Recently in this column, I made the point that with cooperation we should be able to work through some of the ongoing “town-gown” problems between UCSC and the City of Santa Cruz.  Progress is being made.  In January, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) responded to a request from me and issued a report on the University of California’s long-range development process. 

I subsequently chaired a State Capitol hearing on the LAO’s report to explore the findings.  The hearing was informative and constructive, and led to the development of a number of follow-up questions for UC on four topics: enrollment projections, fair-share policy agreements, standards for public participation, and legislative oversight. 
 
With the report and the hearing, I tried to move the discussion away from the heated exchanges on impacts of UC growth and focus on better understanding the structural differences between UC and surrounding communities such as Santa Cruz.  The questions I’ve asked of UC Provost and Executive Vice President Rory Hume will help the legislature navigate the state budget process in a way I’m hoping will help address some of the outstanding issues. 
 
When the LAO looked at long-term enrollment projections for UC, questions were raised about how current they are, how the period of the projections matches the long range plans, and the breakdown of enrollment projections between undergraduate and graduate students.  On this issue, I’ve asked UC in follow up questions to detail undergraduate vs. graduate projections; explain who approves enrollment projections; and share which graduate school programs UC expects to expand or establish in the future.
 
The LAO also suggested UC has the goal of “fair share agreements” as a way to work through growth issues, but found that UC has not yet entered into one with any community.  There were statements made by UC representatives at the hearing that this was more a contract language-type suggestion.  I’ve asked UC many follow up questions in this area, including if a fair-share payment to a local government has been made; how much money has been spent by UC on legal fees related to campus growth issues; and what options are available to local communities to appeal conflicts.
 
Over the coming days and weeks, I’ll be reviewing UC’s responses to these questions, as well as additional ones related to public participation and legislative oversight.  Through the process of crafting the state budget for higher education, I look forward to moving a significant portion of the town-gown debate out of attorneys offices and into what will surely be a very public—and hopefully productive—process.