Repeal of Trigger if Prop 30 Fails: Don't Count on It

Various reports are floating around in the newspapers today about plans in the legislature to kill the trigger cuts that are part of the current budget and that will occur if Prop 30 - the governor's tax initiative - initiative.  Included in the trigger is a cut of $250 million for UC.  

Don't count on it! 

In theory, anything can be changed in the budget.  In theory, the governor could go along with voiding the trigger and not veto such a measure.  In theory, the legislature could come up with a two-thirds vote to override such a veto, if it occurred.  But it is all theory.  While undoubtedly there would be proposals and attempts to change the trigger, all we have to go on is past history.  As a prior post on this blog noted, back in 1978 when Gov. Brown was in his first iteration as governor, he first was against Prop 13, the initiative that drastically cut local property taxes.  But when it passed, he said he would make it work: the voters had spoken, etc.  Is there any reason to believe this time that he would do something else?  A little bit of marginal change in the trigger. Maybe.   But it would be risky even to count on that.

The articles hinting at voiding the triggers are at:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/31/4949976/dan-walters-what-to-do-if-proposition.html
and
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/10/california-republicans-schools.html

Maybe - with the stimulus of Halloween frights tonight - perhaps there are folks out there who would like to ease your fear of the trigger.  They would like to say that the $6 billion in trigger cuts is the wrong number.  If so, we are sorry to disappoint:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Anti-Prop 30 Group May Have to Cough Up Information

A conservative Arizona political group is likely going to have to turn over confidential documents about its donors, under a tentative ruling issued late Tuesday by a Sacramento judge.  At issue is the $11 million contribution by Americans for Responsible Leadership to a California political action committee trying to help pass Proposition 32 (paycheck protection) and kill Proposition 30 (Gov. Brown's tax initiative).  State officials have called the cash "the largest known anonymous donation in the history of California politics," and want to audit the group's books to see whether the identities of the donors must be made public.  The tentative ruling by Judge Shellyanne W.L. Chang rejected all of the arguments made by the Arizona group -- organized as a 501 (c)(4) and thus exempt from most donor disclosure laws -- in its attempt to block the investigation of the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).

The group's own court filing on Monday invoked the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and the freedom of groups like theirs "to exercise their constitutional rights."  Judge Chang's tentative ruling says, in effect, that the landmark case doesn't apply.  "The FPPC is not seeking to restrict, and this court is not limiting, expenditures by ARL," wrote Chang.  "Nothing in Citizens United prohibits this state-mandated disclosure."…

Full article at http://www.news10.net/capitol/article/215226/525/Arizona-groups-California-political-cash-needs-audit-says-judge

The Third Tax Proposition (39)

You have seen TV ads for Prop 39, the "Steyer" initiative that closes a loophole in the corporate profits tax that emerged from a 2009 budget deal and earmarks a chunk of the money raised for green energy projects.  But you haven't seen any TV ads against Prop 39 because there has not been much of a campaign against it.  Part of the reason is that important elements of the local business community that feel the loophole gives competitors an advantage and thus favor Prop 39.  Those parts of the business community that oppose 39 have not chosen to fund an aggressive campaign against it.

Opponents of 39 have now launched a website as you can see below.  But the train seems to have left the station.  We are only one week from Election Day and many folks have already voted absentee.

==================================

The new website doesn't link to any TV ads opposing 39.  Meanwhile, TV ads favoring 39 continue to air:

"Hangout" With Yours Truly and the Daily Bruin

Yours truly did a Google "Hangout" interview earlier today with the Daily Bruin on the ballot propositions and other aspects of California politics.  

It can be found below:

Some qualifications needed

In an opinion piece today in the Sacramento Bee, columnist Dan Walters slams CSU for its political activities.  An earlier posting on this blog noted that CSU had an official political scorecard that rated members of the state legislature available online indicating how well or poorly they supported CSU goals.  You can find it at:
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2012/10/lawsuit-filed-against-csu-campus-over.html

