March 7, 2009 in Idaho Voices

SJR 101 moves on to House

• Print
• Email
• Share

BOISE – For more than a century, the University of Idaho hasn’t been able to charge “tuition” to its students – but like other Idaho institutions of higher learning, it’s increasingly charged “fees” instead. In 2005, the Legislature cleared other state universities to charge tuition – fees that students pay specifically to cover the cost of instruction. But the UI was left out of that, because of restrictions that date back to territorial law. Sen. Joe Stegner, R-Lewiston, says it’s time to end that obsolete distinction.

“In this budgetary climate, the University of Idaho cannot manage their budget in the most efficient manner, because they are restricted from using any fees for instructional purposes, unlike all the other institutions,” Stegner told the Senate. He’s co-sponsoring SJR 101, a constitutional amendment, with Senate President Pro-Tem Bob Geddes, House Speaker Lawerence Denney and House Assistant Majority Leader Scott Bedke, to allow tuition at UI.

“It is not anticipated that this would increase tuition charged at the University of Idaho,” Stegner noted. The university still would have to seek state Board of Education approval for fee increases, just as it does now.

Sen. Elliot Werk, D-Boise, said he strongly opposed the change in 2005, because he objects to placing “more of the burden for the cost of an education onto the students’ shoulders.” But at this point, he said, the issue is a simple one of equity between UI and the other colleges and universities.

The Senate voted 32-2 in favor of SJR 101, which now moves to the House. Constitutional amendments need two-thirds approval in each house of the Legislature, plus a majority vote of the people at the next election, to take effect.

When timing is everything

The tax breaks in the federal stimulus bill include a new deduction for sales taxes on vehicle purchases, up to $49,500 of their cost. It phases out for higher-income taxpayers, Sen. Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, explained to legislative budget writers this week, and there’s a specific date-of-purchase range that’s covered: It’s only for new cars, light trucks, RVs and motorcycles purchased from Feb. 17, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2009.

“I purchased a new car, with my wife, on Feb. 12th,” Hill confided to the committee - so he’ll miss out on the break.

The only undistressed spot?

Idaho’s transportation stimulus money, according to federal rules, is supposed to be targeted first to “economically distressed” areas. It turns out, however, that that’s not much of a problem in Idaho.

“It’s my understanding that nearly all of Idaho fits in the definition of ‘economically distressed’ with the exception of the Ketchum-Sun Valley area,” legislative budget analyst Paul Headlee told lawmakers this week, prompting some chuckles and glances at Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, who represents that particular area.

‘Call me a turnout guy’

Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa testified in favor of election consolidation legislation, in the form of HB 201. The bill moves all Idaho elections to just four dates, standardizes polling places and requires county clerks to run all the elections, instead of the more fragmented current system where various districts and jurisdictions run their own elections, on various dates, with their own polling places. The proposal, however, is costly.

“Public policy needs to be set by the most participation - call me a turnout guy. … I think this bill will accomplish it,” Ysursa told the House State Affairs Committee. “I’ve been working on consolidation since the ‘80s,” he said. “I think it’s a good-government bill. I know the fiscal dilemma that we’re in. … The ‘stealth election’ is what we don’t want.”

He voted ‘no’

Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Lava Hot Springs, had a unique reason for opposing the election consolidation bill in the House State Affairs Committee: He doesn’t want more people to vote. “Having run in two school board trustee elections,” he said, “I don’t want somebody voting for me in that election - you have groups of people who are senior citizens who are disinterested in the schools process, who would vote for my opponent,” if the opponent said schools spend too much money. “I want people voting for me who have an interest in that subject that we’re voting for.” Said Andrus, “I kinda like the way the system is now.” He was outvoted; the bill passed.

Early retirement cut might not save

Senate Education Chairman John Goedde, R-Coeur d’Alene says his committee reviewed the $62 million in cuts for public schools proposed earlier by state Superintendent of Schools Tom Luna, and had concerns about whether one really would mean savings. Luna proposed eliminating an early teacher retirement incentive program to save $4 million a year. But Goedde said it all depends on the assumptions, as far as who retires and who replaces them.

The Idaho Education Association estimates eliminating the incentive could actually cost the state $9 million a year, as experienced teachers choose not to retire and be replaced by new, less experienced ones. Either number could be right, depending on the assumptions, Goedde told JFAC.

“So actually the number is probably somewhere in the middle?” asked Sen. Joyce Broadsword, R-Sagle. “That would be my guess,” Goedde said.

Betsy Z. Russell can be reached toll-free at (866) 336-2854 or bzrussell@gmail.com. For more news from Boise go to www.spokesman.com/boise.

No comments on this story so far. Add yours!