SUNY University Center Innovation and Economic Growth Act

[MRSGDG]

SUNY University Center Innovation and Economic Growth Act

Introduced by Sen. Stavisky S.5836

 

 

Bill Text: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S05836&sh=t

Bill Summary: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S05836

 

It looks to have biparisan support by seeing who has co-sponsored the bill.

 

The Sponsors Memo which explains the bill in "normal english" is not listed on the Assembly Site, but is listed on the Legislative Retrieval System (LRS) site..though I can't give a direct link to the bill since that site is a search engine type site. So below is the text of the Sponsor's Memo of this bill.

 

I have heard that President Philip has said this bill is supported by SUNY Central and that UB2020 wasn't.

 

 

-----------------------

 

BILL NUMBER: S5836

 

SPONSOR: STAVISKY

 

 

TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the education law, the public authorities law and the

general municipal law, in relation to authorizing tuition increases for

four University Centers of the State University of New York at Albany,

Binghamton, Buffalo, and Stony Brook, SUNY Upstate Medical University,

and SUNY Downstate Medical Center (Part A); to amend the education law,

in relation to the use of four University Centers of the State Universi-

ty of New York at Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, and Stony Brook, SUNY

Upstate Medical University, and SUNY Downstate Medical Center (Part B )

to amend the education law, the state finance law and the tax law, in

relation to the ability of the state university trustees to purchase

items and enter into contracts and agreements (Part C); to amend the

education law and the state finance law, in relation to the distribution

of money received from various sources related to the four University

Centers of the State University of New York at Albany, Binghamton,

Buffalo, and Stony Brook, SUNY Upstate Medical University, and SUNY

Downstate Medical Center (Part D); and to amend the education law, in

relation to providing that certain leases of the four University Centers

of the State University of New York at Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, and

Stony Brook, SUNY Upstate Medical University, and SUNY Downstate Medical

Center need not be submitted to the attorney general for his or her

approval (Part E)

 

 

 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL:

To allow the four University Centers of the State University of New York

at Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, and Stony Brook, SUNY Upstate Medical

University and SUNY Downstate Medical Center greater flexibility and

autonomy in regard to leasing, contracting, tuition increases and over-

all daily operations at the Universities.

 

 

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

This act shall be known as the "SUNY University Center Innovation and

Economic Growth Act."

 

The legislation amends various sections of the Education Law, the Public

Authorities Law, the General Municipal Law, the State Finance Law, and

the Tax law.

 

This legislation shall sunset five years from enactment.

 

 

JUSTIFICATION:

The Final Report of Findings and Recommendations of the Commission on

Higher Education recommended in 2008, that New York must unshackle SUNY,

end micromanagement, and free the system to focus on achieving excel-

lence in a global knowledge economy. This legislation, "The SUNY Univer-

sity Center Innovation and Economic Growth Act," codifies many of the

recommendations of the Commission on Higher Education and seeks to

implement meaningful regulatory reform.

 

Specifically, this legislation will allow the four University Centers of

the State University of New York at Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, and

Stony Brook, SUNY Upstate Medical University, and SUNY Downstate Medical

Center the ability to implement a more rational tuition policy with

regular increases and an acknowledgment that it costs more to educate

students at research universities; the ability to retain the revenue

generated by tuition; spending and contracting flexibility to better

serve students, faculty/researchers and staff in a timely manner; access

to capital to enable campuses to build the infrastructure necessary to

support the State's economic development mission; and the ability to

lease or purchase land and facilities.

 

The SUNY University Center Innovation and Economic Growth Act will

strengthen the academic and economic capabilities of the four University

Centers - the only institutions within the 64-campus SUNY system which

simultaneously provide undergraduate teaching, research, and advanced

graduate and professional studies; as well as the medical schools at

Upstate (Syracuse) and Downstate (Brooklyn), the only stand-alone

medical colleges in the SUNY system.

 

The four University Centers of SUNY and the medical schools, with a

cumulative economic impact of more than $10 billion, are inextricably

linked with the fiscal and economic well-being of New York State. The

medical schools and University Centers clearly return substantially more

than they receive in investment from the State. The SUNY University

Center Innovation and Economic Growth Act will transform the State

University Centers and medical colleges into model twenty-first century

public universities - enabling New York State's most important public

higher education institution to build the next generation industries

that will provide stable, knowledge-based economic catalysts.

 

 

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

None.

 

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 

 

EFFECTIVE DATE:

This act shall take effect immediately.

[danefan]

YES! YES! YES!

 

This is what Chancellor Zimpher was referencing in her speech at Stony Brook. The "Big Six" is what I think she called them.

[Clickclack]

Very nice! No one is left out and all flagship campuses are treated the same, no second class citizens. I think we are done hearing bout UB2020!

