Kansas City @ The Crossroads

The panel was a diverse group, including Dr. Elson Floyd, president of the University of Missouri System. The other panelists were Ray Coveney, professor and chair of the department of geosciences at UMKC; Woody Cozad, a former curator of the University of Missouri System and an attorney and is principal of Cozad Company LLC, a lobbying group; Mary James, a former curator whose term expired at the end of 2004; Ted Beckett, a Kansas City attorney and a former curator; Kevin Lujin, president of the Henry Bloch School (of Business and Public Administration) Student Association and president of UMKC Students for Sunshine (advocates of the Sunshine Law and Freedom of Information Laws); and Jack Cashill, executive editor, Ingram’s Magazine, and an occasional adjunct professor at UMKC.

Woody Cozad shares his concern about Kansas City lacking a respectable research university.

Is Kansas City Unique?

Haines opened the discussion by quoting former Yale University President Ben Schmidt, who is heading the blue ribbon task force convened to analyze UMKC’s role in the community. Schmidt said, “Kansas City is virtually alone among great cities in not having a first-rate research university in its urban core.”

Haines wanted to know if the panelists agreed with Schmidt, and if so, what the ramifications were for the city.

Cozad was first to chime in. “He’s correct,” he said, noting that research is just one of the criteria that may be used to judge the effectiveness of a university. He said that evaluating UMKC, or any university, should be done on a “program by program” basis.

In his estimation, a poll of the top academics in America would not list UMKC in the top 20 research institutions nationally, and the lack of a strong research arm does make it “more difficult for Kansas City” than it would be if UMKC were on the list.

Coveney, who has been associated with the university since 1971—his entire professional career—believes UMKC has made great strides in those years. But he also acknowledges that it lacks the private and public funding necessary to “make it truly great.”

When Haines asked him how Kansas City has suffered because of the deficiencies, Coveney said, “Kansas City has a wealth of human resources that are untapped because of the lack of availability of a large urban university.”

Cashill looked at the economic side. “What economic developers are saying is that a major research university drives the economy of a given region and also attracts the kind of young, creative class that makes a city happen,” he said. “The absence of that is not fatal to a city’s ambitions, but it retards a city’s ambitions.”

Dr. Floyd stated that UMKC is filling that role for Kansas City, but its relative youth, compared to other urban-based universities, needs to be considered. UMKC has been part of the University of Missouri system for 42 years, but Floyd noted that many other institutions that are associated with major cities have been around a lot longer than that.

“So is it a disservice to the university to say that it is not first-rate?” Haines wondered.

“We need more time,” Floyd retorted. “We need the commitment of all of our partners. We need the commitment of the university, but also the community as well, because no university can be an island in and of itself.”

Lujin, the student-leadership advocate, agreed with Floyd, stating that some programs that are in their “nascent stages” will show that the university is worthy of financial support from the private and public—local and statewide—sectors.

Beckett defended the role of the curators through the years in helping UMKC improve, highlighting the creation of the medical school in 1971 and the engineering school in 2001. “We tried hard to bring those advances here to Kansas City, to this campus,” he said.

Cozad wasn’t ready to dismiss the question of the deficiencies of the university hurting the city and its businesses. He recalled when he was on the board of curators, he hosted a dinner for the board and invited a local business entrepreneur to speak to the group. That businessman told the curators that he had to leave Kansas City relatively early in his business’ life to find the kind of trained work-force needed for his software company.

“Telecommunications is supposed to be an emphasis on this campus,” Cozad noted. “That’s one example of how [that lack of research at UMKC] retards the growth of the city.”

Jack Cashill asks provocative questions in hopes to see action taken to improve an under-performing UMKC.

To Split or Not To Split

Haines got the juices flowing when he interjected the following statement: “Some people have looked at examples like that and said, ‘The answer for UMKC is to split entirely from the University of Missouri System. It could dramatically, according to The Kansas City Star editorial page, improve UMKC’s financial situation and its community support.’ How would splitting from the University of Missouri System do anything to improve UMKC?”

Not at all, according to Lujin.

“I can see nothing now that would help out Kansas City or the university itself if it were to split,” said Lujin, who encouraged a look back to 1963 when UMKC joined the system. The cost savings of being part of the University of Missouri System “are so huge” that it makes no sense to consider pulling out of the University of Missouri System.

Cashill says that the split wouldn’t have to be complete to be successful. “There are advantages to being part of the system and (for) taxpayers of the state of Missouri, there’s no reason why Kansas City shouldn’t get its money back.”

Cashill also questioned whether an “authoritative governing body” that shapes the destiny of the university based on the needs of Kansas City would not be more productive for the city and the university.

