RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Old laws

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Mike Miller wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Michael wrote:
> 
> > The problem with what you say is that the state gets to decide when it
> > follows it's own laws after-the-fact and when to apply those laws to
> > others after-the-fact.
> 
> After what fact?  After the law has been broken?  It seems to me that
> the important thing is the penalty for violating the law.  That is
> nearly always determined after the fact and based on the details of the
> case ("extenuating circumstances," etc.).  I don't know what the law
> says must be done when illegal tuition has been charged.  Maybe it says
> that reimbursement is required.  If the law doesn't mandate
> reimbursement or any particular punishment, I say they should just
> forget about their mistake and move on.  No one will lose. 

I disagree.  The original law was passed as part of a broader effort
in many states to make sure that the state was really providing 
educational opportunities at a nominal cost.  It is true that many states 
passed such laws, but then repealed them earlier in this century.  
Missouri did not do so, and did not charge tuition per credit hour until
1986.  This was a major change, and one that should clearly have required
revisiting this law.  They did not do so.  Just because there was no 
statuatory provision for a specific punishment for violating the law does 
not suggest to me that there can or should be no remedy for the students
who were illegally charged.  An obvious remedy would be to refund tuition
in excess of what would have been charged in fees.  A pragmatic approach 
to applying the remedy probably does, however, have to be found.  

> The students were getting a good deal on their educations.

But they weren't getting the deal the law said they should be getting.

> The harm will come from forcing the state to reimburse former students
> who clearly don't deserve the money.  Huge sums will come out of state
> coffers that are needed for welfare and road repair.  It would be a
> disasterous mistake.

Yes, it could well end up being a fiscal disaster for the state.  But
I think it is silly to suggest that not paying a settlement here will 
suddenly leave money around for those other things.  Missouri has a very 
serious long-term fiscal problem that Missourans have no interest in 
settling.  Road repair should never have to come out of the general fund; 
that's what gas taxes are for, and ours are pretty obviously too low by 
any measure.  If given the choice between spending billions of dollars
on social services or in tax refunds, you have to believe that this state 
will choose the latter course every time.  It's incredibly depressing
in some ways, but it appears to be true.
 
jking


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

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