March 26, 2026 · Higher Education · 19,297 words · 22 speakers · 291 segments
Senator Westland is in another committee presenting, so we'll have Senator Clark come up. Dora and Clark, do, do, do, do, do. Welcome.
That's a gift that's going to keep
giving for a long time.
Welcome. You may be good.
Thank you, Chair. Senator Westland and I bring you Senate File 4589, firearms on public post secondary institutions. In the fall of 2025, 12,000 first year Minnesota College students enrolled in our colleges and universities. These students were born nearly 10 years after the Columbine shoot, and some of them had not been born when the Virginia Tech shooting had occurred. They were 4 and 5 years old when the Sandy Hook shooting occurred, and 10 and 11 when Parkland occurred. All this to say is that this year's college freshman class has never known a world without the fear of gun violence in their schools and universities. At present, all of Minnesota's post secondary institutions are able to prohibit students and faculty from carrying firearms on campus. However, Minnesota's public post secondary institutions are unable to prohibit visitors from carrying firearms. So quick walkthrough of Senate File 4589. This allows our public post secondary universities to to ban firearms on their campuses should they choose to do so. Additionally, institutions that choose to ban firearms would also need to post their own signage. Right now, our private colleges and universities are able to restrict firearms on their campuses, but our public colleges and universities cannot. Senate File 4589 does not require post secondary institutions to ban firearms. It simply gives them the option, the flexibility to ban them if they choose. So this bill allows our public institutions to make the choice that is best for the safety in their choosing of their students and faculty. This does not prevent visitors from keeping a firearm safely locked in a vehicle in a parking lot. And here to Testify, I have Dr. Cindy Harley and Mark Grant.
Thank you so much. Both testifiers can come up. Welcome, Welcome. Dr. Harley and Mr. Grant, please introduce yourselves for the record. And you may begin.
I'm Cindy Harley and.
Go ahead.
Excellent. I'm a faculty member and union representative at Metropolitan State University. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As you've heard, men, state campuses can currently ban students from carrying guns, and they can ban employees from carrying guns, but they are not allowed under Minnesota law to ban visitors from carrying guns. In my own history, there have been gun incidents at all five institutions I have been affiliated with, and some of those institutions have had more than one incident. As a university educator, this makes it often feel like it is not an if we have a shooting, it is A when we have a shooting. An interesting fact about the gun incidents I mentioned earlier is that in all of the cases, the perpetrators were not members of the university community. They were, in fact, non associated individuals or visitors. At my graduate institution, Case Western Reserve University, there have been two incidents. One, when Biswanth Halder, an alumni, was angry about losing web access and entered a building and started shooting. He killed a student and wounded two faculty. In 2025, there was a second incident when two teenagers at a routine police stop ran onto campus, leading to a foot pursuit and ultimately a shooting just a block away from a building where I spent my hours as a graduate student. I could continue these stories, but I want you to understand the feeling of it is not if, but when and perhaps what could be. In May last year, I was in a faculty meeting. My phone made a noise, as did several others in the room. I listened to the voicemail to hear that we were on lockdown. There had been an incident resulting in a shooting just outside of my building. I saw students in our glass atrium and had the other faculty lock the door behind me so I could get students and bring them to that room for safety. The gunman ran past the very windows of that glass atrium. Thankfully, they did not enter campus. But what if they had? There's a term for this. When someone enters a building, it's called a spillover incident. This is because it happens. We need a term for it. So if the person did enter the building, if I saw a gun, what would I do? I'm not allowed to take actions against visitors with guns. I cannot report this right now. And you may think that's a lot of hypotheticals. Right. So let me get to tangible data. There have been, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, 415 incidents of gunfire on college campuses since 2013. 415 incidents. And while there's a perception that these are disgruntled faculty, staff, students, in fact, in 59% of these cases, it's actually someone unaffiliated with the university. While many businesses can ban firearms on campuses, we cannot. And if we can't, and someone wants to, they could come on campus and do the unthinkable. So I'm asking you to help me keep my fellow faculty, staff, and students safe, as we have a right to learn and work in a safe environment.
Thank you so much for your testimony, Dr. Harley. And we have one more testifier, so we're save the questions for after, Mr. Grant. So you can remain there if that's okay. And then Mr. Grant please introduce yourself for the record. And you may begin.
Excellent chair for today. Thank you, committee members. Thanks for the opportunity today to talk a little bit about Senate File 4589. For the record, my name is Mark Grant. I'm both a faculty member at Dakota County Technical College, and I'm here on behalf of Minnesota State College faculty. We represent nearly 4,000 faculty at Minnesota's 26 colleges across the state. I believe I've mentioned in previous testimony that providing a single faculty perspective on broad issues like this can prove challenging, as that perspective is often as varied as the communities we serve at our 47 campuses in nearly every corner of the state. However, it's also worth noting that all of our legislative priorities come from our faculty board, a board that includes all of those varied statewide perspectives. And our board was clear our faculty should have the ability to address and possibly move to amend policies that directly relate to the environment in which they work, teach and serve students. And that's exactly what this bill does. It provides the option for campuses to close this loophole and extend its current policy, which currently covers faculty, staff and students, to the public if they see fit. As our board discussed all of the various scenarios a topic like this tends to invite, it became clear that some campuses would be very interested in pursuing such a change, while others probably wouldn't. But all agreed that every campus should have that ability. The ability to take into consideration a myriad of factors. Building layouts, traffic patterns, community needs. And then, in consultation with students, staff and faculty, devise the policy that best meets their needs. Private colleges do it. Businesses do it. Heck, even the NRA puts significant restrictions on the public during their yearly convention, including prohibited prohibiting live ammunition and requiring the removal of firing pins when you enter their exhibition hall, effectively rendering that place a gun free zone. I respect that because I trust them to determine how best to conduct their business. As a law abiding concealed carry holder myself, I am also an exemplary Minnesota State College employee. And I also trust and respect our campuses and their ability to determine how best to serve their employees, their students and their communities. And for that reason, MSCF supports this common sense legislation. Thank you.
Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr. Grant. Members, are there any questions for any of the testifiers? Senator Duckworth.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just got a couple, if that's okay. Senator Doran, I know you're filling in for Senator Westland, but I'm going to ask you a couple anyway, if that's okay. Just do your best, if you don't mind. But the U of M Twin Cities campus, is that. That's in your district, right?
Yes, sir.
Senator Clark, Sheriff Fate, Senator Duckworth.
Yes, sounds good. I'll use them as an example then. Do you happen to know or as Senator Wesland conveyed to you what the UMPD or any other police departments that work on colleges here in Minnesota have any thoughts in regard to this, this bill, by chance, or any letters?
Senator Clark?
Chair Fate.
Senator.
Senator Duckworth.
No.
Okay.
Senator Duckworth.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I appreciate it. Kind of along the same lines, are you familiar with or have you heard, or Senator Wesley maybe heard and conveyed to you that the University of Minnesota police or police or security on any campuses here in Minnesota have reported a significant amount of permit to carry holders bringing firearms onto public campuses and being confronted and being aggressive about being confronted. Or is there anything you can point to in that regard?
Senator Clark, Senator Fateh, Senator Duckworth, are you asking for anecdotes of individuals speaking with people who have the legal right to carry?
Senator Duckworth, If I may, Mr. Chair, I guess what I'm asking for is if the chief of the University of Minnesota Police Department were here, I would say, hey, Chief, are you running into people that have permits to carry that are on campus with the fire department firearm that are becoming a problem for you? And I guess that's what I'm asking, if you've heard via him or any others of instances like that.
Senator Fonte. Senator Duckworth, I think you are really laying out the type of argument and conversation that each campus should be able to have the right to have to work with their chief of police, if they have a chief of police or their head of security to say, is this something that we want to consider? Will this make us more safe? Will this make us feel that we are better taking care of our students? Or is this something that does not fit our community? And that's what this bill is asking, that we're giving those institutions, like the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis campus or Crookston, the ability to have that conversation right now? If they were to ask the police of.
Chief.
The chief of police, it would result in what? Well, nothing would need, could change.
If I may, I can appreciate that explanation. It's a little different than the information I'm seeking in regard to actual instances that they can point to, but very fair. The other question I would have is this. If somebody is unlawfully carrying a firearm on the campus of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, can they or can they not be told to leave or even apprehended by police, if they're doing so.
Do you happen to know, Senator Clark?
I think I might turn to. Although turn to counsel, but they may be. It's okay.
We're not in public safety after all. I'm sorry, but I guess I think the answer to that question would be if somebody unlawfully has a firearm on campus, whether it's A U of M or any other public college or university here, that they A, could be told to leave or B, could be arrested by law enforcement. And so I get and understand that there are a lot of valid concerns for very good reasons when it comes to safety on campuses, which is why I think a lot of these colleges, universities, have the ability to tell students and faculty they can't carry firearms on campus, whether or not they have a permit to carry. But I'm also trying to know and understand that maybe there are already mechanisms in place to address things like that. One other thing I'll point out, Mr. Chair, before turning it back over, is love going to Gopher games, get up to the stadium on occasion. And if I recall, when I go through the ticket line and walk through the metal detector, nobody's allowed to bring a firearm in to an event like that, whether they are a permit to carry holder or not. So I think there are mechanisms in place when it comes to state, statute, et cetera, that try to strike a balance. But I get everybody might not be comfortable with the balance that's currently stricken. All that to say, I hear where you're coming from, can appreciate the reasoning and the rationale behind it. If there are actual instances in which people are presenting a threat on campus and aren't being removed, that would be very helpful information for me to personally receive as well. That's all I've got. Mr.
Chair, thank you.
