In these times of economic stress and in a world where higher education is becoming increasingly important, it is imperative that we make getting an advanced degree within reach of everyone willing and able to put themselves through the rigors to earn a degree. In this light, I would like to correct a few errors of omission, in perception and in fact, and add a few thoughts of my own to the Daily Lobo's March 2 article about the GPSA child care initiatives.
As a graduate student, I've been closely following the GPSA working to improve the child care situation for graduate students who are parents. As a nonvoting member of the Campus Development Advisory Committee, I've been following UNM construction for a while. As an elected official who regularly deals with construction projects, state regulations and borrowing money, I just don't get the reasoning behind what I've learned about the plans to borrow money and construct the expansion of the UNM Children's Campus.
First and foremost, the Lobo's headline and the body of your article suggest that the GPSA is out begging for special child care handouts for its members. The plain truth is that graduate students are just as poor as all other students. Just like all other students, we take out loans to pay for school, we live with each other to save on rent and we work low-paying UNM jobs to help pay for living expenses. In a nutshell, we struggle to make ends meet.
For some reason, the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department sees graduate students as being economically privileged. I suppose this is the reason why CYFD decided to exclude graduate students, who otherwise qualify for child care assistance, while they're taking classes, but not while they're working.
The funny thing is that it's being enrolled in 500- and 600-level classes that trigger this exclusion. It's not being in school or having a bachelor's degree. Coming back to get a second undergraduate degree or working with a degree doesn't exempt anybody who otherwise qualifies.
In my mind, this is a completely random distinction that flies in the face of the needs of slightly older students who are more likely to need child care. For this reason, I'm glad that Lissa Knudsen's negotiations with CYFD look like they're succeeding. The negotiated impending change in a CYFD rule will remove the exemption for parent graduate students who otherwise couldn't afford to complete their degrees.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Another part of the article discussed the proposed expansion of the UNM Children's Campus and skirted around its proposed funding source. As one who understands a little bit about public construction projects and funding, it worries me that the Sandia Foundation, a private corporation, is going to be the vehicle to borrow money and to contract the construction company to build the expansion. General obligation bonds (money borrowed by governmental agencies) are less expensive than commercial loans (money borrowed by private entities). The reason is two-fold.
The first reason is, as was mentioned in the article, that interest earned by the holders (lenders) of GO bonds get tax breaks (most are tax-free). These savings are passed on to the borrower (the governmental agency). Commercial loans have no such tax breaks, and therefore the interest rates are higher.
The second reason that GO bonds are less expensive than commercial loans is because lending to a governmental agency is less risky. As made infamous by subprime lending, the riskier the loan, the higher the interest rate. UNM is using this more expensive kind of money for the construction of the expansion of the Children's Campus. It's the Sandia Foundation, not UNM, that will be doing the borrowing. That loan is expected to be paid back through increased student fees.
By contrast, UNM is funding the renovation of The Pit with a combination of capital outlay from the New Mexico Legislature, money specially raised to fund the project, and inexpensive money borrowed by taking out GO bonds. What money needs to be paid back (only the GO bonds) is purported to be paid back via corporate skybox rentals.
Does anybody else see the curious inequity in this?
Another reason I don't understand why UNM is using the Sandia Foundation to construct the expansion is that private entities do not have to abide by the New Mexico State Procurement Code. In a nutshell, publically funded construction projects go to the "lowest responsible bidder," but the Sandia Foundation does not have to follow these rules.
I have a problem with public money going to a private entity or to a no-bid contract.
Fortunately, the Anti-Donation Clause of the New Mexico Constitution doesn't allow public money be given to a private entity. So how will UNM connect these dots and wind up with an extended Children's Campus? The short answer is that it doesn't.
This firewall between public and private monies means that the Sandia Foundation will borrow the money, build the extension and own the building. Yes, Sandia Foundation, not UNM, would own the building unless UNM buys it from the Sandia Foundation. The other option is for UNM to rent the building built on its own property from the Sandia Foundation. I suspect this would make the cost of child care even more expensive.
So this is what I don't understand: Why would UNM go through the Sandia Foundation to borrow more expensive money and get a more expensive construction project that UNM will either have to buy after the fact or rent from the Sandia Foundation? Why burden students with even more debt than necessary when all UNM has to do is borrow money like any other governmental agency and use the New Mexico Procurement Code to get the lowest responsible bidder? Quite frankly, I'm stumped.
Danny Hernandez is a UNM graduate student and the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority Board secretary and treasurer.
