Closing remarks from a conference of the Inservice Education Program/National Association of State Budget Officers are presented. It is suggested that the potential for communication problems between state higher education officers and budget officers is great. Areas in which improved communication can make a big difference include the avoidance of duplicate management information systems, and avoidance of dual or triple budget formats and submissions. The need for determining priorities and for internal budgetary reallocations in higher education was addressed at the conference. It is suggested that one of the reasons why educational policy decisions are often made by coordinating agencies and budget agencies is because of the reluctance of administrators and faculty to make these decisions. There have been cases of administrators forwarding new program proposals to the state for rejection because they did not want to say no to internal constituencies. It is suggested that institutions should show that service to people has been the major consideration in programmatic decisions. The need for each state to reexamine budgeting in the light of the incentives and disincentives that are built into the budget process was addressed at the conference. It is suggested that it is the responsibility of state higher education agencies to identify which policies are in the public interest when educational and fiscal considerations are the primary criteria. (SW)