Print đź–¨

The Senate Higher Education Committee met on April 7 to discuss bills and vote on pending business. Bills discussed are SB 420 (Miles), SB 810 (Kolkhorst), SB 1019 (Zaffirini), SB 1385 (Creighton), SB 1677 (Buckingham), SB 1701 (Creighton), SB 1889 (Creighton), and SB 1963 (West). Part one of the hearing can be found here and part two can be found here.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

Vote Outs

SB 1126 (Springer, Miles); Passed Out 6-0

SB 959 (Zaffirini); Passed Out to Local Calendar 7-0

SB 1531 (West); Passed Out to Local Calendar 7-0

 

SB 1385 (Creighton) (CS) – Relating to the compensation and professional representation of student athletes participating in intercollegiate athletic programs at certain institutions of higher education

  • Ensure that student athletes may earn compensation for their name, image, and likeness
  • 6 states have passed legislation, and 30 are considering legislation addressing this issue
  • Texas will be at a disadvantage if we do not pass this bill; competing for student athletes with other states
  • Tide is shifting across the country and at the Supreme Court; we need to be prepared with a framework and appropriate limitations for compensation
  • Necessary to maintain academic and athletic competitiveness with other states and institutions
  • CS removes language permitting a trust for student athletes, fair market value language, NCAA or conferences language references, and some contractual issues
  • CS clarifies that soliciting a student athlete with a Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) contract is prohibited, and that athletes are not employees of the university
  • CS adds a morality clause, prohibiting athletes to engage in contracts to sponsor gambling, firearms, alcohol, or tobacco
  • CS prohibits athlete from earning compensation in exchange for university property
  • Birdwell – Student athletes would be required to have a literacy and life skills course, is this just a financial literacy requirement?
    • Yes
  • Birdwell – On morality clause, gambling is open to 18-year-old students through the lottery, do we need to divide gambling into casino vs lottery? On Firearms, long guns vs handguns, 18 years can own and purchase long guns, do we need to divide that section too?
    • We can look into specifics
  • Birdwell – For images that would be trademarked or licensed, would images have to include no property of the state, such as no state jersey?
    • Yes, no university trademarked items
  • Paxton – Bill is a departure from the “purity” we have held separating student from professional athletes, is open to testimony
    • NCAA did not publish in January as we expected them to, have heard rumors of legislation in D.C being developed, but want Texas to lead
  • Paxton – What is defined as university property?
    • Not real estate, but intellectual property; will discuss further
    • Some of these are just guardrails to ensure the student athlete has limitations
  • Springer – Is about getting/retaining best student athletes; is there a reason the bill does not specify nicotine rather than broadly tobacco?
    • Will likely be tightened up, but nicotine devices are covered in the legislation
  • Springer – What does this legislation do for former athletes, such as athletes who continue to be marketed by the university?
    • Will discuss a start/finish today, but focus is on currently enrolled athletes
    • Will hear the consequences/impacts of what will happen if we do not pass this
    • Springer – Will allow the student to capitalize on their work
  • Zaffirini – Is like my CS for my bills SB 660; would like to work with Creighton to consolidate her bill and pursue just the one bill
    • Open to working with Zaffirini
  • West – Am for this bill, but would language about limitations on NIL contracts prevent institutions from signing students and attracting athletes?
    • Was put together quickly, but we will hear from more stakeholders today and adjust as needed

 

