Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rationing And Surplus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate seeks to clarify rationing rules and surplus priority; OHE and institutions warn about flexibility tradeoffs
Summary
The Senate inserted statutory language to clarify how Minnesota should ration State Grant awards when appropriations are insufficient and how surplus appropriations should be applied, prompting debate over agency flexibility versus codified procedure.
Conference committee members reviewed competing approaches to rationing — the statutory procedures used when state grant appropriations are insufficient — and to the handling of surplus appropriations when more resources are available than projected demand.
Nonpartisan staff described the two statutory tools historically used to reduce awards when funds are short: (1) add a surcharge to the assigned family responsibility (AFR) percentage and (2) increase the assigned student responsibility (ASR). The Senate offered language clarifying that AFR surcharges may exceed 100% and that any surcharge must be applied as the same percentage across dependent and independent buckets. The Senate also added instructions limiting the methods the commissioner may use to reduce awards and directed order-of-operations for applying surplus money.
“We sometimes call that rationing,” said Mister Watson. The new senate text would also direct that, when there is a surplus, the commissioner “must use any surplus to fully reassess assigned family responsibility … before increasing the living and miscellaneous expense allowance,” language that would make recognition of negative SAI adjustments a priority before raising the LME.
Institutional witnesses and the Office of Higher Education testified that the proposed clarifying language was requested during senate hearings because previous statute lacked detail and because OHE’s earlier implementation during this biennium used additional steps (changing application deadlines and defunding summer term) that institutions viewed as outside what they expected.
Meredith Fergus said the language was solicited by the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State to align expectations about rationing: when rationing occurred in past recessions, OHE and institutions followed a shared interpretation; this draft sought to codify that practice. OHE staff and Commissioner Dennis Olson cautioned that overly prescriptive statutory language could reduce the agency’s flexibility to respond to changing enrollment patterns and federal developments and urged retaining some discretion.
No binding statute was adopted at the hearing; chairs and agency staff discussed tradeoffs between clarity for institutions and flexibility for future unanticipated developments.
