Business coalition urges Senate to reject state aid cut to USNH
Business coalition fights proposed cut to four-year higher education system
Mike Skelton, president and CEO of the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire organized a coalition of business leaders urging Senate budget writers to reject the House-approved state budget that cuts state aid to the University System of New Hampshire by about 30%.
A coalition of business groups is urging Senate budget writers to restore $50 million cut by the House from state aid to the University System of New Hampshire.
The Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire organized a Tuesday news conference meant to build momentum for the case that University System Chancellor Catherine Provencher and her team will make before the Senate Finance Committee on Friday.
'The funding of University System of New Hampshire is an investment in the future of our state's economy. USNH is a key partner that attracts talent to New Hampshire and prepares them to join our workforce and help our economy grow,' said BIA President and CEO Mike Skelton.
'While we understood this state budget cycle would be challenging, the proposed House cuts to the University System go too far and would harm our state's economic competitiveness.'
The University System's four-year schools are the University of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University and Keene State College.
Several speakers said the Senate should adopt the revenue estimates that Gov. Kelly Ayotte used when she presented her budget proposal two months ago.
The House used a much lower revenue forecast — $700 million less from state taxes and fees for the two-year budget cycle that would run through June 2027.
'The revenue projections and USNH funding levels proposed in Governor Ayotte's budget are a realistic and pragmatic path forward that will allow USNH to continue as the business community's partner in attracting and developing our workforce of the future," Skelton said.
USNH Chancellor Provencher said the House budget represents a 30% cut — $57.6 million less than current levels of state aid.
'Despite real headwinds in higher education caused by the declining number of high school graduates and intense competition in New England, for the first time since 2013, the number of in-state New Hampshire students attending USNH institutions increased, in part because of the state's investment to keep tuition down,' Provencher said.
Tuition has remained unchanged for the past six years.
USNH trustees have already announced that there will be an increase in tuition next year.
House Republican budget writers maintain the state aid cut represents about a 2% reduction for a system that has annual revenue of more than $1 billion.
They also point out that lawmakers made a similarly sized cut in 2011 to cope with a major real estate recession.
Provencher said the system annually attracts nearly 13,000 potential future leaders and members of the workforce to come and study in New Hampshire.
'We as a state should not be gutting the investment in USNH when we have the opportunity to grow and attract businesses in the life sciences, advanced manufacturing and other innovative spaces,' Provencher said.
The New Hampshire College and University Council is scheduled to release a study on the economic impact of higher education later Wednesday.
Mica Stark, the council's president and CEO, said the University System system contributes $7.6 billion to the state's economy and supports 52,000 jobs.
UNIQUE resource
The coalition opposed the decision of House budget writers to claim as state aid $15 million in the UNIQUE college scholarship program managed for the state by Fidelity.
Business coalition lobbies against cutting USNH aid
University System of New Hampshire Chancellor Catherine Provencher will make her case to the Senate Finance Committee Friday against the House approved state budget that cuts the request of Gov. Kelly Ayotte by $50 million over the next two years.
This year the program provided more than 7,700 scholarships. Since UNIQUE's inception in 1997 it has provided $213 million in financial aid to students.
Edwin Gutierrez-Nunez, a sophomore at Franklin Pierce University, a private college in Rindge, said he's the first in his family to attend college as the son of immigrants from Mexico who work as housekeepers in Nashua.
'UNIQUE is a major reason why I attend college. My family can't afford tuition without these scholarship funds. Taking direct scholarship aid funds to balance a state budget is wrong, and it sends a terrible message to young people about the priorities of this state and its leaders,' Gutierrez-Nunez said.
Bill Greiner, chairman of the board at Primary Bank, said these reductions would be shortsighted.
'The proposed cuts, especially to higher education, are wholly unnecessary and will only blunt the hard work our businesses and our citizens are doing every single day to build and maintain a strong statewide economy."
Corinne Benfield, executive director of Stay Work Play NH, said a well-supported state college and university system is critical to convincing young people to remain in New Hampshire and pursue a career.
'If we aren't funding our educational system we risk falling behind; the message is that we don't care to compete,' Benfield said.
