College merger plan just the ticket for Connecticut

These are no days to be resisting consolidation, reimagining and compromise.

In Connecticut, that caveat reaches to the top of the structure, the state legislature and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, and should be embraced by every other unit of government, including the state’s 169 municipal entities ... and its state community colleges.

A proposal that would merge the state’s 12 community colleges into one institution would seem to, by definition, eliminate duplication of certain functions and their cost.

The proposal, engineered by community college system President Mark Ojakian, would put the 12 colleges under a single accreditation blanket.

The system would keep its 12 individual campuses and satellite locations, but students would benefit from, among other things, a universal application process and financial aid form. They would be able to take their grade-point average with them if they moved to another campus.

As to the savings that a state like Connecticut desperately needs, Ojakian projects a savings of $28 million should his plan hits its target effective date of July 2019.

This is exactly how every state agency and municipality should be thinking: How can we save money through creative consolidation and thinking and acting as teams rather than as individuals.

Change, of course, is difficult, particularly state bureaucracy and in the halls of academia. Predictably, Ojakian’s idea prompted a run of negative response at a hearing last week in Hartford before the system’s Board of Regents.

There is understandable fear from long-time administrators that consolidation is going to lead to reduced jobs through the elimination of redundancy.

For instance, instead of 12 presidents, there would be one head, with the title of vice chancellor. Instead of there being 36 college administrative positions, there would be 16. This simply makes sense. Does the state need 12 of every function — financial aid advisers, say; or vice deans and vice presidents, when a smaller number could be more effective, more nimble and more economical?

Not only is Ojakian’s plan precisely what Connecticut needs at this moment, it would be a sound proposal at any time.

We agree with Barbara Brittingham, president of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, who described the Ojakian plan as “... a bold and dramatic move to improve services to students even as financial resources are decreasing.” This plan should be approved. And as a next step, it should be mandatory reading for every chief elected official in Connecticut.

Connecticut can’t afford to maintain this Yankee notion of fierce independence which, over the centuries, has resulted in 169 separate fiefdoms that, to this day, in most cases are resistant to giving up any authority and function — no matter how redundant and profligate they may be.

Consolidation, reimagining and compromise has to be part of the blueprint for the state’s future.

Does the state need 12 of every function — financial aid advisers, say; or vice deans and vice presidents, when a smaller number could be more effective, more nimble and more economical?