Topic: Committee sends up a puff of white smoke!
No, we don't have a new pope, but it seems we have reached a compromise. Still needs to be voted on by House and Senate, but seems very promising!
(Could Hubbert have enough clout to kill this?)
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
We welcome your membership, questions and responses on our website and forum
Save Alabama PACT Discussion Forum » General Comments Regarding PACT » Committee sends up a puff of white smoke!
No, we don't have a new pope, but it seems we have reached a compromise. Still needs to be voted on by House and Senate, but seems very promising!
(Could Hubbert have enough clout to kill this?)
House and Senate have passed SB162. Hopefully it won't be shot down in courts by representatives of institutions w/ capped tuition. This ain't over, but we are now in the driver's seat for the first time in a while.
Just curious, why is it that all seven votes against PACT in the House came from African-American representatives? Maybe somebody who was there can tell me. What was their agenda?
They opposed the caps on the regional colleges, many of which are financially burdened historical black colleges. This is where the rubber is going to meet the road I'm afraid as I'm sure courts will be asked to rule on what could be seen as inequitable treatment between UA, AU, and the rst of the colleges.
Here's the revised SB 162 as changed by the committee and passed yesterday. In my opinion, this would be perfect if they changed one word - 'unseverable'. Basically, if anything in this bill is ruled unconstitutional then the entire bill is void. There really was no reason to have this in the bill and it was removed from the earlier version a couple of weeks ago by amendment. Not sure why they felt the need to put this back in here. Without it, PACT would be assured of at least getting the money from the Education Trust Fund even if all caps are later removed. With it, the whole thing could blow up and we will have to start entirely over.
Part of me wishes Riley would veto this and send it back to change that one word.
Riley did suggest a revision to avoid a potential tax issue. This has already cleared the Senate but will give the House another opportunity to filibuster. Expected to pass though, and probably by the same margin as last night.
Posts [ 5 ]