University News Desk
"Live @ Morgan"
Media News
April 30, 2002

Rawlings Analysis Flawed and Misleading

During my thirty-one 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 Rawlings1 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. If Rawlings' analysis compared Morgan to each campus of USM as he should have, the difference in the percentage increase between Morgan and the USM institution for which the $15 million was earmarked, would have been enormous. 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