HEAB navigation bar HEAB Main Page Contacting HEAB Financial Aid Application Info Links Questions Aid Administrators Site Map
February 1999 Board Meeting Agenda         October 1999 Board Meeting Agenda         Board Reports Index

Meeting Minutes

February 26, 1999


Board Members Present: Mike Clumpner, Sister Mary Beth Kornely, Jeremy Shea, Paul Spraggins, Gerald Randall, Sarah Von Rueden, Brian Johnson, Steve Van Ess, Mary Jo Green

HEAB Staff Present: Jane Hojan-Clark, Mary Lou Kuzdas, Sandra Thomas, John Whitt, Meghan Jackson, Lacey Thomas

Others Present: Dan Goyette - Marquette University, Katherine Davey - UW System Administrator, Margaret Zitzer - Marquette University, Carla Smith-Liebich - Marquette University, Peter Maternowski - DOA, John Grabel - United Council, Shelly Gardner - WTCSB, David Dies - WAICU, Elizabeth Dies, Thomas Flaschberger - LCO (Tribal) Community College

Chairman, Mike Clumpner, called the HEAB meeting to order at 9:07 a.m.

Minutes of the October 23, 1998 HEAB meeting were reviewed. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Steve Van Ess and seconded by Paul Spraggins. Passed. Minutes approved.

Report of the Executive Secretary
Jane Hojan-Clark reported that Governor Thompson permanently appointed her Executive Secretary effective January 14, 1999. The Division Manager (Programs and Policy) position has been posted. Applications are due March 8, 1999. The Y2K conversion is running ahead of schedule. The grants area is currently being tested, with a target completion date of April 1. All other programs are expected to be completed by October 1, 1999. Progress is expected to be made in moving to electronic applications for Minnesota and Wisconsin Reciprocity for 1999-2000. The ADVANTIS dial up project is still being worked on. This will allow schools to send electronic files and retrieve files directly. Currently six schools have shown interest in or are participating in a pilot group. The goal is to convert all schools to this type of communication, so that data can be provided on a daily basis.

Statute Revisions
Correspondence was received from the Legislation Reference Council regarding the statute revisions. Most of those items are being submitted to the Legislative Reference Bureau for drafting, presentation, and revision. Only one of the changes was not included. That was the $250 minimum grant under the Indian Grant. Hearings will probably be held this spring. Governor presented his budget on February 16. Hearings will be starting the end of March or earlier. State committees are expected to hold hearings on the issues that pertain to their specific committee responsibilities. Legislature is expected to have a budget approved by the end of June, which will ultimately go to the Governor for signature.

Governor's Budget
In points 1-3, the UW System WHEG, the WTCS WHEG, and the WTG each have a 6% increase for each year of the biennium projected in the Governor's Budget. The total is just under nine million dollars which is clearly substantial considering that the total dollars that HEAB administers over all is fifty million. There is also a recommendation for statutory language changes allowing movement to one formula, which is one of the things that the Board requested. Point 4 relates to the Tribal Colleges being moved out of TG and being funded by the gaming initiative. Point 5 also moves the Indian Student Assistance, which is currently funded under GPR, into gaming initiative funds. Point 6 is simply recognizing the re-estimates for Academic Excellence Scholarship and for the Wisconsin/Minnesota Reciprocity Programs, which are sum sufficient. There is also the insertion that the Governor would like to change the academic scholarship name to the Governor's Scholarship, which apparently has been requested before. Point 7 is, again, recognizing re-estimates related to SSIG funding. In Point 8, there's a recommendation to reorganize the Educational Approval Board. This recommendation takes the Veterans component of EAB and moves it to Veteran's Affairs. The rest of that agency would go to HEAB with five positions to follow. Point 9 addresses a 2% lapse that agencies were requested to cut in their operational budgets. This incorporates a permanent reduction by 2%.

There was a discussion regarding Point 8 - the Educational Approval Board's (EAB) reorganization and reporting structure. Gerard Randall suggested that further information be gathered to find out what the Board's responsibilities would be under the Workforce Investment Act. Clarification is needed as to who has what responsibilities.

