The Board of Visitors Finance Committee’s decision to approve a substantial tuition increase this week has been met with significant concerns about the Board’s lack of transparency throughout the decision-making process.
The changes consist of a 3.9 percent tuition increase for all students and a 13.4 percent increase for the incoming Class of 2019 — ultimately a figure up 27 percent from what students were paying in 2014.
John Griffin, Finance Committee vice chairman and alumnus, presented the tuition plan to the Board Tuesday. Board member Helen Dragas said some committee members expressed concerns about whether the tuition proposal was properly posted before the Board meeting.
“Mr. Griffin offered me a scant outline of the proposal during a phone call the evening of Friday, March 20,” Dragas said in an email. “I spoke with four other Board members that weekend, three of whom were completely unaware of the proposal and one of whom had been notified by a telephone call from Mr. Frank Atkinson on Saturday or Sunday. A fifth told me that Frank Atkinson tried to reach him by phone on Sunday or Monday."
Griffin said the Board held open meetings in which the financial plan was discussed.
“We’ve had four public meetings where we’ve talked about all the issues,” Griffin said. “[The] last one was in November, where people were told the plan [and] most of the numbers, but we hadn't said what the tuition plan would be.”
Griffin also said he was informed the proposal did not need to be released to the public until it was presented to the full Board.
“I was told by the people who know — the administration — [the plans] don’t need to be posted prior [to the meeting], but they do need to be handed out to the room the same time the full Board sees them,” he said.
Board Student Representative Meg Gould, a fourth-year College student, said the Rector of the Board of Visitors created and publicly outlined the Finance Committee’s mission and goals for addressing affordability last June. She said the process has been broadcasted online through live meetings and documents since.
“Subcommittee members have conferred with students, administrators, alumni, parents, and more throughout the course of the year through a variety of avenues,” Gould said in an email. “I also gathered general sentiments about this idea of coupling a tuition increase with a reduction in the loan burdens for students.”
Gould said the Finance Committee, where all base and school-specific tuition plans were decided, publicized tuition policy information close to the time when Board members voted on the program.
“In regards to the transparency of the past few days, I think everyone would agree with the fact that the policy information for the Subcommittee concerning the affordability program was posted very shortly before the meeting, and was voted upon when many still believed it was intended for discussion,” Gould said. “In this last step of the process, from the student perspective, many students feel that they weren’t give sufficient time to understand the policy and [felt] unheard or unrepresented.”
From a student's perspective, Gould said she thinks the timeline of the program’s information could have been improved.
“Personally, as a student I would’ve liked to see the direct numbers and materials publicly available much earlier than they were,” Gould said.
University Law alumnus Kevin Martingayle, chairman of the Virginia State Bar Association, said the Board followed the Freedom of Information Act’s guidelines, but said he felt the process was “anything but transparent” from the student point of view.
“Whether or not they complied with the letter of the law, I think it’s pretty clear the spirit was violated,” he said.
Third-year Commerce student Garrett Allen and third-year College student Tara Raj, co-founders of company VotersChoice, said their company partnered with Gould for a study in which the Board attempted to reach out to students concerning the issue of raising student tuition.
VotersChoice conducted a survey in February, which included responses from around 1,000 students out of the University’s roughly 21,000 students. The survey asked whether students were in favor of reinstating full-grant aid for low-income students, even if the reinstatement was coupled with a tuition increase for all students.
In the survey, 58.4 percent responded with the option, “Yes, if there is no tuition increase,” and 26.7 percent responded saying, “Yes” and 14.9 percent responded saying “No.” The survey recorded demographic information of the sample population, including students’ major, year and gender. Raj said the data was shared with the Board and was taken into consideration during the decision-making process.
Raj cited under-representation and failure of more student response as potential sources of bias in the survey.
“[We found] there were very few students who opposed the issue entirely, but [to improve,] we would have needed to survey more students and make our survey more statistically rigorous,” Raj said. “Had we been able to run the survey with more students, it would have been possible that their individual opinions would have had more say. A greater response to the survey would have led to the results being more representative of the student population.”
Allen said connecting with students about pertinent issues in advance is important to increasing student response.
“It’s a lot about connecting students with issues that they care about,” Allen said. “Right now it seems like students care after the fact about [tuition] increases happening, and students are more reactive than proactive with issues. That is what we are trying to change.”
When asked about the student survey, Griffin said he would be interested in seeing the results, and Dragas said she had not been made aware of the survey nor its results.
“I was unaware of a student survey but hope that it was broad-based and representative of the student body,” she said. “If it was completed, I wish the results had been shared.”
Students exhibited varying opinions on how transparent VotersChoice made the polling process. Third-year Engineering student Kyle Kramer said while news of the poll was not publicized well, the poll itself was a sufficient effort to represent the student body.
Kramer said, “One-twentieth of the population is a very good sample size for the data set.” Even though he himself was not contacted by VotersChoice, Kramer said that “statistics work for a reason,” and that he is “perfectly fine not [having been] chosen.”
Second-year College student Addie Eliades said she was unsure how the process could have been made more transparent.
“I’m not sure by what other means they would have gotten it more publicized,” Eliades said. “[The survey] is a good way to get that issue out there and let it be known that there is some kind of change being considered.”
However, Eliades said that VotersChoice’s fell short in reaching more of the student body and accounting for its diverse composition.
“I don’t think the sample is enough,” Eliades said. “It’s such a melting pot here at U.Va ... even though 1000 seems like a fair sample, I think giving everyone the opportunity here to put in their voice would be nice. It can’t be that hard with technology.”
Second-year College student Ibby Han cited the survey’s lack of specific details of the Board’s proposed plan as problematic. Han also said since the full details of the proposal were not released publicly until after it was passed, student responses to the survey were not as informed as possible.
“Ideally, the Finance Subcommittee would have publicly released the full proposal to get feedback from students and parents before passing it,” Han said. “I don’t think that people fully understand the details and the implications.”
Allen and Raj said although the process may not have been as widely transparent as many would have liked, they hope organizations like VotersChoice will help play a part in connecting representatives and their constituents moving forward.
“We hope that this instance will be a catalyst for students to recognize the importance of students to provide their opinions in the future, not just with tuition but with other important issues in the University community,” Allen said. “We think this is a step in the right direction towards more transparency in the future.”
Dragas said it is important for the University to involve the public — including students — in large decisions, citing her experience serving as the Board’s Rector.
“If I learned anything from my time as Rector, it’s that we shouldn’t make big decisions at a $2.5 billion a year public institution without getting the public involved and without clearly communicating our direction and intentions,” she said.
Dragas said the recent tuition increase is not consistent with that idea of transparency.
“Sadly, the massive tuition decision last week was handled in exactly the opposite way,” Dragas said. “Despite having contemplated a high-tuition model for as long as two years, the administration provided nothing regarding the specifics of the plan to most Board members in advance and nothing at all to the public, as is the letter and the spirit of Virginia’s open records laws. The resulting backlash has been student protests, social media outrage, angry letters from parents and demanding calls from legislators.”
“We owe Virginia’s students our best — and this isn’t it,” she said.
Kayla Eanes contributed to reporting.
Read More
The ‘Batten Curve’ — what’s the big deal?
By Bennett Galper and Nina Broderick | YesterdayBatten students are also involved in conversations about potential policy changes, with some taking an active role in advocacy efforts.
UJC sees “major influx” of cases with 38 adjudicated so far this term
By Ford McCracken | 2 days agoAlongside an increase in cases, the Committee saw increased interest during recruitment
Shots fired reported on 800 block of Hardy Drive
By Thomas Baxter | 3 days agoLongo said to avoid the area for the time being.
