Were University of California President Mark Yudof a betting man, he would have a couple sure things to place a wager on these days.
The first would be spotting the words “trigger cut” in state legislation on the UC budget. And the second ““ that the university’s budget gap will only balloon in coming years.
But much else surrounding the UC’s budget is unsure. California’s higher education systems are increasingly being roped into the state’s unstable politics ““ a concerning trend.
The most obvious example of this is Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax initiative, known as Proposition 30.
On Wednesday, the UC Board of Regents voted to endorse the tax. Should the initiative pass, a tuition freeze will go into effect. The UC will keep tuition at its current level, in return for a $125 million allocation from the state.
But the state’s appropriation will not materialize until 2013, leaving the university with a budget shortfall in the meantime.
By tying a state institution to the ballot, Brown and the state legislature seem intent to force the electorate, especially younger voters, to pass their initiative.
If the tax measure fails, the UC will receive a $250 million dollar trigger cut. And while the UC Office of the President absorbed last year’s trigger cut of $100 million, the UC’s campuses and students will have no such luck this round.
With this disheartening situation in mind, this board encourages voters to support Brown’s tax initiative.
But we also recognize that, through the tax ballot measure, the state is essentially pinning funding for the UC to the electorate’s mood ““ also a disheartening situation.
Further, there’s the reason why the tax initiative is on the ballot in the first place. Last summer, Brown failed to gather sufficient support from Republicans in the legislature for tax extensions. Asking voters to pass a tax is a way to circumvent lawmakers.
And it looks as though future years will continue the enmeshment of higher education with the state’s fractured politics.
Even assuming that the tax passes, the UC’s financial projections are bleak. If there is no new funding provided to the system, the budget gap will grow to $2.9 billion by 2016-2017.
Placed in this context, a $125 million investment seems paltry.
When Brown’s tax increases expire in a few years, extending them will require going through the state’s political processes.
Instead, either the state and the UC should come to a long-term agreement that guarantees a certain level of funding, or the state should permanently dedicate a tax source to the university.
To secure the future of the UC, state leaders must clear their heads of political schemes.