Tuition increase violates constitution, they argue

Four UA students announced yesterday that they intend to sue the State of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents, claiming that the recent tuition hike violates the Arizona State Constitution.

The students, Rachel Wilson, Adrian Duran, Sam Brown, and John Kromko, said that the $1,000 tuition increase for resident undergraduates, the $1,250 tuition increase for nonresident undergraduates and resident graduates, and the $1,500 increase for nonresident graduates violates an article in the constitution that states university tuition must be "nearly free as possible."

The four filed their complaint yesterday at the Pima County Courthouse along with a request to bar the university from using the revenue gained from the tuition hike.

ABOR president Chris Herstam said the tuition hike does not violate the constitution.

"The Arizona Supreme Court interprets the constitution to give Regents authority to set tuition as long as it is Îreasonable and non-excessive,'" Herstam said. He also said ABOR's tuition process was appropriate, good public policy and constitutional.

"As the president of ABOR, I wish we did not have to raise tuition, but to maintain excellent public institutions, it is necessary," Herstam said.

Behind a small table at the press conference stood Brown, a linguistics senior and Kromko, a former Arizona state legislator, along with their lawyer Paul Gattone, a UA history graduate student. Not present were first-year law student Rachel Wilson and undeclared sophomore Adrian Duran.

"A lot of this came from the student organizing that happened at the end of last year about the tuition increase, when the tuition was being debated and it was before the Board of Regents," Gattone said.

When Gattone was asked how his clients expect the state to adequately fund the universities as it struggles with budget deficits, he replied, "It's not necessarily our responsibility to figure that out for them because all I know is that the constitution says that tuition is supposes to be Îas nearly free as possible'."

Governor spokesman, Paul Allvin, said "Îas free as nearly possible' is a sliding scale," meaning that the wording in the article is vague and leaves room for interpretation.

Ethan Orr, who last semester taught UA's political science course "U.S. and Arizona Constitution" and now works for the City of Tucson, said the Arizona constitution's stipulation that secondary education be "as nearly free as possible" is a vague notion, one that likely has never been challenged in court.

"Once you begin to nail that down, it really begins to limit what you can do," he said.

President Likins could not comment on the legality of the matter, but said that this case is essentially asking the court to dictate how the legislature allocates money. If the courts decided to tell the legislature where to allocate state funds, the results would be "unimaginable."

Orr said there is a precedent for courts dictating how the legislature should allocate money, he said.

"That does happen all the time," he said adding that it has become more common since the 1970s.

"There are a number of things the courts have dictated that the legislature has to spend," Orr said.

At the press conference Gattone said the legislators need to review its priorities.

"The State and Regents cannot use this financial argument to shirk their constitutional responsibilities," he said.

Gattone is a private practicing lawyer and said he is being paid by the four students.

"Not to my knowledge, has there ever been any lawsuit or claim like this in the past," said ABOR spokesperson, Kathy McGonigle.