Texas Budget Source

Texas A&M University officials are in open disagreement on the impact of a new law requiring greater transparency for the state’s universities.

On July 11, Martyn Gunn, vice provost for academic affairs at the university, told the Houston Chronicle that implementation of House Bill 2504 would cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

But Karen Watson, Texas A&M interim provost and executive vice president of academic affairs, told Texas Budget Source that the university does not agree with Gunn’s assessment.

“The day after the Houston Chronicle story appeared, we asked the person who made the comment and asked on what basis on he gave that number,” said Watson. “I don’t concur with his number.”

Watson say she is not quite sure where Gunn’s number came from but says she estimates the cost to be much lower, although she would not give Texas Budget Source a firm number. Watson says Gunn has been spoken to on this matter.

House Bill 2504, authored by Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), provides strict guidelines for public universities on what information must be provided to students, such as a professor’s syllabus, education background, department budgets, and previous class evaluations.

Rep. Kolkhorst told Texas Budget Source she was not upset about the comment saying it appeared to be an honest mistake.

“I certainly respect [Martyn Gunn’s] estimate, although it was high,” said Kolkhorst. “I spoke with the president of Texas A&M the next day and he extended his apologies for what was publicly an estimate and not an accurate number.”

Gunn’s comments also caught the attention of government transparency advocates. The Texas Public Policy Foundation filed an open records request for all cost estimates provided to Gunn, and subsequently received 415 pages of e-mails and correspondence between Texas A&M officials regarding HB 2504. (Texas Budget Source is a project of the Texas Public Policy Foundation.)

A&M officials back off transparency cost estimate

The last page of the open records request is titled “cost estimate.” The total stands at $47,488. However, as TPPF’s Justin Keener noted in a column published in the Houston Chronicle last Saturday, Gunn was given that cost estimate only after he filed the open records request.

Watson says that figure is not the final cost estimate but rather a cost estimate on the costs for programmers to work on a system that faculty could use to publish required information online. Kolkhorst’s legislation, which was passed unanimously by the legislature, mandates the information be provided within three clicks from the university’s home page.

“We’ve invested in tools and programming to make sure departments can make the requirements,” said Watson.
Rep. Kolkhorst says she does not believe Texas A&M was trying to dodge transparency in any way but says some universities have complained.

“I do believe some of those cost numbers are barriers to try to erect a bill that has issues,” said Kolkhorst. “In the end, the benefits far outweigh the diminishing costs the universities might incur.”

In addition to questions about the existence of cost estimates, the open records request turned up email traffic that appears to suggest university officials might be watering down transparency requirements.

In an e-mail from Pierce E. Cantrell, vice president and associate provost for information technology, there was a discussion of just how far A&M’s transparency effort would include.

“My two cents is that we would only post summary numerical scores, not individual comments, and we would use the current instrument in each department,” Cantrell writes.

Watson says that likely will not be the case. She says Texas A&M University has been posting student evaluations since 1998. However, the evaluations do not usually include comments, which are found on the backside of a student evaluation. Watson says right now the committee overseeing this process is trying to figure out if the university will be able to scan the backs of the evaluations in order to post the comments.

“A recommendation is being considered but there has not been a decision on what plan it’s going to be, whether scanning both sides or not,” said Watson. “Certainly it will be one or both depending if the coordinating board decides we should.”

Keener encouraged the university to include, rather than exclude, student comments.

“Imagine if consumer comments were outlawed from online retail outlets,” Keener said. “While the retailer might be spared an embarrassing comment or two, the consumer would be the real loser. Because this is not a private retailer but instead a taxpayer-supported institution, the public’s right to transparency trumps any desire to water down the law.”

Watson says Texas A&M believes in transparency and in enabling that students have access to information relevant to their educational success.

“It’s another part of transparency. It’s not hard for us to do,” said Watson. “I think some people understandably get concerned that people get a lot of information out of context and don’t know exactly how to use it but I’m of the opinion that people are smart and will use the information well.”

“Transparency is positive for students, parents, and the general public, who is funding a great deal of money provided to universities,” said Kolkhorst. “I visited with the chancellor of Texas A&M. We discussed that any student who goes to public Texas universities are on scholarship from the people of the state of Texas. There is great responsibility with that. Students, parents, and the general public need to be able to examine that.”