The University of California is entering into a very difficult and dangerous period in its relationship with the State of California. If UC is going to survive as the premiere institution that we all value, a mobilized faculty and links with other parts of our constituency are essential.
It has been evident for some time that a string of ballot propositions puts CSU and UC in a very difficult position. Propositions 13, 98, 3 Strikes, etc. have restricted the ability of California’s governments to raise revenue while putting major conditions on how it is spent. The K-14 educational system has a mandated funding base (even if it isn’t adequate to all its needs). But California’s public higher educational system is locked into direct competition with state prisons, which “3 Strikes” mandates to receive an increasing set of expenditures. Everyone has known that a day of reckoning is coming for CSU and UC, but it is coming sooner than we had expected.
Right after the November elections, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) released a report entitled CALIFORNIA’S FISCAL OUTLOOK, with conservative projections that lead to alarming conclusions. It makes clear that unless changes are made in current law, “Corrective actions will be necessary to avoid a budget deficit in 1997-98.” “Left unchecked, [this] budget deficit would continue to grow over time,” even if the economy flourishes. A major factor driving this unexpected development is that under Proposition 98, K-14 expenditures are mandated to grow even faster than the budget as a whole. It is important to note that this projected deficit is based on the assumption that FACULTY WOULD RECEIVE NO MORE THAN COST OF LIVING INCREASES (thus making no progress on reducing the gap between their salaries and those of the comparison institutions) and that student fees would increase by the rate of inflation.
The Governor’s current budget proposal DOES advance faculty salaries beyond the rate of inflation for 1997-98 AND freezes student fees once again. But the LAO’s report makes it clear that the picture will be even more difficult for 1998-99. Given the highly politicized way in which recent budget debates have been framed, student fee issues and the tenth campus will most likely occupy center stage.
Student Fees:
At the January Regents’ meeting UC announced plans to work with CSU, the Dept. of Finance, and the legislature to develop a new state student fee policy that would take into consideration the total resources needed to maintain access and quality and allow UC to maintain at least its current share of the state General Fund.
Assembly Speaker Bustamante (D, Fresno) has responded by introducing AB 1415 which would state the intent of the Legislature that, in order to keep student fees at CSU and UC as reasonable as possible, the proportional shares of those institutions in the annual state General Fund budget be at least maintained at 1997-98 fiscal year levels.
In order to keep options open, UC sought legislators to introduce a spot bill (placeholder) that would tie student fee increases and budget increases to enrollment and to growth in per capita personal income.
In this context, Assemblymember Ducheny (D, National City) who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee, would freeze fees for all students (including graduate and professional students) until the year 2000; commencing with 2000, fee increases would be limited to the percentage change in per capita personal income from the previous year. The bill specifies that the Regents would need to approve these provisions. It further states that it is the INTENT of the Legislature that annual General Fund appropriations for support for the segments be calculated in a manner that considers the number of students enrolled in each segment and the percentage of change in California’s per capita personal income during the preceding calendar year.
The fee freeze idea came from Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, as was also presented at the Regents’ meeting. He has also said that the statement of intent in the bill would not establish a fixed system such as the voter-approved Proposition 98 and therefore would allow the state more options than would a constitutionally mandated program. (ED: But doing so would not guarantee adequate funds for UC on an on-going basis.)
Campus X:
The Sacramento Bee has reported that the new Speaker of the State Assembly, Cruz Bustamante, from the central valley, has made building the Merced campus his top priority. At an Assembly Higher Education budget hearing, President Atkinson, responding to questions from Assemblyman Cardoza (D- Turlock) said that UC is on schedule in planning for a tenth campus for 1000 students in 2005 and 5000 students in 2010. He emphasized that the Legislature must be clear about meeting the commitment to current students, noting that UC has space on existing campuses for now but will meet difficulty around the year 2005. Cardoza asked when a letter of intent will go to CPEC (a necessary first step in providing a new campus) and Atkinson responded that he expected that to happen late this summer.
In fact, Senator Monteith (R, Modesto) has introduced SB 580 which would request the Regents to allocate from the general fund of the university an unspecified sum for the purpose of planning and developing a proposed UC campus in Merced.
These twin developments threaten a genuine crisis for the quality of UC and faculty welfare. But they also create opportunities. Speaker Bustamante and the student lobby could be powerful allies IF they were persuaded that their victories over fees and the 10th campus would be pyrrhic if new revenues for UC (and CSU) are not found. What might these new revenue sources be? What would they require in changes to the State constitution? The long-term funding proposal discussed above doesn’t yet address the constitutional issues raised by the LAO’s analysis. Informed sources tell us that UCOP is seeking Speaker Bustamante’s support for a voter proposition to finance the 10th campus. But this might meet only the construction costs of the new campus and still leave the recurrent cost needs of all of UC unattended. Such “details” are critical if the quality of UC is going to be maintained. We need to form an email task force of faculty to find appropriate solutions and to work with other major interests that see a need for change. Contact <dfamhays@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us> to participate in this endeavor.
The Faculty Associations are the only group in Sacramento lobbying solely for faculty interests. The Academic Senate, whose functions the FAs are committed to preserve and enhance, does not work with the legislature save through the Office of the President. UCOP is in a politically difficult position because of the multiple constituencies it serves. Thus the FAs need to play a critical role in this crisis. IF THE EXCELLENCE OF UC IS GOING TO BE SAVED, YOUR CAMPUS FA NEEDS YOUR MEMBERSHIP AND IT NEEDS YOU TO VOLUNTEER THROUGH IT TO PRESS OUR CASE WITH LEGISLATORS WHEN CALLED UPON. The future of the University is literally in your hands. (See Join the DFA.)
Note: This article draws heavily on an essay by David Leonard, President of the Council of UC Faculty Associations.