Our lives > Their data

We are the pulse of the future. It’s time to prioritize people over power-hungry centers. 🛑💻

Rebuilding the Civic Compact: Addressing the Trust Gap in Higher Education

The relationship between public universities and the communities they serve is reaching a critical inflection point. As institutional costs rise and perceptions of political bias take hold, the trust gap between higher education and the public continues to widen.

I recently attended a webinar that explored these very tensions, offering a roadmap for how institutions can move from technical compliance toward genuine relational bureaucracy. The discussion featured a distinguished panel of leaders who have spent decades navigating the intersection of academic mission and public accountability:

• E. Gordon Gee: Former President of West Virginia University and a seminal voice in university leadership.

• David Rosowsky: Senior Advisor to the President at Arizona State University and expert in the "New American University" design.

• Stephen M. Gavazzi: Director of CHRR at The Ohio State University and a leading researcher on the land-grant mission.

Key Themes: Why Trust is Faltering

The panel identified several core drivers of the current disconnect:

1. Rising Costs: The financial burden on students and families creates a transactional rather than transformational relationship.

2. Perceived Bias: A growing sentiment that universities are no longer neutral spaces for diverse perspectives.

3. The Erasure of the Public Compact: A shift away from the foundational land-grant philosophy of serving the specific needs of local citizens.

Re-Envisioning the Land-Grant Mission

A central takeaway from the conversation was the need for a reinterpretation of the compact. As policy administrators, we must ask: How do we ensure our institutions are not just in the community but also of the community?

To rebuild this civic trust, the panelists suggested that higher education must prioritize data-driven excellence and transparent engagement, realigning university goals with the lived experiences of the public.

Continued Learning and Resources

For those interested in the critical policy analysis of higher education’s role in society, I highly recommend the following resources discussed by the panel:

• Watch: Link 

• Read: Land-Grant Universities for the Future and What’s Public About Public Higher Ed? by Gavazzi and Gee.

• Analyze: Morrill Act 250: Reinterpreting the Public Research University Compact as Civic Trust in America’s Third Century by Gavazzi, Gee, and Rosowsky.

The Policy Nexus Perspective: Rebuilding trust is not a marketing problem; it is a governance challenge. It requires us to evaluate our administrative timelines and structures to ensure they are inclusive of the very public they were designed to serve.

Agentic AI & The Discretion Gap: Are We Automating Administrative Judgment?

The conversation often focuses on efficiency as we rush to adopt agentic AI tools like Google’s Project Astra, which not only answer questions but also take independent actions. We talk about AI partners that can schedule our lives and manage our professional logistics. But in the public sector, we have to ask a harder question: When an AI agent takes an action, who is exercising discretion?

 

Recently, my colleague Annie Bui (DPA-C) shared a fascinating look at the future of these universal AI assistants. Her post sparked a vital question about how these tools fit into our daily professional lives as public administrators and researchers.

                                      View the original discussion on LinkedIn 

As a DPA student and public commissioner, I look at these tools through the lens of Administrative Chrononormativity. Institutional timelines are already rigid; they often exclude those with non-normative life cycles, caregivers, low-income residents, and those navigating the complexities of the behavioral health system.

If we move toward an agentic state where AI agents manage scheduling, service delivery, and follow-ups, we risk two major failures:

1. As Michael Lipsky famously argued, the discretion of a human bureaucrat is often the only thing that makes a cold system human. Is it possible for an AI partner to make an exception for a grandmother who arrives five minutes late to a clinic due to a bus delay?

2. Agentic AI moves in milliseconds. If our administrative systems begin to move at that speed, we further marginalize anyone who lives outside the "normative" digital clock. This isn't just a tech issue; it's a social justice issue.

The Nexus

We shouldn't fear the technology, but we must frame it correctly. An AI can be a powerful assistant, but it cannot be an administrator. Administrative discretion is a legal and ethical responsibility, one that requires a human soul to weigh the nuances of equity and community health. 

As we integrate these partners, we must ensure we aren't just building a faster bureaucracy but a more responsive one. Are we designing for the traveler’s convenience or the citizen’s due process?

Safety Tips for Peaceful Protesting

Today, millions are making their voices heard to advocate for a more equitable and secure future. The decisions made in the halls of power impact us all, and active participation is the most effective tool we have to ensure our leadership remains accountable to the people.

We are incredibly proud of the Field Team 6 partners hosting events today. With over 30 in-person registration drives underway, we are working to ensure every individual has the opportunity to claim their seat at the table.

Participation doesn’t end at the rally; it culminates at the ballot box. By registering and voting this November, we can shape a legislature that prioritizes transparency and reflects our shared values. Your voice is essential to holding our systems of governance to the highest standard.

We wanted to share some resources to help you stay safe.

ACLU: Know your rights as a protestor

TPN: Digital safety guide

Human Rights Campaign: Prepare for a peaceful protest

 

We all believe in the power of peaceful protest, and these guides help ensure that you and those around you remain safe and impactful.

