SAN FRANCISCO ““ The University of California Board of
Regents sharply criticized the state government’s compliance
with the Partnership Agreement during discussions of Gov. Gray
Davis’ budget proposal for the fiscal year 2003-2004.
Though the board refrained from in-depth analysis of the
governor’s plan, which cuts over $370 million from the
UC’s base budget, postponing more substantial discussion
until its March meeting, regents expressed their disappointment
with the state’s continued underfunding of the Partnership
Agreement, as well as cuts outlined by Davis.
“I think the best way to keep an understanding of this
budget is that we are $1 billion short in the Partnership,”
said UC President Richard Atkinson.
The Partnership Agreement, negotiated between Atkinson and Davis
in 1999, commits the university to several goals, most
significantly to maintain enrollment growth and access in exchange
for increasing state funds to the UC’s base budget. According
to university figures, Partnership underfunding and base budget
cuts since 2001-2002 total $956.8 million.
Regents Ward Connerly and Richard Blum both expressed strong
dissatisfaction with the Partnership.
Connerly said that under the agreement “we give and they
get,” while Blum called it “unfair” and suggested
it be renegotiated.
However, backing out of the agreement is easier said than done.
Atkinson warned the board that if the UC did not keep its end of
the Partnership, it could abandon long-standing goals.
“Without going into the details of the Partnership, the
only flexibility we have is the quality of the instructional
program and the assurance to admit the top 12.5 percent,” he
said.
While much of the governor’s proposed budget, which
outlines a series of program cuts combined with fee hikes, spells
bad news for the university, the board was able to find at least
some items on the plus side of the ledger, as Davis’ plan
would fully fund anticipated enrollment growth.
“This is very significant given the state’s fiscal
situation,” Atkinson said.
But negative aspects of the budget dominated discussion, as
Assistant Budget Vice President Debora Obley noted that the
proposed 50 percent cut to outreach programs would likely be very
controversial in the state legislature. She listed as examples the
near elimination of funding for K-12 programs, and a reliance on
fee increases to cover $179.1 million in unallocated
reductions.
The governor’s budget does not mandate a fee hike, but
assumes the regents will choose to raise fees rather than make
additional cuts. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a regent by virtue of
his office, raised the possibility that the Legislature could
choose to raise taxes to buy out the fee increase.
Raising the cigarette tax by 10 cents could raise $100 million,
he said.
Though major cuts are a near-certainty, the final budget will
reflect interactions between the governor, legislature and the
university.
Atkinson will present the UC’s position in Sacramento in
March, and a revised proposal will be released in May. Usually, the
budget is finalized over the summer, but last year’s budget
was not approved until September 2002.
Next year is expected to be tougher.
“It’s very, very difficult; next year is going to be
more difficult,” Atkinson said.