To the Editor:

I am writing because I am concerned with the impression created by the October 29 Metro article “Vancouver Campus Faces Financial Crisis.” The article contains a number of misquotations and misinterpretations of my discussion with the Metro staff writer. I wish to provide your readers with an accurate statement of my position on the issue of the Vancouver campus.
First, the Vancouver campus is not facing a financial crisis. The plan for the Vancouver campus included a period of years in which the campus would run a deficit. The deficit would be covered by the annual operating budget of the University. When Vancouver produces a surplus, all campuses will share in the surplus.
The Vancouver campus opened in fall 2007 and has seen increases in students each year. This fall it has an enrollment of approximately 90 and a projected enrollment of 110-120 students for the spring. Enrollment is projected to be close to 200 in fall 2010 – at which time the campus will be a break even operation. Vancouver, then, has consistently increased its enrollment, so I did not tell the writer that in the future the campus will experience a “turnaround.” Also, I did not explain to the reporter that “While the University has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Vancouver campus, disappointing enrollment has caused serious financial setbacks.”
Money spent on the Vancouver campus this year is best viewed as an investment. The plan for the Vancouver campus included a declining deficit over the first few years. When Vancouver is fully enrolled, the campus will provide a surplus to the University budget which is projected to increase to be $3-5 million per year. This surplus will benefit all FDU campuses including the College at Florham.
Second, all income to the University from tuition and fees goes into a general fund to support University expenses – academic instruction, student services, staff, insurance, physical facilities, etc. – on all four campuses. The 2009-2010 budget was created knowing there would be a shortfall in Vancouver. Again, this was done because of the anticipated increase in future revenue that will be generated by the Vancouver campus. Each of the campuses has shared in covering the Vancouver shortfall because all will benefit from future Vancouver surpluses.
Finally, this year’s tuition increase was not the result of the financial situation in Vancouver. The tuition increase was due to the University’s need to provide increased funding for financial aid, academic programs, student activities and services, technology upgrades, and utility and insurance costs. And, any increase in tuition for 2010-2011 will be driven by these same costs. The writer suggested that the University raised tuition by “thousands of dollars” this year. This is inaccurate. For 2009-2010, tuition for full-time undergraduate students increased by 3.9% - or $1142. While any increase in tuition places a burden on students and their families, the burden was not increased by thousands of dollars.
I hope this clears up misconceptions that may have arisen as a result of the article and relieves unfounded concerns over the financial condition of the Vancouver campus and the University.

Kenneth Greene
Campus Provost