Ohio private college presidents ask to get rid of proposed changes to Governor's Merit Scholarship
Ohio private college presidents slammed proposed requirements for participating in the Governor's Merit Scholarship that were added to the House's version of the two-year operating budget during testimony in the Senate Higher Education Committee.
The committee had four hearings on the budget, which Senate lawmakers are currently working on. The Ohio House passed the budget last month and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine must sign the budget by June 30.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Todd Jones, president and general counsel of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio (AICUO), spoke out against provisions the Ohio House added to the budget regarding new requirements for private colleges if they want to continue to participate in the Governor's Merit Scholarship, which gives the top 5% of each high school graduating class a $5,000 scholarship each year to go to an Ohio college or university.
Under the new changes made in the House, private colleges would also have to accept the top 10% of Ohio's graduating class and comply with parts of Senate Bill 1 — Ohio's new higher education law that bans diversity and inclusion efforts and regulates classroom discussion, among other things.
'I want to be clear that our concerns are not about DEI and SB 1,' Jones said. 'Our concerns are about the very nature of our institutions and what it means to be a private, nonprofit institution. … When the state dictates our missions, board structures, curriculum, hiring practices, workloads, and public engagement, the autonomy that defines nonprofit institutions disappears.'
Tiffin University President Lillian Schumacher said the S.B. 1 mandates would increase operational costs without improving educational outcomes.
'For many institutions, these new burdens could lead to closures, reduced financial aid, higher tuition, and a reduction in critical educational services for students,' she said in her testimony.
Forcing private colleges and universities to accept the top 10% of Ohio's graduating class would create challenges for those institutions, Chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education Mike Duffey said.
'Public universities have the infrastructure with branch campuses, large-scale facilities, and state funding to absorb enrollment increases,' Jones said. 'Independent institutions operate on much smaller scales.'
Eight AICUO institutions function out of a single academic building, he said.
'Imposing this mandate without providing financial or logistical support places an impractical burden on private colleges,' Jones said.
Being able to welcome an additional influx of students depends on various factors including the students' major, housing and financial needs, University of Findlay President Kathy Fell said.
'I know we all agree that students will not benefit from this opportunity if approbate supports and resources for success are not available,' she said in her testimony.
Aultman College President Jean Paddock said the 10% acceptance mandate would not be possible in healthcare programs that are limited to a capped number of seats.
'With a nursing shortage well documented, sending our best and brightest who want to enter the healthcare field to other states is the opposite of what we want,' Paddock said in her testimony.
The Governor's Merit Scholarship was enacted through the last state budget two years ago and 76% of the state's 6,250 eligible students from the class of 2024 accepted the scholarship. The acceptance rate was 100% in Hocking, Holmes, Putnam, Adams, Monroe, Noble, and Vinton counties, Duffey said.
In the second year of the scholarship, 87% of Ohio students accepted the scholarship and 11 rural counties had a 100% acceptance rate, Duffey said.
Ohio Sen. Jane Timken, R-Jackson Township, said she has received several inquiries from private colleges and universities with concerns about the Governor's Merit Scholarship requirements being linked to compliance with parts of S.B. 1.
'Clearly we would lose some students if they weren't able to access those funds,' Duffey said.
The budget currently allocates $47 million for fiscal year 2026 and $70 million for fiscal year 2027 for the Governor's Merit Scholarship.
Follow Capital Journal Reporter Megan Henry on Bluesky.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
15 minutes ago
Trump admin live updates: Trump, Schumer trade barbs over Senate nominations
The Senate voted on some of Trump's nominations before the August recess. 2:17 The Senate on Saturday considered some of President Donald Trump's nominations before the August recess. Earlier this week, Trump issued an executive order slapping tariffs on many of America's trading partners but the new duties are set to go into effect in seven days. Trump also continues to face questions over his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and his relationship with the accused sex trafficker. Latest headlines: 3 minutes ago Johnson makes last-minute visit to Israel 57 minutes ago Greer suggests Aug. 12 tariff deadline for China could slide 1 hour and 37 minutes ago Texas state House set to consider new congressional maps on Monday Here's how the news is developing. 46 Updates Jul 28, 2025, 10:00 AM EDT Trump says he is 'allowed' to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, but it's 'inappropriate' to discuss When asked by reporters if he would pardon Ghislaine Maxwell -- the convicted associate of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein -- President Donald Trump said he is "allowed to give her a pardon" but "nobody's approached me with it." "Nobody's asked me about it. Right now, it would be inappropriate to talk about it," Trump said on Monday. He said he hasn't been "overly interested" in the Epstein files, and called the 'whole thing a hoax' in regard to whether his name is in the files. Jul 28, 2025, 9:56 AM EDT Starmer says he has a 'very good relationship' with Trump British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he has a "very good personal relationship" with President Donald Trump, emphasizing that the United Kingdom and the United States have "always stood together." In terms of best interests for the two countries, Starmer added that he and Trump have a "huge amount of common ground." Trump says he is 'not interested in talking' to Putin President Donald Trump said he has "always gotten along" with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but on Monday, he said he is "not interested in talking" to him. "Russia could be so rich right now. But instead, they spend everything on war. I really thought this was going to end. Every time I think it's going to end, he kills people," Trump said. Earlier on Monday, Trump said he would reduce the 50-day window for Russia to agree to a peace deal with Ukraine. Jul 28, 2025, 9:37 AM EDT Trump says Powell 'has to' cut interest rates While meeting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, President Donald Trump said Fed Chair Jerome Powell "has to" cut interest rates. "He should cut. A smart person should cut," Trump said. This comes after Trump visited the Federal Reserve on Thursday, repeating calls for lower interest rates while standing alongside Powell.
