SAN FRANCISCO “”mdash; The University of California Board of
Regents’ finance committee deadlocked on whether to increase
student fees Wednesday after an intense debate about the UC’s
budget compact with the governor. It will likely vote on student
fee increases today.
The finance committee voted 5-5 on the fee proposal, which would
raise graduate student fees by 20 percent and undergraduate fees by
14 percent in 2004-2005, followed by 8 percent increases for
undergraduates over the next two years.
Arguments for and against raising student fees intermingled with
controversy over the governor’s compact with the UC.
According to the compact, the state will increase funding beginning
in 2005 in exchange for the university’s acceptance of a $372
million cut this year.
Most regents agree fee increases are unavoidable and that they
must vote tomorrow to give students and their families sufficient
time to plan.
But some regents were concerned about making a decision before
the state budget is finalized in July and the danger of being
locked into unnecessary fee increases.
This concern grew when Larry Hershman, UC vice president for
finance, said some legislators are pushing a proposal to restore
$225 million in funding to the UC to augment faculty and staff
salaries; offer enrollment to the 3,200 students who were denied
admission because of an enrollment cut; provide for enrollment
growth; and fund outreach programs.
California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles,
who is a regent by virtue of his position, said the compact weakens
the Legislature’s negotiating position with the governor and
makes it less likely that legislators will be successful in
restoring these funds.
Nuñez disagreed with UC President Robert Dynes’
often-repeated statement that the compact represents a minimum
funding level ““ “a floor and not a ceiling.”
“Is it a floor? Absolutely not. It wasn’t forged in
the context of a floor. It wasn’t expressed in that
fashion,” Nuñez said.
Dynes and Hershman maintained the compact ““ and therefore
the fee increases ““ was necessary because it avoids further
cuts and gives the UC a measure of financial stability for the
future.
Hershman said the compact is important because it circumvents
the threat of future cuts, which he said seemed likely before the
agreement was reached.
“I think this is some good news; after four years of bad
news, we have an agreement with the governor for the long
run,” Hershman said.
But many regents believe the compact does not provide any real
stability. Nuñez was among the regents who said the compact
offers little assurance, since the promises of increased funding
rest on the idea that the state’s budget situation will
improve enough to meet the governor’s commitments.
“My view is that it takes the wind from under the sails of
those in the Legislature who are looking to more adequately fund
the UC,” Nuñez said, adding that a “yes”
vote on fee increases would compromise the Legislature’s
chances of getting more money for the university.
Regent Ward Connerly criticized the compact as
“one-sided” and “unenforceable,” and said
this is a problem because the UC gets locked into its commitments
““ such as raising student fees ““ because the UC has no
assurances that the governor will keep his promise.
But despite his reservations, Connerly deferred to Dynes and
Hershman’s knowledge and voted for fee increases because he
did not see another option.
Many other regents shared Connerly’s mixed feelings of
reluctance and obligation to pass the fee increases.
“I feel like I have no choice but to vote for this fee
increase, and I don’t want to have to do it,” said
Regent Tom Sayles.
Even Nuñez, who said the Legislature will fight for more
money for the UC, was not sure he would be able to oppose a fee
increase. He said legislators would have to “pick their
fights” in order to try to preserve outreach and fund
enrollment for eligible students this year.
Some regents advanced the idea of notifying students of possible
increases but not voting until more information became
available.
Regent Norman Pattiz was among those who wanted to give students
notice that their fees would probably go up, but leave the wording
open so if the UC did receive more money from the state, the
regents would not have to rescind their decision.
Regent George Marcus also said he was uncomfortable making a
binding decision without more final information about the
budget.
“I would leave it up to the Office of the President to
give guidelines … I don’t think we should get locked in
yet,” Marcus said.
But many at the regents table said the regents have a moral
obligation to give students and parents adequate notice about fees,
especially as summer school students will have to pay their bills
in a matter of weeks.
Regent Peter Preuss related a personal story about how he nearly
had to drop out of school because his tuition suddenly doubled.
“The least that we have to do is have a reasonably
probable worst-case that we can give to the parents about what they
might have to pay,” Preuss said.
Dynes agreed, saying delaying a decision on fees might raise
impossible expectations, and most regents said fee increases were
almost inevitable.
“It is painful to do this, but it is more painful not to
do it and to come back later and raise fees,” Dynes said.
Lawrence Pitts, chairman of the UC Academic Senate, said the
deadlocked vote showed opposition on the board to the fee
increases.
But Pitts also said avoiding a fee increase is unrealistic
because no one has any idea where the money might come from.
“To put off something that is inevitable seems unfair to
parents and students,” Pitts said.