“He was my knight in shining armor…He was the most excitement I ever had in my life…And it all started with a slap and being thrown across the room like I was nobody…All I wanted to do was to protect myself and it cost me life in prison.” I heard the screams, pictured the horror, and felt the terror these women experienced as I watched their stories unfold in the Sin by Silence documentary by Olivia Klaus; a passionate movie describing the plight of incarcerated battered women throughout California. Brenda Clubine, who starred in the movie and was the survivor that created the support group for the women in jail, and producer Olivia Klaus approached me about her plight and of the others still in jail. They introduced the documentary that started me down the road towards justice for these women. This was not an episode of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” or “Big Little Lies,” these stories are horrifyingly true and these women survived being battered and abused, only to be put into prison for defending themselves. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 32.9% of women and 27.3% of men in California experience intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner sexual violence and/or intimate partner stalking in their lifetimes. The emotional journey I experienced while watching the “Sin by Silence” documentary inspired me to help other survivors by introducing AB 593 and AB 1593, my “Sin by Silence” bills. At the time, I was the Chair of the Select Committee to End Domestic Violence and the first Asian-American woman Assembly Speaker pro Tempore in California history, so I was in a position where I could be a voice through legislation to try to help these domestic violence survivors. AB 593 allows victims of domestic violence, whose expert testimony was limited at their trial court proceedings, to re-file for a writ of habeas corpus to allow this expert testimony to weigh in on their defense. It also gave survivors more time to receive legal representation. AB 1593 allows survivors who have suffered Intimate Partner Battering (IPB) a chance to present their evidence in an effective way during the parole process by giving great weight to any information or evidence that proves the prisoner experienced IPB and its effects at the time the crime was committed, and that the information that is submitted to the Legislature is specific and detailed.

Ultimately, I spent most of 2011 and 2012 fighting for the rights of these survivors. I attended emotional, heart-wrenching parole hearings; I hosted informational hearings to understand the issues and challenges faced by domestic violence survivors, and I spoke to the women and heard their stories first-hand. On this five year anniversary of the bills’ passage into law, I’m proud to say two other states, Oregon and New York, are focusing on similar legislation. I remember Glenda Virgil who, in 2013, was the first woman from the film to be released as a result of my bills. I was able to give a voice to the voiceless and give these women a fighting chance for justice. It was the right thing to do.

SIN BY SILENCE August 21, 2012 - Board Member Fiona Ma, then Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore, with Brenda Clubine and other supporters of the “Sin by Silence” legislation.  

nfortunately, not everyone is a survivor. Each year, my office hosts a Silent Witness display as part of the Silent Witness National Initiative, to remember the victims that lost their lives at the hands of domestic violence. These displays remind us of the sobering statistics that, according to the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by a current or former intimate partner. In 2010, 1,017 women – more than three a day – were killed by their intimate partners. Every year when I see these displays, I am reminded of Claire Tempongko who was brutally murdered in front of her two young children by an ex-boyfriend who had been arrested on five prior felony counts, but was nonetheless released. I remember when I was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and I vigorously led the effort to finish the Justice Information Tracking System (JUSTIS) to connect the different San Francisco law enforcement agencies so information could be shared to document the pattern of abuses.

A survivor’s safety and well-being is most at risk during episodes of violence, and when attempting to leave an abuser. Domestic violence shelters are a key part of safety planning to prepare ahead of time and to be as protected as possible once that decision is made to escape an abusive relationship. During my six year tenure in the Legislature, I heard several stories about how California domestic violence shelters were forced to turn away women and children due to a lack of funding. In 2013, NNEDV conducted a 24-hour survey of domestic violence programs across the nation and reported that 66,581 adults and children had found refuge and assistance; however an additional 9,641 requests for services were unanswered because of a lack of resources. Each one of those unmet requests is another lost opportunity to break the cycle of violence. Last year, Governor Brown signed AB 1399 (Baker), which created a checkoff box on California personal income tax return forms to allow Californians to donate to the newly created Domestic Violence Victims Fund. Domestic violence shelters will be able to apply for a grant from the new fund, administered by the California Office of Emergency Services, to help provide critical assistance to victims. From January to August of 2017, the fund had more than $130,000 in contributions.

