Wyoming House now pursuing UW funding cut of at least $20 million

CHEYENNE – In an emotional Saturday vote about funding for the state’s only four-year public university, members of the Wyoming House of Representatives narrowly voted to support deep cuts to the University of Wyoming.

The House voted 32-28 Saturday to keep a $20 million budget cut to UW in the state’s 2027-28 two-year, or biennium, budget, with potential for a $40 million cut by December. 

Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, former chair of the very conservative Wyoming Freedom Caucus, brought a budget amendment out of numerical order midday to maintain cuts to the university of either $20 million or $40 million, depending on a report due to the Joint Appropriations Committee in December. Bear is co-chair of the committee.

His amendment directly followed one made by Rep. Steve Harshman, R-Casper, which Harshman called a “parachute” to save UW funding. Harshman’s amendment would have restored the $40 million in university funding cut by the JAC before the current budget session began, with the option to cut back after reporting in December.

“I’m trying to get a parachute for everybody so we can have a safe landing on this issue for our university,” Harshman said.

‘The Art of the Deal’ or a ‘lack of transparency’?

Bear immediately stood up after Harshman made his motion, budget amendment number 60, to urge a “no” vote from the body. Bear said he’d be bringing another amendment — number 120 — to do the same thing, with deeper cuts, that he said he had discussed in a “conversation that happened between us and the university — at least, leadership and the university.”

Rep. Landon Brown, R-Cheyenne, said that Harshman’s amendment represented a good compromise, and that Bear’s amendment would still take $20 million from UW, no matter what, with discussion allowed for another $20 million cut.

“That is still taking $20 million for no reason,” Brown said. “I appreciate that (legislative) leadership has had a discussion with the university, but I’ll be honest with you: They don’t speak on my behalf, and they don’t speak on behalf of my constituents.”

House Majority Floor Leader Rep. Scott Heiner, R-Green River, who spoke in support of Bear’s amendment, referenced the book “The Art of the Deal,” by President Donald Trump, adding that the only “real leverage we have is the power of the purse.”

“Sometimes it takes a big level to get the attention of someone to be able to negotiate,” Heiner said. “What we had in the budget brought the people to the table.

“Just yesterday afternoon, we had a meeting with some key individuals from this university,” he continued. “There was no commitment on either side. It was just an understanding.”

Several members voiced concern after that about conversations regarding the university’s budget being held in private – not during committee meetings or in discussion on the floor.

Rep. Bob Nicholas, R-Cheyenne, said that in his discussions with UW representatives, he understood that they were not interested in, nor did they agree with the methods in, the amendment set forth by Bear.

“This is another cram down by our good leadership to get what they want,” Nicholas said.

Rep. Martha Lawley, R-Worland, said that funding the university is number one on her constituents’ list of priorities. Further, she said that Harshman’s amendment would be a productive way to have conversations, on the record, about changes that may be needed at UW.

“I would have loved for JAC to have these kinds of conversations with the university on the record,” she said. “I am seeing a troubling trend here of a lack of transparency and discussions of private conversations.”

Without naming names, she said that most members of the House had no way to verify whether the conversation between UW and legislative leadership did go the way Bear and Heiner said.

“That’s why we have public meetings, that’s why we have public comments,” Lawley said. “Transparency is important. It is not a talking point.”

Some members said that they supported Bear’s cuts because the university teaches content that does not align with their community members’ beliefs.

“I never thought there would come a day that the people of Wyoming would look and question the funding of our own university, but it is because of their policies, and their curriculum and their choices,” Rep. Kevin Campbell, R-Glenrock, said.

Rep. Liz Storer, D-Jackson, implored the body to fully fund the University of Wyoming because exposure to ideas creates growth, and Rep. J.T. Larson, R-Rock Springs, said he was not elected “to play games with agencies.” Rep. Karlee Provenza, D-Laramie, called the Bear amendment “a new narrative to try and justify what we have done because the public doesn’t support it.”

The difference in funding

On Saturday, the House convened at 8 a.m. to continue working through its list of 120 third-reading amendments to House Bill 1, “General government appropriations-2,” which earlier this week faced 122 second-reading amendments. Harshman’s amendment was adopted by the House, but was immediately deleted in the next vote of the body in favor of Bear’s amendment. 

Harshman’s amendment would have restored the $40 million cut to UW’s block grant from the state’s general fund that was removed by the JAC, with a portion set aside for a comprehensive review of the university’s organizational structure and administration. The review would have needed to identify duplicative positions and find places where they could be streamlined or restructured. It also would have evaluated staffing levels relative to similar post-secondary institutions.

The review also would have had to develop recommendations to “reduce the overall number of positions while simultaneously considering the operational needs and institutional priorities” of the University of Wyoming.

Both amendments required that the UW Board of Trustees submit an operational plan to the governor and the Joint Appropriations Committee by Dec. 1. 

Bear’s amendment allocates $20 million in additional general fund dollars to the university, or half of the JAC cut, requiring the same study and reporting by Dec. 1. But unlike Harshman’s amendment, if the university does not report to the JAC with $5 million in cost savings, the JAC can then cut its appropriation by $40 million.

Bear’s amendment was approved by four votes. The House had 55 more third-reading budget amendments left to discuss when they broke for lunch midday Saturday.

When the final House version of the budget is approved, it must be reconciled with the Senate version, which was approved Friday. That version includes all of the money recommended for the University of Wyoming, potentially setting up a contentious negotiation between the two chambers before a final spending plan can be sent to the governor for his consideration.

For more legislative coverage, click here.