In the face of one of the most substantial statewide budget cuts proposed to date, the University of California is considering raising the already lofty salaries of chancellors at each of the 10 major UC campuses, likely at the cost of suppressing rising student fees.
According to an article published Wednesday in the San Francisco Chronicle, administrators said they believe the proposed chancellors’ salary modifications, expected to increase by about one-third, are necessary to conform to market rates.
Also among the proposed budget readjustments discussed during the UC Regents’ meeting Wednesday was the approved 17 percent increase in the salaries of UC Provost and Chief Operating Officer Wyatt Rory Hume and Vice President Anne Broome, whose compensation packages have remained well beneath industry standards for administrators in similar positions nationwide for the past several years.
These points were part of a larger discussion of the proposed 2008-2009 UC budget, which calls for a $406.3 million increase in expenditures over the current term’s aggregate.
Lamentably and not surprisingly, the planned increase is not within the expected state funding provisions for the UC in the coming academic year, leaving a $28.1 million budget deficit for 2008-2009, even with an expected revenue increase of $378.2 million.
These shortcomings will only be intensified if policymakers’ proposed 10 percent across-the-board budget cut is implemented when the state budget proposal is released in January.
Though the regents ultimately decided to table final budget decisions until state budget figures are released, it looked as though at least partially alleviating the budget’s shortfalls would be contingent on using student fee increases, despite protests from students and several state legislators.
The board’s finance committee approved a plan that includes a possible fee increase of approximately 7 percent.
The regents can hardly be blamed for trying to provide administrators with adequate compensation, especially when the salaries for such positions within the UC often fall far behind the standards set by universities of comparable size and academic prestige and who are potential competitors as employers of those with such leadership qualities.
However, the burden of providing this compensation should not fall upon the shoulders of students whose fee requirements have continued to rise consistently for several years.
It is the responsibility of the regents to be conscious of the mounting pressures on state officials to provide adequate funding to dozens of state-funded programs and institutions in a system that seems to be irretrievably under-financed, and to plan fiscal disbursements accordingly.
University leaders, students and California voters must take it upon themselves to exert appropriate pressure on state legislators and upon the governor to not implement budget cuts that require unrealistic if not impossible restructuring to compensate for the loss in funding.
Amid the conflict between state and university officials, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, who holds an ex officio position on the board of regents, was present and was very vocal in his opposition to the possibility of student fee hikes.
If any of the individuals involved in the discussions is deserving of praise, it is he.