Brad Cook, Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green 

All businesses in New Hampshire have a vested interest in the education and training of a quality work force. Primary in that effort are the institutions of the University System of New Hampshire: the flagship research University of New Hampshire, Plymouth State University, Keene State College and Granite State College. The University System is the coordinating body established by law to coordinate the efforts of the institutions, and efficiently provide services to all of them.  Last year, the state legislature made the largest cuts to the USNH budget of any state university system in history, cutting 48 percent of the budget when New Hampshire state aid to higher education already was 50^th in the nation. It also eliminated scholarships from the state for New Hampshire students attending public and private institutions of higher education, making New Hampshire unique for another unfortunate reason.

Rather than reducing services to students, the University System faced the unfair and unwise cuts with great resolve, and off-set 80 percent of the cuts with reductions in spending, and actually increased state aid to New Hampshire students seeking to attend the institutions. Nevertheless, tuition had to increase.

This session, HB 1692 has been introduced with the sponsorship of much of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, and passed the House this past Wednesday in an initial consideration, and next heads to the House Finance Committee, as it has serious fiscal implications. This bill would do a number of unwise and inexplicable things, including eliminating the position of Chancellor of the University System, reducing the number of trustees, especially those representing the alumni of UNH, reducing the size of the System office to 12 employees, and otherwise interfering with the administration of the System that is entrusted to its hard-working Board of Trustees. As originally drafted, these changes would have been effective July 1, 2012, but the Committee amended it to be effective in 2013.

The reasons the sponsors of the bill gave at public hearing on the bill were that it was aimed at restoring in the System office to the size it was in 1980, would save money and would give the individual institutions more independence and agility. These rationales are faulty for a number of reasons:

1. Rather than having 12 administrators in 1980, the System office actually had 109.  Presently, it has 71, and plans are in place to reduce that number significantly.
2. The Board of Trustees, charged with operating the University System, which is not a state agency but a state-created instrument with its own governance system, already is looking at ways to reduce the size of the central administration and give the individual institutions more autonomy so they can be competitive in the present world of higher education.  For the legislature to micro-manage the administration is very bad precedent, bad administration, and inconsistent both with the historic roles of the Board and the legislature and is largely uninformed or based on inaccurate "facts."
3. USNH has the lowest relative administrative costs of the public higher education systems in New England, and is working to make them lower.
4. UNH, Keene, Plymouth and Granite State College spend less to educate students than comparable public institutions.
5. Roughly two-thirds of the cost of operating New Hampshire's public higher education institutions comes from tuition, fees, room and board. The state provides a very small percentage to these allegedly "public" institutions, so perhaps the number of alumni trustees should increase to reflect the amount the users of the service provide, not be decreased at a time the state is abandoning its responsibility.
6. According to the fiscal note on HB 1692, enacting it would actually cost $12,250,000 more than the present arrangement, because of the need to duplicate services at each campus for benefit administration, legal services, human resources, financial management, outreach and the other coordinated services provided by the System.         

This bill, and its amended effective date, is bad policy and should be defeated. Business organizations are on record as opposing it, as should business people, parents, alumni and all thinking citizens of New Hampshire. Rather than attack the University System with a meat-ax approach, the legislature should fund it adequately so that it can provide the educational services New Hampshire needs, at a price New Hampshire students deserve, so that the well-educated workers businesses require will be available, without unacceptable levels of student debt. The House Finance Committee should be urged to reject it. If it passes the House, the New Hampshire Senate should be urged to defeat it and Governor Lynch should make it clear he will veto it.

Rather than view public higher education in New Hampshire as an enemy, the state, especially through its elected officials, should treasure it and recognize it for the valuable resource it represents.  

Will Stewart, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce 

When a bill receives a public hearing, it is customary for the bill's sponsor to introduce it to the committee to which it was assigned. Usually this introduction lasts only a few minutes. Not so for yesterday's hearing of HB 1561, which seeks to discontinue the state's regional planning commissions.

Rep. Dan McGuire, R-Epsom, spent more than 30 minutes railing against planning in general and regional planning in particular, much to the chagrin of many in the crowded, overheated room.

Joining the Chamber in opposition to the bill were representatives of the Town of Goffstown and the Town of Bedford, among others, who see great value in regional planning, specifically that provided by the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission (SNHPC).

General fund contributions to the state's nine Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) last year totaled $100,000 - about $11,000 per Planning Commission, or less than 2 percent of the average RPC budget.  RPCs earn most of their funding each year by winning grants and providing services to towns and state and federal agencies under contract.  

RPCs save communities money by providing low-cost planning services to towns with limited or no planning capacity, and by helping to obtain grants. For every $1 in dues received, for example, SNHPC returns $5 in planning grants and services to the communities in our region.

It is currently each town's voluntary decision whether or not to join the SNHPC. They affirm that decision each year when they decide to pay membership dues. The vast majority of towns (12 out of 13 in our region and 91 percent statewide) make the decision to participate in regional planning commissions because they find it beneficial to participate. If for some reason they do not, now or in the future, they are free to withdraw their membership. HB 1561, however, would take away their option to participate.

The Chamber works hand-in-hand with the SNHPC, with whom we are formal partners on a number of key economic development initiatives in our area. Chief among these is Metro Center, a regional economic development initiative.

Other notable-and vital-accomplishments of the SNHPC include the completion of the Regional Economic Development Plan and a regional Target Industries Analysis, both of which will help guide our region's economic growth.

Benefits for part-time employees?

This week the Chamber also opposed HB 1323 this week. This bill would require employers who offer benefits to full-time employees to offer benefits on a pro-rated basis to part-time employees.

Even in the best of times this requirement would be a challenge for employers, but in the current economic client, it could have dire impacts on businesses across the state.

Benefits-which typically include health insurance, vacation time and sick time- are generally calculated at one-third of an employee's salary. To add this additional cost to employers would very likely result in the layoff of part-time employees, or the transfer of full-time employees to part time to cover this added financial burden.