Washington
It's not as if the University of Kentucky couldn't use more money. The public flagship, like many in the country, has had to absorb a series of budget cuts from its cash-strapped state.
Yet when a California company recently proposed including the university in a multimillion-dollar pool of research money the company wants to seek from Congress, with little expected from the university in return, the institution turned it down.
The corporate proposal was an attempt to "end-run around what Congress intended" when the House of Representatives this year banned earmarked appropriations for private companies, said James W. Tracy, the university's vice president for research. "And that is not the way the University of Kentucky chooses to operate."
The question that faced Mr. Tracy is one that has been confronting research universities across the country in recent months, in the wake of the new House policy. The ban is lawmakers' latest bid to staunch the growth of earmarks, the practice of writing specific projects directly into the federal budget so that an individual recipient can collect the money without a competitive bidding process.
That new policy, somewhat predictably, has led some companies to either create nonprofit entities or find nonprofit partners to maintain earmarked budget allocations that they've received in past years. And universities have emerged as a popular choice among companies whose work involves scientific research.
For the University of Kentucky, that meant campus visits from officials of San Diego-based General Atomics. The company has received federal, earmarked money in the past to finance its research into ways of converting algae into jet fuel, but it will no longer be eligible for such funds without a nonprofit partner.
Private Agendas
The University of Kentucky has extensive relationships with private companies and welcomes joint research projects, Mr. Tracy said. And the university's scientists have made their own breakthroughs in research into alternative fuels, he said. But Kentucky administrators who studied the General Atomics proposal decided that the company had limited interest in the university's research abilities and instead seemed concerned mainly with using Kentucky's nonprofit status to win more earmarks in support of its own private agenda, Mr. Tracy said.
"If we're going to go for an earmark," Mr. Tracy said, "we want it to benefit the university primarily. We're not here to support for-profit companies."
Not all universities, however, are reaching the same conclusion.
Just a half-hour south, in Richmond, Ky., administrators at Eastern Kentucky University accepted a deal similar to the one the University of Kentucky turned down, agreeing to put its name on a federal earmark request proposed by General Atomics for algae-into-fuel research. For Eastern Kentucky, the offer may have been a more natural fit because the university already had already been working for at least two years with General Atomics on ideas for converting plant materials into jet fuel.
And almost 300 miles north, the University of Toledo is emerging as a champion of such partnerships. For the coming fiscal year, Toledo has lent its name to at least five requests for earmarks with for-profit companies, totaling more than $24-million in federal research money.
University of Toledo officials say all of those corporate projects, in areas such as developing alternative-energy vehicles and helping soldiers detect hidden explosives, fit within their institution's research mission. And they make no apologies for doing what they can to help create jobs in a city where the unemployment rate exceeds 12 percent.
"Toledo and northwest Ohio is a region that has struggled a lot with the economy, and so we're looked at very much as an institution that will provide and foster jobs," said William E. McMillen, the university's vice president for governmental relations. "We are a school where we pride ourselves, literally pride ourselves, on our relationship with private companies, and in partnering with them."
Aggressive Approach
The University of Toledo is proving to be aggressive on that front. In an analysis published earlier this month, the Huffington Post Investigative Fund identified 17 instances in which a member of the House of Representatives had submitted an earmark request for the next fiscal year on behalf of a nonprofit entity for a project that had received an earmark a year ago under the name of a for-profit company. In nine of those instances, the nonprofit entity was a university. Toledo accounts for five of them, with no other university appearing more than once among those examples.
A survey by The Chronicle of a dozen of the largest university recipients of federal-budget earmarks found them cautious about working with corporate partners for the primary purpose of helping them overcome the new House restriction.
Those showing wariness include Mississippi State University, which collected $43-million in nonshared federal earmarks in 2008, the most of any university. Mississippi State has been contacted recently by about a dozen companies seeking partnerships that would help the companies sidestep the House policy, and it has turned them all down, said David R. Shaw, the university's vice president for research and economic development.
"Just something that is attempting to get around this type of a ban is not within our scope of what we view as appropriate," Mr. Shaw said.
