California cut state funding for the University of California system by more than $1 billion in the past five years. To shore up the UC’s budget, the University has proposed various alternative revenue-generating strategies to be enacted as soon as the upcoming fiscal year.
Though this effort is a move in the right direction, it is concerning that the UC has made little effort to inform the public of its progress on these initiatives – especially since some of the proposed changes could directly impact students.
The UC Office of the President presented possible alternative funding plans at the November meeting of the UC Board of Regents, focusing on what it calls “outside-of-the-box” ideas to increase available funding.
The UC Office of the President has not indicated what steps have been taken to realize these goals since November. At present, the most recent information concerning these proposals made publicly available is a Powerpoint presentation available on the Office of the President’s website, said Dianne Klein, a UC spokeswoman.
While the effort to find new funding should be applauded, information regarding the progress of these imminent proposals is largely inaccessible at this time – a point of concern considering these actions are projected for enactment as early as the 2013-2014 academic year.
Some approaches to generating new revenue include increasing efforts to modify the state lease bond debt to allow the UC to refinance the bonds with less state oversight and to restructure the financial aid model.
The University is already working on enacting plans for new revenue sources, Klein said. According to the presentation on the UC Office of the President’s website, restructuring revenue bonds alone could net up to $80 million in additional funds for the UC. Revenue projections for all the “outside-of-the-box” ideas vary in clarity and size.
The UC appreciates renewed efforts by Gov. Jerry Brown to supply more funds for higher education for the upcoming school year, Klein said. But even with the possible increases, state funding will fall short of the UC’s annual operational costs, she added.
Though there is likely reinvestment of public funds into the UC this year, largely due to Proposition 30’s success, it is still important to recognize, as the UCOP has, the changing atmosphere of higher education funding as instability in federal and state support persists.
The UC is a public university and should provide updated information on the proposals’ advancements to the public. While the presentation presents broad strokes, Californians do not have easy access to details of that process.
Considering the tumultuous nature of the national and state economies in the new year, especially after the fiscal cliff and sequester ordeals, providing the most current information on financial policies is essential.
Granted, the UCOP cannot finalize its budget plans until the state approves a 2013-2014 budget for the University later this year. Still, the lack of updated information since the Board of Regents’ November meeting is especially problematic when some of those proposed changes could have a profound effect on students in a matter of months.
One proposed change would restructure the financial aid model to reduce costs. Currently, one third of the revenue generated by tuition goes back into aid to help needy UC students, Klein said. Under the proposed changes, this “return-to-aid” system may be replaced with a separate fund that is supplied via philanthropy, which would free up tuition money to go toward other operational costs.
But because the public lacks information on what specific changes will be made, it is unclear how a restructure of the financial aid model would actually impact students. Additionally, there is no concrete projection for how much money would be saved or generated by the change to the financial aid model.
Information should become available online, detailing particular actions being taken by the UC as soon as they happen. The Office of the President already has an accessible website that could serve as a platform for interaction with the students and those invested in the University’s future.
The state may be providing more funding for the UC now, but it can’t guarantee similar stability in future years.
The UCOP should continue to think creatively about revenue sources and take quantifiable steps toward implementing them, all while engaging the public in a timely manner.
Hey! STUDENT ALERT, STUDENT ALERT!!!!!!!!! Message to UCLA DAILY BRUIN EDITORIAL STAFF: YOU are a bunch of worthless POS’s. WE THE STUDENTS OBJECT to Deans of certain colleges HERE at UCLA , after increasing our tuitions, deans still get mega high pensions and salaries. WE ARE PISSED because just a few yrs ago OUR TUITION WENT UP BY 32%. WE ARE PISSED BEACUASE YOU IDIOTS DONT REPORT the deans salaries, how they raised them, other shananagins, which is your job if you’re really journalists and not some spin machine that covers up the relevent news, while spining for machine candidates like you did in this last election for PAUL (TAXMAN) KORUPTZ in LA CITY COUNCIL 5 (Westwood)!!!!!! So make it up to us students and do your job, report 200 – 400k salaries of deans at UCLA that are forcing up OUR tuitions YOU BIACHES!!!!!! Report how they were supposed to go down until those corrupt sob’s like you covered it up so us students would be in the dark. GET the whole story too, don’t just write some cover spin, soft on the deans article, while us students are suffering. WE WANT LOWER TUITIONS not 200 – 400k salaries and pensions you knuckleheads!!!!!!! AND quit buying property and putting up highrise buildings which clog up our streets with more traffic and air pollution. We want a paper that is OBJECTIVE not SUBJECTIVE. Hope this slap in the FACE wakes you up to YOUR attrocities and makes you a better editorial staff, cause right now usuc big time! This message is brought to you by “We the STUDENTS will fuch YOU w/ YOUR paper UNTIL YOU WAKE UP AND START REPORTING LIKE REAL JOURNALISTS committee.”