Ad Hoc or Master Plan - Thanks, but no thanks

Assemblymember Dorothy M. Donahoe
who pushed the 1960 Master Plan through the 
Legislature (Donahoe Act)
 but died before it was signed.

We have been noting the erosion of the old Master Plan and the substitution of ad hoc legislative enactments, essentially at the behest of the community colleges. It seems the community colleges got the bills they wanted through the legislature and now that they are sitting on the governor's desk, they don't like what they got. From CalMatters:

California’s community colleges have been trying for several years to offer more bachelor’s degrees. This year, they put their hopes in two sweeping bills designed to help them do that. But lawmakers made massive, last-minute changes that prompted the state’s community colleges to now oppose the legislation. The abrupt change of heart, spurred by new limits on how much the colleges could grow their bachelor’s programs, didn’t influence the outcomes of the bills, Senate Bill 960 by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Democrat from Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694 by David Alvarez, also a Democrat from Chula Vista. Both passed...

Colleges would be able to offer an additional two to 12 bachelor’s degrees starting in 2028 depending on their students’ certificate, degree and transfer completion rates. No college district could propose more than three new degrees per year and districts would need to prove that there’s a workforce need in their region to justify the creation of a bachelor’s degree. That’s a claim the state’s labor secretary would step in to validate if the California State University system objects, as has regularly occurred in the pitched policy disputes between the community colleges and the university...

“We’re being asked to … support a process that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute, and so that’s just not great policymaking,” said Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, an association representing community college presidents and board leaders...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2026/09/community-college-bachelors-degrees-california/.

Ad Hoc or Master Plan - Part 2

Assemblymember Dorothy M. Donahoe
who pushed the 1960 Master Plan through the 
Legislature (Donahoe Act)
 but died before it was signed.

In an earlier post (Aug. 26), we noted that bills were moving through the legislature that would enhance the ability of community colleges to offer 4-year degrees. And we called for a new Master Plan process rather than ad hoc policy from the legislature. The bills are now on the governor's desk. Whether he will sign or veto is unknown. The immediate issue regarding community colleges is more a concern for CSU than UC. But the absence of a Master Plan is a long run concern for UC.

From the LA Times: ...Newsom has not signaled his view. He has rejected previous attempts since 2024 to let community colleges grant nursing bachelor’s degrees, when he warned such moves could cause conflict among the state’s three higher education systems...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-01/california-community-college-bachelors-degrees-newsom-bills.

Less than meets the eye - Part 2

Undoubtedly, there will be public comment on AB 713 now on the governor's desk for signature or veto at the September Regents meeting (unless he vetoes it before the meeting). As we have noted previously (see Aug. 13 on this blog), the bill actually leaves the decision on whether UC can hire undocumented students to the Regents. It is a mandate for CSU and the community colleges but permissive for UC. 

From CalMatters: Is this the year that Gov. Gavin Newsom allows students without legal status to legally work at California’s public colleges and universities? A state bill with wide support from Democrats but opposed by Republicans seeks to do just that by adopting an untested legal theory that argues a 1980s federal law banning employment for people without legal status doesn’t apply to state agencies. But university leaders and Newsom worry that acting on the theory could put the state on another collision course with the Trump administration.

The bill easily cleared the Legislature Friday, including a yes vote from one Republican. The bill now heads to Newsom’s desk. Assembly Bill 713 by Assemblymember José Luis Solache, a Democrat from Lakewood, is seemingly straightforward: The University of California, California State University and community colleges cannot disqualify students without legal status from campus employment. If it becomes law, it would kick in Jan. 6...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2026/08/students-without-legal-status-california/.

===

Bill at https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB713/id/3191073. "This article shall apply to the University of California, unless it is found to be inapplicable to the university, then, consistent with Section 67400, this article shall apply to the university only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make it applicable."

Bond - Part 3

UCOP News Release: UC Nobel Prize winners back $7.5 billion proposed investment in California research

UC Office of the President, August 28, 2026

University of California Nobel laureates Dr. Jennifer Doudna and Dr. Randy Schekman released the statements below following a deal announced today on UC-sponsored SB 895, authored by state Senator Scott Wiener. The bill would place a measure on the March 2028 state ballot to provide $7.5 billion for cutting-edge research addressing some of California’s most pressing health, environmental and technological challenges.