Thousands of Earmarks
The practice of including earmarks in the federal budget is coming under growing scrutiny, because of concerns over both the size of the overall budget deficit and the question of whether a collection of projects chosen by individual lawmakers rather than by open competition represents favors to lobbyists more than objective merit.
This year's federal budget included nearly 9,500 earmarks, worth more than $15.9-billion, that went to groups that collectively spent $269-million on lobbying Congress, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense, two nonprofit research and advocacy groups.
Although House Democrats this year instituted the ban on earmarks for for-profit companies, the party's members account for all 17 of the apparent attempts to bypass the restriction that were identified by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, a nonpartisan media research venture financed by groups that include the Markle Foundation and the Knight Foundation.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio made six such requests, five of them using the University of Toledo as the nonprofit party. Ms. Kaptur is in a good position to win earmarks, given that she is one of the most-senior members of the House Appropriations Committee, which sets the government's annual budget levels.
A spokesman for Ms. Kaptur did not respond to requests for comment.
The University of Toledo is the city's only major university, and members of Ms. Kaptur's staff routinely refer companies that are seeking general partnerships to the institution, said Frank J. Calzonetti, Toledo's vice president for research development. The university, however, has "no interest" in projects in which it merely serves as a pass-through for federal money reaching companies, Mr. Calzonetti said.
For each of the earmarks requested by Ms. Kaptur that involved the university and a for-profit entity, university officials investigated the proposed relationship and decided the partnership would lead to substantial work by the university's own researchers, he said.
Mr. Calzonetti said he could not predict what portion of the $24-million in the five earmark requests would go to the university rather than the companies if Congress approves the projects. If the money is allocated, the university and its company partners would only then begin working out a detailed breakdown of where the money would go, he said. But he disputed a media report suggesting the university would get only a small fraction of the total amount.
Uncertainties and Caution
That lack of clarity about the division of funds should be a warning flag, said Joseph M. Donovan, managing director of Nelson Mullins Public Strategies Group, whose clients include several research universities. Two of Mr. Donovan's university clients received offers from companies wanting to share in earmark requests, and both turned them down after he asked them to carefully consider whether the project really fit their missions and whether the institution would actually perform the research. Universities should avoid a case where "somebody loves me for my money but not for my mind," he said.
That philosophy appears to guide Mr. Tracy at the University of Kentucky. The university isn't opposed to earmarks for scientific projects, but it focuses on going after money for basic rather than applied research, so that its work primarily generates common knowledge instead of profits for a particular company, he said.
That not only helps the university stay true to its mission but also helps maintain what it regards as matter of trust with Congress, Mr. Tracy said. "You don't want to sacrifice that for a buck," he said.
Mr. Calzonetti described the University of Toledo as sharing similar goals, at the same time it allows for a wide understanding of the ways in which it can help society.
The largest of the five earmarks sought by Ms. Kaptur would provide $7-million for the university to work with a Texas company, Advanced Concepts and Technologies International, to develop new and more efficient ways of powering military vehicles.
If successful, the research would help the Pentagon save money on fuel, create safer and more reliable methods of distributing energy supplies, and even protect soldiers by developing operating systems that are tougher for enemies to detect in battlefield situations, Mr. Calzonetti said. Such projects, he said, bring more than just financial value.
Comments
1. ascbloggie - July 19, 2010 at 01:42 pm
The faculty at University of Toledo, especially Arts and Sciences College faculty, have been very disturbed over the privatization trends of the Jacobs Administration, which has even attempted to sell off a huge portion of the curriculum delivery to a for-profit online education business. There appears to be a great deal of obvious cronyism and other low dealings in this administration.
See the unofficial University of Toledo faculty blog, ascforum.blogspot.com/ for discussion of these issues. You are invited to both read and contribute. By sharing our experiences and information we may be able to defeat these monsters.
Sincerely,
Professor Bloggie
2. none_ - July 19, 2010 at 03:08 pm
While you're on the blog mentioned above, I hope you'll take time to read the racist and sexist posts directed at students, administrators and fellow faculty.
