Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2009 House Bill 4441: Appropriations: 2009-2010 Higher Education budget

Public Act 132 of 2009

  1. Introduced by Rep. Joan Bauer (D) on February 24, 2009, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 higher education budget. This would appropriate $1.719 billion in gross spending, compared to $1769 billion, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $1.545 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), $166.4 million is from "restricted funds," or earmarked state tax and fee revenue, and $7.4 million is federal revenue. The budget "pencils in" a 3 percent reduction in university operations grants, but there is an expectation that federal "stimulus" money will be used to keep this spending item contant. It also reduces by funding for the MSU Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service by 50 percent.
    • Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 24, 2009.
      • Reported in the House on April 2, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on April 2, 2009, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the House majority on various spending items and programs. Among other changes, this uses federal "stimulus" money to reverse a 3 percent university operations grant reduction proposed by the Executive budget, and also reverses a 50 percent reduction proposed by the Governor in funding for the MSU Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on April 2, 2009.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Robert Genetski (R) on April 2, 2009, to require universities to prepare and submit to the legislature a plan to cut the cost of operations by 5 percent in the 2010-2011 school year. Also, to require each university to post on on the internet a listing of all expenditures, with the purpose of each (a "check register"). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on April 2, 2009.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on April 2, 2009, to ban universites from giving employee health insurance or other benefits to the unmarried partners of the employees. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on April 2, 2009.
  2. Passed 89 to 21 in the House on April 2, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 higher education budget. This would appropriate $1.826 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.769 billion, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $59.6 million is federal revenue. The House version uses federal "stimulus" money to reverse a 3 percent university operations grant reduction proposed by the Executive budget, and reverses a 50 percent cut proposed by the Governor in for the MSU Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the Senate on April 21, 2009.
    • Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 21, 2009.
      • Reported in the Senate on June 23, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
      • Substitute offered in the Senate on June 23, 2009, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Republican-majority in the Senate on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on June 23, 2009, to add $140 million to avoid eliminating the Michigan "promise grant" scholarships, formerly known as the "merit awards," which gives tobacco lawsuit settlement money to student who do well on state assessment tests. The amendment failed 16 to 20 in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

    • Amendment offered by Sen. Deborah Cherry (D) on June 23, 2009, to add $169 million to avoid eliminating the Michigan "promise grant" scholarships and reducing other "need based" scholarships. The amendment failed 16 to 20 in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

    • Amendment offered by Sen. John Gleason (D) on June 23, 2009, to add $1.9 million for nursing scholarships. The amendment failed 17 to 19 in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

    • Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on June 23, 2009, to add $100 "placeholders" or "points of difference" between the House version in line items for various state scholarship programs, which leaves this items open to further negotiation in a House-Senate conference committee. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Nancy Cassis (R) on June 23, 2009, to add $100 "placeholders" or "points of difference" between the House version in line items for various state scholarship programs, which leaves these items open to further negotiation in a House-Senate conference committee. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Samuel B. Thomas, III (D) on June 23, 2009, to add $40 million for the "promise grant" scholarship program, and convert this from a merit-based scholarship to a needs-based or means-tested one. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
  4. Passed 19 to 17 in the Senate on June 23, 2009, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 higher education budget. This would appropriate $1.609 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.769 billion, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $1.507 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), $26.4 million is from "restricted funds," or earmarked state tax and fee revenue, and $75.6 million is federal revenue. The Senate version uses less federal "stimulus" money than the House, has a 0.4 percent university operations grant reduction, eliminates the state "promise grant" scholarships, reduces spending on "need based" scholarships, and reverses a 50 percent reduction proposed by the Governor in funding for the MSU Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the House on June 23, 2009.
  6. Failed 0 to 109 in the House on June 25, 2009, to concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Received in the Senate on September 30, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 higher education budget. This would appropriate $1.612 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.769 billion, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $74.1 million is federal revenue. This cuts .4 percent from university operations grans, reverses a 50 percent cut proposed by the Governor in the MSU Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, and eliminates the "Promise Grant" or Merit Award scholarships paid for with tobacco lawsuit money.
  8. Passed 19 to 18 in the Senate on September 30, 2009.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  9. Received in the Senate on September 30, 2009.
    • Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on September 30, 2009, to give the bill immediate effect, without which the budget will not go into effect until April 1, 2010. A two-thirds majority is required. The motion failed 22 to 15 in the Senate on September 30, 2009.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  10. Received in the House on September 30, 2009.
  11. Passed 57 to 51 in the House on September 30, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 higher education budget. This would appropriate $1.612 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.769 billion, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $74.1 million is federal revenue. This cuts .4 percent from university operations grans, reverses a 50 percent cut proposed by the Governor in the MSU Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, and eliminates the "Promise Grant" or Merit Award scholarships paid for with tobacco lawsuit money.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  12. Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 29, 2009.

