The Vision Thing: Seeing What We Can Be...

...and What We Can Afford to Be

Terry Woster tells us this morning about some early reactions from our legislators to the Board of Regents proposal for spending $75 million to build and upgrade research labs on all public campuses (that includes the Sioux Falls University Center, which is a center, not a university, really, honest, no fooling, the Regents promise).

As Woster aptly puts it, "$75 million is going to be a conversation stopper -- and starter" [Terry Woster, "Lawmakers Question Need, Cost," that Sioux Falls paper, 2007.11.18]. In the category of conversation he might hacve wished he'd stopped before it started, my fellow Democrat Senator Ryan Maher from Isabel offers the following less-than-visionary assessment:

"I just don't think we're a research state," he said. "They're making a huge push on research. I don't think I'm buying into it" [Woster].

With all due respect to the good senator, it doesn't look good when a South Dakota Democrat sounds like he's further behind on the learning curve than a South Dakota Republican:

This time, the state itself is being asked to pay off the loan. The argument is that all of South Dakota will benefit, and for decades to come.That resonates with Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell.

"My belief is this is the time, and we absolutely must make a state investment in all of education, from pre-K to K-12 to higher education and on into research," Olson said. "The investment pays off so many ways. There are so many degrees that are custom-made for industry. The goal has to be to sell this now" [Woster].

Political leadership is not about where we are, but where we want to be. That's the vision thing. Imagine if Janklow and the Legislature had looked at Citibank in 1980 and said, "I just don't think we're a financial services state." (Reminder: banking is now South Dakota's largest industry.)

But let's Senator Maher some slack. Maybe he's still picking his jaw up off the floor in the face of the 75-million-dollar price tag. According to Woster, the Rounds Administration has already directed a quarter of the total growth in state spending "and two-thirds of the increase in authorized employee positions" toward higher education. This request probably has some other public entities wondering when they get their cut of this pie. As Senator Gil Koetzle (D-Sioux Falls) says, "Don't you just bet K-12 would jump at the chance for $70 million?" [Woster]

There's where things get hairy. If the Regents want their $75 million, or even a fraction of that, they may have to share, or even offer something in return. The long-term benefits of increased research, increased infusions of research grant money, and increased recruitment of high-skill knowledge workers and high-tech industries may not be enough for legislators who live in the here and now of balancing an election-year budget.

$75 million isn't going to materialize out of nowhere and leave the rest of the budget untouched. And even if it did, there are a lot of other priorities that would compete for those dollars. Handed $75 million, even yours truly -- a DSU doctoral candidate, graduate assistant, and thus employee of the Board of Regents -- might have to recognize that paying K-12 teachers what they are worth is a higher priority than upgrading the Habeger Science Center. Even if we took this whole as-yet imaginary $75 million and poured it all into teacher salaries, South Dakota's average teacher pay would still be $3,300 below the national average (and that's including the cost of living adjustment).*

And if we don't have $75 million in new revenue coming in (50-cent-per-barrel tax on the Keystone pipeline?), then we'll need to make some cuts. And legislators are already pointing at one possible area that would hit the Regents where it hurts: the number of campuses:

Sen. Gil Koetzle, D-Sioux Falls, will be a hard sell.

"That guy can spend more money than a kid in a candy store," Koetzle said of Perry. "How about instead of trying to spend, we try to save? If we want to have all these research facilities, maybe we should think about not offering college courses in seven different locations. I'm serious. I don't know how we'd do it, but do we need more labs at every campus?" [Woster]

Yeesh. The debate on the Regents' proposal may get ugly fast.

The Madville Times loves research. World-class scientific research can drive our economy and even our population growth, as good labs and good faculty can draw a whole sector of workers and businesses that South Dakota hasn't previously placed at the center of its development strategy. Vision in this area demands seeing not just the cost of action, but the cost of inaction (see Dr. Kurtenbach, bottom of post).

But we also have to be realistic: can the vision of what research can do for South Dakota justify a serious investment, maybe even some debt at this point? What are we willing to spend to realize this vision, and what, if necessary, are we willing to sacrifice?

I don't have the answer this morning, but expect some really big conversations right through the 2008 session.

(At least one thing is clear: With big questions like this before the Legislature, we definitely don't have time to monkey around with an abortion ban.)

---------------------------------
*This morning's back-of-the-envelope math:

1. $75M/approx 10K teachers = $7,500 per teacher.
2. Average SD teacher salary: $34,040 (2004-05)
   
3. Average US teacher salary: $47,674 (2004-05 -- comparing apples to apples)
   
4. Average SD teacher salary post-plan: $41,540.
5. Amount still below national average: $6,134
6. SD cost of living index: 93.7% of national average (Q2 2007 -- yes, now we're doing apples and oranges)
7. Average COLAdjusted SD teacher salary post plan = $41,540/0.937 = $44,333
8. Amount still below national average even after factoring in South Dakota's 35th in the nation Cost of Living: $3,341