SEMO's view: The higher education center concept is a good one

John Tlapek of Cape Girardeau is president of the Southeast Missouri State University Board of Regents, and Brad Bedell of Sikeston is vice president.

During the past month, the president of the Three Rivers Community College Board of Trustees, John Stanard of Poplar Bluff, has repeatedly issued statements to the media attacking Southeast Missouri State University and president Ken Dobbins for the board of regents' decision to terminate the partnership with Three Rivers for the offering of freshman- and sophomore-level courses at the higher education centers in Sikeston, Malden and Kennett.

We can agree with Mr. Stanard that the area higher education center concept is a good one. No one can argue with the idea that hundreds of students in the Bootheel counties have been served by Three Rivers and Southeast at the three centers south of Cape Girardeau. Hundreds more are being served by Mineral Area College and Southeast at the area higher education center in Perryville. This is a good thing.

We can also agree with Mr. Stanard that it is unfortunate the university found it necessary to terminate the past operating agreement with Three Rivers at Sikeston, Malden and Kennett, resulting in some difficult transitions for the two institutions and some uncertainty for students at the centers until the matter is finally resolved.

Beyond those two points, Mr. Stanard's analysis of the situation is inaccurate, incomplete and self-serving.

When the area higher education centers were established, the university's campus community in Cape Girardeau was assured that the operation of these centers would not drain scarce financial resources from the mission of the main campus.

The no-drain pledge was possible because the state embarked on a mission-enhancement plan for public colleges and universities. Under this plan, institutions would agree to undertake new initiatives to serve the public need, and the state would provide ongoing base budget appropriations to pay for those new initiatives.

With the assurance of continuing state funding to pay for operating the centers, Southeast worked with city and county officials and community leaders to build or renovate facilities for three new area higher education centers to serve the region's students.

Unfortunately, due to the state's revenue shortfall beginning shortly after the creation of the new centers, Missouri was not able to continue funding the mission-enhancement initiative, and Southeast had a $7.6 million base budget cut (15.2 percent) and an additional $8.6 million in one-time appropriation cuts. As a result of these dramatic reductions in state funding, the university reviewed all its academic and non-academic programs, eliminated four academic programs, deferred hiring, cut 14 faculty and 29 staff positions, reduced units' operating budgets and raised tuition in order to balance its budget.

The academic program review showed, among other things, that the university was spending approximately $1.1 million of direct expenses to operate the three higher education centers south of Cape Girardeau. These are expenses like utilities, building maintenance, staff salaries, courier service to deliver library books to Three Rivers students, reproduction of classroom materials, parking-lot maintenance, copy machines, computer network maintenance and dozens of other expenses. After including our instructional revenues and expenses at the centers, Southeast was losing a total of over $800,000 per year at the Sikeston, Malden and Kennett centers.

While Southeast pays for these direct operating costs, Three Rivers basically provides faculty and takes back to its campus in Poplar Bluff over $900,000 annually in net profits from teaching courses at the centers, which enables Three Rivers to keep its fees artificially low. As a result, Southeast students are paying over $4 a credit hour, or $130 a year, per student to pay for the centers' operating costs. Over the past five years, Southeast has in essence provided Three Rivers a $5 million subsidy.

Mr. Stanard has been quoted in the media accusing Southeast Missouri State University and Dobbins as wanting to grab tuition revenue and students from Three Rivers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Southeast only wants Three Rivers to pay its fair share of the direct costs of operating the centers just as Mineral Area College does at the Perryville Area Higher Education Center.

Efforts made by Southeast over the past several years to persuade Three Rivers to pay its fair share of the centers' direct operating costs resulted only in a modest rental agreement ($150,000 of the $1.1 million direct operating costs) and threats by Three Rivers administrators that they would leave the centers if the rental agreement was not to their satisfaction. When Three Rivers refused even to honor the terms of that modest agreement, Southeast had no alternative but to terminate the agreement and find another way to serve students at the three centers after repeated requests for Three Rivers to comply with the terms of the rental agreement.

Southeast also wants Three Rivers to provide needed upgrades to the computer and information technology equipment. It would appear that funding for technology upgrades should be possible, since Three Rivers annually receives about $90,000 from charging center students a technology fee and an annual $859,000 earmarked state appropriation which is designated for updating this type of educational equipment.

Southeast also wants Three Rivers to work cooperatively with Southeast staff to address more than two dozen student-service issues that have been identified by the directors of the three centers -- issues which frustrate Three Rivers students and result in students' blaming Southeast for situations over which the university has no control, such as frequent financial-aid problems, late disbursement of financial-aid refunds, unnecessary cancellation of classes, textbook availability delays and many others.

In an effort to resolve differences between the two institutions, Three Rivers and Southeast requested intervention by Missouri's Higher Education commissioner, Gregory Fitch.

Commissioner Fitch called a meeting of Three Rivers and Southeast representatives in Sikeston on March 7. At that meeting, all the financial issues were resolved -- or so we thought.

Fitch developed a proposed new partnership contract based on the financial arrangements the Three Rivers and Southeast leadership had agreed to, and he scheduled a second meeting for March 22 at which the staffs of Southeast and Three Rivers were to get together and tackle the many student-service issues so that the results of these discussions could be incorporated in the partnership agreement.

Unfortunately, before that second meeting was held, Three Rivers filed its lawsuit against Southeast, and its representatives refused to meet with Fitch regarding the student-service issues.

Despite the lawsuit and Three Rivers' refusal to work in good faith after the March 7 meeting with Southeast, Fitch put together his recommended partnership agreement based on the facts of the situation and his analysis of what is in the best interests of students and the Southeast service region. This document was sent on March 28 to the presidents of both Three Rivers and Southeast and contained the following recommendations:

* The two institutions should work together to serve the region.

* Three Rivers should withdraw its lawsuit.

* Three Rivers should return to the three centers and cancel plans to offer courses at out-of-district locations not approved by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education.

* Three Rivers should teach 60 percent of the lower-division coursework at all three centers and Southeast 40 percent.

* Three Rivers and Southeast should equally share all direct operating costs of the three centers.

* The Three Rivers technology fee collected from students at the centers should be reinvested in equipment for the centers.

On March 29, the Southeast board of regents unanimously approved the partnership agreement developed by Fitch. Hopefully this plan will also be approved by the Three Rivers board of trustees so the two institutions can once again work together to serve students in our region. However, from public statements we have read, it currently appears that Three Rivers is not willing to follow the recommended partnership agreement submitted by the commissioner and approved by our board.

Rather than waiting for the mediation process requested by Three Rivers to finish, that institution filed a lawsuit, now disavows the tentative financial agreements made during the March 7 mediation process and attacks the whole CBHE guideline as poor policy because it now does not support Three Rivers' unfounded allegations.

Southeast remains committed to providing affordable, high-quality educational programs at the area higher education centers and to helping students make an easy transition to Southeast academic programs if that is necessary.

The students and the communities will be served, if not by a partnership based on the agreement mediated by Commissioner Fitch, then by Southeast.

They deserve nothing less.