RENTFRO SPINS HIS WEB FOR "NEW" UTB-TSC "PARTNERSHIP"

By Juan Montoya

Texas Southmost College counsel Daniel Rentfro - in a letter to TSC trustees - has made his pitch to them to approve his "historical" pact, citing dire consequences if they do not.
The letter, dated Sept. 21, 2010, warns trustees that if the partnership is dissolved, he predicts financial ruin, lower pay for college employees and higher taxes (more than double) for the district.
The "workgroup" with which Rentfro participated included the ususal suspects: Provost Alan Artibise, Special Assistant to the Probost for Partnership Affairs Wayne Moore, Vice President for Financial Affairs Rosemary Martinez, amd former trustee and executive director Michael Putegnat.
He calls Moore and Putegnat "two of the architects of the original partnership agreement."
Also aiding the group were trustee David Oliveira and UTB-TSC president Juliet Garcia.
In a latter vacillating between praise for the original framers and biting criticism that their work-product had proved inadequate, Rentfro said it was time to adopt his new "single-entity" model and that he predicted it is "a new model of higher education that in years to come would be copied around the nation."
However, he hedges his bets when it comes to funding for the new entity he proposes.
While on the one hand he says it has the "potential" to bring substantial revenues to UTB-TSC by matching local tax revenue with state dollars, he concedes that the funding would be left to the cash-strapped Texas Legislature.
He said that if the UT System sees the community supports higher education it should elicit a "very strong commitment from UT System to pursue the funding."
Unmentioned, of course, is the level of "commitment" UT has shown by falling into arrears on their rent to TSC the tune of $10 million, their requirement that no funds from the oil and gas leases of the Permanent University Funds be designated for Brownsville in exchange for its inclusion into the UT System, and the legislature-mandated cutbacks in all university budgets.
Rentfro's screed also mentions that the new agreement strengthens UT's commitment to the UTB-TSC core values including open admissions, affordability, etc. Again, it's interesting that he didn't mention that as part of a UTB-TSC strategy, TSC district students were stripped of in-district tuition and now have to pay UT System rates.
He says the new pact would allow the offering of community college classes as part of the curriculum and would not change it without the approval of the TSC board.
"The existing agreement, in my opinion, is not as strong in offering those protections," he writes, again indirectly criticizing the original Moore-Putegant agreement from 1991.
In other words, UT System promises not to take what TSC already had before the partnership.
Then, tellingly, he concedes that there is a concern about "excessive tuition for community college courses, and says that there would be a phase-in period to "bring tuition and fees for certificate programs to not more than the Rio Grande Valley average , and tuition and fee rates for Associate Degrees of Applied Sciences to no more than 125 percent of the Valley average."
That, he believes, would be a "major concession" form the UT System and a "major" victory" for the students of the TSC district.
At this point, it is instructive to learn from this "architect" that, indeed, TSC students are paying way too much for the classes they get at the local college-university partnership and that the "concession" from the UT System is those seeking degrees in Applied Sciences pay no more than 125 percent of the Valley average. What a deal, Dan!
At the time of the 1991 agreement, Moore and Putegnat discounted out of hand that any ambiguity existed with a hybrid institution as far as the accrediting agencies. Now Rentfro exposes their argument for the lie it was then.
"You are well aware of the operational inefficiencies and ambiguities under the current arrangement - such as for instance, that the accrediting agency regards UTB-TSC as one entity, the Coordinating board as two, with the Department of Education confused on the point. The ambiguity sooner or later will have serious repercussions for UTB-TSC."
Rentfro seeks to quiet the furor raised by local residents over the wholesale transfer of the community college resources to the UT System by saying that is not what he meant at all, even though the agreement reads:
"The partners contribute resources, including land, buildings, equipment, bank deposits, investments, and other assets to set up UTB/TSC, for the use and benefit of the new entity. UTB/TSC assumes the outstanding liabilities associated with these assets and the previous operations of UTB and TSC, except that UT System and TSC remain liable for its bond debt."
Dan disagrees. He says in his letter that "concerns over surrendering local control are "misplaced."
The how does he explain this clause in the partnership?:
"Authority: The UT Board of Regents, as the managing partner will manage the business and affairs of UTB/TSC on behalf of the Partnership...

And so, after three and one-half single-spaced pages of what the agreement does not do, Rentfro then pulls out his piece de resistance: the consequences of what would happen if the partnership were dissolved.

1. If the partnership were dissolved, TSC would have to obtain separate accreditation for courses from the Southern Association of Collgees (SAC), a process he hints, that "could take years." But, Dan, didn't TSC already have that before the partnership? This ain't our first rodeo.

2. All UTB-TSC faculty members might have to take a pay cut if the partnership were dissolved. No one is talking of dissolving anything, Dan. We just want a a better deal for our students an taxpayers than the one you, Putegnat and Moore have devised. You go it now?

3. If the partnership was dissolved (there you go again, Dan) operating two entities would require two administrations and staff, at an additional cost of millions of dollars. In other words, unless we give in to UT System, they would presumably go away? That's the kind of commitment UT System has for this area? Hell, we've had the college since 1926 and we managed just fine without having to subsidize the UT System.

4. The long-range development plan for the campus has been done with the assumption that a partnership...would remain in place. There is no guarantee that if the partnership was dissolved UTB would make use of the TSC buildings. The TSC would be forced to provide all the funds for maintenance and operation of those buildings. Well, now, we know that the original partnership also carried the clause that UT would not pay for any construction on the TSC campus. That burden was left to the local district taxpayer. Hell, if we already paid for the construction of the buildings, surely maintaining them would be a cakewalk, don't you think?

5. The resulting loss in HEAF (Higher Education Assistance Funds) could be in the millions of dollars, resulting in an increase in the district's Maintenance and Operation tax many time over the rollback rate - perhaps even a doubling or more of that rate. Oh, Dan, that last one is the beaut. Unless you knuckle down to us, you hold up the boogie man of higher taxes.

When you did away with in-district tuition for our students and made them pay the highest rates and fees in the entire state, we didn't hear you wail about higher costs, did we? Now you say that we're facing that if we don't agree with your self-serving "analysis?"

Otra vez para los sordos:

WE DON'T WANT TO DISSOLVE THE AGREEMENT. WE JUST WANT A BETTER DEAL FOR OUR RESIDENTS THAN WHAT YOU AND GARCIA'S BOYS HAVE DRAFTED. GOT IT, DANNY?