You Decide

Intergovernmental Management September 23, 2012

You Decide 1
This current budget problem and its direct impact on publicly supported university programs is in dire need of a resolution. I understand your concern to establish a swift and effective decision regarding this issue. Before I offer my advice, I want to share my synopsis of this matter based of the information I received. The budget cuts that were approved by the state have led to the elimination of important programs at the publicly supported universities in your state, and as a direct consequence, certain specific majors are no longer offered at any of those universities. However, these specific majors are, in fact offered at a state university in a neighboring state and your state’s institutions offer programs not available in the other state. An analyst proposed that an agreement be entered with the neighboring state to allow reciprocity on in-state tuition for those programs. Some are in support of the interstate compact, and others are opposed to the idea.
This proposed solution will fall under the Interstate Compact provision, which is a voluntary arrangement between two or more states that is designed to solve their common problems and that becomes part of the laws of each state. The most common interstate compacts concern agreements to share natural resources, such as water; build regional electric power sources; share parks and parkways; conserve fish and wildlife; protect air quality; manage radioactive and other hazardous wastes; control natural disasters, such as floods; share educational resources.
The proposal of James Raika definitely falls under this provision. The aforementioned shows that the interstate Compact Provision includes agreements that allow states to share educational resources.
This specific agreement, proposed by Raika will allow students from both states to enroll in out of state schools and pay in state rates. This will be greatly beneficial to these students who will experience a huge burden of paying higher rates because of a budget issue. This is an effective way of alleviating this problem and offering a viable solution for both states. The only problem with this limited approach is that it does not provide any solutions specifically for the budget or long-term planning to restore these You Decide 2 programs. It may pose a serious concern in the future.
After reviewing Morgan James’ position, I concluded that she is partially on board with the provision. Ms. James is wary to rush into an agreement without exploring all possible options that could bring added value and prove to be even more beneficial to the state. For example, she mentioned the possibility of entering an agreement with the state that covers any and all cross –border higher educational issues. The benefits of this approach are collaboration with multiple states, resource sharing, and cost savings. However, some potential problems are getting both the respective states to agree to her proposal and approval of congress.
Over the years, four steps have evolved to guide courts in their review of interstate compact cases. First, there must be an agreement between two or more states. If no concerted effort is actually undertaken by two or more states, Congress has no power to review the state actions under the Interstate
Compact Clause. In determining whether there is an agreement, the court may ask whether the states have officially formed a joint organization, whether a state's action is conditioned on action by another state, and whether any state is free to modify its position without consulting other states.
If the court finds that there is an agreement, the court will examine the agreement to determine whether it infringes on federal sovereignty. Not all interstate compacts infringe on federal supremacy. The question the court asks is whether the agreement between the states interferes with federal statutes or initiatives. If an interstate compact is found to infringe on federal initiatives, the court will then determine whether Congress has given its approval for the compact. Congress may grant approval before or after a compact is formed. Congress may also give indirect approval to a compact. Finally, Congress may seek to amend or change an interstate compact after it has been approved. Congress may amend a compact or completely revoke its approval of a compact. Congress may also grant its approval with conditions attached. (The Free Dictionary, 2012)
Margaret Smith has valid reasoning as well, regarding this situation. She is against this provision You Decide 3 because in addition to the education budget cuts, there will also be a loss of revenue. Ms. Smith argues that the programs at the higher institutions bring in much needed revenue because of the large number of out of state students. She is most likely opposed to this idea because it is more beneficial to the students than the state. “In deciding whether to join other states in a collaborative venture, a state considers the anticipated costs and benefits of collective action. One can assume that a self- interested state will participate in actions in which the anticipated gains outweigh potential losses.” (O’Toole, 2007) This poses a serious problem. If Ms. Smith is against this idea, the state will likely have a very difficult time getting approval from Congress. As Speaker of the State House of Representatives, she definitely has major influence and can be vital in reaching a mutual agreement between all parties involved. It is more helpful if everyone is in board and discusses the details of the provision. I would recommend having a few meetings where everyone can share their thoughts, concerns and ideas regarding the effectiveness of this provision.

References

Interstate Compact (2012). The Free Dictionary. Farlex.

O’Toole, Laurence. J (1997) American Intergovernmental Relations. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.