Point 11 refers to the other programs. We had requested additional funding for all programs across the board. Points 1-3 indicate a 6% increase to WHEG and Tuition Grant. This indicates that all other programs be level funded. Spraggins expressed concern that the state is retreating in the area of most needy populations - the TIP Program. The TIP Grant is level funded again for the second consecutive biennium. Jane's understanding is that WHEG and TG, for the most part, touch TIP recipients and those are need-based programs and are directed to assist needy students. We had asked for the same increases across the board for all programs that we administer. Is there going to be any attempt to reverse that action? Jane has a meeting scheduled with legislators next week or the week after. They will be walking through the budget. Could the Executive Secretary ask the legislation for an increase in the TIP Program, which represents the largest disadvantaged student population of financial aid and represents the largest number of minority students? The budget request incorporates language related to the TIP grant. It has been level funded since 1994-1995. Zero and 1% were the recommendations. The dollar amount in the budget is $3,933,800, which includes the state funding. Jane explained that most, if not all, the TIP recipients receive WHEG or TG depending on what institution they go to. Those programs, WHEG and TG, help a greater number of students. Concentrating on those programs and increased funding in those programs is a broader investment so to speak.

Jane explained the additional flexibility as the language related to the independent and dependent formulas for WHEG allowing the Board to move to one formula if we chose to do so. Point 12 - Jane has requested a clerical assistant position that has not been approved. Point 13 relates to how some positions are funded and transferring position funding from one area to another. That was not approved.


#99-12 Minnesota-Wisconsin Reciprocity
This reflects the fact that in 1997-1998, Wisconsin's liability was over two million. Payment was made to Minnesota in that amount. Keep in mind that a new agreement has been established that should reverse that trend for 1998-1999. During the same time period, over four million dollars was brought back into the state's general fund through tuition payments made by UW Minnesota students. We are looking to make changes to our administrative memorandum of understanding. Jane expects that to go to Joint Finance early in May. Joint finance meets in June, so if it needs to be discussed, that is an opportunity for them to bring it to that meeting. Hopefully more will be known about where UW tuition will be, because that plays a role in the decisions that are made related to the memorandum. Liability payments to Minnesota began in 1995-1996. They went from a half of a million to a little over two million. Charts were provided to show Wisconsin's liability breakdown, Minnesota's liability breakdown, and enrollment figures. Wisconsin residents going to Minnesota schools increased slightly from 1996-1997 to 1997-1998. The number of Minnesota students going to Wisconsin schools has also increased. Jeremy Shea asked if there was more activity on getting other states into reciprocity agreements. Jane explained that there was interest from some schools primarily in Northern Wisconsin not included in the upper Wisconsin reciprocal agreement. One technical college and one university are interested in getting involved in that agreement. There is also an interest is doing a full-blown reciprocal agreement with Michigan. Jane has had contact with Michigan in terms of investigating the pros and cons. Jane has talked with Shelly (WTCS) and Nate (UW System) about doing something along that line. It is really just exploratory right now.

#99-13 WHEAL Program Status and Audit Report for Fiscal Year 1998
We are not awarding new funds; the program has been discontinued. We are still collecting funds on this program. This report indicates that we have received a little over two million in payments. We still have 132 students (120 of them in repayment and 12 of them are in deferment right now). An audit report was provided. This report breaks down in more detail the WHEAL Program activity for 1997-1998. This an update as to where the program is and that it still exists in terms of repayment.

#99-14 Wisconsin State Student Financial Aid Data for 1997-1998
We did something a little bit different this year in collecting this data. This is something we have been doing annually for many years. We attempted to look at not just the need-based programs that the Wisconsin residents participate in, but also non-need based and any other sources. We are trying to identify how the total educational costs are currently being covered and what the sources are. The first grouping (Charts A-H) deals with all sectors, and it breaks down simply the need-based programs. The number of recipients rose slightly, family contribution rose, as did the cost of education, financial need increased, total need-based aid decreased. Keep in mind that even though the aid decreased, that may not necessarily be real because we were very careful this year to distinguish the unsubsidized Stafford loan which is not based on financial need and the subsidized Stafford loan which is based on financial need. There are also some short-term loans that have been incorporated in the past. When we started going through some of the information in great detail, we found that those were included in the need-based programs when, in fact, those are short-term loans that have to be repaid within the academic year. Loans continue to be the primary source. State funds slightly increased. The primary source in terms of funding is federally-funded aid.

