MORGAN
WAS EXTRAORDINARILY SUCCESSFUL
The university received $25.1 million in new capital
funds — more than any other higher education institution in the
state.
While you
would not realize it from the information provided by Morgan State University
and many of its students, this legislative session was extraordinarily
successful for Morgan State University.
The State of Maryland is providing over $57 million in operating funds
to Morgan State University for fiscal year 2003, an increase of 9.6
percent over last year—substantially more than the 4.2 percent
average increase for the University System of Maryland institutions.
This includes $2.65 million in enhancement funds related to the Office
for Civil Rights Agreement and $1 million in additional funds for deferred
maintenance.
The university received $25.1 million in new capital funds — more
than any other higher education institution in the state — in an
extremely tight budget in which over $100 million worth of projects
were deferred due to lack of funds.
The state provided $18.4 million to construct a new comumunications
center and pedestrian bridge on campus, a building that is greatly needed
and was identified by the university as its top priority in the capital
budget this year. Funding was also provided to equip the science research
facility and greenhouse so the building can open next year.
In addition, funds were approved for a steam boiler replacement project
that the university recently identified as critical, although it was
not in the Capital Improvement Program.
The only significant item the university requested that was not funded
by the General Assembly was Phase II planning funds for the new library.
These funds were not provided because the university did not complete
Phase I, particularly the necessary geo-technical studies of the proposed
site, as required by the General Assembly last year.
The geo-technical studies, including test borings, were required before
proceeding to Phase II of the project because the site selected by the
university for the new Library, the existing site of the Murphy Fine
Arts Building, has had major water problems, thus making the site's
viability unclear.
In addition, the geo-technical studies will assist in developing the
project's total cost estimate by identifying additional costs related
to constructing on a site with known water problems.
Last year, Morgan State University officials assured the budget committees
that the geo-technical studies would be completed before additional
funds were requested for the project. That did not occur.
The university submitted a partial geo-technical study on March 15,
2002, nearly two months after the funding request was received in the
capital budget. The geo-technical study was only partially complete
because the required test borings and other geo-technical . surveys
cannot be completed until Murphy is demolished.
In a letter dated March 15, 2002, President Earl Richardson wrote to
the budget committee chairs, "Demolition of the old Fine Arts Building
is currently underway and is expected to be completed by the end of
March." However, to this day the demolition, which was originally
scheduled for October 2001, has not yet begun. The university now says
that it will begin demolishing the building this month, a process that
can take anywhere from two to five months.
Given that the project is at least nine months behind schedule and the
university has not fulfilled the legislative requirements to receive
additional funding, the Phase n planning funds were not provided this
year. However, recognizing the importance of this project, the General
Assembly, under my leadership, included language in the capital budget
that authorizes the remaining $3.1 million in planning funds and $48.9
million in construction funds for the new library in fiscal year 2004.
This assures the university and its students that the project will receive
state funding next year. In addition, the state will reimburse the university
for any funds the university expends during this fiscal year on the
project.
I think it's important for you to know the decision process for capital
projects in the House Appropriations Committee, which begins with the
four standing subcommittees. The initial decisions about capital projects
in higher education are made by the seven-member subcommittee on education
and economic development. For your information, both the chairman and
vice chairman of the subcommittee are African American and are graduates
of historically Black institutions, and a third member is an African
American who represents Baltimore City. This decision process is clearly
vastly different than it was in the 1960s and early 1970s when student
protests might have been warranted.
I applaud the student expressions in Annapolis and in Baltimore supporting
the need for a new library at Morgan State. I challenge the students
to use the educational opportunities provided them at Morgan State,
which will be enhanced by the new library, with equal zeal and fervor.
Great things are planned for the university, and I believe the numbers
speak for themselves. Morgan State University received an extraordinary
level of state funding for operating and capital this year, and a commitment
for significant capital funding next year. By any measure that should
be viewed as successful.
Howard
P. Rawlings
Chairman,
House Committee on
Appropriations
|
RAWLINGS
ANALYSIS FLAWED AND MISLEADING
Contrary to Delegate Rawlings,
two campuses of USM received more than Morgan. One campus received $59
million and the other received $44.5 million.