UC gets dragged into his column at various points so some comments are in order. Below are some excerpts in italics:
==
The California State University system has traditionally been the steady workhorse of California higher education, generating the engineers, teachers, accountants and middle-managers that any society needs. Meanwhile, the more prestigious University of California has been the racehorse, scooping up money from alumni, foundations and corporations, luring Nobel laureates to its faculty, awarding advanced degrees, fostering world-class scientific research and flaunting its constitutional independence from political control. While the state Legislature can mandate policy at CSU, UC answers only to its regents.
==
"UC answers only to its regents" is an overstatement at best.  The state budget and the allocation to UC comes from the legislature, not the Regents.  It is true that UC has constitutional autonomy that CSU does not.  Legislative control of funding produces an ability to influence UC.  Note that some elected officials are ex officio members of the Regents.
==
However, under its just- retired chancellor, Charles Reed, CSU expanded its horizons markedly, breaking UC's legal stranglehold on awarding doctorate degrees in some fields, ambitiously courting outside financial support, and even, on some campuses, expanding into big-time sports competition.  Politically, CSU exploited its one advantage over UC – a direct connection to the Legislature as a dependent system with campuses in virtually every corner of the state. And it developed a political swagger that in the past only UC could wield. 

==
CSU did indeed push to break the Master Plan's restrictions on offering doctoral degrees.  Not clear, however, that UC had "political swagger."  If it did, the breach in the Master Plan likely would not have occurred.  Indeed, until quite recently, UC had been incredibly ineffective in its relationship with the state's political institutions.  Remember the so-called "compact" with Governor Schwarzenegger that produced nothing?  It is only quite recently that UC has become more effective in dealing with the state.  

Turning to the CSU political scorecard, Walters writes:

Like all such "scorecards" issued by special interests, CSU's version is highly selective on the issues it grades. Not surprisingly, Democrats score highly while Republicans are given low marks – the ratings are reduced to A-to-F letter grades – because the system's biggest interest is getting more tax money. It's an arrogant act that even the University of California, renowned for its haughtiness, would not dare perform, and it's completely and utterly wrong for a tax-supported state agency to engage in what is nothing more than rank political and partisan propaganda.

Actually, as we noted in the earlier posting on the scorecard, even friendly Democrats were hard pressed to get a grade as high as B+ from CSU.  As for UC "haughtiness," the thrust of the column is that UC did not do what CSU did and, of course, the "Nobel laureates" and the "fostering (of) world-class scientific research" should entail some bragging rights.  No?

You can find the full column at: 
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/30/4947554/dan-walters-csu-plunges-overboard.html

Drink, Drugs, and Burglary

Drink, drugs, and burglary are the major crime areas at UCLA.  Click on the chart above for a clearer view. Source: http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/2012/2011%20Clery%20Report.pdf.

Poll Close to Home

The Daily Bruin has an article on student knowledge about Prop 30 indicating that a majority were not familiar with the initiative.  Prop 30 - the governor's tax initiative - has been endorsed by the UC Regents.  If it doesn't pass, there will be trigger cuts to the state budget including $250 million to UC.  Note that the poll was done in late September and early October.  Presumably, the level of awareness has risen, particularly after the visit of Governor Brown to the campus on behalf of Prop 30. However, as yours truly notes in a quote in the article, the emphasis on TV ads as the major campaign medium of information may not be especially effective these days for college students.  Yes, you can find the TV ads on YouTube and other sources.  But you have to go looking for them.  Moreover, the ads are not focused on the interests of college students.  You can find the article at:
http://www.dailybruin.com/article/2012/10/poll-finds-prop-30-awareness-low-among-ucla-students

I think I have seen all the pro and con TV ads on Prop 30.  They are focused on K-12. No mention of the impact on UC tuition is found in them.  Here is a typical pro-30 ad with the K-12 emphasis:

And here is a typical anti-30 ad aimed at refuting the K-12 emphasis:

No one has taken a poll on faculty awareness.  As we have been noting, there will be a program on all the ballot propositions at the Luskin School of Public Affairs this coming Thursday, Nov. 1, at lunch time.  For details, see:

http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2012/10/ballot-proposition-forum-nov-1.html

Elections Can Produce Surprising Results

SO THE DAY AFTER ELECTION DAY, The Faculty Assn. at UCLA will present...

