The Story So Far: Tuition, Ballot Propositions, Hotel, Japanese Garden, Pepper Spray, and More

Yours truly tried to get a decent recording of the Regents public comment session this morning. Unfortunately, an aging office computer produced such a low quality recording that I will summarize below in writing:

Prior to the public comment period, President Yudof said he intended to endorse the governor’s tax initiative and would ask the Regents to do so.  After the comment period, Academic Council chair Bob Anderson noted that faculty members are voting on a memorial to the Regents asking them to endorse ballot propositions that provide funding to the university.  (The memorial does not designate a particular initiative.)

The initiative proposed by the governor would provide more in the general fund budget, although it officially focuses on K-12 and public safety.  There is a range of forecasts about just how much it would add to budget revenue with the Legislative Analyst having a lower estimate than the governor’s Dept. of Finance.  The governor’s budget has a trigger that would cut UC $200 million if the initiative doesn’t pass.  The trigger, however, is not in the initiative and would have to be enacted by the legislature as part of the 2012-13 budget.

President Yudof said he was continuing discussions with Sacramento about the long-term budget accord for UC but that it hasn’t happened yet.  He said he would like to see in such an accord a tuition increase “buyout” for 2012-13, which seems a very short-term goal to yours truly.  Accords with the state last one fiscal year, if that.

In the actual public comment period students spoke about tuition, about the UC-Riverside student proposal for post-graduation income sharing in lieu of tuition, about budget propositions, etc.  There were angry remarks about the pepper spray incident at UC-Davis and about the UC-Berkeley police confrontation in which some who took part have been banned from campus except to go to class.  There was also a worker grievance aired from UC-San Francisco, but it was unclear what it was about.

In an early post this morning, I provided written comments from a neighbor-hotel owner group opposed to the current plan for the UCLA hotel/conference center.  The speakers basically followed the written document.  A hotel consultant hired to examine the plan generally raised questions about the cost side of the official UCLA business plan which she characterized as underestimated.  Adjusting for debt service and the cost of the parking garage (which UCLA apparently doesn’t intend to pay), the project would be unprofitable until year 20.  A lawyer said bringing the project to the Regents was premature because necessary environmental review under CEQA (a key environmental standard in California) has not been completed.  He also raise questions about the proposed occupancy policy which he suggested would not be eligible for tax-exempt status as the university proposes.  Basically, if there are legal challenges, these are likely to be key issues.

Finally, there was testimony alerting the Regents that members of the Hannah Carter family would be testifying in the public comment period tomorrow in opposition to the UCLA sale of the Japanese Garden.