(1) To increase the number of graduates for the state's workforce; andand they want to change it to provide:
(2) To increase the growth capacity of the state's economy by increasing the innovation and development capacity of the state and by increasing the skills of the state's current workforce
(1) A workforce that meets the current and prospective needs of the state's economy;The first one in both is essentially the same, with one caveat. The revision makes it clear that we're not just after graduates, but after people who can actually work in the context of the state's economy whether they graduate or not. That's a good thing, though from the rest of the bill, I suspect it's not necessarily intended.
(2) Affordable postsecondary educational opportunities for all state citizens;
(3) Access to postsecondary education programs that serve to increase the educational attainment of the state's citizenry and thereby enable citizens to provide leadership in all sectors of life in the state; and
(4) A foundation upon which the state can grow the development and innovation capacities of the state's economy.
The new fourth stated goal and the old second goal are also essentially the same. I'm not entirely sure what "development capacity" means, but as both statements are equally obtuse, I'm not sure it matters. The revision at least has the advantage being about half the length of the old one. If I were to rewrite it though, I'd say "A foundation upon which the state's economy and its workforce can diversify, innovate, and expand" and for the sentimental types I'd add "to meet the changing technological and economic circumstances of the 21st century". People like that "21st century" stuff, kind of like Buzz Lightyear's "To infinity...and Beyond!"
The new 2nd and 3rd goals are really corrollaries of the others. If folks are going to get some sort of post secondary education, they have to be able to afford it, and they have to be able to access it. It's fine to make that explicit, but I think I'd make that subsidiarity clearer.
The bill then appoints a council to do...what? It hasn't really the authority to actually do anything. It recommends goals and performance metrics to the legislature and then monitors those the legislature approves. There is no scope for remedial action if goals aren't met or performance is sub par. The bill also proceeds to make rather automatic the funding levels of post-secondary education, restricting the legislature's ability to redirect funds away from failure and towards success based on those goals and metrics. The power of the purse is the primary disciplinary tool available to the legislature. It is foolish to give that tool away. By not making funding automatic, the legislature is forced to ask these kinds of questions every session - which is difficult and time consuming, I understand, but that's also the legislature's job. It's why we pay them the exorbitant mileage reimbursement rate of $0.05/mile to go to Pierre.
I'd recommend giving the Sec'y of Labor and the Commissioners of Economic Development & Finance the option of sending a designee to the council, and giving the council some interim authority to take remedial action for schools that don't measure up. And I'd recommend not making the funding automatic based on inflation. Toss in an "ordinarily" and "subject to annual legislative review" or some other such phrases to make it clear they need to satisfy the people's representatives that the money is being well spent.
6 comments:
I didn't see any reason for any of this and already emailed one of the bill's authors; of course, no answer.
And the 5 cents per mile reimbursement is only for ONE trip to and ONE trip from Pierre; the rest of their trips are paid at the normal state rate. I doubt very many people know this because it wasn't even explained on the ballot.
If we're going to have publicly funded post-secondary education, it is good to have an explicit purpose for it.
It's then good to see if the institution we're funding in order to achieve that purpose is, in fact, achieving it.
But if you want to eliminate public funding of post-secondary education all together, including all grants, loans, tuition assistance, publicly funded scholarships, and everything else, I'm with you.
As for the 5 cents/mile, my sources disagree with yours. Indeed, the constitutional provision is quite clear - 5 cents "for every mile of necessary travel in going to and returning from the place of meeting of the Legislature on the most usual route." The number of trips they make back and forth during a session is irrelevant, as long as they can justify the trip as "necessary" (if it's not, they get nothing).
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/South_Dakota_Legislative_Travel_Reimbursement_Amendment,_Constitutional_Amendment_N_(2012)
This was the amendment; refers to A trip to and A trip from the session.
-----
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=2-4-2&Type=Statute
"2-4-2. Salary and expense allowances of legislators. The salary of each member of the Legislature is six thousand dollars for every regular legislative session. In addition, each legislator shall receive:
(1) Reimbursement to be paid after the legislative session for actual mileage or its equivalent traveled to and from home not more than once each weekend or between days of recess during the regular legislative session, AT STATE RATES established by the Board of Finance;
(2) Expenses of one hundred ten dollars per day for each day of a regular or special legislative session as prepaid reimbursement for living expenses, including meals and lodging, laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing, and all other uncompensated expenses as defined in § 2-4-2.1 incident to the performance of legislative services; and
(3) Five cents ONCE each session for every mile of necessary travel in going to and returning from the place of meeting of the Legislature by the most usual route."
Above is a direct quote from the SD Codified Law.
As I read that, they get 1 round trip during the session, not 1 round trip at 5¢/mile and after that they get stste rates. After the session (legislature isn't meeting), they get state rates for official travel.
"Reimbursement to be paid after the legislative session for actual mileage or its equivalent traveled to and from home not more than once each weekend OR BETWEEN DAYS OF RECESS DURING THE REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION."
I emailed my legislator to find out what is correct. Hope to hear soon.
I just called the Legislative Research Council in Pierre, and they stated the 5 cents is for one trip to and one trip from Pierre. The rest of the time they get the state rate. I wish they would explain this better to everyone.
Post a Comment