Jonathan Sickler — Jonathan Sickler, Senator from District 17 in Grand Forks, discussed the interim committee’s review of dual credit from the perspectives of quality, access, and cost. He explained that the legislature has monitored credentialing progress for high school faculty teaching dual credit and noted that nearly all now meet the required guidelines. He also compared dual credit with AP courses, observing that some districts favor AP and that the state should continue evaluating how the two options compete. Sickler raised concerns about students accumulating large numbers of dual credit hours, suggesting that counseling and course sequencing may be important, and concluded that it would be valuable to continue tracking student outcomes over time.
Jonathan Sickler — Senator Sickler is referenced in the context of the dual credit issue and committee involvement. The discussion notes that multiple committees were involved, and that Senator Sickler and others met with leadership about assigning the issue to a single committee, with earlier reference to direct costs as part of the same broader discussion.
Jonathan Sickler — Senator Jonathan Sickler is referenced as having finished his remarks about dual credit, with the discussion noting that he had already said all he wanted to say on the topic. He is also cited as pointing out that the one-rate approach is only a working model.
Jonathan Sickler — Was asked whether he had more to discuss about dual credit and how to proceed.
Jonathan Sickler — Senator Sikler participates in a discussion about university capital and building funds, including how state statute applies to dual credit funding, whether some campuses have multi-use or joint-use buildings, and whether the bill’s wording or verbiage should be changed. The exchange stays focused on funding criteria and related language for campus building projects.
Brad Bekkedahl — Likely the intended reference for Senator Becadol, identified as joining from legislative management.
Brad Bekkedahl — Raised concerns about variation in direct costs per credit across institutions and asked whether a formula exists.
Brad Bekkedahl — A question from this senator is referenced as prompting a request for historical comparison data.
LaurieBeth Hager — Identified as joining from legislative management.
LaurieBeth Hager — Representative LaurieBeth Hager asked for clarification on the funding comparison and followed up by questioning what the funding change would do for UND, NDSU, and the other colleges, seeking to understand the practical impact of the revised formula.
LaurieBeth Hager — The question is directed to Representative Hager.
Lisa Johnson — Deputy Commissioner in academic and student affairs for the North Dakota University System; began testimony with an update.
Mike Nathe — Asked whether inactivated or terminated programs have led to layoffs of professors.
Mike Nathe — Asked about layoffs or faculty impacts from program inactivation and termination.
Mike Nathe — Asked whether faculty were laid off and whether any inactivated or terminated programs were online.
Mike Nathe — Asked whether the terminated or inactivated programs were mostly in-person or online.
Mike Nathe — Was asked to receive follow-up information about whether programs were online or in-person.
Mike Nathe — Acknowledged in the exchange after the follow-up offer.
Mike Nathe — Asked the follow-up question about online versus in-classroom programs.
Mike Nathe — Mentioned again in the exchange.
Mike Nathe — Asked whether the ten-graduate threshold reflects a break-even point for revenue versus expenses.
Mike Nathe — Addressed in the response.
Mike Nathe — Addressed in the response as the questioner.
Mike Nathe — Referenced as having raised the cost standpoint question.
Mike Nathe — Referenced again in the discussion of costs and faculty labor.
Mike Nathe — The speaker could not recall the representative's name.
Mike Nathe — Asked for the board policy to be sent electronically.
Mike Nathe — Addressed during the explanation of the diploma-program list.
Mike Nathe — Addressed in the response.
Mike Nathe — Referenced as having asked about cost savings in the June presentation.
Mike Nathe — Asked how many students are currently benefiting from the Turtle Mountain grant program and referenced prior Commerce budget deliberations.
Mike Nathe — Pressed for current participation numbers and whether the grant amount would be sufficient.
Mike Nathe — Asked for the student goal for the program.
Mike Nathe — Questioned whether the ongoing dual credit program should be moved from the Commerce budget into higher education's budget.
Mike Nathe — Asked whether the facilities costs pertain to K-12 campuses and whether schools are charging colleges to use facilities.
Mike Nathe — Raised a question and commented that the document font was difficult to read.
Mike Nathe — Representative Nathe is addressed in a discussion about formula cost, and the speaker responds directly to his question on that topic.
Mike Nathe — Clarified that athletics scholarships are not included.
Mike Nathe — His absence from the 19th to the 4th is referenced when discussing meeting dates.
David Hogue — Chair Sorvog is repeatedly addressed and recognized throughout a continuous committee exchange. The witness responds to questions, offers to provide additional information, and discusses related details such as likely in-person programs and a diploma-program list. The mentions are mostly repeated references to the chair within the same ongoing discussion rather than distinct separate moments.
David Hogue — Chair Sorvaag is referenced repeatedly in a continuous discussion about whether tuition, funding, and dual credit access/cost decisions fall under legislative authority or the board’s purview. The mentions collectively emphasize the distinction between what the legislature can decide and what remains within the board’s control.
David Hogue — The chair is addressed as 'Chairman Sarvog,' likely a transcription error for a member name; identity uncertain.
David Hogue — David Hogue continued arguing that a true formula should not include a built-in correction or hold-harmless provision, saying senators had challenged him on how it could still be called a formula if it already corrects for failure. The exchange then continued with a garbled reference to 'Senator Beckett,' which appears to be part of the same ongoing discussion.
Cynthia Schreiber-Beck — Likely the speaker being addressed as 'Representative Svon-Tuk' in the transcript; asks about collaboration when programs have fewer than 10 students.
Cynthia Schreiber-Beck — Likely referenced as 'Chair Sorvagan' in the transcript; the speaker agrees with the chair and references prior June presentation.
Cynthia Schreiber-Beck — Likely the member being addressed as 'Representative Swanton' in the transcript.
Cynthia Schreiber-Beck — Representative Schreiber-Beck was referenced and then asked about how the program tracks completion and placement outcomes, including the success rate, with the response indicating that this information is collected through the program’s reporting requirements.
Cynthia Schreiber-Beck — Referenced as the sponsor of the Innovation Grant/Wi-Fi bill.
Alisa Mitskog — Likely the 'Representative Hanson' referred to by the speaker; introduced as having a question or statement.
Jamie Wilkie — Director of Finance with the North Dakota University System; reported there have been no operating-to-capital transfers this biennium.