SPEAKERS’ FORUM ON ALTERNATIVE FUNDING MODELS FOR UC

DATE: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012
TIME: Noon-1:30 pm

LOCATION: Faculty Center, California Room
LUNCH: Complimentary Sandwiches and Beverages will be served.
RSVP: ucfa@earthlink.net so we can get an accurate food count.  (Cut and paste this address into your email to RSVP.  You can't do it directly from here.)
==
APRIL 1982: 
ANCIENT CALIFORNIA HISTORY “The interconnected complications surrounding the upcoming state budget for 1982-83 defy comprehension by most state legislators let alone the public at large… Governor Jerry Brown is projecting a $3 to $4 Billion shortfall in revenues for 1982-83. This is against the Governor’s $2.1 Billion estimate in his January proposed budget…It would be wrong to think of the current budget difficulties as something temporary, which will disappear when good economic times come back,” (April 1982, UCLA Faculty Assn. Newsletter).
==
NOV. 6, 2012: 
ELECTION DAY In California, if Proposition 30 does not pass, UC is in serious financial trouble. If Prop 30 does pass, UC is still in serious financial trouble.
==
NOV. 7, 2012: PROGRAM FOR FACULTY ASSN. SPEAKERS’ FORUM The UCLA Faculty Assn. has asked 3 scholars and experts on state and UC policies and economics to unravel some of those continuing interconnected complications and offer some simpler, alternative models for UC funding for the future.  After the speakers have finished, then Prof. Sylvia Hurtado, director of the Higher Education Research Institute, will comment on the presentations, followed by Q and A from the audience.
==
SPEAKERS:
Professor Christopher Newfield, UCSB, English Department, author of Unmaking the Public University: The Forty Year Assault on the Middle Class, (Harvard University Press, 2008) and who reports regularly on a popular blog site, “Remaking the University,” http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/.
Professor Robert Anderson, UCB, Economics and Mathematics, past Chair of the Academic Council, 2011-12 and who has served on the systemwide Task Force Working Group on Post-Employment Benefits at UC. 
Professor Daniel Mitchell, Emeritus, UCLA, Anderson School of Management and Luskin School of Public Affairs, has served on many systemwide committees, and who tracks California budgetary issues and reports regularly on the Faculty Association blog site.  (The very blog you are reading!)

DISCUSSANT: Professor Sylvia Hurtado, UCLA, Director of the Higher Education Research Institute, has published numerous articles and books related to her primary interest in student educational outcomes, campus climates, college impact on student development, and diversity in higher education.

COME, EAT, LISTEN, ASK QUESTIONS: JOIN THE FACULTY DISCUSSION.

AND INDEED, THERE CAN BE SURPRISING ELECTION RESULTS.  INCREASE YOUR CALIFORNIA POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE.  CHECK OUT THE VIDEO BELOW AND WATCH GEORGE MURPHY, LATER ELECTED U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA:

UCLA History: For the Children

UCLA Law School students took their kids to class in 1989 to protest lack of daycare facilities.

A Tree May or May Not Grow in Westwood

From the Westwood-Century City Patch:

The City of Los Angeles Board of Public Works will wait until November to decide whether it supports the removal of 18 trees in Westwood Village.  The trees would be removed as part of a sidewalk improvement project proposed by the Westwood Village Improvement Association (WVIA). Eighteen trees "are creating potentially dangerous conditions," according to a Bureau of Street Services report. A permit would grant the removal of 16 Indian laurel fig trees, one red flowering gum tree and one magnolia tree in Westwood Village...

Full story at http://centurycity.patch.com/articles/city-postpones-westwood-tree-removal-verdict?

So we have a choice:

Or:

Ballot Proposition Forum Nov. 1

Campus Program on Ballot Propositions: Nov. 1

The UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment present:

Death and Taxes (and other hot topics): Debating the 2012 California Ballot Propositions 

with

Gray Davis, Luskin Distinguished Policy Fellow, and Cameron Smyth, Luskin Senior Fellow

California voters face big decisions on the 2012 ballot initiatives. From tax policy to the death penalty to genetically modified food labeling, a lot is at stake on the ballot. Join us for an educational and informative forum to analyze the initiatives.

TIME

Thursday, November 1, from 12:15 – 1:45 pm 
(Note: An earlier version of this announcement said the start time was 12:30 pm.)

EVENT LOCATION

Public Affairs Building, Room 2355 (2nd floor)

RSVP

rsvp@publicaffairs.ucla.edu; Lunch will be served.  (We don't have to tell you yet whether your lunch is genetically modified!)

