Over the past two years, businesses across the nation have been devastated by financial problems.

The dismal economic situation has caused nationwide retail stores, multi-billion dollar corporations and neighborhood mom-and-pop businesses to declare bankruptcy and shut their doors for good.

Even states are facing financial ruin, especially Texas, which is handling budget woes that have not been seen in more than 15 years.

This fiscal year, Texas is coping with a $1.8 billion deficit; the next biennium's deficit is estimated to be $9.9 billion, but it could be more.

Taxpayers do not have to worry about shouldering this debt directly, but various state agencies are enduring crippling budget cuts-including UH-Clear Lake.

The state has ordered a 7 percent budget cut for the remainder of this fiscal year. Budget cuts for the 2004-05 biennium for most state agencies will be close to 9 percent, however; universities are facing cuts that could range from 10 to 16 percent. UH-Clear Lake has complied with the state's demands for this year, as it must, but has the university done so without neglecting its responsibility to the students?

Among the changes that have been made to satisfy the state's mandates, two are particularly troubling for UH-Clear Lake students and faculty members: summer school courses are being cut by 19 percent, and full-time faculty members are not going to receive their normal salary for teaching summer courses.

There are numerous repercussions from these budget cuts that students and faculty are going to have to deal with in the coming months. Students are worried that course cut backs will have devastating affects on their college careers.

Will the classes students need to graduate be offered during the summer? Are classes going to be overcrowded this summer? Will international students, who are required by the INS to maintain 12-hour course loads, be able to stay in the country if courses are cut next fall? Will student fees increase to buffer the budget cuts? Is the university in danger of losing its accreditation by changing certain aspects of academic programs? Will the quality and availability of education at UH-Clear Lake be lost? These are tough questions administrators will have to face.

Faculty members have expressed concerns regarding the university's priorities and how budget cuts for this fiscal year were made. UH-Clear Lake's "primary role is to provide fair and equitable learning opportunities to graduate and undergraduate students," according to the school's mission statement.

Funding for academic courses and salaries goes hand in hand with this pledge, so why were these areas cut? Why couldn't money from other ledgers in the university's budget be moved so courses and salaries could be salvaged?

Funding provided by the state constitutes approximately 40 percent of the budget; why was the other 60 percent not used to offset the affects of this cut? Will students and faculty be involved in decisions the next time cuts are made? How much revenue will the university lose by cutting courses? Will enrollment be high enough by the summer of 2004 for the university to receive more state funding? Why will students have to pay more for education while receiving less from the university?

How prepared is our institution for handling budget crises like the one it is facing now? Is there a contingency plan in place for the upcoming biennium? Did the administration only have two weeks to prepare the new budget, or did they have an idea that this would happen earlier in the year? Again, these are difficult questions for administrators and, to date, none have been sufficiently answered.

UH-Downtown, as well as the other schools in the UH System, had to contend with the same budget cut as UH-Clear Lake; however, it met the state's demands without cutting summer courses or affecting its faculty's salary. Why was UH-Clear Lake not able to do the same?

State funding makes up anywhere from 40 to 50 percent of UH-Clear Lake's total budget. Comparable to that, UH-Down-town receives 44 percent of its budget from the state, yet it was able to achieve its budget reductions by capital outlay delays, hiring reviews, limitations on travel and reductions of other special items.

University officials had to cut the 2003 fiscal year budget; they had no choice ­ it was a state mandate. The state's announcement came five months into the year, limiting the administration's options. However, administrators did have the final say in how the budget was cut. President William Staples stated that in rearranging the budget, the university tried to make more cuts in the administration and other areas outside instruction and academic affairs. These other areas did suffer larger budget cuts than academics, but Staples and the administrators did not exhaust all of their resources. Money could have been pulled from other areas of the budget as well as non-essential operations, services and equipment.

There is still time for students and faculty members to act before budget cuts for the 2004-2005 biennium occur. Students need to voice their concerns to the administration and the state's elected officials. Texas legislators must understand that these damaging budget cuts are not the way to solve the state's deficit. University officials need to understand that this budget crunch cannot be fixed by compromising the students' education.

Top of Page | Front Page