Time to move on: UNC, PAC leaders respond to N&O editorial

(Raleigh) News & Observer Editorial: Published: Nov 08, 2006

Paying, playing

A political action committee of UNC-Chapel Hill boosters insults the parent university system by playing big-money politics.

Erskine Bowles, president of the University of North Carolina system, isn't a fellow one would think of as naive. He was the White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, after all, and played hardball with a Republican Congress. But if Bowles thinks the big-money crowd -- behind a UNC-Chapel Hill political action committee that has given out hundreds of thousands of dollars to North Carolina politicians -- has no back-door intentions, he's wrong.

These are the same people, after all, who paid a few hundred grand to get state legislators' attention in an effort to convince them to grant UNC-CH and N.C. State University independence in setting their tuition rates. (The rates likely would have skyrocketed.) That's a direct affront to the UNC system's Board of Governors, which has say-so over all 16 campuses in the system.

The effort failed, but barely, and one can be sure -- Bowles can be sure -- that the PAC, called Citizens for Higher Education, will give it another go with lawmakers. The group did succeed, sadly, in getting a measure passed that classified out-of-state full scholarship students, including athletes, as in-state for the purposes of tuition rates. That's going to save well-heeled athletics booster groups a ton of money.

So it's not exactly comforting news that, as The News & Observer's Jane Stancill reported, the PAC has been most active in raising and spending money. It has given $425,000 in contributions in the current two-year election cycle, with 17 candidates receiving the maximum $8,000. PAC members have to kick in $2,500 apiece to join, and one can be sure the group won't be shy come January, when the General Assembly reconvenes.

This really is a disheartening situation: Lawmakers have their hands out, shamelessly so, and here's a political group representing the state's flagship public university only too willing to cross palms with silver.

What are the less affluent branches of the UNC system and those served by those branches supposed to think? How about, here's the Chapel Hill contingent out to get theirs and never mind the rest of us. (The PAC pays lip service to pushing issues of interest to the entire system, but its main interest is numero uno.)

The truth is, the university system should speak with one voice when it comes to the legislature and money, and no branch of the system ought to have a political action committee. For it undermines that central authority, and everyone in the group -- even those who are among Bowles' friends from the business world -- knows it.

The president may believe he can keep things under control because of his connections, but surely he can see there is a move afoot on the part of some UNC-CH supporters who fancy themselves as important and influential to separate "their" university from others in the system. It's unfortunate that Chancellor James Moeser hasn't already disavowed this effort.

UNC-Chapel Hill has flourished in the 30-plus years the broader university system has existed. It will continue to do so, provided those amateurs who think they know what's best for the university quit engaging in selfish pay-to-play politics with legislators who are panting for dollars and in return, are willing to take the first steps to dismantle the UNC system that has served all of North Carolina with distinction.

 

Letter: Published: Nov 09, 2006

No separation

Your Nov. 8 editorial "Paying and playing" requires a response. In it you stated that "...there is a move afoot on the part of some UNC-Chapel Hill supporters who fancy themselves as important and influential to separate 'their' university from others in the system. It's unfortunate that Chancellor James Moeser hasn't already disavowed this effort."

Please let me set the record straight. If there were such an effort, I would disavow it, but such a desire simply does not exist except in the imaginations of some editorial writers.

UNC-Chapel Hill benefits from the UNC system and from working with the system. That was proven by our success in the last legislative session. As I said in my State of the University address on Sept. 6, "Much of this success resulted from the passionate and effective leadership of UNC President Erskine Bowles. We all worked together as a team, and the results speak for themselves. This successful collaboration is proof of the value of the system to UNC-Chapel Hill, and I would like to think, of Chapel Hill's value to the system."

You have been riding this hobby horse for a long time. It's time to move on.

 James Moeser

Chancellor, UNC-Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill

 

Letter: Published: Nov 11, 2006

No separation

Regarding your Nov. 8 editorial, "Paying, playing": We're sorry to disappoint The N&O's conspiracy theorists, but your fundamental premise is wrong and has no basis in fact. Citizens for Higher Education is not about removing UNC-Chapel Hill from the UNC system. We are UNC-Chapel Hill supporters who want to help our universities attract the best students, faculty and research -- all of which are crucial to this state's competition in a global economy. We do not apologize for supporting higher education.

This year we backed measures to help the entire UNC system: raises for faculty systemwide, scholarships for prospective teachers and nursing faculty, and tax deductions for college savings -- no matter what college a student attends.

We want our universities to recruit and keep the professors at the heart of their mission. So we wholeheartedly support UNC President Erskine Bowles' proposal for the General Assembly to approve merit raises of 4 percent for UNC faculty, plus $87.8 million over two years to raise faculty salaries systemwide to the 80th percentile among peer institutions.

We also support East Carolina University's efforts to open a dental school. And you say we want to "separate" Chapel Hill from the UNC system? Hardly.

Paul Fulton

Chairman, Citizens for Higher Education

Winston-Salem

 

Letter: Published: Nov 11, 2006

Within the system

Your Nov. 8 editorial "Paying, playing" made big assumptions about the motivations of volunteers like me who devote considerable time and energy to supporting UNC-Chapel Hill.

We want what is best for the university, and we know that is to be a vital, contributing leader in the 16-campus UNC system. We take seriously our responsibility to partner with our sister campuses to most effectively serve the people of North Carolina. We are proud to be part of a system so highly regarded nationally, and know it is important for all of us to work together to maintain that reputation for the state.

The Board of Trustees has worked closely with Chancellor James Moeser and his administration to develop a clear list of strategic priorities that guide our legislative agenda. The resulting budget proposals then go to UNC system President Erskine Bowles for consideration and possible inclusion as part of his recommendations to the Board of Governors. None of our priorities or proposals reflect the editorial's misguided assertions that UNC-Chapel Hill is plotting to leave the system. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our trustees enthusiastically support Bowles and his plans. He has done an excellent job in being a strong advocate for all the campuses. Our board is committed to making a positive contribution to the future success of the president and the system.

Nelson Schwab

Chair, UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees

Charlotte