Compliance with USM Textbook Policy: May 1 Publication

The Board of Regents passed the USM Policy on Textbook Affordability Measures at the February 13 meeting held at Towson University.  One of the more progressive portions requires all textbook selections to be finalized and published by May 1 for fall semesters and December 1 for spring semesters in II.1 of the policy.  This allows both for early access for students and assurances for the bookstore on which books will be used in the coming semester.  This advance knowledge allows bookstores to purchase textbooks at a higher price during buy-back.  The policy reads (III.10.II.1):

All University System of Maryland degree-granting institutions shall post on the institutional website ISBN, title, author, publisher, and edition for required course material as soon as faculty members and the bookstore have finalized the textbook selection but no later than May 1 for the fall semester and December 1 for the spring semester.  In the case that a course has not been assigned a faculty member by the given deadline, textbook selection shall be conducted and communicated to enrolled students expeditiously upon selection of the materials.

As of May 1, today, 7 USM institutions have complied with the USM policy.  They include:

• University of Maryland, Baltimore County
  
• University of Maryland, College Park
  
• Bowie State University
  
• Towson University
  
• Salisbury University
  
• University of Baltimore
• University of Maryland, Baltimore

 Four institutions have not complied with the USM Policy:

• University of Maryland University College
• Coppin State University
• University of Maryland, Eastern Shore
• Frostburg State University
  

I have been in contact with USM officials on this issue.  Preliminary discussion yields that the USM is under the impression that the newly passed state legislation "trumps" the USM Policy in this area.  The state legislation requires that universities publish textbook selections on their websites three weeks after the original selection by the professor and one week after for other bookstores.  There is no specific drop-date as in the USM policy.

But there are a few problems with the USM intepretation.  First, the USM Policy should be in effect already becuase it goes into implementation with the textbook selection process for classes in Fall 2009.  Second, and more importantly, the USM policy goes further than the state legislation, in setting a drop-date deadline (May 1 for fall and December 1 for spring) and requires immediate publication upon finalization of the order.

Because compliance with the USM policy does not preclude compliance with state law, why cannot the USM policy be followed?  The language goes further than the state legislation.  More details and updates to come...

Swine Flu Updates

With significantly more cases confirmed in the United States confirmed, the World Health Organization and the United States government have raised warning levels for the issue of the Swine Flu.  Of note, the levels are NOT at the level of a pandemic.  The characteristics of "person-to-person" transmission and the transmission across a number of nations are concerning.  So, what to do?

Here is a link to the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention website (www.cdc.gov/swineflu).  This website provides basic information and explanation of the current concerns.  

Swine Flu

The Swine Flu has hit a number of places in North America, including Mexico and New York.  Eight cases have been identified, as of Sunday, in New York.  With a number of USM students traveling to Mexico for spring break, the flu is a legitimate threat in Maryland.  The USM has an Emergency Preparedness Policy that delegates the coordination and planning in such emergencies to institutions.


Institutions have been asked to meet and discuss plans in the case that the Swine Flu shoes up in Maryland.  Will post on more updates...


In the meantime, here is some advice from Dr. Frank Calia, Professor and Chair of the Department of Medicine, and Acting Vice Dean for Clinical Affairs of the UM School of Medicine.  Dr. Calia, who is an expert in infectious diseases, offers the following:

************

       1) Do not panic.

       2) Although swine flu has not yet been discovered in Maryland, it may hit here, however, to date the strain that has been discovered in the US is relatively mild and so far is responding well to two anti-virals

       3)The anti-virals are plentiful and readily available.

       4) They should NOT be given in advance of disease symptoms, since doing so widely may result in a flu strain developing for which the anti-virals will not work.

       5) The good news is that all swine flu, like all flu, prefers cold weather.  While we may see an outbreak, the chances will diminish as the weather gets warmer.

Tuition Freeze Passed

The Board of Regents passed a tuition freeze for in-state, undergraduate students today at a special board meeting.  Increases for out of state students do not exceed 4%, and increases for graduate and professional students do not exceed 7%.

The tuition freeze marks the fifth year of the same tuition for in-state undergraduates with the fourth straight freeze.  In a time when other states are considering massive increases in tuition to offset loss in state support revenue, Maryland has maintained state funding to make higher education more affordable for families.

Check out this article in The Sun .

Tution Freeze Vote set for Thursday, what do you think?

