Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Uc Law Campus Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
UC College of the Law, San Francisco seeks $1 million ongoing for campus safety services
Summary
The UC College of the Law, San Francisco requested $1 million ongoing to support a campus safety and "safety practitioner" model that serves the campus and an intersegmental academic village; LAO recommended questions about baseline funding and whether the augmentation maintains rather than expands services.
Get email alerts on the Uc Law Campus Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
David Seward, chief financial officer for the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, and Rhiannon Baylor, the school's chief operating officer, asked the subcommittee for a $1,000,000 ongoing General Fund appropriation to maintain security services on the campus and to support a safety‑practitioner program they said produced community benefits in the Tenderloin and Mid‑Market neighborhoods.
Seward described the institution's intersegmental "academic village," shared housing, and partnerships with other campuses and said the $1,000,000 allocation would support campus safety and related shared services. "This $1,000,000 ongoing allocation is providing dividends not just to our existing campus population, our existing academic village partners, our incoming academic village partners," Rhiannon Baylor told the committee, describing the program's benefits to students and neighborhood safety.
Florence Bouvet of the Legislative Analyst's Office urged the legislature to consider several issues related to the proposal, including that the college would not receive an unrestricted ongoing base increase elsewhere in the budget and that the proposed augmentation, according to information from the college, would support current levels of campus safety spending rather than expand services.
Committee members expressed appreciation for the college's community partnerships and asked clarifying questions about program scope and ongoing funding. No formal vote was taken; members thanked presenters and moved to the next agenda item.