Thank you so much, Senator Duckworth, Senator Putnam.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator Clark, for bringing this bill before us. You know, one of the things that I find interesting and compelling about this proposal is that it allows institutions to have these kinds of conversations and make these decisions themselves. This is, in essence, a function of local control of local governance. When we're saying, hey, you know, a school thinks that it might have a concern about this, they can bring people together and have those conversations. As your conversation with Senator Duckworth elucidated, you can have your local public safety folks sitting around the table with you and with faculty and with administrators talking about the best way to shape a policy like this, whether it comes to the policy itself or how it's communicated in terms of its signage. So I want to thank you for that, Senator Clark, because to me, this seems like it's an issue of empowering local communities, and a university is a local community empowering them to make decisions about how they behave when they do behave. I think it also might be helpful, Mr. Chair, to have a perspective from Minnesota State as well, to talk a little bit about this. I'm wondering if Mr. Oman would be willing to come to the table and tell us a little bit about what he thinks.
Mr. Ohman, welcome.
You don't have to hang out.
Please introduce yourself for the record. And you may begin.
Chair for t members of the committee, Bernie Oman at Minnesota State colleges and Universities. We have not had a lot of conversation about this policy, but I would say our default position with Minnesota State and our board would be that the. The board of trustees, through consultation with leadership council on the campuses, are the ones that would be best to make these decisions. So I think that's consistent with the conversations you're happening. So, yes, we would support the language that is in front of you in the bill.
Senator Putnam.
Thank you, Mr. Ulman.
And Mr. Chair, I assume that if I would ever do a political comeback, my NRA endorsement is gone.
Thank you, Mr. Ullman. Are there any other members with questions? Senator Farnsworth.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senator Clark. I'm wondering. The first testifier talked about, I think, five instances that happened recently, and then there was another number. 415 instances of gunfire on campus within a certain amount of time, and a certain percent of 59% were unaffiliated with the school. I'm just wondering how many of Those, say the five that you talked about are the 415. Do we know how many of these are people that have a permit to carry versus people that just are carrying a firearm illegally?
Dr. Harley, you know, I did not come prepared with that particular piece of data, but I would say that we can all agree that they were not exhibiting proper gun ownership at the time if they were brandishing their weapon in a public space at people.
Senator Farnsworth.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you're right. They were not displaying proper gun etiquette, I guess. But I think there's a difference between people who legally have a permit to carry and people who don't. And to lump everybody in and say, well, we're just going to ban all of the people, whether they have a legal permit to carry or not, I think is the wrong way to go about it. And part of the reason is if somebody is going to carry a firearm illegally, they're going to ignore your signs. They're going to see a sign that says this is a gun free zone and they're going to laugh at it and they're going to continue to do whatever they were going to do. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, I don't know much about them, so for all I know, they could be a far right organization. People with permits to carry in Minnesota committed 0.03% of the gun crimes, which means that people who don't have a permit to carry are committing over 99% of the gun crimes. And these are the people that are going to ignore your signs. Gun free zone nationwide, it's a little bit higher than in Minnesota. It's a little less than 1% of people that have permit to carry that commit firearm. This is for firearm homicides. According to the same research center, people with permits to carry they say stopped 51.5% of active shooters compared to 44.6% that were stopped by police. And that makes sense because they're there when an active shooter starts, you know, pulling out a firearm. They're there way before the police. So I would say that not only is this, would this be unfair to people that have a legal permit to carry, it would also make these facilities less safe because as the data points out, people who legally carry a firearm make us more safe. And I actually want more of those people around, not, not less. So I know that we're not going to agree. This is something that's pretty much on party lines and these statistics, I know I'm not going to convince you, but I think this is the wrong direction. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Oetke.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And there's been a lot of good stuff said here and I do appreciate those who have testified and stated their side, but I just, I couldn't disagree more with it. Senator Farnsworth covered a lot of good items already. I won't repeat some of those things, but I just usually the fact that when we have places to put, it's a gun free zone, that's a target. It's an easy entrance for the bad people and we just don't want any more of them around. But unfortunately we see the results across the country. Law abiding gun owners and gun carriers, concealed carry, doing it the right way are our best friends and we need more of them. This just is going in the wrong direction, and we all know that. And I've said it in other committees over Time too is, you know, you go way back to when I was young. We had guns everywhere. We took them to school, we had them in our cars at school. We did whatever because they were just a tool. We went out and shot birds, shot ducks, whatever was the fun thing to do. Nobody got hurt. At least you know, there's an accident, but there was no shootings and that sort of thing. The tool has not changed. The people have. And if we're going to talk about how are we going to straighten some of these things out or change, bend a curve on it, we've got to figure out what's going on with the people and go after that. Because just one more regulation or restriction on the law for law abiding gun people is not going to help us. It's only going to make things worse. So, you know, thanks for the conversation, but I definitely cannot support a bill like this. So thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, Senator. Okay, I'll go. You first, Senator Duckworth.
Thank you. Just briefly, Mr.
Chair, I appreciate it.
First of all, Senator Ucke, of all the animals you could have referenced hunting, you had to throw ducks out there. I take personal offense to that, but I can't escape an opportunity when local control is referenced to not jump on that bandwagon and say if we're going to apply the litmus test or if we're going to weight heavily certain things when it comes to how we should govern or laws we should pass, that local control should be one of them. We should apply it to everything, not just the conversation we're having today. And one last food for thought is if you take the idea of local control all the way to the furthest you can possibly take it, it's local control over yourself, your self autonomy, the decisions you make. And some of that has to do with the topic of discussion that we're having here today. And so I appreciate the respectful conversation, appreciate the viewpoints coming to us from the folks up there and the testifiers. But there, there are multiple perspectives to take into account when it comes to a topic like this. So thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Senator Heintzman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator Clark, when minutes and seconds count and police response time can seem like hours or days, what should our students and faculty rely on in those critical moments when there is a situation?
Senator Clark.
Thank you, Chair Fates. Thank you. Senator Heinsman, Our students have experienced the horrors of shootings, unfortunately many too many times. And you share clearly an issue that how do we keep our kids safe? And that is what this is an attempt to do as well. You've described a moment where it's just filled with terror. What should our students do? Lock themselves in a room? They need to get down. And it is not. There are no good solutions here. And this is where we need to take a variety of approaches to keep our kids safe. Senator Upkeep mentioned some pieces that may work and we need to layer all of these pieces on Senator Heinsman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully disagree. I think that this further hurts and puts our students and faculty at risk when we remove law abiding gun owners that can act quickly. They've passed background checks, they've completed training and followed every requirement to get their permit to carry. In Minnesota, there have been shooters, even the Annunciation School shooting. That shooter said he was afraid of the guys, the good guys with guns. Right. That's a good thing. And he chose that school because he believed that they would not have guns in their school. That is a tragedy and not one that I think that we should promote and pass here today.
Thank you so much, Senator Huntsman, Senator kupek.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. While we were talking, I was using Al Gore's Internet to just look up a couple of things here.
Here.
Just perusing all of the private colleges that I could do that within the time. St. Thomas, St. John's McAllister, Concordia, St. Paul, all Carlton, say, strictly prohibit all firearms on campus. Concordia Moorhead took a different tone. And they have guns. Not in the dormitories, but you can bring a gun on campus. And so that just for the most part, most of the privates are on that page. But that means that was left up to those individual schools to come up with that policy. And so Gordia Morehead has differed from the other privates within that system. And so we're just going to allow the public institutions kind of to do the same thing. So it seems like some parity here. You know, that's always sometimes a concern we have on this committee of parity with privates and public schools. And this is allowing parity. So
thank you so much, Senator Kupek, Senator Farnsworth.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just wondering, Senator Kupek, does that mean you want parity on funding for the privates too?
Senator Kupek
doing fine. And wait till the next bill and we'll talk.
Are there any other members that would like to chime in? I appreciated the respectful dialogue and discussion around this legislation. Thank you, Senator Clark, for, for bringing this forward. And we heard similar legislation in state gov just before this also. And we heard from an interesting perspective around the conversation not just being centered around the good guy versus the bad guys, but the instances in which we see gun violence. And a lot of yes, the headlines capture the most tragic moments, but a lot of times things can be avoided when, for example, there's just a person having a heated discussion in the heat of the moment, pulling out a weapon or a gun when they probably wouldn't have otherwise if the rules said differently.
Right.
And we could have saved the life. But that's something I think we all should be considering as well. And I'll pass it to you for the last word, Senator Clark.
Thank you committee, and thank you, Chair Fatih. But this bill provides that option for local colleges and universities to make the choice for themselves. And that's what I ask us to do today. We are looking for a variety of ways to address the epidemic of gun violence. And I think this provides one more opportunity for an institution to add something that works for them. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you so much, Senator Clark. Senator Putnam moves to Recommend Senate file 4589 to pass and be re referred.
Mr. Chair.
Senator Farnsworth.
Roll call please.
Roll call requested and roll call granted. We will take the roll. Oh, sorry. Recommended to pass and re refer to Judiciary and Public Safety. We will now take the roll.
Chair Fateh?
Aye.
Vice Chair Putnam?
Aye.
Ranking Member Duckworth?
No.
Senator Clark?
Aye.
Senator Farnsworth? No. Senator Kupak?
Aye.
Senator Uma Verbatin?
Yes.
Senator Rarick. Or sorry, Senator Aki?
No.
Senator.
And I can get a hold of rare quick.
Yeah, have an updated sheet here. Senator Heinzman.
No.
There are five eyes and four nays.
With five eyes and four nays, Senate file 4589 is recommended to pass and re refer to the committee on Judiciary and Public Safety. Thank you so much, Senator Parker. Next up we have Senate file 4866. I'll be presenting from up here. It is the governor's recommendations and our first couple testifiers will be from ohi, Commissioner Olson as well as Nicole Whalen. I believe we have the A1amendment, so I'm going to move that really quick. First before we get in into it, Senator Putnam moves the A1amendment, the technical amendment. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? The amendment is adopted. We'll pass it off to Commissioner Olsen.