Racism:
Sping 2008 - faculty blog photoshops Asian-American dean as a kung-fu caricature and earns a rebuke from national Asian-American advocate 80-20 Initiative.
Sept. 22, 2008 - faculty blog refers to prospective students as "Lucasville alums", a reference to UT's efforts to recruit in Ohio city schools: http://ascforum.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview.html
Dec. 9, 2009 - faculty blog laments "urban students" at UT: http://ascforum.blogspot.com/2009/12/open-letter-from-ashley-pryor-to-david.html
Sexism -
Post removed - animated video referring to the new female dean as a stripper
April 20, 2010 - faculty blog post referring to the female UT provost as a person to have sex with complete with a condom: http://ascforum.blogspot.com/2010/04/trojan-footfalls.html
June 1, 2010 - faculty blog post referring to women complete with link to a woman dressed like a prostitute: http://ascforum.blogspot.com/2010/06/les-femmes-nikitas.html
July 3, 2010 - faculty blog reference to committee of female faculty, deans and staff as disciplettes: http://ascforum.blogspot.com/2010/06/surgery-is-so-much-fun.html
July 13, 2010 - faculty bog referring to same group of women as "hens"" http://ascforum.blogspot.com/2010/07/heniversity-of-toledo.html
Meanwhile, partnerships with private industry have caused research dollars at UT to soar and many faculty are developing new research collaborations. Most who post of the blog have little tme for research, what with all the blogging that needs done.
I thought these posts from the blog highlighted above would be helpful as readers decide who the monsters really are. (And yes bloggie, I'm a shill because I don't enjoy your various -isms.)
3. sportsters - July 20, 2010 at 08:12 am
The casual “Bloggie” online discussion at University of Toledo in response to this article thus far has been civil and instructive and includes:
1.(From a “Concerned Alum”): Congressional Earmarks are an effective means of funding university-based research and supporting the existing faculty research. Additionally, earmarks enable faculty to develop new (usually related) projects and enhance/strengthen existing academic programs and support their students. Indeed, the monies support and enhance graduate education in ways that more competitive programs do not and cannot (think tuition reimbursement as many programs have insufficient budget resources to assist with tuition). The key is that earmarks have to meaningfully enhance and augment the strengths of an institution and/or reflect the scale/scope/potential of existing activities. This is a non-issue as earmarks assist all academic units in direct and indirect ways. Indeed, I would guess that a great deal of discretionary budget resources that are made available to depts to assist/supplement with extra-ordinary travel, hosting conferences, end of year purchases, and so on are likely derived from F&A cost recovery. I would hope that this forum keep its eye on the ball--which is a failed leader (aka Jacobs).
2.(From Anonymous): Sorry, earmarks are pork. By definition this stuff is waste. Real research gets funded by the NSF and NIH.
Just because Marcy has made herself the heiress of John Murtha and the money is being laundered through UT does not make it magically productive. Think of the Murtha related corruption. Where is this loot going after it gets through UT's and its patrons' hands? If you think it circulates around Toledo providing jobs...very naive.
3.(From Anonymous): The whole question about whether UT should or should not receive earmarks is fraught with perils. Please keep in mind that earmarks are tax dollars. If there are earmarks, then there necessarily will have to be taxes or debt or both! Economists are concerned that the debt burden of the United States has grown too large. The debt of a country, according a recent article in the Economist Magazine is a Ponzi scheme based on the growth of the population and its output of the country. In the United States, the debt has now grown much faster than either the population or the national output and this has Economists very worried. Similarly, increased taxes are a disincentive to personal and corporate wealth creation. President's Reagan's success is that he was able to encourage business investment by lower the tax rates in the United States. But that is clearly not possible considering the expenditures that the United States is making at this time. Therefore, Congress was entirely correct in trying to limit earmarks in the budgeting process as earmarks contributed to the national debt. Have earmarks helped UT? Definitely yes in a short term perspective. Equipment was bought, laboratories built and students funded. But this is a short sighted outlook on the problem. Earmarks were needed because UT's reputation as a research university limited its effectiveness in the competitive granting process. Furthermore, the agencies that were committed by Congress to provide the earmark dollars to UT were not always happy to do so nor were they necessarily happy with the results that they received for the moneys provided. If the agency is not happy with the results of this process, then it certainly will not be willing to consider UT a viable research facility when making decisions when the competitive proposals are considered. The question about whether earmarks help UT's reputation is clearly not answered favorably amongst either peer institutions or amongst the funding agencies. In addition, when UT uses earmark money to bring in research faculty and build facilities and the earmarks do not continue, then UT has to provide budget from its operating budget to provide salaries and perform the maintenance and upkeep that the new equipment and laboratories need. In the long term, this costs the future students of UT who provide the greatest part of the operating budget through their tuition dollars. Earmarks not necessarily good for UT and they definitely are not good for our nation. Too many tax dollars have been wasted pursuing pet projects when such projects could withstand the scrutiny of peer review. And I cannot regard the recent publications regarding skirting earmark rules as being good press for UT. But I do agree with the first commenter: our "eye on the ball" should be inability of the Jacob's Administration to successfully lead the University of Toledo.
