State Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville) and State Rep. Michael Moran (D-Brighton) on Jan. 25 introduced legislation called the Higher Education Transparency Bill that would require private universities in Massachusetts to increase their financial transparency. The new legislation, which would apply to colleges and universities with holdings of over $10 million, calls for the disclosure of individual conflicts of interest of trustees and directors, information about staff members who earn over $250,000 and information regarding financial arrangements over $150,000 with outside parties.
The proposed legislation would create a positive change in the level of disclosure that Tufts has with its students and the public. Tufts — like many other private institutions in the state — plays an integral part in the economy of its surrounding communities. When Tufts experiences economic flux, it affects a wider group than simply the administrators who deal with the university's finances. Because Tufts benefits from public subsidies, such as tax breaks, the taxpayers who help allow these subsidies have the right to know where their money is going.
Financial transparency is also particularly crucial to the students and their families who pay steep tuition to Tufts each year. They pay their bill with the understanding that this money is going toward bettering their educational opportunities, while upholding the values that Tufts promotes. Tufts prides itself on being a socially conscious institution, but there are currently few avenues for students to ensure that their money is going toward investments that fit with this attitude. If students see a spike in their tuition, they should be told why this increase is occurring and what goals it will accomplish. The Higher Education Transparency Bill would help push colleges and universities to uphold their values and make responsible financial choices by increasing their accountability to those who are giving money to the institution.
In spite of these arguments, Tufts does not support the proposed legislation, saying that the university already discloses enough information. Director of Public Relations Kim Thurler said that increasing disclosure would be time-consuming and costly to the university. However, because Tufts undoubtedly keeps track of its financial endeavors, simply providing this information should not be excessively time-consuming, and the positive effect that it would have on student and community attitudes toward the university would be worth the relatively small cost.
The Daily understands that Tufts administrators have a great number of financial decisions that they must make on a daily basis, and having to undergo constant scrutiny from students and the public could cause difficulties with the university's ability to function quickly and smoothly. Having all expenditures exposed to the public could additonally make Tufts less likely to actively invest and take financial risks for fear of receiving negative publicity.
While these concerns are valid, public scrutiny is an inevitable facet of being a prominent institution, and Tufts must accept that its decisions affect a great number of people who deserve to be informed. Rather than opposing the legislation, Tufts should embrace it as an opportunity to increase discourse and accountability with its students and community.
