University of California President Robert Dynes and Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger praised a new budget compact between the university
and the state when it was announced Tuesday, but it met with more
concern and anger than enthusiasm from some UC officials and
student leaders.
The compact says the UC will absorb about $372 million in budget
cuts as Schwarzenegger proposed in January in exchange for an
assurance from the governor that funding will increase in the
2005-2006 academic year.
The governor called the compact a “solution that is
acceptable to everyone.” Dynes said it meant an end to
enrollment cuts and a return to reliable state funding and
predictable student fees.
“This is an exciting day for the UC,” Dynes
said.
UC regents agree the compact is an improvement over
Schwarzenegger’s January budget proposal, but some cited
continuing problems and unanswered questions. Matt Kaczmarek,
chairman of the University of California Student Association, said
students felt “betrayed” by UC administrators.
The compact requires the UC to offset funding cuts by raising
student fees ““ 14 percent for undergraduates and 20 percent
for graduate students in 2004-2005, and by 8 and 10 percent
respectively for the two following years.
The UC also agreed to provide $12 million for outreach. The
compact implies that the state may provide support for outreach,
but that it would be determined through the normal budget
process.
In return, beginning in 2005 the state will increase the
university’s general funding by 3 percent annually, and
contribute an additional 2.5 percent to allow for enrollment growth
of 5,000 students per year.
The governor also promises to add 1 percent per year to the
UC’s budget from 2008 to 2010.
The compact represents a significant change from the January
budget proposal, which included a 40 percent fee increase for
graduate students, an elimination of outreach funding, and
uncertainty about future cuts.
Margie Pryatel, budget officer for UC San Diego, felt positive
about the compact because it establishes minimum levels for state
support of the university.
“This is the first step in stopping further funding
erosion. This is stabilizing our state funding for the next couple
years,” Pryatel said.
“It’s not going to cover all the holes we’ve
got, but it’s going in the right direction,” she
added.
But some, like the members of UCSA, think the UC could have
gotten a better deal.
“This is not a solution, this is a sellout,”
Kaczmarek said.
He said by forming a compact with the governor and agreeing to
increased student fees, the UC administration “gave up the
fight before it was over.”
Kaczmarek deplored the UC’s decision to side with the
governor, especially because some legislators had opposed the
January budget proposal and were fighting for a better outcome.
Kaczmarek also criticized the outreach funding plan as
“one-sided.”
“From UCSA’s perspective (the enrollment plan)
entirely passes over a whole generation of students who were
graduating from high school this year,” Kaczmarek added.
Regent Velma Montoya also said she was disappointed that the
compact did not include funding for enrollment growth this
year.
“The administrators of UC and CSU created a united front
against the governor, and I think that the governor. was slicker.
… I cannot believe that they couldn’t find the money to
fund enrollment growth at the UC and CSU,” Montoya said.
Matt Murray, student regent for 2003-2004, agreed that the
compact does not do enough to remedy the UC’s financial
woes.
“It’s better than nothing, but in my mind it’s not
enough,” Murray said.
Murray shared UCSA’s concerns about the enrollment cuts
which deferred 3,200 UC-eligible students to community colleges
this year and the continued fee increases.
“If we are ever going to talk about fees going up we need
to make sure that financial aid will be there to support low-income
students,” Murray said.
January’s budget proposal reduced financial aid from the
traditional 33 percent of fees to 20 percent. The compact said
financial aid would be between 20 and 33 percent, but did not go
into specifics.
Jodi Anderson, the student regent designate, also cited these
type of uncertainties in the compact as a cause for concern.
Anderson said she wanted to know where the UC is supposed to get
the $12 million that they agreed to supply for outreach, and added
she was concerned about the state’s ability to keep its
promises.
“What if the budget shortfall is big again next year, is
the compact still going to be honored?” Anderson asked.
Despite concerns about the compact’s deficiencies, regents
agree that it was important.
George Blumenthal, vice chairman of the UC Academic Senate, said
the agreement may have helped preserve the university’s
quality because it gives people hope that the university will be
able to recover financially.
“Without that hope I think that faculty might leave,
students might choose not to come here,” he said.
Blumenthal said though the current year will be painful for the
UC, the UC will begin to recover when the compact’s effects
kick in next fiscal year.
One of the factors of the compact that will contribute to the
UC’s recovery is the provision that the revenue from fee
increases will stay with the university instead of going to the
state.
Though the compact will not alleviate the UC’s hardship in
the current year, he called the agreement “wise” and a
cause for optimism.
“In terms of political reality this (agreement) was the
best possible this year,” he said.