During my
31 years in the Maryland General Assembly, I have witnessed numerous
demonstrations involving people from all walks of life. They have championed
a variety of causes, some important and some not so important. Some
demonstrations have been orderly and respectful, others have been disruptive
and ugly.
But the recent demonstration by Morgan State University students was,
by the strictest standards, a model for the world to emulate. Those
young people were focused, articulate, respectful, very organized and
well disciplined.
There is now a move afoot to discredit the students by claiming that
they are spreading misinformation about the new library at Morgan State
University. The most public example is contained in an April 15,2002
letter from Delegate Howard P. Rawlings, Chair of the House Appropriations
Committee, to friends and supporters and later submitted to local newspapers
as an editorial. As majority leader of the Maryland State Senate, and
as one who cares deeply about the lessons young people take from my
example, I cannot in good conscience allow this attack against the students
to go unchallenged.
Chairman Rawlings makes his claim of misinformation by relying on what
appears at first glance to be an elaborate analysis of State funding
for Morgan State University (MSU) compared to campuses of the University
System of Maryland (USM).
In reality, the analysis is little more than smoke and mirrors. It has
far too many flaws and inconsistencies to be credible. To address each
of the flaws would require much more than the space provided for this
column. But it is important that I mention the pivotal ones.
In calculating Fiscal Year 2003 percentage increases for institutions
of higher education, the Rawlings analysis represents a departure from
the usual method of calculation used by the Office of the Governor and
the Maryland General Assembly. Using the usual method, the Report of
the Joint Budget Committee shows the general fund percentage increase
for Morgan, St. Mary’s and the University System of Maryland to
be 2.6 percent. The Legislature’s 2.6 percent is in stark contrast
to Rawlings’ higher percentage increase of 9.6 percent for Morgan
and 4.2 percent for the University System of Maryland.
Even if one accepts Rawlings’ method of considering all funding
available to an institution of higher education regardless of the State
agency to which the funding was initially appropriated in the State
budget, he should have been consistent. Instead, he selectively chooses
other funding to be included in his budget total for Morgan State, but
he excludes the same type of funding for the University System of Maryland.
As an illustration, $1 million in Tobacco Tax funds for one-time projects
was included by Rawlings in the calculation of Morgan; budget increase.
However, he excluded $15 million of one-time tobacco money from the
USM budget totals.
The exclusion of that $15 million dramatically understates the percentage
increase for USM. Also, Rawlings includes in his calculation of budget
increases for Fiscal Year 2003 other agency special purpose funds authorized
in previous years that were intended to be continued for Fiscal Year
2003. This error alone inflates the actual percentage increase at Morgan
by an additional 2 percent.
Chairman Rawlings was just as creative in his attempts to show that
Morgan did better in the capital budget than any other campus in the
State. The fact of the matter is that $200.4 million was authorized
this year in general obligation bonds for higher education facilities.
Morgan received $21 million. Contrary to Delegate Rawlings, two campuses
of USM received more than Morgan. One campus received $49 million and
the other one received $44.5 million.
Clearly the Rawlings analysis serves only to divert attention from the
real issue of the library. The library is already 10 years behind schedule
and continued delay further frustrates and unfairly disadvantages Morgan
students. Despite what Chairman Rawlings says, there is no justifiable
reason for continued delay of the project. As tight as the capital budget
was, money was not the issue, nor was concern over the possibility of
water problems on the proposed construction site (old Fine Arts building).
State planning experts in the Department of Budget and Management and
the Department of General Services advised the Legislature that test
borings around the periphery of the old Fine Arts building had been
done and it would be appropriate to move ahead with the second year
of planning for the new library. The Senate which initially raised the
water issue a year ago agreed and approved the $3.1 million for the
library. There is no question in my mind the House would have also approved
the funding had Chairman Rawlings not objected so strenuously. Incidentally,
Morgan’s delay in razing the old Fine Arts facility was completely
explainable. The old facility could not be vacated until the new Fine
Arts building was completed.
When all is said and done, the Morgan students are right. Planning funds
for the new library should have been provided this year. It is unfortunate
that they were forced to demonstrate in Annapolis for something as important
as a library and involving a relatively small amount of money. For us
to then ostracize the students is unconscionable. We should instead
embrace the students and applaud them for their foresight and courage.
Clarence
W. Blount
Majority Leader
Maryland State Senate
|