October 17, 2016 – Executive Director of the San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium Beverly Upton, members of the Filipina women’s Network, San Francisco Supervisor Katy Tang, Board Member Fiona Ma, Assemblymember David Chiu, and community activist Debra Walker stand with the Silent Witness display.

We have to continue to speak out. Raise awareness. Break the cycle of silence. On October 4th, I’m hosting an event in San Francisco to help Willpowered Woman, a nonprofit that assists women affected by intimate partner abuse, and also educates students about prevention. Speaking with me is Crystal Wheeler, Executive Director of Every 9 Seconds, a nonprofit organization for abused women, founded by her former cellmate and fellow survivor, Brenda Clubine. Crystal was choked, beaten, tormented, and isolated by a violent husband who forced her to quit her job as a training law enforcement officer. One night she fatally fought back, which lead to her serving 22 years in prison, simply for defending herself. After spending time in prison, Crystal was aided by my “Sin by Silence” bills, allowing her to finally get the justice she deserved.

Every voice matters. Shout out into the silence and make your voice heard. Shows like “Big Little Lies” and “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit” help bring awareness into the public eye, but you can help too. October is “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” and you can make a difference. Donate to, or volunteer at a domestic violence shelter. Help a survivor. Wear purple to raise awareness for domestic violence prevention. Help turn California purple and break the cycle of silence. The chance you offer a survivor might be their last.

A vital resource for someone experiencing domestic violence is the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Highly trained advocates are available 24/7 to talk confidentially at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).

#CATurnsPurple #DVAM2017 #SinBySilence #PreventDomesticViolence

     

 

Born in New York in 1966 Fiona Ma and spent much of her life before politics as a self-proclaimed “dutiful daughter” in a Chinese American household.

 

Growing up, she was a tomboy, interested in sports, Girl Scouts and academics. Fiona was concurrently captain of the basketball, volleyball, tennis and softball teams in high-school while maintaining straight A’s. After speaking with her, even briefly, you get the impression that she doesn’t like to lose at anything–and rarely does.

 

 A product of New York public schools, she attended Baker Elementary and Great Neck North Middle and High schools. Education was highly prized in the Ma household. “Dad always told us school is the number-one equalizer; knowledge is the gateway to success and with proper preparation and diligence, the sky is only the stepping stone,” she recalls. As a result the family is highly accomplished academically. “It’s true that education is the one thing no one can take away.”

 

Her father was a mechanical engineer with a bachelor’s degree from Canada, a master’s degree from National College, London, England and a PhD. From the University of Glasgow, Scotland.  After entering the business world in New York, he realized that he needed more knowledge in running successful business enterprises, so when Fiona was six year old, he went back to Columbia University and earned a MBA.  He is a licensed Professional Engineer by trade. 

 

He founded or co-founded six companies and holds four patents on mechanical devices in solid waste compaction.  He was President and Chairman of the Board of a public company and later specialized in construction claims and litigation before his recent retirement.

 

Her mother had both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in fine arts education from the City University in New York City and taught art at a public high school for 20 years before moving the family to San Francisco to be closer to her parents.

 

When counseling his children on their education and eventual careers, Fiona’s father encouraged an “honorable” profession–one that fit “the LEAD” (Doctor, Engineer, Accountant, Lawyer). Ever the dutiful daughter, Fiona received a bachelor’s degree in accounting at Rochester Institute of Technology with a listing in the Who’s Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges in 1988 honoring the nation’s most noteworthy graduates of high learning, a master’s degree in taxation from Golden Gate University, a MBA from Pepperdine University and her CPA license to practice. Her younger brother Mike says that Fiona’s role in the family is as a “trailblazer” who always leads by example. 

 

In 1993 she was at Ernst and Young–one of the “big six” accounting firms at the time–and while she hadn’t yet hit the glass ceiling, she saw it looming. There were no female partners and few female managers. She decided it probably wasn’t going to be a good place to seek her future and decided to leave.

