2012 Candidate Survey Results

We need to end the erosion of state support for higher education and return to funding levels that are fairer for students and parents, provide more stability for college and university budgets, and increase access for Washington State graduates. Devoting just 8% of the state general fund budget to higher education is simply unacceptable. This erosion of support occurred over a generation while the Democratic Party controlled the Governor’s mansion, and it will take time to restore the state’s commitment to higher education, but that is what I will do as Governor. As the economy grows, and the state budget grows along with it, we must steadily boost the percentage of the budget devoted to higher education. Education at all levels is the state’s top responsibility. As Governor, I will have the discipline to direct the largest share of budget growth to fully funding our schools.

The ratio of state support to tuition is unbalanced, with students and families paying more than ever before to attend a state school. As state support of higher education grows, that ratio should be brought back down through stabilized tuition rates. As Governor, I want to return to a 50/50 deal with our university students, such as when I attended the UW, where the state covers half the cost of a college education while students and their families pick up the other half. At our community colleges, we should aim for 75% state support, which is close to where it used to be (77%) and much better than the current level of 58%. Funding isn’t just about finances, it’s about the state acknowledging that everyone benefits from a skilled and educated workforce and understanding that every kid should get the opportunity to attend college.

This proposal would allow the University of Washington and Washington State University to strengthen their investment portfolios in the hopes of finding new sources of funding. It is predicted that through this, revenues could be between $11 million to $20 million per year, which would provide greater financial stability in the long run. This practice has been approved by the legislature and by the public five times before, so the precedent for change through successful management of investments is in place. The budget crisis has put a tremendous strain on the government’s ability to adequately fund our universities. I support this empowerment of our schools to find innovative ways to increase their revenue and resources without creating additional taxes. If approved, it will be one step in the right direction of fully funding our schools and providing all students the opportunities they deserve.

I would have to review any similar, newly proposed legislation for its specific language, but I support legislative reforms allowing the UW to operate more efficiently and to have flexibility in their business practices, given that this responsibility comes with strong accountability measures. The previously proposed legislation would have reduced capital costs of projects at the UW and WSU, giving them a greater ability to plan and manage their resources. It also included necessary accountability measures and oversight. It would have allowed the state to capitalize on favorable bidding environments and UW’s extremely high bond rating, which would save the state millions in debt service costs in the long run. I look forward to working with the legislature in the future regarding similar bills.

I appreciate the student lobby effort that comes to the legislature and shares their stories regarding the challenges students face when it comes to: high tuition prices, loan availability, and financial aid challenges.

See voting record.

Voting record.

The rising costs of higher education are hurting both current and future college attendees. Without adequate funding and necessary reform, our state colleges and universities will either need to raise tuition or lower the quality of education. To me, neither is acceptable. I served as ranking member of the Higher Education Committee and helped push through reforms that allow our colleges and universities to work together more effectively. If re-elected, I will continue this and work to create a dedicated revenue stream for higher education.

I did not support legislation that gave the universities unlimited tuition setting authority two years ago, but I did work with Senator Kilmer three years ago on legislation that addressed tuition from a broader perspective. That bill passed the senate Senate but failed in the houseHouse. Tuition setting authority and rules need to be monitored and re-addressed into the future.

I voted for SJR 8223 and would support other legislation to support research universities into the future.

I voted for this bill as well. It does have an expiration date of June 30th, 2024, thereby allowing for review and additional choices as time goes on. A good bill.

Further cuts to higher education will endanger the quality of our higher ed institutions and reduce access for students. Such results will lower quality of life and impede our state's economy. By contrast, we can help build our state's future prosperity if we increase investments in higher education.

I voted in favor of SJR 8223 in the House of Representatives during the 2012 session.

Education is one of the primary functions of the legislature to secure. My primary focus if elected will be on education, public safety, maintaining our infrastructure and managing our state public trust properties.

I will be working on making conditions more favorable for small businesses to start up or expand. Graduates for the past couple of years have been the largest sector of the population to experience the greatest difficulties securing employment. We need private sector jobs to increase employment and in turn create more taxpayers rather than persons depending on public assistance. More taxpayers mean more revenue in the public coffers and fewer people drawing a portion of that revenue. My other focus in education will be creating more favorable conditions for residents of Washington State to fund their higher education.

I would support this concept as long as the strategies of investments stay out of high risk areas. As an investor myself, I know that diversified portfolios in general are safer and more rewarding.

Having been an inspector of public works projects for many years, my opinion is the idea local management makes sense and as long as that management practice doesn't involve high risk strategies it would enjoy my full support.

I would promote returning to a 50/50 deal with our university students, where the state covers half the cost of a college education while students and their families pick up the other half.

