1 Reply by kittycollier

(3 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

KBinHoover:

The sad part is that AU and UA don't care if they don't get PACT students.  For the most part, they have waiting lists of students who want to attend their institutions, and if they don't fill the seats with an in-state student, they'll be happy to fill the seat with an out-of-state student who pays more tuition (at least the ones who don't live within 50 miles of the school and actually pay out of state tuition). 

My Opinion For What It's Worth:  It's no secret that universities (and all higher education) have strong ties to legislators and are very effective in the political process.  Many legislators are current or former members of Boards of Trustees - and probably get great football tickets; some legislators actually work for a university or two-year college (John Rogers at UAB, for example); there have been several two-year college presidents who served in the legislature at the same time they were college presidents; universities and two-year colleges also employ some legislative spouses/children, etc.;  universities and two-year colleges also do significant business with legislator's firms/companies, etc.  If someone had the time to track PAC to PAC donations, I think we would also find that some universities make very large donations to political campaigns.  Every university and two-year college is located in somebody's legislative district, and it is a rare legislator who does not feel responsible/obligated to any university or two-year college in his or her district.  University lobbyists are paid to stay in constant communication with legislators, and they do a good job.    Universities and two-year colleges in most states are major players in the political process, and Alabama is no exception. 

Do I think the situation is hopeless?  Definitely not . . . but I do not think the legislature will solve it on their own.  We have a history in Alabama of letting federal and state courts solve our public policy issues, and I think the PACT contracts will be no different.  It will cost the State more money in the long run, but that's how we solve problems in Alabama in far too many cases.

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

2 Topic by kittycollier

(3 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

I'm really offended that univeresities have pitted PACT students against non-PACT students . . . and suggested that non-PACT students will have to pay the tuition for PACT students if the tuition cap is approved.  I am not asking non-PACT students to do anything for my PACT contract holder . . . but I am telling the State to honor its contract.  I do understand politics, but this tactic is unconscionable . . . and now I am mad!  I expect what I paid for, and I do NOT expect other students to make that payment.  I also resent the implication that PACT students want non-PACT students to pay for their education.  That is a lie.

As a result, I'm taking a bit different approach in my communication with legislators (and universities). The impact of the tuition cap discussion should not be making the 90% of non-PACT students pay the tuition gap for the 10% of PACT students - rather, the real issue is the what is happening with tuition increases for ALL students (PACT and non-PACT).

I think all public universities should limit tuition increases for ALL students to 2 1/2% at least until 2016 when the economy is predicted to get better, or at least tie increases to the cost of living.   I know universities have taken a hit in legislative funding, but Alabama families also have taken a hard hit.  Has your salary increased an average of 7.7% for the last nine years?  Will your salary increase 13-14% for each of the next two years (Auburn's announced tuition increases)?

The unemployment rate in February was over 11% statewide, with 22 counties showing an unemployment rate of 15% or more.   Alabama families are hurting.

At the least, universities should be required to post a tuition increase plan for a five-year schedule - no more announcing tuition increases in March to May or even August that go into effect that same Fall.  In my opinion, universities also should give specific plans for what they will do with the increase and provide an opportunity for parents, students, legislators, and alumni to offer input.   If the increase will support increases for faculty salaries, I might be in favor of it.  If it is to support to construction of new facilities, maybe not . . . at least, not in this economy.

The question is NOT whether it is fair for non-PACT students to pay the tuition gap for PACT students.  The question is what tuition level is fair for ALL students.  Alabamians are hurting . . . universities should be part of the solution.

I

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

3 Reply by kittycollier

(11 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

I am not a lawyer, but I have to think that the thousands of people who have already received full PACT contract tuition benefits will have some influence on the outcome if this issue goes to Court.  Why should some contract holders receive the full tuition benefits of their contracts, and others receive only partial benefit?  A discrimination claim always adds an interesting dimension to a lawsuit . . .surely the the legislature and the universities would not want to face discrimination charges as part of a legal battle.

