North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven proposes spending $710.8 million on higher education, an increase of nearly 40 percent.

Board of Higher Education member Duane Espegard hit it right on in describing the governor's proposal: "Very generous."

But that did not stop Espegard and the board from unanimously asking for an additional $20 million. A $1.2 billion estimated budget surplus will do that - raise the ante and then some.

There are so many good things that can, and should, be said about the state's colleges and universities: quality education, business and industry partnerships, shared expertise, research and development. The people of North Dakota can take pride in the classroom work offered on campus and through the Internet.

The Legislature, despite deferred maintenance issues, has not neglected the University System. Always a conservative body, the Legislature still has always made education a priority, even though the end result might have fallen short of need.

Yes, there's more work that needs to be done on campuses around the state. Gov. Hoeven could see that. He responded with a significant , one might say "huge," increase for higher ed. The people of North Dakota, we think, agree.

But the board is convinced otherwise. It would like to freeze tuition at the state's two-year colleges, which have rates higher than like schools in the region. Make that case, and it can be made, but the lawmakers should take it out of the governor's proposed level of spending.

Further, citing "a risk to workers," the board wants to fix its information technology facility. That should give readers cause for wonder.

The board of higher education has chosen to go down this path, even knowing the potential repercussions. As Espergard was quoted as saying by the Associated Press, "My concern is how its going to fly on the legislative floor." It's likely that it, the additional funds, isn't going to get off the ground, nor should it.

Well, the board has got to do what it has got to do.

So does the governor and the Legislature.

But at who's expense?