Bill advances removing University of Missouri's exclusive right to certain degrees
The iconic columns of the University of Missouri-Columbia campus (University of Missouri photo).
A Missouri House committee advanced an amended Senate bill Monday that would end the University of Missouri's exclusive permission to grant doctoral degrees.
The new provision is tacked onto Senate Bill 150, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Jill Carter of Granby, which originally established a fund to reimburse tuition and book fees for students in community colleges and technical schools. It passed the Senate last month.
A substitute version of the bill adopted Monday by the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee consolidates six smaller education bills, including provisions ranging from expanded financial aid opportunities to increased requirements for universities to accept transfer credit.
Among these consolidated bills is one sponsored by Republican state Rep. Melanie Stinnett if Springfield which would remove statutes that grant the University of Missouri and other UM System campuses exclusive license to offer certain doctoral degree programs.
The UM System is the only public university system permitted to grant research doctorate and professional degrees. Other state universities are allowed to partner with the UM System to offer similar degree programs but cannot do so independently.
The amended version of the bill passed Monday out of committee would repeal this provision, specifically to allow Missouri State University to offer programs that compete with those on UM System campuses.
Proponents of the bill say that the exclusivity granted to UM System campuses makes doctoral degrees less accessible to those who do not live near a campus.
'When I look at that, if that is a space that someone is interested in, we really shouldn't be limiting that for people just because they can't travel to a specific area of the state,' Stinnett said in a committee hearing last month.
Missouri State University President Richard Williams testified last month that his university simply seeks more flexibility. Missouri State currently offers 10 doctorate programs but is required by state law to do so in partnership with UM System campuses.
'This is relieving restrictions so we can be nimble,' he said.
Opponents to ending UM System's exclusive power include the University of Missouri Flagship Council, which said in February in a Missourian guest commentary that tuition increases would likely follow as a result.
'The bottom line is that starting doctoral programs at public universities without research funding will need to be propped up with significant state support,' Chuck Brazeale, chair of the Flagship Council's board of directors, wrote.
The bill passed through the House committee Monday by a vote of 10 to 1, with only state Rep. Bill Allen, a Republican from Kansas City, dissenting.
This story originally appeared in the Columbia Missourian. It can be republished in print or online.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court makes ruling on changes to elections
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that multiple proposals by election officials to change how elections are run in the state were not allowed by state law. Seven changes, proposed by several members of the Georgia State Election Board, led to a lawsuit by several groups, including the organization Eternal Vigilance Action, over claims that they went beyond what state law allowed. In the latest ruling, members of the state's highest court said efforts to require hand counting of ballots, make county election officials make a 'reasonable inquiry' before they could certify results, required voters show identification before dropping a ballot off and that officials 'examine all election' documents that are created during elections were not legal. Separately, a rule proposing surveillance of drop box locations was allowed. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] Two additional rules proposed for poll watchers and daily reporting requirements were ones that plaintiffs could not challenge 'as voters, community-stakeholders or organizations.' The ruling said that while a trial court had ruled Chatham County Board of Elections member James Hall had standing as a member of that body to sue, it was 'not based on correct legal analysis.' RELATED STORIES: Lawsuit filed against State Election Board by Republicans to 'rein in unelected' members' authority Raffensperger says voters 'should be concerned' over new, possibly illegal, Election Board rules Secretary of State say State Election Board has overstepped legal authority over new rules State elections board votes to require hand-counting of ballots at polling places Georgia AG says new rules from State Election Board may 'conflict' with state election laws Brad Raffensperger calls Georgia Election Rule Changes misguided, criticizes state board Judge says new Georgia election rules are 'illegal, unconstitutional and void' Georgia Election Board member's appearance at Trump rally sparks debate over code of conduct As a result, the court chose to vacate those two decisions blocking the rules and send them back to a lower court for further hearings. Those contesting the rules, including Eternal Vigilance Action and its CEO Scot Turner, said previously that they were going to court to prevent 'empowering the administrative state to act with the force of law.' They said Georgia's state constitution does not allow rules from unelected appointees on the State Election Board to supersede our laws. Responding to request for comment, one of the Republican board