Pages

Thursday, January 19, 2017

There's always room for more...

...students, that is. Not campuses. The LAO looks at projections of student growth and opines that UC and CSU don't need additional campuses to accommodate what is coming. See:
http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2017/3532/uc-csu-enrollment-capacity-011917.pdf

Not going there

The email message below has been received by yours truly from various sources over the past few days: [excerpt]

Governor Brown signed into law AB 1887 which prohibits state-funded travel to a state that has passed a law that (1) authorizes discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, or (2) voids or repeals existing state or local protections against such discrimination. The law expressly identifies the University of California as an entity covered by the law.

As of the date of this notice, the States of Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee are on the prohibited travel list. The list of states may be updated on the Attorney General's website found here: https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887.

Please note that the law does not prohibit travel that is paid for or reimbursed using non-state funds...


So you won't be in Kansas anymore:

More seriously, there are universities in all these states, e.g., Duke in North Carolina. Academics there have little control over what laws are passed by their legislatures. Conferences, seminars, etc., are held in such universities. Other inter-university collaborations may occur. Individual faculty may co-author papers across university lines. Some faculty in some departments will have no problem in finding non-state sources of funding for travel. For others, finding such sources might be more difficult. So boycotts raise significant issues. Did the Regents or UCOP have any position on UC's inclusion in this legislation? Did the Academic Senate? Yours truly does not recall any debate. Often, because of the constitutional autonomy of UC, state legislation excludes it or just "suggests" consideration.

It seems as though there are issues here that are not resolved by emails from various travel entities on campus and need airing in other forums. 

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Entrepreneurial/innovation funding from state

Although it was overshadowed by the report in our previous post about UC prez Napolitano's cancer treatment, there is also a notice on the prez's website about a distribution of $2.2 million per campus for entrepreneurial and innovation-type activity. Both the enabling bill (signed by the governor last September) and the UC news release (of yesterday) are a bit vague on exactly what is to be done with the money.

The law's text is below:

AB 2664, Irwin. University of California: innovation and entrepreneurship expansion.

Existing law establishes the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. The University of California comprises 10 campuses, which are located at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz.

This bill would require the University of California to make one-time expenditures for activities to expand or accelerate economic development in the state in ways that are aligned with other efforts to support innovation and entrepreneurship. The bill would identify a specific funding source in the Budget Act of 2016 appropriated for that purpose and would allocate $2,200,000 under that appropriation to each of 10 campuses of the University of California. The bill would require the regents to designate an external advisory board, as provided, to encourage the effective use of these funds through planning and oversight and would prohibit a campus from expending these funds unless the external advisory body has certified that the chancellor of that campus has made certain demonstrations, including, among others, that funds will only be used for the costs of activities that support the expansion or acceleration of economic development in the state and that private funds that at least match the amount of state funds will also be used on those activities. The bill would require the University of California to report to the Department of Finance and the Legislature on or before November 30, 2017, on the specific activities at each campus supported by these funds.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. With respect to innovation and entrepreneurship by those connected to the University of California, the Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The State of California is well-positioned to harness the power of the University of California’s expertise to spur economic development.
(b) The University of California contributed to the launch and growth of some of California’s strongest industries, including aerospace, agriculture, biotechnology, computers and semiconductors, telecommunications, and digital media.
(c) Instruction and research at the University of California can be the genesis of tomorrow’s industries, companies, and commercial successes.
(d) As a public institution of higher education, the University of California is positioned to address challenges faced by entrepreneurs—challenges that are particularly acute for groups such as women and minorities who are typically underrepresented in private incubators and accelerators.
(e) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to provide one-time funds for new infrastructure at each campus to (1) enhance the state’s network of programs and services that support innovators, entrepreneurs, startups, investors, and industry and community partners that are locally based and committed to serving in communities across California and (2) generate commitments of private funds for these activities in an amount at least equal to the amount of state funds.
SEC. 2. Chapter 14.5 (commencing with Section 92965) is added to Part 57 of Division 9 of Title 3 of the Education Code, to read:
CHAPTER  14.5. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Expansion
92965. (a) With funds appropriated in Item 6440-001-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2016, the University of California shall make one-time expenditures for activities to expand or accelerate economic development in the state in ways that are aligned with other efforts to support innovation and entrepreneurship.
(b) From the funds specified in subdivision (a), two million two hundred thousand dollars ($2,200,000) shall be allocated to each of the following campuses of the University of California:
(1) Berkeley.
(2) Davis.
(3) Irvine.
(4) Los Angeles.
(5) Merced.
(6) Riverside.
(7) San Diego.
(8) San Francisco.
(9) Santa Barbara.
(10) Santa Cruz.
(c) The Regents of the University of California shall designate an external advisory body, whose members have demonstrated expertise in innovation and entrepreneurship, to encourage the effective use of the funds specified in subdivision (b) through planning and oversight.
(d) A campus shall not expend the funds specified in subdivision (b) until the external advisory body has certified that the chancellor of the campus has demonstrated all of the following:
(1) That the funds will be used only for the costs of activities that support the expansion or acceleration of economic development in the state, such as any of the following benefits for entrepreneurs:
(A) Business training.
(B) Mentorship.
(C) Proof-of-concept grants.
(D) Work space.
(E) Laboratory space.
(F) Equipment.
(2) That the funds will be spent only after the uses and beneficiaries have been determined through a transparent, inclusive, and fair process.
(3) That private funds will also be used for these activities, with the intent that the amount of private funds will be at least equal to the amount specified in subdivision (b).
(4) That any financial benefit that results from the use of these funds, including any revenues generated with these funds be accounted for and also used on these activities.
(5) That a credible plan has been developed to support any ongoing activities beyond the one-time expenditures of these funds.
(e) The external advisory body shall notify the Director of Finance and the Legislature, no fewer than 10 days before providing certification pursuant to subdivision (d) of its intent to do so.
(f) (1) On or before November 30, 2017, the Regents of the University of California shall report to the Director of Finance and the Legislature on the specific activities at each campus supported by these funds.
(2) The report shall be submitted to the Legislature pursuant to Section 9795 of the Government Code.