“California built the world’s most successful system of research universities,” said Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D., a UC Berkeley biochemist, Nobel laureate, and founder of the Innovative Genomics Institute. “SB 895 represents an important investment in the research infrastructure that will allow California to continue advancing scientific breakthroughs, improving lives, and driving innovation and growth for generations. We are grateful to Governor Newsom, Senator Wiener, and the legislature for their support of this important issue.”

“California’s strength and ingenuity depends on its ability to turn bold ideas into solutions to our most pressing problems,” said Randy Schekman, Ph.D., UC Berkeley professor of molecular and cell biology and Nobel laureate. “That’s why we need to invest in research and continue building on our nation-leading enterprise at UC. SB 895 will help protect the people and discoveries that drive billions of dollars in economic activity and improve lives across our state, and I thank Governor Newsom, Senator Wiener, and the entire legislature for leading the way on these efforts.”

Source: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-nobel-prize-winners-back-proposed-investment-california-research.

For the record, Wiener is running to replace Nancy Pelosi in Congress as she retires from her San Francisco district. She, however, has endorsed another candidate. Newsom is running for you-know-what.

Bond - Part 2 (deadline for '28)

We noted back on August 17th that a $5 billion research bond backed by UC was passed by a state senate committee. While it is too late for that bond to appear on the upcoming November 2026 ballot, if enacted by the full senate by August 31st and then signed by the governor, it could appear in 2028. If not passed by August 31, the complete legislative process would have to be repeated.

Ad Hoc Plan or Master Plan?

Assemblymember Dorothy M. Donahoe
who pushed the 1960 Master Plan through the 
Legislature (Donahoe Act)
 but died before it was signed.

From time to time, yours truly notes the need for a new Master Plan for Higher Education defining the roles of the three segments, and the tendency of the legislature to make ad hoc policy. A true master plan would involve a process of review involving the three segments - UC, CSU, community colleges - and various interest groups. Instead, we have piecemeal legislative efforts and interventions. From the Sacramento Bee: 

From the Sacramento Bee: Over the last decade, community colleges in California have slowly entered into what has historically been the purview of the University of California and the California State University: providing bachelor’s degrees. With the goal of increasing access and affordability, this new baccalaureate program adds to the California Community College system’s main offerings of certificate programs and two-year associate degrees. At present, more than 30 of the state’s 116 community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees in subjects including respiratory care, dental hygiene and mortuary science. But to be approved, these degrees must ensure not only that they meet regional workforce needs but also that they do not duplicate programs offered by the UC and CSU systems. This condition aimed to preserve the original mission of each higher education segment and ensure efficient use of state resources. 

Now, a pair of bills moving through the California Legislature may ease that restriction. Senate Bill 960 and Assembly Bill 2694, though somewhat different, would both allow community colleges to duplicate programs offered by traditional four-year public universities if they are not within the same geographic region. SB 960, in addition, would authorize duplication of bachelor’s degrees offered at CSUs in the same region if those programs have been oversubscribed for three consecutive years...

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article316937137.html.

Note: The original Master Plan is at:

https://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/MasterPlan1960.pdf.

Less than meets the eye

On Aug. 13, the state senate Appropriations Committee passed AB 713 which has as its goal the hiring by UC of undocumented students. The Regents originally were moving to allow such hiring but halted the effort after the UC general counsel opined that it would violate federal law. Note that when you read the actual provisions of AB 713, it still leaves the decision to the Regents. (There is no such exemption in AB 713 for CSU or the community colleges.) The bill still needs the approval of the full state senate and the governor's signature.

See the full text of the bill below:

Text of AB 713 - AB-713 Public postsecondary education: student employment

Article  3.8. Employment

66029. (a) The University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges shall not disqualify a student from being hired for an employment position due to their failure to provide proof of federal work authorization, except in either of the following cases:

(1) Where that proof is required by federal law.

(2) Where that proof is required as a condition of a grant that funds the particular employment position for which the student has applied.

(b) The University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges shall treat the prohibition on hiring undocumented noncitizens in Section 1324a(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code as inapplicable because that provision does not apply to any branch of state government.

(c) To the extent student employment is considered a “benefit” for purposes of federal law, this statute shall constitute authorization to provide that benefit for purposes of Section 1621(d) of Title 8 of the United States Code.

(d) The University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges shall implement this article by January 6, 2027.

(e) This article shall apply to the University of California, unless it is found to be inapplicable to the university, then, consistent with Section 67400, this article shall apply to the university only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make it applicable.

SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB713.

More on the need for a new Master Plan

As blog readers will know, the old Master Plan for Higher Education put together by UC President Clark Kerr and others, is rapidly eroding. We have argued that a new plan is needed so we have a roadmap of who should be doing what among the three segments of state higher ed: UC, CSU, and the community colleges. What we have now is ad hoc adjustments overseen by the legislature. There is no plan. We noted in a prior post that Regent Chair Anguiano seems to want to create one within the Regents. But it's hard to see how that could happen without some kind of participation of the community colleges, CSU, and the legislature.

One of the developments, given the absence of a plan, is pressure from community colleges to offer BA degrees, typically narrowly occupationally focused. A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study suggests that employers do value such degrees. Summary:

Community colleges are more financially, academically, and geographically accessible than four-year institutions. Yet despite most community college students intending to earn a bachelor’s degree, few successfully transfer and complete one. Community College Baccalaureate (CCB) programs have emerged as an alternative pathway, allowing community colleges to confer bachelor’s degrees directly. However, little is known about how employers value these credentials in the labor market. To address this question, we conduct the first resume audit study of CCB degrees, submitting fictitious applications to real job vacancies while experimentally varying applicants’ educational credentials, degree-granting institutions, and demographic signals. In this pilot study, we focus on the early childhood education (ECE) labor market, a rapidly growing CCB field characterized by labor shortages and increasing educational requirements. We find that employers view CCB degrees similarly to both traditional bachelor’s and associate degrees, with statistically indistinguishable interview-request rates across degree types. A text analysis of employer callback messages reveals little evidence that employers communicate differently with CCB applicants, while a net-price simulation suggests that sticker-price comparisons substantially overstate the affordability advantage of CCB programs. Together, these findings provide new evidence on the labor market value and affordability of CCB degrees and inform an ongoing large-scale audit study across additional fields and labor markets.

Full study at https://www.nber.org/papers/w35404.

A new Master Plan process would look at studies such as the one above and possibly commission others. And it would bring together interest groups, academics, and political leaders to hammer out a coherent approach. In other words, it would be formulated much as the old plan was.

No Bond?

From the Bruin: A UC-sponsored California bill that would place a $12 billion research bond on the ballot will not appear in the November election, unless lawmakers reach an agreement. Senate Bill 895, which Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener proposed in January, would have created the California Foundation for Science and Health Research. The foundation would have distributed the $12 billion – accumulated through the sale of state bonds – to scientific research projects across the state. 

The bill made it through several legislative hurdles – passing a senate committee and then the chamber in May – but failed to make it to the State Assembly floor by the June 25 deadline for measures to qualify for the ballot. The bill had to pass in the Assembly and be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom by June 25 to qualify through the standard legislative timeline. However, it could still qualify if the state grants an extension...

UC President James Milliken said in a Thursday statement that he will continue to advocate for research support from the state. “Placing a bond on the ballot is always an ambitious undertaking — particularly so in California’s current fiscal environment,” he said in the statement...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2026/07/03/12-billion-uc-sponsored-research-bond-misses-deadline-to-appear-on-ballot.

You have to read between the lines

University of California President James B. Milliken... issued the following statement on the 2026–27 final state budget:

I am grateful to Governor Newsom and the state legislature for their ongoing support of the University of California reflected in this budget. As the state continues to deal with a difficult financial environment, we share a fundamental belief with California leaders that our university is an engine for social and economic mobility, scientific and medical discovery, and patient care that serves every California community. 

The 7% increase from the state goes a long way toward fulfilling the compact and providing the funding necessary to educate and invest in our students. 

__________________________________

Translation: "Goes a long way toward fulfilling the compact" = Less than the "compact" promised.

__________________________________

This is especially important given the sustained attacks against UC and funding cuts by the federal government over the past 18 months. I want to specifically acknowledge and thank Governor Newsom for his unwavering support for the university throughout his tenure. His final budget again demonstrates his belief in the value of public higher education in California and in our hundreds of thousands of students, faculty, and staff.

Source: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-statement-2026-27-final-state-budget.