If you capture any moments that you’d like to share with the Policy Nexus community, please upload them HERE.

Thank you for being the energy that keeps our democracy active and accountable.

Moving at the Speed of Trust: Reforming Mandated Reporting through SBX

Administrative Artifact

Sigma Beta Xi (SBX) is a community-anchored organization in the Inland Empire, founded in 1998 by Dr. Corey Jackson to provide professional mentoring and advocacy for youth and families of color. SBX serves as the primary model for relational bureaucracy, moving public service away from "Power Over" (surveillance and policing) toward "Power With" (partnership and support). I say this because SBX is currently executing a $7.5M state-funded pilot program to reform mandated reporting laws. 

This initiative ensures that families are not penalized for the "sludge" of poverty but are supported through community-led intervention. Let me explain: This project addresses temporal sovereignty. Instead of forcing families to comply with rigid, punitive "institutional clocks" that often lead to child removal, SBX builds the capacity of the family to thrive on its own terms.

Temporal Tension

In May 2024, 22 fathers in Riverside County graduated from the PEI Fatherhood Initiative. This success was possible because the program didn't "fail" a father for a missed appointment due to a work conflict or transportation barrier; it adjusted to the human reality.

“Speed of Trust” Graduation

This trust-based co-production results in higher retention, lower recidivism, and the preservation of the family unit, proving that flexible, community-anchored timelines are the key to health equity.

Relational Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity

This video features a message from Assemblymember Dr. Corey Jackson, the founder of SBX, whose work on mandated reporting and family preservation is the central case study for your presentation.

"This isn't just a graduation; it's a successful strike against administrative chrononormativity."

Time as a Luxury: The Administrative Chrononormativity of Housing

In the world of real estate speculation, speed is the ultimate metric. The "fix-and-flip" model relies on a compressed timeline: buy, renovate, and exit within 18 months. But as I explore in my research on Administrative Chrononormativity, these high-velocity market timelines are fundamentally at odds with the "slow equity" required for marginalized communities to thrive.

The Amsterdam News recently highlighted a push to tax "Toxic Flipping" in New York. The logic is simple: if you move too fast, you pay more. This is a direct challenge to the idea that the "normative" life cycle of a home is a liquid asset.

The IE Perspective

In the Inland Empire, we are seeing "The Great Reset." Inventory is hitting 5-year highs, yet affordability remains out of reach for 76% of Riverside County households. When a corporate entity flips a home in San Jacinto, they aren't just making a profit; they are disrupting a community’s timeline. They are replacing a potential 30-year family legacy with a 12-month capital gain.

Redefining the Clock

As we look at California's SB 1091 (CAPP), we see a different approach to time. By attaching 55-year affordability restrictions to acquired units, the state is attempting to "slow down" the neighborhood.

Policy is not just about who gets the house; it's about how long they are allowed to stay there without being outpaced by a market clock they didn't set. We must champion policies that protect the "slow" life cycles of our seniors, our queer families, and our low-income neighbors.

---

Comparison of Legislative Strategies (2026)

Metric	NY: End Toxic Home Flipping Act	CA: SB 1091 (CAPP)
Strategy	Disincentive: Taxing sales < 2 years.	Incentive: Funding for 55-year affordability.
Current Status	Proposed/Caucus Push (March 2026).	In Committee (Set for hearing March 17, 2026).
Primary Goal	Curbing speculation in Black/Brown hoods.	Financing acquisition of market-rate units.

The Chrononormativity of the Quick Flip: Why Speed is a Policy Weapon

 The "Fast" vs. The "Firm"

The Amsterdam News recently highlighted a push for the End Toxic Home Flipping Act, a tax targeting investors who buy and sell homes within a two-year window. From a public administration lens, this isn't just about money; it’s about administrative chrononormativity.

Our current housing policies often favor the "normative" speed of capital, the 12-to-24-month turnaround that generates maximum ROI for corporate entities. But what about the life cycles that don't fit that pace?

• The senior who has lived in their home for 40 years.

• The LGBTQ+ family is building stability in a historically safe neighborhood.

• The person with a disability whose housing needs require permanent, slow-build modifications.

When we allow the "quick flip" to set the market pace, we are administratively excluding anyone who requires a long-term life cycle. The "End Toxic Home Flipping Act" isn't just a tax; it’s a policy intervention intended to slow down the clock, giving communities of color and marginalized groups the time they need to maintain equity and generational wealth.

In the Inland Empire, where displacement is accelerating, we must ask: Whose timeline are we protecting? The speculator’s 18-month exit strategy, or the resident’s 30-year legacy?

---

Comparison of Policy Approaches

Feature	New York: End Toxic Home Flipping Act	California: SB 1091 (CAPP)
Primary Tool	Taxation (disincentivizing fast sales)	Funding (buying units for preservation)
Time Focus	Targets sales within 2 years	Targets 55-year affordability terms
Direct Benefit	Revenue for affordable housing	Direct "Anti-Displacement" acquisitions