The Board of Regents will meet in a special session on Thursday, April 23 at 11am at Towson University to vote on tuition and mandatory fee rates for the 2009-2010 academic year.  The Board will consider a tuition freeze for in-state, undergraduate students.  Out-of-state tuition increases for undergraduate students does not exceed 4%, and for graduate students does not exceed 7%.  The Governor is set to hold a press conference to announce the Board's decision immediately after.  If the Board chooses to approve the tuition freeze, in-state, undergraduate students will not have seen an increase in tuition in five years.

The Chancellor has recommended, specifically, the tuition freeze for in-state undergraduates.  The Governor in his original proposed budget set aside $16 million to fund the lost revenue from the tuition freeze.  The legislature cut $5.9 from the base budget and a one-time fund balance cut of $9 million.  Additionally, the $16 million now is funded through the federal stimulus dollars, which will run dry after two years.

I support the proposed tuition freeze, becuase I believe that the provided budget serves the system well in maintaining quality and expanding access for in-state undergraduates.  While the subsequent cuts from the legislature will be felt, Maryland sits better than all other states during this diffucult time.

Members of the USM Student Council echoed its previous concerns of an "unfunded" tuition freeze, of which this is partially unfunded.  Members explained that they were concerned that politics was taking control of tuition.  Further, they expressed that policy leaders must engage in long-term planning to prevent major tuition increases in out years.  They explained that tuition predictability was just as important as affordability.  The USMSC has asked to address the Board of Regents at the meeting.

Even with the lost tuition revenues from the in-state, undergraduate tuition freeze, the operating budget fares better in the USM than any other place in the United States.  Despite the proposed budget cuts, USM saw an increase in state support.

What are your thoughts on a tuition freeze?

Textbook Legislation Passes

The General Assembly considered an amended bill in the House and Senate late last Thursday and passed it in both chambers.  Most problems have been removed from the bill, although university bookstores are required to hand over unconfirmed textbook selections to private, off-campus bookstores one week after the original submission by faculty.

Legislative leaders bypassed the traditional "conference committee" process (described in a previous post ), and simply developed a back-room compromise.  This procedure allowed for the bill to advance late in the session.  (Recall that recent days have been swamped by a discussion of a screening of a porn film at UMCP).  The new bill addresses a number of amendments that I had concerns with but still places an undue burden on campus-based bookstores of turning over information to private bookstores prematurely.  I believe this could have an unintended consequence of raising book prices for students.

Yet, the bill contains a number of positive components for students, warranting its passage:

• guarunteed ISBN publication to students
• publication to students prior to the week before classes
• requirements on publishers in providing information to faculty
• a process that has faculty consider a number of factors in selecting a textbook, including the cost, content revisions in a textbook, and the necessity of supplementary materials

Combining the federal legislation passed in Fall 2008, the USM Board of Regents policy passed in February 2009, and the new state legislation, students have been well served in enacting policy to lower the cost of textbooks.

Check out this article in the Diamondback highlighting the passage.

A Porn Policy?

After a failed attempt to cancel a showing of Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge by State Senator Andy Harris, he tried to tie capital construction funds for the USM to the development of a policy limiting explicit material on campuses.  Senate President Miller called the amendment to the budget out of order.  The chamber supported Miller by a vote of 35-12. 

But surely, this issue is far from over.  The legislature may ask governing bodies of public institutions to report on policies for explicit material.  And, governing bodies, like the Board of Regents, may pass a policy to preempt any legislation limiting funding for higher education before next session.  It looks like the issue has cooled off for now, but keep your eyes open on the issue.

In my previous post, I noted my opposition for any limitations, in legislation or policy, on First Amendment rights and freedom of expression on university campuses:

Viewing a pornographic film on campus in the student union is distasteful.  But this conversation is about much more.  It's about the innapropriate use of legislative authority.Senator Harris' attempt to use the power of the purse to limit academic freedom and societal discourse at USM institutions is irresponsible and out of place.  The film cost no money to the university, and the student activities board thought it to be a positive component to the discourse on the UMCP campus.  While i find the movie distasteful, I fear of the potential for censorship to come on Senator Harris' and other's moral beliefs.  When dealing with adults in our nation, we have celebrated a long standing tradition of free speech.  Why should this change in campuses of public universities?  Additionally, the legislature should respect the administrative authority of the USM and the UMCP administration in governing public universities in Maryland on such administrative issues.  This move flies in the face of the principle of the First Amendment.