I will work to end the erosion of state support for higher education and restore funding levels to their historical average, providing stability for college and university budgets and increased access for Washington families. Devoting just 8.6% of the state general fund budget to higher education is simply unacceptable. This can be accomplished by including public higher education as part of an expanded definition of Basic Education, just as we did with full-day kindergarten in ESHB 2261. This broader definition is supported by language in the McCleary decision handed down by the State Supreme Court in January.

I am undecided on this issue. I do not see how $11 million would help significantly solve a $500 million problem. My concern is that this issue simply distracts us from focusing on the REAL problem which is billions of dollars in unwise and ever increasing corporate tax breaks.

I am a founding member of the Washington Public Bank Coalition. Creating a public bank would allow us to cut the interest rate on higher education construction projects in half. I am also fully in favor of allowing the UW to follow any measures which can lower the cost of their construction projects.

It is a travesty what the Washington Legislature has done to Higher Education funding. We must invest in our students again and get back to a reasonable cost-sharing balance of state and student. As a proud Husky myself, I will work to see our higher education institutions funded at a higher rate; our economy depends on it.

Working families need the State to finally get funding back on track from the General Fund, rather from consistent tuition increases.

I supported this bill as the Legislative Assistant to Rep. Kevin Parker this last session and hope it passes the vote statewide.

But, this is a very complex question and cannot be responsibly answered with a simple Yes or No. Of course I oppose further cuts in state funding to higher education, but if the state can't or won't raise more revenue, the question becomes, 'what do we cut instead?' During periods of shrinking revenue, keeping one program whole means cutting other programs even more. It becomes a Sophie's choice. The real questions you should be asking are, 'Should we continue along the increasingly popular political paradigm of shrinking and privatizing government services, which includes higher education?' Or, should we return tax or revenue policies back to the paradigm our parents and grandparents believed in and followed to build our social institutions to begin with? i.e. 'those who benefit the most from the system are socially obligated to return the most back to the system so we'll have sufficient resources to build the system for everyone.' In the last 30 years that 'golden rule' paradigm shifted to a 'silver spoon' paradigm, i.e. 'those who get the most out of the system should keep it, and they will theoretically trickle down jobs for the rest of us.' Clearly the silver spoon paradigm (supply side economics) hasn't worked, and hence, our inability to fund the physical and social infrastructure of a civilized society, which includes Higher Education. I respectfully submit that the solution to Higher Ed funding, along with funding for other state programs appropriate for a civilized society, is to return to the golden rule paradigm our parents employed to build America, i.e. we need comprehensive progressive tax reform. Absent adequate revenue to fund necessary programs, budgeting becomes a dog-eat-dog competition between the programs. Unfortunately, Higher Education is not at Mazlow's basic level of primary survival needs to be met first. It's interesting to note that combined state support + tuition per budgeted FTE (SS+T or FTE) enrollment has actually increased from $11,061 (2000) to $15,246 (2013), an approximate increase of 38%. Your question says the UW has been forced to cut programs and lay off staff. I would ask why that is the case, since the increased total SS+T or FTE over the years cannot be the reason for that. It is clearly wrong to shift the burden of Higher Education funding from the public to the student. The public, after all, is the main beneficiary of education. The #1 goal of education is to create better citizens who can critically analyze social problems and develop real solutions that benefit and advance our entire society. A well educated citizenry is a prerequisite to a well functioning democracy.

I have been and will continue to be an outspoken proponent of progressive tax reform (see comments above). Our parents and grandparents believed two things: 1) the purpose of education was to build better citizens capable of critically analyzing social issues and developing appropriate solutions, and 2) financial resources to support those solutions were logically to be raised from those who most benefited financially from the system. These two beliefs have been perverted in the past 30 yrs.: 1) the purpose of education is being redefined as a training ground to create better professionals and workers for big business, and 2) the social paradigm has become 'those who get the most out of the system should be able to keep it all because they'll trickle down jobs to the people.' This has proven to be a false pretense with unemployment continually squeezing families and the wealth gap now wider than at anytime since the 1920's, which led to the great depression of the 30's because people couldn't afford to buy enough goods to keep the economy going. As educated alumni, we should learn from history, rather than continue to promote obviously failed policy.