To Cashill’s point of governance from a board of curators from around the state dictating policy for the university in Kansas City, Haines questioned why there is only one member from the Kansas City area.

Cozad noted that it didn’t have to be that way. There are nine congressional districts in Missouri, and the rules stipulate that one curator comes from each district. But parts of the Kansas City metro area touch three different districts, meaning that the board could have as many as three Kansas City area representatives.

At the same time, Cozad said he was “not particularly crazy” about the idea of a Kansas City-based board determining policies for UMKC. “I’m too familiar with the politics of Kansas City,” he said. “It frightens me.”

Floyd argued that in order for UMKC to be the research institution that is desired, it must be part of the University of Missouri system, “because it is the University of Missouri, for our state, that has the research designation.”

Haines pushed Floyd to respond to the suggestion that it would be easier for UMKC to get more funding from philanthropies if it were under local governance. Floyd responded that the local governance, to a certain extent, already exists.

“Of all of the institutions [in the U of M System], UMKC really does have a unique model. The board of curators is the dually designated governing entity for UMKC. We also have a very active and vital board of trustees. So we actually have a local flavor, a local ambiance.”

Floyd also noted that the board of trustees does require the final authorization from the board of curators, but the curators definitely count on the board of trustees for input.

When asked what would happen if UMKC did secede from the University of Missouri system, Floyd added a “be careful what you wish for” disclaimer.

“I’m not sure it could really do all that Kansas City expects,” he said. “I am not aware of any public research university with a local board exclusively. If you want to create that synergy, the boards must be statewide.

Cashill argued that Johnson County Community College in Overland Park and Washburn University in Topeka serve as models of institutions that are highly integrated within their communities.

But Floyd countered that Cashill proved his point. “Neither one of those institutions are great research institutions,” Floyd said. “I’m hard-pressed to identify any great publicly held institution with a local board.”

Not quite ready to back down, Cashill responded, “It gives us an excellent position to be the first. We don’t want to be the 12th.”

Beckett, the former curator, defended the role of the curators and the Missouri legislature, which, he reminded panelists, gives UMKC $255 million a year. He also gave examples of “land-grant institutions,” like the entire University of Missouri System, that have become excellent research institutions.

“To take shots at UMKC may alienate our legislature and that could be a very serious disadvantage to us here,” he said. “The point that has to be remembered is that the source for a large part of those funds comes from Jefferson City and our statewide legislature.”