Accordingly, I will likely not support a USM policy, envisioned by Senator Harris.  Thoughts?

USM Budget Compromise

With the legislative session in Annapolis on Monday, Senate and House leaders have been hard at work coming to a compromise on budget issues, including funding for the University System of Maryland.  In his original budget for higher education, Governor O'Malley proposed at $28 million increase for the University System of Maryland, $16.9 million dedicated to offsetting lost revenues from a tuition freeze for in-state students.  Recall, the House and Senate were at odds on cuts from the Governor's original budget, in an effort to offset lower-than-expected tax revenues:

• House - $10.8 million from annual budget; $10 million from fund balance
• Senate - $5.4 million from annual budget; $4 million from fund balance

The Budget Conference Committee reconciled the budget late Tuesday night.  Here is the outcome:

• $5.8 million annual budget; $9 million from fund balance

It's questionable as to whether this $14.8 million cut will afford the system a tuition freeze again this year.  The Board of Regents will discuss and decide on this issue in coming weeks.  More to come on the Governor's federal stimulus supplementary budget...

Pornographic Films and First Amendment Freedoms

Senator Andy Harris and Senate President Mike Miller challenged the showing of a pornographic film Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge last thursday by levereging $400 million of state appropriations for the USM institutions.  The student-led activities board that selects movies chose to air the film after they were presented with a free license from Digital Playground.

In response, the UMCP administration overrode the student activity board and stopped the showing of the film.  Outrage from UMCP students and others ensued.  The film has been shown at Northwestern, UCLA, and Carnegie Mellon already. Since, students at UMBC and UMCP have moved forward in sponsoring showings of the pornographic film, not for pure entertainment purposes, but to resist the infringement of academic freedom on college campuses. Many argue that the choice of viewing such a film is option, and it is not the job of the legislature to censor adult material from adults on college campuses.  Any step to limit explicit material is a step in the direction of limiting academic freedom and discourse.

The topic has recieved significant press:

• http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-te.md.porn03apr03,0,7632367.story
• http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.porn04apr04,0,2590515.story
• http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.porn05apr05,0,2964274.story
• http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/03/pornography
• http://www.diamondbackonline.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=6a52747e-0736-4e12-8730-6b13518d318e
• http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/04/sex_senators_and_stupidity.html
• http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2009/04/campus_sex_shows_um_panics_whe.html
  
• http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2009/04/06/News/Students.Push.On.With.Porn-3698133.shtml
  

Here's my view:  Viewing a pornographic film on campus in the student union is distasteful.  But this conversation is about much more.  It's about the innapropriate use of legislative authority.

Senator Harris' attempt to use the power of the purse to limit academic freedom and societal discourse at USM institutions is irresponsible and out of place.  The film cost no money to the university, and the student activities board thought it to be a positive component to the discourse on the UMCP campus.  While i find the movie distasteful, I fear of the potential for censorship to come on Senator Harris' and other's moral beliefs.  When dealing with adults in our nation, we have celebrated a long standing tradition of free speech.  Why should this change in campuses of public universities?  Additionally, the legislature should respect the administrative authority of the USM and the UMCP administration in governing public universities in Maryland on such administrative issues.  This move flies in the face of the principle of the First Amendment.

Student Costs in Higher Education

"How much does it cost to go to college?"  Too many of us have simply looked at the "tuition" dollar and assumed that was it.  Yet, those of us in school know this is only the beginning.  And the next question most of us ask is "where does our money go?"  So, here are some answers!

Costs in Higher Education:

• Tuition (UMBC - $6484 in-state/$9500 state for in-state students/$15216 out of state) - This money is used to operate the university function.  This means most everything besides the student union, athletics, residential life, and dining services.  Out-of-state students see the real cost of tuition, while in-state students receive a hefty "supplement" from the state government that goes directly to the university.
• Mandatory Fees (UMBC - $2296) - Everyone pays the same for this.  These fees help pay for non-primary functions, such as transportation, athletics, and student activities.  It also helps repay debt service for non-primary buildings on campus, such as the student union and other facilities.  
• Room (UMBC - 5500 for a dorm room) - Room costs pay for residential life facility use and for programming.  Prices range on the availability of amenities like a kitchen, bathroom, etc.  Also, the status of a single room can also cost more.  Apartment style is usually the most expensive option.
• Board (UMBC - 3460 full meal plan) - Means plans can cost a lot for students.  Students can purchase smaller plans, but here is the full cost of food if one chooses to eat on campus.
• Lab Fees - Lab fees vary, but usually occur more in science and technology courses.  
• Textbooks (Average $1000 per year) - Textbooks.  They cost a lot (although check out this policy  that I helped pass through the USM to lower the cost.)  Again, this cost depends on discipline.  Some courses can get away with more inexpensive options, while others cannot.  100 level courses often have the most burdensome selections with bundles and many supplemental materials.
• other institutional costs ( a range) - This can include transcript fees, graduation fees, lost books, parking tickets, student event tickets, etc.
• Total cost - for an out-of-state student, costs reach close to $35,000.  For in-state students, they reach about $20,000.

