Bishop Davidson — Bishop Davidson, speaking as vice chair and subcommittee chair, supported the chair’s leadership and explained that the higher education funding proposal was carefully developed through conversations with institutions. He emphasized that the FTE-based approach was not a last-minute decision, but a deliberate effort to address inequities in how universities are funded. Davidson argued that the model is simpler, more transparent, and fairer than more complex performance-based formulas, and that it should continue across fiscal years as a more stable way to distribute higher education dollars. He clarified that the proposal does not simply increase funding for four-year schools, but reallocates existing dollars according to FTEs while keeping all current budget lines intact. In response to questions, he explained how FTE is calculated using DHE data and different divisors for undergraduate, community college, and graduate enrollment, noting that the method accounts for graduate-program differences and broader institutional revenue factors such as higher graduate tuition.
Bishop Davidson — Bishop Davidson is referenced throughout a continuous discussion about the funding recommendation and related consolidation proposal. The exchange covers when the chair and vice chair were first included in the conversation, whether the proposal was discussed before the chair arrived, and follow-up questions seeking clarification about the credit-hour issue and whether the proposal is a first step toward consolidation.
Bishop Davidson — The speaker references Representative Davidson's earlier remarks on the issue.
Bishop Davidson — Commended for taking an approach to the budget problem.
Bishop Davidson — Bishop Davidson discusses the committee’s proposal with university leaders and explains that the plan is moving quickly but is not meant to force consolidation. He says the goal is to create better incentives for educating Missouri students, not to dictate how universities or community colleges should operate. He emphasizes that appropriators should focus on ensuring taxpayer dollars follow student enrollment while trusting institutions to make their own operational decisions, and he closes by acknowledging the concern and thanking the speaker for their expertise.
Bishop Davidson — Bishop Davidson is referenced in an ongoing discussion about the proposal’s treatment of graduate-degree costs. The speaker notes that the vice chair and others worked on the proposal, then disputes the vice chair’s claim that graduate degrees were factored in at nine credit hours, and later questions whether the vice chair was incorrect about that nine-hour assumption for graduate funding.
Betsy Fogle — Roll was called for Representative Fogle.
Betsy Fogle — Representative Fogle delivers an extended critique of the budget and policy choices affecting child care and early childhood services. She questions whether payment on enrollment is the right model for child care stability, presses on promised child care subsidy changes, and argues that the chairman’s language would block implementation of reforms and stall progress. She expresses frustration that the General Assembly and administration have not fulfilled commitments to the child care industry, especially for subsidy and foster care children, and says child care is the most important issue in the budget. She further argues that the wait list is a budget and policy decision, not merely an operational issue, and says she is uncomfortable eliminating enhancements, particularly protective services funding. She then turns to language affecting Parents as Teachers and pre-K, noting that the restriction could force families to choose between services, asking whether the programs provide different benefits, and objecting to language that would limit access to both.
Betsy Fogle — Representative Betsy Fogle asked to inquire of the Vice Chair and continued questioning about the funding recommendation, including its timeline and the deliberative process behind it.
Betsy Fogle — The speaker references Representative Fogle's question and response in the discussion.
Betsy Fogle — The vice chair says Rep. Fogle had raised a related question earlier.
Betsy Fogle — The chair also indicated Representative Fogle would be next.
Betsy Fogle — Senator/Representative Fogel is referenced in connection with budget language questions.
Betsy Fogle — Brings the discussion back to House Bill 2 and raises the Blind Pension Fund transfer.
Betsy Fogle — Said she had disagreed with the chair on many items but appreciated work on priorities including deferred comp.
Betsy Fogle — Referenced in connection with a point about restorations and cuts in the budget.
Betsy Fogle — Called on to respond to the respite cap discussion.
Betsy Fogle — Asked what happens to individuals who currently use more than 49 respite hours per week and how many would be affected.
Betsy Fogle — Called on to ask about the TANF spending amount.
Betsy Fogle — Asked for the total TANF spend amount in the subcommittee version.
Betsy Fogle — Asked about the 57 Foundation and why the $250,000 was not reduced in the committee sub.
John Black — Roll was called for Black.
John Black — John Black was recognized and then spoke in support of changing the higher education funding model, arguing the current system is antiquated and should better align with state goals. He noted that related bills are moving in both chambers and praised the chair and vice chair for taking up the issue. A later reference to Representative Black continued the same discussion about the performance funding model.
John Black — The speaker says they were discussing a funding formula even before Representative Black secured money for a study.
John Black — Echoed the subcommittee chair's comments and said NDIs have not fared well under the chairman's recommendations.
John Black — John Black was called on after Representative Fogle's question and then asked whether the proposed restorations include the full $29 million for direct services that had been the subject of prior testimony.
Mitch Boggs — Roll was called for Boggs.
Mitch Boggs — Referenced as having worked on the global decision to reduce flexibility in DNR.
Darin Chappell — Roll was called for Chappell; transcription rendered as "Chapel."
Darin Chappell — Thanked the chair for finding money elsewhere to reinstate the funding and said the budget reflects prioritization.
Darin Chappell — Representative Darin Chappell was called on by the chair and briefly stated his support for the budget flexibility tactic, saying he agrees with it and expects the department to use the flexibility efficiently.
Mazzie Christensen — Roll was called for Christensen.
Kimberly-Ann Collins — Roll was called for Collins.
Kimberly-Ann Collins — Representative Collins is invited to speak briefly and responds, agreeing with colleagues and beginning to raise concerns about Harris-Stowe.
Kimberly-Ann Collins — Representative Collins is recognized to speak and then asks a clarifying procedural question, confirming that the item is not being cut but simply moved to a different line while retaining its original core.
Scott Cupps — Roll was called for Cupps; transcription rendered as "Cups."
Scott Cupps — Representative Cupps spoke in support of Parents as Teachers funding, noting that he had long advocated for it and had previously persuaded the former chairman to support it. He explained that the program is especially important in areas without pre-K, but raised concerns that some school districts may have tried to use it to capture additional money by enrolling pre-K students and designating employees as facilitators.
Scott Cupps — Representative Cupps is recognized to join the discussion and says he intended to inquire of Representative Lewis.
Melissa Douglas — Roll was called for Douglas.
Melissa Douglas — Was called on to follow up with questions about the Title I proposal.
Melissa Douglas — Asked for clarification about Bartle Hall being zeroed out.
Melissa Douglas — Representative Melissa Douglas asked whether Family Resource Centers funding would be moved to or appear elsewhere in the budget.
Stephanie Hein — Roll was called for Hein.
Stephanie Hein — Asked whether the I-70 changes would affect bonding mechanisms.
Jim Kalberloh — Roll was called for Kalberloh; transcription rendered as "Calabolo."
Nick Kimble — Roll was called for Kimble; transcription rendered as "Kimball."
Ed Lewis — Roll was called for Lewis.
Ed Lewis — Representative Lewis responds to the proposed performance funding model by saying he agrees with part of Representative Black’s concerns but does not think the proposal is adequate. He argues that funding should not be based only on FTE and should also account for completion outcomes and other measures of student success. He warns that the proposal would impose a severe cut on Truman State, potentially threatening the university’s future, and notes that its FTEs largely reflect students who complete degrees. Lewis suggests a phased 80-20 transition over five years rather than an abrupt shift and says he would have difficulty supporting the budget with this provision included.
Ed Lewis — Referenced as the gentleman from the Lewis district in connection with Truman and the budget impact.