She said USNH created Stay Work Play in 2009 when more than 50% of Granite State college graduates were leaving the state.
Since then, the percentage of graduates remaining here is 'hovering around 60%,' Benfield said.
'It's progress, but this doesn't solve our problem, which is that the workforce gap has grown significantly," she added.
Others who took part in Tuesday's event were executives with the chambers of commerce in Manchester, Nashua and Portsmouth, and officials with New Hampshire Life Sciences, Granite Edvance, Primary Bank and the New Hampshire Tech Alliance.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump and Musk aides have spoken amid pause in hostilities
The shaky detente in the social media strife between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is holding following a call between representatives for both sides Friday, according to two White House officials. 'He's stopped posting, but that doesn't mean he's happy,' one of the officials said about Trump's Truth Social hiatus with Musk. 'The future of their relationship is totally uncertain,' added the official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Both men have paused their war of words that included Musk suggesting the president be impeached and Trump threatening to cut off federal contracts for the billionaire's companies. But neither wanted to, according to the two officials familiar with the reaction of both men. A spokesperson for Musk did not return a message seeking comment. Trump was particularly peeved by Musk insinuating the president was tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, claiming Trump was 'in the Epstein files.' It's long been public that Trump and other prominent figures are referenced in documents released in court cases surrounding Epstein, though Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein. But Musk's boast that Trump couldn't have won without his support, including over a quarter-billion dollars in political contributions – is what really set the president spinning, the two officials continued. 'Such ingratitude,' Musk wrote on X after taking credit from Trump's victory in November. The feud came as the president and Republican leaders tried to shoulder through a major package of domestic policy legislation, which could be the biggest legislative achievement of Trump's second term. Musk criticized the so-called megabill for having a 'MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK.' When reached for comment, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO, 'As President Trump has said himself, he is moving forward focused on passing the One Big Beautiful Bill.' The relationship began to sour before the dueling social media posts erupted last week. Trump was upset about what he saw as Musk overselling DOGE's inability to make massive cuts in the federal bureaucracy. Then the White House pulled the nomination for Jared Isaacman, the billionaire's pick to lead NASA, which was one of the final tethers in a tenuous alliance. White House personnel director Sergio Gor, who was behind that move, has had a long-simmering tension with the billionaire, according to both White House officials. Musk refused to work with Gor after a March Cabinet meeting where the president told his agency heads they were in charge of their departments — not Musk, who was in the room. That meeting happened after the Tesla founder set off a series of mass firings and warnings to government workers that in turn triggered lawsuits and criticism from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. While most lawmakers and Republican operatives agree that Trump ultimately has the upper hand should their feud reignite, there's never been an adversary quite like Musk: the world's richest man with an online megaphone to rival the presidential bully pulpit.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports
Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at AthleteCon when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation. 'I'm about to get paid,' Moore said a Division I football player told her. 'Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,' she responded. Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises genuine concerns for others. Schools that opt int will be able to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year starting July 1. The majority is expected to be spent on high-revenue generating sports, with most projections estimating 75% of funds will go toward football. So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and basketball, is pretty much all of them? It's a query that's top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on track and field team. 'My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?' Ootsburg said. 'You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it's coming from the TV deals, but then it's like, how does that affect you on the back end?' Ootsburg asked. 'Let's say 800k goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?' Moore has similar concerns. She says most female athletes aren't worried about how much – if any – money they'll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience. 'A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given 3,000 dollars, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don't have any, and the athletic training room isn't stocked,' Moore said over the weekend as news of Friday night's settlement approval spread. One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren't familiar with the changes. At AthleteCon in Charlotte, North Carolina, they said, perhaps the biggest change in college sports history was a push notification generally shrugged off by those directly impacted. 'Athletes do not know what's happening,' Ootsburg said. 'Talking to my teammates, it's so new, and they see the headlines and they're like, 'Ok, cool, but is someone going to explain this?' because they can read it, but then there's so many underlying factors that go into this. This is a complex problem that you have to understand the nuances behind, and not every athlete truly does.' Some coaches, too, are still trying to understand what's coming. Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it 'the great unknown right now.' 