Introduced by Sen. Shirley Johnson (R) on March 3, 2004, to provide the “template” or “place holder” for a Senate Republican version of a Fiscal Year 2004-2005 higher education budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 3, 2004.
Reported in the Senate on March 31, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on March 31, 2004, to replace the executive proposal for this budget, contained in Senate Bill 1042 , with a budget that expresses policy differences between the Republican-majority in the House and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items. See Senate-passed version for major features, and Senate Fiscal Agency analysis for detailed analysis. (the “Text and Analysis” at the top of this bill’s MichiganVotes.org page is a link to this). The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 31, 2004.
Amendment offered by Sen. Martha G. Scott (D) on March 31, 2004, to consider a person who is not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States to be a “resident” for purposes of charging lower in-state tuition at state universities, if the person has lived in Michigan with a parent or legal guardian while attending high school, graduated from high school or received a GED in Michigan, has lived here for at least three years, and will apply for permanent resident status when eligible. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 20) on March 31, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Amendment offered by Sen. Bob Emerson (D) on March 31, 2004, to strip out $64.7 million for state scholarships to students at private colleges, which the governor recommended cutting. The amendment failed in the Senate by voice vote on March 31, 2004.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on March 31, 2004, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 higher education budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1042.) This appropriates $1.698 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.789 billion, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $1.603 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $1.632 million. The Senate version authorizes approximately $66.6 million more in gross spending than the governor recommended. This includes $64.7 million for state scholarships to students at private colleges, which the governor recommended cutting. The Senate version contains the governor's tuition restraint proposal, which promised the partial restoration of 2003 cuts for colleges that keep tuition increases below the rate of inflation. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on March 31, 2004.
Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on March 31, 2004.
Reported in the House on June 8, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on June 9, 2004, to replace the Senate version of this budget with a House version which expresses policy differences between the bodies on certain spending items. See House-passed version for details. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
Amendment offered by Rep. Triette Reeves (D) on June 9, 2004, to insert a $100 "points of difference" from the Senate-passed version of the bill on funding for the Joseph F. Young, Sr. psychiatric research and training program, which means this item may be revised by an eventual House-Senate conference committee. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
Amendment offered by Rep. Judy Emmons (R) on June 9, 2004, to insert a $100 "points of difference" from the Senate-passed version of the bill on funding for for state scholarships to students at private colleges, which means these may be revised by an eventual House-Senate conference committee. The amendment failed in the House (9 to 91) on June 9, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Amendment offered by Rep. Sandy Caul (R) on June 9, 2004, to establish as the intent of the legislature that the university presidents council review and report on the prices of textbooks. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
Amendment offered by Rep. Leon Drolet (R) on June 9, 2004, to prohibit racial preferences in university admissions and grants, or any other preferential treatment based on a student's race, religion, creed, or national origin. The amendment passed in the House (57 to 44) on June 9, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Amendment offered by Rep. John Pappageorge (R) on June 9, 2004, to include under the terms of the tuition-restraint grant negotiated as part of last year’s budget any "fee" that will be paid by more than half of all resident undergraduate students at least once during their enrollment at a state university. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
Passed in the House (55 to 48) on June 9, 2004, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Education budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1038.) This appropriates $112.4 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $113.3 million, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $26.4 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $29.3 million. The House version authorizes approximately $1.8 million less in gross spending than the governor recommended. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 10, 2004.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 37) on June 15, 2004, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 29, 2004.
Passed in the House (105 to 0) on September 9, 2004, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 higher education budget. This appropriates $1.690 billion in unadjusted gross spending, compared to $1.697 billion, which was the final FY 2003-2004 gross. Of this, $1.600 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the final FY 2003-2004 amount of $1.603 million. The budget restores a three-percent cut to universities that have kept their tuition increases below 2.8 percent. To qualify, Northern Michigan University, Lake Superior State University, Western Michigan University, Michigan State University, Saginaw Valley State University and Grand Valley State University will have to either rebate past tuition hikes, roll back new “student fees,” or increase tuition this year by an even lesser amount. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 30, 2004.
Passed in the Senate (33 to 1) on September 9, 2004, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 higher education budget. This appropriates $1.690 billion in unadjusted gross spending, compared to $1.697 billion, which was the final FY 2003-2004 gross. Of this, $1.600 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the final FY 2003-2004 amount of $1.603 million. The budget restores a three-percent cut to universities that have kept their tuition increases below 2.8 percent. To qualify, Northern Michigan University, Lake Superior State University, Western Michigan University, Michigan State University, Saginaw Valley State University and Grand Valley State University will have to either rebate past tuition hikes, roll back new “student fees,” or increase tuition this year by an even lesser amount. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 30, 2004.
1) Sensible? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 17, 2004] What isn't sensible is denying a qualified student admission because their skin color does not satisfy the decorating tastes of some social engineers. Some groups complain that there are "too many" Asians in the schools. Should they be denied admission because of their skin color, or should the fact that they have a better work ethic, study habits, and grades qualify them? They try harder. They also have a pride in their personal accomplishments vs "racial pride" and/or a group mentality.
Some use the term "diversity" to justify racial preferences. This is saying a persons worth to a class of students can be determined by their skin color. Isn't that "profiling"? What next? Determining their vote value by skin color?
Stop legacy admissions? Sure, then the alumini can take the millions they contribute to places like the U of M and send it to other schools, the ones that their kids will be going to. Reply
2) Court ruling [by Anonymous Citizen on June 16, 2004] The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 ruling with Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor as the swing vote decided that race may be considered into the admissions criteria, but cannot be the deciding factor. O'Connor said the issue should be revisited in 25 years. In other words, she suspended the equal protection granted by the 14th amendment, for 25 years.
The UofM is sidestepping the issue by requiring and judging essays as a part of the admission process. That is highly subjective and gives the edge to those that press the right buttons of the liberals reviewing the essays.
3) 300 years [by Anonymous Citizen on June 16, 2004] So, am I to assume that you feel racial preferences (sometimes called reverse discrimination) should continue for 300 years? Starting when? I thought we were not supposed to judge peoples worth based on their skin color. Preferential treatment divides people into classes by race, sex, ethnicity etc. That is discrimination. Reply