Chris Del Conte, Athletic Director for University of Texas – On

  • 35 states do not have a bill in place, and without federal intervention we are going to have a lot of confusion
  • If Texas is not ready to compensate athletes, we are going to lose recruits and current students
  • West – If the purpose of the bill to attract students to attend and play at the university, why does the bill prohibit NIL contracts based on athletic performance or attendance?
    • Students are not directly recruited using NIL contracts, its more of a benefit from signing with the University
    • NIL is not to be directly associated with a university/institution
    • Recruiting inducement needs to be figured out, but we do not need to be directly leveraging potential contracts pre-signing
  • West – But the reality is that NIL will be leveraged by recruiters
  • West – Can you explain the NIL contracting process?
    • Difference between scholarship and the NIL contract
  • Paxton – Are student athletes required to bring new offers of contract from outside groups to the university? Are there expectations that they do this?
    • Conversations around recruiting will need to prevent that
    • Students shouldn’t be punished for a mistake and prevented from getting an education
    • Need to educate student athletes as to best practices with NIL and what constitutes a conflict of interest
  • Paxton – IPs are specified, other property was not. What was envisioned with this language?
    • Could be a mascot, stadium, etc.; physical or IP
  • Creighton – Applies to symbols of the university, like the UT Tower or Kyle Field
  • Zaffirini – By who and How should universities be held accountable?
    • Athletes should not be held accountable because the university gave them a bad contract or signing deal
    • Accountability right now is tricky, federal intervention is up in the air
    • We need at least a framework of accountability
  • Zaffirini – How to we manage all these different bills across the US?
    • I do not see a way the federal level does not get involved
    • Bjork – It’s become clear the NCAA cannot and will not get involved in regulating NIL contracts. Its either State by State or Federal legislation, hoping for a cohesive federal response soon, but we should not wait in Texas to pass legislation
  • Zaffirini – Bill I am working on would allow advertising, income from other forms of media like podcasts and social media, would this be included?
    • Assume this would be included, but could specify if wanted
  • West – Has there been discussion of athletes being considered independent contractors?
    • Financial literacy is important especially with new technologies and cash transfer abilities – critical to ensure accountability and knowledge of financial responsibilities including taxes and risk

 

Ross Bjork, Texas A&M Athletics Director – On

  • Appreciate the seriousness the legislature is treating NIL with
  • Necessary to maintain athletic competitiveness
  • “Next evolution” in college athletics
  • West – But the reality is that NIL will be leveraged by recruiters. How do you feel about it?
    • Inducement needs to be severed from the institution
    • An agreement with a company cannot be tied to the university
  • West – If the bill section is violated, only the student would be impacted
    • The “teeth” need to be fleshed out
  • West – What is University Property
    • Intellectual property
  • West – Bill references property and intellectual property, what is the other property defined as
    • I believe it specifically is referring to IP
    • May need language clarification
  • West – Can you explain the NIL contracting process?
  • Paxton – IPs are specified, other property was not. What was envisioned with this language?
    • Its mainly IP related
  • West – Has there been discussion of athletes being considered independent contractors?
    • Not considered employees right now
    • Likely education and risk protection will be included in financial literacy requirement

SB 1385 left pending

 

SB 420 (Miles) – Relating to the participation of the medical school at the University of Houston and the college of osteopathic medicine at Sam Houston State University in the Joint Admission Medical Program

  • JAM was created to help economically disadvantaged students to prepare for and be admitted to medical school in Texas
  • JAM also provides scholarships and mentors for enrolled medical students
  • Bill would add Sam Houston State and University of Houston medical schools to the JAM program

 

Anne Gilliard, Interim Vice Provost at Sam Houston State University – On

  • SHSU created medical school to address shortages in doctors, especially in rural areas
  • Primary goal is to connect primary care physicians with communities of high need
  • JAM would help meet that goal

SB 420 left pending

 

SB 1019 (Zaffirini) – Relating to a requirement for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to report certain student loan data

  • Student loan debt is 2nd biggest form of debt, major issue
  • Loan debt is only broken down by institution in current reporting
  • Only aggregated data is available; we need a clearer picture of how debt is distributed
  • Would require THECB to disaggregate loan debt data to provide better accuracy and insight for interventions

 

Jonathan Feinstein, The Education Trust in Texas & Postsecondary Coalition for Equity – For

  • Disaggregated loan data will help address the crisis of student debt; $101 billion worth of debt in the state, 14% in default
  • Texas students attending short-term programs default 2x as much as 4-year students
  • Consistent data reporting will help Texans understand trends and make more informed and targeted decisions regarding help and assistance for students
  • Many disparities exist in debt holding, but information needed for 60-30 program achievement
  • Texas is not on track to meet the 60-30 goals
  • Springer – Debt to income ratio, how is that measured?
    • Not sure about the specific methodology, but encourage reading Dr. Baker’s work from SMU
  • Springer – Interested to see if students are getting jobs in their fields, and what wages – key to debt issues
    • That data is being aggregated, but without disaggregated data sets it is very difficult to determine that information

