BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1483
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION
Jose Medina, Chair
AB 1483
(Gatto) - As Introduced February 27, 2015
SUBJECT: University of California: Science, Technology,
Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics Campus
SUMMARY: Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to
conduct a study of, and report to the Legislature on, the
feasibility of establishing a campus of the University of
California (UC) devoted to science, technology, engineer, arts,
and mathematics (STEAM); and, allocates $50,000,000 from the
General Fund (GF) to the UC Regents for the establishment of,
and acquisition of land for UC STEAM campus. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Requires the LAO to conduct a study of the feasibility of
establishing a campus of the UC devoted to STEAM.
2)Requires the LAO, on or before January 1, 2017, to report the
findings of the feasibility study, to the Legislature, as
specified.
3)Appropriates $50,000,000, from the GF, without regard to
AB 1483
Page 2
fiscal years, to the Controller for allocation to the UC
Regents for the establishment of, and acquisition of land for,
the UC STEAM campus.
4)Specifies that the Controller shall not allocate the funds, as
appropriated in this measure, to the UC Regents until the
Controller determines that the Regents have approved the
establishment of, and decided on the location of, the UC STEAM
campus.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes UC as a public trust and confers the full powers
of the UC upon the UC Regents. The Constitution establishes
that the UC is subject to legislative control only to the
degree necessary to ensure the security of its funds and
compliance with the terms of its endowments. Judicial
decisions have held that there are three additional areas in
which there may be limited legislative intrusion into
university operations: authority over the appropriation of
state moneys; exercise of the general police power to provide
for the public health, safety and welfare; and, legislation on
matters of general statewide concern not involving internal
university affairs (Constitution of California, Article IX,
Section 9).
2)Declares the intent of the Legislature that sites for new
institutions or branches of the CSU shall not be authorized or
acquired unless recommended by the California Postsecondary
Education Commission (CPEC) and that CPEC should advise the
Legislature and the Governor regarding the need for, and
location of, new institutions and campuses of public higher
education (Education Code Sections 66900 and 66904).
AB 1483
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: $50,000,000 from the GF.
COMMENTS: Need for this measure. According to the author,
"This bill seeks to address the rising demand for workers
trained in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) as
well as the growing inaccessibility of the University of
California system."
The author contends, "In California, the growing demand for STEM
graduates and workers has been coupled with the increasing
inaccessibility of the state's premier public university system.
For years, the demand for UCs has outpaced the capacity of UC
campuses. The number of applications to UC campuses has
increased for 11 straight years and in 2015, 193,873 students
applied for at least one campus (a 5.8% increase from 2014).
In 2014 UC accepted less than 90,000 of its 183,272 applicants
and matriculated less than 45,000. "
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). There is
currently no coordinating entity for higher education in
California. Existing law establishes CPEC to be responsible for
coordinating public, independent, and private postsecondary
education in California and to provide independent policy
analyses and recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor
on postsecondary education issues. However, over time, CPEC's
budget was reduced, resulting in its inability to perform all of
its responsibilities, casting doubt on its effectiveness and
triggering calls for its restructuring. As part of his 2011-12
Budget, Governor Brown proposed eliminating CPEC. Both Houses
rejected this proposal, but the Governor exercised his line item
veto to remove all General Fund support for CPEC, describing the
commission as "ineffective." In his veto message, however, the
Governor acknowledged the need for coordinating and guiding
state higher education policy and requested that stakeholders
AB 1483
Page 4
explore alternative ways these functions could be fulfilled.
CPEC shut down in Fall 2011, transferring its federal Teacher
Quality Improvement grant program to the California Department
of Education and extensive data resources to the CCC
Chancellor's Office.
Review process for new campus. California Postsecondary
Education Commission's review process for a potential new campus
of the UC, CSU, and/or CCC was very layered and structured,
including the need for the asking segment to submit a
preliminary notice at the beginning of the segment's planning
process for a new campus or off-site center. The preliminary
notice had to include information on the proposed institution's
general location, type of operations, time frame for
development, projected enrollment, and near-term capital outlay
plan.
The next step in CPEC's process was for the asking segment to
submit a letter of intent when they were within five years (two
for a CCC) of requesting state funds for capital outlay. To
note, the letter of intent had to contain similar information as
the preliminary notice but with greater specificity. CPEC then
responded to the letter of intent within 60 days and would
include any concerns with the proposal and opined as to if the
segment should proceed with development plans.
The last step in the review process was for the asking segment
to submit to CPEC a study that provided a justification for the
campus or center on the site identified. The needs study
included nine different areas (enrollment, alternatives,
academic planning, student services, costs, accessibility,
effects on other institutions, environmental impact, and
economic efficiency) according to which the proposal was
evaluated. CPEC responded to the needs study within one year
AB 1483
Page 5
for the new campus and within six months for a new center; their
response included a formal recommendation to the Governor and
the Legislature as it if a new campus and/or center should be
created.
Committee considerations. 1) Appropriate entity to fill the
role of CPEC? With the state no longer having a coordinating
body for higher education, how is the state going to fulfill the
former CPEC functions? This measure tasks the LAO, to conduct a
feasibility study as to the need for the creation of a STEAM UC
campus; is the LAO the correct entity to conduct the study?
The Committee may want to consider whether or not it tasks
various entities with fulfilling the work of the former CPEC or
halting all projects that would otherwise be under the
jurisdiction of the former CPEC until the state creates a new
higher education coordinating body.
2) Era of constrained resources. During a time when the
Legislature is asking the Governor for increased funding in
order to allow for the UC to be able to admit more qualified
students, and when the UC is looking for revenues in order to
successfully grow its newest campus, Merced, is this an
appropriate time to appropriate funds for a purpose that may not
be well suited at this time?
The UC is the number one producer of STEM degrees in the state.
According to the UC, California's universities produced nearly
50,000 STEM degrees in 2012-2013, with 23,000 of the STEM
degrees being conferred by the UC. Additionally, since 2000,
UC's continued focus on education in the STEM fields has led to
an increase in its share of STEM degrees produced in California
and the nation. The UC has increased its share of California
AB 1483
Page 6
STEM degrees by three percentage points since 2000, and raised
its share of all STEM degrees produced in the nation almost a
percentage point. Is there an actual need for the creation of a
STEAM or STEM specific UC campus?
3) Author's intent for STEAM or STEM? The author states that
this bill is to address the need for more STEM graduates, but
the measure as drafted references "arts" as one of the emphasis
that the new UC campus would house. The author may wish to
delete "arts" out of the bill if the intent is solely for the
emphasis to be in STEM subjects.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file.
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Jeanice Warden / HIGHER ED. / (916)
319-3960
AB 1483
Page 7