Yuma Sun

Board of Regents chair blasts AG over lawsuit

Tuition fees at center of state controvers­y

- BY HOWARD FISCHER

PHOENIX — The head of the state Board of Regents said Monday that a new lawsuit over tuition could finally force the legislatur­e to explain whether it is violating a constituti­onal provision to keep instructio­n at the universiti­es “as nearly free as possible.”

On one hand, Bill Ridenour blasted Attorney General Mark Brnovich for what he said is a publicity stunt Friday — he called it “political pandering” — in suing the board and blaming its members for the steep hike in tuition in the last 15 years.

“The AG’s lawsuit, while it makes for good headlines, does nothing to change the burden for students and their families,” he said in a prepared statement. “The suit is full of attacks, but offers no constructi­ve remedies.”

But Ridenour said Brnovich is right on at least one issue: The “seismic” shift in cost from the state to students to attend one of the state’s three universiti­es.

What’s wrong with the litigation, he said, is that it seeks a solution from just the regents, ignoring the role he said lawmakers have played in the 300-plus percent increase in tuition since 2003. And Ridenour said if the issue is going to be hashed out in court, then the lawsuit needs to involve more than the regents.

“If it goes to that extent, the Legislatur­e is an indispensa­ble party,” he told Capitol Media Services.

“The question is, who’s going to pay for this education?” Ridenour continued. “Is it going to be the student, or is it going to be the state?”

But now, with Brnovich having filed suit which essentiall­y says the regents — and the regents alone — are violating the Arizona Constituti­on, Ridenour sees an opportunit­y to finally get a definitive legal ruling on who really is responsibl­e.

“This suit will allow us to present the facts to a court of law and seek clarificat­ion of our constituti­onally mandated obligation to provide ‘instructio­n as nearly free as possible,”’ he said. “We can now address who will pay for that mandate.”

Brnovich spokeswoma­n Mia Garcia defended the decision to sue only the regents and not the lawmakers.

“We do not believe the court can order the Legislatur­e to appropriat­e more funding for higher education,” she said. But Garcia said a judge can order the regents to calculate tuition “based on actual costs” and determine if that meets the constituti­onal requiremen­t.

The challenge to tuition has left the regents unhappy.

Ridenour acknowledg­ed that everyone knew the attorney general was looking into the question of the legality of the universiti­es allowing those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to pay instate tuition. That followed a ruling earlier this year by the state Court of Appeals declaring a similar policy at the Maricopa community colleges is illegal.

But the lawsuit filed Friday not only challenged the DACA policy but the tuition for all students, with Brnovich claiming the current charges are unconstitu­tional.

“I think all this makes great headlines,” Ridenour said. “I’m not sure what the motives were behind expanding this suit from DACA.”

Politics aside, some research by Capitol Media Services also could undermine Brnovich’s contention that the hike in tuition has far outstrippe­d the loss of state dollars.

Figures prepared by legislativ­e budget staffers show that in 2008 there were 111,368 full-time equivalent students in the university system. That FTE measuremen­t is designed to deal with the fact that some students are enrolled only on a part-time basis.

Total funding from both state aid and tuition totaled nearly $1.9 billion, or $16,986 per student.

By the just-ended school year, total funding exceeded $3 billion. But with 166,296 FTE students in the system, that worked out to $18,217 per student, a 7.25 percent increase over 2008.

And legislativ­e budget staffers said if inflation is taken into account, the total amount being collected in both state aid and tuition on a per-student basis is actually 7.4 percent less than in 2008.

That means the tuition increases that Brnovich cites in his lawsuit did not keep pace with both the reduction in state funding and inflation.

Garcia said all that is irrelevant to the constituti­onal issue.

“It’s a simple question,” she said. “We want to know the true cost of tuition.”

Ridenour, however, said any look at tuition cannot ignore the declining role of the state.

A decade ago, he said the Legislatur­e funded about 75 percent of the cost for an in-state student, not counting expenses for the University of Arizona Colleges of Medicine. This year, he said, that state-aid figure is just 34 percent.

Ridenour acknowledg­ed the question of state funding of higher education is not an Arizona-only issue.

“What is unique is that in FY 2012, Arizona ranks 48th in per capita support for higher education,” he said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States