The background points above misleadingly imply that putting students' tuition and fee money at risk into the stock market somehow reduces risk and is safer than the government paper the universities are currently restricted to investing in. The purpose of SJR 8223 is to allow investment of students' tuition and fee money into the stock market. If tuition and fees are already too high, and operating funds have been cut below sustainable levels, where does the investment funds come from? If tuition and fees are already too high, and operating funds have to be cut even more because of a dip in stock prices, where do the funds come from to make up the operating shortfall? The answer is: even higher tuition and fees. That is not a sustainable solution. If there are insufficient operating funds currently to maintain educational access and affordability, where will they get the funds to create an investment fund? By raising tuition and fees. And yes, tuition setting authority is now in the hands of the Board of Regents and Trustees, who are not directly accountable to the people of the state. Unelected Regents and Trustees can raise tuition at will without having to answer directly to the people for their actions. The Legislature, who are directly elected by the people, no longer have tuition setting authority because after years of pressure from the Universities to gain that authority, the Legislature finally abdicated that authority to the Regents/Trustees two sessions ago (which I opposed). The people no longer have direct recourse for tuition policies they disagree with, such as tuition increases funneled toward a stock market investment fund. Student paid tuition and fees should be used solely for their educational benefit, not gambled in the stock market.

Capital funding resources are state funds, and Washington State has the best credit rating of any state in the country. The universities should not be allowed to bond separately using tuition and fees as collateral. If the universities fall short on debt service or operating funds they'll need to raise tuition and fees yet again. The House companion to Senate Bill 5576 is HB 1754. Here's what it does: The revenues currently deposited into the UW Building Account and into Washington State University Building Account will be used for building purposes, including erecting, maintaining, equipping, furnishing, or operating buildings owned by the Universities and for payment of debt service as determined by the Universities without a legislative appropriation. Any funds in the Universities' building accounts will be transferred to the University for building purposes. Any revenues collected from trust land sources will be transferred to the Universities for building purposes. The three year reserve for the UW Bond Retirement Account is removed. The requirement that building fees be deposited into the Universities' Bond Retirement Accounts is removed. Any interest earned on investments of University funds shall be paid to the Universities. The Universities shall continue to use these funds for capital projects, deferred maintenance, and debt service. I oppose further erosion of the Legislature's fiduciary responsibility over state/public resources to unelected Board of Regents and Trustees (see #2 above). The universities are public institutions and must be accountable back to the public, whose interests it represents, not to unelected Boards whose interests may not align with the public's.

Education is the most important issue we face. We have jobs in high tech and other industries that go unfilled by our young work force as companies must go elsewhere to find qualified employees. I will work to restore our investment in education so more living wage jobs can be filled by our students.

We must commit to necessary funding so more of our young work force can qualify for living wage jobs in our state.

Washington already has experience in diverse investing. State pensions have a wide range of tools for increasing funds.

Local management will generally be more nimble and a more timely reaction to issues is a responsible solution.

I'm financially conservative. I have some concern about the risk factor in broadening the scope of investment activities. Until I understand better what types of investments are being considered I will withhold judgment on this topic.

Again, I need more information on this topic. Increasing bonding authority comes with the risk of greater financial indebtedness and the possibility of increased risk of bond default.

This is definitely the wrong trend.

Definite caveat needed here. My effort to support will be contingent on raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our state. WA has the most regressive tax structure in the U.S. Until we rectify that situation, increasing state support for almost anything is secondary.

If we haven't figured out that these investment options become wealth-transfer projects from the middle class to the biggest financial institutions, I despair. Rather than this approach, I support Rep. Bob Hasegawa's State Investment Trust (essentially a State Bank).

Like that phrase “local management”.

I will not oppose further cuts in state funding to higher education until I see the value that is being provided to students in their education. Are they getting the most 'bang for their buck' with the tuition they're paying now? Where is the money being directed? Is it being directed towards education or administrators? Is it being directed towards education or special programs? Is it being directed towards education or fancy facilities?

I will not work to increase state support until there is evidence that the funding is absolutely necessary and I am assured the funding will go towards education.

We need to ensure that we are doing the things necessary to grow our economy going forward. Quality K-12 education, affordable access to higher education, family wage jobs and quality healthcare are all pillars of economic growth. I will strongly oppose further cuts to higher education.

Absolutely! Higher education is necessary to develop a workforce that can compete in the global marketplace. We in WA educate many international students that can afford access to our schools. We need to ensure that we maintain in-state tuition levels such that access to these educational opportunities is something that our own children can afford as well.

We need to ensure that all options for education funding are explored. An small increase in risk can translate to larger returns, with risk minimized through longer term outlook. I would support SJR8223.

Efficient use of resources is in everyone's best interests. We need to ensure our university system has access to the most efficient management practices available. Local management of capital funds puts the decision making process into the hands of those with the best visibility into the capital project details. I would support SB 5576.

Yes, I will oppose further cuts in higher education state funding. A quality higher education program is an extremely important piece of our State's economic development program. Washington industries depend upon a well educated and skilled work force to meet the demands of a sophisticated labor market.

I would like to lower the cost of tuition for in-state students and raise the tuition for out-of- state students whose parents have not supported our state higher education program through their local taxes.

Yes, I support SJR 8223.