 

She and an associate started their own accounting practice. A scary prospect for some, but Fiona was influenced by her father’s entrepreneurial spirit and her parents’ encouragement growing up to “go for it” no matter what. In 1994 she was elected president of the Asian Business Association and found herself at San Francisco City Hall and at the state capitol in Sacramento lobbying for business issues that affected women and minorities.

 

Had she always dreamed of being a politician? Not even close. “I was exposed to the political process about once a year when my dad forced us to watch the presidential State of the Union address. I thought it was so boring!”

 

As a result of her work on behalf of the Small Business Association, she was elected in 1995 as a delegate to the White House Conference on Small Business under President Bill Clinton. As her interaction with Washington, D.C. and lawmakers increased at a national level, she began to believe in the importance of government and its ability to create positive change. Fiona’s advocacy work in that role helped lead to socially responsible contracting for minorities and women in San Francisco. She saw firsthand how, through politics, she could make a contribution to the community and help people. She was hooked.

 

Fiona also applied for and was appointed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to the Assessment Appeals Board and began to understand what she had to offer the world of politics. 

 

That year Fiona embarked on her public-service career as a part-time district representative for then-State Senator John Burton. When considering the job, she found herself again pulled between duty and aspiration: to continue to please her parents or to follow what her heart had begun to tell her was a life-long passion–her calling. After some negotiation with her parents, who most certainly had not dreamed of having their first-born daughter become an American politician, a compromise was struck. She would continue to practice as a CPA and work part-time for Senator Burton. For the next seven years she served on the senator’s staff about two-and-a-half days a week. Her task was to help constituents with Medi-Cal, Workers’ Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, Franchise and Employment Development Department taxes, and professional licensing. A funny thing happened during her “part-time” work though, and she found herself spending virtually all her free time campaigning, researching and otherwise working in politics.

 

It was time to enter the political arena as a career; and at thirty-four, her parents were ready to let her go. In 2002 Fiona Ma was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and from 2002 to 2006 represented District 4, which encompasses the Central Sunset, Outer Sunset, Parkside, Outer Parkside and Pine Lake Park. “My parents always said ‘go ahead, give it a try’ about everything while we were growing up and then made us feel good about the attempt, regardless of the outcome. Entering politics full-time wasn’t scary for me. Failure never occurred to me. I’m sure that was an advantage.”

 

Starting with her small-business advocacy and continuing in her service on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, a pattern of giving voice to those without, creating equality where none exists, improving the human condition, and standing up for what she believes to be right, emerged in the politics of Fiona Ma. As a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors her major legislative push was to shut down massage parlors that were involved in illegal trafficking of immigrants for purposes of prostitution. Following the passage of Proposition 209, which barred public institutions from considering sex, race or ethnicity, she led the effort to create San Francisco’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, which enables small businesses to more easily participate in public-works projects. As a direct result of her work, the San Francisco Public Transportation Authority now states: “The Authority and its employees shall not discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability in the award and performance of Authority contracts.” This measure broadens the scope of inclusion, leveling an important playing field for small businesses in San Francisco.

 

What Fiona considers one of her most important legislative wins–something she hopes will become part of her lifetime legacy–is helping to protect the nation’s toddlers from toxic toys. The years-long effort, which culminated in federal law enacted in 2009, bans phthalates, which are known to be harmful to human health. It started with Fiona Ma in San Francisco City Hall.

 

She watched as a member of the California State Assembly tried, and failed, to pass a bill that would have prevented these chemicals from being used in the state. Fiona explains that she knew the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with their guideline to err on the conservative side where detriment to human health is concerned, would have no problem passing what was an obviously needed piece of legislation. She decided to start at the local level and then to use that as leverage, putting pressure on the statehouse. Ordinance Number 060107 amended the San Francisco Health Code to “prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any toy or child-care article that is intended for use by a child under three years of age if it contains bisphenol-A or other specified chemicals, and to require manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative to those substances.” As Fiona had predicted, the ordinance passed the San Francisco Board of Supervisors easily. The next step would be at the statewide level. As it happened, Fiona Ma would be the one to shepherd it through.

