New Jersey Association of State Colleges and Universities committed to college opportunity for new jersey citizens

150 West State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608                       609-989-1100     609-989-7017 fax                   njascu@njascu.org

Press Statement
October 25, 2007

ASCU Statement on State Commission of Investigation (SCI) Report

Darryl G. Greer, Executive Director
Paul R. Shelly, Director of Communications & Marketing

Autonomous governance by nonpartisan trustee boards remains the key to state college/university accountability.  Our nine institutions have made great documented progress because of it.

We think the recently released report actually underscores the value of autonomy and nonpartisan governance in serving New Jersey .

Beyond old news regarding UMDNJ, the report seems to document problems with shortcomings of state government.

As for problems or concerns cited, we will leave it to our member institutions to respond to the specific allegations, and we point you to letters in the appendix from officials at Rowan and Ramapo, as well as their news statements today.

Some of the recommendations belie the SCI’s own conclusions: they include a broad framework of command-and-control measures that would result in the single biggest state run higher education bureaucracy in the nation and set higher education back decades.  This would open, not close, the door to partisan interference.

In their entirety, we view these recommendations as inappropriate and unworkable, as well as contrary to our studies of how New Jersey citizens want their colleges managed.

However, we do not necessarily disagree with all of the recommendations of the report.  We will be looking at them carefully – including innovations for keeping trustee appointments nonpartisan and in the best interests of the institutions, improving on auditing capacity.

We will be looking at recommendations carefully with two principles in mind:

ASCU, earlier this year, in the context of New Jersey ’s fiscal and accountability crises, began its New Jersey College Promise initiative to see what our institutions can do collectively to increase access, accountability, affordability, and transparency. Earlier this week, and in September, we met with a panel of national higher education experts and business leaders that we formed to allow colleges to take the lead in this area.  We will make a report of their ideas available before the end of this calendar year.  (To learn more about the NJ College Promise, visit www.njcollegepromise.com.)

It is also important to point out that our institutions, as a set, have been rated third in the nation for productivity compared to similar institutions in the other 49 states ( National Center for Higher Education Management Systems [NCHEMS])

We look forward to working with the Governor and legislature on an agenda to move higher education forward.  

Rowan University Response

The State Commission of Investigation's new report on the public universities and colleges of New Jersey, colorfully titled Vulnerable to Abuse, is itself a sad example of how a once-trusted organization has become "vulnerable to abuse."

The Mission Statement for the Commission says that:

“In order to achieve this vital mission [as fact-finders, not advocates] effectively, fairly, and impartially, we pursue our work independently, within a framework untainted by politics, self-interest, or favoritism.”

But this most recent report falls well short of that standard.  Without appendices, it is 122 double-spaced pages.  Some 32 of those pages—more than 25% of the entire report—are recommendations.  Another 8 pages represent the so-called “executive summary” that in reality more closely resembles the opening argument in a trial.  It is one-sided, colorfully and even inflammatorily worded, and is one long diatribe uncontaminated with any facts.

Another large section of the report rehashes the well known, and admittedly very disturbing, set of allegations regarding activities at UMDNJ.  Some 10 pages are devoted to the set of circumstances surrounding the hiring of one individual at Rutgers .  A section luridly titled Unbridled Borrowing devotes 8 pages to the level of indebtedness incurred by the state colleges and universities for the construction of academic buildings and residence halls.  (This attack conveniently ignores the fact that it has been the state’s failure—and New Jersey stands alone in this regard—to provide any significant capital construction funds for the past 20 years.  It also ignores the fact that the public campuses’ bond ratings are substantially higher than are those of most of the private colleges in New Jersey , and of the state’s own bond rating!)

I provided a 9 page letter to the SCI in response to the so-called “facts” uncovered at Rowan.  We were told that, although my letter was received well within the 15 days allowed for a response, the report had already gone to the printers, and the only impact my letter had was to be attached as one of a large number of appendices, reproduced in a font size that defies easy reading.  It was obviously more important for the SCI to finalize its 2 ½ year study NOW than to get its facts right.

Given the manner and content of the report, it is impossible to avoid concluding that the SCI started its investigation with the outcome of recentralizing control over higher education in Trenton clearly in mind.  This was no objective collecting of facts and data, but a study directed to uncovering (and, where necessary, inventing) facts that supported a previously drawn conclusion, and ignoring facts that pointed in a different direction.

