Local Office of IDS Emperor Scott - Salisbury, NC (Back in Business)

[Deus Naturae]

Dude...I hate to restart this argument but you realize your education law outlawed private education, right?

[sentinel]

Dude...I hate to restart this argument but you realize your education law outlawed private education, right?

It did. Which is why I signed it. Deus was even kind enough to accept some of my edits. The same thing with the bilingual education act, I voted against it for fiscal concerns and because it wasn't a good bill. The intention was good, but the bill wasn't. I will admit I was more of a stickler when you were Gov, Scott.

[windjammer]

Dude...I hate to restart this argument but you realize your education law outlawed private education, right?

It did. Which is why I signed it. Deus was even kind enough to accept some of my edits. The same thing with the bilingual education act, I voted against it for fiscal concerns and because it wasn't a good bill. The intention was good, but the bill wasn't. I will admit I was more of a stickler when you were Gov, Scott.

Maybe Scott's reforms needed to be improved a bit,
But there is a difference between reforming in the good way, and simply destroying the system.

And that's why you have done by totally cutting the Northeast Budget in education.

If some things could be improved, fine, that's great. But the reforms that Dallasfan and Sirnick have signed are really terrible.

[sentinel]

Dude...I hate to restart this argument but you realize your education law outlawed private education, right?

It did. Which is why I signed it. Deus was even kind enough to accept some of my edits. The same thing with the bilingual education act, I voted against it for fiscal concerns and because it wasn't a good bill. The intention was good, but the bill wasn't. I will admit I was more of a stickler when you were Gov, Scott.

Maybe Scott's reforms needed to be improved a bit,
But there is a difference between reforming in the good way, and simply destroying the system.

And that's why you have done by totally cutting the Northeast Budget in education.

If some things could be improved, fine, that's great. But the reforms that Dallasfan and Sirnick have signed are really terrible.

Actually, the Northeast budget for education went down because a law was repealed providing money for public university and college education --while the GM cost report for my universal public college/university bill was lower than what we were subsidizing so I repealed the law subsidizing public college/university education in lieu of universal public college/university education.

(TL;DR - It was cheaper to provide free public university/college education for everyone)

I'm disappointed that you think universal free public university/college education is a horrible reform. I'm so sorry that it ended up being less expensive than the previous programs. The only thing I'd do differently is expand it to vocational education as well. 

[windjammer]

Dude...I hate to restart this argument but you realize your education law outlawed private education, right?

It did. Which is why I signed it. Deus was even kind enough to accept some of my edits. The same thing with the bilingual education act, I voted against it for fiscal concerns and because it wasn't a good bill. The intention was good, but the bill wasn't. I will admit I was more of a stickler when you were Gov, Scott.

Maybe Scott's reforms needed to be improved a bit,
But there is a difference between reforming in the good way, and simply destroying the system.

And that's why you have done by totally cutting the Northeast Budget in education.

If some things could be improved, fine, that's great. But the reforms that Dallasfan and Sirnick have signed are really terrible.

Actually, the Northeast budget for education went down because a law was repealed providing money for public university and college education --while the GM cost report for my universal public college/university bill was lower than what we were subsidizing so I repealed the law subsidizing public college/university education in lieu of universal public college/university education.

(TL;DR - It was cheaper to provide free public university/college education for everyone)

And who signed the  repeal of the law rproviding money for public univertsity and college education?

[sentinel]

Dude...I hate to restart this argument but you realize your education law outlawed private education, right?

It did. Which is why I signed it. Deus was even kind enough to accept some of my edits. The same thing with the bilingual education act, I voted against it for fiscal concerns and because it wasn't a good bill. The intention was good, but the bill wasn't. I will admit I was more of a stickler when you were Gov, Scott.

Maybe Scott's reforms needed to be improved a bit,
But there is a difference between reforming in the good way, and simply destroying the system.

And that's why you have done by totally cutting the Northeast Budget in education.

If some things could be improved, fine, that's great. But the reforms that Dallasfan and Sirnick have signed are really terrible.

Actually, the Northeast budget for education went down because a law was repealed providing money for public university and college education --while the GM cost report for my universal public college/university bill was lower than what we were subsidizing so I repealed the law subsidizing public college/university education in lieu of universal public college/university education.

