Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JBC debates restoring higher‑education funding cut by governor; seeks legal clarity
Summary
The committee examined a roughly $9.5 million general‑fund reduction to higher education imposed via the governor’s executive order. Members debated whether the legislature can or should reverse executive cuts and asked legal staff to clarify the governor’s authority over appropriations and contracts before deciding.
Alfredo Kim, JBC staff, presented a supplemental aligning higher-education appropriations with governor-ordered reductions totaling about $9,500,000 in general fund for institution operating budgets. Kim said the reductions were taken by the governor under statutory authority and that institutions have adjusted to the changes.
Several committee members objected to accepting the cuts without a fuller legislative review. Senator Kirkmeyer and others argued the legislature need not "rubber-stamp" executive-order reductions that alter previously adopted appropriations, especially for enterprises that operate under fee-for-service contracts. Members asked whether the governor can lawfully restrict money already appropriated and whether contracts containing "subject to available appropriations" clauses can be curtailed midyear.
Legal advisors from the Office of Legislative Legal Services told the committee the answers depend on statute and contract specifics and agreed to research whether enterprises and fee-for-service contracts can be lawfully restricted in the governor's plan. OLS noted statutory revenue‑shortfall triggers authorize executive actions in some cases; the committee asked staff to follow up. Director Craig Harper and other staff explained practical consequences: if the governor restricts spending and the legislature does not accept the cut, the committee would still have to find other cuts or use reserves to balance the budget.
Outcome: the committee tabled a final decision pending legal follow-up and further consultation with OLS and administration staff, but members recorded contrasting views about whether to accept the cuts now or press to restore funding and cut other items instead.