====================== 

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

While in office, FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS made education a top priority, signing legislation to strengthen California's K-12 system, increasing accountability in schools, and expanding access to higher education.  While presiding over California during an economic expansion, he made record investments in infrastructure, created four Centers of Science and Innovation on UC campuses, and expanded state health insurance for an additional one million children. 

ASSEMBLYMEMBER CAMERON SMYTH is Chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee.  In 2008, Assemblyman Smyth was appointed by the Assembly Republican Leader as the Republican Caucus Chair, which is the second-highest ranking Republican in the State Assembly.

--------------------------------------

[Full disclosure: 

Yours truly will be emcee.]

--------------------------------------

Here is a handy summary video of a sample of TV ads for and against the propositions on the November 2012 ballot:

Campus Climate Survey is Coming

Some readers may remember that after a series of incidents aimed at minority students on various campuses, including UCLA, the UC president was pressed by the Regents to "do something." (Some readers will recall the "Asians in the library" incident at UCLA.)  What emerged was an elaborate all-campus survey of "campus climate."

In late December and early January, it will be coming to UCLA.

There have been reservations raised about the participation rate and biases in participation caused by what appears to be a rather lengthy survey. The campus faculty welfare committee at UCLA, for example, raised such issues.  Apparently, offering prizes is the solution that has been adopted.

There was a program at the Faculty Club back in March on this process.  You can find audios of that program on this blog at:
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2012/03/uc-and-ucla-campus-climate-survey.html

There is an announcement of the survey schedule, etc., at:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/28503

And there is a website devoted to it at:
http://campusclimate.ucop.edu/index.html

What isn't on the website at present, although you find links to "take the survey" on it, is the survey itself.  When you click on "take the survey," nothing happens.  So whether the survey instrument is as lengthy as earlier versions that were circulated for Academic Senate review is unclear.  The campus faculty welfare committee was told that something like a million dollars was being spent on this effort.  In any event, the Regents wanted the university to "do something" and so "something" is being done. Whether we will have an accurate measure of the climate or do anything more with the results of the survey once they are gathered is another matter yet to be determined.

Gov. Brown's Prop 30 Tax Below 50% in Two Major Polls

Above are the results from the PPIC poll.  Both Prop 30 (Brown's tax) and Prop 38 (Molly Munger school tax) are below 50%.  The Munger tax has been a loser all along but Prop 30 had been marginally ahead in prior polling.  More detail from the PPIC poll are below:

Source: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1012MBS.pdf

The LA Times-USC poll shows similar results:

You can see that poll in detail at:

http://www.gqrr.com/images/stories/latusc.fq.102512.pdf

If Prop 30 fails, trigger cuts are built into the current state budget.  UC would have a $250 million cut.  Tuition would likely be raised.  In theory, the legislature could repeal the trigger but the governor would not allow it.  Even if a trigger repeal somehow passed the legislature, there are not enough votes to override a veto.

Brown's action in 1978 at the time of Prop 13 - the major property cut initiative - is instructive.  He initially opposed Prop 13, albeit rather belatedly.  When it passed, he flipped and said he would make it work.  Brown even got qualified support from Howard Jarvis - the co-sponsor of Prop 13 - in the general election of Nov. 1978.

Here is Brown before the legislature just after Prop 13 passed:

Update: Maplight provides a summary of who is contributing to what initiative campaign for those interested in state politics.  Here is a way to follow Prop 30 and the other propositions on the ballot:

Update: An Arizona group with anonymous donors gave $11 million to the anti-Prop 30 campaign and the pro-Prop 32 (paycheck protection) campaign.  (The latter prop seems to be losing in the polls.)  A report indicates that the California Fair Political Practices Commission has filed a lawsuit to learn the donors' identities.  I doubt, even if the suit succeeded, that the donor's IDs would be known before Election Day.  See:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/10/state-watchdog-agency-sues-shadowy-arizona-campaign-donor.html

Important Event on Campus Nov. 7: Forum on the Future Funding of UC

BECAUSE THE FUTURE AWAITS, The Faculty Assn. at UCLA presents....

