Common use of Current Agreement Clause in Contracts

Current Agreement. Unlike all of the previous Minnesota-Wisconsin tuition reciprocity agreements, the current agree- ment does not include an expiration date. Rather, the agreement is automatically renewed each year unless terminated or modified with the consent of both states. However, proposed changes to the agreement must be approved by the Joint Commit- tee on Finance. At the time of renewal, the most significant changes made to the agreement, which first ap- plied to reciprocity studen ts enrolled in the 1998-99 academic year, were due in large part to two fac- tors. Since, historically, resident tuition at Minne- sota institutions was generally higher than at Wis- consin institutions, Wisconsin residents attending Minnesota institutions under the agreement paid lower tuition than Minnesota residents attending the same institution. This situation proved awk- ▇▇▇▇ for Minnesota and for a number of years, that state sought to increase tuition rates paid by Wis- consin residents attending Minnesota institutions in order to reduce the tuition differential. While Wisconsin had been opposed to such increases in the past, as its liability obligation increased, finally resulting in a payment to Minnesota in December of 1996, Wisconsin negotiators began to consider higher tuition for Wisconsin residents attending Minnesota schools in order to reduce the state's payment to Minnesota. Negotiations for the renewal of the current agreement, which began in the fall of 1995, were carried out by a group of representatives from each state. In Wisconsin, this group consisted of repre- sentatives from the UW System, HEAB, Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) and the Depart- ment of Administration (DOA). While the agree- ment is not included in the Minnesota statutes, Wisconsin law specifies that the agreement is sub- ject to the approval of the Joint Committee on Fi- ▇▇▇▇▇. The Committee approved the proposed agreement, with some modifications, in August of 1997. However, legislation was required to codify some of the changes that were approved by the Committee. These statutory modifications were accomplished in 1997 Act 200. Prior to 1998-99, the reciprocity tuition rate paid by a participating student was defined in the stat- utes as "the average academic fee that would be charged the student at a comparable public institu- tion of higher education located in his or her state of residence, as specified in the agreement." Act 200 modified the statutes to require that the agreement establish a reciprocal fee structure for participating students and provided that the reciprocal fee charged under the agreement could not exceed the higher of the resident tuition that would be charged the student at the institution in which the student is enrolled or the resident tuition that would be charged the student at a comparable in- stitution in the student's state of residence. This change increased the flexibility of the administer- ing agencies in the two states to jointly set reciproc- ity tuition rates within a set range to address the tuition differential. Act 200 established additional statutory re- quirements to maintain legislative oversight given the increased flexibility to set tuition rates that was provided to the administering agencies and the elimination of the expiration date. Previously, ac- tual reciprocity tuition rates were specified in an administrative memorandum that was prepared jointly by HEAB and MHESO each year. Use of the administrative memorandum was not required by law. However, under Act 200, the two administer- ing agencies are required to prepare, prior to each academic year, an administrative memorandum that establishes policies and procedures for imple- mentation of the agreement for the upcoming aca- demic year. In addition, the administrative memo- randum must include a description of how the re- ciprocal fee structure is to be determined. Annu- ally, HEAB is required to submit the administrative memorandum to the Joint Committee on Finance for its approval under a 14-day passive review process. If the Committee does not schedule a meeting to review the administrative memoran- dum within 14 working days after the date of sub- mittal, HEAB may implement the policies, proce- dures and reciprocal fee structure as proposed in the memorandum. While reciprocity tuition rates are not included in the agreement, the agreement specified that, for the 1998-99 and 1999-00 academic years, Wisconsin residents attending UM-Twin Cities as under- graduates would be charged the UW-Madison un- dergraduate tuition rate plus a "tuition gap sur- charge" equal to 25% of the difference between the resident tuition rates at UM-Twin Cities and UW- Madison. The surcharge was implemented to alle- viate, to some extent, the difficulties faced by ▇▇▇- ▇▇▇▇▇▇ due to the tuition differential between UM- Twin Cities and UW-Madison. In addition, since a large percentage of Wisconsin reciprocity students attend UM-Twin Cities, requiring those students to pay a higher percentage of their instructional costs significantly reduces Wisconsin's total financial liability, and thus, its reciprocity payment to Min- nesota. Approximately 44% of Wisconsin under- graduates attending a Minnesota college or univer- sity under the agreement enroll at UM-Twin Cities. The agreement stipulated that in the spring of the 1998-99 and 1999-00 academic years, the ad- ministering agencies would analyze the impact of the tuition gap surcharge on UM-Twin Cities en- rollment and on the goal of maintaining a ▇▇▇▇▇- cially equitable agreement to determine whether the additional charge should be continued. Since the number of Wisconsin undergraduates enrolling at UM-Twin Cities had not declined significantly since the implementation of the surcharge, both states agreed to continue the additional charge. In 2004-05, the difference between the annual resident tuition rates at the two campuses is $1,423, result- ing in a tuition gap surcharge of $356. In general, the reciprocal fee structure outlined in the administrative memorandum calls for recip- rocity students to pay the tuition rate charged at a comparable institution in his or her state of resi- dence. However, in addition to the tuition gap sur- charge for reciprocity students attending UM-Twin Cities, the current administrative memorandum includes the following exceptions to the general reciprocity tuition structure.