Well, thank you, Chair Fate. For the record, my name is Dennis Olson, proud to serve as the commissioner of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education. Chair. Members just Want to take a moment to briefly introduce the governor's supplemental budget recommendations for the state grant program. Specifically, I want to thank you for the opportunity to hear them today. My colleague Nicole here is getting set up. She's going to outline state grant recommendations and we have staff here from the agency as well to help answer any specific questions. But just briefly, before we begin discussing the recommendations for the state grant, I just want to acknowledge we've had some conversations in previous hearings that, you know, these are always difficult decisions and we want to note that we appreciate the flexibility that we had this past year, year one of the biennium to take time and to really survey and engage with our financial aid and campus partners about the best path forward for the the state grant this year following projections report. As you know, with limited options available for the agency to adjust, we were still able to come to a mutual decision based on some significant feedback from our financial aid administrators, our campus community. In order to ensure the least disruption to students this year, we issued rationing parameters to campuses that will be effective next school year. In essence, we were able to keep awards consistent and stable this current school year. So in developing these proposals for consideration, we do recognize that not everyone will agree with them. Students will experience some level of reduction in their awards next year without additional resources being added to the program. The overall goal really of these recommendations is to address what is essentially a structural deficit in the state grant program. At the same time, we know there'll be continued discussion and there are multiple options that we can explore. So some of which have been presented already. So just want to walk through the two key changes. Always welcome feedback suggestions. This will require, as we know, collaborative work, shared commitment to ultimately solving the problem here with the state grant. I just want to quickly note too that we're here because of a good problem to have. We've mentioned that a few times the state Minnesotans are enrolling in college now more than ever. This is a positive trend. We've noted some of the external pressures on the state grant program, how they impact the overall projections process. We've had enrollment come in higher than projected numbers that have been reported to us as part of our projections process. Tuition and fee rates have exceeded projected numbers that have been reported to us and of course we have more students applying for and becoming eligible for financial aid through the fafsa. I just wanted to note, I just looked up some close to real time data. Ncan, the National College Attainment Network tracks FAFSA filing. They noted that for the class of 2025, we're up nearly 20.9% in FAFSA filing at this time compared to the same dates last year. If you look at the class of 2023, it's up over 12% compared to this time last year. So a significant increase in FAFSA filing. Nicole will touch on that a little bit more, but I found that pretty wild to consider, you know, when we're talking about the students that are applying and becoming eligible for aid both through federal and state programs. So I know it seems like we're continually year over year discussing pressures on the state grant program, pressures on state financial aid resources overall. It's important to note, though, that this isn't just a, a Minnesota problem. This isn't the Office of Higher Education. You know, there are, there are numerous states all across the nation that are feeling similar pressures like this on their state financial aid resources for, you know, issues that we will touch on here. The FAFSA Simplification act that we touched on last year, the implementation of that has, has put significant pressure on state financial aid programs. You know, and I think we briefly noted it in previous testimony, but for those that, you know, it may have just been kind of a quick blip. I wanted to note that the Congressional Budget Office, the cbo, just late February issued a report about the Pell Grant program being in a significant projected shortfall or deficit as well. Just for the current fiscal year, they're looking at a 5.5 billion, billion dollar shortfall and the following fiscal year, that balloons to $11.5 billion, and they're looking at over $100 billion shortfall within the next 10 years. And, you know, because of the complex nature of how Pell Grant is funded, both through discretionary funds as well as mandatory funds, the CBO really, you know, says that this is an issue immediately and that without resources, the Pell granted could be potentially in some significant trouble as well. So the federal government is facing the same pressures that, of course, you know, we're here to outline and discuss today. And I will at this point just hand it over to my colleague Nicole to walk through the recommendations and really kind of lay the table for how we got here again, kind of as a reminder. So, Chair, that concludes my comments.
Thank you so much, Commissioner. Ms. Whalen, welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record and you may begin.
Thank you, Chair. My name for the record is Nicole Whalen, and I am the state Grant Research Manager at the Minnesota Office of Higher Education. I will start by just giving a brief overview of. I know you've heard it before, but just like to give a brief overview always of the state grant program, so it's fresh in our minds. So the state grant program is Minnesota's largest financial aid program, both in terms of its budget as well as the state number of students served. It served around 76,000 recipients last year, and nearly 60% of those were dependent students. Overall, close to close to 80 institutions participated in the state grant program in fiscal year 2025, and it has an annual appropriation of just under $250 million. On average, almost two thirds of recipients have a family adjusted gross income of less than $40,000. Should say, not almost 2/3, just over half. And by and large, most recipients do attend public institutions in the state of Minnesota. As a quick kind of refresher as to how our state grant formula operates, I have a bit of a visual representation here. This is looking at an example student who is attending a Minnesota state community college full time. When we look at setting a state grant award for that student, first what we do is set a budget for the student and that is comprised of a living and miscellaneous expense allowance as well as tuition and fees, with tuition and fees being capped at the maximum in state law. After that, we calculate an assigned student responsibility, which is set in law at 50% of their budget. We then subtract the assigned family responsibility, that is a number that is derived from the FAFSA form, and it is modified according to parameters outlined in state statute. Lastly, we subtract the student's Pell Grant and anything left over in their budget is awarded to the student in the form of a state grant, and if that student is not enrolled full time, all of these numbers are prorated based on their enrollment level. The overall philosophy of the program is to distribute a finite amount of resources to as many Minnesota resident students as possible while making the attainment of credential completions possible. The program is prohibited from operating on a deficit, and we do produce projections for the program twice annually, once in November and once in February throughout the year. Those projections are based on an internal model that looks at fiscal year, the previous fiscal year's applicant file for the state grant program, and now North Star Promise program, and it brings in information that institutions provide to us based on anticipated changes in enrollment as well as tuition and fees. We use that model to calculate a student's state grant award for the given fiscal year. Those projections can change. There's a lot of inputs that are outside of our agency's control, especially enrollment changes, as well as tuition and fees. And as we've most recently seen, FAFSA formula changes based on the results of those projections. OHEE does determine if changes to the state grant parameters are required to either compensate for overspending in the program or compensate for underspending in the program. And we do communicate those changes to the award parameters to our campus financial aid staff as soon as we can. In this case, we did project a deficit in the in November of this year, and we did communicate rationing parameters in January to our financial aid partners. The table, the table in front of you shows the top table shows what our state grant program spending would have been without rationing the program according to the February projection for state grant. At that time, we projected a biennial deficit of just over, excuse me, just under $131 million. And we did issue parameters in January to ration awards by almost $140 million. Overall, we anticipate an $8 million balance at the end of the biennium. And just for reference, that $8 million is less than 2% of total resources. So it is still a very, very tight margin. Similarly, for the North Star Promise program, once state grant rationing was put into place, that program was estimated to run a deficit as well. So we have used our authority and law to institute a priority deadline of June 1, 20, 2026 for students to receive funding under that program. So here's just like a little bit of a look at why what's going on in the state grant program and why we are running a deficit. So specifically for state grant, we are seeing higher enrollment, but as the chart shows, we are also seeing estimated and actual enrollment changes by system are entirely outpaced by the percent change in students applying for the state grant program. Additionally, we saw changes to the federal needs analysis resulted in lower SAIs for most students when compared with the previous calculation. And sai, just for reference, is the Student Aid Index and it is what the state grant formula uses to determine family need. So in fiscal year 2025, we saw a much larger pool of students who had a zero dollar or less SAI, 43% of all applicants compared with 29% in fiscal year 24. And of those applicants, the vast majority have a negative assigned family contribution. This is a chart showing a bit of a year by year change in enrollment in the state of Minnesota. So I've limited this to Minnesota resident undergraduates. And as you can see, in 2025 we experienced the largest single year enrollment increase since 2010 and it came on the back of a very sustained period of declining enrollment for the state, it's important to Note that from 2023 to 2025, there was a nearly 10 percentage point increase in year over year enrollment growth. So in my mind, that's almost the equivalent of like flipping a light switch and the whole house turns on. It's a, it's a big shift in spending for the program given that the legislature in the period of declining enrollment saw fit to appropriate more money and an increase eligibility for students in the program. So now we're seeing that increased eligibility pool and students come back. When you compare this to a chart showing percent of Minnesota undergraduates filing for the state grant program, we also saw a bump here as well in 2025. So typically that number hovers between 55 and 60% of undergraduates filing a FAFSA every year. And in 2025, we saw a 12 percentage point jump from the year prior with 66% of Minnesota resident undergraduate students applying for a state grant program. So that also indicates to us that that's a, that's a major shift in some of the assumptions that we have about the program. And, and it represents a big shift in spending for the program. So the nature of this deficit is what I would like to call structural. Typically in higher education, we define it as countercyclical, meaning that when the economy takes a downturn, more students tend to enroll in higher education and therefore spending in higher education increases. We definitely saw that in 2010, 2011 ish that era, we saw lots of students in re enrolling in higher education. Now we are seeing an uptick in enrollment, as you saw before, But I think that there is an added layer going on here and that is the changes to the federal needs analysis. So as I mentioned before, we now have more than a third of state grant applicants who have a zero dollar or less family contribution. Not only do we see a larger proportion of students with negative SAIs, but that entire distribution of need has shifted. So the chart here is showing in gray. That's what our population looked like in 2024. And in blue it is the population from 2025. So overall, the entire first students in our primary income range for state grant, which is what this chart is, is limited to, that entire distribution has shifted to the left. So what that really means in real terms is that almost all state grant students, excuse me, all state grant eligible students with the change to the FAFSA saw some sort of decrease in their family contribution and that in term increases their state grant. So this is a baseline shift in need. It's not Just a one to two year dip in the economy. So that makes it highly likely that we could continue to see these projected deficits in, in future years. So for the governor's recommended change for state grant, the formula is incredibly complicated and there is no necessarily one way to solve this structural deficit in the program. What the governor has recommended is that is proposing to set negative SAIs to $0 when calculating state financial aid. This change reduces state grant spending by about $37 million when compared to unrationed state grant spending. And the change reduces the deficit to just a little under $100 million. So in addition to that, additional cuts would be needed to bring the program in line with ongoing appropriations. And the one change that was recommended was to cap the four year tuition and fee maximum for all institutions, excuse me, for all four year institutions at the average four year public institution tuition and fee rate. So that would be the average of our Minnesota State University system as well as our University of Minnesota system. And that dollar, that, that tuition and fee dollar figure for next year is estimated to be 14,000. Excuse me, $14,721, which is roughly $4,000 lower than the current tuition and fee maximum, or a little bit less than $4,000 lower. Overall, the program would still need to be rationed in fiscal year 27. This would not entirely solve the deficit. We would still have to ration the program. But this change would lessen the strain on the state grant program as well as North Star promise in future years. So overall, I would say we are committed to working with stakeholders on what these changes ultimately look like. And we're happy to take your questions.