Another reminder of the dissipating Master Plan

UC President Clark Kerr hands
Master Plan to Gov. Pat Brown

From CalMatters: It soon could become much easier for California community colleges to create new bachelor’s degree programs. The state’s community colleges, which primarily offer certificates and two-year associate degrees, are permitted to create bachelor’s degrees that fill workforce needs, but existing law allows them to do so only if they don’t duplicate what’s offered at California’s four-year universities. Debate over what is and isn’t duplication has created an ongoing turf war between the state’s two largest higher education systems, with California State University campuses often objecting to new community college degrees, claiming duplication of their own programs. Amid those objections, final approvals of several degree offerings have been delayed for years.

Now, California lawmakers are weighing legislation to clarify — and significantly restrict — when the state’s four-year universities can protest new community college bachelor’s degree programs. Two separate bills, Senate Bill 960 and Assembly Bill 2694, would prohibit four-year campuses from bringing objections if they aren’t located in the same geographic area as the community college proposing the degree. Both bills are opposed by CSU...

Full story at https://edsource.org/2026/community-colleges-bachelor-degrees/760627.

As we have noted many times, the old Master Plan of 1960 was the product of a deliberative process, not ad hoc legislative efforts.

Pleased with Bond

UC President James B. Milliken statement on the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026

June 26, 2026

“For many students and families, the challenge of attending college goes far beyond tuition and fees. It lies in the broader costs of attendance, of which housing is central. I’m grateful to the state Legislature for including housing for UC students in the affordable housing bond and to Governor Newsom for signing the legislation so Californians have a chance to vote for it on the November ballot. It’s a vital step we can take to support our students and all Californians.”

Source: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-president-james-b-milliken-statement-veterans-and-affordable-housing-bond-act-2026.

Now there is a deal

When we last posted about the status of state budget negotiations (yesterday), there was no final deal. But now there is, according to the governor:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/06/26/finalbudget/.

You can read the news release at the link above. However, until we have actual numbers (which may take some time), don't take the flowery description literally.

No Deal (yet)

The legislature passed something called a "budget" in time to meet the constitutional deadline. But, as blog readers will know, it isn't really final. Negotiations between legislative Democrats - Republicans play no role in the Dem-dominated legislature - and the governor are still ongoing.

Jason Sisney of LAO reports on his blog that there is as yet no deal. He also reports a deal is likely by June 29 in time for much of the actual budget to be passed before July 1, the start of the new fiscal year, although some clean-up legislation will follow over the summer.

We got something (maybe)

As blog readers will know, UC has been pushing for two bond measures: one would provide research funding and the other would provide some money for student housing (along with other funding for housing more generally).

Both bonds would require legislative approval and then voter approval. And the housing bond in particular might or might not have included UC funding. But now it apparently does. As part of an $11 billion housing bond, there is this provision:

Three hundred fifty million dollars ($350,000,000) to be appropriated by the Legislature for new affordable student housing projects. This funding shall be split evenly among the University of California and the California State University. Funded student housing projects shall meet the terms specified in subdivision (f) of Section 17201 of the Education Code. For these projects, the University of California and California State University shall meet the accountability and reporting requirements specified in subdivisions (i) and (o) of Section 17201 of the Education Code.

Full text at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB417.

An illusion of prudence?

As blog readers will know, yours truly often cautions about the verbiage attached to state budget accounting. Words such as deficit and surplus are often used in "flexible" ways that obscure what they actually mean.

California has a budget reserve often referred to as the "rainy day" fund. The state legislature is now considering a bill that would allow more money to be deposited into the rainy day fund.* That sounds like a prudent idea. But as we have pointed out in prior budgetary analysis, there are several reserves associated with the state's general fund. What matters is whether total reserves are rising or falling.

Thus, when politicians point to putting money into the rainy day fund as a Good Thing, it is always necessary to find out what is happening to total reserves since the rainy day fund is only a part of the total. If the rainy day fund goes up while the total is going down, that is a deficit.  

Just keep that in mind. And note that it would take a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses to pass the bill and put the issue on the ballot. Voters would then have to approve it.

==

*https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260ACA20.

"Budget" passed by deadline

As we noted yesterday, June 15 was the (midnight) budget deadline for the legislature to pass a "budget." And it did so. However, as we also noted, the budget that was passed isn't the final version. Talks continue with the governor, with the primary sticking points involving spending on health care issues (and not about higher education or UC). Meanwhile, the governor's attention is being diverted by an investigation by the feds which he forcefully argues is politically motivated. However, there is just enough stuff about his wife's nonprofit activities to open the door to more revelations. The governor yesterday released a kind of preemptive Checkers speech (Google It!) in which he demanded that the feds leave his wife and kids out of it.*

In short, there is likely to be more drama in Sacramento, budget and nonbudget, but with little ultimate effect on next year's UC budget.

