Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell isn’t going to gain many supporters by asking state workers to contribute to their pensions for the first time since 1983. His plan, a substitution of substance for show, has, however, already incurred the wrath of public employees and the state Senate. Such institutions have displayed consistent opposition to any budget move that would force them to bite the bullet and embrace reality. Fortunately for Virginia’s future — and that of the College of William and Mary’s — that’s exactly what the governor seems intent on doing.

McDonnell’s proposal requires state workers to pay 5-percent of their income to their defined benefit retirement program, offset by a 3-percent raise, with the goal of keeping Virginia’s long-term liabilities at a manageable level. To be fair, Virginia’s pension shortfall is not insurmountable: Each taxpayer owes an average of $1,362 to pay for $10.7 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. But being comparatively healthy still doesn’t mean we have that money. Remember, it’s our generation that’s going to end up paying for today’s lack of restraint.

Far from having an onerous retirement plan, Virginia is one of the few states that does not yet require employee contributions. This proposal merely brings our pension plan into line with the rest of the country. Even though this isn’t going to cover the entire shortfall — the system will still only be 75 percent funded — it is a significant step toward, as McDonnell says, “long-term solvency.”

These reforms are focused on keeping Virginia’s debt down and future financial obligations manageable. Part of the decrease in state funding at the College is tied to the efforts to keep the pension system solvent, and any effort to control pension costs should be understood as future money in the College’s pocket — without having to resort to massive tuition hikes.

Some suggest that these shortfalls can be covered through revenue increases, but Virginia’s average state and local tax burden is already in the top half of the nation. Whether you like it or not, 59 percent of Virginia’s voters chose a governor who unequivocally refused to raise taxes of any sort.

The recession did a number (specifically $17 billion) on the pension fund’s assets, and, in the short term, benefits have been withheld so the state can mitigate its deficits through the hard times. That money will have to be paid back (with interest), however, and it can’t be assumed that the fund’s growth rates are going to look anything like they did several years ago.

Yes, state workers are going to have to take a cut for financial problems for which they weren’t responsible, and yes, a good percentage of the shortfall can be tied to the General Assembly’s lower-than-recommended funding. Regardless, private as well as state workers have been hurt by economic conditions out of their control, and playing the blame game only shifts the focus away from addressing the problem. It certainly doesn’t help state employees if Virginia has to pay higher interest rates on its debts, or if it is forced to take action that hurts its reputation as one of the best states in which to do business.

McDonnell’s plan is far from the only thing the state needs to do to ensure a secure fiscal future, but it’s a start. Because it’s not realistic to think Virginians will be amenable to having one of the highest tax burdens in the country, we have to keep long-term liabilities in check if we want to maintain our status as one of the most financially sound states. Some of us will inevitably end up working as Virginia state employees, and we’d like that pension system to be around when we get to retirement age. In order to ensure the plan’s security tomorrow, tough choices have to be made today.

Last week I laid out an argument as to why an honor council composed of students was necessary if the College of William and Mary is to maintain a functioning honor code. I would like to continue the discussion by examining one of the main questions that arises from this conclusion: How should we decide who sits on the Honor Council?

It seems to me there are a number of qualities these people should share. Members must have wisdom, integrity and a high standard of personal conduct to allow them to sit effectively in judgment over their fellow classmates. They must also have the desire to do so, since being a member of the Honor Council is a demanding task. To find individuals that completely satisfy these prerequisites is not an easy task.

In the early days of the Honor Code there were far fewer students at the College, and they were more familiar with one another. This would have made exceptional candidates apparent to both students and teachers. Currently, the size of the College community makes it impossible to be very familiar with all — or even most — of our classmates. Such consensus agreement on council members is no longer possible, but we must still find a way to select them.

There are several possible processes for selection, but each comes with associated drawbacks. The most radical plan would be to grant council membership via lottery. The problems with such a scheme are obvious. It is expected that the council members are somehow qualified to judge their classmates and that they have exemplary personal qualities that make them capable of such authority. This is not served by picking them at random. Furthermore, the second qualification I mentioned — willingness to perform their duties — is not assured. It is worth considering, however, that randomly selected juries could be used in Honor Council trials. The University of Virginia uses such a system, but its council is even more maligned than ours.

A second method of selection would be by appointment. Interested candidates could submit applications to the council, which would be reviewed by a selection body — probably composed of council members, administrators and student representatives. This method is useful in judging tangible qualifications of a candidate and his or her desire to sit on the council. The flaw is that wisdom and integrity cannot be fully investigated through a paper application, or even through an interview. Such characteristics would be best judged by the friends and acquaintances of applicants who interact with them in their daily lives.