Thank you so much for that walkthrough. Are there any questions from members before we move on to the next 10 testifiers? Senator Farnsworth?
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And actually my question stems more from what we heard, I think, in the last committee, and you might have mentioned it today, but I thought that, I recall that you had said that you were going to take 75 million from next year's state grant to fill the gap for this year. So looking at your, one of your first slides, $247 million budget. So that would mean that this year we would be looking at spending roughly $322 million. Is that accurate, Ms. Wayman?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Farnsworth, I'm going to go back a few slides here. Okay, so in this table and this is the base resources line is the same on both tables. The base resources show they reflect that transfer. So we did transfer $60 million from fiscal year 27 to fiscal year 2026, giving us around 307, $307 million for the state grant in this fiscal year. So that pushes all of the rationing for the state grant program onto next year in order to fit within the 187 million that's remaining for the biennium. Ultimately, we project to spend only about 292.5 million this year. And obviously we'll continue to update that number as the year goes on. So that does leave a balance for this year of around $15 million. I believe. Our agency just didn't want to have to make a transfer more than once. So that's why we transferred a full $60 million with the anticipation that we would forward any remaining balance to fiscal year 27.
Senator Farnsworth, thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you for that explanation. I'm wondering then, why do the transfer from next year? Why not just do the rationing this year? It seems like it would be easier to essentially cut 45 or so million this year and 45 million next year or ration it rather than try and figure out, figure out how to do 100 million next year. So why was that decision made?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to defer, I think, to, I want to defer to our financial aid staff who make those decisions.
Mr. Chair, maybe I'll take a swing while
she's walking up here.
She's going to say it much more eloquently than I am able, but yeah, I had mentioned in my opening comments, we took the time to deeply engage our financial aid community, financial aid directors, campus leaders, and ask them that very question, you know, would you see an impact, you know, now in terms of kind of a mid year repackaging of awards for students? Or would you, you know, kind of rather defer that now, keep things stable, predictable, as appeared on their award letters, and move that to next year. And it was a unanimous keep it stable this year.
Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record and you may begin.
Thank you, Chair patei members, for the record, my name is Megan Flores and I'm the director of state financial aid programs. So to answer the question, we issue parameters at a time frame.
So if you think about the FAFSA
cycle, the FAFSA opens October, the year prior to when the students enroll. So it's an 18 month cycle cycle. Students begin receiving their aid packages shortly after January. And so they start getting those aid packages throughout the winter and spring, throughout the summer, until the fall when enrollment begins. The additional enrollment increase that was higher than what the institutions projected came after those parameters were released. Additionally, tuition increased higher than what was initially reported to us as it would be. So those two factors together did drive up some of the costs for the current academic year. We do engage monthly with an advisory committee that includes representation from both public systems, private systems, proprietary as well as tribal schools. And when we brought the concern to them with the February projections, both in November and February, that enrollment was running higher, specifically in February when it was sustained enrollment and retention. They did not want to make mid year parameter changes. They didn't want to revise financial aid award notices for a payment plan that would be due the following month to make that change on families and students. Their preference was universally that they wanted to push it out into one year. And so ohe did heed the recommendation of our campus partners.
Thank you, Ms. Flores. Senator Farnsworth.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
And that makes sense. You know, it sounds like the letters went out and people were expecting a certain amount of financial aid, and so that does make sense. I suspected that that probably was the case since enrollment was higher. I just was. I was hoping for a simpler answer than that. So thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, Senator Clark.
Thank you, Chair Fateh, and thank you for the presentation. At the last time we discussed the state grant program, I asked what have we done in the past when we had an oversubscription and no one here at the table knew? And since then, I've learned from others that historically we filled the entire amount. I don't think it's ever been $131 million, but that's what the legislature did. And it's in part because we recognize that perhaps one of the worst things that we can do to students and say, we got you started, you probably took out a few loans, and now you're going to have to drop out because you can't afford to go the next school year. So you have no degree and you've got student debt. That's probably about the worst combo that we can have. So that's where it is finding how we get this, this solved. I don't want to admire the problem for too long. On page number. Okay, channeling Senator Swadzinski. You've got no page numbers on here, so page number enrollment, where it says we went up 4.7% in Minnesota.
Good.
How does this compare nationally? And mainly I'm thinking that we're doing a better job getting kids in school than other states. And I'm hoping that's the answer. But if you have that answer of how we compare to the rest of the country, that'd be great.
Chair Members Senator Clark, I'm trying to remember we did a presentation last session for the committee and I just am not remembering those slides. But at that point in time when we first saw this turnaround, as Nicole mentioned, the first time since 2010, we had been the highest state, individual state in the Midwest for enrollment increases. And we were definitely in the top 1 4th in the country for states that saw enrollment increases. That information was from last session when we presented, but that's what I'm recalling at that point in time.
May I piggyback a little bit, Senator Clark?
Yes.
So I have a question for Senator Commissioner olson. So from 2023, when we saw negative 5% decrease in enrollment to 4.7% increase in 2025, who was the Senate chair at that time of the hiring committee?
Mr. Chair, I'd have to defer to the fiscal staff.
Oh, thank you, Senator Clark.
Thank you, Chair Fate and in part this is a celebration because I recall that last year and I just wanted to I'm hoping if you can update to make sure that we are starting still, we're providing a product that our students in Minnesota want and outside of Minnesota want and that is unique in the country, or at least in the upper in the Midwest, that we are keeping kids at home and attracting people to Minnesota. And at a time when folks go, it's cold up there. Once we get folks here, they stay here. And colleges and how we make sure that folks can enroll and stay enrolled is an important part of how we are driving the improvement of Minnesota, driving our economy, driving what it means to be your full self. And our colleges are a key part of that. So all that to say, let's keep figuring out how we can make sure that we get the state grant as well invested as we can.
Thank you, Senator Umu Verbain.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the discussion. I, I do have some general thoughts on, you know, the proposals from the governor's bill here that I want to save after we've heard testimony from other folks. I have a question about the presentation, but just with the conversation that Senator Clark was bringing up, I, you know, I think filling the state grant is probably our top priority here as a committee. I also do want to name that part of the work that we're doing here and the policy decisions we have to make are providing the support that students need to afford college, but also keeping college affordable. And I worry about the trend we've had of having high tuition and high aid, and we, I think, need to have some of those guardrails in place so that we can keep tuition down and affordable for our families. We, of course, have a duty to fund our public institutions, that we are their main source of funding. And so that's always gonna be a top priority for me. The question, though, that I have for OHI is. And I've been able to ask some of these from you offline as well, but I just wanted to make sure we have some of this conversation on the record with. When you're looking at rationing, we made a lot of decisions last year on what to adjust in the formula and gave that ability to add a surcharge to assign family responsibility. Can you just talk a little bit more about why, when the surcharge is applied for rationing, you've multiplied that percentage as opposed to adding the percentage on? And I think I've heard about the concern of making sure that students who have the greatest needs aren't, you know, losing a disproportionate amount of the state grants. So if you could just talk about that in a little bit more detail and the reasoning behind it, that would be helpful for the committee, any one of our testifiers.
Chair. Senator, I'm just struggling to answer the question because of understanding the way that you phrase it. Why are we multiplying a percentage versus add? Is that your question, Senator Umerville?
Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So, you know, I'm looking at. I can pull up one of the documents, I think, that you showed, rationing and how assigned family responsibility jumped from kind of what the original percentage is to what the new surcharge amount would be. And that was by multiplying by 1.95. Right. As opposed to maybe adding a flat percentage amount to all of them and shifting either way, they're getting shifted up. But just wanting to understand the rationale between multiplying by a percentage as opposed to adding a flat percentage on and then seeing the modifiers move up.
Ms. Whalen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator. Senator. Um, over Brayton, I would say our agency. Well, to. To be fair, we have not addressed that many deficits in the state grant programs past, but I believe that's the interpretation that our agency took from the law, from state statute, was to apply a percentage increase. It does say surcharge, but the specifics of that are not defined. However, when you apply a percentage increase, you are applying the increase in proportion with kind of the starting place. So I guess the example I would give is if, if for example, we gave a dollar amount increase in the assigned family responsibility, if the student was from a family who had an assigned family responsibility of $100 and we gave a $50 increase, well, we've now increased their contribution by 130%. Given that they had only $100 contribution prior, they likely didn't have a lot of resources to pull from to fill in that $50 gap. However, if a different family had $1,000 contribution, then an extra $50 probably isn't as substantial for that family. So it's a little bit easier to fill in that gap. So instead we apply a percentage increase so that the $100 student is getting, you know, let's say only $10, whereas the thousand dollar student is getting $100 increase. So kind of pairing the increase in, in line with the resources that the family has.