 

In November 2006, Fiona got elected to the California State Assembly District 12, which includes San Francisco, Daly City, Colma and Broadmoor—some 420,000 constituents. She was appointed the Majority Whip, making her responsible for marshalling votes to ensure the passage of crucial legislation to improve public education, expand healthcare access and protect the environment.

 

During her first year in office she introduced what came to be known as the “Rubber Duck” bill, so named because the phthalates are often used in the manufacture of soft plastic toys and other baby products such as bath books, rubber ducks, and baby teethers. AB 1108 virtually mirrored the San Francisco ordinance she’d sponsored four years earlier. At the time she said, “California continues to lead the nation in protecting children from dangerous chemicals and in safeguarding our environment. AB 1108 sends a clear message to the Consumer Product Safety Commission that if the administration won’t act, states will.” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law in October 2007; it took effect on January 1, 2009. Other states followed suit, and act, the administration ultimately did.

 

In March 2008, Fiona Ma’s bill was used as a model in federal legislation when California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrapped a ban on phthalates into the U.S. Senate version of a Consumer Product Safety Commission bill that Congress passed in February 2009 and which went into effect the following August. As Fiona observes, “Banning phthalates across the whole country and helping keep kids healthy. That’s pretty good work, right?”

 

 

And that brings us to number three on her “legacy list.” At the age of twenty-two, Ma learned she has hepatitis B (HBV), a virus that causes 80 percent of all liver cancer if left untreated and one that shows no symptoms until it’s almost too late. Almost 1.4 million Americans are infected with HBV, and more than half are Asian/Pacific Islander Americans. An estimated one in ten is chronically infected with the virus. Like most Asian Americans, Ma contracted the disease from her mother at birth via perinatal exposure. San Francisco has the highest rate of liver cancer in the nation because of its high Asian population, and HBV-related liver cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among API men living in California. In true Fiona fashion, she decided to tackle the issue head-on and call as much attention to it as possible—a big jolt to a community that had attached such stigma to the illness it was considered best to keep it quiet.

 

As the “poster child” in the fight against hepatitis B, Ma serves as unofficial chairperson for San Francisco Hep B Free– the largest, most intensive healthcare campaign for APIs in the U.S. and one that is looked upon as a model for the nation in eliminating HBV. "How amazing would it be to help eradicate a disease?” she asks. Amazing indeed.

 

 

 

 

Fiona loves what she does–and for the foreseeable future she wants to keep on doing it. Oh, and her advice? “Don’t waste time being something someone else wants you to be–listen to your heart.” The duty is necessary, the passion wins. 

 

 

 

Born in New York in 1966 Fiona Ma and spent much of her life before politics as a self-proclaimed “dutiful daughter” in a Chinese American household.

 

Growing up, she was a tomboy, interested in sports, Girl Scouts and academics. Fiona was concurrently captain of the basketball, volleyball, tennis and softball teams in high-school while maintaining straight A’s. After speaking with her, even briefly, you get the impression that she doesn’t like to lose at anything–and rarely does.

 

 A product of New York public schools, she attended Baker Elementary and Great Neck North Middle and High schools. Education was highly prized in the Ma household. “Dad always told us school is the number-one equalizer; knowledge is the gateway to success and with proper preparation and diligence, the sky is only the stepping stone,” she recalls. As a result the family is highly accomplished academically. “It’s true that education is the one thing no one can take away.”

 

Her father was a mechanical engineer with a bachelor’s degree from Canada, a master’s degree from National College, London, England and a PhD. From the University of Glasgow, Scotland.  After entering the business world in New York, he realized that he needed more knowledge in running successful business enterprises, so when Fiona was six year old, he went back to Columbia University and earned a MBA.  He is a licensed Professional Engineer by trade. 

 

He founded or co-founded six companies and holds four patents on mechanical devices in solid waste compaction.  He was President and Chairman of the Board of a public company and later specialized in construction claims and litigation before his recent retirement.