4. jhough1 - July 20, 2010 at 11:27 am
One wonders if something else is involved. The for-profits also buy small failing colleges for their accreditation, which last for some years. Does the partnership also buy sub-standard people and projects legitimacy? When you look at the number of student loans going to for-profits, their number of defaults, the effects on credit ratings for years, and the high number of minorities being victimized, this has to change. In this case, it is minorities who are striving for an improved life who are being abused. Surely the science cooperation is the functional equivalent of steering research dollars to sub-standard work.
5. 22221757 - July 20, 2010 at 11:34 am
Universities can try and wear the white hat all they want on this one, but the fact remains that very few research universities are capable of actual tech transfer (in the commercial sense) and they need private industry to make anything real happen with their work. Research faculty would like to believe otherwise, and may have some success fooling dim-witted elected officials, but most in industry know better....
6. jthelin - July 20, 2010 at 12:28 pm
I think a university's involvement in such an arrangement with kinds of firms or for profit groups that the federal government has explicitly prohibited from participating is at very least disingenuous, probably dishonest, perhaps illegal.
It's difficult for an outside reader to make sense out of the internal U of Toledo bitter disputes. So, I tend to stick to the issue at hand as raised in The Chronicle of HE.
7. lizziec - July 20, 2010 at 01:31 pm
Sportster noted that "when UT uses earmark money to bring in research faculty and build facilities and the earmarks do not continue, then UT has to provide budget from its operating budget to provide salaries and perform the maintenance and upkeep that the new equipment and laboratories need." I add the following:
I was briefly affiliated with an earmark that in the end totaled more than $50 million of taxpayer monies and was funneled through the King of Pork to key people in his district and surrounding region. This "super important project" had high mucky-mucks lined up 10-deep to tout the benefits and extraordinary necessity of this project to the region (this was related to Homeland Security). Interestingly (to me, anyway)...when the monies dried up, the all-important project disappeared, as did scores of employees, high-tech equipment, etc. Of interest to me was that something sold as "critical to the region" could - in an instant - become yesterday's news.
I suspect that many of these projects have similar lifespans, and I ask - at what cost? If this "critical project" was expendable when the money went away, how much MORE good could those funds have done for the region? How many hungry people could have been fed? How many illiterate school children could have been taught to read? How many homeless families could have been housed? How much more tuition money could have been subsidized so that the debt loads of our future generations are lessened?
While I understand the basic premise that these arrangements "can" boost the local economy, I think any boosts seen are short-lived, do not lead to sustainable employment or infrastructures that support sustainable anything, and lean heavily toward serving the elite on both sides.
LizC
8. tridaddy - July 20, 2010 at 04:22 pm
It is very short sided to think that an earmark is going to be sustained for an indefinite period. At my previous university an earmark was not even considered if it did not provide a plan for competitive funding. Earmarks, at a minimum, should be used to initiate research not sustain research.
9. none_ - July 20, 2010 at 04:58 pm
Agreed. At U of Toledo many of these projects initiated with earmarks are further supported with NSF, DoE, DoD, EDA and state funds following the initial investment.