 

MsG, thank you for the update

[danefan]

I do have a question though - it appears that this bill was referred to Rules on 6-9-2009? Is that correct? Has this been sitting in Rules since then? I'm just wondering if this has any momentum or if its already dead?

[MRSGDG]

I do have a question though - it appears that this bill was referred to Rules on 6-9-2009? Is that correct? Has this been sitting in Rules since then? I'm just wondering if this has any momentum or if its already dead?

 

 

You do know what happened on 6/8/2009 in the Senate ?.... That just got resolved this month.

 

The priority of the Senate now is to pass all the legislation already passed by the Assembly after the Coup debacle stopped the whole process of passing legislation for a while. Just a guess but a bill put in one day after the coup is not something they "have" to pass right now in order for municipalities to function. And because right now it is a one house bill I doubt the Dems are going to push to get that passed when there are more critical two house bills that have been waiting since the beginning of Jan to get passed.

 

Either way, it has only been out since June 9th and if it does have more support than the 2020 bill it should probably do well. Maybe when we find out who the Assembly sponsor is, it might help move it along. But since the Assembly won't be back until Jan 2010 to pass bills, it might be a while before knowing if the legislation truly has legs or not.

[Michigan_Dane]

Fantastic! I am very happy to this vision of the Big 6.

[danefan]

I do have a question though - it appears that this bill was referred to Rules on 6-9-2009? Is that correct? Has this been sitting in Rules since then? I'm just wondering if this has any momentum or if its already dead?

 

 

You do know what happened on 6/8/2009 in the Senate ?.... That just got resolved this month.

 

Yeah, I guess my question is, what are your feelings this will come out of Committee and move forward? I, like most NY'ers (or former NY'ers), never see any progress in the NY legsilature. We see bills introduced and get sent to committee and die. I'm hoping it doesn't happen to this one, but since nothing has happened in almost 2 months, isn't it more likely?

[B9j2j6s]

This bill makes so much more sense then having Buffalo and Stony Brook as the two flagships. I could never figure out why UA, Bing, Upstate and Downstate were going to be given the shaft by the former governor. Hope this gets passed.

[danefan]

BTW, something of interest and even more evidence that UB2020 is dead is that the most vocal supporters of UB2020 are cosponsors on this bill. Senator Stachowski is one of them. He was always thanked first by UB President Simpson for getting UB2020 passed in the Senate.

[MRSGDG]

I do have a question though - it appears that this bill was referred to Rules on 6-9-2009? Is that correct? Has this been sitting in Rules since then? I'm just wondering if this has any momentum or if its already dead?

 

 

You do know what happened on 6/8/2009 in the Senate ?.... That just got resolved this month.

 

Yeah, I guess my question is, what are your feelings this will come out of Committee and move forward? I, like most NY'ers (or former NY'ers), never see any progress in the NY legsilature. We see bills introduced and get sent to committee and die. I'm hoping it doesn't happen to this one, but since nothing has happened in almost 2 months, isn't it more likely?

 

 

Every two year cycle ends up with about 11,000 bills in the Assembly chamber. Most bills do die in committee because there is not enough time to pass all the bills, they are introduced with no intention of ever becoming law (introduced to make a good news article), they aren't written well, etc.

 

As for this specific bill, I believe they are shopping for an Assembly sponsor but as of this moment they do not have one. Often times though before getting a main sponsor in the other House, the original bill has to be amended to meet certain changes the other house wants to see.

 

My suggestion for us UAlbany supporters is to lobby/email/write Assemblymember Canestrari and/or McEneny or whomever your Assemblymember is, to sponsor the bill. (Either by being the main Sponsor or being a Co-Sponsor ...though someone can not sign onto Co-Sponsor a bill unless there is a main sponsor of it in their house)

 

Even if Sen. Stavisky has an idea of who she would like to pursue as the Assembly sponsor it can't hurt for the other Members to be aware that their constituents are in support of the legislation.

 

We should watch this bill even if there is no Assembly sponsor. Many times just because the bill hasn't been introduced in one House, doesn't mean that it isn't being worked on by them. For all we know, there might be an Assemblymember who is working with Stavisky's office on what they would like the bill to be, and to work something out right now. There is not way to know everything that is going on behind the scenes. We can only hope that next session...Jan 2010, this bill will have a sponsor in the Assembly and pass both houses. (Which would be quick.. many bills take multiple sessions before they ever get passed)

 

Just my two cents.

[danefan]

I do have a question though - it appears that this bill was referred to Rules on 6-9-2009? Is that correct? Has this been sitting in Rules since then? I'm just wondering if this has any momentum or if its already dead?

 

 

You do know what happened on 6/8/2009 in the Senate ?.... That just got resolved this month.