Yes, I will support legislation that authorizes local management of capital funds. Additionally, I plan to form a kitchen cabinet to address the higher education needs for Southwest Washington. This cabinet will be comprised of professional educators and leaders in the business community who can provide technical advice on areas of higher education and business. I do not have all the answers; however I am certainly willing to surround myself with intelligent experts who will be able to help inform me.

I would be interested to see what it is that is being cut. I would favor programs related to sports being cut, as it also brings in revenue, and should be relegated to be self-sustaining if cuts must be made. But cuts toward basic education need to stay stable.

I think scholarships could also play a role if we actively courted corporations to sponsor them.

However, the investments must be confined within a set of boundaries that makes it a non-risk investment. If this is not possible, or agreed to, I would not support it.

If there is a down side to this, I can't see it. If I were presented with information from the house that showed their reservations, I might change this opinion, but at this point, I see no reason to oppose this.

Not only will I oppose any further cuts, I will make restoring lost funding for higher education one of my top legislative priorities.

Sky-rocketing tuition rates and massive cuts to funding have put college out of reach for the average Washington family. This is unacceptable. An educated workforce is our best tool for creating a prosperous future for Washington. Providing that education will be a top priority for me.

I have been a proponent in the legislature of the importance of higher education funding for our state's economic prosperity and the security of the middle class, and am a strong advocate for policies that promote affordable tuition for all. I graduated from the UW in 1991 with an MPA after having received a fellowship, and I understand the importance of accessibility to our state's students. I will continue to advocate for the UW and our state's other four year colleges to embrace new delivery models that may be more cost-effective and may provide better access to continuing education to students of all ages across the state.

I am hopeful that as our state economy grows out of the recession, a greater emphasis will be placed on fully funding K-12 education (our state's paramount duty under our constitution) as well as on higher education funding as an economic investment. I also support policies that promote commercialization of research initiatives to help fund our public universities and believe that we should continue to look at ways to reduce the per-student cost of providing a quality higher education in the State of Washington.

I voted for it in the Senate.

I voted for this bill in the Senate.

I can say I personally oppose cuts. But I believe all of us that have some type of wages that come from the state are going to all have to take wage cuts. In order to save ours and others jobs. I include my self in that because part of my current incomes comes from the state. Education for the students for students to make it cost affordable is important also. I also know the student and family responsibility is more my daughter is at WSU currently. Housing values will continue to fall, at least in Pierce County where I know personally there were houses in our areas that went unassessed for over 15 years.

I will work to preserve state support. Let me explain and clarify. Another PAC group is trying to get other legislatures candidates and myself to give them support and take away from the current general fund that includes you. They want a law that will reduce funding to educational institutions like U of W, WSU and others. They want to take all the money that comes from the pet industry and put to into a spay and neuter program for low income and others. These are also the same people who stopped the slaughter horse industry in Washington State. Now our state has major problems with dropped horse on Fort Lewis Rangeland, Capital Forest, Olympic National Forest and other places these animals are reproducing and causing problems, etc. The people who created the law never considered the consequences to their actions. The state also lost millions from that industry that funded the general fund. I can say I will work to stop groups like that and other from attempting to raid the current general fund as it is on who/ what areas receive funding. I will attempt to stop the use of our general fund for purposes like this that would raid the already reduced funds. I would also notify you and others and alert you by letter or phone call that this was happening so you can protect our education and schools interest.

Because at this time stocks and bonds are very, very volatile, speculative and dangerous. The losses have already been catastrophic for many investors. At this time it could be like going down to the gambling at the Tribal Indian casino and gambling with the money. This is what some of the former student that I spoken with and others.

This is again a yes and no. Although I agree with a good portion of the bill I can see a couple of areas that if better worded would protect the higher educations schools better. I would like to see a change in that. My other great concern at this time is bonding anything with part of the world in a global financial crisis we need to stay away from that.

I also supported additional capital flexibility for our universities as a co-sponsor of HB 2735.

As a current K-12 educator and UW alumnae I understand we cannot continue to gut higher education funding and expect to provide necessary, quality education to students. Further cuts to higher education have got to stop.

I believe that increased state support is the only way to reverse public divestment from higher education and stabilize tuition rates for students and their families.

It only makes sense to allow for diversity of investments -especially in this tough economic climate.

I led the effort in the legislature to stop the cuts. We ended up with House & Senate, Rs & Ds all in agreement on this. Next goal: pour concrete on that floor so that no matter what budget problems lie ahead there will be no more cuts to higher ed - or education, period.

