It’s easy to let them baffle you with figures. The percentages, the cuts, the increases, the transfers. No one wants to be an accountant, but as taxpayers we must take note of the decisions made by the NIC Trustees.
Publicly, the NIC Trustees have touted Professional Technical Education (PTE) as one of their top priorities. It’s arguably the best benefit for the community from our community college: People can get educated for jobs that exist here, now. The benefits stay in the community, plus it’s what the community needs and what businesses are asking for. It’s responsible education.
Funding is provided for NIC from both the State of Idaho as well as locally, from grants, tuitions, taxes, and fees. If NIC is to meet its stated goal of fully funding PTE, then it must rely on every source possible to fill the needs of that department, the students, an the community. To do otherwise, sends the wrong message.
The budget at any big organization will be confusing. That’s why they hire experts to manage things. The policy makers, however, set the tone and make the decisions. So rather than prattle about accounting math, I think the question regarding PTE should be a simple one: Did the NIC Trustees choose to fully fund PTE? Given the budget worksheets I have, the answer is no. The PTE budget was cut by $32,911.
Click here to see a PDF copy of the budget worksheet. Note that it shows two dates: April 30, and May 28. The amount was not changed by the Trustees on either date, nor was it debated further during the final budget hearings. The amount was cut.
It’s not that $32,911 is a relatively small amount in a $40,000,000 budget. It’s not that this portion or that portion was increased. It’s that a decision was made. They chose not to put that $32,911 into the program. I want to know why.
I believe the NIC Trustees owe it to the community to explain the decision for not fully funding PTE, specifically to explain the $32,911 reduction shown on the worksheet.
Dan,
Take heart! They increased the expenditure for the Diamond Jubilee Celebration by $25,000. Party on!
I am wondering about the $150,000 reduction in Grant-in-Aid, though. I wonder what that means. The heading suggests cuts in student financial aid. Maybe someone can explain that, too?
Comment by Bill — July 15, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Bill, I called NIC’s PR person, Kent Probst today and asked him about the $150,000 cut from “Grants-in-Aid”. I asked if that is financial aid…yes, he said, it’s the tuition waivers and fee waivers the Board and Admin. give out. I asked why they cut this financial aid, and he went on with some story about how the Board decided that money wasn’t being used (financial aid NOT being used??) I told him there were probably lots of local kids that would appreciate that type of help, and he said that he understood my point but the Board needed to balance their budget. Or words to that effect.
Comment by mary — July 15, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
Oh, and don’t forget that the NIC Board is raising tuition by 7.4%
Comment by mary — July 15, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
The key to the whole thing is the bottom line, literally and figuratively. Look at the PDF. They diverted funding from PTE an scholarships, plus boosted tuition in order to pay for the Education Corridor! That would be fine if they were building classrooms and expanding opportunities. But they’re not. They’re merely developing River Drive and Northwest Blvd. It’s shameful.
NIC’s vision of education for North Idaho: The student as consumer.
Comment by Dan — July 15, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Figures don’t lie but liars figure. And they figure no one can do accounting. Certainly not their board.
Comment by Pariah — July 15, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
This post totally refutes the LIES told in the CDA Press attack letter from C. Wood today. C. Wood lies in print, again. Sad.
Comment by Pariah — July 16, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Hi Dan, it seems like maybe there is some confusion here. But I’m also curious if you read Christie Wood’s explanation? Maybe it’s that you don’t like Christie Wood so you don’t want to hear the information from her? Have you considered asking the budget staff at NIC for clarification? If not, why haven’t you? It seems that if you were interested in the truth wouldn’t that be the easiest way to get it?
What you’re saying is that NIC re-allocating nearly $33,000 is a cut to the Professional Technical Education, yes?
But that doesn’t seem to be at all accurate based on what Wood, who has intimate knowledge of the budget situation and the budget, being on the board, states.
Wood says this (I’ve broken it down and I have confirmed with her that this is accurate):
1) The state Division of Professional Programs sets the Professional Technical Education budgets for community colleges.
2) This state department for the fiscal year 2009 budgeting process allocated an increase of $195,760 to NIC’s PTE budget (from what to what?). That’s a 4.5 percent increase to NIC’s PTE program.
3) NIC’s Board of Trustees increased staff and faculty salaries on an average of between 4.75 percent and 5 percent for the fiscal year 2009 budget.
4) Due to NIC’s Board of Trustees increasing staff and faculty salaries this amount, the overall PTE budget would have been $228,000. $228,000 (what the NIC board wanted to spend on PTE) minus $195,760 (what the state said they could have) = $32,240 (the increase that NIC wanted that couldn’t be afforded).
There is around a $700 discrepancy between what the board wanted and what the state gave them and the re-allocating of funding NIC has in that worksheet. This could be for several reasons. The main one I see is that Wood’s math provided is rounded in some way or is not completely exact. The other is that NIC decided to take an additional $700 for the re-allocation. Or there is another explanation that I’m not aware of and that someone from NIC’s budget office could probably explain.
5) Because the state didn’t provide enough funding, the school’s PTE division made internal changes with maintenance and operations funds to account for the salary increases. Because of this, no programs were cut. In fact new programs were added due to the budget increase. The final budget reflected the increase provided by the state.
So why do you disagree with this? And why haven’t you checked in with the NIC budget office to confirm if you don’t believe Wood, who appears to be the only person on the board willing to reach out to the public and be transparent? One might argue that is the responsible thing to do if you’re truly interested in getting to the truth, right? Is that wrong?
Comment by samtaylor — July 16, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
BUT, BUT, BUT, didn’t Ms. Bell just get a raise in pay?
Now there are cuts?
Why are there raises when costs need cutting?
Why do we, the tax payer, have to pay for the speculators that made recent purchase of property on River Road?
So many questions and NO answers!
Comment by concerned citizen — July 17, 2008 @ 11:10 am