Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Applied Technology Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House refuses to concur with Senate changes that would convert applied-technology centers to stand-alone colleges
Summary
Late-night debate over House Bill 34 centered on a Senate substitution that would create five new applied-technology colleges under Board of Regents governance; members said the change was substantive, lacked public hearings and could disrupt existing high-school and center programs. The House voted to refuse to concur and sent the matter back to the Senate.
The Utah House of Representatives voted on Feb. 28 to refuse to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 34, a late-session substitution that would convert several applied-technology centers into stand-alone applied-technology colleges and move governance under the Board of Regents.
Representative Stevens, who led the motion to refuse to concur, told colleagues the Senate’s substitute was a ‘‘substantial change’’ rolled out at about 5:03 a.m. on the final night of the session and that members had not had a public hearing on what he described as a major shift in governance. “This task force studied this issue for a year and came back with a proposal that went to the senate, and ... where we are today is substantially different,” Stevens said on the floor.
Opponents and supporters alike pointed to practical and process concerns. Representative Pace warned the change could strip high schools of access to equipment and programs they currently rely on, saying local public-education programs ‘‘could not compete nor replace the [applied-technology center] grants’’ if centers were converted to colleges. Representative Buckmire and others urged more public input and a slower process. Representative Butters said the ramifications were ‘‘far reaching’’ and urged caution.
Supporters of keeping money or creating the new structure argued applied-technology regions and centers have long-standing funding disparities that need resolution. Representative Stevens said the House had moved funding into its bill to protect equalizing money for the applied-technology centers while the broader governance issue was resolved.
The motion to refuse to concur carried on the House floor; the clerk recorded that the House would send the bill back to the Senate for further consideration. No formal change to policy or governance took effect as a result of the vote; the action sends the competing proposals back to the Senate for negotiation or conference committee action.
What happens next: The bill will return to the Senate for further action; several House members said they expect either Senate recission of the amendments or a conference committee where lawmakers from both chambers could negotiate a compromise.
Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the legislative transcript of the Feb. 28, 2001 House floor session.
