Pennsylvania House Bill HB613

Pennsylvania 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/2/23
• Refer: 5/2/23
• Refer: 6/21/23
• Report Pass: 6/21/23
• Refer: 6/22/23
• Report Pass: 6/22/23
• Engrossed: 6/26/23
• Refer: 6/26/23
• Refer: 6/28/23
• Report Pass: 12/12/23
• Refer: 12/13/23
• Report Pass: 12/13/23
• Refer: 6/24/24
• Report Pass: 7/2/24
• Refer: 7/3/24
• Report Pass: 7/9/24
• Enrolled: 7/11/24
• Chaptered: 7/11/24
• Passed: 7/11/24

Caption

Providing for funding for certain State-aided universities for

Impact

The implications of HB 613 reflect a significant investment in higher education, particularly in health-related fields. The funding designated for the University of Pennsylvania is aimed at enhancing its educational offerings and research capabilities in veterinary services and infectious diseases, which are critical areas for public health. As such, the act reinforces the state's commitment to supporting educational institutions that provide essential services to its residents. Additionally, the bill includes provisions that mandate detailed reporting from the University concerning the expenditure of the appropriated funds, which is intended to ensure transparency and accountability in how state funding is utilized.

Summary

House Bill 613, also known as the State-Aided University Nonpreferred Appropriation Act of 2024, focuses on making appropriations to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania for the fiscal years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. This act specifies that a total of approximately $32 million is allocated for veterinary activities and nearly $1.9 million for the Center for Infectious Diseases within the University. The distributions are intended to support educational and health initiatives within the state, primarily benefitting Pennsylvania residents. The legislation emphasizes a structured funding system, detailing the need for specific quarterly payments and outlining compliance conditions for financial accountability.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 613 has generally been positive among proponents who view the funding as a vital investment in state education and public health. Supporters argue that the act addresses crucial health concerns and enhances educational opportunities for residents. Conversely, there are points of contention, particularly regarding the stipulations for board appointments and the degree of oversight required. Critics express concerns that such conditions may undermine the autonomy of state institutions and extend legislative reach into university governance.

Contention

Notably, discussions around the bill have highlighted concerns regarding the oversight mechanisms imposed by the legislation. Key points of contention include the requirement for the University to include appointed board members who are not elected officials, which some critics argue could dilute the representation and influence of elected appointees. Furthermore, there are apprehensions about the legislative control over the financial practices of the universities and potential limitations on how funds can be allocated and used, leading to debates over the balance between state regulation and institutional independence.