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 [had] 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 [Michael] Martin. I would do anything I can to help with the situation here.”
MAKING ENDS MEET
Wharton said the University struggled to make ends meet in the ’80s on a monthly basis. Because of cash flow problems, 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, associate vice chancellor of the Office 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.
TUITION INCREASES
The main 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 has 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 … 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 the University needs the legislature to allow tuition increases to bring in $12 million to $15 million in additional revenue.
Contact Xerxes A. Wilson at [email protected]