When you start looking through the various sectors, you have the Independent Colleges, UW system and WTCS. Independent Colleges (Charts I-L) the number of recipients decreased, and the cost increased. The need increased. The primary source of assistance is found in the form of grants. The majority of assistance comes from federal sources. UW System (Charts M-P) the cost and family contribution increased. The number of recipients increased, as did the need for total aid increased. The majority of funds are loans, and it appears to be federally-funded programs. WTCS (Charts Q-T) the number of recipients increased. The cost of education, family contribution, and financial need increased. The assistance decreased (excluding those non-need based which should not have been included in the past). Just over half of the assistance comes from grants. A majority of that comes from federal sources. Non-need based programs (Charts U-X). This section is new to this report. This is to get at the unsubsidized Stafford loans, the PLUS loans, the alternative loans and scholarship (which are merit based). Comparison (Charts Y-Z) this is also new to the report. It shows the comparison of how the total cost of education is covered. The majority of the cost of education is met by aid that is based on need. Note that 11.82% is covered by unknown sources. Keep in mind that family contribution is incorporated into the picture but, in many cases, the unsubsidized Stafford loan and the parent loan for the undergraduate students (PLUS) are fulfilling that family contribution. In some respects, this could be duplicating sources.

Steve Van Ess commented that he was delighted that there is a non-need-based section. He questioned what was counted as institutional assistance in employment. Is that a financial aid award? It is not a measure of the number of students that work. Mary Beth Kornely explained that the students receiving this award are the same students who receive need-based aid. These students also receive institutional work besides work-study and other aid. Steve commented that care should be taken when using the term. Jane agreed that it is not necessarily reflecting the true picture. Keep in mind that these are students who show financial need, who have need-based programs, so it is most likely that they will receive federal work-study and that they will be accounted for in the federal work-study program. We are not looking at the students who do not show financial need or do not even apply for financial aid. Those students are not incorporated anywhere in this. We only pull the students who are Wisconsin residents, at least half time, and who are receiving need-based programs already. We are trying to get at the students who show financial need and how their education costs are covered. Jerry Randall was interested to know if work place tuition remission programs are tracked and where it would be shown. Jane explained that the intention was that the non-need-based employment would get at that. She does not believe, however, that all schools track that information. Of those schools that do, how many of those students actually receive need-based program aid, so that they would be in the study to begin with? Jerry Randall is interested in getting tuition remission statistics from schools if available.

#99-15 Status of 1998-1999 Applicants and Programs
Handouts were provided at the meeting. The first page shows the programs that have formulas attached to them, since those programs need to be closely monitored. It focused on the WHEG and the WTG programs. The WHEG for the WTCS is currently at 164.15% overaward commitment, which is slightly less than the 167.57% last year at this time. Keep in mind last year at the end of the year, it reached 173.88%. The UW WHEG is currently at 130.58% overaward commitment. Last year at this time, it was at 134.69%. The final figure for last year was 137.61%. The WTG is currently at 113.47%. Last year at this time, it was at 114%. In terms of applicant pool, it is on target (comparing last year to this year). Keep in mind that for the WHEG program and the WTG program, that the overaward commitment percentages are from February 16, 1999. There are references on other handouts also as to the overaward percentages and the dates that the calculations were made. The second page shows you where we are at in terms of spending. There are some programs that we are ahead of spending and some that are behind. Focusing on the programs that we have formulas attached to them, for the two WHEG programs and the WTG, spending is ahead in the WTCS and the WTG. It is slightly down for the UW System. Reconciliation forms were completed to see where the spending was at. The last time this was done was in February to get more concrete information. For the WTCS WHEG, based on reconciliations and vouchering to date, it appears that there will be no funding left over for this academic year. The UW System may have a slight amount left over for 1998-1999 spending. Sandy is going out to the schools and indicating that there is $300,000 left and based on the spending levels, this is how much can be targeted for summer school or supplemental spending. WTG awards will not have to be cut as previously thought. However, schools will have to be held to their reconciliations or estimates in terms of spending. Mary Lou is keeping tabs on the spending for that.

