|
Control the Chancellor's Power
HB 1 has two section. Section one makes permanent changes to the Ohio Revised Code. Section two makes temporary changes to the law. Temporary law changes are only effective for the duration of the budget. The temporary law section in HB1 gives the Chancellor the power to set instructional and general fees for associate degrees. OFT feels this too much power and usurp the power of community colleges boards of trustees.
HB 1 says the following:
“Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents may, in consultation with state-assisted institutions of higher education, adjust the instructional and general fee amounts charged for an associate degree program at a state-assisted institution of higher education for the 2009-2010 academic year and the 2010-2011 academic year, subject to Controlling Board approval.”
| Sample Letter for Campaign |
Subject: Limit the Chancellor's power to set fees at community colleges
Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,
I am writing from Owens Communty College. I am concerned about the language in HB 1 that allows the Chancellor to set instructional fees at community colleges.
In the temporary law section of HB 1 it says the following:
"Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Chancellor of the Board of Regents may, in consultation with state-assisted institutions of higher education, adjust the instructional and general fee amounts charged for an associate degree program at a state-assisted institution of higher education for the 2009-2010 academic year and the 2010-2011 academic year, subject to Controlling Board approval."
In the last General Assembly, HB 119 gave the Governor and Chancellor unprecedented power. While we are pleased with many of the actions taken by the Governor and the Chancellor to improve higher education in Ohio, we are deeply concerned about this action.
We believe that extending this power in the temporary section of law creates an untenable situation. First, no one person should have power that exceeds that of an institution's board regarding revenue, not even for two years. HB 1 calls for tuition caps and provides incentives to maintain these caps. Second, the Controlling Board isn't a proper check. The Chancellor would have the full force of his office to encourage the change he wants. Third, this authority could impact branch campuses of four-year institutions that offer associates degrees. Finally, it would be a dangerous precedent to set because it would negate the power of the individual institution's boards.
Our preference is to see the language struck or to replace the Controlling Board language with the following: in conjunction with the board of the individual institutions. Fairness and a greater role for the institutions of higher education call for a change to this language.
I thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
|
