Behind the scenes: MNSCU reacts to Dayton’s budget
Senior leaders and faculty at the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system put forward a unified front on the day Gov. Mark Dayton announced last month that he would not give them any more state money until they settle an ongoing dispute over MnSCU’s future direction.
But behind the scenes, MnSCU Chancellor Steven Rosenstone and others were trading talking points to deflect the governor’s criticism. And some of those talking points suggest MnSCU will be forced to raise tuition even if Dayton releases $35 million in funding that he has reserved for the system.
E-mails, notes and draft talking points show Dayton’s staff notified MnSCU’s leaders about his intentions a week before he made the announcement.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
Once MnSCU officials learned of the budget freeze, they worked quickly to craft a communications plan to react to it. That plan included talking points and call scripts for MnSCU leaders, college presidents and others aimed at putting a positive spin on Dayton’s announcement.
“There needs to be more optimism here,” Rosenstone wrote in an e-mail about the initial draft statement. He was concerned about language that said “decisions of this type sometimes happen to organizations.”
Officials also worked on language to emphasize that Dayton has made similar threats before. In 2013, Dayton set aside $80 million for the University of Minnesota but withheld the funding until there was a satisfactory report on the university’s administrative spending.
“We need to find a way to assure all audiences that this is not catastrophic,” wrote MnSCU spokeswoman Kim Olson. “The best way is to say it has happened before.”
Tuition hikes on the table?
The draft talking points also urged officials to downplay any talk of tuition hikes.
“We should NOT talk about a ‘big tuition increase’ in response to the Governor’s recommendation today,” one bullet point noted. “Don’t jump to a tuition solution.”
But behind the scenes, tuition increases were seen as a solution.
A draft message crafted for Rosenstone said tuition would increase by 4.5 percent each year even if Dayton agreed to release the $35 million that he held in reserve. MnSCU leaders are seeking $142 million in new funding.
“We do not yet know what the governor’s recommendation on tuition will be,” the document said. “But given the level of funding being considered, we will work very hard to maintain the board’s ability to set tuition rates.”
Another bullet point said the tuition increase “equates to $217 per year increase in college tuition and $305 per year increase university tuition [SIC].”
The tuition notes were later revised to ignore tuition hikes except to say MnSCU has only two sources of revenue: “state support and tuition.”
A spokesman for MnSCU issued a written statement when asked about the internal discussions about possible tuition hikes.
"The affordability of a college degree is a critical issue that is front and center in our legislative request this year, and we are encouraged that both Governor Dayton and the Legislature share this interest," MnSCU spokeswoman Kim Olson wrote in a written statement. "We look forward to continuing these conversations as the session progresses."
Despite pledge to cooperate, disagreement still surfaces
Rosenstone’s dispute with the Inter Faculty Organization and the Minnesota State College Faculty started several months ago.
Last fall, MnSCU’s faculty took a no confidence vote in Rosenstone’s leadership and called for his termination. The vote came after Rosenstone released what he called the “Charting the Future” initiative aimed at overhauling the 31 schools in the MnSCU system.
Faculty leaders say Rosenstone’s attempt to streamline the system would result in fewer liberal arts classes. They criticized Rosenstone for signing a $2 million consultant contract with McKinsey and Co. to help overhaul operations within the system.
In the days leading up to Dayton’s budget announcement, MnSCU’s leaders and faculty agreed to draft a statement pledging cooperation.
But there was still disagreement bubbling under the surface. MnSCU’s Board Chair Tom Renier wrote an e-mail to Kevin Lindstrom, President of Minnesota State College Faculty, urging him to tone down the rhetoric in a proposed message he was sending to his members.
“I suggest that the phrase in your upcoming newsletter that states, ‘… we weren’t going to be complicit in a process created by those out to destroy us,’ continues the inflammatory language that serves to further divide us,” Renier wrote. “In the spirit of our joint statement, I ask that you reconsider/rewrite the portion of your message.”
Lindstrom wrote back asking “How about if we replace ‘those out to destroy us’ with ‘McKinsey?”
Lindstrom ended up deleting the clause from his newsletter.
A problem with the roll out
And as carefully as MnSCU leaders worked to manage the message, there was a final hiccup.
Rochester Community and Technical College President Leslie McClellon wrote an e-mail to her entire campus about Dayton’s budget plan. But she mistakenly also sent out Rosenstone’s internal talking points, including one that said “do not be critical of unions.”
It isn’t clear whether Dayton will recommend more funding for MnSCU. He told reporters during his budget announcement last month that he would make that decision after the next budget forecast is released this coming Friday.
The documents show MnSCU leaders have also been left wondering.
In a Jan. 18 e-mail to MnSCU board member Margaret Anderson Kelliher, MnSCU’s Chief Financial Officer Laura King wrote that she learned Dayton was going to keep some money in reserve in case MnSCU leaders and faculty resolved their differences. But she asked Kelliher to ask Dayton’s staff a few questions.
“What will represent sufficient progress for the release of the funds?,” King asked in the e-mail. “A joint statement that we are moving toward mediation? What sort of other progress would be important to the governor?”
The documents don’t show whether Kelliher had any answers.