 

Her mother had both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in fine arts education from the City University in New York City and taught art at a public high school for 20 years before moving the family to San Francisco to be closer to her parents.

 

When counseling his children on their education and eventual careers, Fiona’s father encouraged an “honorable” profession–one that fit “the LEAD” (Doctor, Engineer, Accountant, Lawyer). Ever the dutiful daughter, Fiona received a bachelor’s degree in accounting at Rochester Institute of Technology with a listing in the Who’s Who Among Students in American Universities and Colleges in 1988 honoring the nation’s most noteworthy graduates of high learning, a master’s degree in taxation from Golden Gate University, a MBA from Pepperdine University and her CPA license to practice. Her younger brother Mike says that Fiona’s role in the family is as a “trailblazer” who always leads by example. 

 

In 1993 she was at Ernst and Young–one of the “big six” accounting firms at the time–and while she hadn’t yet hit the glass ceiling, she saw it looming. There were no female partners and few female managers. She decided it probably wasn’t going to be a good place to seek her future and decided to leave.

 

She and an associate started their own accounting practice. A scary prospect for some, but Fiona was influenced by her father’s entrepreneurial spirit and her parents’ encouragement growing up to “go for it” no matter what. In 1994 she was elected president of the Asian Business Association and found herself at San Francisco City Hall and at the state capitol in Sacramento lobbying for business issues that affected women and minorities.

 

Had she always dreamed of being a politician? Not even close. “I was exposed to the political process about once a year when my dad forced us to watch the presidential State of the Union address. I thought it was so boring!”

 

As a result of her work on behalf of the Small Business Association, she was elected in 1995 as a delegate to the White House Conference on Small Business under President Bill Clinton. As her interaction with Washington, D.C. and lawmakers increased at a national level, she began to believe in the importance of government and its ability to create positive change. Fiona’s advocacy work in that role helped lead to socially responsible contracting for minorities and women in San Francisco. She saw firsthand how, through politics, she could make a contribution to the community and help people. She was hooked.

 

Fiona also applied for and was appointed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to the Assessment Appeals Board and began to understand what she had to offer the world of politics. 

 

That year Fiona embarked on her public-service career as a part-time district representative for then-State Senator John Burton. When considering the job, she found herself again pulled between duty and aspiration: to continue to please her parents or to follow what her heart had begun to tell her was a life-long passion–her calling. After some negotiation with her parents, who most certainly had not dreamed of having their first-born daughter become an American politician, a compromise was struck. She would continue to practice as a CPA and work part-time for Senator Burton. For the next seven years she served on the senator’s staff about two-and-a-half days a week. Her task was to help constituents with Medi-Cal, Workers’ Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, Franchise and Employment Development Department taxes, and professional licensing. A funny thing happened during her “part-time” work though, and she found herself spending virtually all her free time campaigning, researching and otherwise working in politics.

 

It was time to enter the political arena as a career; and at thirty-four, her parents were ready to let her go. In 2002 Fiona Ma was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and from 2002 to 2006 represented District 4, which encompasses the Central Sunset, Outer Sunset, Parkside, Outer Parkside and Pine Lake Park. “My parents always said ‘go ahead, give it a try’ about everything while we were growing up and then made us feel good about the attempt, regardless of the outcome. Entering politics full-time wasn’t scary for me. Failure never occurred to me. I’m sure that was an advantage.”

 

Starting with her small-business advocacy and continuing in her service on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, a pattern of giving voice to those without, creating equality where none exists, improving the human condition, and standing up for what she believes to be right, emerged in the politics of Fiona Ma. As a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors her major legislative push was to shut down massage parlors that were involved in illegal trafficking of immigrants for purposes of prostitution. Following the passage of Proposition 209, which barred public institutions from considering sex, race or ethnicity, she led the effort to create San Francisco’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, which enables small businesses to more easily participate in public-works projects. As a direct result of her work, the San Francisco Public Transportation Authority now states: “The Authority and its employees shall not discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability in the award and performance of Authority contracts.” This measure broadens the scope of inclusion, leveling an important playing field for small businesses in San Francisco.

