Rep. Austin Scott is disappointed with the response of the president of UGA, and the chancellor of the board of regents to the demands made by the legislature to cut expenses for the operation of the university system by another $300 million, after three straight years of ever-deepening budget cuts. (Tifton Gazette, Thursday, March 4, 2010, “Rep. Austin Scott unhappy with university system budget choices.”)

We are disappointed that the legislature cannot understand that continuing to impose deep cuts on the university system cannibalizes a strong structure that the taxpayers of this state have built over many years. The national and international reputation of the universities in Georgia, particularly the University of Georgia, Georgia Tech and the other colleges that prepare students for a university-level education, is one of the engines that will drive the recovery from this recession.

No government agency can easily absorb more cuts after three years of cuts, followed by cuts, followed by more cuts. Nor do most people favor higher taxes. But budgets are balanced by cutting expenditures and raising revenue. Both options are like that plan for losing those few extra pounds: Eat less, move more. Sounds easy enough.

This legislature has promised no new taxes. They are proud that over the last few dismal years, they have not raised taxes. They have certainly raised fees on government services, they have certainly cut services to Georgia citizens and they have certainly cut the homestead exemption to property owners so that Georgia citizens are demonstrably less well off now than they were three years ago. But they have not raised taxes. They bet our state surplus on an improving economy year after year, and they lost. The surplus is gone.

But Rep. Scott suggests in Thursday’s Gazette that the board of regents, and in particular the University of Georgia, can easily absorb cuts in the amount proposed by the legislature. He points out three particular employees of the University of Georgia, although it is not clear what his purpose is in singling them out. He states that President Adams’ salary increased 2 percent to $607,418 from 2008 to 2009. What is he suggesting? Is he suggesting that the chancellor eliminate the position of president of UGA and use that money to fund 4-H instead? He never says. He states that Stephen Baginski, a professor in UGA’s nationally ranked accounting program, had a salary increase of 26 percent in that same period. He doesn’t explain where these figures come from; there’s no attribution for this information, other than a reference in The Gazette to a “page of information” faxed by Scott to The Gazette.

Scott may be taking this from an article in the UGA student newspaper, the Red and Black. Dr. Baginski subsequently corrected the “facts” in that article, in a letter to the editor, dated Feb. 9, pointing out that the figure quoted includes, in addition to his faculty contract, evening and weekend work lecturing as part of a program for executives, based in Atlanta, which generates additional revenue for UGA’s Terry College of Business, and presumably exposure to potential employers for business school graduates. Payment for work done over and above that contemplated by his faculty contract with UGA is not a raise. Is Rep. Scott suggesting that he should do this extra work without compensation, or voluntarily sacrifice some portion of it to save the 4-H program? That seems to be the point.

This is not the only inaccurate statement attributed to Scott in the Gazette article. He chides the universities for teaching remedial classes on their campuses. Georgia universities do not offer remedial classes. Those classes are offered exclusively by the access universities, community and other state colleges, just as he argues they should be. These access institutions are in the remediation business because students are not being adequately prepared for college-level work. This has been the case for many years, and yet, the legislature has put a priority on making college available to all Georgia citizens, rather than on exercising the necessary leadership to improve K-12 statewide.

While we don’t understand what Rep. Scott is proposing with respect to Stephen Baginski’s salary, we’ll agree to use our daughter’s very decent and hardworking father-in-law as an illustration of our points. Sustained economic growth in a global economy requires a world-class education system. A world-class university system requires world-class scholars. Georgia has outbid other states and private colleges to bring in eminent scholars with international reputations, including Dr. Baginski. That’s how the market works. People with specialized knowledge and education, particularly in academic areas in demand — for example, accounting — get paid better. That has to be one of the reasons academicians and other professionals endure the rigorous studying and testing required for academic achievement. That has to be one of the reasons they continue to pursue knowledge and understanding, while writing textbooks, publishing in scholarly journals and lecturing to executives in business settings. If it was easy, we guess everybody could do it. As it is, very few do.

We could fire all the eminent scholars at UGA and Tech, and when they left, taking their national and international personal reputations with them, we’d save a lot of money, but what would we have left? The 2007 edition of Public Accounting Report, rated the undergraduate and masters accounting programs at UGA 10th and 11th in the nation, respectively. Employers know that excellent teachers produce quality accountants. This helps Georgia students find good value-added jobs at higher salaries. People receiving higher salaries pay more taxes. Taxes paid generate government revenues. Should we casually throw away these potential revenue streams? Should we casually sacrifice those opportunities now available to Georgia students here at home? Should we give up on the time, effort and money we have spent to build up our university system? Obviously, we think not. Education is not an expense for this state; it is the most crucial investment.

To be clear: What exactly is the legislature demanding from the university system? The cuts the legislature demands now will put system funding back 30 years, to 1980 levels.

Scott criticizes President Adams and the chancellor for their “lack of respect.” Respect works both ways and is built on understanding and trust. If the lack of understanding demonstrated by Rep. Scott’s comments, and the credibility of his examples, are typical of the average legislator, these demands don’t deserve much respect.



Lisa and Jeff Gibbs

Tifton