Budget
On Tuesday, the House Education Subcommittee on Appropriations met for markup on the Department of Higher Education budget. Rep. Kip Kendrick proposed an amendment to move the $2 million in deferred maintenance designated to UM System into the line item for the TPMC, which passed unanimously. He also proposed an amendment to move $12 million from the Fast Track Grant Initiative for performance funding for all four-year higher education institutions, which failed. The TPMC line item title has been changed to “Precision Medicine Initiative” and with the passage of Rep. Kendrick’s amendment, is now at $3 million versus the original $1 million proposed by Governor Parson. The suggested changes will now go to the House Budget Committee for discussion.
Legislative Day
The annual UM System Legislative Day was held Thursday, Feb. 21. Nearly 100 UM System supporters, exhibitors, faculty and staff participated. This year’s Legislative Showcase included six exhibits showcasing the research and service that UM System provides to Missourians statewide. Campus mascots, President Choi, Chancellor Cartwright, Chancellor Agrawal, Interim Chancellor Maples, Chancellor George and UM System Chief Engagement Officer and Vice Chancellor Stewart spent the morning meeting with House and Senate Leadership to discuss UM System priorities and the budget.
UM System Caucus Announcement
Also on Thursday, Rep. Greg Razer and Sen. Caleb Rowden announced the creation of a UM System Caucus, which is assembled of legislators that have a strong tie to one or more of our UM System campuses and who want to work together to support our university system. We are grateful for all of the support from our state legislators and look forward to working with UM System Caucus moving forward!
Title IX – SB 259
This week, the Senate Education Committee heard SB 259 which implements a process for due process proceedings for Title IX complaints at institutions of higher education. The UM System is opposed to the bill and Assistant Vice Chancellor for Civil Rights and Title IX Andy Hayes testified in opposition to SB 259. Below are some of the concerns the University System has with the bill.
- Federal guidance: There are components of Senate Bill 259 that are inconsistent with proposed federal guidance. Confusion and conflicts could be avoided if the state waited for the issuance of the new federal guidance before taking action.
- Creating an external process: Creating a new and external process would be harmful to the parties involved, as well as the universities, in several ways, which include:
- slowing the process dramatically,
- making it difficult to protect the confidentiality of the proceeding for both parties
- adding significant additional cost to the institutions involved.
- Standard of proof: The bills would require universities to use the “clear and convincing” standard of proof. This is at odds with the proposed federal guidance and would be higher than that which is required for a civil case brought for damages in a court of law.
- Informal resolution options: The bill requires that this option be provided at the beginning of the process. It is not appropriate at this juncture because:
- there is often insufficient information known about the allegations,
- there is too little known about the goals of the involved parties,
- current federal guidance cautions Title IX offices not to provide informal resolution options in certain cases.
- Guaranteed legal representation and subpoena power: This will greatly increase:
- the time it takes to move through the process, and
- the costs to the institution.
- This language also conflicts with the goal of allowing any party to request an expedited hearing as a matter of right.
- Allowing a party to present ANY evidence they wish in a hearing: This prevents the governing body from limiting evidence that is irrelevant or prejudicial. Without any rules there will be no way to control the proceeding.
- Allowing parties to have a copy of the final report: Providing a copy of the report, which will contain information that could violate FERPA, will make it impossible to maintain the required confidentiality.
Reviewed 2019-08-05