 

Yeah, I guess my question is, what are your feelings this will come out of Committee and move forward? I, like most NY'ers (or former NY'ers), never see any progress in the NY legsilature. We see bills introduced and get sent to committee and die. I'm hoping it doesn't happen to this one, but since nothing has happened in almost 2 months, isn't it more likely?

 

 

Every two year cycle ends up with about 11,000 bills in the Assembly chamber. Most bills do die in committee because there is not enough time to pass all the bills, they are introduced with no intention of ever becoming law (introduced to make a good news article), they aren't written well, etc.

 

As for this specific bill, I believe they are shopping for an Assembly sponsor but as of this moment they do not have one. Often times though before getting a main sponsor in the other House, the original bill has to be amended to meet certain changes the other house wants to see.

 

My suggestion for us UAlbany supporters is to lobby/email/write Assemblymember Canestrari and/or McEneny or whomever your Assemblymember is, to sponsor the bill. (Either by being the main Sponsor or being a Co-Sponsor ...though someone can not sign onto Co-Sponsor a bill unless there is a main sponsor of it in their house)

 

Even if Sen. Stavisky has an idea of who she would like to pursue as the Assembly sponsor it can't hurt for the other Members to be aware that their constituents are in support of the legislation.

 

We should watch this bill even if there is no Assembly sponsor. Many times just because the bill hasn't been introduced in one House, doesn't mean that it isn't being worked on by them. For all we know, there might be an Assemblymember who is working with Stavisky's office on what they would like the bill to be, and to work something out right now. There is not way to know everything that is going on behind the scenes. We can only hope that next session...Jan 2010, this bill will have a sponsor in the Assembly and pass both houses. (Which would be quick.. many bills take multiple sessions before they ever get passed)

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

 

Great info. Thanks! Moral of the story - we need to pepper Canestrari and McEneny to support this bill in the Assembly.

[danefan]

Some additional information on the oppostion to A/S2020 (UB's legislation) which is likely to effect this legislation as well.

 

As posted on teh UB board:

 

SUNY Central's reluctance to endorse the A/S2020 bill probably did not have as much of an effect on stalling it's Assembly passage as noise coming from organized labor, such as the United University Professions. Granted, UB does have strong support for UB2020 from many labor groups who see the benefits to infrustructure investment. But a few groups saw the Senate version of the 2020 bills as being "anti-worker" and potentially usurping Wick's Law with all of the potential changes to how UB controls contracts and spending, and saw tuition diferentiation as a problem too.

 

A story from Artvoice in February centered on these points: http://blogs.artvoice.com/avdaily/2009/02/...lan-under-fire/

 

"A resolution by the UUP, including its Western New York chapters and Winter Delegate Assembly, have gone on record as “vehemently opposing” A-S/2020, and directed UUP leadership to reach out to all Labor Unions in the state to “defeat this legislation and all similar proposals that may surface.” UUP said the legislation included “provisions for differential tuition that will negate existing Labor agreements and lead to the privatization of UB.”

 

Now, the other Centers will also need to work carefully with their workworce, and probably experience these issues that UB had to face. In reading through the SUNY University Center Innovation and Economic Growth Act text there are paragraphs dealing with worker contracts. I'm not certain if they include proposals that would please these groups, and how it may need to be amended to get through the Assembly (all you lawyer-types like Brooklyn and UA_MA_2000 could probably explain it better). The bill still callls for tuition differentiation, for the monies from tuition increases to remain with the universities, for univeristy control over it's spending with less regulation, and would require stability in money given to the universitites from NYS. Will UUP just get louder with this bill opening up more universities to what they see as "privatization", instead of what it really is, placing our research universiites more in line with every other state's university system(s)?

 

It appears the labor unions oppose any further "privatization" of the Big Six. I don't quite understand why, but I've never dealt with any state employee issues before.

[Dane96]

It is a contracts issue-- privatization will give more power to the Universities in writing their RFP's. Thus, they will arguably reduce the amount of work that MUST utilize union labor, which is often found with any CENTRAL FUNDING on State contracts.

 

It is why, on the contracts I work on, we RARELY if ever have union issues-- the agencies are "self-funded" or "autonomous" in decision making capacity.

[danefan]

It is a contracts issue-- privatization will give more power to the Universities in writing their RFP's. Thus, they will arguably reduce the amount of work that MUST utilize union labor, which is often found with any CENTRAL FUNDING on State contracts.

 

It is why, on the contracts I work on, we RARELY if ever have union issues-- the agencies are "self-funded" or "autonomous" in decision making capacity.

 

Gotcha. So it sounds like work can be completed faster and cheaper under the new law. Which is exactly why the unions are opposing it, right?

[UAalum72]

Gotcha. So it sounds like work can be completed faster and cheaper under the new law. Which is exactly why the unions are opposing it, right?

Not faster - Florida road work is notoriously slow because of the substandard pay to the road crews.