Candidates need to lead on state’s higher ed issues

Candidates, particularly candidates for statewide office, many times would prefer not to talk issues that don’t have easy answers but do carry the likelihood of political fallout regardless of the position the candidate ultimately takes — or ducks, as the case may be.

What to do about higher education in New Mexico is one of those issues. We have far too many institutions of higher education — 31 of them — overseen by 21 different governing boards and all embedded in their respective communities as important social and economic, if not academic, forces. Many have abysmal graduation rates. And there is simply no way in a large state with a small population to adequately support them all, so our major universities in particular don’t get the funding they need to compete with world-class institutions. That’s despite relatively competitive per-capita funding support by the state for higher education.

It’s a system one could argue has mediocrity as its goal — although the current administration has made great strides toward improving graduation rates and having the many institutions work in cooperation rather than competition.

While it won’t fix the underlying structural problem, a bipartisan proposal by a pair of state senators — Democrat Jeff Steinborn of Las Cruces and Republican Mark Moores of Albuquerque — would be a step in the right direction. The two have joined to push for a constitutional amendment that would change the way university regents are selected. Regent appointments now are plum political awards made by the governor with confirmation by the Senate. Or not. Democrats in the Senate led by Rules Committee Chairwoman Linda Lopez of Albuquerque have shamefully refused to hold hearings on a number of appointees by Republican Gov. Susana Martinez.

Lopez claims the committee just has too much to do, but the real motive is clear: don’t confirm the regents in hopes a Democrat will be elected governor in 2018 so he or she can appoint the replacements. While Lopez has carried out this political chicanery, one would not have to stretch the imagination too far to see Republicans doing the same thing if the positions were reversed — a Democrat governor and a Republican Senate majority. Instead, Moores and Steinborn want a bipartisan nomination committee to evaluate regent candidates. The committee would come up with a list of potential regents and forward it to the governor, who would make the final selections. This is more acceptable than previous versions, needs voter approval and puts qualifications on the table.

Meanwhile, candidates seeking to succeed Martinez — who is term limited — should weigh in on the entire state higher education structure, despite the potential for political blowback. New Mexico devotes 12.3 percent of its general appropriations to higher ed – $745 million this fiscal year.

It is simply counterintuitive to ignore the potential efficiencies in coordination as well as economies of scale, yet a new Higher Education Department committee’s recommendations are solidly against consolidation — not a surprise considering many committee members represent universities and colleges and have a dog, and a livelihood, in this fight. HED Secretary Barbara Damron is right that the committee’s reinforcing the status quo is “a bit of a disappointment.” And she is also right to push for additional research into possible consolidation. But will the next round of N.M. officials have her same concern for both academic and fiscal bottom lines?

And then there’s the perennial question of trying to find fiscal sustainability for lottery scholarships that fund less and less of the cost of tuition. Will the state separate scholarship amount and tuition price so students know what they will receive and tuition increases no longer have political cover?

Candidates are seeking to lead and should tackle the tough issues; higher education is right at the top.