Emails, Dominic Chavez, senior director, Office of External Relations, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, May 6 and 9, 2014

10: 11 a.m.

You had asked for assistance digesting provisions in SB 1528.  Our general counsel did some research to find a less dense description/summary of what SB 1528 accomplished.  The House Research Organization produced the report linked below that provides issue background and a basic summary of the legislation.  It also includes Pros and Cons that were articulated at the time the legislation was considered.  Not sure if you have seen this, but we feel this accurately captures the legislation and is easier to follow than the section by section bill analysis.

Of course, any citations of this document should be attributed to the HRO.


Dominic M. Chavez

Senior Director

Office of External Relations

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

12:03 p.m.

Below is an unedited excerpt from staff analysis for final version of SB 1528 that summarizes ultimate impact on THECB and state.  The analysis (and fiscal note informed by THECB and produced by LBB) in 2005 did not explicitly address the question of expansion of in-state tuition for undocumented students one way or another.  The fiscal note only focused on changes that affected access to in-state tuition for International Students (not to be confused with undocumented)—SB 1528 effectively narrowed the access pathway for those students.  Let me know if you need copy of that.


 Impact on the THECB and the State:

The Coordinating Board will have to compose new residency rules and conduct residency workshops to help institutions

transition from the current policies to the new ones. We believe the state will save general revenue because of the proposed

changes in residency requirements for certain non-immigrant aliens. We also believe institutions will save money because of

simplified residency determinations. The provision for homeless persons who have lived in Texas for 12 months has been

repealed, but that was with the intention of meeting the needs of such individuals through Coordinating Board rule rather

than statute. This population should not be adversely affected.


The greatest impacts will be on the institutions and the students. The creation and adoption of clear definitions for terms such

as tuition and mandatory fees should increase consistency in the way current exemption and waiver programs are

interpreted and applied to individual students. The establishment of each term’s census date as the deadline for establishing

residency will help students know the cut-off date, no matter which institution they attend.


The use of a consistent set of data elements for determining residency should cause institutions to reach similar conclusions

about the residency of students in similar situations. At present, although the Coordinating Board has issued a set of “core

questions,” institutions may expand this list as they see fit.


The requirement that receiving institutions use the prior institutions’ residency classifications for in-coming transfer students

will greatly simplify the process of transferring from one institution to another. Students may apply for reclassification, but

they do not have to prove residency each time they move (unless they drop out of school for as much as two consecutive

regular semesters). Receiving institutions will not have to perform the same extensive examination of student data to

determine residency as was performed by the previous institution.


The bill would allow US citizens and Permanent Residents to have the same opportunity to base residency on 3 years’

residence and high school graduation or receipt of GED in Texas as is now allowed international students. This will

significantly simplify the residency determination of students whose parents have recently moved out of state, while the

student stayed behind and completed secondary education. At present, a student who has never lived anywhere but Texas

becomes a nonresident if his or her parent moves out of state prior to the student’s enrollment in a public institution of higher


From: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) []

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:14 PM

To: Chavez, Dominic

Subject: RE: SB 1528


I have the fiscal note. What’s the creation date of the text?

12:54 p.m.

May 31, 2005

From: Selby, Gardner (CMG-Austin) []

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 9:29 AM

To: Chavez, Dominic

Subject: RE: Following up


I remain interested in if the board sees the Senate bill as expanding in-state tuition for undocumented residents. Why or why not?

10:51 a.m.

May 9, 2014

We (the agency) have to look at this in two ways:


Legislative intent and practical effect


Legislative intent:

As I mentioned in previous emails (and pointing to all official and unofficial analysis done at that time), the question of “expanding benefits to undocumented students” was neither asked nor answered.  It simply was not addressed.  The fiscal note completed by LBB measured state impact as it relates to the international student population (not to be confused with undocumented).  Again, even it (the fiscal note) did not evaluate in the affirmative, negative, or even neutral whether there was an “expansion” of the benefit for “undocumented students”.  So we refer to those official analyses.  And if the question is what was intended, that is question for authors, not us.


Practical effect:

We do not collect, nor have, any data that measures the incremental increase or decrease (or otherwise) related to the number of undocumented students pre and post SB 1528 as it specifically relates to the changes in the statute.  We can provide data for the total program history, but cannot quantitatively isolate the effect (one way or another) of SB 1528 to provide a conclusion.  Anything would be pure speculation and we are not in speculation business.  We make conclusions based on what we can reasonably justify with hard data and analysis.