'My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it's like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don't know what's going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,' he said at the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. 'Who knows what it's going to be?' What about the walk-ons? Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot, no guarantees — without counting against roster limits. Rimmel packed up and moved back to his parents' house in Purcellville, Virginia. For the past six months, he's held on to a glimmer of hope that maybe he could return. 'The past six months have been very tough,' he said. 'I've felt so alone through this, even though I wasn't. I just felt like the whole world was out there – I would see teammates of mine and other people I knew just doing all of these things and still being part of a team. I felt like I was sidelined and on pause, while they're continuing to do all these things.' News that the settlement had been approved sent Rimmel looking for details. 'I didn't see much about roster limits,' he said. 'Everyone wants to talk about NIL and the revenue-sharing and I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it, but I just didn't see anything about the roster limits, and that's obviously my biggest concern.' The answer only presents more questions for Rimmel. 'We were hoping for more of a forced decision with the grandfathering, which now it's only voluntary, so I'm a little skeptical of things because I have zero clue how schools are going to react to that,' Rimmel told The Associated Press. Rimmel is still deciding what's best for him, but echoed Moore and Ootsburg in saying that answers are not obvious: 'I'm just hoping the schools can make the right decisions with things and have the best interest of the people who were cut.' ___ AP Sports Writer Cliff Brunt contributed. ___ AP college sports: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports
Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at AthleteCon when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation. 'I'm about to get paid,' Moore said a Division I football player told her. 'Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,' she responded. Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises genuine concerns for others. Schools that opt int will be able to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year starting July 1. The majority is expected to be spent on high-revenue generating sports, with most projections estimating 75% of funds will go toward football. So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and basketball, is pretty much all of them? It's a query that's top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on track and field team. 'My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?' Ootsburg said. 'You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it's coming from the TV deals, but then it's like, how does that affect you on the back end?' Ootsburg asked. 'Let's say 800k goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?' Moore has similar concerns. She says most female athletes aren't worried about how much – if any – money they'll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience. 'A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given 3,000 dollars, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don't have any, and the athletic training room isn't stocked,' Moore said over the weekend as news of Friday night's settlement approval spread. One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren't familiar with the changes. At AthleteCon in Charlotte, North Carolina, they said, perhaps the biggest change in college sports history was a push notification generally shrugged off by those directly impacted. 'Athletes do not know what's happening,' Ootsburg said. 'Talking to my teammates, it's so new, and they see the headlines and they're like, 'Ok, cool, but is someone going to explain this?' because they can read it, but then there's so many underlying factors that go into this. This is a complex problem that you have to understand the nuances behind, and not every athlete truly does.' Some coaches, too, are still trying to understand what's coming. Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it 'the great unknown right now.' 'My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it's like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don't know what's going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,' he said at the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. 'Who knows what it's going to be?' What about the walk-ons? Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot, no guarantees — without counting against roster limits. Rimmel packed up and moved back to his parents' house in Purcellville, Virginia. For the past six months, he's held on to a glimmer of hope that maybe he could return. 'The past six months have been very tough," he said. "I've felt so alone through this, even though I wasn't. I just felt like the whole world was out there – I would see teammates of mine and other people I knew just doing all of these things and still being part of a team. I felt like I was sidelined and on pause, while they're continuing to do all these things.' News that the settlement had been approved sent Rimmel looking for details. 'I didn't see much about roster limits," he said. 'Everyone wants to talk about NIL and the revenue-sharing and I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it, but I just didn't see anything about the roster limits, and that's obviously my biggest concern.' The answer only presents more questions for Rimmel. 'We were hoping for more of a forced decision with the grandfathering, which now it's only voluntary, so I'm a little skeptical of things because I have zero clue how schools are going to react to that," Rimmel told The Associated Press. Rimmel is still deciding what's best for him, but echoed Moore and Ootsburg in saying that answers are not obvious: 'I'm just hoping the schools can make the right decisions with things and have the best interest of the people who were cut.' ___ AP Sports Writer Cliff Brunt contributed. ___