I am working right now with higher ed stakeholders statewide to develop a menu of major investment options for the next budget. Those include reversing the shift in the balance of state support/tuition, increased student aid, and increased funding to accelerate degree production. To do that we will need Washington's citizen-taxpayers to agree that these investments are in the compelling best interest of everyone in the state. The core case: we are a radically undereducated state. Our world-class, high-tech economy is faltering because we aren't delivering enough skilled people from our higher ed system. The tallest, broadest ladder out of this recession is education. For our own future survival as a state, we must invest more now. The core case: we are a radically undereducated state. Our world-class, high-tech economy is faltering because we aren't delivering enough skilled people from our higher ed system. The tallest, broadest ladder out of this recession is education. For our own future survival as a state, we must invest more now.

I sponsored the legislation in the House; I am a named sponsor of the amendment on the ballot.

I supported this bill in the House and will again. In addition, and working with the governor and the university presidents, I pushed through a package of 6 "business flexibility" bills which did remove a number of Mickey Mouse restrictions on university business practices. I have tasked a team of members to keep working with UW and the other universities on the next round of legislative 'weed-pulling' so our schools can be as efficient as possible.

Find it hard to believe the state and families/students are covering the whole cost. What about foundation grants and various scholarships? I cannot answer a question predicated on inaccurate information.

If there is reasonable way to do that without raising taxes, I will be studying it.

I have not had time to read this bill yet. As someone who has seen various investment programs - which appeared safe - falter in the last few years, I need to review it and see what the other investment options are before committing to a position.

I believe that local control is better than state control in most cases.

Through my work as an administrator at Washington State University I know all too well the severity of the cuts to higher education and the impact those cuts have had on students and their families. I am adamantly opposed to any further cuts.

While it will be a challenge to increase state support for higher-ed funding, I am up for that challenge. Our young peoples' future as well as the State's economic prospects are at stake. We must have a very strong higher education program in this state that creates well qualified and trained employees for our economy.

Universities must be given more tools to construct and maintain their facilities. I am in support of SB 5576.

My sons Reuben and Henry are both in college right now at Western Washington University. As I am struggling to pay their tuition on a single income, this is a very personal issue to me. A quality higher education system is critical for the long term economic and social well-being of our state, and funding for education in general is the best investment we can make. I will not only oppose further cuts; I will fight to restore funding for higher education.

The important question is: Which candidate will support raising revenue to support higher education? I want to completely reverse the current process whereby the state cuts taxes for corporations and interest groups, then, after figuring out how little revenue is left, forces important public services to fight over what remains. We should, instead, focus the debate solely on how we are going to gain the needed revenue. I support eliminating corporate tax loopholes that do not generate more jobs and revenue than they cost, an excise tax on high amounts of capital gains, eliminating tax breaks for out-of-state banks, and other revenue enhancements aimed at those who can afford them and who have benefited most from our economic system. We should not place a disproportionate burden on working families and the poorest among us.

I am confident that the State Investment Board can invest all state funds, including UW operating funds, in ways that generate greater return that just government-backed securites and that do not create undue risk.

The State Legislature does not need to micro-manage every capital construction and maintenance project. I am comfortable that UW administrators can manage their capital fees locally and effectively.

It is shortsighted to cut state funding to higher education. Higher education is an investment in the future. Washington needs more people with bachelor degrees than people who have them. Good paying jobs now go to people who move here from other states. These opportunities need to go to Washington residents first. Making higher education affordable is the first step in that process. I oppose further cuts to higher education.

I will work in increase state support in order to reduce the percentage of higher ed funding derived from tuition. This works hand in hand with increasing state support of higher ed. Less than 20 years ago, I was able to graduate with my Master's degree from a public university with a student debt of $4500. I will work to make sure others have a similar opportunity. It is good for the individuals and families and good for Washington.

Diversification of investment instruments is a good idea but extreme caution must be used concerning specific instruments. The investment portfolio needs to be balanced with high, medium and low risk instruments.

My generation has felt the greatest impact on the economy - twice the unemployment of any other generation and an increase of 100% in tuition costs.

This is one of my passions - I hope to help move the legislature in a direction that empowers a younger generation to compete in a competitive global economy by making sure we have the most highly trained workers and professionals.

We need more students graduating in the STEM disciplines, Science, Technology & Math. We are falling behind other nations and we need to improve our educational system.

I graduated from College at a time when it was possible to work and pay tuition. That is no longer possible and our children are graduating with a large student loan debt. We need to find a solution to this problem that is such a burden for our families and an impediment to the future of our children.

Makes total sense.

Also makes sense.

Cuts can always be made, but only where there's wasteful spending. Any organization as big as the UW will always have problems with spend it or loose it theology and overlapping programs.

We have reached a point where further cuts would be untenable for our university system. There are a number of areas where increases in fees and the elimination of tax breaks and loopholes elsewhere in the budget can help provide further funding.