SPEAKERS’ FORUM ON ALTERNATIVE FUNDING MODELS FOR UC

DATE: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012
TIME: Noon-1:30 pm

LOCATION: Faculty Center, California Room
LUNCH: Complimentary Sandwiches and Beverages will be served.
RSVP: ucfa@earthlink.net so we can get an accurate food count.  (Cut and paste this address into your email.  You can't do it from here.)

APRIL 1982: 
ANCIENT CALIFORNIA HISTORY “The interconnected complications surrounding the upcoming state budget for 1982-83 defy comprehension by most state legislators let alone the public at large… Governor Jerry Brown is projecting a $3 to $4 Billion shortfall in revenues for 1982-83. This is against the Governor’s $2.1 Billion estimate in his January proposed budget…It would be wrong to think of the current budget difficulties as something temporary, which will disappear when good economic times come back,” (April 1982, UCLA Faculty Assn. Newsletter).

NOV. 6, 2012: 
ELECTION DAY In California, if Proposition 30 does not pass, UC is in serious financial trouble. If Prop 30 does pass, UC is still in serious financial trouble.

NOV. 7, 2012: PROGRAM FOR FACULTY ASSN. SPEAKERS’ FORUM The UCLA Faculty Assn. has asked 3 scholars and experts on state and UC policies and economics to unravel some of those continuing interconnected complications and offer some simpler, alternative models for UC funding for the future.  After the speakers have finished, then Prof. Sylvia Hurtado, director of the Higher Education Research Institute, will comment on the presentations, followed by Q and A from the audience. 

SPEAKERS:
Professor Christopher Newfield, UCSB, English Department, author of Unmaking the Public University: The Forty Year Assault on the Middle Class, (Harvard University Press, 2008) and who reports regularly on a popular blog site, “Remaking the University,” http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/.

Professor Robert Anderson, UCB, Economics and Mathematics, past Chair of the Academic Council, 2011-12 and who has served on the systemwide Task Force Working Group on Post-Employment Benefits at UC. 

Professor Daniel Mitchell, Emeritus, UCLA, Anderson School of Management and Luskin School of Public Affairs, has served on many systemwide committees, and who tracks California budgetary issues and reports regularly on the Faculty Association blog site.  (The very blog you are reading!)

DISCUSSANT: Professor Sylvia Hurtado, UCLA, Director of the Higher Education Research Institute, has published numerous articles and books related to her primary interest in student educational outcomes, campus climates, college impact on student development, and diversity in higher education.

COME, EAT, LISTEN, ASK QUESTIONS: JOIN THE FACULTY DISCUSSION.

THE UNKNOWN FUTURE - WHATEVER IT HOLDS FOR UC - SHOULD BE EXCITING:

Court Decision: UC Must Disclose Detailed Venture Capital Fund Returns

Inside Higher Ed reports today that UC has been ordered to make public information on rates of return received from venture capital funds in which it invests.  UC has had this battle before – and lost it back in 2003.  My guess in reading the Inside Higher Ed report and the Reuters report on which it is based is that the University asked the funds not to give it more than summary information on a collective return on various funds so it could say it didn’t have the detailed info.  Or it may be that the funds told UC that it couldn’t invest with them absent an agreement not to receive the detailed info.  The court, however, seems to be saying that if UC could have the info as an investor in the funds, it must ask for it and disclose it.  So there may yet be an argument over what info UC can receive.

Assuming that UC is forced to disclose – the order is stayed until mid-January - it probably won’t be able to invest in such funds in the future.  I suspect financial types would say that result would be a Bad Thing.

Reuters gives the case ID as Superior Court in the State of California, County of Alameda, is Reuters v The Regents of the University of California, case no. RG12613664.

The Inside Higher Ed article with the link to the underlying Reuters report is at:

http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/10/24/u-california-ordered-disclose-venture-fund-returns 

I tried to track down the actual case decision but found only

http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&TemplateName=jsp/complitcase.html&currBatchNbr=1&caseID=4964193&CaseNbr=RG12613664 which reveals that it was Reuters itself that filed the case against UC.  So what we have is a news agency interested in info on the venture capital funds rather than someone who wants info on UC per se.  Perhaps some legal types among our readers will be able to obtain the actual decision from some other source.