And yet the SCI still ends up on the horns of a dilemma.  It argues that the colleges and universities are easy prey for political interference, either through the appointment of trustees with the wrong talents or for the wrong reasons, or through inappropriate solicitations of political donations.  (Incidentally, on that latter point, I have received many routine invitations to political fund raisers over the years, I have always declined because of the need for university presidents to be studiously non-partisan, and I have NEVER received even a hint of reproach or threat from any elected official or candidate or their representatives.)  Paradoxically, the SCI determines that the best remedy to avoid political interference is to strengthen Trenton ’s control over higher education!

New Jersey has had experience with a strongly centralized system of higher education, and a strongly decentralized system.  The evidence is readily available to anyone in determining which system worked better.  ALL of the evidence is on the side of a decentralized system.

Two quick pieces of evidence:  Currently, five public state colleges and universities in New Jersey are in the top tier of U.S. News rankings, and three of those are in the top five public universities in the northeast (TCNJ, Rutgers – Camden , and Rowan).  No Pennsylvania public occupies such an elevated position, and only one New York public (Geneseo) does.  New Jersey is decentralized; Pennsylvania and New York are strongly centralized.

Second, in 1992 Henry Rowan pledged $100 million to what was then Glassboro State College.  We started an engineering college in 1996, opened an award-winning building in 1998, graduated our first class in 2000, and in 2007, out of 172 master’s level universities nationally, Rowan’s engineering program ranks 16^th.  Chemical Engineering ranks 2^nd—nationally!  That distinction was achieved entirely through private funds.

No one can take exception with the need for any entity that receives state funds to be transparent and accountable regarding the use of such funds.  Each year, every state college and university in New Jersey is obliged to provide an outside audit of its finances to the state—and that is only right and proper.  We are also all subject to extensive audits at any time by the state—and that is also only right and proper.  We continue to look for ways in which we can continue to earn the support and trust of our citizens through repeated refinements and improvements in our practices.  Rowan has hired an outside firm to examine all of our business practices, and to recommend improvements where appropriate, in an effort to ensure that we are extracting maximum value for the precious dollars our citizens invest in us.

We do not claim to be perfect.  We will not resist having conversations about ways we can improve.  But to ignore 13 years of steady progress and growing reputations, and turn the clock back by creating new layers of expensive bureaucracy and impediments at a time when being nimble and responsive is the only way to get ahead is to send New Jersey higher education spiraling backwards.

The SCI has done New Jersey higher education, and the citizens of our state, a disservice with this biased and unfair report.  It deserves to be ignored.

Montclair State University Response

The SCI report reaches broad and sweeping conclusions about the restructuring of higher education in New Jersey , arguing for greatly increased governmental control and oversight of all of the state’s institutions.  These sweeping conclusions do not appear to be justified by the facts because the report is entirely deficient in taking absolutely no notice whatsoever of the extraordinary benefits that have accrued to the citizens of New Jersey from the current structure.  Certainly, for the nine state colleges and universities, the report fails entirely to note that these colleges have flourished and succeeded in ways that were never before possible under the former conditions of bureaucratic and burdensome state control.  They are educating many more students in better programs, with better faculty, facilities and equipment, and they are successfully granting many more degrees to students in areas important to the state’s economy.  In arriving at its recommendations, the report fails in any adequate way to account for the fact that the current autonomy has undeniably, and at long last, freed the state colleges and universities to be in a position to help themselves and to begin to catch up with the rest of the nation, even in the continued environment of inadequate state support. 

In the only section of the report where Montclair State University is briefly mentioned, the SCI indicts the colleges for the sin of taking on debt to provide the facilities necessary to the education of New Jersey ’s students.  It does so without once pointing to the critical and compelling fact that the reason the institutions’ have borrowed is because of the state’s historic failure over the past century, not just since the 1994 autonomy legislation, to provide adequate facilities for its college students.  Only since autonomy, have the institutions had the authority and ability to provide these critical facilities for their students, given the absence of appropriate state action.  Nor does the SCI point out that, even despite all the building, New Jersey’s state colleges and universities have still not caught up to the quantity and quality of facilities on comparable campuses across the country.  

For an investigative agency, such as the SCI, to come up with a wholesale and massive plan for the restructuring of higher education, would seem to be going well beyond its area of expertise.  While I would agree that improvements can be made in New Jersey higher education, I don’t think the state gets to the best thinking on the subject through this type of investigatory mode and without formal and sustained consultation with the higher education community and the many respected people who have significant expertise in this field.

Ramapo College of New Jersey Response

Ramapo College received the report from the State of New Jersey Commission of Investigation (SCI) this morning and will review it in detail. It is noteworthy that after several years of investigation, during which the College provided over 15,000 pages of documents, there is not a single allegation of impropriety by anyone at Ramapo College .

