SB 434 becomes part of House Bill 2506 First meeting of local legislative feasibility committee meeting canceled as HB 2506 passes

A Senate Bill which could have greatly impacted Fort Scott Community College became part of a House Bill which will give all higher education more money.

Senate Bill 434, the SUCCESS Act, which was submitted in early March, would have allowed community colleges in Kansas to reduce a portion of their mill levy in exchange for state dollars.

Had the bill continued through the proper channels unchanged, FSCC would have had a chance to participate in the program.

"Once I got word (earlier this week) that it wasn't being considered again, I didn't really follow it too closely, because it's not relevant anymore," FSCC President Clayton Tatro said Thursday.

News of the bill generated criticism from some Fort Scott residents who saw it as a way for FSCC to eventually be merged with Pittsburg State University.

During March's FSCC Board of Trustee regular meeting, a motion was passed to establish a legislative feasibility committee for the purpose of evaluating and reviewing proposed Senate Bill 434. The board asked any interested citizens to join the committee. Approximately 30 citizens responded and were selected for the committee. The first scheduled meeting was set for Thursday on the campus of FSCC. However, the meeting was canceled due to the latest developments with SB 434.

"I am encouraged that our board, and people in the community have expressed an interest and a willingness to look at and explore, and consider new funding models," Tatro said. "The plan right now, and this if from (FSCC Board of Trustees President) Robert Nelson, is that we would not have a (legislative feasibility) committee meeting until the idea is discussed again at the April 21st board meeting."

Former Kansas Sen. Bob Marshall of Fort Scott has been following the bill closely.

"Senate Bill 434 came out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, and onto the Senate floor, and then they put the bill into (Senate Substitute for) House Bill 2506," Marshall said Thursday. "In the conference committee, the bill became an amendment to 2506. So it was taken out of a House Bill in the conference committee."

With HB 2506, the state will give an additional $169,698 to the Municipal University Operating Grant from the State General Fund this year and in 2015.

"Senate Bill 434 in whatever form it ends up in, adds $5.3 million dollars to fund higher education," Marshall said. "And the legislature had already cut $65.8 million out of higher education over two fiscal years. And, with this amendment to Senate Bill 434, whatever you call it, is adding $5.3 million dollars to the cost of higher education. And they just couldn't justify adding that $5.3 million after they had already cut $65.8 million. So it became a monetary situation."

With SB 434, 19 community colleges in Kansas would have had an opportunity to submit a written proposal for the state funding. Writing in the bill stated, "The SUCCESS selection committee shall select at least one, but not more than two applicants as participants in the program."

Last month, Tatro said Jacob LaTurner, a District 13 Republican, as well as District 12 Republican Kansas Sen. Caryn Tyson, District 2 Representative Adam Lusker, a House Democrat, and District 4 Representative Marty Read, a House Republican, "to some level" had been involved in discussions regarding SB 434 prior to it becoming a (proposed) bill.

Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Ty Masterson, a District 16 Republican, told The Tribune in March that he was heavily involved in the writing of SB 434.

"With state resources and just a shift in priorities from the taxpayers level, I don't believe the system we have, with 32 independent higher education institutions--from tech colleges to community colleges to the regents--is sustainable," Masterson told The Tribune last month. "I'm looking for a simpler, more local, more attainable, educational path for our children. I want as many kids as possible to feel they can attain that next level. And the more likely they are to be able to keep their local job, go to their local school, and have success locally--the more likely they are to move on through the system. And it is truly the biggest driver (of the bill)."

During last month's regular board of trustees meeting, Marshall was the first of three people who addressed the board during the public forum portion of the meeting in relation to SB 434. Marshall, his daughter Dana McKenney, and FSCC English instructor Ronda Bailey, all spoke out in opposition of the bill.

"I am still concerned that President Tatro and-or Senator Masterson, will try to run it through again in the veto session," Marshall said. "I'm afraid that they will attempt to reproduce the bill and it will be a backdoor effort to get it through. I don't think it will come back, but it could. And then my next concern is, that they will try to do it again next year in the 2015 session. So I'm very concerned that Senator Masterson and President Tatro will try to bring it back at us. It's now a dead bill, it's a dead issue at this point. But it could conceivably be resurrected in the veto session."

Tatro said that it's going to take local leaders and state officials working together across the state to build a better funding model for Kansas community colleges.

"So I am encouraged that people locally and folks across the state are actually considering revisiting the funding," Tatro said. "And are looking at ways that we can engage the entire state in the funding of community colleges. And hopefully over time build a better model."

Tatro said he doesn't believe that current funding streams for Kansas community colleges are sustainable in certain counties and regions.

"When you look at Bourbon County, we are the second lowest property valuation county of the 19 community colleges (in Kansas)," Tatro said. "When you look at our revenues that we realize from our local property taxes, those revenues are significantly less than many and most other counties that have community colleges. So I think that some things are going to need to change in the future, over the next few years, in order to build a better model."