Comments

Re: 2009 House Bill 4441 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Higher Education budget )  by RobElhart on September 16, 2009 

Michigan Promise: 2009-2010


The Michigan Promise Merit is a promise merit,
awarded to those who have strived and succeeded in scoring high on
state tests. It is important to follow through with a promise made by
the state to its people. This Promise Scholarship is more important
than many of the people that continue to fail it from passing
understand it to be.


Michigan's people are losing their jobs,
homes, investments, and so on. Why not invest in the children, the
people who will be the ones' paying for the debt we are in, and coming
up with new ideas to move us out of this potential depression? Giving
highschoolers this Michigan Promise Scholarship gives them hope in a
future in college, and therefore, a future in life.


If
highschoolers can't find jobs. Isn't it important to make sure they're
under consideration? They haven't been working their whole lives to
make money. If they don't have money and haven't had the chance to make
it, what makes people think they'll attend college, especially with the
tuition increasing exponentially.


For numerous people the
Michigan Promise Scholarship, isn't just promising them money, but also
helps promise them a chance to change their lives with a college
education. It's healthy motivation.


It's time to make decisions, think long and hard about everyone made.



Re: 2009 House Bill 4441 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Higher Education budget )  by Admin003 on June 24, 2009 

 


Senator Cassis asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.


The motion prevailed.


Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:


This amendment will establish a $100 placeholder to continue the discussion on the Michigan Promise Grant. We are working toward a compromise very diligently. The process will continue, and the bill now goes back to the House. I fully expect, as we all do, that it will go then to a conference committee. There is no question the original amendment is a good practical solution. It keeps half of the Promise Grant, it creates a means test, and most importantly, it retains a promise to our kids.


It is intent language and I want to share with this body that I have requested the policy bill this afternoon, so it will continue. Importantly, also to all my members who voted in favor of this when it first came up, I have the support, commitment, good faith, and, I believe, the confidence of the chair of higher education appropriations to pursue this policy further. I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join in this mutual effort.



Re: 2009 House Bill 4441 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Higher Education budget )  by Admin003 on June 24, 2009 

 


Senator Gleason, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4441.


Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:


Once again, I rise with concern over our stress on our state budget. Only a few weeks ago, we voted on legislation that indicated that we would support Michigan workers. We passed legislation nearly unanimous, if it wasn’t unanimous, about putting Michigan workers first, yet, with leaving the grant for our nurses, we are continuing an effort that I think is detracting from the coffers of our state. We have a tremendous influx of Canadian nurses coming to our state to fill this void. This is not against the Canadian nurses; this is for Michigan workers and Michigan nurses.


For far too long, we have had a shortage, a void in Michigan nurses. A few years ago, we tried to close this gap by offering these grants by making it a high priority that with the high need and the high acceptance rates of those who wanted to become nurses. We could fill this void with a little bit of financial support. So I ask for a token of recognition and a token of support and financial consideration of raising this allocation to $2.1 million, only 50 percent of prior allocations to the nurses here in Michigan.


In recent times, there has been talk that we may be able to fill some of these voids in our state budget with tax credits. It appears to me that this may be an appropriate place to transfer money from the credits into a much-needed workforce. Every day, we have tough decisions to make because our coffers are so suppressed, and yet, today we say it is okay if Canadian nurses come to Michigan and work in our hospitals. Only a few minutes away lies their country where they will spend their income; where they will purchase their goods at a detraction to our Michigan sales tax coffers.


We are not only losing their income to Canada, but also we are hurting our manufacturing industry with Canadian nurses more than likely purchasing Canadian automobiles from the Canadian dealerships. So those Senators who have communities like mine will be just seeing a reduction. My concern and my reason for supporting this is we’ve recently seen a tremendous cost to our local auto dealerships with closures, and yet, we still see an influx of hundreds of Canadian nurses coming and more than likely purchasing cars from a foreign country. Buying with high-ticket incomes that we could use from nurses in our state, rather than sending the nurses back to Canada and spending their money over in Canada.


I think we need a little more thought in this process in cutting these nurses’ grants. We need the nurses; we need the sales tax receipts; we need the income tax receipts. I think when you look at this holistically, I think this is a bad decision that we are making today by leaving these nurses out of our economic recovery plan. That is exactly what we are doing. We know that there is a waiting list in the nursing schools, and we have known that for some time. Yet, once more, we are going to take a step that I would consider irresponsible in these tough budgetary times.


Let’s take the money that we could pay Michigan workers. We already made a commitment two weeks ago saying we were going to put Michigan workers first, and yet, with this legislation, we are going to continue to put Canadian nurses, Canadian workers, first. I think we can change our philosophy in midstream.



View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.