Genetski and other committee members claimed that MSU knowingly exceeded the state’s 7.1 percent tuition increase limit for this fall, citing a House Fiscal Agency report that found MSU’s tuition actually will increase 9.4 percent this coming school year, not the 6.9 percent hike the university approved earlier this summer.

Under a 6.9 percent increase, an in-state undergraduate student taking 28 credits total would pay about $11,389. According to the state’s report, tuition under the increase would jump as high as $12,769 for a student taking 30 total credits.

If state budget director John Nixon rules the school did violate the increase ceiling, MSU could lose as much as $18.3 million in state funding.

Burnham and Haas repeatedly asserted the state’s findings — which used information from the Higher Education Institutional Data Inventory, or HEIDI, database — are incorrect, attributing the error to a 2.4 percent tuition rebate given to students last fall and spring.

Haas said the agency’s findings stem from “unique” circumstances, due in part to a significant amount of one-time funding the school received last year from the federal government.

The extra funds were distributed back to students in the form of a rebate, yet Haas claims HEIDI included the rebate in its calculations.

Further issues arose as the committee attempted to get to the bottom of a misunderstanding regarding the school’s academic calendar.

In dealing with academic year guidelines Haas said MSU based its tuition increase off fall to summer term rates, not, as Geneteski said, fall to fall rates.

Committee vice chair Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant said he personally was “offended” by what he characterized as an underhanded move by school officials in regards to the definition of the academic year.

Cotter called the move a “cute play,” as other committee members criticized the school’s Board of Trustees for a lack of “awareness” regarding tuition language.

MSU Trustee George Perles believes the board acted in full transparency and with all available information at the time.

“I don’t agree with (those claims),” he said in response.
Rep. Joe Haveman, R-Holland, took particular issue with Haas’ belief that the university was confused in relation to tuition language.

“I don’t think there’s any confusion at all,” he told Burnham and
Haas. “Trying to pass this off as confused is a little misnomer.”

In the face of strong pressure from committee members, Burnham and Haas repeatedly were thrust into the spotlight, facing questions on topics ranging from the school’s contingency plans for a drop in state funding, to the Board of Trustees’ actions on the matter.

Burnham and Haas could not directly clarify what MSU might do if Budget Director Nixon rules against the school, but said a potential reevaluation of tuition rates — including a rate decrease — could be discussed.

In testimony from MSU students, numerous attendees voiced their concern about the school’s proposed tuition increase, some going so far as to call the school’s actions in regards to tuition “ridiculous.”

In testimony before committee members, incoming ASMSU Chairperson Steve Marino was among the only students to publicly voice his support for the university, testifying on his own behalf and voicing his belief that the university acted transparently in regards to its policies. Marino maintained he is against any tuition increases. Committee members declined to question Marino, one of the only students who didn’t hear rebuttals from the committee.

“We do believe we are in compliance with the law,” Burnham said following the meeting. “Our belief is we’ve tried to be transparent and open.”

Burnham maintains the university will not be penalized by the state.