(TL;DR - It was cheaper to provide free public university/college education for everyone)

And who signed the  repeal of the law rproviding money for public univertsity and college education?

...the law subsidized public university/college education...which is not needed when you are providing free public education.  It would have been fiscally irresponsible not to repeal it. Its like buying an apple for $2 at the store, and giving the cashier $10, its silly.

Also, did you check how many billions of dollars we invested in schools via the 3 stimulus packages we passed when I was Governor? Please investigate.

[windjammer]

Dude...I hate to restart this argument but you realize your education law outlawed private education, right?

It did. Which is why I signed it. Deus was even kind enough to accept some of my edits. The same thing with the bilingual education act, I voted against it for fiscal concerns and because it wasn't a good bill. The intention was good, but the bill wasn't. I will admit I was more of a stickler when you were Gov, Scott.

Maybe Scott's reforms needed to be improved a bit,
But there is a difference between reforming in the good way, and simply destroying the system.

And that's why you have done by totally cutting the Northeast Budget in education.

If some things could be improved, fine, that's great. But the reforms that Dallasfan and Sirnick have signed are really terrible.

Actually, the Northeast budget for education went down because a law was repealed providing money for public university and college education --while the GM cost report for my universal public college/university bill was lower than what we were subsidizing so I repealed the law subsidizing public college/university education in lieu of universal public college/university education.

(TL;DR - It was cheaper to provide free public university/college education for everyone)

And who signed the  repeal of the law rproviding money for public univertsity and college education?

...the law subsidized public university/college education...which is not needed when you are providing free public education.  It would have been fiscally irresponsible not to repeal it. Its like buying an apple for $2 at the store, and giving the cashier $10, its silly.

Also, did you check how many billions of dollars we invested in schools via the 3 stimulus packages we passed when I was Governor? Please investigate.

Woooow, so you justify the bill you signed destroying education in the Northeast, by the necessity because of a the repeal of a bill providing money for public college, a law you signed as well. Wooow, great record.

I consider the funding of education a top priority, I even think this is fiscally responsible to be sure education is funded by the Regional government, we don't seem to have the same definition of fiscal responsibility.

And please, could you send to me the laws please? I would really like to investigate as well.

[sentinel]

Dude...I hate to restart this argument but you realize your education law outlawed private education, right?

It did. Which is why I signed it. Deus was even kind enough to accept some of my edits. The same thing with the bilingual education act, I voted against it for fiscal concerns and because it wasn't a good bill. The intention was good, but the bill wasn't. I will admit I was more of a stickler when you were Gov, Scott.

Maybe Scott's reforms needed to be improved a bit,
But there is a difference between reforming in the good way, and simply destroying the system.

And that's why you have done by totally cutting the Northeast Budget in education.

If some things could be improved, fine, that's great. But the reforms that Dallasfan and Sirnick have signed are really terrible.

Actually, the Northeast budget for education went down because a law was repealed providing money for public university and college education --while the GM cost report for my universal public college/university bill was lower than what we were subsidizing so I repealed the law subsidizing public college/university education in lieu of universal public college/university education.

(TL;DR - It was cheaper to provide free public university/college education for everyone)

And who signed the  repeal of the law rproviding money for public univertsity and college education?

...the law subsidized public university/college education...which is not needed when you are providing free public education.  It would have been fiscally irresponsible not to repeal it. Its like buying an apple for $2 at the store, and giving the cashier $10, its silly.

Also, did you check how many billions of dollars we invested in schools via the 3 stimulus packages we passed when I was Governor? Please investigate.

Woooow, so you justify the bill you signed destroying education in the Northeast, by the necessity because of a the repeal of a bill providing money for public college, a law you signed as well. Wooow, great record.

I consider the funding of education a top priority, I even think this is fiscally responsible to be sure education is funded by the Regional government, we don't seem to have the same definition of fiscal responsibility.

And please, could you send to me the laws please? I would really like to investigate as well.

This is getting silly. You're mixing up a few different laws now, but its fine. At the end of my tenure, we had free public university/college education. At the end of my tenure, we had billions invested into schools (as well as other public facilities).

