Give each campus control.

Byline: The Register-Guard

If he who pays the piper calls the tune, Oregon can no longer demand that its seven universities sing the state song in chorus. Universities are raising 80 percent or more of their budgets on their own - from tuition, grants, donations and other sources - and are seeking greater control over their own destinies. The request deserves a generally favorable response.

All seven university presidents signed a letter last month addressed to a planning committee of the State Board of Higher Education, explaining that in the absence of adequate public support they need more leeway to respond to the demands of the marketplace. The higher education board will discuss the presidents' request at its meeting later this week. The board has the authority to grant autonomy in some instances; the Legislature holds the key to other shackles.

For a university, autonomy means being able to start a program, build a building or adjust tuition without first getting permission from the chancellor of higher education or the Legislature. It means having the authority to raise and spend money without being subject to state expenditure limitations. It means gaining control over purchasing, contracting and the installation of equipment. It means being freed of the obligation to admit more students than the state will pay to support.

Oregon and its universities have been moving in this direction for half a decade. The state took an important step four years ago, when it gave each university control over its own tuition funds. The 2001 Legislature created a task force to study the structure of the higher education system, and that group was expected to examine such questions as how to reconcile declining state support with higher enrollments.

What happened next is a perfect illustration of how the universities have stepped in to pick up responsibilities that have been abdicated by the state: The legislative task force was never funded or appointed, so universities pursued their own strategic planning efforts. The UO's planning advanced to a point at which it became clear that the university needed to confront the issue of who should be making decisions affecting higher education. Other institutions reached the same conclusion and unanimously agreed to seek greater control over their own futures.

The UO, in particular, is being pulled in two directions by rising enrollments and declining state support. The state now contributes only 18 percent of the UO's budget, down from 33 percent in 1990. Enrollment will exceed 20,000 in the fall, and the UO will receive no state funds whatsoever for 1,000 of those students. With the state facing a shortfall approaching $1.5 billion in the coming biennium, the Legislature is not likely to be in a position to provide financial relief. Unless it is given the freedom to manage its own costs, income and programs, the UO's only choice will be to educate more students with less money - thereby diluting the quality of education for all students.

Shifting more control to each university campus raises a number of questions that the higher education board and the chancellor will have to study. The role of the chancellor would need to be redefined; his ability to speak for a unified statewide Oregon University System would be diminished. Part of the autonomy plan would involve the creation of boards of trustees for each university; these boards' composition and responsibilities have yet to be determined. The state would have a continuing role in financing higher education; the public's long-term interest in increasing that role would have to remain clear.

Despite some uncertainties, however, it's clear that the proposal for greater autonomy is an attempt by the universities to solve a problem that the state has proven unable or unwilling to address. The state hasn't met the challenge of maintaining and improving higher education in Oregon. Universities need to be given the freedom to do the job on their own, as best they can.