Economics students such as myself are led to believe that money is everything.We’re obsessed with cash: where it goes, what it does and how it’s counted.
And from an economic perspective, the recent report from the Center for Investigative Reporting detailing approximately $2 million in luxury travel arrangements and entertainment expenses by UCLA deans and administrators from 2008 to 2012 doesn’t seem outrageous.
After all, considering the more than $2 billion in donations UCLA says it brought in over that same time period, it would seem like a good return on investment.
But the money brought in doesn’t justify the expense. At a time when finances weigh heavily on students’ minds, it’s in poor taste for the university to indulge in luxury. Administrators do a good job of raising money, but it’s not unreasonable to ask them to make more frugal decisions when traveling on UCLA’s dime.
Given the reaction the report garnered among many members of the community and the widespread scrutiny of the expenses by news media, the university should voluntarily release all travel expenditures in each academic year.
Such a move would allow serious scrutiny of administrative spending and dialogue over the necessity of certain travel arrangements. In a time of belt tightening, it’s not unreasonable for students to expect some sacrifice on both ends.
If executives want to indulge in first-rate accommodations, the costs that exceed the more reasonable and frugal choices consistent with university policy should be covered by the deans themselves.
For example, Teri Schwartz, dean of the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television, spent more than $1,000 on a four-day stay in a hotel in Long Beach, Calif. for the 2010 TED conference, according to documents scrutinized by the CIR. This was in direct violation of university policy, which states that hotel reimbursement can only occur if the event is 40 miles away or more. Her hotel was about 30 miles from campus.
The expense was approved on UCLA’s tab, despite the fact that Schwartz had already raked in more than $342,000 in base salary from the university in 2012.
Then there’s Chancellor Gene Block,who spent $40,000 in private chauffeured car services from 2008 to 2012, which he sometimes justified by saying he needed “private setting with ample light,” according to documents obtained by the CIR.
Block brought home more than $424,000 in total pay in 2008, the first year of the CIR’s report.
The situation is not entirely the fault of the administrators. State disinvestment from higher education has forced the administration’s hand, and fundraising provides an alternative to budget cuts and tuition raises. Many times, it’s donor money that keeps programs afloat.
Fundraising is an incredibly valuable resource. But the current situation begs the question of efficiency. Fundraising can be done more cheaply, and the money saved can be put toward other things.
Moreover, there’s nothing wrong with the school providing for its traveling deans and other administrators. After all, they’re doing it in service of the university. However, if university policy specifically states that Schwartz can’t stay in a hotel within a certain range of campus on the school’s dime, and she doesn’t want to commute between Long Beach and Los Angeles, then she should pay for the stay.
Knowing that their expenses would be made public in a travel report would encourage the university’s executives to reconsider their options before making an expensive accommodation, especially one in violation of university policy.
And even if other schools are running up similarly inflated tabs, that’s not an excuse. UCLA isn’t responsible for the administrators at UC Berkeley or USC or Stanford. It’s responsible for the students, staff and faculty in Westwood, and to continue to spend extravagantly while so many students are taking out loans and pinching pennies showsa lack of empathy for the student population.
Rather than justify consistent excess with a playground mentality, UCLA owes it to its students to recommit itself to righting its course, regardless of what other schools are doing.
Dean Teri Schwartz is so greedy she didn’t even want to reimburse the university for the extra 10 bucks she spent having a limo drop off her dog at the kennel. Instead she committed FRAUD by getting the limo company to change the invoice and resubmitting it.
This is a very well written article.
I disagree that this is a well-written article in that you offer no viable solutions to fundraising efforts. You simply complain about how you think it’s somehow morally wrong that the administrations spend school money to rake in even more money for us. “Fundraising can be done more cheaply, and the money saved can be put toward other things.” This sentence alone is so flawed. You are simply assuming that “oh man there must be some better way to fundraise that is inexpensive.” First off do you realize that in order to entertain donors and bring in those MILLIONS these administrators must keep up a certain image and socialize in upper class circles? Every student who screams about how administrators are indulging themselves is just ignorant. For the TED conference, you expect Schwartz to commute every day 30 miles down the 405 just to save a measly $1000? If it wasn’t for these administrators we wouldn’t even have FUNDS. Everyone bashing the administration for not flying coach need to be thanking them for the amounts they have raised that make the cost of their hotel stay insignificant.
Your image of what donors to public universities want is uninformed and simply wrong: the “image” school development officers need to keep up is that of people who will not waste donors’ money. Nothing pisses off a potential donor more than the idea of a school indulging a bureaucrat’s fancies. I think you are confusing a dean with someone who has to impress a film financier. Donors are RELIEVED to be talking to “regular” people rather than the privileged who populate their circles. Sure, deans might need to socialize in upper class circles, but this doesn’t mean they can’t take a taxi instead of a limo or fly coach instead of first-class. If you told a rich businessman and potential donor that the cumulative effect of those sacrifices–2 million dollars–is “insignificant,” he would laugh in your face and ask you to leave his party.
I think you’re the one who’s misinformed. 2 millions dollars for a year to support 17 deans, with $650,000 of that money being spent by Dean Olin of Anderson, which actually has NOTHING to do with our undergraduate tuition. And guess what, she raised 118 million in her fundraising efforts. I mean clearly you know ALL about how donors think and I’m sure you can back that up by raising 120 million in donations as well. Regardless, 2 million dollars well spent in my book. Your argument is based solely on preconceived assumptions about what runs through the mind of a “rich business man.” Don’t act like you know how donors think and feel. “Donors are RELIEVED to be talking to ‘regular’ people” great job speaking for an entire body of people, you have absolutely no authority to do so. And yes, in the face of hundreds of millions earned, a couple million is insignificant. It’s called return on investment so do your research and try again. Later.
Schwartz raised nothing at that TED conference besides her own mood. Check the record. I’ve known plenty of administrators both at UCLA and other institutions who raised far more money than her without violating University rules. They would have been happy to pick up that tab, out of respect for the students and common decency.
Please sign our petition demanding that the Deans involved resign and reimburse the University out of their own pocket.
http://www.change.org/petitions/ucla-dean-travel-scandal
This entire situation with the fraudulent spending of monies especially by Schwartz who brought on no money is outrageous . In my day students would have stormed the castle or at the least protest the misspending of monies . Hopefully the petition to the UC Regents will do it Peaceful student protests and signs and speeches will get results . Let your voice be heard …..sign the petition …..get made as hell ….. It’s your money that is taking dogs to the kennel by chauffeur and your money that is used to pay for their cleaning bill or a visit to a London theater when their salary is more than the Governors
From reading this article and others you mean to tell us that Teri Schwartz makes 100K less than the Chancellor who has far far more responsibilities than Schwartz. She is a Dean of one of the smallest schools on campus and one that I might add has gone down in standing since she became Dean. And I don’t mean 3 or 4 more like double digits . The first time in the history of the school . Come on Ms Schwartz admit it when your beat and leave gracefully.
“Administrators do a good job of raising money…” Really? Dean Teri Schwartz has raised exactly ZERO dollars in her four years at TFT. All she does is spend money. The place is bleeding out. In a recent high-profile ranking of film schools, TFT was ranked behind a school in China that nobody’s ever heard of. Sad state of affairs at a once proud school.
Students are finally back on campus, and time to storm the castle. Dean Schwartz and others are greedy, self centered individuals who al need to go. I’m hearing Schwartz is barely coming into the office these days which further proves her lack of commitment to the school and university as a whole.