Wow. That was a disappointing finish.
Printable View
Wow. That was a disappointing finish.
The merger bill is push back on the calendar?
TwssQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian96
(couldn't resist it)
POSITIVE from the "non action" today...
Many believed LSUS would be a financial albatross for Louisiana Tech. At least for now...we don't have to shoulder that burden.
Jindal/Martin...we needed support from one or better yet both...got neither
Physically expanding into S'port would open up a new frontier.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckK3
That's not a positive. No positive came from today. Not for Tech. Not for Shreveport-Bossier. Not for LSU. Not for LSUS. Not for Louisiana. LSUS would not have been a "financial albatross" or a burden for us. People saying that did not know what they were talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckK3
Isn't Martin gone to Colorado State?Quote:
Originally Posted by revf
I wish it could've gone to a vote so the true loyalties could come to light...
He is the only finalist for the Colorado State job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
From what Rep. Burrell said, it sounded like a lot of the reps didn't know what to do. They had people on one side telling them one thing and then the anti-merger people telling them untrue rumors. He didn't know who to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxerdog
When the all the business leaders, economic developers, and mayors of S'port/Bossier are for it, they shouldn't be allowed to play the "confused" card...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Well, they got away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxerdog
Rep. Carmody will be able to tell them "Told ya so," as the LSU Shreveport Commitment Plan fails because they don't have the money to implement it. The only way to implement it is to take money away from the flagship in Baton Rouge, and we all know that won't happen. At the same time, economic growth and educational opportunities are lost in Shreveport-Bossier.
So, I had to google "returned to the calendar" to get a basic definition. In Louisiana's case, does this mean it's dead, or will it actually be considered again? I assume if the latter, it won't be this session.
The bill could be considered again in theory; but in practice, the bill is pretty much dead this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian96