Re-Structuring UCONN for the 21st Century: A Vision

Before we can solve the housing and environmental problems created by UCONN at its Storrs campus, it is useful to remind ourselves of how underdog opponents have succeeded in the past. Perhaps the greatest example of how an underdog achieved success is the story of David and Goliath.  In today's world, the modern Goliath is an institution with billions of dollars, a feigning allegiance to the law and with an iron grip on the people's purse.  David had nothing more than a sling shot. As the story goes, Goliath was felled by the sharp shooting David who flung a stone to Goliath's forehead. While this story may suggest a violent outcome is the solution, the real purpose of this story is to suggest that intellectual innovation – rather than battling one’s neighbor is the best long term solution.

Is it even possible for Mansfield to come to amicable terms with the University of Connecticut on its housing and environmental issues without creating an atmosphere of ill will? More importantly, is that really the outcome Mansfield residents seek?  I would suggest that the real solution to many of the problems UCONN has created for Mansfield residents will require legislative, executive and judicial actions that establish the university as a private for profit corporation or as a private non-profit organization and not a government agency.  The reasons for suggesting a re-assessment of the university’s mission is that it has gradually transformed itself from a public institution for public good to one where private business interests have taken the reign of power. While university promoters may argue that what is good for business is good for the state of Connecticut, this muddies the distinctions between a “public good” and a “private benefit.” The table below summaries the principles of “public good” and “private benefit” and contrasts these principles to how UCONN currently operates. As can be seen, almost all of UCONN’s educational and mission activities have veered toward an emphasis on private benefit even when many of these activities are clothed in the language of “public good” or “public benefit.” While sharp distinctions between these two opposing principles are impossible to maintain when business interests have overtaken much of the university’s educational programs, these paradigms reveal the degree to which the school’s alliances have shifted from being a school for in-state students to one serving the entire world.

A Comparison of an Education based on the Public Good offered to residents of the state versus an education based on achieving Private benefits

Public Good	Private Benefit	UCONN’s Approach
Standard Dormitory Rates for all	Variable Dormitory Rates	Variable Dormitory Rates
Public Bldgs. for Public Purposes	Corporate Use of Public Bldgs.	Corporate Use of Public Bldgs.
Agricultural Land for Land Grant Purposes	Agricultural Land sold for Corporate uses	Agricultural Land sold for Corporate uses
Affordable Tuition for in-state Students	Tuition as a Revenue Generator	Tuition as Revenue Generator
Vehicles not allowed  On-Campus Vehicles	On-Campus vehicle parking &  fees charged for parking	On-Campus vehicle parking & fees charged for parking
Decent dormitory rooms for all	Rich students get better dorm rooms	Rich students get better dorm rooms
Education is the priority	Sports and research are priority	Sports and research are priority
University accountable to taxpayer	University accountable to Board of Trustees	University accountable to Board of Trustees
Low Teacher/Student Ratio	High Teacher/Student Ratio	High Teacher/Student Ratio
Mission favors education of in-state students above all other priorities	Mission favors continuous Bldg. expansion over education of in-state students	Mission favors continuous Bldg. expansion over education of in-state students
Board of Trustees accountable to public	Board of Trustees accountable to business interests	Board of Trustees accountable to business interests
Diversity reflected in student body, faculty and staff	Enroll, hire and retain based on qualifications	Diversity reflected in student body, faculty and staff
Sustainable development practices consistent with land carrying capacity	Unchecked development without long term sustainability considerations	Unchecked development without long term sustainability considerations

With the exception of UCONN’s emphasis on the principles of diversity in the student body and staff, all of the above listed aspects of the university’s educational services are geared toward private benefits – all of which are inconsistent with the principles of public benefit to the state’s taxpayers. For example, what is the public value of offering variable dormitory rates? Do Connecticut taxpayers and their college eligible children benefit by this business strategy or is it merely a means to attract out of state students willing and able to pay nearly double the tuition and room and board rates of in-state students?

The University of Connecticut is at a cross-roads; it can choose to continue on its current path of serving the business interests of the state or it can re-establish itself as an institution working for the public good.  For arguments sake, below we outline a series of recommendations that restructure the administration of UCONN with the objective of resolving Mansfield’s town/gown issues and making the university more accountable to the public. The six major recommendations are; 1) privatize the university, 2) reorganize its Board of Trustees, 3) accommodate all students in on-campus housing, 4) decentralize its Storrs campus, 5) re-structure UCONN’s financial portfolio and 6) create a Task Force sponsored by the state legislature to accomplish these objectives. 

