Tag Archives: mark yudof

Jerry Brown

Brown and Yudof Bail on the Master Plan

On June 27 Governor Jerry Brown vetoed language inserted by both houses that would have tied UC funding to admitting a minimum number of students (the same as last 2011).  His veto message says as follows:

 

“Deletes provision 15 of item 6440-001-0001 from AB 1497, because the requirement contained in this provision that the University achieve an enrollment target of 209,977 resident full-time equivalent students creates unnecessary cost pressures on this item and is unnecessarily restrictive.”

 

This enrollment target, identical with what it was 2 years ago (c.210K), was missing from the Governor’s January budget and the May revise. The  legislature put it back after the LAO notedits absence. Governor Brown’s veto means that, although Master Plan eligibility still exists on paper the state will no longer monitor UC’s compliance with Master Plan expectations. (In some previous years it required that fund be “reverted” to the State if UC did not meet its enrollment target.)

 

The Council of UC Faculty Association’s Executive Director, Eric Hays has been keeping track of how far the Governor has moved away from Master Plan requirements in the past three budgets. As you can see (below), Jerry Brown is MUCH worse than Schwarzenegger in holding UC to Master Plan targets. By several measures he is also worse in funding UC, which may be why he no will longer hold UC accountable Californians with non-resident students, each of whom yields a surplus revenue of c. $22K . Who will keep these accounts if the DOF and the Governor don’t?

UC remains free to enroll more the 210K resident students even if the state no longer expects it to do so.  This year’s vetoed language contained no penalty if UC missed it’s target, so the Governor’s veto should probably be read as a purely symbolic repudiation of the Master Plan’s link between UC funding and if you want a sense of where things are headed, just listen to President Yudof crow: “[The] bill included California resident enrollment target language that is not consistent with funding levels provided from the State… In accordance with my request the Governor vetoed the budget provisions on the enrollment target ….” (Yudof to Regents, June 29, 2012)

On Friday, June 30, Eric Hays and Joe Kiskis (CUCFA’s VP for External Relations) attended a meeting at UCOP in which the likely outlines of the Governor’s  compact with Yudof were revealed. Joe reports as follows:

In the event that Brown’s ballot initiative does pass, the governor has promised to dust off the multi-year (4-year? 5-year?) UC funding agreement that was apparently worked out between OP and the Governor during the spring and has since been on hold. The present version of this has a 6%/yr increase in state support for UC. That is the 4% previously rumored plus 2% for UCRP. In that eventuality, OP would likely ask the Regents for a 6%/yr tuition increase. (You read that right.) In the event that the ballot initiative does not pass, OP will probably ask the Regents for a tuition increase sufficient to make up for the $250M trigger, the lost $125M tuition buy out, and some other increasing fixed costs for a total increase of 20.3% to be effective Jan. 1, 2013. Yes, mid-year.

But with without any stated expectations for California UC will be free to replace in-state students with non-residents, thereby reducing the budgetary quality of education at campuses that continue to honor the Master Plan. (See https://calitics.com/diary/… )

——————————————————————

Here is relevant language from the last three state budgets as compiled by Eric Hays:

 

2010-11 (Schwarzenegger’s last): “The Legislature expects the University of California to enroll a total of 209,977 statesupported FTES during the 2010-11 academic year. This enrollment target does not include nonresident students and students enrolled in nonstate-supported summer programs.

The University of California shall report to the Legislature by March 15, 2011, on whether it has met the 2010-11 academic year enrollment goal. For purposes of this provision, enrollment totals shall only include state-supported students. If the University of California does not meet its total state supported enrollment goal by at least 512 FTES, the Director of Finance shall revert to the General Fund by April 1, 2011, the total amount of enrollment funding associated with the total share of the enrollment goal that was not met.” (page 604-605 of

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.go…

 

2011-12 (Brown’s first): “The Director of Finance shall not [emphasis added] revert state funds appropriated to the University of California for the 2011-12 fiscal year pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 59 of Chapter 7 of the Statutes of 2011 even if the university does not meet its total state-supported enrollment goal.” (page 602 of

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.go…

 

2012-13 (VETOED): “The Legislature expects the University of California to enroll a total of 209,977 state-support-ed full time equivalent students during the 2012-13 academic year. This enrollment target does not include nonresident students and students enrolled in nonstate supported summer programs. The University of California shall report to the Legislature by May 1, 2013, on whether it has met the 2012-13 academic year enrollment goal.”

Uncategorized

Update on UCSC protests

1 Comment

As you all probably know, the UC Board of Regents voted on Thursday to increase student fees by 32% (15% for spring quarter and an additional 15% next year).  In protest to the fee increase and a variety of other serious problems facing the UC community and public education in California as a whole, students have occupied school buildings throughout the state.

Below the fold is a press release from UC Santa Cruz students currently occupying Kerr Hall and Kresge Town Hall.

Letter of Discontent 11/21/09

From: An Autonomous Group of Students Occupying UCSC

We are a group of students dynamically and peacefully participating in the reformation of our California public higher education system, aligned with Clark Kerr’s ideals that education should be accessible to all, regardless of economic means. The 32% increase in student fees is a direct product of structural failures in California’s political and economic system; the dire threat to accessibility this creates has prompted us to occupy our University spaces.

With drastically increasing student fees, insulting cuts to workers’ hours, diminishing academic programs, and increasing privatization of this public institution, many of us are appalled and outraged. Across the UC system we are paying more for less – class sizes are growing, students are being denied access to essential classes, and vital student services are facing cuts. We want change and are committed to achieving it nonviolently.

We actively engaged students have taken back Kerr Hall and Kresge Town Hall to further this cause, which is supported by many faculty members, staff, and local union groups. We have taken these spaces to continue the vocalization of our dissent against the slow death of public education. We are utilizing these spaces to further organize our movement against the unjust decisions of those governing the UC system. The education of hundreds of thousands of Californians depends on the redesign of the California higher education system’s priorities, budget, and plans.

We are not alone and we do not act merely in self-interest. We acknowledge that certain actions have been controversial; however, we are in agreement that we must take measures to grow the movement and catalyze positive change. We are extremely grateful for the support we have received from faculty and workers at UCSC and many others too numerous to name. We urge everyone concerned about the future of education in California to learn and get involved in the public process. The priorities of California’s economic structure need to be redefined using a variety of collective actions. Our occupation is one of these methods and is contingent on the demands that have been received by the administration and we will continue to push for their adoption.

The demands mentioned were a consolidated set of seven demands, chosen from a larger list of goals and demands, that UCSC has the ability to enact on their own and immediately.  They are as follows:

I. Total amnesty for all individuals involved in current and past student protest concerning budget cuts, including Brian Glasscock & Olivia Egan-Rudolph

II. Keep all resource centers open under the management of individual directors: Engaging Education, Women’s Resource Center, Ethnic Resource Center, CANTU, etc.

III. Making UCSC a safe campus by protecting all undocumented (AB540) students and workers through non-cooperation with ICE.

IV. Renege the 15% cut in labor time for UCSC custodians

V. Prohibit rent in Family Student Housing from exceeding that of operating costs in order to keep it affordable.

VI. Freeze on layoffs to all campus employees.

VII. Guaranteed funding through employment or fee remissions for both graduate students who have lost TAships and undergraduate students who have lost work-study positions