For the Indian Student Grant, we have the special program project, and Sandy is in the middle of working with that. She is getting some requests from some schools participating in that program, so we will see those funds being spent very quickly. Mary Lou is working with the Minority Retention Grants and the Minority Teacher Loans. She is constantly in contact with those schools to see what the status is for students returning promissory notes for their teacher loans because there is typically a delay. The students need to sign off their promissory notes and return it to us before we can voucher the funds, so it depends on how timely that is done. The Talent Incentive Program Grant - Sherry, who coordinates that program, has been in contact with some of the schools that have not yet vouchered funds. She has told them that if they are not going to voucher funds to let her know, because there are other schools that could voucher those funds. There are some schools that voucher later. Keep these things in mind when going over further items.

#99-16 WHEG and WTG Program Formulas for 1999-2000
As reference, Jane Hojan-Clark explained the overall effect when one individual component of the formula is changed; if the dependent student equity level is increased, the amount of the award increases; if the independent student award percentage is increased, the amount awarded each independent student would increase. If funding is not available, the Board could not support an increase in eligibility. These variables have to be factored into the decision to make changes to each component of the formula. The current formula for the UW shows the dependent maximum is $1510 and the independent maximum is $1250. The current formula for the Technical College System shows the dependent maximum is $1300 and the independent maximum is $1050.

Key Elements to Consider:
Applicant Pool UW System may have a slight increase but no major changes.
Technical College Systems may have a slight increase but no major changes.
Federal Methodology No substantial changes (change in protection allowance)
Appropriation A 6% increase is recommended by the Governor, but the ultimate change is still unknown.
Tuition The UW System could increase tuition by 3 1/2-5%, (or something very different). It is still unknown at this time.
Technical College tuition could increase by 5-7%. It is still unknown at this time.

Points to Consider
In the past, HEAB has tried to increase the maximums of both independent and dependent ($1050 & $1300) with appropriation increases. This will be the first year of the biennium, therefore, funds cannot be carried forward from last year (1998-1999). We could adjust both the dependent and independent students slightly assuming there were unspent funds from last year. (There were some for the UW but not for Technical College.) An adjustment could be made just for the dependents or an adjustment could be made simply for the independent formula, or we could leave them as is. (For the UW, that could mean potentially unspent funds even assuming no increase in appropriations.) Recent practice has been to adjust just the independent student formulas. The objective is to try to bring it a little bit closer to the maximum of the dependent student.

Recommendations From School Systems
The recommendation from the UW System was to move to a single formula, to an independent model that was described as using equity level of $3000 and using 50% as the multiplier, which calculates a $1500 award. Jane spoke to Katherine Lyle about the recommendation and indicated that moving to one formula right now, given the fact we have the Y2K conversion, would create a delay in awarding for WHEG (this applies for the Technical Colleges also). Best projections would be that the notification lists and vouchering would not occur until sometime during the fall semester. There is also the issue of the program language in the state statutes. The recommendation is in the Governor's version to allow statutory changes, which would allow more flexibility in formulas, but this is not final until the budget is approved. Ramifications on the computer system - we would be looking at major delays if we implemented one formula for 1999-2000. Speaking with Katherine Lyle, she understood the issues as she incorporated in point two in her letter. Increasing the independent award for 1999-2000 would be a recommendation if a single formula could not be implemented in the first year of the biennium, however then to implement a single formula in 2000-2001.

Jane reviewed the UW WHEG simulations:

Given that it is unknown what the appropriations will be at this point in time and considering the fact that schools are looking to start awarding April 1, HEAB staff anticipates sending out notification lists letting the schools know what the formulas are. Jane Hojan-Clark recommended implementing simulation #2-increasing the maximum independent award to $1270 slightly increasing spending from this year, and at the April meeting, determine what the status is of the budget process. We have to either make a final formula determination then (if it is 6%, we could use formula #3 very easily) or we may need to delay a final formula decision until July, which, theoretically, we will know what is happening with the budget at that point in time.

Motion by Jeremy Shea, seconded by Paul Spraggins to accept the recommendation of the Executive Director to go with simulation #2 and to review it at the April 23 meeting.

Discussion ensued. Jeremy Shea requested clarification of the term "held harmless" in the last sentence of paragraph two. "Awards to dependent students in this scenario will be held harmless." Jane clarified this meant awards will stay the same.