 

What Fiona considers one of her most important legislative wins–something she hopes will become part of her lifetime legacy–is helping to protect the nation’s toddlers from toxic toys. The years-long effort, which culminated in federal law enacted in 2009, bans phthalates, which are known to be harmful to human health. It started with Fiona Ma in San Francisco City Hall.

 

She watched as a member of the California State Assembly tried, and failed, to pass a bill that would have prevented these chemicals from being used in the state. Fiona explains that she knew the San Francisco Board of Supervisors with their guideline to err on the conservative side where detriment to human health is concerned, would have no problem passing what was an obviously needed piece of legislation. She decided to start at the local level and then to use that as leverage, putting pressure on the statehouse. Ordinance Number 060107 amended the San Francisco Health Code to “prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution in commerce of any toy or child-care article that is intended for use by a child under three years of age if it contains bisphenol-A or other specified chemicals, and to require manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative to those substances.” As Fiona had predicted, the ordinance passed the San Francisco Board of Supervisors easily. The next step would be at the statewide level. As it happened, Fiona Ma would be the one to shepherd it through.

 

In November 2006, Fiona got elected to the California State Assembly District 12, which includes San Francisco, Daly City, Colma and Broadmoor—some 420,000 constituents. She was appointed the Majority Whip, making her responsible for marshalling votes to ensure the passage of crucial legislation to improve public education, expand healthcare access and protect the environment.

 

During her first year in office she introduced what came to be known as the “Rubber Duck” bill, so named because the phthalates are often used in the manufacture of soft plastic toys and other baby products such as bath books, rubber ducks, and baby teethers. AB 1108 virtually mirrored the San Francisco ordinance she’d sponsored four years earlier. At the time she said, “California continues to lead the nation in protecting children from dangerous chemicals and in safeguarding our environment. AB 1108 sends a clear message to the Consumer Product Safety Commission that if the administration won’t act, states will.” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law in October 2007; it took effect on January 1, 2009. Other states followed suit, and act, the administration ultimately did.

 

In March 2008, Fiona Ma’s bill was used as a model in federal legislation when California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrapped a ban on phthalates into the U.S. Senate version of a Consumer Product Safety Commission bill that Congress passed in February 2009 and which went into effect the following August. As Fiona observes, “Banning phthalates across the whole country and helping keep kids healthy. That’s pretty good work, right?”

 

 

And that brings us to number three on her “legacy list.” At the age of twenty-two, Ma learned she has hepatitis B (HBV), a virus that causes 80 percent of all liver cancer if left untreated and one that shows no symptoms until it’s almost too late. Almost 1.4 million Americans are infected with HBV, and more than half are Asian/Pacific Islander Americans. An estimated one in ten is chronically infected with the virus. Like most Asian Americans, Ma contracted the disease from her mother at birth via perinatal exposure. San Francisco has the highest rate of liver cancer in the nation because of its high Asian population, and HBV-related liver cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among API men living in California. In true Fiona fashion, she decided to tackle the issue head-on and call as much attention to it as possible—a big jolt to a community that had attached such stigma to the illness it was considered best to keep it quiet.

 

As the “poster child” in the fight against hepatitis B, Ma serves as unofficial chairperson for San Francisco Hep B Free– the largest, most intensive healthcare campaign for APIs in the U.S. and one that is looked upon as a model for the nation in eliminating HBV. "How amazing would it be to help eradicate a disease?” she asks. Amazing indeed.

 

 

 

 

Fiona loves what she does–and for the foreseeable future she wants to keep on doing it. Oh, and her advice? “Don’t waste time being something someone else wants you to be–listen to your heart.” The duty is necessary, the passion wins. 

 

 

 

Is The U C System on a Crash Course Financially?”

 

Presented by Greg Conlon former Candidate for California State Treasurer

 

Before the Kiwanis Club of Menlo Park on August 2, 2016” 

 

 

 

Let me start this discussion at 50,000 feet with the question, “What are the most important sectors of California from both a political and economic basis?”  I believe there are several such sectors:

 

            First, is the agriculture industry which is the top exporter of agriculture products in the world.