My Governor thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175485.0

Stimulus Bill #1: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175485.msg3832817#msg3832817

Stimulus Bill #2: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175485.msg3892545#msg3892545

Stimulus Bill #3: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175485.msg4017595#msg4017595

Northeast Higher Education Act:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175485.msg3891916#msg3891916

and my second budget, which also cut taxes, repealed a law that was replaced by the Higher Education Act: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=175485.msg3989646#msg3989646

(funding for education decreased in the budget because we provided free college/university education which proved to be cheaper than subsidizing)

[windjammer]

Thank you for the links Sirnick, I will look at this links carefully and then post my answer.

[DemPGH]

From my firsthand knowledge about how schools and universities work, if you send everyone to school for free, cut subsidies, and cut taxes, those universities and systems of education are actually going to be hurting. Many programs and lots of faculty are all but gone. That's because education isn't really "free." So what would happen is, tuition would skyrocket, in all likelihood. Or, the universities would have to invent a billion fees and so on to cover things. The foreign language loss would be something you'd see across the board, which is a shame and should never happen.

And private education was outlawed?

[sentinel]

From my firsthand knowledge about how schools and universities work, if you send everyone to school for free, cut subsidies, and cut taxes, those universities and systems of education are actually going to be hurting. Many programs and lots of faculty are all but gone. That's because education isn't really "free." So what would happen is, tuition would skyrocket, in all likelihood. Or, the universities would have to invent a billion fees and so on to cover things. The foreign language loss would be something you'd see across the board, which is a shame and should never happen.

And private education was outlawed?

Yes, private education  for all intents and purposes became public education with the level of regulations over it.

In regards to your first point, its complete speculation and also falls under the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (might have spelled it wrong).  I had a GM report on the bill done before it passed, and nothing you say was indicated by the GM report. Anyone would alter or change a bill based on a negative GM report, its not a partisan issue. The subsidy for tuition was replaced by complete funding for tuition to public schools. If you want to doubt the GM, then this becomes more of a game reform discussion.

Regardless, DemPGH, I voted against the bilingual education act and passed the Higher Education Reform act, passed the budget that Windjammer is criticizing me on--then you picked me as your Vice Presidential running mate. Love you too buddy .

[windjammer]

Sirnick, that's not really what you're saying.

The law I'm specifically critising you, this is this law:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186636.0
And this law passed in 2014.

You were the DemPGH's VP for the October 2013 presidential election.

(I'm writing an another answer, don't worry).

[sentinel]

Sirnick, that's not really what you're saying.

The law I'm specifically critising you, this is this law:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186636.0
And this law passed in 2014.

You were the DemPGH's VP for the October 2013 presidential election.

(I'm writing an another answer, don't worry).

You criticized me for signing Deus' amendment to the Education Improvement Act, then you criticized me regarding education funding which has to do with the Higher Education Act, and I proved you wrong by showing you the budget and the stimulus packages. In addition to saying that the Education Improvement Act pretty much made private schools public (a needed change).

DemPGH responded talking about the Higher Education Act which passed in early October/late September along with the budget.

You also hit me for the bilingual education act, which happened prior to October 2013, and DemPGH.

Do I really need to outline your own argument Windjammer? Come on man.

[windjammer]

Sirnick, that's not really what you're saying.

The law I'm specifically critising you, this is this law:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186636.0
And this law passed in 2014.

You were the DemPGH's VP for the October 2013 presidential election.

(I'm writing an another answer, don't worry).

You criticized me for signing Deus' amendment to the Education Improvement Act, then you criticized me regarding education funding which has to do with the Higher Education Act, and I proved you wrong by showing you the budget and the stimulus packages. In addition to saying that the Education Improvement Act pretty much made private schools public (a needed change).

DemPGH responded talking about the Higher Education Act which passed in early October/late September along with the budget.

You also hit me for the bilingual education act, which happened prior to October 2013, and DemPGH.

Do I really need to outline your own argument Windjammer? Come on man.

Oh please, my critic was mostly because of the law you signed and that Deus sponsored. And you know that, see the DemPGH's thread. DemPGH picked you as your VP few months before...

And for the bilingual education act, I hit Dallasfan, your VP, for having repealed this law, not you, and once again you can verify. Dallasfan has never been DemPGH's VP.