Senator Omar Batein, thank you so much. Any other comments? Senator Duckworth,
just very briefly, Mr. Chair, first off, I appreciate the information. It's very helpful. I think too, when we look at enrollment, specifically from years 2020 and to where we are today, it's not lost on me and probably many of us in this room that obviously the impacts of COVID are reflected in the enrollment numbers there and in the bounce pack as many students and families for whatever reason changed their plans or delayed their plans as a result. And I think we're all glad to see that they're bouncing back and adjusting as well. The only other thing I'll say is this. You know, sometimes when we get into our respective committees, we start looking at things in a silo and it's a lot easier to fill the gap in the state grant we when the state has the money to do so. And that's a larger budget conversation. It's a priority conversation. I'll use today as an example. Today on the Senate floor we moved some money from, you know, one intended purpose to another. And if we look at what the state should be prioritizing, what are the things of all the things that there are that are worthwhile of investment, that make a lot of sense, helping students and families afford tuition is one of them. And so while we're looking at modifiers and changes and this and that specific to higher education, really it's a larger spending conversation altogether. So I would just add that to the mix. And I know the governor is coming up with plans and the legislature has to as well, but this doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's an overall budget and spending issue regarding the state of Minnesota and what we prioritize and the more we prioritize students and families. And the reason why there really ever hasn't been this large of a deficit is because we didn't used to spend as much money as we did as a government. And so we had funds available to prioritize and put toward programs like this. And that's what we have to get back to doing. That's all I've got.
Mr.
Chair, thank you.
Thank you so much. Are there any other members that would like to chime in? Seeing none. We'll move on to our next testimony. Thank you all so much for your presentation. Thank you. Next up we have President Paul Cirkman.
Welcome.
Please introduce yourself for the record. And you may begin.
Chair Fateh and members of the committee. My name is Paul Cirkvanick and I serve as the president President of Minnesota Private College Council. And I want to start by saying I appreciate the voices today who are speaking to the need for more investment in this program. And as the committee works to address the state grant shortfall, we would urge the committee to take the path set forth in Chair Fate's bill to increase the appropriation. That is the way we we can do the most for students. Proposals that address the state grant program through the state grant shortfall entirely through rationing, whether by statute or by the governor's proposal, eliminate the state grant deficit by turning the program's deficit into a college budget deficit for every one of the 88,000 students who are counting on a state grant to enroll in college or stay in college this coming fall. In Minnesota Statutes 135 A011, our state has codified five objectives for the state's investment in higher education. One of those five objectives is to, quote, foster student success by enabling and encouraging students to choose institutions and programs that are best suited for their talents and abilities and to provide an educational climate that supports students in pursuing their goals and aspirations. The state grant program is the primary tool by which this objective is achieved. But the state grant can only achieve this objective if the tuition maximum fully takes into account actual tuition up to the highest public institution tuition, so that access to to all institutions is possible for students with limited financial resources. If the state grant tuition maximum does not recognize the actual full public tuition level as provided for currently in statute, the state grant will be insufficient to enable students to have the option to attend University of Minnesota or nonprofit institutions, even when those institutions may be closer to home or best suited to meet their Educational goals and aspirations. The governor's proposal to establish a tuition maximum below the highest public four year tuition is deeply concerning because it means lower income students will not have the financial resources to be able to enroll in institution and programs that may be best suited for their talents and abilities, their goals and their aspirations. For this reason, we encourages legislators to pursue solutions to the state grants shortfall that are not based on policy changes directed at a subset of institutions. A more balanced way to move forward would be to would involve committing additional resources to the state grant shortfall to meet the increased enrollments and the increased need of students, and then only to the minimum degree necessary, employing an approach to rationing. This first temporary and second affects every student equitably, regardless of which institution they seek to attend. We believe there may be alternatives that can accomplish rationing more equitably for all state grant recipients without undermining the longstanding and core principles that make the state grant program fair to all students. And we look forward to working with committee members and Commissioner Olson to achieve that goal. Thank you.
Thank you, President Sirkman. Mr. Luther, welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record and you begin.
Yeah. Thank you. Chair Fateh. Members, my name is William Luther. I am the director of State affairs for the undergrad student government at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. I'm also a junior at the College of Liberal Arts and we represent the 30,000 undergraduate students at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. I mean, you've heard it here first from the Commissioner and from OHI and from a lot of students. Is that opportunity from the North Star Promise and the state grant program has raised enrollment. I mean, period. That is why over the past couple years we have seen a steady decline enrollment reverse, becoming a beacon of hope for the future of our state workforce. The astounding progress has not come without its challenges though, as we evidenced by the current deficit in the state grant program. Today's bill before you includes several significant cuts to both our neediest students and all University of Minnesota Twin Cities students who received the state. For our neediest students, the cut of SAI from negative $1,500 to $0 significantly impacts students who are below the federal poverty line. In 2025, the FAFSA simplification act was passed, a bipartisan support lowering SEI to negative 1500 because it recognized the need to accurately assess the cost of college, not just by tuition prices, but also by cost of attendance. Now this proposal before us would turn its back on this bipartisan change in higher education policy and cut funding to the students who need it the most. What's even more concerning in this proposal is the lower tuition and fees cap for the state grant from the state grant from the University of Minnesota Twin Cities tuition to the average public four year tuition rate. This change would greatly impact all University of Minnesota students who are supported by the state grant. This would lower the cap from $19,000 roughly to $14,000 roughly. This would reduce the maximum state grant award at the University of Minnesota student can receive by about $5,000. $5,000 members is not something a student can do can make up for by working extra shifts at the library. I mean this proposal greatly harms University Minnesota students and their ability to attend our university. On top of this, tuition increases at the University of Minnesota students pockets are already stretched too thin. Many students from our university community has expressed concerns for what these changes might mean to the future at our university. If I can read some testimony from fellow students that shared with me, Mark, who's a University of Minnesota student from Eagan, Minnesota said, I don't think I would be able to continue my education and complete my degree had it not been for these grants. They allow me the time and focus and give my 100% to my degree in studies as well as working full time. These grants have allowed me to get more involved in my community as well as not get over whereby the large amounts of student debt from student loans. This also contributes to my overall health and well being and fosters good mental health. My experience at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities has given me the opportunity to grow and be a part of a larger community that I can give back to Elizabeth, who's also a University of Minnesota Twin Cities student who's from Roseau, Minnesota said, without the state grant program I would not been able to manage. Being a self financed student, I greatly value my education. I am so grateful for this grant allowing me to focus on that instead of financial struggles. As a student from rural northern Minnesota, I think it would be a shame for this money to be diverted away from young people like me who will not be able to afford to move to a new place and attend a great school. Isabella from Minneapolis, Minnesota said, having these programs to fund my education allows me to break a generational cycle of poverty and harness my potential without having to worry about lifelong financial repercussions. And finally, Hoda from Minneapolis, Minnesota, these programs have been extremely important in allowing me to afford my education at the University of Minnesota as a low income first generation student. The Northstar promise has helped cover tuition, but I still have many out of pocket costs each semester, such as course materials and parking as a commuter. Even with this support, finances are still a major concern for me. Without these programs, I would not be able to continue my education the same way. Maintaining full funding for students like me is essential to ensuring access and equity in higher education. Members, I urge this committee, on behalf of 30,000 undergrad students at the University of Minnesota, urge this committee to find a more equitable solution for all public school students. Let's continue the progress this community has helped make them fund the state grant program and create positive, positive and affordable outcomes for our students. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr. Luther, for your testimony. And that concludes the governor recommendations portion. Are there any Questions from members? 2nd Senator Kupik, comments?
Yeah, I think I'll fall more in the comment line than that. Again, I think what you have put forward in terms of fixing the state grant is a far better calculus than what the governor's budget has put forward. And so I appreciate that. I also say, you know, for whatever reason, I think you've done a great job of kind of elevating higher ed back up. And we higher ed for many years under many different governors of different parties had kind of gotten a backseat. And so I'm glad that this committee, I feel like we've put the attention back where it needs to be. So this is a crucial element of higher education within Minnesota. And clearly there, at some point, we need to probably look at the formula, make some tweaks to it. But the proposal that is in here is, I don't believe, is the way to do it. And so I'm glad you're keeping that in mind going forward. And thank you for everybody who testified today, too.
Thank you so much, Senator Kupek, Senator Umar verbain.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make some comments on the proposal as well. You know, I feel like I should give the department a little bit of credit because last year the proposal that was before us, I think, was really, really problematic. And we had, you know, discussed our, our concerns here in committee. One of mine being just the disproportionate impact on the students with the greatest needs. And it's tough. There's only so many things, levers that we can pull and, and things that we can change within the state grant formula. I was really frustrated that there wasn't even any attempt to modify tuition and fees last year. And so the department did come back with a proposal to adjust tuition and fees and did not touch the modifiers in a way that would have that kind of disproportionate impact on students with the greatest need in things like assigned family responsibility. The problem is that there is this proposal to eliminate negative sai which is really going to disproportionately hurt our students with the greatest needs. And then our institutions that are serving a higher percentage of students that have those greater needs, that are providing those wraparound services are also going to be hurt by that change. So really eliminating negative SAI is just like a complete non starter for me. I think that would be a really bad decision for us to make. I think we were really thoughtful last year around adjusting those parameters and figuring out what to do when we needed to ration. And so I would, you know, I would love to see us fill this deficit as much as we can, but we'll see the target that we get. And I think we need to be prepared for what happens in the event that there is a deficit and the most. Administration needs to take action, you know, on tuition and fees. You know, I appreciated from our testifier, Mr. Luther, talking about the impact it will have on our public institution. I think the University of Minnesota, it is always important to note that they have academics, they have research, they have extension. There is a reason that, you know, we see a higher tuition there and this tuition and fees cap which will take it from the University of Minnesota to the average cost at a four year university will have a negative impact on the University of Minnesota, which is definitely a concern for me. I think we should look at things like the percentage of maybe Pell eligible students at institutions. Last year we had some discussions about endowments. I would like to see us provide more incentives to the institutions I think are supporting. Students are providing wraparound services, are providing those opportunities, are increasing access and maybe that's something we can look at around the tuition and fees part of the, of the state grant, I think. Lastly, I would just say I hope we can really keep, you know, students in mind and ensure that there's not a disproportionate loss of state grant dollars to students who need it the most. So I look forward to working on that with the committee.
Thank you so much, Senator Umar Vinton. Senator Duckworth.
I'll be brief, Mr. Chair, because I start to sound like a broken record on this after a while. A couple of suggestions, you know, rather than looking at modifiers, I don't know if it's possible, but maybe we can take out a first or a second mortgage on the $750 million new state office building. The Office of Cannabis Management had an initial $40 million investment to create it, and I think its annual budget is projected to be about $30 million a year. So again, some of it's outside of this committee and it's how we're spending state dollars, period. And should it be going toward that gentleman and the 30,000 student he represents or should be spent on other things that maybe aren't as high of a priority? That's all I've got. Mr.
Chair, thank you.
Thank you so much. Senator Duckworth and Senator Putnam, who I think is going to be offering his per diem to pay the debt. So we'll see.
Yeah, thank you. Senator Fatah and Senator Duckworth. I think it's important to put these budgetary considerations in the context of other budgetary considerations, as Senator Duckworth just did in his real estate analysis there. But that's what happens with everything at the state Capitol. So when we're talking about putting money into the state grant, we're also talking about not putting money into nursing homes or other places. That's just the nature of the pie that we are dealing with. And we can look around and find different pieces to compare it with. But ultimately that's the question that we're faced with. So I think a balanced approach to fixing the state grant would also have to include a deeper analysis of its structural process problems. Because we cannot keep every other year saying we got to come up with $100 million from somewhere because we're taking it from somewhere else, too. And that is in no way an argument against funding higher education. You and I were just sidebarring about the state's responsibility to fund two thirds of the students education, and we don't do that. We don't do that at all. The state grant is not the only place where we fail to do that, though. So I'm just suggesting that as we think about some of these interventions, some of them might work, some of them might not. And clearly we are going to need more resources to put in this. But we also have to think about how to make this thing work better so that we're not always having to compete with other areas, whether they are a mortgage on a really nice office building or folks in assisted living facilities. We have to find a way to make this actually sustainable on its own.
Right.
Thank you so much for that, Senator Putnam. Senator Overgan.
Sorry, I just forgot to mention a piece earlier and I'm grateful that. Oh, he included in their presentation that what we're seeing with the state grant we're also seeing like a greater percentage of students that had an SAI of zero or less enrolling. There was 29% in fiscal year 24, and that jumped up to 43% in fiscal year 25. And so to me, that's just an like another reason to really protect negative SAI in the formula. I think it's great that we're seeing students see college as a possibility for them. And I think the investments that we made here made a big difference, like the North Star promise to make tuition and the full cost of college affordable to students. I think that's great. We should see more, more students on that lower income seeing college as a possibility.
Can I ask one more question?
No. I know, Senator Duckworth, that would be
actually be okay if you said that to me right now. This is not a broken record. I'm going to take a different tact because before this committee, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we have commerce and oftentimes in commerce, we talk about the cost of health care. And I tell. We all talk about how we want to lower the cost of health care, and then we pass bills that increase the cost of health care. And so I don't know if Paul is still out there or if Bernie's still out there, but if one or both of those gentlemen would come up for a quick question, I would appreciate it if you'd entertain that, Mr.
Chair.
Absolutely, Mr. Oman. Or President Sirpanik.
And as they make their way up, Mr. Chair, if I may. You know, one of the biggest impacts to this whole conversation that we really haven't spent a lot of time on is tuition period or tuition in general. And so the question I would have for these gentlemen is as your respective. You can come up to the, you can come up.
I just want Bernie to answer the question.
Yeah, Bernie, this is not, I'm not surprising you with the Second Amendment question here, so this one should be a little easier. You know, when we look at tuition and the drivers, the impact of tuition, what drives it up? Have there been any changes when it comes to laws that have been passed recently that you have found to be of a particular impact to tuition at their respective institutions that you speak on behalf of or represent
Mr. Oman or President Sirkwinick
chair fate. Bernie Oman of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities? Senator Duckworth, I mean, as you know, our finance structure is, is fairly basic. We have two pots of money. We have tuition, which is roughly about 50%, and we have state appropriation, which is about 50%. And we know what happened last year in the Legislature, and that's nothing on the legislatures is the fact of where we were financially with a zero target in higher ed. So our only revenue to be able to bring us to balance our budgets fell on tuition. I will say this, our board and set a marker to keep tuition at a painfully lower level would be the campuses, some of our campuses perspective, because some folks wanted to be at 9% and I think we ended up at an average around five and a half. And if you look at, you know, getting zero and then five and a half somewhat, that balance itself out. You know, as you know, Senator Duckworth, as a former school board member, our most of our finances go to people. And we are, we are a organization with 95% of our employees are in a collective bargaining group, which is fine, which is good. They work hard, they deserve to get paid. But we obviously have pressures that deal with that. And just like campuses that have to deal with higher energy costs, I'm not an expert on how the paid family leave and some of these other things that the interplay between the two would work or the cost. But we have the same cost drivers at our institutions as everybody does in the private sector. You see the bonding list that we bring forward, and it's stunning to me when we come out of the legislature with a nice heap of money of $60 million and you start looking in our list and you're like, oh, we did one roof for 10 million. So all those cost structures are kind of coming together on us as everybody does, and our levels levers to be able to fund these isn't what it used to be. There's no question about it. And I will say this with folks that, that work in our organization, from whether it's a president and all the way through the people that keep our campuses safe, dry and warm, and the folks that are in the classroom, they're exceptional and we have to pay them to keep them. So in no way I want my testimony to be construed that I'm putting it on that. But that's just the truth. And it's what, you know, you witnessed firsthand on your local school district. So every pressure again, that you hear in your local communities, from your business community is the same ones that we have. And we appreciate certainly the work that this committee and everybody has done to make sure that it, you know, especially our system with our students have that access because ultimately it's a twofer. And one is it is so crucial to our economy. And all of you have been on so many of our campuses and you see it, whether it's somebody that is there for a certificate program to be a CNA or somebody that is in a master's or even applied doctorate program. So it's a long winded way of saying that we have the same financial pressures as everyone else and there's no magic to solving that. And I will say that even with enrollment growth that we've had, which has been wonderful, many of our campuses are always in a cost cutting environment. Even when times are good, they need to be in that environment because, because they have to dial back programs that don't have the relevance that they once had in the marketplace and invest in ones that are out there and cutting edge, whether it's AI or other things, where we have to invest, where the future is.
Thank you so much, Mr. Ullman. President Sirkmanich Mr.
Chair, members, Paul Cerkvenik, President of the Minnesota Private College Council. Everything that Bernie said about the cost pressures at colleges in his system are also at work. In our system, higher ed is a people business, and you can't do it without the people who deliver the education and deliver all the other services that our students need. And higher education has changed. When I went to college, it was a simpler operation. And today higher education institutions are asked to do a lot more for students educationally and in all their human development needs. And those are good things. Those are needs. The whole pool of learners is more diverse in the way they learn and what they learn and how prepared they come to college. College was for a much smaller subset of people 50 years ago than it is today. We want many, many people to come, but it requires much, much more resources today than it did when I was a student. That's the pressures colleges are dealing with. And as Bernie said, it's forcing them all the time to look at where they can reduce so they can do the next new need that is coming up. I just spoke to a college president yesterday who told me she's announcing layoffs at her campus today because of those competing pressures for how to meet student needs. So it's a, it's a, it's a perpetually evolving business, and it's evolving in ways where more is being asked of the institution to help students succeed.
If I may, Mr. Chair, like to congratulate you both on your very diplomatic answers. I appreciate it. But it's also very helpful and all that to say, Mr. Chair, that, you know, when we are, as a legislature, passing laws, whether they're mandates for colleges and universities, whether they're energy policy Whether they're workforce policy, they have second and third order effects and oftentimes that can impact things like the cost of running one of these places and ultimately tuition. And so holistically, if we're looking across a broad spectrum of the state of Minnesota and government and we're trying to help make college more affordable for students and families, keeping tuition or helping these folks keep tuition as low as possible. As part of that conversation, we can't sometimes ask or act surprised when we see a huge deficit in the state grant, knowing that oftentimes we sometimes pass bills that increase the cost of things generally in the state of Minnesota. So there are trade offs and unfortunately, sometimes it's our young folks or students and families that have to deal with those trade offs, or it's programs like the state grant that have to face realities that are created by some of those trade offs. And so I appreciate the conversation here today, but it's not just a little piece here, a little piece there. It's a holistic conversation that we always have to be mindful of if we truly are committed to finding a long term solution to it or for funding it. That's all I've got. Mr.
Chair, thanks.
Senator Duckworth, Senator Putnam, followed by Senator Clark.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I appreciate your answers very much. Not just because I don't think they were diplomatic. I think they were honest and comprehensive. And I actually lectured the Housing Committee a couple weeks ago on the nature of a causal argument is that everything has more than one cause to it.
So.
So I appreciate how comprehensive your answers were. Those are both fantastic. But there's one other element of context that we haven't acknowledged and that's that this is not new. This isn't because we passed paid family leave. That is not why our colleges are struggling right now. When I started at St. John's when I joined the faculty there, tuition was around $20,000 a year. It's about 20 years ago, it's about $20,000 a year now. I think it's around 60. And since I joined the faculty, the place should have gotten cheaper, But that's not what's happening. So the increase in tuition is not a result, an automatic result of any specific legislation that we've got. To Senator Duckfer's point, I'm sure it contributes to some of the challenges we're facing right now, but it contributes, does not cause, and these are not brand new pressures. These are pressures that higher education has faced for at least 30 years. So thank you again for your answers.
Gentlemen thank you Senator Clark.
Thank you Chair. And thank you gentlemen for the answer. I agree it's multi factors. And when Mr. Oman brought up Heapr, that's where I'm like, okay, this is where we can actually change some of the system to reduce the ongoing operating costs that we put on our institutions. After last year's bonding bill, I went in a deep dive of looking at our universities and college of what is the fully depreciated assets that are out there. And it is shocking at the inefficiencies that we have in some of our just plain heating cooling. So when they break down because they're old, you have to do an emergency repair. And when they are operating on a day to day basis, they are not high efficiency units that we love to talk talk about. They are from the 70s and 80s. And that consumption of energy, especially when we've got gas and oil higher than ever, contributes to a well an ongoing operating cost that you have to pay for. And so it is a whole lot of different things. But this is in part the. If the bonding overlords are listening, please make sure that we're looking at Heapr as a way to make sure that we are bringing down the cost of operating our universities and colleges on a day to day basis by investing in better systems that heat and cool our schools. Thank you Chair.
Thank you so much Chair.
I just may take just a second. Thank you Senator Clark. I will just say this as it relates to, to both Heapr and as you know, our building structure inside of Minnesota State, it's kind of a reverse bell curve. You look at, you know, 1950, 1960, that's when all these big ugly buildings were built. They're big, cement, unusable spaces at many of our campuses. Senator Putnam is carrying a bill on demolition and I know money will be tight this year, but I think that is a build, that is a proposal that our board continues to be interested in and would like to visit and we'll make that. I believe it'll be part of our proposal going forward. And I would just like to say one more part about the tuition and I want to thank you. And the board appreciates that they were able to sit back and set tuition at the board level in the past. It's kind of been the caps and caps and caps and the board took, took their responsibility very seriously. And when they did that, they also know that they have, they, they, they're well aware that this committee, the legislature and the governor are their partners. And to do that combined with you and, and to try to continue to earn that ability to make those decisions at, at the local level. And they did not just go up and look at tuition and say, write in, tell me what the deficit is and write in a number. That's not the direction they went. They were very, very cautious because they know that. They know where the costs are, who bears the cost. So thank you for that. On behalf of our board.
Thank you so much, Mr. Omen, and thank you, President Chair Fate.
Can I say one thing about tuition to, because I want the committee to have a full picture published. Tuitions have risen at private colleges, as Senator Putnam described, but the full story has to include the increasing amount of financial aid that our institutions provide to students to hold the net price down. And I'll provide some information for the committee. But our net price is substantially flat over the last 10 years. When you take into account the aid that our institutions are providing to hold tuition down, the average net price, some families who have the means are paying a high price, but the average student price is not increasing at the rate of the published price. And I just want committee members to understand that.
Thank you so much, President Sirnick, Senator Kupik.
All right.
And I'll be quick because I do know we have one more bill and I do want to hear from Ms. Oliver because I always love when she testified. But you know, there's, and I, and I know I'm much more intimately knowledgeable of the state university system, but I know, and I've been through their sat, through presentations, and there's a graph and you go back to the early 2000s and state level funding was here and, and then state level funding went and tuition went the other way. And so we have greatly cut back what we're funding. And that has a spillover then into the private system because as those state tuitions go up, that means that there's more pressure put upon the state grant system too. And so there's more competition within that so that those also do. And the state system, when we put those caps in place, the only place they have to cut because as Mr. Oman talked about it, their capital is people. And so what happens is they cut back on that and then guess what? Then they have, there's fewer class offerings, it's harder for students to finish. And then students look at why am I going to go there? And then fewer students enroll, enrollment goes down again, and it is the death spiral. And we saw that happening and I think we've righted that ship. As you can see, enrollment's going up. So that's a good thing. And I know locally at Minnesota State University, Morehead, it feels like we've swung out of the death spiral. Also got some new administrators in place where I think you're doing a great job. So that's a win win situation there. Okay, now onto the miss Oliver show.
Thank you, Senator Kupek, although that was not quick
bus hit.
And with that, Senate file 4866 is laid over. I'm only kidding. Next up, we have center file 3943, which is the policy omnibus. We're gonna bypass the opening stuff and go straight to Senator Kupek moves SF3943 from the table. All those a favor say aye. Those opposed. And now Senator Kupek also moves the A5amendment, which is the delete all to put the bill into shape. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? We can now have the walkthrough from for Senate file 3943 by Mr. Hunter. Welcome.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I just want to point out that the vehicle for the policy bill, which is SF 3943, I think in the packets the earlier summary of the bill as introduced was included. So and on the but on the back or on the back of that section that you were handed, there's also something that looks like this, the Omnibus Policy Bill Index. And this is what I'm going to be using to assist the committee through the bill, Mr. Chair. So. And there will be, I understand there will be other technical amendments, but I can help describe those when they come up. So if you look on our bill index and look at section 1 of the delete everything amendment, it should say a 5 in the top right hand corner, you'll see section 1 is the language that came from Senator Hemingston Yeager's bill, SF4629, which provides paid leave for Minnesota employees to give blood. Section two comes from the policy bill. And I should have said this also I'm going through the bill section by section. But. And most of the bill is taken up by language in the policy bill itself coming from OHE agency language. But interspersed between will be bills from language from bills that were heard in committee. And it is the language as they were amended in committee, if they were amended. So going on to section two, this is just part of the agency language changing Minnesota resident to student eligible for a resident tuition rate or its equivalent for purposes of the Indian American Indian Scholars Program. Moving on to Section three, which starts at the bottom of page one of the de. This is language from Senator UMU verbatim's bill to provide automatic priority registration process for pregnant and parenting students. Jumping back into the OHE policy language, starting section 5 which starts at the. On page four, this begins a couple of series of different sections that make technical and terminology changes. Looking at section 6 which begins near the bottom of page 4, line 21, this is part of a series of sections that consistent consolidate the reporting by the Office of Higher Education on student aid programs. If you look at page four, line 26, you'll see a bunch of programs and their statutory references are added in there. Some of those programs include the state grant program, fostering Independence program, child care grants and more, all consolidated into that reporting scheme. And jumping ahead to section 10 which begins at the bottom of page 6. 6 this is language from OHE that allows the denial of student aid and student grant or state grant funding based on findings of fraud or refusal to provide information or determination of fraud by a court. Moving on to sections. 17 and 18. These come from Senator Gustafson's bill, but I believe they've been removed so or they're still in. They're still in it now or they're still in at this point. So that comes from the add drop bill including the policy to disclose the add drop period and also the complaint process. And then page 19 or sorry section 19 starting on page 12, this is a piece of OHEE language that modifies the priority for work study programs and allocation of work study for graduate students and also removes a requirement for institutions to try to place students in jobs outside the institution. Now starting with going to section 20 on page 13 starting on line 9, this begins a series of sections that makes technical updates and removes obstinate language in the Minnesota Private and out of State Public Post Secondary Education Act. Skipping ahead to section 28 that begins on page 17, line 17, this sections 28 and 29, their agency language that create a new audit and enrollment data reporting scheme for private and out of state public schools and also eliminate some fees for schools that were applying or registering with the office. And there are fees that could be charged if these applications had to be revised or amended multiple times. Moving on to section 30 which begins on the bottom of page 19, line 27. This begins a series of different sections that are technical updates to the private career schools statute. Moving on to section 36. Quite sure the page here section 36 to 38. I can see section 38 on page 26 here these are modifications to the licensing scheme for private career schools, their audit and compliance processes and applicability and exemptions to that licensing scheme. Section 39 beginning on page 27, line 20. This in section 48 deal with modifying information that a private career school must provide to OHE before it's licensed and also to students prior to students prior to students signing an enrollment contract or if the school doesn't use an enrollment contract prior to the student beginning their study. Making a large jump here to section 58, which begins on page 41, line 13, sections 58 through 62 all deal with updating references to the Internal Revenue Code, adding some definitions and clarifying the use of data in the college savings plan statute. If you'll turn over the policy index, there are a couple more sections on the back. Section 63 on page 42, line 11 is Senator Barr's bill to require the governor to select a candidate for the Board of Regents recommended by the Joint legislative committee. Section 64 and 65 come from Senator Mann's bill requesting the University of Minnesota prohibit for profit control of medical school curriculum and also the reporting requirement for for profit entity funds used to do, among other things, pay the salaries of teaching faculty. Section 66 back to agency language removes the Office of Higher Education as an entity that must reduce aid payments for unemployment insurance where aid is greater than the annual appropriation. And Section 67 is multiple repealers. It includes a repealer of limited exemptions for religious schools in both the private and out of state public post secondary Education act and the private school or private career school statutes. That is my high level overview and then going to move on to other amendments perhaps.
Thank you very much. All right, we have here I have the A11amendment. So I'm going to ask to move that which is a technical amendment. All those in favor of the A11 signify by saying aye. Opposed. I hit the gavel before I said opposed but nobody's opposed. Everybody said I. All right, the A11 then is adopted. Other amendments discussion Senator Umu Verbatin thank you Mr.
Chair. I do have the A6amendment. This is a bill that wanted to include in the policy omnibus just updating our statewide education attainment goal that expired recently. I think there are folks here from the from OHI that can can speak to it in more detail but it I think it's a good idea for us to to continue to have a statewide attainment goal and we had a goal up until 2025 and so this is setting a goal for 2040
it's
really as simple as that.
Senator Clark.
Thank you.
Chair Kupec. Senator Mover Baten. This makes sense. So it's just we're changing the goal from 70 to 75% and expanding the ages in general. So I think that's lines 1.30 to 1.31, continuing on with the interim and then or the reports, including interim progress reports. So in 2.4 to 2.5. But overall it's changing the goal for Minnesota to have some sort of post secondary degree from 70 to 75%. Is that correct?
Senator Omar Bain.
Mr. Chair. Senator Clark. Yes, thank you. I think it's just important that we continue to have a statewide education attainment goal. And with it expiring, I want to make sure we continue to set a new goal for the future.
Thank you so much. One moment, please.
We have an oil limit to reverse the A11.
So it's just straight lines 1, 3, 1.4 of the A11.
Okay.
We can do maneuverings first.
Yes, Senator Umar verbane moves the A6amendment. Senator. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? The amendment is adopted. Miss Oliver, welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record. And you may begin.
Thank you.
