The threat of cutting colleges and programs is an old story for faculty and administrators who have been at the University since the mid-’80s.Former University Chancellor James Wharton led the University through a budgetary crisis during the ’80s. He remains active in the current crisis as a member of the Post Secondary Education Review Committee — a committee tasked with reforming higher education statewide.Two years into the current crisis, the University has taken about $43 million in state funding cuts because of shrinking state appropriations.The mid-’80s saw a similar period in which the state general appropriations shrank by more than $10 million in three years, according to archived financial reports.Fluctuations in state appropriations and higher costs of running the University resulted in 11 funding cuts for the University between ’82 and ’88, Wharton said.”I ruined my health,” Wharton said. “By 1988, I was having heart problems. I was having diabetes. You can’t imagine the stress.”Wharton said the two budget periods have differences, but he emphasized he wasn’t criticizing the current administration.”It’s a different situation than it was in my time,” Wharton said. “I really sympathize with Chancellor Martin. I would do anything I can to help with the situation here.”MAKING ENDS MEETWharton said the University struggled to make ends meet in the ’80s on a monthly basis because of state cash flow problems in which the state didn’t have enough money to pay bills. “LSU didn’t operate on a budget — it operated on cash flow,” Wharton said. “The state had no cash to speak of in that time period, and that was my biggest problem.” The University received its monthly funding late because of this problem, Wharton said.”We would go three months, and you had to figure out some way to meet payroll even though you were not getting enough state money,” Wharton said. “There was one Friday in which I just didn’t have the money to meet the payroll, and I knew it would be a national disaster if I didn’t.”Wharton said he was able to draw extra federal dollars in that particular situation to make ends meet.Both he and Robert Kuhn, current associate vice chancellor of budget and planning, said this is a major difference from today’s crisis because while the state has a budget deficit, it doesn’t currently have a cash flow problem.FACULTY MORALEPreparing for potential cuts has the University faculty’s attention as it did in the ’80s.”We made the commitment to all employees that nobody was going to get fired,” Wharton said. “Faculty were confident we were going to get through the crisis.”The University recently sent non-renewal notices to more than 400 faculty members. Martin stressed the termination notices are only preparations for the worst and can be rescinded.”I can tell you those people who got that letter of non-appointment, their view of LSU has changed forever,” Wharton said. “We moved heaven and earth to avoid losing people.”The mood on campus is decidedly different than in the ’80s, Wharton said. He said he also cut vacant positions, leaving administrators to pick up extra duties.The University employed a similar tactic in January, eliminating 153 vacant positions saving an estimated $5.5 million, according to the midyear cut guide.CUTTING ACADEMICSWharton said the University eliminated about 50 degree programs and consolidated another 50 to reign in operating costs during the ’80s crisis.”When covering the cuts, you really need to lower the cost of operation,” Wharton said. “I can tell you that LSU became a more efficient University during that time period.”Martin said he will propose some similar “vertical cuts” to programs or colleges before the legislative session to save the University between $12 and $15 million annually.Making such cuts before the legislative session would help reduce costs and send a message to the legislature, Martin said.TUITION INCREASESAnother tool in Wharton’s budget balancing arsenal was tuition increases. The University raised tuition 84 percent between 1983 and 1987, according to figures from University Catalogs.Kuhn said raising tuition during the crisis probably saved the University from disaster. Tuition climbed by 5 percent during the last three years, and multiple bills in the coming legislative session may allow the University to raise tuition further.”Tuition was raised very judiciously in terms of what impact it would have on enrollment knowing we would have to implement admission requirements and how much could we afford to use,” Wharton said.The University’s reliance on revenues from tuition ballooned from $23 million in ’82 to $52 million in ’87, according to archived financial reports.Considering tuition increases and massive enrollment attrition suffered because of the implementation of admission requirements, the enrollment dropped by 5,000 students during the decade, Wharton said.Some University faculty feel higher tuition could have the same effect in modern times.Martin said he believes the University needs the legislature to allow tuition increases to bring in $12 million to $15 million in additional revenue.STOPPING THE NEXT ONEThe cause of the separate situations are similar in nature but were driven by different factors, said James Richardson, economics professor and member of the three-person conference that forecasts the state budget.The situations aren’t cyclical, but event-driven, Richardson said. The cause in the ’80s was an overreliance on the mineral economy which dipped. Similarly the cause now was an overreliance on temporary revenues generated by Hurricane Katrina, along with other factors in the dipping economy, Richardson said.The state government fixed the problem in the ’80s by increasing taxes, accurately predicting revenues and introducing programs like the gambling industry to create new revenues, Richardson said.The way out of the crisis is less clear this time, but Richardson said it will likely involve higher tuition.—-Contact Xerxes A. Wilson at [email protected].