Divest UCONN of Governmental Authorities & Treat it Like a "for Profit Corporation" 

Eliminate the University's Standing as a Government Agency  

For years, UCONN has functioned above local land use, environmental and public health laws. Indeed its only masters are the Governor and the state legislature - both of whom have treated UCONN as an important element of the state's business. If the Governor wishes to consider UCONN an important driver for business in the state, then UCONN should be converted into a private for profit corporation or private non-profit organization and divested of its immunity from local laws and regulations. 

Let's call a spade a spade. If UCONN charges tuition that competes with the stratospheric costs found at Ivy League schools (i.e., UCONN now charges $54,000 for out-of-state student tuition and fees) and yet is a state supported institution intended to serve the general public, then arguably UCONN no longer functions in the public interest. For example, as mentioned above UCONN offers dormitory rooms at variable prices so it can attract rich out of state students who can afford deluxe accommodations. When has "luxury housing" become a public good the Connecticut State Legislature should sanction and promote?

Similarly, when does UCONN function as a private institution serving the needs of out of state students over residents of this state?  Homer Babbidge, UCONN's former president believed out of state students should never comprise more than 20 or 25% of its enrollment to meet its state land grant objectives yet in 2015 out of state freshmen students comprised 37% of their class excluding overseas students.  If international students were included the percentage would be 42% of the freshmen class. Why should Connecticut residents be underwriting costs for an institution that arguably is not serving the state's public interest? It should be noted, that for the first sixty years of its existence, the University and its predecessor institutions, only accepted enrollment from state residents (note: effective July 1 1941 this legal restriction was eliminated by the state legislature).

Since World War II UCONN has de-emphasized its agricultural land grant mission for a healthy dose of liberal arts education and more recently by embracing the trendy concept of STEM education – Science Technology, Engineering and Medicine. In the space of sixty seven (67) years UCONN has systematically expanded its mission to be an educator for the world without the checks and balances applied to other profit making organizations and without keeping the educational needs of Connecticut residents as its first priority. It is not a coincidence that the state’s fiscal appropriations for UCONN have dramatically declined as a share of its total annual budget over the last seventy five years. As UCONN expanded its mission to educate out-of-state students, capture federal and private sector research funds and raised tuition, the state legislature dropped its financial support from 53% of its budget in 1962 to only 17% in 2016.  Yet despite the limited state support for the university’s annual budgetary needs, the state has continued to treat UCONN as a privileged entity deserving of the vast range of executive powers uniquely ascribed to the sovereign state.  Since UCONN has made this slow and gradual transition from an institution serving the state’s public good to one with an international business mission, few at the state capital have taken notice of its misuse of powers as long as it “beat the drum” of better business and contributed to the state’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Other major universities in New England, including Harvard, Yale, Brown and Dartmouth are private institutions without access to the state subsidies given to UCONN.  UCONN, like all of the great universities of New England must be held accountable to local land use, environmental, public health and safety and housing laws. What is the public benefit of exempting UCONN from these laws?

The history of the last fifty years has clearly shown that immunity from local regulations and preferential treatment by state regulators in the issuance of environmental permits, the release of questionable Findings of No Significant Impact on environmental impact studies and the lax oversight of UCONN’s multi-billion dollar construction program have created serious environmental damages in Mansfield and numerous surrounding towns (this is discussed in more detail on an earlier blog post addressing UCONN's housing and environmental crises and in a separate blog on the legislative history of the University of Connecticut).

Reduce Size of Board of Trustees and Make it Accountable to Alumni and Mansfield

Reorganize the Membership of the University's Board of Trustees 

Currently 16 of the 21 board members are either appointed by the Governor (12), are the Governor's own cabinet members (3) and the Governor himself.  Two alumni and two students make up the balance of the board. Since its founding in 1881, the university has gradually expanded board of trustee membership (note: 9 members in 1881; 12 in 1925; 14 in 1975; 19 in 1982 and 21 in 2005) while shifting more power of appointment to the Governor of Connecticut. Business and political appointees of the Governor represent the controlling interests of UCONN’s Board of Trustees.

Instead of political appointees, UCONN should select most of its Board membership just like Harvard does - by popular election from its university alumni (note: Harvard’s Board of Overseers has 30 alumni represented on its 31 member Board).  However, unlike Harvard, UCONN should have a less unwieldy Board composed of only 15 members and these members should be selected by alumni and the residents of Mansfield and the satellite campuses.  Four of the appointments to the Board should be made by the Mansfield Town Council or by direct vote of the citizens and the balance of trustees selected by a direct vote of the university’s alumni. The logic for such an approach should be obvious to those that have witnessed the disequilibrium of power between Mansfield and the UCONN Board of Trustees.

