House Bill 971 was finally brought up for debate before the Louisiana House Education Committee on May 4th.

As mentioned in previous articles on this website, House Bill 971 would have prohibited athletic departments at public colleges and universities in Louisiana not named LSU from traveling to athletic competitions more than 375 miles from their home institutions. Exemptions are made for football and basketball programs, playoff/championship competitions, and any athletic competitions where the opposing team pays for travel and associated costs on behalf of the Louisiana school (i.e. money games or guarantee games).

After Rep. Steve Carter’s opening remarks on the bill and some questions from a few committee members, Rep. Carter decided to voluntarily defer House Bill 971. While bills which are “voluntarily deferred without objection” may be rescheduled for a committee hearing at a later date, the bill is likely dead for this legislative session which ends in about thirty days.

A link to the May 4th House Education Committee meeting is here with the House Bill 971 debate starting around the 1:11:00 mark: http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Video/VideoArchivePlayer.aspx?v=house/2016/may/0504_16_ED

The very basic argument that Rep. Carter was trying to make with House Bill 971 was that the bill would serve as a “conversation starter” of what the state’s spending priorities should be. Should the state’s universities spend money on out-of-state athletic competitions or on items like deferred maintenance, TOPS students, reducing class sizes, or on professors (hiring and giving raises)?

Yes, the state is trying to fix its financial problems. Yes, the state government has to find ways to cut spending and plug the deficit for the upcoming fiscal year.

However, as noted on our April 13th article, Debunking the claims made by House Bill 971 supporters, Louisiana Tech’s athletic department would lose several million dollars a year if the bill passed. There would be no extra money saved by the university to reduce the deferred maintenance costs, give raises to professors, or hire additional faculty members. Instead, Tech would have to find way to rise additional revenue or cut more spending to make up for the lost money from the NCAA, Conference USA, and media rights.

House Bill 971 was a very flawed bill which targeted everyone outside the LSU System, did not consider the financial impact (more on that later), and did not think about the unintended consequences.

Rep. Carter’s comments during the debate of House Bill 971 were interesting to say the least. His comments can be found on the link to the meeting further up in the article, but I want to analysis some of his comments in the rest of this article.

Rep. Carter: “It looked like I was trying to protect LSU, but this only applies to those universities that accept State General Funds that go into their athletic programs.”

It looked like Rep. Carter was trying to protect LSU, because he was. The only higher education system not mentioned in House Bill 971, and therefore exempt from the effects of the bill, was the LSU System (including schools like LSU-Shreveport, LSU-Alexandria, and LSU-Eunice).

If the bill’s original intent was to limit the effects to university’s athletic departments which received money from the state (which it wasn’t), Rep. Carter could have made the bill applicable to all public post-secondary institutions except for those schools whose athletic departments received no money from the state. That would have exempted the LSU-Baton Rouge flagship campus while still subjecting the other LSU schools to the regulations since their athletic departments aren’t self-sufficient.

Rep. Carter: “It’s not a perfect bill obviously. I’m just trying to make a point here.”

It’s not a perfect bill…well, no crap.

Rep. Hilferty: “How did you come up with the 375 miles?” Rep. Carter: “Basically, it was suggested for me to do that in the center of the state. It allows you to travel in the entire state.”

First of all, who suggested to Rep. Carter to do the 375 mile radius? Secondly, he didn’t take into account that about half of the area in the 375 mile radius over schools like McNeese, Nicholls State, and UL-Lafayette would be in the Gulf of Mexico, thus further restricting the potential opponents those schools could face within the area.

Rep. Hilferty: “Why do we not have a fiscal note on [House Bill 971]? Rep. Carter: “Um…probably a good question. I didn’t request one. I probably should have. That’s a good question. I wish I had, but I didn’t.”

So, a Louisiana State House member proposes a bill which is intended to save money on out-of-state athletic travel by the public colleges and universities in Louisiana, and he doesn’t request a fiscal note showing how much money would be saved. Carter was right…this wasn’t a perfect bill.

Typically, when a legislator proposes a bill that would impact the finances of the State government (tax or fee changes, budget cuts, etc.), he or she would request a fiscal note showing how much money would be added or subtracted from revenues and/or expenses as a result of the bill’s passage.

