From tesler@bcc.ctc.edu Wed Mar 12 15:07:24 1997 Received: from mx2.u.washington.edu (mx2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW96.12/8.8.4+UW97.03) with ESMTP id PAA10456 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:07:23 -0800 Received: from EMAIL1.ctc.edu (email1.bcc.ctc.edu [134.39.80.31]) by mx2.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW96.12/8.8.4+UW97.03) with SMTP id PAA16095 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:07:18 -0800 Received: by EMAIL1.ctc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC2EF7.33FC64F0@EMAIL1.ctc.edu>; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:08:12 -0800 Message-ID: From: Tika Esler To: Discussion of Residency Issues State Wide Subject: RE: "public inst of higher ed" Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:02:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It never ceases to amaze me how we can look at something for so long and not see it all. Joe, you are bringing up a good point about the "public institutions........." As I read your e-mail I am agreeing with your initial take, we shouldn't commence the 12 months until she "takes that first step to establish a domicile....". Then....... you raise a valid point. One WOULD assume that our legislators MEANT to say when they limited residency to graduating high school students who spent 75% of their jr./sr. HS time in this state (whose parents were domiciled) to public institutions of higher education as defining a "Washington" Public Institutions of Higher Education BUT they didn't say that. (I'd be a bit ticked if I was from a private institution of higher ed in this state). SO what to do here? One could take the easy road and not even deal with your point because it could clearly be argued that she hasn't established a domicile in Washington.............but we may want to get this clarified through (do I dare say it?) an AG opinion. I can't imagine they'd interpret it any different than it should be a "Washington" institution (and thus U of Montana may be a public insitution but just not in this state), but at least we'd have an official opinion on how we should interpret that WAC......this is WACky!! Tika Esler, Bellevue CC ---------- >From: Joseph M. St.Hilaire >To: Discussion of Residency Issues State Wide >Subject: "public inst of higher ed" >Date: Wednesday, March 12, 1997 2:33PM > > >Here's a student who graduated from a Washington high school three years >ago, then attended the U. of Montana the past three years. A couple years >ago, her parents moved to Idaho. So when her license expired, she >renewed it in Idaho. She was claimed by her parents all this time, but >is now moving back to Washington, will marry a Washington fellow, and >plans to enroll at Western in the fall. I told her the clock starts >ticking when she changes her documents back to Washington. But out of >curiosity, I need to ask you: > >RCW 28B.15.012(2)(d) says we can call a resident "any student who has spent >at least 75 percent of both his or her junior and senior years in high >school in this state, whose parents or legal guardians have been >domiciled in the state for a period of at least one year within the >five-year period before the student graduates from high school, and who >enrolls in a public institution of higher education within six months of >leaving high school . . ." > >I can't just now get my hands on RCW 28B.15.900, which offers a >definition of "institutions of higher education", but not of "public >institution of higher education". I have to assume, however, that the >latter includes only Washington public institutions of higher ed and >that attending U. of Montana doesn't help her. > >By the way, does that clause purposely exclude students who happen to >attend a private Washington college or university? I guess I don't catch >the rationale behind it. > >Joe St.Hilaire >Western > .