This brings us to the third process: democracy. A vote can be used to select council members. This would allow candidates to express their desire to be on the council through a declaration of candidacy and a campaign. The student body would then decide who should sit on the council. Now while this is perhaps the best alternative explored so far, it still has many problems. The first is that which is inherent in any democratic election: As any political observer may tell you, wisdom and integrity do not necessarily correlate with campaigning ability, popularity or political success. Secondly, unlike elected political officials, the Honor Council is not supposed to be representative of or beholden to the student body. Rather, its loyalty is toward the Honor Code itself.

This problem of selection has no easy solution, but the current hybrid of application-limited democracy is so far the best solution offered because it tempers the excesses of both the application and purely democratic methods. Its main drawback is the limited familiarity students have with candidates. While allowing campaigning is not the answer, perhaps the council could set up several formal and publicized forums where students could come and ask candidates questions. It should not be a debate, since council members should be chosen for their character and not for their policy positions, but instead a chance for students to get a better feel for the candidates. Selection will always be problematic, but, overall, it does not seem to be the most pressing area for substantial reform.

At the risk of promoting a little vacuous ego stroking, it may be time for seniors to give themselves a pat on the back. As the latest numbers from the Senior Class Gift show, the class of 2011 has set a new record for the highest participation rate on record at this point in the calendar year, with 32 percent of seniors contributing at least the minimum $10 donation so far.

But perhaps even more impressive is that this record was reached despite some significant changes to the way the Senior Class Gift tallies its donations. In years past, the Senior Class Gift Committee counted as having donated even those students who had only pledged to give, with no actual money down. This year’s numbers, on the other hand, count only those seniors who’ve donated $10 or more.

Clearly, this is change in practices that should have happened long ago. The Senior Class Gift has always used boasts of record-breaking participation as a means of publicizing itself. We are glad to see that this year their bragging rights have been achieved legitimately.However, the “gifting process” is still, by class of 2011 President Mike Tsidulko’s own admission, slightly confused. Now, some of this confusion is by design. Part of the point behind having a Senior Class Gift at all is to make those donations in some way special. Any student is already able to give to the school via a variety of general donation channels, like the Fund for William and Mary.

For the class gift to work, it must feel different. The job of the Senior Class Gift Committee is to make sure donors believe they have received something in return — whether that is access to wine and cheese soirees, a special Green Leafe Cafe mug, or merely a warm feeling of contentment. In economic terms, it must provide a differentiated product. Yes, the process is somewhat manipulative — and can at times border on irritating — but in the end the solicitation of voluntary gifts to an admittedly worthwhile cause is hardly anything at which to balk.

But this process of differentiation also serves, at times, to limit the amount the Senior Class Gift can collect by imposing artificial restrictions — in particular by limiting the number of areas toward which one is able to donate. While seniors are able to choose a particular academic department to give to, the same level of specificity does not extend to other areas, such as student life and organizations. When donating through the more general Fund for William and Mary, however, a much wider range of donation options are available.
These may just be flaws with the design of the Senior Class Gift website, or with how it advertises its services, but the fact is, even the impression of restrictions might keep some from pledging.

The current system fails to realize that the end to which a potential donor is able to designate his or her gift is far from a trivial consideration. Any donor, current student and alumnus alike, is more likely to give to areas attached to specific memories. For some, that means a particular organization and program. The College is an environment, more so than many universities, where campus participation can often come to define a student’s college experience. If it is the Senior Class Gift’s goal to maximize donations, letting students give to what they are passionate about — be it the Muscarelle Museum, the Counseling Center, the Gateway Program or the South Asian Student Association — will certainly help. The ability to give to a particular academic department is a good start, but this must be expanded if the committee hopes to see its donation numbers truly maximized.

So seniors, keep giving. But, Senior Class Gift Committee, let them give where they please.

Editor’s note: The editorial originally noted the percentage of members of the class of 2011 who have donated to the Senior Class gift as 31 percent. This has been corrected to 32 percent.

Additionally, the editorial calls for more flexibility in potential gift designations. A process currently exists to allow designated gifts to organizations not labeled as nonprofit organizations, however it is not currently listed on the Senior Class Gift donation website as an option.

A few days ago, I heard a news pundit speaking about the 112th United States Congress and what accomplishments the new Republican majority has made so far, which led me to reflect on the Williamsburg City Council election almost a year ago. It has been some time since I last heard about Williamsburg’s three-person rule, one of the primary concerns of student voters, so I did some online snooping to see if there has been any progress. Not surprisingly, there was little information about what may be underway with respect to that issue, although progress does seem likely in other areas regarding the College of William and Mary.

