I think this is a great start, but I still have lots of questions.  Has anyone seen the Legislative Fiscal Office analysis of this bill?  How much will $150 million cover?  What if tuition and fees continue to rise?  Will this be enough funds to ensure ALL contracts are honored long term?  It will be difficult to get a majority of voters to approve any bill.  We need to be sure what is presented will be detailed enough to honor ALL current contract holders.  What happens if it is approved in 2010 but there aren't enough funds in 2015 to honor all contracts and to make the repayment?  What if the $25 million funds aren't needed the 3rd or 4th year?  What if more funds are needed the 3rd or 4th year?  This should certainly help to honor more contracts over the next 3 or 4 years but will it really guarantee that all contracts are honored long term?  Isn't that what we really want?

We have to SAVE ALABAMA PACT for everyone who has been promised an education..Nothing  else is acceptable ..

Article today: PACT Rescue Plan get Committee OK

http://www.al.com/birminghamnews/storie … amp;coll=2

Mary-
I just removed the original HB747 from the documents to reduced questions.

If you go to the Documents section off the Home page you will see the Proposed HB747 Bill AS Ammended.

This is the current bill being reviewed.

I have several concerns that I'm going to throw out for discussion. I hope someone has answers!

I just read the proposed bill and am very concerned. It sounds good until you get to the part about a consititutional amendment.  Why is that necessary? I am afraid this is a Legislative soft-shoe routine .... "we tried to help, but the voters wouldn't let us."
As you can see from  earlier comments from a newspaper blog provided by Sheila ... many  people do not understand our point of view and will NOT vote for an amendement that does not benefit them. We have got to be realistic about this.

2)  I would like to know more about the fund that was mentioned during the PACT board meeting. Will moving that money into pact need approval, too? I see where they want to have another meeting to discuss their proposals for the Legislature. In the meantime, the session clock is ticking away.

We have got to keep on top of this!

3) What happens if NOTHING is done in the legislature. They currently appear to be more concerned with gambling than anything else. If there is no relief from that area, what happens next?

4) I see where they plan to pay for summer tuition, but I thought the original discussion mentioned Summer AND Fall....

5) Why does Riley feel he has to stay out of this? As someone who is NOT up for election, he is in the perfect position to help craft a plan that doesn't embarrass the state of Alabama by lying to its citizens.

Back to ya'll

Every statement we are making in support of the PACT program on this website reflect these words...

ALL PACT CONTRACTS GET HONORED...NO CHILD GETS LEFT BEHIND

HB747 amended by Holmes is not acceptable to the founders and members of SaveAlabamaPACT.com...that is the bottom line...

I totally agree, HB747 is not acceptable! ALL PACT CONTRACT MUST BE HONORED. We have got to stick together on this and not feel some comfort if we happened to have purchased contracts before 1995. We cannot be fractured. We must stay united.

I have finally laughed for the first time this week umgrad, thanks for the post...God has finally spoken!

But will the Moses' of the Legislature listen enough to hear!!!!

NO ONE GETS LEFT BEHIND....can you hear that Moses!

Thanks for the info umgrad

I'm afraid my comments about Holmes bill  were misunderstood. ... I guess I didn't state clearly enough that what might be good for some of us is NOT good for all. ..and that is NOT acceptable!

we ARE all of the same mind... and stand together!

This constitutional amendment is never likely to pass in the election.  Alabama voters (and lawmakers) have proven themselves time and again to be incredibly short-sighted when dealing with long term issues particularly relating to education.  Even if ALL PACT-affected parties were to vote for it - and surely everyone purchasing a contract after 1995 would certainly not unless changes were made to cover all contracts - we are merely half a million against the rest of the "nothing's in it for me so I'm against it" remaining voting populace.  Just another way to play politics at the constituents' expense again - "well, at least we took action - It's not OUR fault the problem didn't get fixed - the people have spoken".  What half-assed crap.

I am extremely upset with our State legislators over this whole PACT ordeal.   HB 747 is an apparent political ploy to avoid accountability.  It makes it appear that the House is "doing something," but in reality, it is doing nothing constructive.  In order to implement the constitutional amendment called for in the bill to borrow the funds supposedly needed to fund the program, a state referendum will need to be conducted, whereby the voters of the State pass the "amendment."   The number of voters directly effected by the  refusal of the State Treasurer to comply with its contracts is not so large as to cause a huge "statewide" outcry, although there is a huge "outcry."  Therefore, this bill is a "political" way to make this problem go away, assuming that the affected voters will be insufficient to pass the amendment.  Even if it passes, where do we borrow the money? 

Some of the comments used in arguing against the funding of the PACT program, such as "giving money to a bunch of rich folks," are ridiculous and completely miss the point.  Most of us bought into the PACT program, because we could not otherwise afford to send our children to college.  We were told, as is clearly stated in the promotional materials and the "contracts", that the State  was "guaranteeing" the payment of tuition at any State college or university.  We saved and sacrificed and "believed to our detriment" that we were funding our children's education.  How clearer can it possibly be?  Now our legislators and Mr. Hubbard are arguing about who should do what and how it should be done, while completely missing the point.   The State Treasurer "guaranteed" the payment of tuition for 4 years at a State college or university.....PERIOD.   So why the debate?  Why the need for any legislation?  The State Treasurer should be trying to figure this out "internally."  If is not an issue for the voters.   This is not California, where any contract can be broken if your attorney is paid enough and can burden the other side with so much paperwork that they finally give up.   This is Alabama where many of us still hold to the old traditions that a man's word is his bond.   A man's word is as good as any written contract.  (Although in this case, we have written contracts.)  If our word is no longer our bond then, where have we come as a society?   Are our once proud and honorable Southern traditions  now gone forever?  I, personally, do not think so.  Some of us still hold to being upfront and honest, meaning what we say and saying what we mean.   If "we" enter into an agreement and, in order to honor it, "we" lose money, then we lose money.   That is the way I was raised, that is the way I am raising my children, and that is the right and honorable thing to do.   

As it stands now, I am beside myself that HB 747 was even proposed, and losing years of my life over the fact that there were enough members of the House who voted to pass it.     Where are our elected officials who swore an oath to us, the people, to properly represent us with honesty and integrity?   Where can I get the names and districts of each member of the House and Senate who are either not "completely" supporting the honoring of our PACT contracts or are being wishy washy about their position on the issue, so that I can immediately start sending money to the oppositions campaigns?  I would also like information about any class being organized should litigation be necessary.  Of couse, I am not a litigation attorney and abhore the thought of this coming to that, but the facts look pretty clear to the discerning person.   Some of us still believe in a clear cut right and wrong, and not honoring the PACT contracts is clearly wrong.   There should be accountability here.  Any bill to explain or justify anything is unnecessary.   Given some of the numbers of "unaccounted for millions" missing from the fund, I suggest that the State Treasurer's office do whatever it takes, "internally," to make this happen, and Mr. Hubbard act with just a little bit of reason (which, up to now, he has failed to do) to freeze tuition for PACT participants.   The freezing of tuition, however, is only a short term solution, and we need long term results for all those who are already in the program and have been since 1995.  This should not be a "politicized" issue.  It boils down to one simple issue: Will the State of Alabama honor is "contracts" (its word) with PACT participants or not?....bottom line.   All this talk of legislation is nothing more that playing political games to avoid accountability.

Another emailer wrote:
"Hell no I'm not for the amendment! Because I'm one who bought a contract in 2001 for my daughter!

Regardless they still advertised the contract as GUARANTEED!"