| | |

Prop 26 and Its Potential Effect on UC

Proposition 26 on the November ballot would require a 2/3 vote in the legislature for state imposition of various “fees.” It applies a similar restriction to local fees. A 2/3 vote of the electorate would apply to such fees at the local level. At the moment, there is a distinction made between a “tax” (which is subject to a 2/3 vote) and a fee.

During budget crises, governments in California have tended to raise fees, which escape the 2/3 requirement, since tax raising is more difficult. Essentially, Prop 26 tightens up the definition of fee, putting more of them under the 2/3 requirement.

UC’s tuition would be untouched by this measure. The Regents could raise tuition as they have in the past. However, the state budget – which also provides UC funding – would potentially be affected since fee raising would be more difficult at the state level. In addition, the state has found various ways during budget crises of “raiding” local government revenues. The locals then may turn to fees for an offset. Again, that path would be more difficult – increasing the resistance to state raids.

Bottom line: UC’s budget might be adversely affected if Prop 26 passed.

A nice explanation of Prop 26 can be found at http://publicceo.com/index.php/local-governments/151-local-governments-publicceo-exclusive/2219-proposition-26-new-supermajority-voter-approvals-for-revenues

Prop 26 and fees were also discussed at a recent Rave:

Similar Posts

  • Faculty call for pause on budget & network security changes at UCLA

    Over 250 UCLA faculty, including a large number of department chairs and center directors, have written Chancellor Block with a detailed critique of plans for administrative centralization. The letter follows earlier exchanges between department chairs and Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost Emily Carter and other top administrators. “Although we appreciated the fora that EVC/P Carter recently organized in response to an earlier letter requesting more time to evaluate the re-organization plans she is proposing, we continue to feel that there has been insufficient time or detail to evaluate their consequences and that we have not been adequately involved in the consultation process,”…

  • |

    Report: Affordable Public Higher Education is Possible Today

    A report this week from Reclaim California Higher Education (a coalition of faculty and student groups) makes the case that affordable (even free) higher education is within reach for California. The privatization experiment has failed. The harm to a generation of hard-working, high-aiming young people is proven. It’s time to return to what works: the proven Master Plan for higher education in California. California, with its own resources, can afford to restore top-quality, accessible, affordable college and university opportunity to every qualified student. In fact, Californians can afford nothing less. You can read a summary and download the entire report…

  • | |

    Jerry Brown Suggests Master Plan is Dated

    Our previous post covered the Jan. 22 meeting of the Regents’ Committee on Educational Policy.  As noted, there was discussion of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, considered a major accomplishment of Brown’s father when he was governor. Below is a link to Brown’s comments in which he suggested the Plan was now dated.  [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RmjI4gVync?feature=player_detailpage]

  • | | | | | | | | |

    Tradition!

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has issued a report on UC and CSU funding.  LAO is usually viewed as a neutral agency.  But it is a component of the legislature.  So it tends to favor approaches that add to legislative control as opposed to, say, gubernatorial control.  This report is no exception. LAO seems to want to return to what it terms the “traditional” approach to funding, but with bells and whistles added to monitor legislative goals.  The traditional approach seems to be one focused on undergraduate enrollment.  But in fact the tradition – such as it is – has…

  • |

    7 Wasn’t So Lucky

    The cash statement from the California state controller for the first seven months of fiscal year 2013-14 is out.  Revenues are up about 1% from last year at this time.  That gain is not very good.  However, it may be largely due to an aberration last fiscal year when there was a surge of personal income tax revenue in January 2013.  The surge seemed to have something to do with antics back then in Washington over fiscal cliffs, etc., which might have resulted in some tax changes (but didn’t).  The current DC crisis de jour is the debt ceiling, but…