I don't believe we should take this gamble, for it is a gamble - higher returns come with higher risks. There are safer ways to gain further funding.

Although the state budget cut across the board expenditures, it cut much deeper in 2009-2011. I worked hard to prevent any further cuts to higher education in the 2012 budget and preserved funding for work studies and state need grants.

Our students of today must not be expected to carry the debt burden created by the whole economic system. I will be looking for ways to forgive student debt as students move into the world of work.

I voted for the resolution and will support the ballot measure.

I will find out why this bill did not pass the House and work to get it passed in 2013. I do not know why it did not get a hearing in the House, but I will speak with the chairs of the committees it was assigned to and find out.

Thank you for your passion around higher education! I’m proud to be the “top dawg”!

Absolutely, education is a pathway to security and prosperity for many of our youth (especially those from low and middle income families). The majority of new jobs in our state are being created in skilled industries that require some sort of post-secondary education. In order to meet the demands of our current and future employers and provide opportunities for our young people to have access to the middle class, we must make education affordable and attainable for all. This will lessen the burden on our social safety net and allow our local businesses to flourish and grow. Keeping tuition affordable is in everybody's best interests.

We must seek more stable, secure funding sources for higher education that don't rely on sales tax (a regressive, volatile funding source). Making this happen will require incremental changes over the long term to help us move towards a fair, equitable tax structure (income and/or capital gains tax) where everyone pays their share. I think we can take a page out of the marriage equality playbook. There was a long-term strategy in place that consisted of incremental policy changes, each building on the other until the ultimate goal was reached. We must have a strategy, vision and perseverance when it comes to bringing progressive tax reform to Washington that will help us better fund higher education and other critical state services.

Diversification is a key component to any healthy financial portfolio. By having our entire portfolio locked into one type of investment we increase our risk and limit the real gains that can be made by a thoughtful, balanced, effective and efficient portfolio.

Our legislators are responsible for providing the resources for our colleges and universities to use, but the implementation of those resources should be managed with local authority. We hire the best to run these institutions we need to trust them to manage their resources. State legislators will not know the University's needs more intimately than the University's President, Trustees and Key Faculty and Staff.

Our higher educational institutions must have the No. 1 priority of making higher education affordable and accessible to all our citizens for lifelong learning. Any newly available revenues must immediately support hiring new teachers so that more courses are taught, which in turn will allow higher ed to admit more students each year. At a minimum, we should aspire to have 70 percent of incoming undergraduate students at our four-year institutions each year be Washington residents. We should expect and plan for having 90 percent of first-time students in our community colleges and technical schools be Washington residents.

We need to freeze tuition levels for three years to create some stability and confidence that once admitted, students believe they will be able to graduate and not find themselves with overwhelming student loan burdens. Parents who have paid into GET need to know their children will be able to pursue an education at one of Washington's higher educational institutions. By freezing tuition levels, we will then be able to concentrate on the other crisis: how will we make higher education more accessible? As we work through this next three-year period, let's stay focused on affordability and accessibility. If we want to succeed in expanding high school graduation rates, those graduates and their families need to know that higher education is an achievable goal.

For eight years I've helped raise money for UW from private and public sources. During these years, I've helped establish privately endowed research centers, faculty professorships, and student scholarships, as well as won federally funded research grants. The investment management team for UW's private endowment fund has outperformed most university endowment firms in the nation throughout the recession. If this law is passed, UW and WSU may wish to consider having a single investment team of both internal and external partners. There are important lessons to be learned from special purpose districts such as the Port of Seattle, school boards, and other public entities that have established their own investment operations, to protect the best interests of the public institution while creating additional sources of much-needed revenues.

There is an urgent need for each of our state's four-year universities to maximize their bonding capacity. Capital construction and facilities' maintenance responsibilities are best established by the respective Board of Regents in consultation with the Higher Education Coordinating Boards. It may be useful to examine how such legislation could help strengthen the bond ratings of all the four-year universities by developing a 10-year capital development and facilities' maintenance strategy state-wide. If we want to expand access and capacity in our higher educational system for all state residents, it is important to see bonding authority used effectively throughout the system.

I have gone to Olympia many times fighting for our state to Fund education.

Yes we need to make education more affordable for students.

In order to prepare students to compete in the global economy, we must maintain a strong higher education system as an investment in the future.

Providing a prosperous future for our children and meeting our economy's demand for a highly skilled workforce both require more investment in our higher education system. I support increasing accessibility to Washington schools by prioritizing more higher education funding in the budget process.

I voted to support SJR 8223 in the Senate and support its passage this November.

I voted to pass this in the Senate both years and I will support its passage in the House.

