The University of Wyoming was in the hot seat for much of the state’s budget talks this winter. Members of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, a conservative bloc of the Republican party, proposed slashing its budget by more than $60 million. But in the end, UW got its full funding.
University President Ed Seidel chalks it up to an outpouring of support from alumni, residents across the state and even some lawmakers.
“I feel like, actually, not only did we get the budget that we were asking for, in large part, but we also got momentum for the university,” he said.
But the negotiations that led to a fully-funded university happened largely behind closed doors. To get a sense of what happened – and the relationship between the purse-string wielding Legislature and its flagship higher education institution – Wyoming Public Radio’s Jeff Victor asked Seidel about three moments from the recent budget session.
JV: The first of those actually comes from before the session itself. In those initial hearings about the budget, you were asked some questions from the committee that's tasked with putting together the first draft of the budget. This is Rep. John Bear (R-Gillette), a Freedom Caucus leader, asking about a specific course's value.
Legislative tape of John Bear: How is ecofeminism helpful for a student who wants to stay in Wyoming and work in Wyoming?
Legislative tape of ES: I do not have an answer to that question.
JV: What was going through your mind during that line of questioning?
ES: Too many things were going through my mind at that very moment, which is why I gave such a weak answer. I have a lot of answers to it now, because that particular exchange really did stick in my mind for a long time.
It's about teaching different perspectives. We're all about experiential learning and internships. And in fact, the JAC [Joint Appropriations Committee] and ultimately the Legislature supported our programs for paid internships that would have to happen in the state of Wyoming. So my point is: You get the kind of education here that has a lot of hands-on experience that prepares you for careers, no matter what courses you take.
JV: You've been through at least three budget sessions at this point as president. Are those types of questions normal in your experience with the Legislature?
ES: No. That was the first time I'd had questions like that, that were really going after a very specific course. I remember my first meeting, [Sen.] Larry Hicks (R-Baggs) asked me a question about why we were still teaching French. I remember that question.
JV: French.
ES: Yes. He was just pushing a little bit, like just to see how I might respond. Honestly, that's just another example where it gives you part of a worldview. It's not just learning the French language, but it's learning about how different people across the world see things, how they think. That's something that does apply to your work here in Wyoming as well.
JV: Ultimately that committee did decide to cut more than $60 million from UW’s budget and requests. The biggest piece of that was a $40 million slash across campus. The next moment I want to take us to is actually the third reading of the budget bill on the House floor.
This is Rep. Scott Heiner of Green River, also a member of the Freedom Caucus, telling his colleagues that the $40 million proposed cut was really meant to get UW’s attention.
Scott Heiner: Sometimes it takes a big lever to get the attention of someone to be able to negotiate, and what we had in the budget brought the people to the table … Just yesterday afternoon we had a meeting with some key individuals from this university. It brought them to the table and we had a very productive meeting. There was a meeting of the minds.
JV: Part of the reason that I and other journalists are so interested in picking apart what happened is because some significant parts happened behind closed doors. So my question for you is: What was discussed at that meeting? What went on there?
ES: Well, first of all, I wasn't at that meeting. Apparently there was a discussion, but I just put that in the category of there were lots of discussions going on. I met with legislators, sometimes for lunch, sometimes for dinner, sometimes in the hallway. And so I regard that as just part of the overall dialogue that was going on between different parts of the university, either president or perhaps a board member, or perhaps with VP Mike Smith or others.
I do know that no deals were made of any kind, and that I think that was perhaps overblown in people's minds.
JV: There was a lot of talk about starting a conversation with UW about classes that don't align, or allegedly don't align, with Wyoming values. I want to know: Did the university view any of those as bargaining chips?
ES: I didn't. And I never offered up: ‘We’ll cancel some class in return for some budget value.’ That was never a discussion that I have ever had.
JV: Was it a discussion anyone else from the UW team had?
ES: Not that I'm aware of. We have all kinds of process around what kind of academic offerings we have and so on, and they're very carefully thought through. They're proposed by faculty, but then it goes through a process and it requires a lot of discussion and so on. And we look at enrollment and if we think it's not really serving the needs of the state, or if it's not attracting students, then we'll look at perhaps sunsetting that program.