members told Channel 2 Action News in September that they would 'continue to do the work of the people with the goal of restoring faith in our election process.' Previously, Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger came out against some of the proposed changes, particularly the hand counting proposal, saying the board was 'misguided.' He has also said the recent actions by board members should have voters 'concerned' and that they might not even be legal. Should a lower court rule that Hall does have standing in his official capacity, it would then have to rule on the two proposals the Supreme Court declined to make a decision on. In response to the latest decision at the Georgia Supreme Court, Turner said in part that the ruling was a major victory, adding that 'this ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints. The Georgia Constitution means what it says, and thanks to this decision, the nondelegation doctrine is once again alive and well in our state.' Channel 2 Action News has reached out to members of the State Election Board and the Secretary of State's Office for comment and are waiting for their responses. The Associated Press contributed to this report. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
2024 Election Results Under Scrutiny as Lawsuit Advances
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A legal case questioning the accuracy of the 2024 election is moving forward. The lawsuit, brought by SMART Legislation, the action arm of SMART Elections, a nonpartisan watchdog group, filed the lawsuit over voting discrepancies in Rockland County, New York. Judge Rachel Tanguay of the New York Supreme Court ruled in open court in May that the allegations were serious enough for discovery to proceed. Newsweek has contacted SMART Elections for comment via email. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. People cast their ballots on the last day of early voting for the general election in Michigan at the Livingston Educational Service Agency in Howell on November 3, 2024. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters The lawsuit could renew debate about the 2024 election, though it won't change the outcome since Congress has certified the results declaring President Donald Trump the winner. It comes amid unconfirmed reports that voting machines were secretly altered before ballots were cast in November's election. The federally accredited testing lab, Pro V&V, that signed off on "significant" changes to ES&S voting machines—which are used in over 40 percent of U.S. counties—"vanished from public view" after the election, according to the Dissent in Bloom Substack. What To Know According to the complaint, more voters have sworn in legal affidavits that they voted for independent U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare than the Rockland County Board of Elections counted and certified, contradicting those results. The complaint also cited numerous statistical anomalies in the presidential election results. They include multiple districts where hundreds of voters chose the Democratic candidate Kirsten Gillibrand for Senate, but none voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. Max Bonamente, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the author of the Statistics and Analysis of Scientific Data, said in a paper that the 2024 presidential election results were statistically highly unlikely in four of the five towns in Rockland County when compared with 2020 results. What People Are Saying Lulu Friesdat, the founder and executive director of SMART Legislation, said in a statement: "There is clear evidence that the Senate results are incorrect, and there are statistical indications that the presidential results are highly unlikely. "If the results are incorrect, it is a violation of the constitutional rights of each person who voted in the 2024 Rockland County general election. The best way to determine if the results are correct is to examine the paper ballots in a full public, transparent hand recount of all presidential and Senate ballots in Rockland County. We believe it's vitally important, especially in the current environment, to be absolutely confident about the results of the election." Max Bonamente said in a paper on the voting data from Rockland County: "These data would require extreme sociological or political causes for their explanation, and would benefit from further assurances as to their fidelity." Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Newsweek: "Statistical irregularities in elections should always be investigated, but the sources of such inconsistencies, which can include error or miscalculation, are not always nefarious. Still, scrutinizing election results can strengthen confidence in elections. Mistakes can happen. "In this case, the drop-off inconsistencies could reflect the idiosyncratic nature of the 2024 presidential election cycle. Alone, statistical comparisons to previous cycles cannot provide definitive proof of wrongdoing. "In any case, it does not appear that any of these inconsistencies would be sufficient to change the outcomes of any of the elections in question in New York state. That does not mean they should not be scrutinized, and any errors, if verified, should be corrected for the historical record. But there is not necessarily any need to invalidate any of these elections in these jurisdictions." What's Next The lawsuit is seeking a full, hand recount of ballots cast in the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Rockland County. A hearing has been scheduled for September 22.
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.
