The University of California has budgeted $6.9 million to spend on restructuring administrative procedures in light of previous controversies over undisclosed staff compensation packages that were brought to light in 2005.
The UC intends to conduct a full review of administrative operations to find a way to minimize cost and to save money for students, according to a press release.
The university also wishes to increase oversight mechanisms, improve customer service between the Office of the President and the various UC campuses, and better define its employees’ roles.
UC Board of Regents Chairman Richard Blum said the move would ultimately allow more money to reach students.
“The investment we make now will generate returns many times over and will free up resources for pressing academic priorities,” he said in a statement.
But others said they are skeptical of the measure’s timing.
“It’s come as a surprise and a contradiction to what the UC has been telling us,” said Tina Park, external vice president of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, adding that she is uneasy about the cost of the program and its potential benefit to students.
“The UC keeps telling us we don’t have enough money and we need to raise fees. They’ve said we’re in a budget crisis, but we see them setting out a $7 million effort to do this. We see the changes in our fees but not in the classroom ““ so I would like to see the commitment to academic commitment made in writing,” she said.
This is the latest in a series of efforts by the UC to improve transparency that began after a San Francisco Chronicle article in November 2005 revealed that the university had paid staff millions of dollars in undisclosed compensation.
The controversy recalled a similar incident in 1992 when a $1 million severance and pension package was approved without public oversight for former UC President David Gardner, and an audit of university money showed $2 million of staff expenses had been spent on luxury hotel rooms and parties, among other things.
The most recent controversy led to the introduction of SB 190 into the state Senate, a bill which would require public disclosure of executive compensation issues.
“Certainly the practices of the past have not been working out. Taxpayers and students deserve to know where their money is being spent,” said Adam Keigwin, a spokesman for Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who introduced the bill.
But Keigwin said the university’s planned reviews would not by themselves lead to a faultless system.
“Regardless of what structural changes are made, executive compensation decisions have to be made in public,” he said.
Park also said she would like to see greater public oversight of university spending.
“I think (the UC will) have to maintain a lot of transparency throughout the entire process, so that people see how much is going into salaries, academic programs and our fee rates. Without that, the public, students and their families are going to feel cheated, as they have,” she said.