After months of waiting, the regents of the University of
California are ready to take action ““ but the May Revise is
problematic and their decisions are likely to be controversial.
The regents have debated ways to preserve the quality of the
university ever since the governor’s January budget proposal
told the already-lean UC it would have to take $372 million in
funding cuts.
Now, with the more solid numbers of the governor’s May
Revise and the promises of his budget compact with the UC, regents
have said they will come to a decision on student fee rates for
2005-2006 in their meeting next week.
The revise recommends that the UC raise undergraduate fees by 14
percent this year and 8 percent in 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, and
graduate student fees by 20 percent.
Regents have little choice but to comply with these suggestions
because the UC’s compact with the governor has limited the
possibility of getting more money from the state, and fee increases
are the only viable way to generate money to replace the $372
million reduction.
Regents and UC officials agree the May Revise has relieved the
threat of catastrophe, but it has not made their decisions any more
palatable.
“I’m not thrilled by the contents of the
compact,” said Matt Murray, 2003-2004 student regent.
Steve Olsen, UCLA vice chancellor for budget and finance, said
though the budget compact alleviates the threat of more cuts to the
UC and provides some stability for state funding and student fees,
it will not compensate for the deep cuts.
Olsen said the increased funding, which will be $20.2 million in
2005 and slightly more until 2010, would cover the “nuts and
bolts” necessary for the UC to maintain its quality, but
would not be enough to restore the damage done by successive years
of severe funding reductions.
Olsen said UCLA continues to strive for efficiency as the budget
compact requires ““ communication systems, for example, are
being consolidated ““ but the university is already lean.
“The level of reductions we are facing this year means
that we can’t take all of these reductions on the
administrative side,” he said.
“The budget cuts will have an impact on the instructional
program,” he added. “(UCLA will) undoubtedly have to
cut some courses.”
Regent Ward Connerly expressed the common concern that if the
governor defaults on the agreement, as both of the previous two
governors have done in their dealings with the UC, the university
will have taken cuts and gotten nothing in return.
“I have never been a fan of these agreements because they
are generally one-sided,” Connerly said. “My
understanding is that the governor didn’t really give up
anything, and we have gone along with it.”
The governor said he will fund enrollment growth beginning in
2005 as part of his compact with the UC, but the May Revise offered
no relief for the 7,600 UC-eligible students who were deferred to
community colleges this year.
The deferment, coupled with the fact that the UC cut enrollment
by 3,200 students, has generated concern that the UC is breaking
its promise to take the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates
that is outlined in the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education in
California.
The enrollment cut drew criticism from regents, students and
educational activists who were concerned about access to the UC,
especially as rising fees engendered concern about another of the
university’s master plan goals: affordability.
Both the UC and the governor’s office speculated that the
UC had been accepting more than 12.5 percent in the past few years,
so the UC may have accepted 12.5 percent of graduating seniors
despite the enrollment cut.
New data from the California Postsecondary Educational
Commission on the percentage of eligible students admitted to
higher education institutions will be released May 19 for the first
time since 1996.
The regents will modify the eligibility criteria in an effort to
enroll the master plan goal of the top 12.5 percent of graduating
high school seniors.