by Kaitlin Fender & Sam Belz

The Georgia Tuition Equalization Grant (GTEG), intended to help equalize the financial gap between attending a private and public college or university, will likely be eliminated next year. This grant was received by about 420 Covenant students last award year; that’s almost 45% of the undergraduate full-time student body. The year before, in 2008-2009, the GTEG was already suffering losses, since it was halved from its highest amount, $600 in 2008-2009, to $300 this semester, after several previous reductions.

Many students have been frustrated by these cuts, especially in cases where they planned their four-year funding in advance. “It could change for incoming classes,” said junior Callie Oldham of Statesboro, Georgia, “but changing in the middle of the year is harder to make up.”

The statewide situation is unprecendented in the Board of Regents’ 75-year history.  The budget, which reflects Georgia revenue, was off about 12% from last year. That means the state has a lot of financial pressures everywhere, according to Jim Jolly, who serves on both Covenant’s Board and the State’s Board of Regents.

Residents of Georgia get two kinds of financial aid unique to the Peach State.  One, GTEG, controlled by state funds, goes to every Georgia resident who chooses private education over public.  The HOPE Scholarship, on the other hand, based on lottery instead of state funds, goes to Georgia students with GPAs above 3.0.

While Covenant awaits final word on the fate of GTEG in the state legislature, the College has friends in high places. The Georgia Foundation for Independent Colleges, to which Covenant belongs, lobbies on Covenant’s behalf whenever issues of HOPE and GTEG come up in either House.  The key thing is making sure that Georgia senators and representatives know what is at stake in their vote.

Read More »

by Lana Nelson & Andrew Shaughnessy

The administration is working hard to evaluate and fulfill constantly changing facilities needs across campus. Work on Carter, including this past year’s closing and renovation of Third South, is a tiny part of a much bigger initiative of concerted evaluation and action, called the Facilities Condition Assessment. Some changes, such as Carter’s anticipated renovation of the north end, will be continued as funding is available. Other projects will take years to even be properly analyzed before action can be taken due to the numerous intertwined factors, issues, and demands that must be evaluated and addressed.

While working towards the ongoing effort at maintaining and improving campus facilities, the administration conducted two separate assessments (the Krebs and Draper evaluations) to gather data on the state of the buildings, infrastructure, and water systems of the college. These two primary evaluations are in addition to separate evaluations for both Carter Hall and the Dora Maclellan Brown Memorial Chapel. These four collections of data must be individually analyzed in light of each other.

The Krebs Evaluation deals with the water, sanitation, and the storm drainage system. The Draper Evaluation, for which a team of architects and engineers were recently brought in, focuses on campus buildings.

This complex web of information makes it impossible to arrive at a prioritized to-do list right away. While the data has been gathered, David Northcutt, Director of Facilities Management, warned that the college is still in the analysis stage and will be for months. “It will probably take through next fall to even get to a basic analysis of the data, and then even longer before we get into financial planning,” Northcutt said.

Knowing that contexts and conditions can change rapidly, the administration is formulating a plan that is intentionally fluid. Unforeseeable events, like the mudslide that happened behind the Chapel last Fall, change everything, Troy Duble, Vice President, explained. Northcutt spent a substantial amount of time over the course of last semester dealing strictly with repercussions of that event.  These kind of unexpected problems completely rework priorities for assessment and action, underlining the college’s necessity for a plan that is able to change with changing circumstances.

Once again, however, the task is difficult because of the staggeringly interconnected nature of the various evaluations. An example, Northcutt explained, is the need for a long range plan on the college’s water systems (as addressed by the Krebs Infrastructure Hydraulic Evaluation). This is both a preventative measure for healthy maintenance in later years, and a forward-looking move that anticipates and informs any campus expansion. If the college is going to build another building somewhere in the next 10, 30, or even 50 years, its placement and design has to conform to  the previously established water system placement and design.

Consultants for the Draper Evaluation gathered information on the overall needs of the buildings, trying to create a bigger picture for the needs of the college. “They looked at mechanical systems, roofs, finishes, preventative maintenance…there’s a whole array of things,” Northcutt said; “It’s like maintaining your car, a building is very similar.”

Read More »