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

4 Reply by kittycollier

(2 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

Here is an article from the Gadsden Times that reports on the breakfast and remarks about PACT.
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/201 … &tc=pg

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

5 Topic by kittycollier

(2 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

Montgomery/Prattville Area Folks -
Date:  March 23, 2010
Time:  7:15-9:00 a.m.
What:  Business Breakfast at Auburn University at Montgomery
Speakers:  Dr. Gouge, President of Auburn University, and Dr. Portera, Chancellor of the University of Alabama System
Topic:  Issues Facing Higher Education
Cost:  $25/person
To Register:  Call 334-244-3804 or email ConEdInfo@aum.edu

Here is our chance to hear the AU president and UA chancellor talk about higher education issues.  My guess is that there is a good chance PACT will come up - and all the reasons why the two universities cannot accept a tuition cap.  Let's have a great turnout at the breakfast to keep the discussion "balanced."  Would be great if attendees wear the green t-shirts!

You don't have to be from the Montgomery area to attend; it is open to anyone.  Also, if you are employed, your business may be willing to cover the cost.

The AUM Division of Continuing Education hosts the Business Breakfast Series which brings the business and education communities together to hear topics on state, local, and national issues.

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

6 Reply by kittycollier

(2 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

It's November 16th, and the 2010 Legislative Session starts in early January.  Greg Wren has shared with us his proposals.  Has any other legislator made public any plans for addressing the PACT problems in the 2010 session?  Has any legislator indicated support for Wren's proposals?

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

7 Reply by kittycollier

(9 replies, posted in Tuscaloosa (U of A) Area Group Forum)

Donna,
Go to this page on the State Treasuer's website:  http://www.treasury.alabama.gov/pact/ad … l_info.htm and click on the line:  Active Accounts by purchaser state, city, & zip code
9/21/09 Report  at the botton of the right column.  The Treasurer's office posted this information on 9/21/09.  It provides the number of active PACT contracts (based on purchaser addresses) by zip code, city, and state as of 9/8/2009.  Total active PACT contracts statewide is 45,645.  I am working with some folks to develop a map reflecting the totals by county (the data is by city, but we have something that converts sums all the cities in a county).  FYI, the total number of active PACT purchasers in Madison County alone is 4,032.  Morgan County has 1277.  Hope to have a map for everyone to look at in a few days.  Also, there are active PACT contracts in every county in the State.  Should be an effective tool with legislators.

Go to forum: Tuscaloosa (U of A) Area Group Forum

8 Reply by kittycollier

(1 replies, posted in Comments from Legislators you have spoken with)

This is a copy of an e-mail that I received from Greg Wren's office last week.

Kitty,

Thanks as always for contacting me with your concerns.

I am reaching out to all the legislative leadership on this issue. Budget committees are working on this issue, Dr. Bronner continues to work on it, and the Governor's office is working on it. However, the PACT board  is ULTIMATELY responsible to the PACT program and to the PACT contract holders for the decisions which they have made, which resulted in the current financial condition of the PACT. They, too, must be held accountable. I challenge you and your email distribution list to also direct attention to the PACT Board Members.

We will continue to seek out a solution to the problem, but it is not just the 48,000 contract holders affected, it also includes the 4.5 million Alabamians who could be saddled with funding a solution. Therefore it must be a very, very, thoughtful approach especially during a time of severe budget concerns and massive economic hardships throughout families in Alabama.

I am at my post, engaged, and will continue to fight the good fight as we negotiate some responsible solution. Its out there we just haven't found it yet.

Sincerely,

Representative Greg Wren
Alabama House of Representatives
4213 Carmichael Road
Montgomery, AL 36106
334-395-0123 (O)
334-396-4787 (F)
www.gregwren.com

Go to forum: Comments from Legislators you have spoken with

9 Reply by kittycollier

(2 replies, posted in Legislators You Believe Support Pact)

Paul - great work - and good to hear that you had such genuine interest in your concerns.

I'm thinking we need to compile a list of all senators and representatives.  As we get responses from them, we can compile a roster of who supports what.  We need a quick guide of who is listening to us - and who isn't.