So there's the breakdown.  It's a lot of money, but the pot is sectioned off for sure.  Thoughts on cost?

Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants...Updates

The Arkansas Senate voted down legislation that would provide undocumented immigrants with in-state tuition rates, if they attend an Arkansas public school for atleast three years and recieve a high school diploma.  Similar legislation has been approved by 10 states in the U.S.  Yet, many states have been hesitant to move forward with such legislation, including Maryland, becuase of possible violation of federal law, as covered in a recent article in DIVERSE.

Congress passed the Illigal Immigration and Immigration Responsibility Act in 1996 to address a number of issues in the immigration debate.  One issues is that of tuition for undocumented immigrants.  The IIRIRA reads:

In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

In essence, Congress intended to eliminate the ability for states to afford in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants through this bill.  The ten states that provide in-state tuition for these individuals, and those who attempted to do so, see a loop hole in this clause by affording in-state tuition rates for any individual who attends school for three years in-state.  Accordingly, this can be an in-state citizen, an out-of-state citizen, a legal immigrant, or an undocumented immigrant.  

Congress since attempted to overturn the limiting clause from the IIRIRA through the DREAM Act.  A major leader in this effort is Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois).  Votes for approval are in place, but some in the Senate have blocked this from through a failed cloture vote on the past. A recent article in Inside Higher Education highlights that proponents are attempting to attach an amendment to another bill, such as the Department of Defense Authorization Act.

Of note, the Supreme Court has yetto take up the issue of whether the federal law preempts state laws in this specific area of immigration.  Yet, the California Court of Appeals recently invalidated the California law permitting this policy in a case Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (2008).  The case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court.

I have written a paper on this issue, which you can read at your leisure.  Here is a brief abstract:

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, intending to end the practice of affording undocumented immigrants in-state tuition rates for college. Subsequently, state legislatures have acted to circumvent the federal law through technical changes in the requirements for in-state tuition. In light challenges in federal regulation of immigration, many illegal immigrants reside in America and progress through K-12 public schools. 65,000 undocumented immigrants graduate from high school each year and over 1.5 million undocumented immigrant children attend public K-12 schools. A technical battle has ensued in courts, debating the balance of federal intent and textual interpretation in a federal preemption challenge. While courts have periodically dismissed cases on procedural grounds in the past, a recent California Court of Appeals Decision in Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (2008) invalidated a California law allowing for in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. The case has subsequently been appealed. Yet, without a U.S. Supreme Court decision, varied interpretations of the federal law will result in incongruent execution of a critically important policy of higher education tuition for undocumented immigrants.

Textbook Legislation passes the House

The House of Delegates passed their version of a Textbook Bill today, after a favorable review with amendments from the Appropriations Committee on Saturday.  Substantive changes reduce administrative burdens to universities and bookstores, which will ensure that the cost of textbooks is not inadvertenly increased.  A few amendments seem to cater to book publishers, skirting provisions attempting to address bundling and integrated textbooks.  Here is a list of amendments that I will advocate for:

• On page 4 Line 15 C.1.III remove the word "not"  to read "Which textbooks are integrated textbooks and are therefore subject to subsection (F) (3) of this section, as reported by the publisher under subsection (E) of this section."
• On page 5 Line 33 D.2.II.5  remove the word "not" to read "...that an integrated textbook is subject to subsection (F)(3) of this section."
• On page 6 Line 20, E.1.III:  reinstate "expressed as an itemized list."
• On page 6 Line 24&25 E.1.V:  reinstate "Variances in price, if any, between bundled and unbundled items."

With two versions of the bill passed in the House and the Senate, a conference committee will be convened.  The committee will include three senators and three delegates, and four of the six must come to consensus on an acceptable version of the bill.  Then, comparable amendments are submitted to both bodies; 50% approval of the new bill is needed from both houses prior to April 13.  

