Vol. 2, No. 5

Update on 2007 Legislative Session

We are nearing the end of the third month of this year's session of the Missouri General Assembly, and in this Friday Focus, I want to update you on the current status of a number of pieces of legislation that affect Higher Education in general and Missouri State University in particular. Although the session still has a long way to go – it concludes May 18 – there have been developments in each of the various bills with the most significance for us.

First, with respect to the operating budget, we continue to be optimistic that the Governor's recommendation for a 4.2 percent increase in the base budgets of the institutions will be passed by the legislature. In the case of Missouri State, a 4.2 percent increase translates into an increase of about $3.4 million for next year.

In addition, the Governor recommended funds for two additional programs for our University: 1) $500,000 ongoing and $500,000 in one-time support for our cooperative engineering program with the University of Missouri at Rolla, and 2) $500,000 in recurring support for the West Plains campus, which has fallen substantially behind in FTE funding compared to other two-year colleges in Missouri.

Although the funding mechanism for the one-time engineering money has changed since it was originally proposed, we believe the prospects are very good for both the recurring and nonrecurring funding to be appropriated for next year. Consequently, we are beginning to make plans for the admission of a cohort of students for the 2007-08 academic year and for advertising the new faculty lines committed to this program.

The current status of the West Plains funding is not as positive or clear; however, by the time the bill works its way through the anticipated committees, both chambers and the conference committee, we believe additional funding for West Plains will ultimately be included in next year's budget.

Second, Senate Bill 389 is the comprehensive Higher Education bill that was introduced by Senator Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, Chairman of the Senate Education Committee. This bill addresses a number of topics including:

• Expanding the powers of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) to deal with inter-institutional disputes;
• Confirming the legal basis for the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MoHELA) to fund the capital projects that make up the Lewis and Clark initiative;
• Limiting institutions' ability to increase tuition to the rate of the national Consumer Price Index (CPI); and
• Consolidating the two existing need-based financial aid programs for the state (Gallagher and Missouri Guarantee) into one new scholarship program – Access Missouri – and increasing the on-going funding for this consolidated scholarship by more than $50 million annually. This section of the bill also institutes a new distribution formula for these funds to private institutions, four-year public universities, and two-year public colleges.

SB 389 has been the subject of considerable debate and has been voted out of committee. On the Senate floor, it was subjected initially to a filibuster. Following this, a compromise in the funding strategy for the capital projects was attempted, but ultimately failed. The bill also has been opposed by different interest groups and political factions.

Senate Bill 389 authorizes funding for the capital projects in the Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative, which are to be included in House Bill 16. HB 16 will only be addressed after a final decision on SB 389 has been reached. At this time, the original Lewis and Clark project list has been modified considerably, although all of the Missouri State projects (about $29 million for seven renovation projects on three campuses and $5 million for Phase II of the Roy Blunt Jordan Valley Innovation Center) remain in place.

We anticipate that SB 389 will be brought back for further debate soon. Whether another attempt at compromise to end the filibuster will occur, or whether there will be a vote to end the filibuster and bring the bill to a vote, is the major question. Obviously, this bill is of great importance to us and to all institutions because of the potential for finally receiving some capital funding, which is desperately needed.

House Bill 213, the so-called "Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act," was introduced by Representative Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield. It mandates that the CBHE require each public institution to report annually to the General Assembly the steps the institution is taking to ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas. Among such steps that institutions could consider to promote "intellectual diversity" are the following:

• Conduct a study to assess the current state of intellectual diversity on its campus;
• Incorporate intellectual diversity into institution statements, grievance procedures, and activities on diversity;
• Encourage a balanced variety of campus-wide panels and speakers and annually publish the names of panelists and speakers;
• Establish clear campus policies that ensure that hecklers or threats of violence do not prevent speakers from speaking;
• Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching and program development;
• Include intellectual diversity issues in student course evaluations;
• Develop hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that protect individuals against viewpoint discrimination;
• Establish campus policies to ensure freedom of the press for students and report any incidents of student newspaper thefts or destruction;
• Establish clear campus policies to prohibit viewpoint discrimination in the distribution of student fee funds;
• Develop methods for disseminating best practices to ensure that conflicts between personal beliefs and classroom assignments that may contradict such beliefs can be resolved in a manner that achieves educational objectives without requiring a student to act against his or her conscience;
• Eliminate any speech codes that restrict the freedom of speech; or
• Create an institutional ombudsman on intellectual diversity.

Neither Missouri State University, nor any other University, has testified against this bill, which has passed out of the House Higher Education Committee. However, we testified for information purposes because we are convinced that we already have in place the mechanisms that are necessary to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom and to deal with instances in which someone believes those rights have been violated. (Please use these links to see the existing policies and procedures referenced: http://www.missouristate.edu/declaration/ and http://www.missouristate.edu/judicial/12331.htm#Artice1 .)

We anticipate that the General Assembly, which had its Spring Break the same week as ours, will push on these bills in the coming weeks. I will keep you posted as the session progresses.

Send Comments to the President's Office