Education, and educated young people, are the drivers of our economy. I graduated from WWU in 1993 with a BS, and again in 2003 with an MS, with my final year of grad school tuition around $1,800 a quarter. That number has nearly tripled in only nine years, with my daughter enrolling at WWU as a freshman this fall. It's ludicrous to expect our young people to be able to give back in a meaningful way when their lives are fully compromised by collegiate debt. Sure, WWU is a smaller regional college, but the tuition issue applies to all Washington state schools. This has to be corrected.

Washington unquestionably has a revenue problem, largely because of the combination of a remarkably regressive tax structure and the Eyman-funded initiatives that have hamstrung the legislature's flexibility. To address higher ed, K-12, environmental and social issues, we have to fix the revenue system first. If we can do a good job of that, we can stop saddling students with ludicrous debt because of their tuition.

I'm supportive of this effort to a high degree, but am somewhat worried about the extreme end of what it might mean. I appreciate the conservative principle, in terms of investing, that led to investing only in government-back securities--but we've seen the results of repealing Glass-Steagall, and going too far could be a problem. That written, I want to see any change in investing practices follow a Washington First principle--we should be investing endowment and tax funds, both, in Washington businesses. If we can close the loop on investments and returns, UW alumni with business or investment interests could be benefitting from receiving operating fund investments while plowing some level of profit back into the university. If the new system is similar to the open loop the state now has for investing taxes, retirement, and endowments, opening operating fund investments too broadly could mean a negative impact on Washington's economy. There is a place in the middle where the state, the university, and operating fund investment returns could all benefit.

Some level of local control of these programs is entirely appropriate. As a new member of the house, I will certainly support this legislation.

I am totally against further state cuts to funding to higher education. Further, I stand for the massive cuts carried out over the past 4 years to be reversed, which has already led to an outrageous 60% hike in tuition compared to 4 years ago. Higher education could not only be fully funded but made free by taxing the super rich and big corporations here in Washington State. In 2011 the net profit for Microsoft was $23 billion, Boeing $4 billion, Starbucks $1.25 billion, Costco $1.5 billion, and Amazon $600 million. Additionally the closing of the 500 corporate tax loopholes equaling $6.5 billion would provide more than enough to fully fund higher and K-12 education, social services, and public transit.

I would work to increase state funding to higher education through fighting for increased taxes on the super rich and big business. The Democratic and Republican parties are making students and working people pay for an economic crisis caused by Wall Street and big business by massive hikes in tuition and slashing funding for education, healthcare, public transit, and other vital social services.

The volatility of the stock market has wreaked havoc on state investments and pension funds across the country, with university investments not being any different. With new clouds gathering over the US and world economy, another plunge in the stock market is likely. We cannot afford to gamble on the stock market with the future of our youth. While diversification may have the potential of higher returns, it also comes with very grave risks, as has been witnessed so often. The reason for UW's perennial budget shortfalls and sharp tuition increases is not the university's investment portfolio, but the fact that education funding keeps getting sacrificed by the state legislature on the altar of big business. Education at UW can be fully funded if Olympia would tax big business and the super-wealthy, and withdraw the more than 500 tax exemptions given to big corporations.

It is not clear to me what the actual impact of this senate bill will be. While the idea of saving costs for the university and the state may be appealing on the surface, what is very important to me is how the cost-saving will happen and how it will impact the university community and workers in the state who will be employed for building works on the campus. I unequivocally support employing unionized labor who are paid a living wage and benefits. It is also equally important that all decisions on how to allocate funds be made democratically by the campus community and the people of the state, not by a small group of people with clout, regardless of whether they come from Olympia or the campus.

There simply isn't enough money to be spread around at this point. While I hate to see student tuition go up, there has to be a better way to solve this problem than simply getting more money from the State. Every professor and Ph.D. student should be applying for additional grants to try to bring in more monies from other sources. Alumni fundraising campaigns should step it up to the next level. A serious look should be made at how much the athletic department is spending to see if any of that money could be diverted to real education rather than sports. Universities should put pressure on textbook publishers to keep prices on books reasonable, and not require new editions of books every single year so that students are able to better afford the tuition.

I voted against every budget that cut funds to higher education.

I strongly opposed the 14% tuition increased in back-to-back years.

I voted in support of SJR 8223.

As a member of the Higher Education Committee I refused to accept further cuts to higher ed last session.

I supported SJR 8223 last session.

I support the concept but must see the actual bill language as it is introduced on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Higher education funding is an investment to create a smarter, more productive, and enlightened community. The drastic cuts made in the last four years are unacceptable. Burdening our most talented young people with debt when they should be flourishing is simply another regressive way of taxing our community. Moreover, public education is in all our best interest, particularly in a state largely dependent on a knowledge based economy.

