February 2004

NOTES FROM THE ACADEMIC SENATE CHAIR

LAWRENCE PITTS

 

UC’s BUDGET — NOW AND IN THE FUTURE

 

The Governor released his budget on January 10 and, given the size of the State’s deficits, it is not surprising that UC’s budget was cut substantially. The most chilling and potentially devastating feature of the Governor’s budget was the 40% increase in graduate student fees (on top of a 45% increase in fees over the last 2 years), compounded by an additional 20% rise in fees for out-of-state students. This very serious problem was immediately recognized by the Regents, the administration, and faculty throughout UC. While out-of-state graduate students who are US citizens can qualify for in-state fees after one year, foreign graduate students, who are some of the best in the world, can never qualify as California residents.

 

The excellence of teaching and research at UC in part results from our attracting truly outstanding students to our graduate programs, many of whom remain in California after attaining their advanced degrees and who enrich the State financially and intellectually. The Academic Senate is working with the administration and the Regents to reduce the effect of increased graduate student fees as much as possible in the near term. The Governor and his advisors hold that since graduate education is more expensive than undergraduate education, graduate students should pay more. This simplistic view overlooks entirely the critical contribution graduate students make to the research and instructional mission of the university and to the health and wealth of the state. It is imperative that the Academic Senate, the administration, and the Regents, possibly with the help of the state Legislature, do everything we can to reverse this wrong-headed and short-sighted philosophy.

 

The Governor’s overall budget cuts for UC of nearly $375M are partly to be offset by the graduate and out-of-state fee increases, plus a 10% undergraduate student fee increase (on top of a recent 33% increase). Meeting the increased costs of these fees will be made more difficult for low-income students by the Governor’s proposed limiting to 20% the portion of increased fees to be returned to student aid. The $375M cuts also include a proposed increase in the student/faculty ratio, which would degrade the quality of UC’s education, and which we will not allow. The University plans to take this $35M cut as “undesignated”; agreeing to a worsening of the student/faculty ratio would be very hard to reverse in future budgets. The budget eliminates all funding for outreach. Finally, the budget calls for a 10% decrease in student enrollment for the 2004 entering class roughly 400 fewer freshman students next year for each campus.

 

The Governor’s budget did include restoration of an $80.5M cut in the prior budget, and $34M for annuitant health care. It also included some minimal funding for UC Merced, which allows that campus to remain on target for admitting freshman students in Fall 2005, albeit under constrained circumstances. These new allocations, however, entirely fail to address the underfunding of UC over the past 3 years that amounts to $1.5B less than called for in the “Partnership” with Governor Davis.

 

As you know, the Governor’s budget proposal is only a starting point for a final allocation for UC and other state agencies, and will be the subject of intense discussion and likely modification over the next 5 months or longer. The Legislature eventually will have to pass a budget, and the entire process will depend on the fate of the bond measure allowing the state to borrow some $15B. This debt will have to be repaid in the future, and even a rising state income will not correct the structural budget deficits anytime in the near future, so UC can expect continued budget constraints for several years at least. The Academic Senate, administration and Regents will do everything possible to argue for and secure the most favorable budget possible.

 

As a final budget-related point, I refer you to a message I am sending out to all faculty on the upcoming state ballot Propositions 55, 57, and 58. Proposition 55 is an education capital bond measure that includes funds for UC construction projects. We are hopeful that this measure will pass, and I encourage you to learn how it and the other two propositions may affect your campus.

 

In closing, I sadly note the passing of Richard Goodman (UCLA), esteemed Academic Council member, Chair of UCPB, and member of ACSCONL, who died suddenly last month. Dick was a vital and effective Senate practitioner. He will be missed by all who knew him.