The UC Board of Regents voted to publicly oppose Proposition 92, the upcoming ballot initiative aimed at increasing funding for community colleges in California.
But, the decision was not unanimous since both Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and student Regent Ben Allen abstained from voting to oppose the proposition during the regents’ open-session meeting at UCLA on Thursday.
If passed by state voters, Proposition 92 will create constitutional provisions to lower community college student fees from $20 to $15 per unit, limit future fee increases, specify the composition of its governing board, and recognize the California community colleges in the state constitution for the first time.
The regents’ decision to publicly oppose the proposition is unusual since they rarely take a specific position on legislation that does not directly affect them.
But, the proposed additional funding of $900 million over three years would come from the state’s General Fund, which is the main source of UC allocations, Executive Vice President Bruce Darling said.
Darling added that because both institutions would be seeking financing from the same place, the approval of the act has the potential to reduce UC funding and force a student fee hike.
UC President Robert Dynes said the proposed initiative puts the university in what he described as the awkward position of having to publicly oppose the community colleges. Since no specific provision exists that guarantees the allocation of state funds to the university, if the community colleges get more funding the UC will likely get less, Dynes said.
“It’s important to support the needs of the community colleges, however I couldn’t imagine coming to you as a president with a ballot motion that would enhance our position at the expense of a sister institution,” Dynes added.
Allen, who abstained from voting, said he believes Proposition 92 is problematic because it could tie up more of the state budget.
Regent Peter Preuss said he thought it was very important to take a strong position against codifying into state legislation what he saw as a proposed grab at a large portion of resources from the state General Fund by the community colleges.
Regent Joanne Kozberg agreed, adding that she knew the community colleges would not propose such an initiative unless they felt they were terribly in need of money.
Many of the regents said they wanted to emphasize the fact that their desire to protect the needs of the UC in no way precluded their interest in also supporting the needs the community colleges.
But, Allen said he wished the regents’ official statement of opposition to the proposition had included a mention of the UC’s commitment to engage with the community colleges as valued partners in higher education.
“This is a PR nightmare,” Regent Odessa Johnson said, adding that she didn’t want people to get the impression that the UC wanted all the state money for themselves.
Regent Eddie Island said he saw no option but to oppose Proposition 92 since he believed it to be a blatant move on the part of the community colleges to nab discretionary funds in the legislature.
“We ought to say so straight out, and not be embarrassed by it, and not be cute about it,” Island said.
Garamendi said his abstention from the vote to publicly oppose the proposition was because he had yet to take a formal position on the issue.
In addition to the vote on Proposition 92, Regent Gerald Parsky updated the board on what he said was positive progress regarding the Department of Energy lab contract.
Because of prior mismanagement of lab security, the contract with the Los Alamos National Laboratory was altered to include the consultation of a private company, which has cost the university $175 million in new taxes and contractual fees in the past year.
The regents also passed a motion which specified that a regent must fill the position of chairman on the oversight committee for the LANL and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
The regents also passed Regent Sherry Lansing’s motion to establish the title of Regent Emeritus for all ex-board members who had either fulfilled their term of office or served for a minimum of five years.
With the exception of Island, the regents agreed that this will help increase donations and assistance from ex-members.
“It degrades the accolade to give it indiscriminately,” Island said. “I am embarrassed to sit on a board that would create such an award.”
In other business, the board voted to approve President Dynes’ compensation package which includes an above-scale faculty salary of $245,000 at UC San Diego, a year-long administrative leave at his presidential salary of $405,000, a retirement pension of nearly $150,000, full benefits, and reimbursement for all moving costs back for him and his lab back to San Diego.
Garamendi was the lone dissenter opposing the compensation package in the face of what he considered unfairly low salary brackets for service workers and potential student fee hikes.
“Until this university deals with the bottom of the rung, I’m a “˜no’ vote on the top of the rung,” Garamendi said.