JV: Right. But would you ever review a course because the content was not favored by powerful politicians in the state?
ES: I do think that having some conversations with the Legislature or with any groups about, ‘Why are you teaching that?’ or ‘Why are you teaching this?’ I think those kind of conversations are ones that the university is willing to have.
But I don't think we ever want to get into a situation where some political group thinks that some course doesn't really represent what's needed at the university, and then because of that, we would cancel it, because you really get into quite a slippery slope there. But I do think it's legitimate to talk about making sure we really serve Wyoming. We are the University of Wyoming, so that's fundamental to the university.
JV: Throughout the session, lawmakers gave multiple reasons for the proposed $40 million cut. They pointed to the courses that we've been talking about. They talked about getting your attention, but they also talked about balancing the budget and also administrative bloat. There were lots of ideas put on the table. Did they tell you what they actually want?
ES: I would say not clearly, in terms of what kinds of changes people wanted. There seemed to be shifting rationale for the budget cuts. But it was never really clearly articulated to me.
JV: Do you feel like you even know what they wanted to get your attention about?
ES: I think it was more, is the university – I'll frame it this way: ‘Is the university too liberal for the state?’ We're like one of the most accepting of conservative views of all campuses in the country. And so that kind of reflects the state of Wyoming.
A few years ago I announced a program to make sure that we were politically or institutionally neutral. And we've declared that. We are one of the first universities to actually declare that we are neutral. And we need to be if we then try to cultivate different viewpoints on our campus and then also try to cultivate constructive dialogue. We've actually worked very hard on that. We're becoming nationally recognized. So I'm very proud of that.
JV: I want to bring this back to the session. And I want to bring us to the third moment that I want to focus on. I don't have an audio clip for this one because it was another secret meeting.
This came just before the House and Senate were set to reconcile their versions of the budget. They took their votes in public, but they had clearly decided everything beforehand in a closed-door meeting. At that point, the House was still pushing for big cuts. Yet after that meeting, UW got basically everything that it wanted. So what happened there?
ES: I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't know.
JV: You weren't there. Fair enough. But it does sound like UW had an ally in that room. Sen. Gary Crum of Albany County, former UW Cowboys football star, big supporter of the university.
ES: And his son, Frank, by the way. Great football star.
JV: Absolutely. He was put on that committee to hold the line on university funding, to basically tell the Freedom Caucus: ‘No, you will not cut UW.’ Did you or UW give Sen. Crum any talking points before that meeting?
ES: I'm not aware of any. We just let that process play out as cleanly as it could.
JV: But when it came to funding or programs that were on the line, were there things that really needed to be protected, or were there other things that were more negotiable?
ES: All I can say is I did not direct anybody to say those kind of things. But, I would say: Why are the athletics operations here so important to the state? Or why do we need to have those internships? Or why do we need to have the CTE program? Or why do we need to have the materials and critical minerals laboratories and so on? So those kind of things, we had points that we would make, but there was no negotiation [where we] said, ‘You've gotta protect this one.’ I never said that to anyone.
JV: So, UW did get its funding restored. Lawmakers did attach a string to the university's funding. The university needs to review its budget and find savings and do some other things. I'm curious, how will the university go about doing that?
ES: That's quite a comprehensive set of activities that they ask us to look at and evaluate. I would say we have had every single one of those items looked at in one group or another. I've had a budget committee that's been working for a couple of years to look at efficiencies and even looking at potentially changing our business model internally. That's been going on for actually a couple of years, but now it's going to be more concentrated.
And I think it's actually something very good to bring to the next president: a university that's fully funded and has looked at every aspect of efficiency, and programs that are looked at as to whether we really need them or not. That's a great thing to give to the next president.
JV: Bringing our conversation to a close now, to ask the big question: Lawmakers said they wanted to get your attention. Have they?
ES: Oh, for sure. But they already had our attention. But this did focus it in a new way. And maybe there's a better dialogue that emerges from all of this, and I hope that is the case.
