CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The commentary by Dorothy Phillips, critical of the Revitalization Committee of the Higher Education Policy Commission, takes a view of WVU Tech that is not supported by the majority of citizens of Fayette and Kanawha counties and does a great disservice to Tech.

She makes a personal attack on David Hendrickson, the unpaid chairman of the Higher Education Policy Commission and the Tech Revitalization Committee. He has been a leader in education for many years. He has shown a great interest in Tech devoting many hours of his time. Ed Robinson was born a Golden Bear. He is probably the major financial contributor to the Tech Foundation.

I consider Mrs. Phillips a personal friend, but she has been wrong on Tech's problems for many years and now has criticized citizens who are trying to help Tech. The Faculty Senate and other Tech employees endorsed the efforts of the Revitalization Committee.

This Committee has completed its work and the Legislative Oversight Committee has signed off on it with our Delegate Dave Perry being the sole dissenter.

For too long we have heard the "Take Back Tech" group boast of "Saving Tech." She has, for some unknown reason, a dislike of WVU.

Tech would not be a viable college without the help of WVU. Why would WVU want Tech to fail? She recites certain Tech leaders who are graduates of WVU who she believes are controlling Tech. If we eliminate graduates of WVU from qualified Tech leaders, we would eliminate most, if not all, Tech's employees.

The "Take Back Tech" group should disband and give the remaining money to Tech for scholarships. Constantly being a critic, at some point, does a disservice to Tech, and that point was reached many months ago.

Tech is a very viable institution. Its loss of enrollment has been for a number of reasons. The principle one is the drastic loss of population in the areas of Southern West Virginia where the college has traditionally drawn its students. In addition, almost half of its students were moved to create Bridgemont Community and Technical College.

 I do not denigrate Bridgemont, but its creation really hurt Tech because it carved out of Tech's student body a much greater proportion of students than the other state colleges lost in the birth of the community college system.

There are many other reasons for Tech's decline in enrollment: loss of mining jobs, lack of local students qualified to take science courses, a local area decimated of proper housing and the demise of Union Carbide.

Phillips has stated that the Revitalization Committee has adopted the "Sightlines" report. WVU commissioned that report to review the needs of Tech for its buildings and grounds. It was completed in May 2011. Senate Bill 486 was not introduced until February 2011. The subcommittee that made the first analysis did not meet until July or August 2011.

The Sightlines report is not a specific engineering project but an analysis of buildings and grounds. They did an excellent outline of the needs of the campus to improve the students' lifestyle.

The Curris Report did more harm than good for Tech. Its investigation was minimal at best. Tech has been studied to death. It needs to have the Legislature properly fund it.

The "Take back Tech" group should quit criticizing and let the Committee do its work. It will be up to our senators and delegates to present Tech's case to the Legislature.

The Higher Education Policy Commission is on the right path. If its recommendations are funded by the Legislature, we will benefit from the future leaders that Tech has created in the past and will create in the future. Funding, not fighting, should be our number one priority.

Billheimer is a retired lawyer, Tech graduate and president of the Tech Foundation.