 

            Second, is the entertainment industry which is also the top such industry in the nation and the world. 

 

            Third, is the Hi-tech industry which is known to us as Silicon Valley, which is the greatest economic engine in the State and probably the Nation.  Without Silicon Valley’s economic success California would be like the country of Greece.  One of the candidates in the U S Senate debate indicated the number of jobs added in the last 20 years in the Los Angeles Basin was close to zero.

 

            Fourth, is the public Higher Education System in the State, which is second to no other state or for that matter probably to no other nation. The University of California System, known to us as the U C System, along with the California State Universities known as the CSU System, combined represent this Higher Education System in California.

 

I could talk about how each of these industries are faring in our economy but I believe the four mentioned above are the most important industries and I consider the crown jewels of the State.  But there are also the tourism and the aerospace industry which round out most of the State’s economy.  I am only going to discuss the blight of the UC System and the Cal. State Universities known as the CSU System as one of the crown jewels of the State. 

 

This subject is becoming more and more popular as you read the daily newspapers.  It came to my attention during my campaign for the June 7^th 2016 Primary Election for U S Senate.  Probably the most startling fact that got my attention was that the U C System was being forced because of insufficient funding by the State of California in its annual budget to admit more out-of-state students.  This is because the non-resident students pay approximately three times what the in-state residents pay, $12,240 compared to $37,000 a year, for tuition alone.  According to a recent study by the League of Women Voters of California, the State has decreased the level of funding from the General Fund each year from approximately 18% in 2000 to about 11% or 12% this year.  This is a one-third reduction in the level of funding.

 

The actual number of out-of-state or out-of-country non-residents is approximately 18,000 in academic year 2014-15.  According to a recent audit by the California State Auditor Report this increase in non-resident student tuition generated over $700 million, a growth of $400 million from fiscal year 2010-11.   To give you a perspective of total costs of the UC System the total employee salaries for the same 2014-15 fiscal year was $13.0 billion. 

 

Based on information in a recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) the expenditures in the last 10 years for higher education, both UC System and CSU System, has fallen 9 percent from 18 to 11% of state total general fund expenditures.  Meanwhile general fund expenditures for corrections and rehabilitation have increased 26%, with California spending more on corrections and rehabilitation than it does on its public universities (UC and CSU combined).  It should be noted according to the State Auditor’s Report that prison population increased by 1% while UC and CSU enrollment increase by 13 percent. 

 

Getting back to the overall subject of the financial decline of the Universities overall: we need to be sure our best and brightest students in California have every opportunity to succeed in these schools and be able to grow our State into a leadership position in the nation and in the world. 

 

Are we giving our best and brightest resident students the opportunity to learn at California’s best public university systems? 

 

The answer is NO because there are over 18,000 non-resident students, from both out of state and out of the nation, being admitted to the two university systems to provide for the higher tuition.  The tuition is three times higher, again $12,242 versus $37,000 tuition per year per student.  We are in effect selling one of the great crown jewels of the State to the non-residents because we believe, the State government believes, we can’t afford to support the two higher education systems in the state—UC and CSU.

 

What about the other public schools in the State?

 

At the same time, we are taking care of the K-14 schools, including the community colleges, with about 40% of the state general fund expenditures guaranteed under Proposition 98 passed several years ago. Prop 98 provided an increase of $3.9 billion last year to support the K-14 schools over the prior year, while UC and CSU each received about a $25 million increase in comparison.  This leads to no other conclusion by me than that we are not adequately funding these university systems and there are allegations that the non-resident students who are being admitted are not as well qualified academically as the resident students who are not being admitted.  The recently issued California State Auditor’s Report goes into this allegation in depth. 

 

What has been done recently by the State legislature to address these issues?

 

Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, from the Sacramento area, in the most recent legislative session sponsored Assembly Bill AB1711 that attempted to address the underfunding of the higher education universities.  This bill originally had established a cap on the number of non-resident students allowed to be admitted to the UC System.  I believe it was 15% each year.  It passed the Assembly Education and Appropriations Committee and passed the Assembly without any negative votes. 

