Breaking higher ed funding barrier

June 29, 2009 by Tessie Perkins 

UNLV could be getting short end of the stick when it comes to funding

UNLV senior vice president for Finance and Business Gerry Bomotti and former President Carol Harter released a report examining the inequities in funding between Nevada’s higher education institutions.

The report, which was quickly adapted by Chancellor Jim Rogers to call for increased funding for Southern Nevada schools, shows that UNLV and the College of Southern Nevada are at a disadvantage compared to schools in northern Nevada.

Rogers wrote in a memo Tuesday that UNLV and CSN should be given an extra $68 million over the next six years in order to balance discrepanciess.

In his memo, Rogers addressed a report by former UNLV President Carol Harter and senior vice president for Finance and Business Gerry Bomotti, which recommended an extra $12.7 million for UNLV and $9.6 million for CSN for three biennia. An additional $2.5 million was recommended for both schools in the fourth biennium.

According to Bomotti, the reason for the inequalities between the northern and southern schools is expansion.

“The rapid growth of the southern institutions has led to funding differences that are significant,” Bomotti said. “Simply put, we have less money to support each individual student.”

According to Bomotti, UNLV receives about $45 million less than UNR each year, while CSN receives $5,867 less than equivalent institutions.

A 2003 legislative study showed that both UNLV and CSN received $1,500 less per full-time student than colleges in the north.

A more recent report, which was released in 2005, shows that the number has grown to $2,200 per UNLV full-time student.

Rogers told local media that he is dedicated to making sure that the colleges in Southern Nevada receive the funding they deserve.

According to Bomotti, more money means huge things for UNLV. He said increased funding means more services would be available to students.

“More faculty positions to deliver courses and programs, more faculty who can work on research activities and involve undergraduate and graduate students in those activities,” he said, “all [result] in better student success as measured by retention and graduation rates.”