Letter: English professor criticizes Weygand for placing blame on RI budget woes

04/09/09 - To the Cigar,I was shocked to see Mr. [Robert] Weygand explaining the lack of funds to maintain the university when he and the current administration of this university have contributed to the problem. This not only affects the quality of life on campus, but the cost students have to pay for their education.

A few years ago Mr. Weygand went around campus arguing for additional programs and buildings. At such a meeting I asked him how he would pay for these additions. He smiled and said that it would cost us little because we were floating a bond.

I listed the costs to him among which (ironically) was maintenance. But Mr. Weygand sees the world through the lens of a politician. He, like his former colleagues in government, have little incentive to balance budgets.

One of the reasons students pay so much in tuition and fees is that the administration has failed to manage its budget.

It continually blames the state for cutting back funding, but it does not mention that the university has continued to operate and grow despite these cuts. In other words, what incentive do politicians have to increase support when the university manages to raise tuition and solicit alumni funds to cover the lost revenue?

Think of what would happen if Rhode Island parents received a letter saying: "Even though your child is more than qualified to attend URI, we cannot offer him/her a place because the state has not provided us with enough funds."

When you add this privatization of the university to the typical politician's notion that we can do everything for everyone, you eventually end up with the sort of disaster we see in government financing today.

Instead of having the guts to cut programs, departments, or colleges - instead of limiting enrollments, buildings, or programs - the administration has argued for additions and growth without any substantial cuts in spending.

The maintenance of buildings was postponed before in the 1980s. The result was that the university had to spend much more to renovate buildings across campus 20 years later.

This university should establish a set of priorities - ranking essential programs, hiring tenure-track faculty, maintaining buildings/services - and fund those items fully at the top and eliminate those items at the bottom which we cannot afford.

Paul Arakelian