A new hearing for the 0 case was held yesterday morning in the Phoenix Court of Appeals to consider reviving a lawsuit in which state university students challenged an in-state tuition hike.
A three-judge panel, headed by Marice Portley, Jefferson Lankford and Phillip Hall, heard arguments in the appeal of a Maricopa County Superior Court judge's dismissal of the suit against the Arizona Board of Regents and other defendants.
The lawsuit was brought forth in August 2003 by UA students Rachel Wilson, Sam Brown, Adrian Duran and former UA student John Kromko, who is also a former state representative.
Duran has since dropped the case, Kromko said.
"All others are still on," Kromko said in an e-mail.
The suit claimed the then-38 percent tuition hike, approved by the board of regents, was unconstitutional.
The Court of Appeals took the case under advisement yesterday, a day after the universities requested an additional increase in tuition.
Judge Rebecca Albrecht's Feb. 19, 2004, ruling said state law gives the board of regents immunity from lawsuits related to the board's legislative and administrative functions and the Legislature also has immunity for its official business, as reported by The Associated Press.
The $1,000 increase raised in-state residents' undergraduate costs by 38 percent to approximately $3,600 a year, according to AP sources.
Kromko said the Arizona State Constitution provides that university tuition must be as "nearly free as possible."
"It also provides that the Legislature shall make appropriations to maintain, develop, and improve the universities," Kromko said in an e-mail.
When discussing the implications of the recent tuition hike, Kromko said he wondered whether there would ever be an end to the rising costs.
"Is there no limit to this?" Kromko said.
Kromko said he remembers when tuition was nonexistent and wished he had taken the regents to court sooner.
"When I started at the UA in 1964, there was no tuition," Kromko said in an e-mail. "Everyone thought tuition was illegal under the constitution. The fees were $50 per semester in 1964, and they gradually went up over the years. I can't remember what year tuition started. I regret that I didn't take them to court immediately."
Kromko said he is dismayed over the apparent shift from the UA's focus, and believes the UA has become more research oriented rather than academically oriented.
"The Land Grant law and the Arizona Constitution seem to focus on education," Kromko said in an e-mail. "In my opinion, the university has a duty to the taxpayers of the state of Arizona to provide education for us and for our children before they do corporate research."
According to Kromko, because of this shift in the UA's focus, desired required classes are frequently not available, but corporate research has all the money it needs.
"In the semester that I filed this lawsuit, I was able to get only one of the courses that I wanted, all others were full," Kromko said in an e-mail. "My advisor actually told me that some of the courses were available at Pima College."
Kromko, however, said his main goal is to see that UA tuition is decreased rather than increased.
"I believe that the current rate is unconstitutional because the regents have not set the rate 'as nearly free as possible,'" Kromko said in an e-mail. "I know that because they never even discussed the makeup of the tuition. The university presidents bring in the increases and there is absolutely no discussion of what costs went into the tuition."
Kromko said the cost of tuition not only hurts students, but the economy in general.
"The nation, the state and everyone benefits from an educated workforce," Kromko said in an e-mail. "That's (the) whole idea of nearly free education, which was a major force behind the development of the American middle class."
Kromko said he disagreed with the idea of research universities bringing in more money to the school in the long run.
"Politicians used to say that growth paid for itself," Kromko said in an e-mail. "One day I was speaking to the county supervisors when one of them said that. I asked, 'Then why aren't we rich?' If you ask, you'll realize that people are lying about growth and research."
Pre-business freshman Phil Gustin agrees with Kromko. He feels the increase in tuition only hurts college students.
"From my point of view, the rise in tuition is entirely unjust to the student body," Gustin said.
Moriah Flagler, a theatre education freshman, said she feels in the long run, the rise in tuition actually hurts the government.
"We already pay a lot, so there shouldn't be a rise in tuition," Flagler said. "The government would just have to give out more money in scholarships, so it would be self-defeating."
Overall, Kromko is uncertain about the future outcome of the case, but believes he is correct in his interpretation of the constitution.
"I've been in many court cases over the years, and I've never been able to predict what will happen. There's no question that I'm right," Kromko said.