SB 1019 left pending

 

SB 1889 (Creighton) (CS) – Relating to curriculum requirements in American and Texas history at institutions of higher education

  • Committee sub
  • Civic knowledge and education of history is important for civic engagement
  • Current statute requires 6 credit hours of history
  • CS would require universities to offer survey courses on specific issues of American history
  • CS would require THECB to develop American history resources and civic engagement resources to increase civic engagement and knowledge

 

Harrison Keller, Commissioner of Higher Education – On

  • Inspiration is to ensure that all students in higher ed have an opportunity to learn about the formation of government and major themes of American history
  • Options would be expanded to complete the required history credits
  • Variety of resources already available, and we expect to expand those resources under this bill
  • West – How will these survey courses be developed and approved?
    • Proposals for courses must meet standards set out, then THECB evaluates proposed courses and approves or denies them
  • West – So the bill would provide additional online resources to satisfy the history requirement?
    • Yes, does not modify current requirement just increases ways to fulfill the requirement
  • Creighton – Is this bill about current or new resources?
    • Repository envisions continued creation of new content – allowing for creative expansion of resources and OER
    • Seen firsthand how steep the learning curve is for new technology and teaching materials, important we include professional development for teachers to ensure speedy implementation of the program

 

Dr. Thomas Lindsey, Texas Public Policy Foundation – For

  • National studies document civic illiteracy
  • 90% of immigrants pass the citizenship test the first time, but only 33% of natural-born citizens can pass the citizenship test
  • Texas shows similar trend to national numbers
  • Informed citizens are critical to survival of democratic society

 

Sen. Creighton closes

SB 1889 left pending

 

SB 1963 (West) (CS) – Relating to a transferability report card for public institutions of higher education.

  • Would require institutions to place on their website transferability report cards indicating the number of hours transferred to their campuses yearly, and how many were successful
  • CS would push back effective date of the bill and due date of first report card, and removal of community colleges from the requirement

SB 1963 left pending

 

SB 1701 (Creighton) (CS) – Relating to certain bonds issued by public institutions of higher education in this state to acquire, purchase, construct, improve, renovate, enlarge, or equip the property, buildings, structures, or facilities of or the related infrastructure for those institutions

  • Tuition revenue bonds (TRB) are a favored method to fund construction projects at institutions to spread costs over an extended period
  • TRB debt service is generally paid from GR rather than tuition and fees revenue
  • Bill would rename TRBs to provide clarity as “higher education debt assistance”
  • CS would add new definition for TRBs as “capital improvement debt assistance”
  • Changes would provide clarity to members and public, as well as to institutions

SB 1701 left pending

 

SB 1677 (Buckingham) (CS) – Relating to eliminating reporting requirements for public institutions of higher education and the requirement for a plan by certain school districts to increase enrollment in public institutions of higher educations

  • Bill would streamline, limit, and reduce duplicated reporting requirements on institutions
  • THECB would be granted ability to eliminate reporting requirements already in rule/statute
  • Rule making committee would be granted ability to change statute to streamline duplicative reporting requirements
  • CS eliminates two duplicated reporting requirements

SB 1677 left pending

 

SB 810 (Kolkhorst) – Relating to the course information required to be posted on a public institution of higher education’s Internet website

  • Paxton – Requires posted coursework online to be provided to THECB and published on their website
  • Expands requirements to graduate courses
  • Comptroller would have authority to withhold 1% funding from institutions out of compliance
  • Provides convenient access to course syllabi prior to enrollment
  • Ensures institutions are in compliance with current statute
  • Bill is needed as many institutions are not in compliance with statute
  • Zaffirini – What are the penalties for noncompliance?
    • Kolkhorst will be reserved to answer those questions when she is present before the committee

SB 810 left pending