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2664

The news release announcing receipt of these funds is at:
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/ab-2664-funds-spur-innovation-entrepreneurship

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Napolitano Hospitalized

University of California President Janet Napolitano was hospitalized this week for side effects related to the treatment of cancer, which was diagnosed in August, UC officials said Tuesday. Napolitano, who has led the vast university system since 2013, “has consistently performed her wide range of duties at full capacity, without interruption or impact” since beginning treatment for cancer last summer, according to a statement from her office. Napolitano headed the U.S. Homeland Security department between 2009 and 2013.

“Yesterday, however, she experienced side effects that required her to be hospitalized” but is doing well and is expected to be discharged this week, the statement said. Napolitano’s spokeswoman, Dianne Klein, declined to say what kind of cancer it is, citing the president’s privacy. Napolitano had previously been diagnosed and treated for cancer.

ICYMI

In case you missed it, the LA Times ran an editorial yesterday endorsing the UC prez's proposed tuition increase. The editorial was also rather critical of Gov. Brown's lack of vision for UC.

...No one likes to see the price of higher education rise, but if  (UC prez) Napolitano is true to her word and this money is used solely to improve the education of those who pay it, the price hike is justified. There are valid concerns about the long-term funding of the university, but for the short-term, preserving UC’s quality in exchange for a small increase in tuition and fees is the right move. The Board of Regents should approve the price hike when it meets next week...

The governor, who has never been a major supporter of UC, basically resisted anything that would help the university bring in more money — higher tuition, better funding from the state or admitting more out-of-state students, who bring geographic diversity to campus in addition to paying a higher tuition that helps fund financial aid for low-income Californians. Instead, Brown expressed his preference for a more austere UC, one that saves money by pushing more online courses and prodding professors into teaching more classes while engaging less in research and other academic pursuits.

That’s not a vision, though. It’s short-sighted frugality that would strip down one of the state’s best-run and most admired institutions...

Full editorial at http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-uc-tuition-hike-20170113-story.html

Monday, January 16, 2017

Preliminary Regents Agenda

A preliminary version of the Jan. 25-26 Regents meeting is now posted.* Upcoming topics include creation of a nursing school at Irvine and the construction of an addition to the Anderson complex at UCLA. In closed session, there will be discussion of litigation in various sexual misconduct cases including the Dean Sujit Choudhry affair at Berkeley.** There will also be discussion of the possible effects of the incoming Trump administration. You can bet that the proposed tuition increase will be aired in the public comment sessions.

As always, since the Regents "archive" recordings of their meetings for only one year, we will endeavor to archive the audio of the sessions indefinitely.
---
*http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/jan17.html
**https://casetext.com/case/choudhry-v-regents-of-the-univ-of-cal
http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/files/2016-09-22-pl-motion-in-support-of-preliminary-injunction---doc-no-13.pdf
http://www2.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Choudry-dismissal.pdf

Raising Tuition May Be Tough

News stories like this one from Inside Higher Ed may lead to significant political resistance to UC's plan to raise tuition:

Rhode Island Governor Gina M. Raimondo plans today to propose that the state offer two tuition-free years for full-time students in public higher education.
Students at the Community College of Rhode Island would pay no tuition while earning an associate degree. For state residents who start at Rhode Island College or the University of Rhode Island, their junior and senior years would be tuition-free. There is no income limit, although the public system in Rhode Island serves many more low-income students than wealthy students.
Those who participate at the Community College of Rhode Island will not also be able to do so at the four-year institutions. Room and board are not covered by the proposal. To qualify for the tuition waiver at the four-year institutions, students must have completed 60 credits of course work by the end of their sophomore year, declared a major and maintained a grade point average of at least 2.0.
The proposal is another sign that the idea of tuition-free public higher education -- presumed by many to be dead after Hillary Clinton pushed the concept and lost the presidential election -- may have more legs in the states than at the federal level. Raimondo's proposal comes two weeks after Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York proposed tuition-free public higher education for those from families with incomes up to $125,000.
Both governors are Democrats. But while Cuomo must deal with powerful Republican legislators in the New York State Senate, Raimondo has a General Assembly with two houses that are overwhelmingly Democratic.*
David M. Dooley, president of the University of Rhode Island, said in an interview Sunday that he was "very enthusiastic about the plan" and thought it had good prospects for being enacted into law...
---
*Note that both houses in California are also heavily Democratic.