Off Campus Housing for Rich Out of State and Overseas Students - This is NOT the Answer

Require UCONN to meet its Housing Responsibilities for all Undergraduate Students  

To accomplish this objective, the state legislature must adopt a "balanced budget" approach to the acceptance of incoming undergraduate students. UCONN must house ALL of its undergraduate students on campus as a matter of law. This is not a radical approach to Mansfield’s housing crisis. The State legislature required the Connecticut Agricultural College and its successor the University of Connecticut to restrict enrollment to 500 students during the period April 26, 1925 to July 1939 when dormitory space was in short supply. Rather than allowing the Board of Trustees to unilaterally make the decision on how many students are allowed to attend UCONN’s Storrs campus, the legislature should require them to annually consult with the Mansfield Town Council to ensure the university considers the off-campus housing impacts created by enrollment decisions.  This consultative approach is needed whether or not the state legislature finds the concept of a private non-profit organization as a palatable solution for solving UCONN’s failed public mission. Dialogue – rather than legislation – may be the first step and this can only happen if the Board of Trustees better represents the interests of the alumni and the citizens of Connecticut.

Similarly, state legislation must be enacted that restricts future financial support for the university to the construction of on campus dormitories as the first priority until the housing crisis is resolved. UCONN's penchant for new sports stadiums, bigger recreational centers, larger laboratories and bigger libraries may all be appealing to donors but must be put on hold until the student housing crisis is resolved. The state legislature set a dangerous precedent by allowing private donor funds to drive UCONN’s building program without grounding such capital intensive building decisions on the basis of the public good in general and public education in particular (think football stadiums, sports centers, sports training facilities, etc.).

For those who claim that many other schools have more off-campus students than UCONN, we reply that one man's mistakes are not another man's opportunities. The question of responsibility for housing students on campus has been plaguing UCONN since nearly its founding in 1881. Past university presidents have treated students like a herd of cattle with little regard for their living conditions or public safety. During the last thirty years there have been countless cases of overcrowded dormitories and yet the Board of Trustees, while it is aware of the existence of these issues, has done little to resolve these housing conditions or to curtail the blight of off campus student housing that has devastated many stable Mansfield neighborhoods. 

In some years, students have been packed in rooms much like the Irish immigrants of the 19th century that lived in deplorable tenements in New York City, Boston and other ports of arrival. Surely, UCONN can do better for its students. Yet it isn't just the students that need to be considered. UCONN's failure to meet its housing needs has forced thousands of students to live off campus if they wished to continue their studies during their Junior or Senior years. The result has been an infestation of student rental housing throughout Mansfield that has destroyed many stable neighborhoods.

The solution, we contend, is a seven year plan to transition the university from its current predicament of only 71% of its undergraduates housed on campus to over 90% by the 2025.  Given the limited fiscal resources of the state of Connecticut, UCONN may need to rely on its private fund raising capabilities and other non-governmental donors to achieve this goal. Rather than seeking donor funds for sports centers, UCONN needs to attract donors who will invest in "name plate" housing if that is what it takes. A Board of Trustees composed of residents of Mansfield and the satellite campuses would be a step in the right direction and facilitate the transition of UCONN from a business behemoth to one working in harmony with its host municipalities.

Divest Storrs Campus of Being the Only Four Year College

Decentralize the University Education System 

UCONN has long been caught in the illusion that bigger is better and that more resources are needed regardless of their environmental or social consequences.  Currently, UCONN has campuses in Hartford, Waterbury, Avery Point, Groton, and Stamford.  All of these locations already offer four year college degrees but they continue to function as "feeder schools" to the UCONN campus in Storrs due to the limited range of courses offered. By decentralizing UCONN’s faculty, curriculum and students, the university and Mansfield will be better able to live within the water and waste-water constraints imposed by the fragile river systems within the watersheds of the Willimantic and Natchaug rivers.  More importantly, a decentralized university system can create centers of excellence throughout the state – not just in Mansfield.  This approach has been taken by the State University of New York in which each of its regional campuses functions as a unique center of academic excellence.

Mansfield is a rural town and its road system was not designed to accommodate urban traffic volumes envisioned in UCONN's Next Generation Master Plan. In the world of public health, health planners created the concept of the Body Mass Index (BMI) to help people determine when they are overweight. While there is no comparable BMI concept for sustainable development in Mansfield, it is clear by any standard that UCONN is "overweight" and its poor health is endangering not only its own future but that of the surrounding towns. For example, in 2015 when UCONN took over 1.5 million gallons of water from outside of its own watershed - a taking sanctioned by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection - it clearly showed it was living beyond the carrying capacity of its own land holdings and those of Mansfield.