Rep. Carter didn’t do that. He didn’t do research showing how much money would be saved or the impact of the intended and unintended consequences of the bill. He simply was “trying to make a point.”

Rep. Carter mentioned that of all the student-athletes at the non LSU schools in programs outside of football and basketball, 61.2% are out-of-state students. Out-of-state students made up 95% of athletes in tennis, 50% in baseball, 88% in beach volleyball, 86% in soccer, and 75% in volleyball. Rep. Carter: “If I read you some numbers, which I’m not gonna try to embarrass any of the institutions and stuff, but of that 61.2%, 95% are out-of-state for tennis, yet we are using State dollars to operate those athletic programs, a lot of it’s travel.”

Why would these numbers be embarrassing to the institutions? If our universities are attempting to attract the best and brightest students and athletes, shouldn’t at least some of them come from outside the State of Louisiana by default?

Kenneth Dixon went to school in Strong, Arkansas before playing on Louisiana Tech’s football team for four years, breaking numerous school, conference, and NCAA records, and getting drafted by the Baltimore Ravens in the 4th round of the 2016 NFL Draft. Was it embarrassing for Louisiana Tech to get him as an out-of -state student?

Victor Lange came to Louisiana Tech by way of South Africa and helped led Tech’s men’s golf program to its first conference title in over thirty years. Was it embarrassing for Tech to get him as an out-of-state student?

The two biggest names in LSU basketball history, “Pistol” Pete Maravich and Shaquille O’Neal came to LSU as out-of-state students by way of the Carolinas and San Antonio respectively. Was it embarrassing for LSU to get them as out-of-state students? (Note: I know LSU and basketball programs were exempt from House Bill 971. Just go with me on this)

If it’s embarrassing for 50% of baseball players to be out-of-state students, would it be just as embarrassing for 50% of a men’s basketball team to be out-of-state students? If so, then Rep. Carter should be embarrassed at his alma mater LSU, since half the players on the 2015-16 men’s basketball team, including Ben Simmons, were out-of-state students.

Rep. Carter:”So we are spending money on out-of-state students and, in particular, you know, in some instances, foreign students.” Rep. Carter: “My point’s that we got to establish priorities in this state, and there are an awful lot of youngsters – and I have no problem, I’m just trying to bring it out to you – that are out-of-state or foreign youngsters that are using dollars to travel and should these dollars be possibly be better spent.“

Um…this is the part that raised my eyebrows a bit.

If the intent is to save money by prohibiting travel to athletic competitions more than 375 miles away from the home institution, then why talk about the money being spent specifically by out-of-state students and foreign students?

The impression Rep. Carter gives off in these two passages is that money spent by in-state students isn’t that bad, but money spent by out-of-state students and “in some instances, foreign students” is bad and should be spent better elsewhere.

Is Rep. Carter saying that out-of-state students and international students don’t deserve to share the same experiences as Louisiana students on athletic teams?

One of the potential issues with House Bill 971 was Title IX issues and any disproportionate effects on women’s sports programs. I didn’t think that possible discrimination due to restricting the money spent on athletic competition travel by international students attending a Louisiana college or university would be part of the reasoning behind this bill.

Rep. Carter: “I know I don’t wanna discuss this an awful lot. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. I’m going to voluntarily defer the bill, so I won’t have anyone shoot me in the back.” Rep. Carter (about two or three minutes later): “I wanna hear discussion.”

Rep. Carter didn’t want to discuss the bill a whole lot. Then, a few minutes later, he wanted discussion. When a bill is proposed and scheduled to be heard by a legislative committee, there will be at least some discussion. It’s part of the job.

Besides, if the bill was designed to make a point and be a conversation starter as Rep. Carter wanted, shouldn’t the conversation and discussion have taken place when the bill was called up for discussion last Wednesday?

Those were the highlights of Rep. Carter’s comments before the House Education Committee last Wednesday.

The idea to save money is understandable due to the budget problems the Louisiana state government is currently facing. However, the proposed bill would not have improved the fiscal situation. The bill targeted everyone outside of LSU. There was no fiscal note showing how much money, if any, could be saved. The arguments and reasoning provided by Rep. Steve Carter during the committee hearing were borderline asinine.

House Bill 971 died in the House Education Committee last week, and rightly so.