Brian Johnson asked for clarification of Jane's recommendation. If we were to accept one formula for both awards, disbursements wouldn't occur until fall semester - when in the fall semester? Jane replied that her guess would be after September 1, possibly as late as November or December. Brian asked if it would be more realistic to assume it may be earlier. Jane replied, no, it wouldn't.

Steve Van Ness said he was very disappointed that the staff and Board were not seriously considering using one formula. I think that has tremendous support from the students' standpoint and professionals across the state. That was, by far, the choice that came out of the system council. #2 was more of an emergency back-up plan. I hope we can put serious thought into how to implement formula #1 even in the first year of the biennium. I understand that this is a tough year and that Y2K affects a lot of people. Maybe we need to reevaluate whether changing to one formula would actually back things up that far. If it is, it is, and agreed that it's just not a good option to give out our state grant awards after the start of the semester. People count on that money at the start of the semester. But given the fact that we might have a significant increase of 6% in this program that might make a difference in terms of giving the entire increase to the independent students. If option #1 is not a possibility, the UW System can support option #2.

Jerry Randall said he was not convinced yet that the Y2K problem has been a persuasive argument as to why simulation #1 should be held back for serious consideration. It seems to me that if we are, ultimately, going to move to #1, things may be complicated even more so in the future. I don't understand why #1 should be held back because of a computer conversion.

Jane replied that it is just reality, unfortunately. It is very time consuming to convert to Y2K. Grants is one area that our agency administers, but there are other programs that we administer. It is not an issue of not wanting to move to one formula, but an issue of needing to be compliant. We need to be able to operate and to disburse funds. It is a very detailed and time-consuming work. We brought in DOA; a targeted staff member of theirs is helping with the process. We also have a part-time employee to assist with the process. It is very time-consuming and if it is not done, we will not be able to operate. We will not be able to voucher or award.

Jane discussed that there are pros and cons to implementing one formula the first year versus the second year. One of the possible pros is the potential of an increase in appropriation (simulation 3), if there is a 6% increase and the independent maximum is increased to $1399. That brings the maximum that much closer to the dependent student so that when we do convert to one formula the second year of the biennium, it will be a closer match in terms of maximum awards.

Brian Johnson questioned the staff support and if there was room in the budget or if making that person full time was a consideration to resolve the problem sooner. Jane responded, temporary, part-time, with the explanation that there is a limit as to how much can be worked on at one time. The staff that we have now are all working on the issue as diligently as one can and maximizing the resources that we have. It is difficult to find individuals who have expertise in the area. You have to take time to train and explain the systems before the person can be productive. There are a lot of different issues that are taken into consideration. Again, we are maximizing the resources that we have.

Brian Johnson raised the question: If we were to accept option #2 and revisit it again in April to determine whether or not that formula is the one we are going to stick with, is there a viable reason why we couldn't accept one formula and revisit it again to see how the Y2K problem has progressed. Jane explained: We certainly can but we would have already gone out to the schools with the formulas, and schools will begin using the formula that we recommended (formula #2). Secondly, HEAB would be making awards or commitments under two separate formulas, so you would be potentially reducing awards from some students. I am not sure that that is an approach that we want to take.

Mary Beth recognized the Y2K problem takes a huge amount of work and asked for clarification of the issue: With the time that it takes to work on that problem, will the staff have time to spend on changing the formula? No, it is too much to do both, Jane replied. The system staff are working on converting Y2K and in order to convert a program from two formulas to one, it would require substantial programming. It is not just in the awarding part, you also have to look at the vouchering side of it and walk through the various processes that are attached to the vouchering process, so that ultimately funds are in the hands of the students.

Steve requested a friendly amendment for the record to show that the Board's preference would be to accept the recommendation of the UW System President, which is to try to explore one formula and if that is not feasible, then to go with option #2.

The question was posed as to whether the group felt one formula was a better idea if we did not have the Y2K problem? The issue is, if we opt for the one formula now, there will be some people who won't know until December, so we will probably be stuck with two formulas this year.

Jane explained that there are also other issues, beyond Y2K, like the budget. If we used the recommended formula - $3000 and 50%, we would be overspent if we implemented that particular formula. There is also the statutory issue whether that really is an issue or not. At this point, that is not final either. But in terms of what the board has discussed in the past, that is where we want to be is to one formula. The issue is: Is it going to be the first year of the biennium or the second year of the biennium?

