DID
YOU KNOW?
HB 395
by Rep. Thomas
Carmody would make funding decisions made by higher education supervisory boards
subject to rules set by the Board of Regents. Previous to its consideration,
information by the Governance Board created to investigate higher education was
reported to the House
Education Committee, laying the groundwork for this bill. Carmody explained
this meant money would be allocated by the Regents to specific schools, without
the ability of supervisory boards making changes.
Supporters
said the intent all along had been that Regents policy has the financial
ability to have them implemented, but current state law was ambiguous to the
point that allowed systems to adjust the formula, disrupting a clear chain of
command. However, Rep. John Bel Edwards
disputed this interpretation, saying he didn’t see the bill doing anything because
of what was run through the appropriations bill that would take precedence,
although a constitutional amendment might be another matter. He didn’t see how
the bill made matters more clear, since the funding formula wasn’t being
followed. It was pointed out that current practice subverted what the
appropriations bill did anyway, and an amendment would allow for five percent of
money to be set aside for systems to distribute as they liked. Edwards could
not see how the formula would jive with the Legislature’s appropriations.
Carmody
then offered the amendment. The number was chosen because redirections tended
to be in that range. Edwards wanted to know why, if this were allowed
historically, why the bill was needed. Commissioner of Higher Education Jim Purcell
said massive deviations were starting and might continue. The amendment was
adopted without objection.
Rep.
Rob Shadoin
also wanted to know if this bill alone could solve for accountability problems,
given Edwards’ points. Carmody insisted that would be the case. Shadoin thought
the report was persuasive. Rep. Chris Broadwater
also voiced reservations. Purcell stressed that the bill was important to
prevent subversion of the reward aspect of the GRAD Act, bringing fidelity and
policy together especially as institutions are granted use of their own
efficiency savings.
Opponents,
systems presidents John Lombardi (Louisiana State) and Randy Moffett
(University of Louisiana), said best practices argued that supervisory boards
should have some flexibility, and that the Regents should be only coordinating
in nature. They said self-generated funds were not shifted around. They claimed
deviations were small and infrequent and didn’t think it was disorderly enough
warrant legislation, and if it did, it needed to be a constitutional amendment
that was honest in trying to create a “superboard.” Edwards asked whether
current practices subverted the GRAD Act; they said no reallocations have been
made in the past couple of years.
Rep.
John Schroder
then voiced frustration that divisions still existed within higher education on
this issue and wanted resolution. He said he heard of lack of communication was
continuing, and said the bill would clarify. They insisted the constitutional amendment
would solve for it, but admitted they were also against the amendment. He said
the current arrangement simply was not working, and began to wonder whether this
might lead the Legislature to reverse the idea of one board governance.
Louisiana
Community and Technical College System Joe May said he hoped for more
flexibility in the discretionary funds promised by amendment. Southern University
System President Ronald Mason echoed that, noting the great stress his system
faced.
Edwards
then offered an amendment to tie the bill to HB 396, the version of the bill
which would amend the Constitution, by saying would take effect only when HB
396 took effect. This was adopted without objection.
Carmody
closed noting the Commission said the current system was unacceptable, and that
this bill would help to address that. But Edwards objected to his move to
report. The bill passed 9-6.
DID
YOU KNOW
HB 396
was brought forward by Carmody. He noted now HB 396 had to pass to allow what
they just voted to move forward, and noted the threshold was now higher,
requiring two-thirds votes.
Schroder
spoke again of frustration, and said the bill deserved a debate on the floor,
even if it wasn’t perfect. He didn’t want to repeat the experience of what conflict
he heard today and therefore felt the Legislature had to deal with it. “If this
defines higher ed in Louisiana,” it’s no wonder we’re on the bottom of the list,
he argued.
Edwards
maintained the same problem still existed, although he thought this was a
better approach. Better still, he said amend a different part of the
Constitution for more clarity, which this bill didn’t do. He said the bill did
not given enough flexibility. Schroder said simply there wasn’t enough control.
A representative of the Regents said amending the flow of money was not as
critical as clarifying policy-making, which the Regents were positioned to do
than the discrete boards which the Constitution currently did not make as clear
as necessary, and gave examples where this was problematic. Edwards argued that
something could be done and then if there was dissension, then that was the
time to bring forward this kind of legislation, and recommended more comprehensive
constitutional changes than just this. She disagreed, saying the binding
authority provided in the amendment was an improvement.
Lombardi
said this was a stealth superboard bill. Supporters said it wasn’t and it clarified
authority and accountability. For example, schools now could ignore admission
criteria, leading to micromanagement by the Legislature as the only recourse
were this to happen. This could cripple meaningful performance reform, and the
board needed to move from advisory to policy-making.
The
bill was moved, and an identical vote occurred in favor.
DID
YOU KNOW?
HB 1095
by Rep Walt Leger
would make the state party of a compact that promised to give its electoral
votes to whatever presidential candidate won the popular vote. Leger told the House and Governmental
Affairs Committee that this only was fair, as all other elections were done
on a popular vote basis. He said this was a way to have individual votes count.
Supporters said the current system overweighed influence to the so-called “battleground”
states. Leger also thought the current system discouraged turnout.
Rep.
Tony Ligi noted
that the turnout argument was skewed in favor of those whose bases were in
urban areas, because of efficiencies in resource use. He believed it would favor
some partisan interests as opposed to others.
Opponents
pointed out that unequal representation already existed, courtesy of equal
representation in the Senate. They argued that the current system allowed for greater
consideration of people in most states because campaigns otherwise would concentrate
on large states and/or large metropolitan areas. They also argued this would
encourage election by smaller pluralities than present. They said such a change
needed to be through the Constitution, and tied Louisiana’s voting to other
larger populated areas. They argued Louisiana got plenty of attention under the
current system. Finally, they wondered about the constitutionality of the
measure.
Leger
argued this was merely an extension of the original interstate compact, the
Constitution. He said this did not change the dynamics of campaigning and would
stimulate more campaigning. Rep. Girod Jackson
made a motion to approve, but Ligi made a substitute motion to defer, which
failed 4-6 along partisan lines except Reps. Taylor Barras
and Johnny
Bethelot voted against. Jackson then moved to report favorably, which
happened without objection.
DID
YOU KNOW
SB 568
would restate prohibitions against paying women less than men for spurious
reasons, and create a process of increased rigor to enforce. Author Sen. Karen Peterson told the Senate and
Governmental Affairs Committee that statistics showed pay differentials,
and that this law improved upon existing state law that could prevent what she saw
as this discrimination. It needed to be addressed as the presumed discrimination
produced a deleterious ripple effect throughout the economy and society.
Supporters
claimed Louisiana women were paid a third less than men in the same jobs, and
said existing law did not explicitly strongly enough prohibit this from
happening, which the new law they claimed would. They complained that, by
comparable worth, men were advantaged in pay.
A
representative of the Louisiana Workforce Commission recited state and federal legislation
that covered the area of law, upon the request of Sen. Neil Riser, who thought
existing law contradicted supporters’ assertions of inadequacy. Peterson
insisted that was not the case, and supporters said the statistics in their
interpretation showed they weren’t working.
The
bill was moved for passage, but failed 3-5 along party lines with Democrats in
favor.
QUOTE
OF THE DAY
You’re
one of the smartest guys I know.
Schroder, to Lombardi
I
don’t think so.
Lombardi
Thanks
for leaving me out.
Moffett
No comments:
Post a Comment