Regents discuss challenging tuition authority

Advocate staff photo by BILL FEIG --  Inside the House Chamber of the State Capitol. Show caption
Advocate staff photo by BILL FEIG -- Inside the House Chamber of the State Capitol.

Louisiana’s higher education leaders are considering challenging a widely held belief that any college tuition increase has to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature.

The Louisiana Board of Regents voted Wednesday to ask the state’s four college and university systems if they would support filing a lawsuit that could potentially take tuition control away from lawmakers and hand it over to the schools.

The issue is whether tuition is considered a fee.

A 1995 state constitutional provision, approved by voters, requires a two-thirds vote by the Legislature before a fee charged by a public agency can be increased. One year later, then-Attorney General Richard Ieyoub issued an opinion, which has been interpreted ever since, that includes tuition as a fee.

Louisiana is also the only state in the nation that requires two-thirds legislative approval on tuition and fee increases. Such a high threshold has essentially made changes to tuition policy political nonstarters in the state.

With the backing of the state’s college systems, the regents would file a lawsuit in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge asking the court to rule if tuition, is in fact, a fee.

University of Louisiana System President Sandra Woodley said it’s an idea she will discuss with her staff.

“We need to take a look at this, but I really would need more information before commenting,” she said.

LSU System President William Jenkins seemed more convinced.

“At the very least we’d like to have a determination letting us know whether the attorney general’s opinion is valid,” Jenkins said. “I’d certainly like to know.”

The issue came up Wednesday as the regents discussed two bills they plan to support in the legislative session that starts April 8. Both pieces of legislation — only one of which has been filed — would give tuition control to the management boards overseeing the LSU, Southern University, University of Louisiana and the Louisiana Community and Technical College systems.

Newly appointed Regent Edward Markle, of New Orleans, started the discussion of a possible court challenge when he noted that the two-thirds voting requirement stems from the attorney general’s opinion and not the actual law.

Markle suggested the regents pursue the issue in court while at the same time petitioning the Legislature to give up its historic control over tuition.

Markle, a lawyer, said he didn’t agree with the attorney general’s opinion.

“A fee is for a driver’s license or a speeding ticket,” Markle said. “Tuition is something you pay for yourself voluntarily. It’s not a fee you pay the government; you pay it to educate yourself.”

Regents Vice Chairman Joseph Wiley, of Baton Rouge, suggested they hold any legal action until after the Legislature decides whether to give up tuition control.

Markle agreed that the regents should take more time to study the issue.

But Regent Albert Sam, a Baton Rouge surgeon, said the issue is too critical to wait. He compared Louisiana’s higher education system to a patient who’s been shot multiple times and is on the verge of death.

“That’s where we are in higher education,” Sam said. “That’s why we have to do something today.”

Regent Bob Levy, of Ruston, said asking the Legislature to give up control of tuition “is going to be a very difficult sell.” He also wondered whether lawmakers would want to take the corresponding amount of any future tuition increase out of state appropriations to colleges and universities.

Wiley added that if schools were to get tuition control, there would need to be built-in controls to prevent “runaway authority.”

State Commissioner of Higher Education Jim Purcell said he supports a re-examination of the Legislature’s desire before the attorney general’s opinion was issued.

“I’ve never considered tuition a state fee,” Purcell said. “It’s important we look at the Legislature’s intent.”


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (4)


1) Comment by zealer99 - 21/03/2013

The Regents cannot "beat" the legislature in court even if they win. If the Regents win in court and the legislature chooses to do so, they can simply reduce the appropriation to the institutions that choose to raise tuition without approval by an amount that exceeds the tuition increase. If fact, I would it be surprised if one of the legislators does not have a handy amendment to a bill that has already been filed that would do that in advance of a court decision.

2) Comment by zealer99 - 21/03/2013

Raising tuition is not a solution, short-term, or long-term, to the current budget crunch. Raising tuition depends on students relying on Federal Student Loans to pay the tuition and then they are incumbered with massive debt that lowers their standard of living and postpones their ability to buy homes and vehicles and that is if they can land jobs that afford them the economic capacity to repay the loans. As the default rate rises and becomes a more critical problem, the availability of loans will retreat with students and their families becoming aware of the debt catch of higher education, the number of students who are willing to take that route. In the long-run, LSU and the rest of the State funded college and universities are poisoning themselves. Their business model is defective, relying on increasing student debt loan is not sustainable.

3) Comment by GardenVariety - 20/03/2013

They're just now "looking into" this?! (That's a rhetorical question. They've been looking into it but they've been doing their little Hamlet routine, hoping that they don't have to commit to the decision that they've already made. Spineless.) The state has cut its percentage of support to LA's colleges and universities by 40% in six years, yet the governor and legislature have insisted on maintaining control of practically every decision made in higher education (curricular as well as economic). If a board ran a company that had a stakeholder who cut ownership in it from 70% down to 30%--a stakeholder who increased hostility against the company with each cut--this'd be a no-brainer. The company would reject any policies proposed by the hostile stakeholder and would buy out his/her remaining stakes. For six years, Jindal's been systematically sabotaging higher education for political profit, yet higher ed "leaders" have kept his dance card full. What a bunch of spineless fools.

4) Comment by teacherguy - 20/03/2013

Uh oh...this is a slippery slope colleges/universities. Today you are asking for tuition control...tomorrow they will cut even more from your budgets than they have. Guess you are now looking to take the route of the teachers? Going to the courtrooms? They, the legislature, will give you what you want today...only to pull the rug out from under you tomorrow...they will expect to fund you less if you are asking more from students. They may start gerrymandering TOPS funds, etc....but, like Albert Sam said, "He compared Louisiana’s higher education system to a patient who’s been shot multiple times and on the verge of death." Get ready for the legislature to reload and fire again!!!!