Once again, you can check on the DemPGH's thread.

[DemPGH]

From my firsthand knowledge about how schools and universities work, if you send everyone to school for free, cut subsidies, and cut taxes, those universities and systems of education are actually going to be hurting. Many programs and lots of faculty are all but gone. That's because education isn't really "free." So what would happen is, tuition would skyrocket, in all likelihood. Or, the universities would have to invent a billion fees and so on to cover things. The foreign language loss would be something you'd see across the board, which is a shame and should never happen.

And private education was outlawed?

Yes, private education  for all intents and purposes became public education with the level of regulations over it.

In regards to your first point, its complete speculation and also falls under the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (might have spelled it wrong).  I had a GM report on the bill done before it passed, and nothing you say was indicated by the GM report. Anyone would alter or change a bill based on a negative GM report, its not a partisan issue. The subsidy for tuition was replaced by complete funding for tuition to public schools. If you want to doubt the GM, then this becomes more of a game reform discussion.

Regardless, DemPGH, I voted against the bilingual education act and passed the Higher Education Reform act, passed the budget that Windjammer is criticizing me on--then you picked me as your Vice Presidential running mate. Love you too buddy .

Hey, man, it's a policy difference - it's not a personal attack on you. I just don't see how you can do it, and nothing in my experience is congruent with it. The money would have to be syphoned from somewhere else. It's just unfortunate that universities are not businesses.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Getting testy in there. The end of the era of good feeling is in sight!

[sentinel]

Sirnick, that's not really what you're saying.

The law I'm specifically critising you, this is this law:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186636.0
And this law passed in 2014.

You were the DemPGH's VP for the October 2013 presidential election.

(I'm writing an another answer, don't worry).

You criticized me for signing Deus' amendment to the Education Improvement Act, then you criticized me regarding education funding which has to do with the Higher Education Act, and I proved you wrong by showing you the budget and the stimulus packages. In addition to saying that the Education Improvement Act pretty much made private schools public (a needed change).

DemPGH responded talking about the Higher Education Act which passed in early October/late September along with the budget.

You also hit me for the bilingual education act, which happened prior to October 2013, and DemPGH.

Do I really need to outline your own argument Windjammer? Come on man.

Oh please, my critic was mostly because of the law you signed and that Deus sponsored. And you know that, see the DemPGH's thread. DemPGH picked you as your VP few months before...

And for the bilingual education act, I hit Dallasfan, your VP, for having repealed this law, not you, and once again you can verify. Dallasfan has never been DemPGH's VP.

Once again, you can check on the DemPGH's thread.

I voted against the Bilingual Education Act --I agree with Dallasfan's position. I've said this multiple times.  The bill's intent was good but it was poorly written and had no fiscal component. It was unfunded. It would have put unnecessary strain on our schools because it provided zero funding for the program.

From my firsthand knowledge about how schools and universities work, if you send everyone to school for free, cut subsidies, and cut taxes, those universities and systems of education are actually going to be hurting. Many programs and lots of faculty are all but gone. That's because education isn't really "free." So what would happen is, tuition would skyrocket, in all likelihood. Or, the universities would have to invent a billion fees and so on to cover things. The foreign language loss would be something you'd see across the board, which is a shame and should never happen.

And private education was outlawed?

Yes, private education  for all intents and purposes became public education with the level of regulations over it.

In regards to your first point, its complete speculation and also falls under the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (might have spelled it wrong).  I had a GM report on the bill done before it passed, and nothing you say was indicated by the GM report. Anyone would alter or change a bill based on a negative GM report, its not a partisan issue. The subsidy for tuition was replaced by complete funding for tuition to public schools. If you want to doubt the GM, then this becomes more of a game reform discussion.

Regardless, DemPGH, I voted against the bilingual education act and passed the Higher Education Reform act, passed the budget that Windjammer is criticizing me on--then you picked me as your Vice Presidential running mate. Love you too buddy .

Hey, man, it's a policy difference - it's not a personal attack on you. I just don't see how you can do it, and nothing in my experience is congruent with it. The money would have to be syphoned from somewhere else. It's just unfortunate that universities are not businesses.