 

It then was taken to the California Senate Education Committee where it was modified and a hearing was held on the merits of the bill.  It was modified to remove any cap on the number of non-residents to be admitted each year and only required that the number of non-residents admitted had to have academic qualifications equal to the median level of the top half of the resident students who admitted in the same year.

 

Because I felt passionately about this issue I recently testified before the California Senate Education Committee as a private citizen to support AB 1711.  As I just discussed the original bill attempted to put a specific cap on the number of non-resident students who could attend the UC System schools.  It was modified in the Senate to only specify that the non-resident student applicants had to have academic scores at least equal to the median scores of the top half of the resident students applying. 

 

In my testimony that I submitted in the AB 1711 hearings, I included two recommendations.

 

1.     I recommend that the members of the legislature that support AB 1711 consider an amendment to the bill that would provide an automatic increase in state appropriations to the UC System Universities. This increase should be proportionate to the required percentage increase under Proposition 98 each year for K-12 and Community Colleges.

 

2.     I recommend that in order for the UC System to receive the increased appropriations, it would have to adjust its operating expenses downward by one half of the increase in appropriations required in the first amendment above for at least the first three years to get the UC System’s financial condition on a sound basis.

 

After lengthy hearings on the Bill that included my testimony, which I also submitted to each member of the Committee, the Bill AB1711 was defeated by a vote of 4 to 3. 

 

But it should be noted that earlier in the Annual Budget Act there was wording requiring the Universities to increase the number of resident students in the upcoming academic year and asking the U C System to establish a cap on admission of non-resident students.  Recent Press Releases indicated that the U C System is going to admit 1,000 more resident students this forthcoming year than the previous year.  Time will tell whether the UC System establishes a cap. 

 

What are the Options that I believe should be considered in the future to address this issue?

 

The American Dream of excellent higher education for the best and brightest of our California high school students advancing to California’s public higher education universities must be improved.  This is necessary to provide the graduate students from the universities to fill the more sophisticated jobs of the future.  We need diversity in the universities to enrich the education environment of the students attending the schools.  But we do not want to sell the opportunity of the resident students to attend these higher education universities to raise enough funds from the non-resident students to pay for the total cost of providing the education at these universities.  The State of California needs to step up and increase the funding of the resident students’ education and provide for a larger number of resident students to attend the UC System and CSU System. 

 

Following are the three alternative solutions I believe the State should consider:

 

First, the most logical would be to increase the appropriations from the General Fund back to the 18% it was 10 years ago compared to the 11% today.   As I mentioned earlier there has been about a 13% increase in the number of students overall in the last 10 years per the State Auditor’s Report with a decrease in funding of 9%.   This compares to corrections and rehabilitation funding that had an increase in appropriations of 26% but an increase in prisoners of only 1%, again per the Auditor’s Report.

 

Second, have the Legislature or a group of citizens put forth a new Proposition similar to Proposition 98, which provides 40% of the General Fund to K-14 grades. This new proposed proposition, call it a new Proposition 98, would provide an adequate amount of funds by increasing the funding from 11% to 15% or 18% of General Fund Expenditures that it once was 10 years ago. 

 

Three, have the legislature or a group of citizens put forth a new proposition that would expand the scope of the original Proposition 98, in force today, to include both the UC and CSU schools as well as the K-14 grades it covers today.

 

Summary Comments:

 

Another alternative solution could be a cap on the number of non-resident students.  This would only help the admission of resident students if funds were provided to make up for the loss of tuition from decreasing the number of non-resident students NOT admitted.

 

Obviously this is a very difficult challenge for the State and the Universities to solve.  One of the Legislative Offices suggested I meet with the President of the                               

 

U C System, Janet Napolitano, to discuss my ideas and see if there is anything I could do to help pursue any of the proposed possible solutions I discussed and get her input on the solutions she is pursuing.   I would also appreciate any input from people in the audience for me to consider.