February 15, 2007

 

 

Wyatt R. Hume, DDS, PhD.
Provost and Executive Vice President
Academic and Health Affairs
Office of Health Affairs
1111 Franklin Street, 11th Floor
Oakland, CA  94607

Dear Provost Hume,

I would like to thank you for your participation at the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 and Assembly Higher Education Joint Hearing held on January 30, 2007 regarding the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) report on "A Review of the University of California (UC) Long Range Development Planning (LRDP) Process."

It was a very informative hearing.  However, due to time constraints, not all issues were able to be fully addressed.  As a follow-up to the joint hearing, I am submitting the following questions for your response in advance of the budget subcommittee process where this information would be most valuable:

Enrollment Projections

  1. What are your current system-wide enrollment projections broken down by undergraduate students versus graduate students?
  1. What does the University fund with the enrollment growth funding that the State provides?
  1. Who is officially responsible for approving system-wide and campus-based enrollment projections?
  1. What specific enrollment assumptions do campuses use to plan their LRDP's beyond 2010-11, which is the time horizon of the current system-wide enrollment plan?
  1. How does the university project undergraduate enrollment versus graduate enrollment?  Which graduate and professional school programs does UC expect to expand or establish in the future?  How does the University decide whether to establish a new program or school, such as a new law school or medical school?  What role does the California Postsecondary Education Commission have in this process?

Fair-Share Policy Agreements

  1. Does the University currently have a fair-share agreement policy?  Please provide a copy of the fair-share agreement policy or language.
  1. Has the University ever made a payment to a local public agency pursuant to its current fair-share policy or language as initially developed in 2002?  Has the University ever made payments to local public agencies to mitigate off-campus impacts that were not related to the current fair share policy?  If so, for each payment made, please provide the following information:  (1) campus and city involved, (2) nature of the impact, (3) description of the project, (4) amount of money paid to the city including whether this amount was fully covered by the University's fair-share or not.  In addition, please also provide information on specific instances in which the University did not mitigate off-campus impacts and the reasons why it did not.
  1. In view of the recent court decision in City of Marina v. CSU Board of Trustees, what steps is the University taking to ensure that fair-share agreements are developed and implemented?
  1. How much money has already been spent by the University on legal fees relating to campus growth issues since 1999, which was the last time the University developed system-wide enrollment projections through 2010-11? How much does the University anticipate spending in legal fees due to growth issues in the budget year?
  1. During your presentation, you stated that there are officials at each campus responsible for mitigation monitoring?  What specifically do they do? Please provide detailed information regarding their duties, responsibilities and authority. How are these officials selected? Who selects them? Are they authorized to negotiate mitigations costs with local communities on behalf of the UC President?
  1. What means exist for interested parties to appeal conflicts?  Please provide detailed information about the appeals process if any.
  1. Has the University considered including mitigation costs within the cost of projects approved with bond funds?

Standards for Public Participation

  1. In your opinion, why do some campuses work better with their respective communities than other campuses?

What are the different strategies that campuses have used to encourage public participation?

Legislative Oversight

  1. One of the LAO's recommendations is that there should be greater legislative oversight over your LRDP process.  From your point of view, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of having such a policy implemented?

Your answers to these questions will be very helpful in understanding the UC's LRDP process as we begin to consider the Governor's budget proposals for higher education during the subcommittee hearings.  I would be most appreciative if you were to provide your written responses to my staff by March 14th, which is when budget subcommittee No. 2 is scheduled to begin the higher education hearings.

Sincerely,

JOHN LAIRD
Chair, Assembly Budget Committee

cc:        Members of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
            Members of the Assembly Higher Education Committee
            Steve Arditti, Assistant Vice President and Director, UC Office of State Governmental Relations
            Larry Hershman, Vice President for Budget, UC Office of the President