Laslo Boyd: A law that made a difference

And did we finally and conclusively solve some problem that has been confronting the state for ages? It appeared that last fall’s special session resolved the state’s structural deficit, but, by this year’s session, that conclusion seemed premature.

Legislation in addition to being a messy, compromise-filled process is also a terribly inexact one. Many well-intentioned laws have unintended consequences that turn out to be more significant than the original goals. Some of our efforts at dealing with poverty fall into that category.

Many laws are wildly oversold by their proponents and never accomplish anything close to what was promised. Despite decades of efforts, we are still struggling with very limited success to ‘‘save” the Chesapeake Bay.

Yet, at times, a highly visible piece of legislative fulfills its expectations and sometimes even exceeds them.

In 1988, in William Donald Schaefer’s second year as governor, his administration tackled an issue that had been the subject of numerous official studies and lots of agonizing: how to improve Maryland’s system of public higher education.

While there were areas of real accomplishment in the state’s colleges and universities, there were also constant complaints about a tangle of institutions with no clear focus, about a disconnect between higher education and the rest of state government, and about a chronic under funding of higher education by the governor and General Assembly.

Schaefer’s initiative passed a little before midnight on the last day of the session and involved all sorts of political twists and turns and considerable rewriting by legislators.

The fights were about details. Different campuses had their champions in the legislature. Everyone was worried that his or her particular needs wouldn’t be adequately addressed. And, in typical higher education fashion, the turf battles were ferocious.

Yet, for the most part, the details didn’t matter. The law accomplished its two major objectives. One was to make higher education a real priority of the state and increasingly an asset that was seen by state officials as a key to Maryland’s future growth and development.

And, second, the politics of decision-making was taken, for the most part, out of the General Assembly and transferred to university governing boards.

Twenty years later, the results are impressive and significant. My comments here focus on the University System of Maryland because that was in fact the primary focus of the legislation.

To be sure, there have been changes along the way, but the basic decision in 1988 set into motion a process that has resulted in many of the state’s universities being nationally recognized and ranked in a number of different fields, new sources of monies being generated, and tens of thousands of additional students receiving their educations here.

In 1988, Brit Kirwan was the chief academic officer at College Park, a campus that had considerable reservations about the proposal. Today, Kirwan is the chancellor of a system that he points out is nationally recognized as being a leader in higher education. In his view, the combination of a strong state commitment and the decision to decentralize the system and give as much autonomy as possible to individual campuses have been the keys to the successes that have been achieved.

For example, Maryland has increased funding by 30 percent over the past three years at a time when many states were cutting higher education support. That increase allowed Maryland institutions to hold the line on tuition and as a result move from sixth highest in tuition in the country to 16th.

In the 20 years, monies from external grants and contrasts have increased from $179 million to more than $1 billion, making the university system one of the major economic engines in the state.

Back in 1988, Maryland public colleges had relatively anemic fund raising programs. Today, the total endowment has increased from $60.8 million to $852 million and the university system is moving forward with a $1.5 billion private gifts campaign.

And then there are those national rankings. College Park has moved aggressively into the upper tier of national public research universities in the country. The University of Maryland, Baltimore’s professional schools have made similar strides. UMBC has the remarkable Meyerhoff program, also 20 years old, and a record of accomplishment in the sciences that is the envy of many better-known institutions. Towson and Salisbury have made great advances as regional comprehensive institutions and are being acknowledged outside of Maryland. The list could go on, and those not mentioned will be justifiably annoyed.

Still, the point here is that a law in 1988 with a very ambitious set of objectives has fulfilled its promise and more. None of the results were automatic, easy or without some problems. Strong leadership has been a key. And, with only a few exceptions, state government has been content to support the effort without feeling the need to manage it or to intervene in specific disputes.

If there is a lesson, it is that making long-term investments in the state’s future can pay off. To do that, however, requires not being consumed by short-term considerations. That’s easier said than done.

Laslo Boyd worked in Governor Schaefer’s office at the time of the legislation mentioned above, and was directly involved in the process. He now is a partner at Gonzales Research and Marketing Strategies, and is a visiting professor of government and ethics at the Hoffberger Center for Professional Ethics at the University of Baltimore. His e-mail address is lvboyd@gmail.com.