Go to forum: Legislators You Believe Support Pact

10 Reply by kittycollier

(6 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

Ruth,
I have a packet of meeting materials that we used at the Montgomery area meeting.  It would be easy to update it for the Tuscaloosa area.  If it's something that you think might be helpful, send your e-mail address to me at kittycollier@savealabamapact.com and I will send the information to you.

Good luck!
Kitty

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

11 Reply by kittycollier

(9 replies, posted in Birmingham Area Group)

When we started a group in Montgomery, the first thing I did was send a message to everyone on my personal e-mail contact list.  I explained that we were trying to compile a list of PACT contract holders in the Montgomery area, that the Treasurer's office would not release a list to us, and also asked them to forward to everyone on their contact list.  I had a good response to that e-mail and compiled the info into an excel spreadsheet.  When I want to contact Montgomery area contract holders, I copy the e-mail addresses in the BCC (to keep the contact information confidential) and then send out an e-mail.  I also have found that folks will read an e-mail from me quicker than they will look at posts on this forum, so I often send out an e-mail re-emphasizing something in the forum.

Running an ad in your local paper would be effective, too, but it will cost more than e-mail circulation. 

We also held a meeting of Montgomery area folks which also brought in new members - publicized the meeting on this forum and facebook.  If you will e-mail me at kittycollier@savealabamapact.com, I will send you a copy of the packet that we used at our meeting - you could revise to fit the needs of your group.  Good luck.

Go to forum: Birmingham Area Group

12 Reply by kittycollier

(19 replies, posted in RSA STUDY of PACT)

I absolutely agree . . . but I do not think Governor Riley is going to take a leadership role.  On August 7, I wrote a letter to Governor Riley, which requested, in part:  "Based on recent news reports, it is my understanding that the RSA report on the PACT contract program will be presented to you in the next couple of weeks.  I request that you give this study your full attention when it is released, and that that you use the information in the study to pull together a coalition of legislators, higher education leaders, and state officials to craft a solution for the problem before the start of the 2010 legislative session.  In particular, in your role as an ex officio member of the university Boards of Trustees, please persuade the universities to be part of the solution to the PACT problems through responsible policies on tuition increases."

Yesterday, I received his response.  "As I have stated previously, I do believe that the state has a moral obligation to uphold its commitment to PACT and PACT contract holders.  The RSA study of the financial condition of the PACT program that was ordered by the Legislature during the 2009 Regular Session has been received and is currently being reviewed.  Even though I do not administer PACT or serve as a member of its Board of Directors, I have discussed potential solutions with various people, including several members of the Board and members of the Legislature.  Now it is up to the leadership of the Legislature to reach a consensus as to how to proceed to adress this issue.  I remain willing to call a special session to address the needs of the program if a consensus is reached on the appropriate course of action."

It is clear to me that Governor Riley is sympathetic but uninvolved - he seems to think his only role in all of this is to call a special session once the legislature figures out what to do.  He did not even address my comments re: the need to involve higher education leaders and tuition increases, and he is an ex officio member of every university Board of Trustees.

Go to forum: RSA STUDY of PACT

13 Reply by kittycollier

(53 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

I think Artur Davis said it best in his comments to Save Alabama PACT on Wednesday.  The State can pay on the front end (by doing the right thing and honoring all the contracts ) or the State can pay on the back end (through a court suit - and the cost will be even higher - and the lawyers will probably come out the biggest winners).  The question is not "should" we honor all the contracts - but rather "when" we honor all the contracts.

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

14 Reply by kittycollier

(2 replies, posted in Montgomery Area Group Forum)

I do not have access to the statewide list.  These are names Rebecca & Patti had sent me as possible folks in the Montgomery area, but I have no contact info on them - and don't even know if they are from Montgomery.