DemPGH, we both know that we both would have funded any bill at GM specified levels. Thats what I did. If the bill to provide public college/university education needed more funding, myself and the Assembly would have found it because the future of our region is worth it.

[windjammer]

Sirnick, if you want to support Dallasfan for the repeal of this law, fine, but you cannot say I hit you on the educational language, I didn't know you voted against it when I critized Dallasfan for that.

And for the education law I mostly critized you, it passed after the October 2013 election, after DemPGH picked you as his VP.

So your attack on DemPGH choosing you as your VP. That's not simply true.

Well, just to say again I have nothing against you Sirnick, nothing personal.

[sentinel]

Sirnick, if you want to support Dallasfan for the repeal of this law, fine, but you cannot say I hit you on the educational language, I didn't know you voted against it when I critized Dallasfan for that.

And for the education law I mostly critized you, it passed after the October 2013 election, after DemPGH picked you as his VP.

So your attack on DemPGH choosing you as your VP. That's not simply true.

Well, just to say again I have nothing against you Sirnick, nothing personal.

Oh, I appreciate DemPGH choosing me as his VP in October, I'm not attacking him for it.

And of course I support my Vice Presidential pick, who doesn't support their VP pick?

 The Higher Education Act passed before the election (October 6th it was signed. Election is like the third Friday in October or something).

[windjammer]

Sirnick, if you want to support Dallasfan for the repeal of this law, fine, but you cannot say I hit you on the educational language, I didn't know you voted against it when I critized Dallasfan for that.

And for the education law I mostly critized you, it passed after the October 2013 election, after DemPGH picked you as his VP.

So your attack on DemPGH choosing you as your VP. That's not simply true.

Well, just to say again I have nothing against you Sirnick, nothing personal.

Oh, I appreciate DemPGH choosing me as his VP in October, I'm not attacking him for it.

And of course I support my Vice Presidential pick, who doesn't support their VP pick?

 The Higher Education Act passed before the election (October 6th it was signed. Election is like the third Friday in October or something).

But not the Deus amendment , the bill once again I mostly criticized you.

[sentinel]

Sirnick, if you want to support Dallasfan for the repeal of this law, fine, but you cannot say I hit you on the educational language, I didn't know you voted against it when I critized Dallasfan for that.

And for the education law I mostly critized you, it passed after the October 2013 election, after DemPGH picked you as his VP.

So your attack on DemPGH choosing you as your VP. That's not simply true.

Well, just to say again I have nothing against you Sirnick, nothing personal.

Oh, I appreciate DemPGH choosing me as his VP in October, I'm not attacking him for it.

And of course I support my Vice Presidential pick, who doesn't support their VP pick?

 The Higher Education Act passed before the election (October 6th it was signed. Election is like the third Friday in October or something).

But not the Deus amendment , the bill once again I mostly criticized you.

The Deus Amendment pretty much gave a reasonable level of power back to private schools. Scott's bill had made private schools more or less public schools.

Scott's education bill made it a requirement for all teachers to have a Masters Degree in order to get a teaching job. The Deus Amendment made it a requirement within 5 years of starting a teaching job, and gave localities the ability to make this requirement a shorter period of time. This requirement reflects policy IRL. 

[Donerail]

From my firsthand knowledge about how schools and universities work, if you send everyone to school for free, cut subsidies, and cut taxes, those universities and systems of education are actually going to be hurting. Many programs and lots of faculty are all but gone. That's because education isn't really "free." So what would happen is, tuition would skyrocket, in all likelihood. Or, the universities would have to invent a billion fees and so on to cover things. The foreign language loss would be something you'd see across the board, which is a shame and should never happen.

And private education was outlawed?

Yes, private education for all intents and purposes became public education with the level of regulations over it.

So as someone who supported similar legislation in the IDS, to explain some of this - the legislation would have private schools be funded and administered by municipalities, given funding comparable to that offered public schools, and forbidden from using tuition fees or exclusionary admissions processes. The legislation would make it impossible for predatory for-profit private schools to operate, while still allowing some private schools (religiously-affiliated/specialized non-profits, mostly) to operate. Our mission is to embrace education as an equalizing force, which necessitated that step.