Current Agreement. Unlike all of the previous Minnesota-Wisconsin tuition reciprocity agreements, the current agree- ment does not include an expiration date. Rather, the agreement is automatically renewed each year unless terminated or modified with the consent of both states. However, proposed changes to the agreement must be approved by the Joint Commit- tee on Finance. At the time of renewal, the most significant changes made to the agreement, which first ap- plied to reciprocity studen ts stud ents enrolled in the 1998-99 academic year, were due in large part to two fac- tors. Since, historically, resident tuition at Minne- sota institutions was generally higher than at Wis- consin institutions, Wisconsin residents attending Minnesota institutions under the agreement paid lower tuition than Minnesota residents attending the same institution. This situation proved awk- ▇▇▇▇ for Minnesota and for a number of years, that state sought to increase tuition rates paid by Wis- consin residents attending Minnesota institutions in order to reduce the tuition tu ition differential. While Wisconsin had been opposed to such increases in the past, as its liability obligation increased, finally resulting in a payment to Minnesota in December of 1996, Wisconsin negotiators negotiat ors began to consider higher tuition for Wisconsin residents attending Minnesota schools in order to reduce the state's ’s payment to Minnesota. Negotiations for the renewal of the current agreement, which began in the fall of 1995, were carried out by a group of representatives from each state. In Wisconsin, this group consisted of repre- sentatives from the UW System, HEAB, Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS) and the Depart- ment of Administration (DOA). While the agree- ment is not included in the Minnesota statutes, Wisconsin law specifies that the agreement is sub- ject to the approval of the Joint Committee on Fi- ▇▇▇▇▇. The Committee approved the proposed agreement, with some modifications, in August of 1997. However, legislation was required to codify some of the changes that were approved by the Committee. These statutory modifications were accomplished in 1997 Act 200. Prior to 1998-99, the reciprocity recipr ocity tuition rate paid by a participating student was defined in the stat- utes as "the average academic acad emic fee that would be charged the student at a comparable co mparable public institu- tion of higher education located in his or her state of residence, as specified specifie d in the agreement." Act 200 modified the statutes to require that the agreement establish a reciprocal fee structure for participating students and provided that the reciprocal fee charged under the agreement could not exceed the higher of the resident tuition that would be charged the student at the institution in which the student is enrolled or the resident tuition that would be charged the student stud ent at a comparable in- stitution in the student's ’s state of residence. This change increased the flexibility of the administer- ing agencies in the two states to jointly set reciproc- ity tuition rates within a set range to address the tuition differential. Act 200 established additional addi tional statutory re- quirements to maintain legislative oversight given the increased flexibility to set tuition rates that was provided to the administering agencies and the elimination of the expiration date. Previously, ac- tual reciprocity tuition rates were specified in an administrative memorandum memorand um that was prepared jointly by HEAB and MHESO MHES O each year. Use of the administrative memorandum was not required by law. However, under Act 200, the two administer- ing agencies are required to prepare, prior to each academic year, an administrative admi nistrative memorandum that establishes policies and procedures for imple- mentation of the agreement for the upcoming aca- demic year. In addition, the administrative memo- randum must include a description of how the re- ciprocal fee structure is to be determined. Annu- ally, HEAB is required to submit the administrative memorandum to the Joint Committee on Finance for its approval under a 14-day passive review process. If the Committee does not schedule a meeting to review the administrative memoran- dum within 14 working days after the date of sub- mittal, HEAB may implement the policies, proce- dures and reciprocal fee structure as proposed in the memorandum. While reciprocity tuition rates are not included in the agreement, the agreement specified that, for the 1998-99 and 1999-00 academic years, Wisconsin residents attending UM-Twin Cities as under- graduates would be charged char ged the UW-Madison un- dergraduate tuition rate plus a "tuition gap sur- charge" equal to 25% of the difference between the resident tuition rates at UM-Twin Cities and UW- Madison. The surcharge was implemented to alle- viate, to some extent, the difficulties faced by ▇▇▇- ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Min- nesota due to the tuition differential between UM- Twin Cities and UW-MadisonMadis on. In addition, since a large percentage of Wisconsin reciprocity students attend UM-Twin Cities, requiring those students to pay a higher percentage of their instructional costs significantly reduces Wisconsin's ’s total financial liability, and thus, its reciprocity payment to Min- nesota. Approximately 4450% of Wisconsin under- graduates attending a Minnesota college or univer- sity under the agreement enroll at UM-Twin Cities. The agreement stipulated that in the spring of the 1998-99 and 1999-00 academic years, the ad- ministering agencies would analyze the impact of the tuition gap surcharge on UM-Twin Cities en- rollment and on the goal of maintaining a ▇▇▇▇▇- cially equitable agreement to determine whether the additional charge should shou ld be continued. Since the number of Wisconsin undergraduates enrolling at UM-Twin Cities had not declined significantly since the implementation of the surcharge, both states agreed to continue the additional charge. In 20042002-0503, the difference between the annual resident tuition rates at the two campuses is $1,4231,566, result- ing in a tuition gap surcharge of $356391. In general, the reciprocal fee structure outlined in the administrative memorandum calls for recip- rocity students to pay the tuition rate charged at a comparable institution in his or her state of resi- dence. However, in addition ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on to the tuition gap sur- charge for reciprocity students st udents attending UM-Twin Cities, the current administrative memorandum includes the following exceptions to the general reciprocity tuition structure.