Go to forum: Montgomery Area Group Forum

15 Topic by kittycollier

(2 replies, posted in Montgomery Area Group Forum)

When you sign up for Save Alabama PACT on our website, we do not yet have the ability to ask for your city.  I'm trying to figure out if the following people should be on my Montgomery area list, in addition to the statewide list.  If so, please send me your e-mail address:  kittycollier@savealabamapact.com

Emily Watson Gregory
Merritt Rae Simpson Hays
Mitch Dawson
Kathryn Blackburn
Betty Johnson Wilson
Terri McDonald
David Michael Sigler

Go to forum: Montgomery Area Group Forum

16 Reply by kittycollier

(6 replies, posted in Contracts...Real or Memorex??)

Someone with a "legal" mind might want to review what the Attorney Geneal has said about the state seal.  Evidently, there is a difference between a facimilie/copy of the state seal and the state seal itself.  If this link doesn't work, go to the Attorney General (State of AL) website and put in "state seal" in the search for opinions.

http://www.ago.state.al.us/opinion_resu … d=FullText

Go to forum: Contracts...Real or Memorex??

17 Reply by kittycollier

(2 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

If somewhat contacts the State Treasurer's Office re: the time, can we "gently" request that they have a microphone for any speakers? - At the last meeting, we could very little of what was being said in the staff reports because they were facing away from the audience and did not have microphones.  Want to be sure that we hear anything that is said about the RSA study.

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

18 Topic by kittycollier

(2 replies, posted in Montgomery Area Group Forum)

The Montgomery/Central Alabama Area Save Alabama PACT group will meet on August 4, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at Capitol Heights United Methodist Church (2000 Winona Avenue, Montgomery, AL).  The purpose of the meeeting is to give PACT contract holders and supporters an update on activities of Save Alabama PACT, to discuss action strategies, and to increase the number of contacts in the Central Alabama area.  If the RSA study has been released by that time, we will discuss the findings and any recommendations and implications for our action agenda.

For more information on the meeting or for a copy of the meeting flyer, please contact Kitty Collier at kittycollier@knology.net

Go to forum: Montgomery Area Group Forum

19 Reply by kittycollier

(12 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

In my opinion, we do not, as a group, need to take a position on the source of state funding to make the PACT program solvent.  The source of funding, as reflected in the previous comments, can be very divisive.  I think our focus should be on holding the State to honoring the contracts - expect and demand that the legislature and other political leaders figure out the source of the funds.

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

20 Reply by kittycollier

(1 replies, posted in Legislators Speak For Themselves)

E-mail Dated 5/29/2009

PACT Program Update From Representative Greg Wren
 
   
The Birmingham News has written two editorials recently regarding the Alabama PACT Program. If you haven't seen them I have posted the links to the articles below for your convenience.

OUR VIEW: Bailout for Alabama prepaid college plan doesn't justify cost of special session
http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-comm … ama_p.html 
 
OUR VIEW: Alabama's troubled prepaid tuition plan should be studied first, bailed out later
http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-comm … d_pre.html 

I would like to take this opportunity to clear up several misconceptions regarding the PACT Program, and possibly ease the minds of the PACT Program holders.
 
Current estimates of the PACT Program show that it has enough funds on hand to cover the next six years of obligations.  Keep in mind these estimates are if the PACT Program received no additional returns on the investments currently held in the PACT Fund. Therefore, current estimates report the PACT Fund has sufficient reserves pay its obligations through 2014.

There were a multitude of bills introduced by various legislators after the PACT Board issued a release about the financial viability of the PACT Program. I was one of only three legislators who voted against HB747 by Rep. Craig Ford after an amendment added by Rep. Alvin Holmes gutted the bill by allowing only PACT contracts purchased prior to December 1995 to be protected.  During the final days of the 2009 Regular Session, the Legislature did pass a resolution for the Retirement Systems of Alabama to review and analyze current problems with the PACT and make recommendations as to how to go about fixing these issues. This review is expected to take no more than 45 days to complete.

Our best course of action is to thoroughly review the results of the RSA's assessment and develop informed and well planned solutions. As I have stated before, the Legislature doesn't need to knee-jerk react by passing legislation which could make a difficult situation even worse. I will remain engaged in this critical issue in the months ahead and seek solutions that are both fair to PACT Program contract holders and the taxpayers who may be asked to fund a solution.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.