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
‘More like a blue trickle': Dems are hoping for a blue wave that might not happen
That suggests Democrats are having trouble capitalizing on what they say is Republicans' shaky handling of economic and foreign policy. Around this time in 2017 — ahead of Democrats' monster 2018 blue wave year in which they gained a net of 41 House seats — Democrats were up about 6 percentage points in the generic ballot, noted Taglia, the Emerson pollster. That doesn't mean the blue wave dream is dead. Election Day is still 15 months away, and that same Emerson poll shows about a quarter of voters are currently undecided on the congressional ballot. Americans could start feeling the impacts of the megabill and other marquee policies like mass deportations well into campaign season, which could offer Democrats an opportunity to win back some voters who swung right in 2024. 'If we get to March of next year and we still see Democrats at 2 or 3 points up in the generic ballot, that is alarm bells for them,' Taglia said. 'They're going to want to be at least 4 points up. For their ideal result, probably more like 6 points … Then you're starting to look a little bit like a blue wave.' Redistricting could bite into Democrats' opportunities Texas Republicans unveiled a new congressional map Wednesday that, if enacted, would carve out five additional red-leaning districts. Those efforts, done at the behest of Trump, could throw a monkeywrench in Democrats' plans to reclaim the House. Now Democrats are trying to reforge relationships with voters in four newly created majority-Hispanic districts in Texas who swung right in 2024. 'Donald Trump and Texas Republicans are playing a dangerous game, and we're ready to defeat now-vulnerable Republicans next November,' said CJ Warnke, a spokesperson for House Majority PAC, Democrats' top House super PAC. 'We're bringing the full weight of our operation to the Lone Star State to make this backroom deal backfire and take back the House in 2026.' Republicans also hope to squeeze out a few more red districts in other states. Control of the House hinges on razor-thin majorities, and those redistricting efforts alone could significantly stymie Democrats' ability to retake the chamber. Some Democratic governors, including California's Gavin Newsom and New York's Kathy Hochul, have threatened retaliatory gerrymandering crusades ahead of midterms, though it's unclear how feasible these efforts will be because those states have ceded redistricting power to independent commissions, unlike Texas. Those states would have to rely on voter referenda or court orders to claw back this power, and they only have until early 2026 to pull it off. Tanden says she's optimistic California can counter Texas's gerrymandering by 2026. 'If someone was like, 'while Trump is president we're going to get rid of the commission,' people would be down with that.' Democrats are facing down messy primaries House Democrats are facing crowded primaries across the map. Some in the party worry that months of fighting over intraparty tactics or thorny issues like Israel's war in Gaza could splinter voters and drain resources that could be used in the general election. Democratic infighting over the idea of challenging incumbents has roiled the Democratic National Committee, where former Vice Chair David Hogg lost his position amid consternation over his plan to primary 'asleep at the wheel' Democrats.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Push to ban lawmaker stock trading gets new life
The years-long effort to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is back in the spotlight following a House Ethics Committee report that took issue with transactions made by a member's spouse, and after a Senate panel advanced legislation to prohibit lawmakers from making transactions. And some lawmakers are vowing to keep the topic front and center into the fall as they look to make headways on a matter that has mystified Congress. Leading that effort is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who plans to file a discharge petition on legislation to prohibit lawmakers and their immediate families from owning, trading or controlling stocks, commodities or futures, directing lawmakers to divest their holdings within 180 days of the bill's enactment. If the procedural gambit is successful, the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn), would hit the floor in the fall. But if the past is prologue, getting the measure over the finish line will be a tall task. Supporters, however, are optimistic they will find success. 'I think America is aware of what's going on,' Burchett told The Hill. 'They know it's not natural for somebody to, day in and day out, pick stock and have a 100, 200, 300 percent return, and they're tired of seeing Congress members making $170,000 a year retiring worth millions.' While the idea of banning members from trading stocks is widely popular among the public, some lawmakers for years have balked at the push, raising concerns about the level of pay for members — a $174,000 salary, which has been frozen since 2009, constituting a 30 percent pay cut when adjusting for inflation. And even among those who support banning members from trading stocks, there is disagreement about the details. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last weekadvanced a bill that would bar not only members, their spouses, and their dependent children from buying and trading stocks, but also the president and vice president — with a carve-out for President Trump, since the requirement would not apply until the start of the elected officials' next terms. The hearing over the bill became contentious, with some Republicans on the panel arguing against a ban altogether, Democrats arguing in support and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asking why Trump should be exempt. Trump, who earlier in the day had said he liked the stock trading ban 'conceptually,' attacked Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) for his support of the bill. Hawley later said Trump was under the mistaken impression it would apply to him. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who as leader of the House opposed a stock trading ban and after whom Republicans cheekily named a previous effort to ban trading — threw her support behind the bill as well. Pelosi had opened the door to supporting a stock trading ban in 2022, but her outright endorsement was nonetheless notable. But Burchett's bill that Luna hopes to force a vote on, as well as several other stock trade bills — such as the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust (TRUST) in Congress Act, from Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) — do not include the barring trades by the president. Despite those hangups, proponents of the ban are optimistic they can get it done this time around. 'It's an increasingly public fight that people care about,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a large supporter of a prohibition on lawmaker stock trading, told The Hill. 'And Congress is running out of runway with the people.' 'We will force votes,' he added. The difficulty in crafting a stock trading ban is personified in Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), who has caught heat for continuing to trade stocks despite saying he wants to ban member stock trading. Bresnahan, a businessman whose estimated net worth is in the multi-millions, has continued to report many stock trades despite writing a letter to the editor during his campaign calling to ban stock trading. Bresnahan has introduced a stock trading ban bill and says that he has no involvement with the trades that his financial advisers have made on his behalf. While he has said he wants to keep his current financial advisers and create a blind trust that would put a more stringent firewall between him and those trades, he has found problems in crafting that plan with the House Ethics Committee. Local public news organization WVIA noted that Bresnahan could simply ask his advisers to not make any more trades, but Bresnahan dismissed that idea. 'And then do what with it?' Bresnahan said to WVIA News. 'Just leave it all in the accounts and just leave it there and lose money and go broke?' Despite some critics, supporters of a stock trading ban are plowing full-steam ahead, hoping to make headway on the headwinds created by the House Ethics Committee. 'Members of Congress should be banned from trading individual stocks because their access to privileged, nonpublic information creates unavoidable conflicts of interest that erode public confidence in government,' Luna said in a statement. 'As lawmakers, we receive classified briefings, shape economic policies, and interact with industry leaders, giving us insights that can influence stock prices.' 'Even if no laws are broken, the appearance of profiting from this access fuels distrust among Americans,' she added. 'The American people do not trust the US government, and this is a step forward to building that trust.' The impetus for the current push was a report from the House Ethics Committee that said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) violated the lower chamber's code of conduct when his wife traded stocks for the company Cleveland-Cliffs — which has a facility in Kelly's district — after the congressman learned non-public information about the firm. On April 28, 2020, Kelly learned that the Commerce Department would make an announcement that would benefit Cleveland-Cliffs. The day after, the congressman's wife, Victoria Kelly, bought 5,000 shares of the company for $23,075. The department's news was ultimately made public on May 4. She sold all her shares of the company in January 2021 shortly after Cleveland-Cliffs acquired a steel manufacturing corporation, turning a $64,476.06 profit. 'Representative Kelly's conduct with respect to Cleveland-Cliffs and his wife's stock purchase raised significant concerns for the Committee, even if it did not rise to the level of insider trading or clearly violate conflict of interest rules,' the committee wrote in its report, later adding that Kelly 'has not demonstrated sufficient appreciation for the harm to the institution caused by the appearance of impropriety.' It is, to be sure, already illegal for members of Congress to make transactions based on information they receive through their job, and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which was enacted in 2012, requires that lawmakers report their stock trades within 30 days. But some ethics advocates believe the law should be stronger. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), while he said he is supportive of the efforts to ban stock trades, has noted the difficult position the restrictions could put on members and their families, given the salary for members of Congress has been frozen since 2009. That amounts to around a 30 percent pay cut when adjusting for inflation. Most members make a salary of $174,000. 'If you stay on this trajectory, you're going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress,' Johnson said in May. 'I mean, just people just make a reasonable decision as a family on whether or not they can come to Washington and have a residence here, residence at home, and do all the things that are required.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