[Deus Naturae]

From my firsthand knowledge about how schools and universities work, if you send everyone to school for free, cut subsidies, and cut taxes, those universities and systems of education are actually going to be hurting. Many programs and lots of faculty are all but gone. That's because education isn't really "free." So what would happen is, tuition would skyrocket, in all likelihood. Or, the universities would have to invent a billion fees and so on to cover things. The foreign language loss would be something you'd see across the board, which is a shame and should never happen.

And private education was outlawed?

Yes, private education for all intents and purposes became public education with the level of regulations over it.

So as someone who supported similar legislation in the IDS, to explain some of this - the legislation would have private schools be funded and administered by municipalities, given funding comparable to that offered public schools, and forbidden from using tuition fees or exclusionary admissions processes. The legislation would make it impossible for predatory for-profit private schools to operate, while ensuring that non-profit private schools that wish to experiment with different educational methods (Montessoris and schools aimed at a specific curriculum, like the arts or technology) than public schools could operate freely without financial concerns, and allowing all students to have a chance to attend these schools by prohibiting tuition fees.

We already have those, they're called charter schools. Also, Scott's law gave control of private educational curriculum to the government, so it's doubtful that the schools you describe would be able to operate.

[Donerail]

From my firsthand knowledge about how schools and universities work, if you send everyone to school for free, cut subsidies, and cut taxes, those universities and systems of education are actually going to be hurting. Many programs and lots of faculty are all but gone. That's because education isn't really "free." So what would happen is, tuition would skyrocket, in all likelihood. Or, the universities would have to invent a billion fees and so on to cover things. The foreign language loss would be something you'd see across the board, which is a shame and should never happen.

And private education was outlawed?

Yes, private education for all intents and purposes became public education with the level of regulations over it.

So as someone who supported similar legislation in the IDS, to explain some of this - the legislation would have private schools be funded and administered by municipalities, given funding comparable to that offered public schools, and forbidden from using tuition fees or exclusionary admissions processes. The legislation would make it impossible for predatory for-profit private schools to operate, while ensuring that non-profit private schools that wish to experiment with different educational methods (Montessoris and schools aimed at a specific curriculum, like the arts or technology) than public schools could operate freely without financial concerns, and allowing all students to have a chance to attend these schools by prohibiting tuition fees.

We already have those, they're called charter schools. Also, Scott's law gave control of private educational curriculum to the government, so it's doubtful that the schools you describe would be able to operate.

The Northeast Education Improvement and Modernization Act of 2013 states that those schools would be government-administered. It doesn't specify the government would control their curriculum, merely that they would be administered by the government to ensure that they are in compliance with the other components of the legislation that would apply to them.

[sentinel]

From my firsthand knowledge about how schools and universities work, if you send everyone to school for free, cut subsidies, and cut taxes, those universities and systems of education are actually going to be hurting. Many programs and lots of faculty are all but gone. That's because education isn't really "free." So what would happen is, tuition would skyrocket, in all likelihood. Or, the universities would have to invent a billion fees and so on to cover things. The foreign language loss would be something you'd see across the board, which is a shame and should never happen.

And private education was outlawed?

Yes, private education for all intents and purposes became public education with the level of regulations over it.

So as someone who supported similar legislation in the IDS, to explain some of this - the legislation would have private schools be funded and administered by municipalities, given funding comparable to that offered public schools, and forbidden from using tuition fees or exclusionary admissions processes. The legislation would make it impossible for predatory for-profit private schools to operate, while ensuring that non-profit private schools that wish to experiment with different educational methods (Montessoris and schools aimed at a specific curriculum, like the arts or technology) than public schools could operate freely without financial concerns, and allowing all students to have a chance to attend these schools by prohibiting tuition fees.

We already have those, they're called charter schools. Also, Scott's law gave control of private educational curriculum to the government, so it's doubtful that the schools you describe would be able to operate.

The Northeast Education Improvement and Modernization Act of 2013 states that those schools would be government-administered. It doesn't specify the government would control their curriculum, merely that they would be administered by the government to ensure that they are in compliance with the other components of the legislation that would apply to them.

I'm under the interpretation that the wording of that law would allow for nearly complete control. Nonetheless, the law has been changed.