The House bill generally addresses most of my concerns with the bill regarding administrative burdens and limitations on academic freedom.  Hopefully, members of the Senate and House cancome to a reasonable agreement, hopefully much closer to the House version, so that the bill does not have the same fate as last year's version.

Budget Updates from the Senate and the Governor

Today, the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee voted in its amendments to the Governor's originally proposed budget.  Members approved a base budget cut of $5.4 million and a fund balance cut of $4 million.  This $9.4 million cut is less than half of the proposed $20.8 million cut from the House ($10.8 budget, $10 fund balance).

Both committee reports have maintained the expectation that the Board of Regents will still support a tuition freeze, despite cuts that will likely erode quality.

In the Governor's amended budget today, he cut the original $16.9 million from the base budget that would support the tuition freeze.  In its place, he has filled the $16.9 million hole with two years of funding from the federal stimulus package.  The upside of this proposal is that there will be full-funding of the budget and tuition freeze for two years.  The downside is that after two years, a larger-than-normal hole will open up that will need to be filled by state dollars in FY2012.

**TAKE ACTION** Support Full Funding for Higher Education

Funding for USM institutions is at risk!  The House Appropriations Committee voted to decrease funding by $20.3 million last week.  Take 2 minutes to let your elected representatives know how important it is to support higher education (if you are an out-of-state student, feel free to use your campus address).

Click this link to TAKE ACTION to send an email message to your legislators letting them know that you support full-funding of the Governor's budget.  The sooner you send, the better.  Forward this link to your friends, parents, neighbors, and professors so that legislators hear how important funding higher education is (they can use this specific link).  It only takes a few minutes by simply entering your address and editing a pre-drafted message.  Be sure to let your legislators know your role in the USM (student, faculty, etc.).

A cut of $20.3 million will ensure tuition is not frozen for in-state undergaduates, lower the quality of programs for all students, and could threaten pay/job security for faculty and staff.

If you have further questions, please email me ASAP at joshmichael@umbc.edu or call me at (410) 294-8581.

Read this message from the USM website:

Support Higher Education Funding  Oppose Legislative Cuts to Higher Education

Governor O’Malley’s FY 2010 budget proposal for the University System of Maryland supports the overarching goals shared by the state and the University System of Maryland:

• provide access to high-quality and affordable programs and services;
• ensure that the state’s public higher education system sustains its critical role in advancing Marylanders’ quality of life—intellectually, economically, socially, culturally, and in areas related to health.

The Department of Legislative Services is reccomending the General Assembly cut the USM funding by $5.7 million dollars and possibly more. Ask your legislators to reject this cut and fully fund higher education to maintain the quality, affordability and accessability of our public universities.

Cuts proposed in the House, debate over tuition freeze

The subcommittee on Education of the House Appropriations Committee voted last week to cut the USM Budget another $20.3 million as part of an effort to balance the state budget.  Of the $20.3 million, $10 million will come from the base operating budget (meaning a carry-over cut in years out) and $10.3 from the fund balance, meaning a one-time cut from the USM's savings that are used to sure up bonds for buildings.

The Governor proposed in his budget this year to increase funding for higher education by $27 million, $16.9 million dedicated to supporting a fourth straight tuition freeze for undergraduate students.  The increases, together, would both maintain quality and increase affordability by holding down the cost of tuition for students. 

Yet, after cutting $20.1 million from the budget, House officials still feel that the USM should hold the line on tuition.  Subcommittee Chair Delegate John Bohanan said, 

I would hope and doubt that the impact would result in a tuition hike for students...In the end, higher education is going to fare extremely well.

In the Governor's original budget, the tuition freeze support funding is listed as a separate line-item.  Delegates left this language in, assuming that the designation would ensure that the money would actually be used to hold tuition.

USM Chancellor Brit Kirwan expressed that this was not the case, and that with general fund dollars cut, that the tuition freeze dollars would then simply fill the whole of depleted funds.  The Board of generally only supported "funded" tuition freezes, of which the house proposal would not be.

I personally am opposed to the concept of an "unfunded" tuition freeze, as is the case in the House version of the budget.  Fortunately, the Board of Regents sets tuition policies, partially removing the decision from political pressures.  Chancellor Kirwan has highlighted that higher education in Maryland appreciates all the support and recognizes the need to cut the budget during the tough ficsal times--but not at the cost of major deficiences in quality.  