Steve explained: The 50% is just a target. It could be 49% or 48%.

Shea and Spraggins accepted the intent of the friendly amendment to be added to the motion.

The Chairman paraphrased the motion to accept Katherine Lyle's recommendations with the caveat that computer programming may not allow adopting one formula for the coming school year, in which case, the program would be to go with the second recommendation (simulation #2).

Steve explained the caveat is already in the letter. So, if we accept Katherine Lyle's recommendations of the February 12,1999 memo to the Executive Secretary, that says we prefer #1 but if that is not possible at the discretion of the staff, we will go with #2 (as relates to simulation #2).

Clarification on the time frame was requested: When are we going to know if we are unable to accommodate the formula? Doesn't that leave some of the schools hanging? Jane explained it was her understanding that she would go back and re-examine to see if it is possible to use one formula. If it is not possible, we would use simulation 2. Increase the independent to $1270 and that may change in April or July depending on where the budget goes. That is her understanding.

When questioned if the Board should include the dates when a decision would be made, Jane replied she would rather have it open, because April 1 is the planned target date for the notification lists to go out. It would be March when we would go out to the schools and notify them of the formulas. The repercussions of not having the first notification list may delay telling students what their aid will be.

The Chairman explained the roll call process. Roll Call - The motion is to accept Katherine Lyle's recommendations of the February 12, 1999, memo as best as we can operate within them; we will attempt to do that.

ROLL CALL VOTE: 9-0 unanimous vote; passed.

Technical College Formula Recommendations
Jane reviewed the WTCS funding recommendations. The Technical College System is also looking to go to one formula. They are looking at something like a $9000 budget and a 20% multiplier, which would bring the maximum award to $1800 or some version of that. Jane talked to Ed Chin about the issue of converting to one formula in the first year of the biennium versus the second year of the biennium. He understands that it may not be possible the first year and has inserted recognition of that in the last paragraph of his letter as well.

Jane reviewed the WTCS - WHEG simulations:

Jane explained: The issue, as with the UW System WHEG, is whether it is possible to implement the first year of the biennium or the second year of the biennium. We don't know yet what the budget increase will be. There is also the statutory language question and the state's issue dealing with the Y2K conversion.

Keep in mind that the 1998-1999 WTCS funds will be fully spent; there will not be funds left over. Jane's recommendation was to leave the formula as is using simulation 1, the current spending data. If the 6% increase is implemented, then look at using simulation 2 (increasing the independent student award to $1125) bringing that maximum closer to the dependent $1300 maximum WHEG award. We can either make a decision in April, or we may need to wait to make that decision in July.

The Chair asked if this would be basically the same as the last motion - to accept Edward Chin's recommendations with immediate use of simulation #1? Jane explained, it would follow that same recommendation, yes, if it was not able to implement in the first year we would recognize that.

Motion by Mary Jo Green, second by Gerard Randall to accept Edward Chin's recommendations with immediate use of simulation #1 if the Board is unable to implement one formula in the first year.

Steve pointed out some discrepancies in data on the simulation handout. Jane recognized and indicated it would be adjusted.

ROLL CALL VOTE: 9-0 unanimous vote; passed.

TG Tuition Grant
Jane reported an example of the current formula (1998-1999) and the impact; if inflation factors increase, the amount awarded to each student would decrease. If the tuition charge increases are at a higher rate than the UW Madison tuition, the amount awarded to each student would increase. If base maintenance increases at a higher percentage than the net tuition, then the award amount would increase. We also have to look at appropriations and how that factors in.

Key Elements to Consider:
Applicant pool Overall, not a huge increase in enrollment; slight
Federal Methodology None pending
Appropriation 6% increase
Tuition increases Still not sure what UW Madison's will be. We currently have all but eight schools' actual tuition rates for next year (of those schools who participate in the Wisconsin Tuition Grant).