===

*The speech may be seen at:

https://ia601802.us.archive.org/14/items/newsom-may-june-2026/newsom%206-15-2026%20FBI%20investigation.mp4. 

===

More information on the budget negotiations is at:

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article316141655.html.

More on the Assembly

Last week, we took note of an upcoming Assembly meeting on June 11. Yesterday, we referred to one aspect of that meeting pertaining to UC admissions and the SAT/testing issue. As we also noted yesterday, yours truly could attend the full meeting due to medical issues. However, there was a segment on external political developments affecting UC as well as AI which has both political and academic implications.

Provost Newman expressed concern with regarding proposed federal policy that would require political evaluation of grants. She also noted that despite UC's various court victories, the flow of federal funding for research has not resumed.

There was a separate segment on state matters. Both houses of the legislature were proposing state budgets for next year that would be more generous to UC that the May Revise. What the final deal will be remained open. There was some language in the proposed bills that made funding contingent on some immediate changes in admission that can't happen since the admissions cycle for fall has already occurred. Apart from the proposed state research bond ballot measure which UC is supporting, it is also trying to be included in a proposed state housing bond.

The midnight state budget deadline approaches

To meet the constitutional deadline, the legislature has until midnight tonight to pass a "budget." The Senate version of what is currently under consideration can be found at the link below:

https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2026-06/legislatures-version-of-the-budget-summary.pdf

You will note, if you go to that link, that the higher ed proposals deal with the community colleges for the most part, not with UC.

The Assembly version has more detail. See:

https://abgt.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2026-06/floor-report-of-the-2026-27-budget-june-11-2026.pdf

Below is the summary for UC:

===

University of California

• Provides $254.3 million ongoing General Fund for the fifth and final year of the Governor’s Compact funding of the UC. Also includes $96.3 million for partial funding of the fourth year, as expected based on the 2025 budget agreement.

• Extends the repayment of a one-time 3 percent funding reduction of $129.7 million included in the 2025 budget by one year from 2026-27 until 2027-28.

• Maintains a 2025 Budget Act agreement to defer the 2025-26 compact’s $240.8 million ongoing General Fund to support a 5% base increase until 2027-28. As part of the deferral arrangement, the state would plan to provide UC with one-time back payments in 2026-27 and 2027-28.

• Maintains a 2024-25 Budget Act agreement to defer $31 million ongoing General Fund to continue the 5-year program to replace nonresident students with California students at the Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego campuses until 2027-28.

• Provides $1.5 million General Fund to support the First Star Academy Youth Cohorts at UC campuses, as proposed in the May Revision.

• Includes $9 million one-time to continue the Cal-Bridge program.

• Adds $750,000 one-time for the ENLACE program.

• Provides $3.4 million one-time for the University of California Menopause Centers of Excellence.

• Includes $5 million one-time for the UCLA Center for Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy.

• Adds $3.6 million one-time to expand Prime RX program at UC San Diego.

• Appropriates $1.8 million one-time to UC Berkeley for the ACCESS optometry program.

• Includes $3 million one-time to UC San Diego for a workforce development initiative.

• Adds $6.5 million one-time to UC for the Voting Right’s Program.

• Provides $6.5 million one-time to UCLA for the Ralph J. Bunche Center

===

In essence, various pet programs are listed for additional funding. Various deferrals continue. As noted in prior postings, even if a budget is passed, revisions are possible as the Democratic legislative leaders continue to negotiate with the governor.

This too shall pass...

In order for the Legislature to pass a "budget" by June 15 - the constitutional deadline, it actually had to have something available to pass yesterday, June 12, to meet legislative rules. Something was made available which you can find at:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB109.

If you go to the above link, you will find endless language appropriating funds for various purposes. To see the UC portion, search for "6440-001-0001" and keep scrolling down. (There are also scattered other references to UC elsewhere in the budget.) Once the legislature has passed the budget bill - probably along with associated "trailer bills" that relate to the budget, it has done its constitutional duty. The governor, however, could in principle remove items using his line-item veto. But in today's world of one-party rule, it is more likely that further discussion will occur between the Democratic leaders and the governor with further adjustments to the budget forthcoming before July 1.