One of my biggest priorities in Olympia will be reversing this destructive trend and restoring funding to our places of higher learning. State schools are a public service and a public good, and it is the responsibility of our state to increase funding towards all forms of higher education.

SJR 8223 provides an immediate and pragmatic way to create more funds and give universities greater freedom in managing their own funds. Opening these funds to the market at large must be done carefully, but it provides a necessary opportunity for our struggling universities.

In general, I support increased funding for the UW and other postsecondary education, but I would want to review the specifics of this particular legislation and understand the overall impact to the state's budget in determining the extent of my support for the bill.

We've not only got to stop balancing the budget on the backs of college students and their families - we've got to fundamentally change our thinking about how to pay for public higher education. I believe that the high-tuition/high-aid model of higher education access will continue to bar thousands of deserving people from important opportunities. We've seen, for instance, that it's cyclical: When economic downturns strain state budgets, tuition in our public universities and two-year institutions goes up and tuition aid budgets are simultaneously slashed - and at the very moment when many people, faced with unemployment or salary cuts, want to go back to school to enrich their skill base. It's a model that, by its very nature, only functions on borrowed time.

I strongly support the Frockt/Reykdal plan to add $500 million per biennium to higher education funding by reducing the sales tax, reforming the outdated B&O tax, and instituting a one percent income tax on personal and business income. Not only will this ease the regressive impact of our state's tax code and spark economic growth by reducing burdens on small businesses, it will enable Washington State to continue to churn out the skilled workers, entrepreneurs, and college-educated professionals necessary to maintain our position of global leadership in technology, international trade, and green energy. We've already laid a strong foundation for a vibrant economic future; we've only got to decide whether to take advantage of it. This initiative is a crucial first step on that path.

Washington State has a impressive record of investing its pension funds, industrial insurance funds, and trusts with prudence - to the advantage of both beneficiaries and taxpayers. The time has come to allow our major state research universities to do the same thing. It will increase the quality of these institutions' facilities, faculty, and staff; provide funding to restore programs lost during the continual budget crisis of the past four years; and perhaps even put us on a path to lowering tuition. I strongly support SJR 8223.

Currently, the capital investment resources of our major public universities are managed in separate accounts, and I agree that this system is unwieldy and inefficient. Giving both the University of Washington and Washington State University local control over these resources will allow them to use their capital budgets in a more integrated, strategically-minded way. I'm excited to support this common-sense legislation.

The legislature has balanced the budget for the past four years on the backs of students, by cutting funding to higher ed and raising tuition. I think it is immoral. The cuts have caused 60% tuition increases in the past four years. At one time, tuition to Berkeley was $300 a year. In other words, a public university education was paid for by taxpayers as a public good. In a legislature dominated by the right-wing minority, we now have a value system where each person is responsible for him- or herself alone. What happened to 'pass it forward'?

This measure helps bring more revenue in without hitting the wallets of students (and their parents). I support diversifying the investment structure to bring the portfolio in line with the changing economy.

I will work with members in both chambers to pass a similar bill in January. We need to help ensure our institutions have the flexibility to adapt and use their bonding as efficiently as possible.

The best way to increase funding for higher education is for the legislature to enact policies that promote growth, scrutinize loopholes for effectiveness, and reduce waste.

We are now at the tail end of the worst economic downturn since the great depression. As budget chairman this year I negotiated a budget that had no cuts to higher education. I intend to continue this effort, as it is critical to our economic success as a state.

Creating a tuition model that is too high relative to competing options causes our best students to leave the state. Creating one that is too low results in a lack of resources for the university. We have reached the end of our ability to increase tuition significantly faster than inflation. I am particularly concerned about the ability of middle-income families to send their children to the UW and WSU without significantly increased tuition assistance.

I voted for this.

I would want to consider the impact this change (particularly the part about shifting control of the revenue from the downtown Seattle tract) directly to the university would have. I'm not opposed to it in general, but want to think through the impacts in more depth than this short questionnaire allows. This bill goes to the Capital Budget committee, not to Ways and Means, so I have not seen it before.

I strongly believe in focusing on supporting the key pillars of a healthy community and state; access to quality education; access to quality jobs; and access to quality health care. Access to education has been severely hampered by these state budget cuts. I am concerned that this reduced access will impact the future health of our communities and state for many, many years to come.

I feel access to higher education should be equally accessible to all.

I believe we must explore all innovative solutions to better fund education.

In this time of unprecedented economic challenge for our community and state, we must look at implementing more efficient management practices, such as SB 5576.

I will work to increase state support but I'm not sure the percentage of higher-ed funding derived from tuition will change.

However, as long as this will not change how the state appropriates capital dollars to UW. The research universities have always chaffed at the prioritization of university capital projects through the council of presidents - a statewide organization. As long as that prioritization remains, I'm in favor.