Chancellor urges preserving flexibility as senators debate splitting higher-education trust fund

Beth Malc, chancellor of the Vermont State Colleges System, told the Senate Education Committee that adding an institutional designate to the state’s higher-education trust fund risks reducing the system’s ability to allocate aid based on shifting student demand and program costs.

“Does adding CCV as a separate designate move us further away from the work that we've been doing to get together as one system?” Malc asked, saying the system now operates as two institutions — Vermont State University and the Community College of Vermont — that function as a single system for funding and operations. She told senators that over the last three years Vermont State University received roughly 60% of trust-fund distributions and CCV about 40%, a split driven by enrollments, program costs and student need.

The committee considered three options for the trust-fund language: divide the trust fund into four named quarters, allocate 50% to the state colleges (allowing them to internally distribute funds) with the remaining 50% split among the other institutions, or preserve the current language. Several senators said increasing support for CCV students is a priority but warned that a fixed split could become a hard cap and limit the system’s ability to respond to year-to-year changes.

The proposed changes have practical trade-offs, senators said. Supporters of a four-way split argued it recognizes each institution independently; opponents said it would introduce a ‘hard wall’ that prevents the system from shifting dollars if student numbers or program needs change. One senator flagged a related political question: would UVM and VSAC oppose moving from a roughly one-third share to 25% if the state colleges received 50% combined?

The debate also touched on a separate, contested request that had drawn attention: whether $15 million of trust funds should be used for a UVM arena. Some members said using trust funds earmarked for student aid to build an arena would be a poor fit and suggested alternative funding sources if the project is to proceed.

Committee members agreed the decision is significant and needs more information. Several senators proposed inviting additional witnesses and postponing final language until they can better assess the fiscal and programmatic impacts. The committee does not finalize the change today; members said the Education Committee will make a recommendation to Appropriations and may continue discussion on Tuesday.