While the House version is far from the final proposal, the move to institute an "unfunded" tuition freeze from legislators is concerning.  With strapped universities, quality erodes.  Class sizes grow, faculty are overloaded, library resources remain stagnant, campus hours shorten, other fees arise, among other indicators.  A moderate tuition increase is an appropriate compromise if the state cannot fund the USM budget to the appropriate level.

But, in the meantime, the Senate is still in the process of developing its budget proposal.  Traditionally, the Senate is a bit more liberal in supporting higher education.  I have met with both the Chair of Budget and Taxation, Senator Currie, and the Chair of the Education subcommittee, Senate Kasemeyer, who both said to me that they plan to provide full funding for a tuition freeze.  So, we continue to share our concerns and thoughts with members in the Senate.  Once the Senate has a budget proposal, the House and Senate will meet in conference committee to work out details.

Check out articles highlighting developments:

- in The Sun

- in The Diamondback

- in The Chronicle of Higher Education

Smoking on Campus

It's hard to walk on any college campus and not run into a cloud of cigarette smoke.  It's something that most of us come to accept.  There are always certain entrances, walkways, and patios that non-smokers simply avoid.

But recently, university officials in Maryland have taken a stand on a number of campuses to regulate public smoking.  UMBC and College Park both endorsed plans that limit smoking on campus.  In the case of UMCP, individuals are not allowed to smoke indoors or within 15 feet of any building entrance.  at UMBC, students cannot smoke within 20 feet of a building entrance, and are restricted in common areas like Academic Row and on the Commons Patio.  These policies are met with modest and ineffective enforcement methods.

In recent months, university officials have stepped up their game.  Citing second-hand smoke and "butt" littering and driven by the stigma of smoking, officials hope to make their campus more attractive for visitors and prospective students.  Last year, the Towson Administration rejected a regulatory plan that would permit smoking only at certain areas on campus.  Instead, the Administration called for a completely "smoke-free" campus.  The administration is in the process of "recieving feedback" from students on the idea.  Students have expressed to me that these sessions have been more informative than conducive to conversation and discourse.

At UMBC, the Residential Life staff stepped up their game and overran the regulations in the policy.  They outlined designated smoking areas for students and forced ResLife staff to enforce the policy.  UMBC student Paula McCusker fought back, and successfully repealed the expanded interpretation of the Non-Smoking Policy.  She tells about her experience on her blog.

CNN highlighted  in 2007 trends in "smoke-free" campuses in an article.

The issue raises quite a question for student and campus leaders.  Consensus has seemed to develop on the need to regulate smoking somewhat to protect those who choose not to smoke.  Secondhand smoke has proven harmful, and it's simply unpleasant to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke.

But to what extent should it be regulated?  One of the major challenges is the lack of enforcement of such policies.  Who is to police smoking?  Some have suggested campus police and security, but don't they have more important things to be monitoring?

I believe students should have the right to smoke.  And, if they live and work on a USM campus, we must find a way to accommodate to their needs and desires.  At the same time, we must find ways for others on campus to be able to avoid smoke clouds.  The best way to do this is to establish a realistic and respectful plan that allows students and community members to smoke in designated areas that are covered for the rain and snow in heavy-traffic parts of campus and allows students to smoke freely in less-trafficked parts of campus, away from building entrances.  Without these accommodations, smokers will return the campus community with the same disrespect afforded to them.  And the identified problem will remain.

Tuition freeze warming up

Monday , Governor O'Malley stood with Senators Cardin and Mikulski at Bowie State University, explaining that the federal stimulus package would allow for greater investment in community colleges and for full-funding of a fourth year of an in-state, undergraduate tuition freeze.  The dedication of federal stimulus dollars seemed to seal the deal a fourth tuition freeze...

But on Tuesday , Governor O'Malley instead sat with Budget Secretary Eloise Foster, legislative leaders, and budget analysts, explaining that revenue estimates came in even lower than the already deflated expectations.  According to estimate, the Governor needs to fill an additional $516 million hole, tallying the total deficit to $1.1 billion.  Further layoffs, furloughs, and pay cuts have been put back on the table.  And of course, funding to support a funded tuition freeze has as well.

Updates are sure to come in future days.  Recall that the Board of Regents (of which I am your student representative to) officially sets tuition rates, and will do so after the Legislative Session, which ends in mid-April.