Past practice has been to increase maintenance from 3-4%. UW Madison tuition, which is supposed to be reflected in the tuition, is not currently reflected accurately in the tuition right now. The 1998-1999 tuition is $3405; in the current formula, we are using $2892. So steps are necessary to bring that component in the formula closer to actual Madison tuition. Keep in mind that 1999-2000 is the first year in the biennium, so we are not going to see funds carried forward. We implemented "W" codes in October 1998-1999, so awards did not have to be decreased. There is also the issue of tribal college participation. Currently tribal colleges participate in the Wisconsin Tuition Grant. The Governor's recommendation is to move that into the gaming initiative funding, so that is unknown. Over-commitment cannot exceed 122% by statutory requirement. If you assume the funding is not going to change, then looking at 1998-1999 spending, we might want to adjust slightly to not spend as much, since we put out "W" codes in October. Options are to adjust both the dependent and the independent formulas or just adjust the dependent or just the independent formulas, or don't adjust them at all.

Past practice has been to make adjustments evenly across both dependent and independent students. If more funding becomes available, we most recently have tended to slightly adjust the independent student formulas (with dependent children).

Jane referenced copies of letters submitted by Rolf Wegenke, President, Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges; Dr. Fowler, President, College of Menominee Nation, and Agnes Fleming, Assistant to the President, Lac Courte Oreilles, Ojibwa, with several simulations:

Given the fact that it is unknown as to what the increase will potentially be in the Wisconsin Tuition Grant, Jane recommended to stay with the current formula (simulation #1). Leaving the UW tuition, the maintenance, and the inflationary factor as is until we know more information in April or possibly July. At that point, we would consider using simulation #2, which brings the UW Madison tuition to what it actually is in 1998-1999, and increase the maintenance by 4%.

Motion by Jeremy Shea, second by Brian Johnson to leave the formula as is and work with simulation #1 at this point; later moving to simulation #2 when more data is available.

There was further discussion. Brian asked for clarification: If we were to use simulation #2 right now and then have to go back to simulation #1 later on, would that mean that some students would have been over awarded and would have to pay it back? Jane indicated that was correct.

ROLL CALL VOTE: 9-0 unanimous vote; passed.


Academic Excellence-Scholarship Survey Results
Sixteen students said the scholarship award did make them think over their decision. HEAB will be doing another survey this May to see how the effectiveness of the scholarship and its bearing particularly compared to the survey that was done in July of 1995. As we talk about the Academic Scholarship fee, the cap that is placed on the academic scholarship may potentially effect the intent of the program. We will be posted on the results of the survey that will be done this spring.

Talent Incentive Program Grant
There was a question as to how many students could potentially be eligible for the TIP grant. One way that we looked at this was to look at the contribution figures. We looked at the total applicants in 1997-1998 and found that over 21,000 students have zero expected family contributions. They could be considered for the TIP grants. We awarded 4,319 students. If you compare that to the number of zero family contribution student figures, there could potentially be another 17,617 eligible students for the TIP grant.

Historical Spending (of ten years)
This relates to the continued appropriation versus the current biennium appropriations that we have. The continued appropriation allows us to move funds forward not back. This was discussed in July, 1998 when definitions were provided in terms of what the various appropriations types are (the differences and so on). One question that came out of that discussion was how much activity occurs. We made an attempt to see how many times waiting lists were developed, how many times summer schools were implemented. In some cases, awards were decreased. Even if you look beyond 1997-1998, there were various years that awards were decreased. This gives you a census to activity and continuing appropriation could potentially reduce this type of activity.

Federal Programs
This gives you an update on what is happening lately after the whole reauthorization process. This is the fiscal year 2000 budget. Keep in mind that this is the budget that funds October 1, 1999. This is the Department of Education's version. The increase of the Pell Grant maximum of $125, bringing it to $3250; increase in Federal Work-Study Program; increase in SEOG slightly; level funding Perkins and level funding LEAP. Disappointment was expressed in the education community about the potential of funding available. There have been some increases, but none substantial. Van Ess indicated on the attachment, it looks like the Pell Grant is at -3%. If you look at the dollars, there is a decrease there as well. He thinks there was a carryover that they will be using; so they are actually decreasing their spending in Pell and increasing their awards by $125. There are some associations that are trying to promote a full $100 increase in Pell even at this time.