My name is Nikki Oliver. I'm the Director of Government Relations and Community engagement engagement for the Minnesota Office of Higher Education. And some background. Senator Kupek kind of jinxed me when he saw me in the hallway and said, we haven't heard from you. And then all of a sudden, I'm being called up here all the time now. So just high level again. The provisions in here related to ohee's proposal and the governor's recommendation were already spoken to mostly. The bulk of the policy bill for the Office of Higher Education relates to our licensing and registration department in those statutes and as they relate to a judgment or a litigation. So we're trying to update those statutes to take away anything that requires OHE to evaluate institutions based on content. And then we do have smarter people here than me to speak to that if there are questions related to that. The other changes, as was spoken to, are mostly technical in nature or they're modifying programs to reflect reality and needs. That is the work study provisions and the updates to the dual training grant program.
Thank you so much, Ms. Oliver. Are there any questions for Ms. Oliver or Ohi? Thank you so much, Ms. Oliver. And with that, we're going to pause momentarily.
Section 18,
We're going to take a brief recession.
Sam.
So we are going to move to reconsider the 8 11amendment. Senator Kupek moves to reconsider the 8 11amendment. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? The amendment is being reconsidered. I now move to an oral amendment to strike lines 1.3 and 1.4 of the A11 of the A11Amendment. Mr. Hunter will go through the oral amendment.
So the. So we're reconsidering the A11amendment. On lines page one, line three, and page one, line four of the A11amendment, it deleted two sections of the bill which you can see in your policy index. Section 17 and 18 are Senator Gustafson's bill. So prior, when we adopted the A11 before this reconsideration, it deleted those sections. So the effect of the chair's
oral
amendment here on the reconsideration is to put those pieces back in the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe. I believe and I'm happy to give more context if that's needed.
Thank you so much. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? We are now. The oral amendment is adopted. We are now on the A11amendment as adopt as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? The A11amendment as amended is adopted.
Senator.
Oh, sorry. We now move on to not Senator Oman, but Mr. Bernie Oman.
Welcome, Chair Fateh. Members, I'll be extremely brief. I just want to just appreciate the opportunity to talk about the language that was just reinstated in the withdrawal bill and reiterate our concerns that we have with that bill or that language on line 10.3 in the delete all. If you look at number two, which requires campuses to send written communication to students, we would argue that if you do, number one, well, like we do, we wouldn't have to do the second part of the communication because in our opinion, it is this kind of a make work for our campuses. We communicate through our students when it comes to financial issues through E. Services. And if you go to any campus and you look across the websites, that information is. It is all there. I'd also like to say that in lines 11.5 to 12.15, the Board of trustees already has an appeal process. That appeal process is in our policy, and it's in our procedures and it's uniformed across all of our campuses. And in talking to our folks in student services, they will say that they have not heard complaints about our process. So I would also say that in our appeal process that is able to go through our presidents and this language sets up a, I think, awkward and cumbersome process where a student then will flip over from the appeal process that they have on campus over to the Office of Higher Education. And I would just say we have not had any issues with withdrawal problems because we have had a policy and procedure in place. We think it works and think this language is not needed from our standpoint. And we hope to have more conversation with you in conference committee if there is a conference committee at the end of the session. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Mr. Omen. And we'll call back up.
Ms. Oliver,
Welcome.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I'm going to have again, someone a lot smarter than me in this area speak. But given that you all reinstated that, we would recommend or like it to be removed for several reasons. One primary reason is it does have a cost. The agency Chapter 14 Hearings and Dealing with student complaints is not a small task for the agency. So I will allow Andrew to speak more to that.
Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record. And you may begin.
Chair Fateh Members, thank you. My name is Andrew Wold. I'm general counsel at the Office of Higher Education and Director of Compliance. I oversee our licensing and registration unit at the office. And, and I would first need to say that I'm definitely not smarter than Nikki Oliver and I don't know why she would keep saying that there are some people who are. But I just wanted to get that
corrected for the record.
There will be a cost, likely cost to this addition for these add drop student complaints. We the office currently doesn't have any sort of regulatory authority over Minnesota State colleges and universities, including investigating their student complaints. By adding this and providing the office with some authority to investigate those student complaints, we can only do a little bit of guesswork as to how many student complaints there would be and how in depth the investigatory needs would be. If we assume that there are, that this would be in place for all 33 Minnesota state institutions. If we assume that there would be approximately five appeals on average to our office and then if we assume the number of hours and complexity that those would entail, we are guessing that we would need an additional approximately 0.5, 0.4 to 0.5 FTE. And so I don't have the numbers on that off the top of my head, but there would be an additional cost for to keep up with these student complaints.
Thank you so much, Senator Omar bin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If, if we, if the inclusion of that is going to send, would that send this bill to finance? Do we need to. Yes. If we want to move forward with that provision, maybe that a better place for that would be our budget Honus, if we're putting that.
It's in the works. It's not done yet. Yeah, we can put it in the finance bill. We can also, we can also table this and do a combined policy fiscal omnis. So I don't want to do that. Or we go back to the original A11, take it out, and then we make an effort to include it in the fiscal omnibus bill that we'll hear after break, which I think is the best.
So we haven't used.
Added to the fiscal.
Once we get a note, Once we
get a note, put it in the fiscal.
Yep.
It has to go to state government traditions. It doesn't have a sense of no. Like they'll have to take it out if judiciary didn't write to me. Oh yeah, oh yeah. It has to go through Judiciary also. So it has a hearing there though, doesn't it? It's going to die against judiciary. It's not going to. Okay, well, there's that.
Senator Wolverine. We're, we're still pending a fiscal note, so for now we'll keep it in and then we're gonna, we're gonna get our fiscal note down. Senator OMERMAN.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just, I want to make sure that our policy omnibus moves through smoothly and I, I definitely support the provision. I'm just, you know, we have time until the third deadline and I feel like the department is telling us that there is cost even if we're awaiting the fiscal note. So I just want to make sure that the provisions that we do have that are policy only have a path forward. And so I'm wondering if it makes sense to remove that section, include that in another vehicle so these other policy provisions can move forward without going to finance.
I'll pass it off to committee Administrator Meyer.
So in order for this provision to be passed, it has to go through both judiciary and state gov. Judiciary could hear it tomorrow and I had had a conversation with Senator Gusterson's office about that. So the path that it would have to take then is it would have to be heard in a judiciary, then it could be referred to State Gov and State Gov could hear it after the recess and lay it over and then it would still be able to be included. If it does not take the step in judiciary tomorrow, then then it would be dead. And in that case, then we could amend it out when this bill goes to finance because this one also needs to go to finance because it has a small financial provision in it.
We have Senator first and then Senator Clark.
Is that just a question on what was just said the fact that the floor is closed we can't move committee reports so I mean how would it get from here to Judiciary without the
floor floor being open Committee Administrator Meyer
so it can go to state Gov afterward And the way the rule works for the deadline is like it it doesn't need to make it to state Gov before the committee deadline.
Senator what I was you know it was said that it needed to go it could go to Judiciary tomorrow. How would it go there? Because the floor is closed. We can't process a committee report to move it.
Oh that's right.
Mr. Hunter.
Thank you Mr. Chair. You gave me the opportunity to properly communicate through you so I really appreciate it. Thank you Mr. Chair and members and Senator Aki the bill has been traveling on its own and is in Judiciary. The language of that bill is also here in the omnibus. That's how it can be at two places at once which I dual attract. Yes yes. Okay thank you Mr. Chair. Members.
Senator Clerk thank you Chair and this may be for Mr. Lewis or others it which section needs to be in is is the problematic section what I'm sort of my problematic not problematic the section that needs to be examined in Judiciary of which I'm a member of so excited to see it again and in part it's a setup for if we were to remove lines 11.2 all the way to 12.15 so it remains it as just a policy but without any teeth is that a way to that allows us to say we're doing this but student doesn't have a way to appeal if someone violates the rights.
Thank you Mr. Chair and Senator Clark the provisions that as I understand it that fall into a more judiciary and state gov area is what you describe leaving the what you would what you're referring to I think as 10.7. And through to 11.2 which is sort of what you were referring to as the policy I don't believe has any just in the language itself have any tie into another committee the effect of doing so in terms of how it would be enforced I don't know. I don't know that But I believe that would eliminate the portions of the bill as I understand them which involve administrative procedures and penalties and the things
that
can result under the rules for a committee to chair to ask to see something like that. So that's my best understanding that I can give you. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Senator Cooper so if we were to let's say take this out because this bill is travel it's out there traveling on its own. Right.
It's in judiciary.
Does it still have to go to state and local government, too? Okay, so if we took it out that bill travels on its own, could they meet back up and say finance? Could we add it back in and finance? If the bill traveled on its own and we did that, we could put
it on our fiscal finance.
So, sure.
Then.
Then that may simplifies life.
Okay,
so I'd like to reconsider that motion.
You want to reconsider the reconsideration?
Reconsider the reconsideration.
Oh, Senator.
Okay. Got a better idea?
I will. Thank you, Chair. So this is on the so the adopted A5amendment already.
A11. A5.
Yes.
A5.
Yes.
I want to delete and I'll seek advice. Essentially, I want to Delete from lines 11.5 to 12.15. And I will seek advice on that for the proper way to fashion that motion.
Mr. Hunter. One moment. Center.
It's.
There.
Or.
We will be taking a brief recession.
Sam.
Sa.
Sa.
Sa.
On zoom as well. So the first step we're going to do is we're going to move to reconsider the A11. Senator Kupek moves to reconsider the A11. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? A11 is before us. We are now moved to reconsider the oral amendment. Senator Kupek, once again. Oh, Senator Kupek will move to reconsider the oral amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? The Oral Amendment. The amendment, as amended, is before us. I now move to withdraw the oral amendment. And that meant that will. So lines. Lines 1.3 and 1.4 are now reinstated. So. So now. We. Will now vote to reinstate. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Now we have the A11 before us. Once again. All those in favor of the A11 say aye. Oh, sorry, Senator. Okay. Yes. All those in favor of the A11, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? The A11 is now adopted. We are now under final consideration. Are there any questions? Comments? Seeing none, Senator Clark moves that SF 3943, as amended, be recommended to pass and re refer to the Committee on Finance. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed? It's on its way to Finance. And with no further business, Committees adjourned.
Sam.