Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Old laws

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Mike Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Mikhail Kovalenko wrote:
> 
> > Just because a law wasn't brought up for a 100 years should not make it
> > any less valid. That's what the lawyers get paid the big bucks for,
> > right -- remembering all the laws applicable to any particular case?
> > Those laws can serve as pretty good sanity checks, reflecting how the
> > society has changed over the years. If a law doesn't make sense anymore,
> > who has the power to repeal it - the legislators or the judiciary?
> 
> The problem I have with the current situation in Missouri is
> that the law existed for 130 years, say, and tuition has been
> charged at MU for, what, 100 of those years?  More?  Fewer?  
> Anyway, the point is, the law was being violated continually for
> many decades.

Actually, apparently only since 1986.  You could charge very
specific fees for lots of things, just not tuition overall.  
I don't know how or whether the original 1872 law came into play at 
that time, but I don't think it was unknown.

> Obviously, no one knew. Now, suddenly, the law matters again and
> the state must make ammends for "illegally" (under its own
> absurd, forgotten laws) charging tuition. *Every* other state in
> the country charges tuition at their universities.

Actually, Mike, this has not technically been true for very long in 
some places.  California, for example, did not charge tuition in 
theory until the 1990s I believe although the "educational fees" 
assessed before then would have qualified in spirit.  And there were 
court cases about that one, too.  Now the open
 
> I would have been fine with it if the law was evoked within the
> first year or two after they started to charge tuition.  Then I
> wouldn't care how old the law was.  The thing that strikes me as
> preposterous is that the law was ignored for *many* decades.  

See above.  Plus, I would make the argument that it would not
necessarily have been worth anybody's while when the illegal fees
were rather small, as they probably were up until the mid-90s.  
These days, tuition costs at Mizzou are very noticeable, and
probably about to get substantially higher again next year.

> There ought to be some way for states to protect themselves
> against this kind of mistake!

Hire competent lawyers in the first place.  Buy legal liability 
insurance.  Have a state financing system that is guaranteed not to 
suck.
 
> This is so crazy that I'm really surprised I haven't seen it in the
> national news.

I don't think it will really become news unless a sizable judgement 
is finally rendered.  Interestingly, the plaintiffs in the case do 
not *seem* to be asking for cash back.  There was a story in the 
paper yesterday that indicated they would be willing to take their 
court costs (cha-ching!) plus vouchers for free courses.  That 
sounds reasonable and cheap at some level until you do the math:

If you divide $450 million by the approximately $450 per 3-hour
course that is the going rate, you could get a total of 1 million
seats in courses to grant.  If it were all 500-person Psych 1
sections (among the cheapest ways to burn this off), that would be
enough to fill all currently available Psych 1 seats for the next
400 years (I think there are 5 sections per year of this).  Another
way to look at this is that there would be enough vouchers to send
about 30,000 undergrads through Mizzou for four years.  This is 
interesting since the plaintiffs suggested making the vouchers 
donatable (to scholarship funds, etc.) and salable.  I'm guessing
these could sell for something like 80% of face value if there were
mild restrictions on redeeming them, and you can project a loss of 
tuition revenue that would be...interesting.  But it would cost the
state nothing, so it could happen.

jking

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/