New Business
Steve made a motion to direct staff to pursue the legislature for a 6% increase in support or 10% for the TIP Program this biennium. Second by Paul. The board had originally asked for 0-1% increase across the board for all programs. Discussion. Steve agrees that this is a very important program. When Steve heard that there was a 6% increase, he believed it would be across the board (all programs). He thinks that more people are concerned about the transition of these people particularly from a workforce standpoint. It is a program that works very well and is relatively low cost. Further discussion by Jerry. I have no problem supporting that but I ask the politics in this. Why did the Governor recommend 6% for the other programs and 0% for the TIP? Jane explains that it goes back to touching the greatest number of students and that the students, who will receive the TIP Grant, will be touched by WHEG or TG. The language we included in the biennium budget, talks about the fact that the TIP Grant focuses on disadvantaged students, the fact that it has been level funded in the last biennium budget (there was no increase in the last budget either). The Board and Staff agree that the motion cannot be at the expense of WHEG and TG.

Brian requested discussion of the politics of the issue. Brian thinks traditionally, education in general, has been the place that legislature comes to get money for other things. He would hate to see Board lobbying on behalf of this program for a way for the legislature to come and take money from WHEG increases or TG increases. As Steve said, if we are going to hit one, let's hit the big one. Brian would like to see a little discussion on the repercussions of asking for an increase in TIP and how it might realistically affect increases in WHEG or TG. Paul Spraggins explained when the message is communicated properly to the individual who needs to make a decision and they know and understand financial aid programs; once they understand the real issues and this program and they know that this program goes across the system both public and private; it is not going to be in competition and shouldn't be. In fact, when we carry that message to them we should make that clear that we are not interested in robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is not the case here. I will be certain to advocate in the legislature that I talk to about initiatives. I think that they have to realize that we need money in all programs. Steve says his goals are to provide advice.

The next goal of the board would be to receive additional funding for the TIP Program as a tiered request. Mike Clumpner added that he thought when people put together budgets, personal budgets or governmental budgets, like the 0 and 1%. We were asked to put in 0 and 1%, so we put that in and were polite about it. That is just kind of a starting point. All of a sudden, some people come back and say HEAB has a lot of emphasis this year with the dollars that we see shifting here and there. One of the great purposes now for our Board, with much more wisdom about the programs and the people who are doing the budgeting, is to comment on it. This is one of the areas of commentary. Everyone here knows more about those programs than the people that are doing the budgeting. A great purpose of our Board is to provide input like this, which may or may not be accepted. When we see things that do not quite mesh and are talking with some people that are doing budgeting and may not have spent as much time as everyone on this total Board, our advice should be fairly powerful here.

A concern was voiced that 6% might be a little high. An argument was made that nothing less should be asked for the program for the most disadvantaged students. One of the guidelines used is that the Board would like to see the program increase the same amount as the tuition increases. The amount of tuition should be decided in July. Jeremy requested clarification of eligibility for TIP and the fact of "double dipping". Van Ess and Green explained how an overaward does not exist. Student eligibility allows for both grants. Brian requested further clarification for students that are eligible for TIP. One of the handouts shows 21,000 students; is that just eligible with the zero EFC? Are there additional students that could be eligible? Jane explains that there potentially could be more students eligible, but the 21,000 is the number of applicants. Not all of these applicants attend school. Some of the applicants may not be eligible because of residency issues. So the 21,000 is based on the students filing the FAFSA. There are some factors that are unknown when the student files the FAFSA, so that number could come down. The motion was restated. It is assumed that this would not be at the expense of WHEG and TG.

ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0; passed

Next Meeting Date - The next meeting date is scheduled for April 23, 1999. Some of the subjects will be a budget update including the TIP status, formula updates, possibly the reciprocity with Michigan, and we will probably have a presentation by Lac Courte Orielles Tribal College.

Adjournment Motion by Paul Spraggins, seconded by Steve Van Ess.

Meeting adjourned at 11:38 a.m.


February 1999 Board Meeting Agenda         October 1999 Board Meeting Agenda         Board Reports Index

HEAB Main Page         Contacting HEAB         Financial Aid Programs         Financial Aid Application Information
Frequently Asked Questions         Links         Information for Financial Aid Administrators         Site Map

© Copyright 1999 by the Higher Educational Aids Board
HEAB E-Mail: HEABmail@wisconsin.gov
State of Wisconsin E-Government Privacy Notice