-
-
-
-
Re: More bad news
http://www.argusleader.com/article/2...ll|text|Home|pState Sen. Larry Tidemann, R-Brookings, said he didn't anticipate the depth of cuts to ag research and cooperative Extension when considering the budget this year.
Betcha he won't make that mistake next year.Comment
-
Re: More bad news
It's interesting that after the fact,the attitude seems to be" Gee wiz,we never thought a 10% cut would have this kind of impact." How did they think they would get that kind of reduction,by using cheaper toilet paper and not cutting the grass as often ?Comment
-
Re: More bad news
I think this might be a key (a comment from the Argus web site today):
Phudd
6:30 AM on May 8, 2011
I am not sure why the message is not getting out there - comparing the budget cuts at SDSU to the other institutions is apples and oranges. As a land-grant Institution with a mandate to do agricultural research, the College of Ag at SDSU exists on three budget streams: BOR, AES, and CES. Basically, the other state Universities including USD exist on ONLY BOR funding.
All three sources were initially cut 10%, more or less. BOR funding was restored partially by raising tuition, resulting in a net 5% budget cut. So that reduced significantly the cuts to all other Colleges at SDSU, as well as the other BOR Institutions. AES and CES, on the other hand, were actually made WORSE by drops in federal funding, and receive no assistance AT ALL through tuition increases (I think something like 20% reduction is floating around). Virtually all the cuts you read about, with the exception of engineering/physics, were made in the Ag College to deal with this. Over 50% of the total cuts to SDSU were made to the Ag College, which is where the layoffs, salary reductions, service lab closures, etc. all happened. This is the third straight year of significant cuts to AES and CES. This is the college where the bulk of your research growth over the past decade has occurred - this research is not just "how to grow better corn"-it's alternative energy, biomedical, human health, emerging diseases, physiology...the core of a federally funded research program.
I am amazed that this message does not get out there, and the illusion that it's all 'bad planning" continues to float around.Comment
-
Re: More bad news
This is the first time I can recall a state administrator refusing to sugarcoat the cost of cuts.Originally posted by bigticket1 View Post
Among previous administrators and in other departments, there's this tendency to try and hide the true cost of these cuts from stakeholders. That needs to stop. The only way you can convince these people to stop making cuts is by taking away valuable things.Comment
-
-
Re: More bad news
The regents have proven to be patsies for a weak Legislature, which rolled over for a strong governor who doesn't have much regard for higher education. Where are the progressive leaders in this state? Does anyone in political power do their homework? Apparently not.This space for lease.Comment
-
Re: More bad news
it has to do with how the state is set up. We have a very weak legislature in makeup, only meets 35-40 days a year, does it over 2-3 months and the rest of the year they are not paid to be legislatures. On top of that most of them are new, and weak in general and rolled over to the governor which is a powerful position in the state with a large staff and is full time year round, and which the governor is a pretty powerful governor.Originally posted by Jacked_Up View Post
But the truth is many people in this state don't believe in higher ed. Whether that is the makeup of the state (few with a college degree, many work for low wages) or if its just that they see a large amount going to the universities and don't see the benefits of it.
I'm just throwing stuff out at the situation but I agree with you totally but a lot of it has to start with us the voters, I've talked to legislatures and unless they have a state university in their district most say that the majority of their constituents support the budget cuts to both higher ed and K-12 ed.Comment
-
Re: More bad news
Excellent questions with all but three governors being of the same party and this constant leaning on the straight ticket button on election day, we have no progressive people in this state. Heidepran is a former Republican. Bernie Hunoff is afraid of loosing subscriptions to his magazine if he speaks out of the left side of his mouth, so the bottom line, no homework for the poltiicans.Originally posted by Jacked_Up View PostComment
-
Re: More bad news
Term limits does nothing to strengthen our legislature.
I've a friend that is a lobbyist that just loves terms limits. Makes the job easier. 'Nuff said.You know that you're over the hill when your mind makes a promise that your body can't fill. - L. GeorgeComment
-
Re: More bad news
yeah, the last 3 years the legislature has been very "young" in comparison to the prior years. Generally in South Dakota I don't think it matters because of the lack of power with the legislature.Originally posted by Prairiehaas View Post
Not to make it political but it comes down to the Governor. The Governor has the full time large budget staff. The Majority of the legislature doesn't have much of a staff and the minority has fewer.
A few years ago I was in Pierre and was talking about some kind of education bill, and it got shut down because it didn't have "numbers" so I asked the LRC where I could get the "numbers". He told me either convince the governor's budget office to figure it out, hire someone private, or make them up.
I've talked to members of the legislature who have told me that lobyist are the #1 place where they get there information, especially if its to change something within a state agency because they won't help them any.
The way I see it is until a governor or a large number of legislatures are held accountable for one vote they made or one budget they will continue to do what they want. In South Dakota it seems like the majority of the elections are just national trend election. If that district voted one way nationally they vote the same way locally.Comment
-
Re: More bad news
I do not doubt what you are saying for a second. The role of lobbyists in our society is very much a double inched sword. As Joe pointed out they are often the source of information for those making the laws and those who end up obeying the law (us). I guess it depends on what interest that the lobbyist represents. I hope your friend is on our side and with term limits we do end up with more inexperienced and less informed elected officals.Originally posted by Prairiehaas View PostComment
-
Re: More bad news
I lobbied in Pierre for 25 years and can honestly say it is a clean profession in this state...no influence peddling...no underhanded deals, etc. You are there to provide legislators with information on how any particular bill in which you have an interest will affect your constituency. I did burn out on it, because I tired of having new legislators continually come in and bring back old bills time and again. I was a lobbyist who came from the ranks of my constituency, not just a paid lobbyist who will represent a variety of clients. IMHO that makes it tougher, because you bleed with your consitutency over harmful bills.
And finally, I thought that term limits for state legislators was wrong and harmful. It would be more appropriate, IMO, at the national level, where incumbency is so powerful. South Dakota legislators continue to be citizen legislators who are back home with their constituents 80% of the time.Comment
Tweet
Comment