The first site I visited was the Williamsburg City Council’s web page. Prominently displayed is a link titled “2011 Legislative Priorities.” After perusing the list of issues the council intends to address this year, I noticed that the three-person rule was distinctly absent from the council’s agenda. In truth, the nation’s beleaguered economy has definitely brought up many other pressing issues that the city must deal with, including school and transportation funding. Additionally, the council’s 2011 agenda includes an initiative to rebuild state support for the College so that the Integrated Science Center’s third phase may be completed and St. George Tucker Hall can be renovated. That being said, the council clearly has no intention of reforming the still problematic three-person rule.

What seems to have gone unsaid is that students, who would rather see the three-person rule abolished, are willing to compromise, while Williamsburg residents largely see the regulation as necessary in order to maintain their lifestyle and the city’s integrity. So far, the council has amended the rule so that four unrelated people can live in the same house only under certain circumstances. It seems, then, that the council’s policy aims to restrain large groups of students from migrating off-campus in an effort to minimize drunken, loud and disorderly conduct in residential areas. When viewed from this perspective, who would blame them?

The reality, however, is that Williamsburg is not a city that can be defined by one facet of its demographic or economic characteristics. It is simultaneously a historical town, tourist attraction, residential area and college town. The inescapable truth is that college kids drink and party, and that so long as the College is located in Williamsburg, there will be college kids getting drunk on the weekends. While the Williamsburg City Council has shown effort to address some of the College’s concerns, I respectfully assert my belief that the student body would like to see progress made in more productive areas.

The recent narrative regarding Pell Grants is that they’ve miraculously escaped the sharp-edged, deficit-reducing knife that President Barack Obama used in crafting his budget proposal for the 2012 fiscal year. This idea is misleading in a number of ways; it was neither spared from anything nor was it going to be on good terms for the increasing numbers of financially needy college students. The competing proposals from President Obama and the House Republicans place even greater stress on students who are already burdened by one of the fastest-escalating cost structures in our society — higher education.

The Pell Grant program, which was signed into law in 1965, offers government subsidies for financially disadvantaged undergraduate college students based on their Free Application for Federal Student Aid form.
A small part of the program is compulsorily funded ($690 per grant), while the vast majority is subject to discretionary, yearly Congressional appropriations, the source of our current problems. Because of recent increases in the maximum Pell grant payment and a near-doubling of recipients in the last two years, the program has fallen $20 billion in debt. The commonwealth of Virginia has had one of the fastest payment increases in the country — 77 percent — over this time period.

House Republicans have drafted a proposal that reduces the maximum payment from $5500 to $4700, below 2008 levels. In addition to this, if Republicans make sure that grant payments strictly follow their budget appropriations, 1.7 million fewer students would receive grants next year. The other 7 million annual recipients would also likely see their grant payments decrease. Republicans also plan an end to year-round Pell grants, which included funding for summer school and were instituted in 2008.

President Obama’s budget proposal preserves the current maximum payments at the expense of other affordable education programs. Summer school Pell grants are also removed with this plan, and the government would begin collecting interest on Stafford Loans, a move that could mean $1500 more in annual debt for each of the five million beneficiaries of this program.

All of this comes at a time when the program is stretched thin anyway. Maximum payments had stalled during the Bush years, and whereas the typical grant covered 60 percent of a recipient’s tuition hours in 1990, it now covers less than 30 percent. This comes at a time when financial demand for Pell Grants is substantial across the country. A survey of the most competitive schools in the country found that, on average, 15 percent of these schools’ students received Pell grants. It should be noted, though, that the College of William and Mary falls well below this average at 8 percent.

Most colleges and universities, including our own, are very generous in their merit-based scholarships and other forms of assistance. However, the erosion of the Pell Grant program represents an assault on the nature of college education as a public good. Federally guaranteed subsidies for financially applicable college students have long been recognized as an economic boon for us all. Cutting this program and federal loan programs may save $20 billion this year, but how much will it cost when those 1.7 million people get less lucrative, less tax revenue-providing jobs in the future? What if the goal of stable employment for some of these people becomes unattainable because they lack a college education?

It is at this point that the skeptical reader declares that something must be cut from the budget. I would argue that it is a shame the President and Congress abandon the tough choices regarding Medicare, Medicaid and the military while disingenuously forcing the tough decisions on programs like the Pell Grants.

This comes precisely as President Obama has been calling for increased college graduation rates from the nation’s poor and has said that increased investment in education is critical to laying the groundwork for renewed economic stability. This raises the prominent question: Does anyone see college education becoming more affordable for the nation’s poor and working class?