Decentralizing UCONN will have many salutary effects on the economies of major urban centers in Connecticut where urban infrastructure already exists to support an expanded university curriculum. Those who believe in the idea that "if you build it they will come" have unfortunately failed the first principles required of anyone who receives the degree of Master of City Planning.

Cities already have the existing infrastructure to meet housing, transportation, public water and sewer services. Expanding a rural college into a mega-university in one of the most rural areas of eastern Connecticut, is an example of a misuse of federal, state and local tax dollars. It is not surprising that UCONN does not offer any courses in urban planning because if it did, it would set a poor example for any serious student of urban affairs. Example is always better than precept.

Restructure UCONN’s Financial Portfolio

The education bubble rests on a collective belief that higher education is a personal and public benefit. For many of the post- World War II years, there was a direct correlation between income levels and educational attainments. While education continues to be an important entry card for many forms of employment, in the post 2001 American economy a college degree offers far less value than fifty years ago.  Yet despite the declining economic value of getting a college education and tuition far out-pacing inflation, the education bubble has yet to be deflated. It is, of course, only a matter of time.

In Connecticut, the state legislature authorized over $4 billion in capital funds for the UCONN 2000 program and its sequel called Next Generation or NEXT GEN for short. This level of capital investment may be the single largest infusion of state funds for university infrastructure in American history. These funds have not only dramatically expanded UCONN’s building inventory (as of 2014 UCONN had over 500 buildings on its Storrs campus) they have also expanded state debt and fueled a tuition crisis. According to a recent article in the July 25, 2016 issue of the Atlantic, “the backlog of maintenance has only grown since the economic downturn. It’s up 18 percent since 2007 at private, nonprofit campuses and 22 percent at public universities and colleges, according to Sightlines, a higher-education-facilities consulting firm.”

UCONN’s massive debt – embodied in over $5 billion in capital investments – counting state and other funding sources - flies in the face of a growing trend toward less building dependent educational systems. Fiber optic technology and the growth of online learning systems promises to provide dramatically less expensive education to college age students in the near future.  The high capital investment in university buildings and the high cost of tenured faculty portend a massive shift in educational priorities over the next two decades (see Decline and Revival in Higher Education, by Herbert London published in 2010). Simply stated, UCONN may be pricing itself out of the education market when the Internet offers a wide array of online courses at a fraction of the cost.

How can UCONN’s massive debt be reduced without compromising its historic mission of providing an affordable public education?  It certainly will not be through more state subsidies – Connecticut taxpayers are fed up with this government largess. The solution depends on privatizing UCONN so its assets can be purchased by business interests and philanthropic organizations rather than the taxpayer.  Inevitably, tuition must go up to keep up with the university’s mounting debt and to cover the increasing costs for maintenance of its massive infrastructure.

Concluding Thoughts - A State Task Force

To accomplish these five highly timely objectives, the Mansfield Town Council, the residents of Mansfield and other interested parties will need to make a compelling business case that this is the best strategy for both the university and for the town. The university will benefit from becoming a private for profit corporation or a private non-profit organization since it will no longer need to rely on governmental sources of funding including the restrictions that such funding entails. With the state's near bankruptcy condition, this is not a difficult case to make because UCONN is very unlikely to continue getting preferential financial treatment as it has over the last 100 years.  Certainly, divesting UCONN from state government will have an important impact on the university staff that are now considered state employees.  A transition plan will be required that sunsets UCONN faculty and staff from state employment.  A combination of approaches should be considered including a transfer of state retirement programs to the new university corporation and the buyout of those within 5 years of retirement age.

To achieve these objectives the state legislature needs to create an independent task force composed of business leaders, academic representative from the university, alumni, residents of Mansfield and other campus branches as well as distinguished scholars and university presidents from prestigious universities that operate in private non-profit and private for profit modes. Such a task force, established by special legislation should be given at least two years to develop a strategy to achieve these objectives along with a budget to cover consulting costs, travel and administration work required to complete this work. 

Similar task force strategies were used in earlier eras when UCONN was considering expansion of its mission into medicine and law and needed the legislative and financial support of the state of Connecticut and private donors.  

The time is ripe for a reassessment of the University's role in the 21st century - especially with dramatic reductions in federal and state funding which are already forcing UCONN to develop financial counter-measure plans to survive over the next five years as student enrollment declines in direct proportion to increasing tuition. Part and parcel with the tuition crisis, the state’s taxpayers are demanding greater fiscal accountability in state government and one of the most important first steps toward fiscally responsible government is privatizing the University of Connecticut and divesting it from its privileged position as the holder of sovereign powers within the municipalities it presumably serves.

Research Methods:
Details on the sources and methods used in this research can be found by clicking on Notes on the Research Supporting this Blog.