Page 2
The panel was a diverse group, including Dr. Elson Floyd, president of the University of Missouri System. The other panelists were Ray Coveney, professor and chair of the department of geosciences at UMKC; Woody Cozad, a former curator of the University of Missouri System and an attorney and is principal of Cozad Company LLC, a lobbying group; Mary James, a former curator whose term expired at the end of 2004; Ted Beckett, a Kansas City attorney and a former curator; Kevin Lujin, president of the Henry Bloch School (of Business and Public Administration) Student Association and president of UMKC Students for Sunshine (advocates of the Sunshine Law and Freedom of Information Laws); and Jack Cashill, executive editor, Ingram’s Magazine, and an occasional adjunct professor at UMKC. Woody Cozad shares his concern about Kansas City lacking a respectable research university. Is Kansas City Unique? Haines opened the discussion by quoting former Yale University President Ben Schmidt, who is heading the blue ribbon task force convened to analyze UMKC’s role in the community. Schmidt said, “Kansas City is virtually alone among great cities in not having a first-rate research university in its urban core.” Haines wanted to know if the panelists agreed with Schmidt, and if so, what the ramifications were for the city. Cozad was first to chime in. “He’s correct,” he said, noting that research is just one of the criteria that may be used to judge the effectiveness of a university. He said that evaluating UMKC, or any university, should be done on a “program by program” basis. In his estimation, a poll of the top academics in America would not list UMKC in the top 20 research institutions nationally, and the lack of a strong research arm does make it “more difficult for Kansas City” than it would be if UMKC were on the list. Coveney, who has been associated with the university since 1971—his entire professional career—believes UMKC has made great strides in those years. But he also acknowledges that it lacks the private and public funding necessary to “make it truly great.” When Haines asked him how Kansas City has suffered because of the deficiencies, Coveney said, “Kansas City has a wealth of human resources that are untapped because of the lack of availability of a large urban university.” Cashill looked at the economic side. “What economic developers are saying is that a major research university drives the economy of a given region and also attracts the kind of young, creative class that makes a city happen,” he said. “The absence of that is not fatal to a city’s ambitions, but it retards a city’s ambitions.” Dr. Floyd stated that UMKC is filling that role for Kansas City, but its relative youth, compared to other urban-based universities, needs to be considered. UMKC has been part of the University of Missouri system for 42 years, but Floyd noted that many other institutions that are associated with major cities have been around a lot longer than that. “So is it a disservice to the university to say that it is not first-rate?” Haines wondered. “We need more time,” Floyd retorted. “We need the commitment of all of our partners. We need the commitment of the university, but also the community as well, because no university can be an island in and of itself.” Lujin, the student-leadership advocate, agreed with Floyd, stating that some programs that are in their “nascent stages” will show that the university is worthy of financial support from the private and public—local and statewide—sectors. Beckett defended the role of the curators through the years in helping UMKC improve, highlighting the creation of the medical school in 1971 and the engineering school in 2001. “We tried hard to bring those advances here to Kansas City, to this campus,” he said. Cozad wasn’t ready to dismiss the question of the deficiencies of the university hurting the city and its businesses. He recalled when he was on the board of curators, he hosted a dinner for the board and invited a local business entrepreneur to speak to the group. That businessman told the curators that he had to leave Kansas City relatively early in his business’ life to find the kind of trained work-force needed for his software company. “Telecommunications is supposed to be an emphasis on this campus,” Cozad noted. “That’s one example of how [that lack of research at UMKC] retards the growth of the city.” Jack Cashill asks provocative questions in hopes to see action taken to improve an under-performing UMKC. To Split or Not To Split Haines got the juices flowing when he interjected the following statement: “Some people have looked at examples like that and said, ‘The answer for UMKC is to split entirely from the University of Missouri System. It could dramatically, according to The Kansas City Star editorial page, improve UMKC’s financial situation and its community support.’ How would splitting from the University of Missouri System do anything to improve UMKC?” Not at all, according to Lujin. “I can see nothing now that would help out Kansas City or the university itself if it were to split,” said Lujin, who encouraged a look back to 1963 when UMKC joined the system. The cost savings of being part of the University of Missouri System “are so huge” that it makes no sense to consider pulling out of the University of Missouri System. Cashill says that the split wouldn’t have to be complete to be successful. “There are advantages to being part of the system and (for) taxpayers of the state of Missouri, there’s no reason why Kansas City shouldn’t get its money back.” Cashill also questioned whether an “authoritative governing body” that shapes the destiny of the university based on the needs of Kansas City would not be more productive for the city and the university. To Cashill’s point of governance from a board of curators from around the state dictating policy for the university in Kansas City, Haines questioned why there is only one member from the Kansas City area. Cozad noted that it didn’t have to be that way. There are nine congressional districts in Missouri, and the rules stipulate that one curator comes from each district. But parts of the Kansas City metro area touch three different districts, meaning that the board could have as many as three Kansas City area representatives. At the same time, Cozad said he was “not particularly crazy” about the idea of a Kansas City-based board determining policies for UMKC. “I’m too familiar with the politics of Kansas City,” he said. “It frightens me.” Floyd argued that in order for UMKC to be the research institution that is desired, it must be part of the University of Missouri system, “because it is the University of Missouri, for our state, that has the research designation.” Haines pushed Floyd to respond to the suggestion that it would be easier for UMKC to get more funding from philanthropies if it were under local governance. Floyd responded that the local governance, to a certain extent, already exists. “Of all of the institutions [in the U of M System], UMKC really does have a unique model. The board of curators is the dually designated governing entity for UMKC. We also have a very active and vital board of trustees. So we actually have a local flavor, a local ambiance.” Floyd also noted that the board of trustees does require the final authorization from the board of curators, but the curators definitely count on the board of trustees for input. When asked what would happen if UMKC did secede from the University of Missouri system, Floyd added a “be careful what you wish for” disclaimer. “I’m not sure it could really do all that Kansas City expects,” he said. “I am not aware of any public research university with a local board exclusively. If you want to create that synergy, the boards must be statewide. Cashill argued that Johnson County Community College in Overland Park and Washburn University in Topeka serve as models of institutions that are highly integrated within their communities. But Floyd countered that Cashill proved his point. “Neither one of those institutions are great research institutions,” Floyd said. “I’m hard-pressed to identify any great publicly held institution with a local board.” Not quite ready to back down, Cashill responded, “It gives us an excellent position to be the first. We don’t want to be the 12th.” Beckett, the former curator, defended the role of the curators and the Missouri legislature, which, he reminded panelists, gives UMKC $255 million a year. He also gave examples of “land-grant institutions,” like the entire University of Missouri System, that have become excellent research institutions. “To take shots at UMKC may alienate our legislature and that could be a very serious disadvantage to us here,” he said. “The point that has to be remembered is that the source for a large part of those funds comes from Jefferson City and our statewide legislature.”