if history is a guide, all - minor or substantial - will be approved. But one excellent amendment, to block a power grab by senior Democratic legislators, may run into opposition. And another, to cap tuition increases at state colleges and universities, ought at least to give pause. between white and black college-going rates.
What Wilder's amendment fails to address, however, is the equally serious issue of Virginia's commitment to a first-rate system of higher education.
That system accounts for 16 percent of the state budget; in the state's response this year to a drop in revenue-growth projections for the 1990-92 biennium, however, higher education took 42 percent of the cutback in initial spending projections. Virtually level funding through the '80s, even before accounting for inflation, has put Virginia near the bottom in the South in per-student state support of public four-year colleges and universities.
The governor's amendment seems acceptably mild. The complex formula still allows most state colleges and universities to impose the tuition increases they had in mind anyway. The big hit for the colleges came earlier, with the reductions in projected appropriations.
Gov. Wilder and the General Assembly are sending a message to Virginia higher education to tighten its collective belt. But they need also to hear the return message: If their national reputation is to be maintained, Virginia's colleges and universities must get the money somewhere.
by CNB