Textbook Update

During my hiatus last week, a number of advancements have occurred in the realm of textbooks.  After a worthwhile hearing in the House on February 17, Delegate Rice committed to proposing significant amendments to the House version of the bill (HB 85 ) which will be submitted soon.  At the same time, the Senate Bill (SB 183) was scheduled for a Senate floor vote on Friday February 20.  Senator Middleton raised significant concerns on the floor, and first laid over the bill to Tuesday February 24.  On the floor, a number of amendments were proposed.  An amendment to change the publication timeline of textbook selections to once the order is "finalized" failed 22-24.  An amendment by Senator Astle to change "affirm and acknowledge" to "acknowledge" in section D passed 25-22.

So, the bill has passed in the Senate 45-0 in its current form.  The Senate now waits for the House to finalize the cross-filed bill.  If there are any differences in the two bills, a conference Committee will be formed.  This appears to be likely with the House adopting amendments supported by the USM Students panel, the USM, Community Colleges, Independent Colleges, MHEC, and Bookstores.

One major compromise that will likely be included is extending the publication of the textbook selection in Section G from the earlier of 1 week or the final selection to 30 days after the original selection.  The student panel testified that publication 1 week after the original selection would require bookstores to publish unfinalized information and then students could purchase wrong books.  The compromise extends this timeline to 30 days.  Do recall, at all USM schools, all selections must be posted for the Fall semester by May 1 and for the Spring semester by December 1.

This compromise, and the inclusion of Senator Astle's amendment, adequately address the main concerns that I have outlined.  I have pulled the letter from the CapWiz program at UMBC and will be working with student leaders to develop a consensus on the issue.  The Senate bill still raises issues, but the House amendments, expected from Delegate Rice, will be satisfactory and in the end, actually help students.

Tuition freeze right move for Maryland's future

Jonathan Sachs, Student Body President at UMCP, and I submitted an op-ed to The Baltimore Sun regarding the possibility of a tuition freeze.  Check out the article or read it here:

As students who are directly affected by the cost of tuition, we believe it is important to explain why a fourth straight tuition freeze for resident undergraduate students at our public universities is so important for Maryland. 

Even with tuition frozen for three years, student costs have increased. Since 2005, mandatory fees for students (for parking, student unions and recreation services) have increased 15 percent; room, by 14 percent; and board, by 13 percent at the University of Maryland, College Park. Couple these increases with the rising costs of textbooks (increasing at four times the rate of inflation), transportation and other associated costs, and an in-state student's annual bill can reach more than $20,000.

Most students in the University System of Maryland are not wealthy. Our parents are teachers, government workers, nurses and police officers. This economic crisis has hit our families hard, and we need any financial break we can get to continue pursuing a college degree - which will better position us to contribute to Maryland's vibrant, knowledge-based economy. 

We need a tuition freeze to help keep costs affordable so that we can stay enrolled. Maryland is witnessing an amazing transformation in public higher education. New facilities are being built on campuses across the state, and academic standards continue to rise. The state's public universities are ranked among the nation's best and are educating more students than ever. At the same time, our classes are more racially and socioeconomically diverse than previous classes. 

Continuing the tuition freeze will not hinder this growth at all. To the contrary, it will help open doors for more Marylanders to share the outstanding opportunity of attending a public university. The proposed freeze would cost the state $16 million, a small fraction of the more than $1 billion in state investment in higher education each year. 

"Governing is choosing," and Gov. Martin O'Malley has chosen to invest in Maryland's future, so that we can fill the jobs of our state's advancing economy. This is a long-term, worthwhile strategy for investing in the minds needed for Maryland's future success.

Jonathan Sachs is Student Government Association president at the University of Maryland, College Park. Josh Michael is a student member of the University System of Maryland Board of Regents and a UMBC student.

Tuition Freeze becoming a reality

The announcement of Governor O'Malley's intention to fully fund the Thornton calculations for K-12 education during the next two years.  Why does this matter to higher education, you ask?

What's not said is what is important in this article.  In funding K-12 education above the originally proposed levels, the Governor will surely have the funds to fully support his proposed dollars in the operating budget for the USM.  The Governor has relied upon funding from the federal government to support his operating budget.

So, the tuition freeze is becoming more and more likely each day.  The announcement of full-funding of K-12 this year is a sign that funding should arrive for higher education to support a funded tuition freeze.