UCLA Admissions Controversy

The Daily Bruin today carries a story about a report by Law Professor Richard Sander indicating that UCLA admissions officers are violating Prop 209 - the anti-affirmative action initiative that bans preferences based on race and ethnicity. According to the story, although UCLA uses a "holistic" numerical rating system (which was meant to encourage diversity), minority admissions go beyond what the scores would indicate.  Undoubtedly, there will be controversy about this report.

You can find the Daily Bruin story at
http://www.dailybruin.com/article/2012/10/findings-by-law-professor-suggest-that-ucla-admissions-may-be-violating-prop-209  It contains a link to the Sander study.

Prop 209 was approved by voters after a prior action by the Regents banning affirmative action in admissions.  After the proposition made the Regents' decision redundant, the Regents subsequently repealed their rule.  You can find a video of the Regents' action below:

ObamaJam Possible on Wednesday

President Obama is reported to be doing a Jay Leno appearance in Burbank on Wednesday, flying into and out of LAX.  How he will travel between Burbank and LAX is unknown at this point.  A motorcade could produce a traffic mess on the Westside and near UCLA.  Helicopter would avoid it.

Details, such as they are at this point, at:
http://centurycity.patch.com/articles/obama-visits-l-a-wednesday?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001

The Other Tax: Prop 39

As the website of the official opposition group to Prop 39 (as of this morning) indicates, there is not much effective opposition.  Go to the group's Facebook page and you find the same thing.  Prop 39 - as proponents put it - closes a corporate tax loophole that was opened up as part of a tax deal in the legislature in 2009.  It favors out-of-state corporations by giving them a choice of tax computations.  So in-state businesses are not happy with the idea of competitors from out-of-state getting a special deal.  That fact means that elements of the local business community favor Prop 39.

Prop 39 would raise an estimated $500 million this fiscal year and then go to $1 billion.  However, half of the money is earmarked for green energy projects.  Most of the rest would end up - because of the Prop 98 guarantees for K-14 - in the Prop 98 world according to the Legislative Analyst.  Would anything dribble into UC?  Perhaps a little bit since the green earmark includes "energy efficiency retrofits and alternative energy projects in public schools, colleges, universities, and other public facilities."

You can read the official Prop 39 summary at:
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/39-title-summ-analysis.pdf

Readers of this blog will recall that there was an attempt in the state legislature last summer to close the loophole but earmark the money for tuition reduction.  But the attempt failed.

Prop 39 seems to be largely forgotten in the contest between Prop 30 (the governor's tax) and Prop 38 (the Molly Munger school tax).  But there has been some pro-39 advertising.  Below is a TV ad for Prop 39:

Stating the Obvious (on the UCLA Hotel)

But since it was apparently not obvious to the Regents, here is something for them to consider from the Daily Bruin editorial board:
=====

Daily Bruin Editorial: UC Regents should meet more often, spend more time reviewing projects: Before issuing approval, housing council should take measures to improve diligence (excerpt)

By EDITORIAL BOARD

The University of California Board of Regents needs to improve its process of approving capital projects on its campuses, especially expensive and controversial ones such as theUCLA Luskin Conference and Guest Center.  Despite the regents’ approval, members of the community still have concerns about the $162 million project. Moreover, the time that the regents spent discussing and approving the center was not extensive enough.  Save Westwood Village, a neighborhood nonprofit organization, has filed suit with the Los Angeles County Superior Court to block plans to build the facility. The organization alleges UCLA officials did not objectively analyze alternatives to the proposal, according to court documents.  When such serious concerns still exist, the question arises: Why wasn’t the regents’ approval enough to convince community members?

Capital projects are approved by the regents on a case-by-case basis during bimonthly meetings.

…There is a distance between the campus-level organizers and the regents that makes it difficult for the regents to figure out exactly what is going on, said Daniel Mitchell, a professor emeritus of the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and the UCLA Anderson School of Management.  The regents need to implement a mechanism for monitoring campus expansion that includes objective and independent review from expert sources before, during, and after projects are presented to the Regents’ Committee on Grounds and Buildings.

Simply meeting once every two months and discussing issues for an hour is not enough when reviewing projects such as this one.  As the trustees of the UC, it is the regents’ duty to exercise more diligence in its approval process.

