Leaks and (Maybe) Disappointment?

The contemporary budget process no longer has the drama of years ago when there could be lengthy delays after July 1 - the start of the fiscal year - in getting an actual agreement between the governor and legislature. In those days, failure to come to an agreement would cause crises as the state was increasingly unable to fund various services.

Nowadays, thanks to voters who made it possible to enact a budget with a simple majority and thanks to the one-party dominance of the state, such things don't happen. Nonetheless, there is a period following the mid-June deadline for the legislature to enact a budget and the governor to sign it in which there are leaks of information about what the legislative leaders and the governor are agreeing to in detail. We are in that period.

So, you probably know from news reports that there will be a rebate to most taxpayers that is supposed to be an offset for inflation.* (The proliferation of rebates - whatever they are called - has to do with the Gann limit on state revenue.) But what about higher ed?

The latest leak is that there will be an enhancement of the Cal Grant program.** There is reason to believe UC was disappointed with what seemed to be on the table in mid-June when the legislature enacted a "budget." Here is what UC President Drake said at that time:

University of California President Michael V. Drake, M.D., today (June 13) issued the following statement on California’s 2022-23 budget:

The University of California is grateful to the state Legislature for passing a state budget that strengthens the University and enhances its impact on the lives of Californians.

The University will continue to engage with the Governor and state legislative leaders to ensure a final budget agreement reflects our shared priorities for higher education and student success in California.

Source: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-statement-2022-23-california-budget.

The expressed need to "continue to engage" suggested some disappointment in the enacted budget.

Now you might wonder how continuing to engage could add anything to the enacted budget. The legislature is required to produce a budget by mid-June. But, thanks to some litigation, it gets to define what a budget is. So, it passes something by the deadline called a "placeholder" budget. But in the continuing talks with the governor, there can be further deal-making, and presumably UC is able to try in the post-placeholder period to obtain some enhancements if it is disappointed. 

A more detailed budget deal was reached on Sunday. But the details - at least for higher ed and UC - are murky, even though there is budget language. As columnist Dan Walters put it:

...On Sunday night, they emerged with a deal... that included two “budget bill juniors” to modify the placeholder version and more than two dozen “trailer bills” to implement the budget’s provisions but also containing an unknown number of policy decrees, some of which had little or nothing to do with the budget. On Monday, just hours after the agreement was announced, legislative committees staged pro forma hearings on the budget deal — after giving the public, the media and affected interests almost no time to assess what was being proposed. In stark contrast to Newsom’s lengthy dog-and-pony shows in January and May, there was no detailed presentation of the final budget’s provisions. There was just a joint statement from Newsom, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins congratulating themselves...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/06/newsom-legislators-fast-track-state-budget-deal/.

If you look at the Sunday budget deal,*** it does appear that some extra money was allocated to UC:

But below the topline shown above, there are lots of very detailed qualifications. One, for example, seems to say that if tuition goes up, the allocation could go down:

2.1 Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of Finance may reduce funds appropriated in this item by an amount equal to the estimated Cal Grant and Middle Class Scholarship Program cost increases caused by a 2022–23 academic year increase in systemwide tuition. No reduction may be authorized pursuant to this provision sooner than 30 days after the Director of Finance provides notice of the intended reduction to the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

Exactly what is entailed here is unclear. And there are even typos in the Sunday budget which will need correcting: (Note the extra zero below.)

There is no further word from the UC prez as to whether he is happy or disappointed with what emerged. We do know that CSU was not entirely happy:

In a statement, CSU interim Chancellor Jolene Koester said significant investments are needed for staff compensation, deferred maintenance and to close equity gaps in student achievement. “Considering the state’s unprecedented funding surplus, it is disappointing that additional support to address these important priorities was not allocated,” Koester said.**

====

*https://calmatters.org/politics/2022/06/california-budget-deal-2/.

**https://edsource.org/2022/gov-newsom-strikes-deal-on-state-budget-big-increase-for-k-12-maybe-for-cal-grants-too/674680.

***The Sunday bill is at:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB178.