Greg Wren

Go to forum: Legislators Speak For Themselves

21 Reply by kittycollier

(46 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

As you make contacts with the Governor and the legislature, you might consider making a few points in the "Alabama Profile of Adult Learners, 2008" found at http://www.cael.org/pdf/state_profiles/ALABAMA.pdf

Honoring the PACT contracts is good not only for the individual contract purchasers and beneficiaries, but it is also good for the State.

"Working-age residents with college degrees are 59% more likely to participate in the workforce than those with less than a high school diploma.  And their earnings over a lifetime are twice as much - a substantial personal benefit as well as a benefit to the state with respect to more taxable resouces, fewer health problems, lower rates of crime, and greater levels of civic engagement"

"A lower percentage of young adults have earned college degreen [in Alabama] than the U.S. average, and much lower than the top states and the most educated countries.

Their definition of % completed college includes associates or higher.  If it were limited to baccalaureate degrees, it would be even lower.

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

22 Reply by kittycollier

(6 replies, posted in Contracts...Real or Memorex??)

We also need to look at the Alabama Administrative Code, Section 16-33c to review the regulations that the PACT Board has adopted to govern how they administer the PACT program.  Sometimes, the administrative rules can be enlightening . . . not sure if they carry the weight of law but I know they are important.
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CODE … -33C-1.htm

Go to forum: Contracts...Real or Memorex??

23 Reply by kittycollier

(14 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

If the stock market had not bottomed out last year, would we be where we are now . . . that is, did the Treasurer's Office know they had a PACT crisis without the stock market issues?  If so, when did they figure that out?

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

24 Reply by kittycollier

(14 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

At the risk of being obtuse, I want to know why Kay believes that PACT Board has few options under the current law.  Her May 13, 2009 press release stated: “The PACT Board operates only within the current – though outdated – law that originated PACT in 1990 and the rules and regulations that govern 529 college savings plans.  Absent authorization by the legislature, the PACT Board will be extraordinarily limited in its options . . .”  In a later paragraph in that same press release, she stated:  “Absent legislation this session being passed or the absence of this empowerment to the Pact Board in the form of a strongly worded resolution, the PACT Board under current law has but few options.”  I assume that the options that she is referring to are the ones outlined on the PACT website – none of which are acceptable.  What language or section in the current law requires the PACT Board to pursue only those options?  I guess another way of asking the question is:  What is the rationale for believing that the law  - as currently written - requires only one of the options outlined on her website, as opposed to continuing to pay tuition for PACT participants while we develop a solution?   Maybe this question has been answered somewhere, but I’d like to see the rationale outlined clearly.  If it is based on the amount of money she has to retain in the fund should all contract holders withdraw participation, I’d like to see the numbers.   I may be the only one confused by this . . .

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT

25 Reply by kittycollier

(53 replies, posted in General Comments Regarding PACT)

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the irritation and dismay many (of us – myself included) PACT purchasers have had with the legislature’s lack of action this session, and I am coming to the conclusion that we need to change the pressure point a bit.  In all fairness to the legislature (I find it really strange to be defending them), they did not learn about this problem any sooner than we did – and yet they were expected to come up with the solution in just a couple of months.  After reading Kay’s press release, it sounds to me like she is saying that if the legislature does not pass any of the proposed bills or a resolution, the PACT Board will have to close the program.  WHY?  The program has operated since 1989 pr 1990 without a resolution or additional legislation.  At this point, the worst thing that could happen is that “bad” or “incomplete” legislation be enacted.   I think we should ask the legislature to join us in 1) pressuring the PACT Board to commit to pay fall and winter tuition & fees next year, and 2) working with the a committee of the legislature, PACT purchasers, Governor’s Office, PACT Board, higher ed institutions, etc. to develop a solution before the session begins next year.

Go to forum: General Comments Regarding PACT