Governor, Brown Both Seek to Block University Fee Hike

Gov. George Deukmejian vowed to block a Democrat-proposed fee increase for university students Wednesday, and within hours Democratic Assembly Speaker Willie Brown asked a budget conference committee to remove the hike from a $37.5-billion state spending plan.

Brown claimed through a spokeswoman that he did not know the fee increase for University of California and California State University system students had been included in the version of the budget approved by the Assembly earlier in the day with the Speaker’s strong backing.

“He had no idea it was in the budget,” said Susan Jetton, Brown’s press secretary. “He said he wanted it out. He opposes fees.”

The Assembly version of the 1986-87 budget, approved by a vote of 54 to 14, called for a fee increase of $117 a year for UC students and $57 a year for state university students. In each case, it would have been an increase of slightly less than 10% from current levels.

Deukmejian, at a Capitol press conference, took advantage of the opportunity to champion the cause of lower student fees.

“If we’re going to be able to continue to make higher education accessible to students, then we have to be very careful not to place those fees at such a level that this would prevent some of them from getting their higher education,” said the Republican governor, who in 1983 sponsored the controversial imposition of a $50 fee for community college students.

Referring to university fees, Deukmejian said, “We think the level that they’re at right now is appropriate and it’s not excessive.”

Currently, students at the University of California pay $1,245 annually in fees. At the state universities, student fees are $573 annually.

When first asked to respond to the governor’s comments, Brown (D-San Francisco) said: “I don’t know anyone who will propose a fee increase for state university students. . . . Nobody advocates fees except the governor. Nobody.”

Later, according to Jetton, Brown was surprised to learn that the Assembly version of the budget--which he had just voted for--called for the fee increase.

His office quickly dashed off a letter to the conference committee requesting deletion of the fee increase and saying, “We should do everything possible to assure that fees remain as low as possible.”

The Democrat-controlled conference committee is likely to honor the Speaker’s request before it returns the budget bill to both houses of the Legislature for final approval.

The increase in fees, first proposed early in the year by former Legislative Analyst William G. Hamm, was added by an Assembly budget committee weeks ago during the budget preparation process. Hamm said a formula for such a fee increase was spelled out in legislation passed last year and accepted by university student representatives. The increase would save the state about $26 million.

In sending the bill to the conference committee, the Assembly ended a three-day stalemate by rejecting two amendments that would have limited the use of state funds for abortions.

One of those amendments, however, is identical to a provision adopted by the Senate on Tuesday. The Senate version of the budget, while including $40 million for family planning programs, would prevent up to $26 million of it from going to clinics--including 16 run by Planned Parenthood--that refer women for abortions.

The difference between the two houses on the issue of abortion is one of a number of disagreements that must be ironed out by the conference committee during the next several weeks.

Other key issues to be decided by the six-member committee include whether to cut the budget of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and the office of the state insurance commissioner.

The committee began its deliberations by hearing from a parade of legislators pleading for funds for pet projects in their districts or provisions they favor that are included in only one version of the budget.

At his press conference, Deukmejian said he was prepared to veto hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget in order to maintain a $1-billion reserve fund for economic uncertainty. The Senate version of the budget provides for a reserve of $450 million, while the Assembly proposes a reserve of more than $700 million.