Don't balance budget on college's back

The Legislature faces a daunting task in balancing the budget, and we appreciate the fact that no government program or service should be considered sacrosanct when making the tough choices about how to match expenditures to revenue.

Nonetheless, we heartily object to an effort put forth at the current session to fill state coffers by taking money away from community colleges — and by extension from students at those colleges.

Flathead Valley Community College stands to lose as much as $2 million over the next two years under the proposal that was put before the Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education, and that is just a ridiculously large amount of money to contemplate removing from an institution that supplies a steady stream of trained workers to Northwest Montana and also helps to retain them in Montana against the many forces luring them away.

That proposed $2 million budget hole at the community college could result in tuition increases of as much as 23 percent, FVCC President Jane Karas warned. Or more likely it would result in a combination of tuition increases and loss of a variety of education choices. Either way, it is unreasonable to take money away from a successful program that benefits the entire community when so many other choices exist.

Our community college is a success story, reporting an 8 percent increase in enrollment since 2006 under some difficult economic circumstances, but we also understand the value of the smaller community colleges in Glendive and Miles City. In each case, the services provided make it possible for Montanans to get a quality education at the lowest cost possible while remaining close to home.

Frank Garner, a former FVCC student and now a state legislator, pleaded with his colleagues to acknowledge the vital role of these smaller institutions.

“Please consider ... how important it is to us who are raised in those communities to be able to stay there, be productive members and finish our education and improve professionally.”

Legislators ought not move precipitously to reduce funding to programs with a proven success record, but should instead consider much smaller reductions this year, with a plan to study impacts and alternative funding mechanisms during the interim, so that everyone has a chance to prepare for change instead of fearing it.