Editorial: Open forum with ‘committee of two’ way to rebuild student trust

Since forming a committee of two in January to create new funding strategies for the University of California, Gov. Jerry Brown and UC President Janet Napolitano have had precious little to show for their efforts.

Students and California taxpayers alike have been kept in the dark about what the committee has been up to since its inception. The closed-off nature of Napolitano and Brown’s meetings, while an understandable and expected aspect of such a small committee, contributes to students’ general perception that they are not being heard or taken seriously by UC leadership.

At the very least, both Napolitano and Brown should make an effort to better inform students about the committee’s headway through open public conversation.

Information about the committee has been virtually nonexistent thus far, except for the fact that there have been two meetings between its members.

At the last UC Board of Regents meeting in March, the committee did not have any recommendations to offer the board, which Napolitano said might be coming “hopefully in the near future, without putting a date on it.”

In an interview with the Daily Bruin Editorial Board on Thursday, Napolitano said she hoped to have concrete recommendations come out of the committee around the time of the governor’s May budget revision or by the summer, failing to give a definite timeline for any real decisions.

In light of this relative silence from the committee, the UC Student Association has begun circulating an online petition calling for the committee to hold an open forum at UC Davis. The petition has garnered nearly 1,000 signatures.

If Napolitano is interested in regaining the trust of the students she serves, particularly after comments she made at the last regents meeting rightly earned the ire of students, she should consider heeding the petition and creating an open forum to discuss the committee’s progress.

When asked about the possibility of an open forum during her meeting with the Editorial Board Thursday, Napolitano was reserved, saying the committee was “not created as an open forum type of situation.” After some discussion, however, she said she would be open to the possibility and take it up with Brown.

The forum would be a substantive way to communicate the headway made by the committee of two with students in an open and effective manner, while also addressing issues with transparency that have plagued the University and Napolitano.

A March report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office alleges that the UC was not completely forthcoming to student leaders with its plan to pursue a tuition hike of up to 5 percent annually for the next five years. The report found the University violated state transparency laws by failing to give sufficient notice to students about the proposal.

While the UC denies these allegations, with Napolitano arguing it complied with the spirit of the law, the report is indicative of the testy relationship that the UC has had with properly informing students of prospective policy changes.

The relationship could be mended by proactive efforts to keep students informed about discussions between University power players. The open forum would be a good start to that process.