It is clear that any move to create a bureaucracy would be both expensive and ill-advised.  Since the elimination of the former Department of Education, Ramapo College has flourished under the governance of its trustees, doubling student enrollment, doubling its endowment and significantly enhancing its facilities. In that regard, it is unfortunate that the report’s reference to our level of indebtedness makes no reference to its fundamental cause—the lack of capital funding from the State of New Jersey .

Richard Stockton College of New Jersey Response

The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey has long been a proponent and a leader in transparency and nonpartisan governance of institutions of higher education.

We are studying the findings of the State Commission of Investigation Report released today and will seriously consider  suggestions that  advance the College mission.  However,  it should be clear that we believe citizen-run Boards of Trustees do an excellent job of governing the state colleges and universities  in the most responsible manner.   We do not believe the creation of an expensive, state government agency is in the best interest of students, parents or taxpayers. 

We look forward to a closer examination of the SCI’s report, and we will work with the other state colleges and universities to maintain the recent advances in higher education that have made our institutions among the best in the nation.

The College of New Jersey Response

I received a copy of the 189-page State Commission of Investigation report on New Jersey ’s higher education institutions late this morning and am in the process of studying it now. There are, however, a few preliminary points I wish to make even after a cursory examination of the document.
 
I believe fervently that institutions should operate in a manner that is both accountable and transparent; several recommendations to that end are included within this report. It is interesting to note that, in fact, TCNJ has already implemented many of these very measures, including the creation of an audit committee within our Board of Trustees, adoption of accounting practices in keeping with those recommended by Sarbanes-Oxley for publically traded companies, the certification of financials by the president and treasurer, and establishment of both capital facilities and capital asset-renewal plans—to name a few. These are just some of the components of what we feel is a comprehensive and evolving effort to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of operations at TCNJ.

There are two points of the report to which I must object.

First, I take serious exception to the blame being placed on New Jersey ’s state institutions for the rising cost of higher education and the levels of debt the institutions have incurred. Colleges should be judicious with their resources and operate transparently, but the cause of the increased tuition rates at the state colleges over the years is the dramatic decline in state financial support for higher education. The facts are that higher education receives a much smaller percentage of the state budget than it did a decade ago, that state appropriations have remained stagnant as institutional costs have risen, and that the state has not passed a facilities bond for higher education since the 1980s. It is true that like several other state institutions, TCNJ has invested heavily in first class facilities and thus incurred debt.  We did so because we thought it was the responsible thing to do as educators. Had we not made these investments, 19-year old science labs and classrooms would be out of date and unable to accommodate the type of work currently being done there. Such a failure to invest would have left our students under-prepared for their professions or graduate study, and the state lacking the educated work force that it needs.

Second, I am particularly disturbed by any implication drawn from a couple of anecdotes about political interference in trustee selection that could be extrapolated to find fault with our current Board of Trustee members. We are extraordinarily fortunate at The College of New Jersey to have a Board comprised of dedicated and talented individuals who devote unbelievable time and energy to providing for the welfare of the College and its students. They have offered me and our institution strong oversight and support throughout the years and are a primary reason we have flourished as an institution. Under their direction, we have seen our graduation rate jump from 56 percent (in the last year before the autonomy legislation) to 86 percent today. Our curriculum has been transformed to add depth and breadth to our students’ knowledge bases, and we are now regarded as both a top-tier competitive college and one of the best values in higher education nationally. I cannot overstate the roles our Trustees have played in these accomplishments.

The Board of Trustees and I look forward to participating in this important discussion about the future of higher education in New Jersey . We seek to enhance those very values of transparency and accountability that the SCI report purports to support while, at the same time, we seek to do so without creating unproductive bureaucracies that would limit the progress of TCNJ.

About the College

The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) is a highly selective institution that has earned national recognition for its commitment to excellence. During the years since its founding in 1855, TCNJ has become an exemplar of the best in public, undergraduate higher education and is consistently acknowledged as one of the top comprehensive colleges in the nation. TCNJ currently is ranked as one of the 75 “Most Competitive” schools in the nation by Barron's Profiles of American Colleges is rated the No. 1 public institution in the northern region of the country by U.S. News and World Report, and has been named by Kiplinger's Personal Finance as one of the top educational values in the country. TCNJ was also awarded, in 2006, a Phi Beta Kappa chapter, an honor shared by less than 10 percent of colleges and universities nationally.

William Paterson University Response