The cynic in me (which as any regular reader knows is never far from the surface) believes that the short notice of the hearing is to minimize the ability of those affected by the bills to organize an effective response.
Note: Since I'm trying to do the analyses on the fly, there will probably be some mistakes. I'll correct them when they are brought to my attention, but I strongly advise folks who are interested in these topics to read the relevant BRBs.
Here are some of the lowlights of the proposals, starting with the Higher Education budget reconciliation bill (striker to SB1029) (THEIR EMPHASIS INDICATING NEW LANGUAGE) -
(h/t to commenter testcase for spotting this)
section A, paragraph 5 - All other tuition and fee revenue shall be
section B. THE BOARD SHALL NOT ALLOW ANY UNIVERSITY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD TO REQUIRE ITS STUDENTS TO PURCHASE A MEAL PLAN OR LIVE IN ON-CAMPUS HOUSING.
Eliminates new buildings and cuts the allowance for capital outlays from $800 million to $167,671,200.
There are also a number of changes to reporting and calculation functions that I've seen in other bills that never made it into law, but I don't understand the actual impact of them to comment on them.
At first glance, we should all be scared of their scheme to grab all of the state universities' revenue for themselves; it's one step from the lege actually setting tuition and fees directly. Once that happens, they'll be able to raise taxes on students and their families without looking like they're raising taxes.
More BRBs later...