Full editorial at http://www.dailybruin.com/article/2012/10/_editorial-uc-regents-should-meet-more-often-spend-more-time-reviewing-projects_

Do we really have to say the obvious?

At least when the Big One hits LA, they'll probably go after CalTech before suing UCLA

And if you looked at the prior post on this blog, I am sure the participants will carefully avoid predicting anything at the two forthcoming events.

Before and After

Before the Election:

Campus Program on Ballot Propositions: Nov. 1

The UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment present:

Death and Taxes (and other hot topics): Debating the 2012 California Ballot Propositions 

with

Gray Davis, Luskin Distinguished Policy Fellow, and Cameron Smyth, Luskin Senior Fellow

California voters face big decisions on the 2012 ballot initiatives. From tax policy to the death penalty to genetically modified food labeling, a lot is at stake on the ballot. Join us for an educational and informative forum to analyze the initiatives.

TIME

Thursday, November 1, from 12:15 – 1:45 pm 
(Note: An earlier version of this announcement said the start time was 12:30 pm.)

EVENT LOCATION

Public Affairs Building, Room 2355

RSVP

rsvp@publicaffairs.ucla.edu; Lunch will be served.

====================== 

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

While in office, FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR GRAY DAVIS made education a top priority, signing legislation to strengthen California's K-12 system, increasing accountability in schools, and expanding access to higher education.  While presiding over California during an economic expansion, he made record investments in infrastructure, created four Centers of Science and Innovation on UC campuses, and expanded state health insurance for an additional one million children. 

ASSEMBLYMEMBER CAMERON SMYTH is Chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee.  In 2008, Assemblyman Smyth was appointed by the Assembly Republican Leader as the Republican Caucus Chair, which is the second-highest ranking Republican in the State Assembly.

--------------------------------------

[Full disclosure: 

Yours truly will be emcee.]

========================================================================

After the Election

The Faculty Assn. at UCLA presents....

SPEAKERS’ FORUM ON ALTERNATIVE FUNDING MODELS FOR UC

DATE: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012
TIME: Noon-1:30 pm

LOCATION: Faculty Center, California Room
LUNCH: Complimentary Sandwiches and Beverages will be served.
RSVP: ucfa@earthlink.net so we can get an accurate food count.  (Cut and paste this address into your email.  You can't do it from here.)

APRIL 1982: 
ANCIENT CALIFORNIA HISTORY “The interconnected complications surrounding the upcoming state budget for 1982-83 defy comprehension by most state legislators let alone the public at large… Governor Jerry Brown is projecting a $3 to $4 Billion shortfall in revenues for 1982-83. This is against the Governor’s $2.1 Billion estimate in his January proposed budget…It would be wrong to think of the current budget difficulties as something temporary, which will disappear when good economic times come back,” (April 1982, UCLA Faculty Assn. Newsletter).

NOV. 6, 2012: 
ELECTION DAY In California, if Proposition 30 does not pass, UC is in serious financial trouble. If Prop 30 does pass, UC is still in serious financial trouble.

NOV. 7, 2012: PROGRAM FOR FACULTY ASSN. SPEAKERS’ FORUM The UCLA Faculty Assn. has asked 3 scholars and experts on state and UC policies and economics to unravel some of those continuing interconnected complications and offer some simpler, alternative models for UC funding for the future.  After the speakers have finished, a discussant to be announced will react, followed by Q and A from the audience. 

SPEAKERS:
Professor Christopher Newfield, UCSB, English Department, author of Unmaking the Public University: The Forty Year Assault on the Middle Class, (Harvard University Press, 2008) and who reports regularly on a popular blog site, “Remaking the University,” http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/.

Professor Robert Anderson, UCB, Economics and Mathematics, past Chair of the Academic Council, 2011-12 and who has served on the systemwide Task Force Working Group on Post-Employment Benefits at UC. 

Professor Daniel Mitchell, Emeritus, UCLA, Anderson School of Management and Luskin School of Public Affairs, has served on many systemwide committees, and who tracks California budgetary issues and reports regularly on the Faculty Association blog site.  (The very blog you are reading!)

Responder: To be announced.  

COME, EAT, LISTEN, ASK QUESTIONS: JOIN THE FACULTY DISCUSSION

=======================

Election Day is coming. But this, too, will pass: