The Regents were quick to blame the latest blow to students on the state’s budget cuts and the budget that Governor Jerry Brown signed last month, which was basically an all-cuts budget due to the fact that the Democrats had to pass the budget with only the support of Democrats, and thus could not raise taxes.
Regents on Thursday claimed that they were not happy about raising the tuition, but called it necessary.
“Faced with enormous financial cuts forced on us by political leaders, we only have a handful of options open to us, and all are horrible options,” said regent Bonnie Reiss. “As much as I hate voting for this increase, I hate even more letting this institution slide into mediocrity.”
“I hate that we have been forced by our state politicians to raise tuition, but I hate even more the possibility of letting UC slide into becoming a second-rate institution,” Ms. Reiss said.
“To not support the faculty is totally irresponsible,” said Regent Richard Blum. “We can’t support the faculty unless we have these tuition increases.”
However, four regents voted against the tuition increase, including Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, who said Thursday, “The biggest threat to our democracy is income inequality, the loss of the middle class. And here we are once again, putting the nail in the coffin of the middle class.”
Regents Eddie Island and George Marcus and student regent Alfredo Morels Jr. also voted against the measure.
The LA Times reported that about twenty students and employees addressed the regents, advocating against the fee hike, but unlike previous meetings where UC Regents voted to extend fee increases, the students and workers waged no major disruptions nor had any notable demonstrations.
UC Officials responded, pointing out that grants will cover tuition for those students whose family make less than $80,000 and UC plans to pay the increase in tuition for one year for those students whose families earn up to $120,000.
Provost Lawrence Pitts noted that UC’s generous financial aid program ensured that roughly 55 percent of UC students would see no fee increase.
“We are very unhappy that we have to raise student fees, but it only meets about a quarter of the need,” Mr. Pitts said. “Quality just cannot go down. We have a much greater risk of losing future students not from having the costs go up, but because the quality goes down.”
UC’s 10 chancellors, many of whom spoke Thursday in support of the fee increase, said students would fare better with slightly higher costs than if campuses made even deeper cuts to their academic programs.
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block said that his campus simply could not absorb more than the $125 million shortfall it already faces. Without the fee increase, UCLA would need to cut an additional $29 million, the equivalent of replacing 168 ladder-rank faculty with lecturers, cutting 324 staffers, or replacing 1,268 California students with out-of-state students who pay the full cost of their education.
“We’ve come to the conclusion that a fee increase is the only way we can meet the additional reduction. We don’t look forward to this, but the cuts are severe.”
Officials were also quick to point out that students are not shouldering the entire burden and that revenue from the latest fee increase would cover about one quarter of the current system budget deficit of $1 billion.
At the same time, the regents granted very large pay increases to at least three top executives.
Mark Laret, Chief Executive Officer, Medical Center, San Francisco Campus received an annual base salary increase of $195,300 and a graduated retention incentive arrangement that would bring Laret’s total cash compensation to $1,222,000 for year one.
Patrick J. Lenz, Vice President of Budget and Capital Resources at UCOP, and Santiago Munoz who was promoted to Associate Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer in the Office of the President were given smaller raises.
UC Officials defended the move, arguing most of the money for Mr. Latet’s salary increase would not come from state funds or tuition money but rather hospital revenue.
Still the move angered many activists. Mario Fuentes told the LA Times that the move was “totally outrageous” and shows everyone how out of touch UC is with the lives of most Californians when they would approve the raise the same day as another massive tuition hike.
“When classes are being cut, tuition is being raised, and staff have seen layoffs and reduction in hours needed to support their families, UC executives must ensure that every taxpayer dollar is used to support its core educational mission, not to subsidize egregious executive salaries or sports enterprises that should be required to support themselves,” said Lakesha Harrison, President of AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) 3299.
UC Officials have apparently not considered seriously some of the proposals from workers who looked to avert future fee hikes and layoffs with a variety of plans.
UC Workers put the blame for the budget squarely on the unwillingness of legislative Republicans to compromise on revenue proposals.
Said AFSCME Local 3299 President Lakesha Harrison last month, “Legislative Republicans’ unwillingness to reach a budget deal is now putting California at risk. Further cuts to the University of California could have devastating consequences for current and future generations of UC students and employees who are already struggling to make ends meet for their families.”
Other the other hand, former UC Regent Bill Bagley, who was appointed by Republican Governor George Deukmejian, told the San Francisco Chronicle “By abdication, the Legislature has enacted a parent tax… It’s a massive, progressive parent tax.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Blaming republicans is a total copout, and abdication of responsibility by the democrats, who pretty much own California now.
A tragedy that will cost much more than dollars and cents and I suppose a victory for the anti-everything folks, who never miss the opportunity to disparage public education ! I’ll bet we find a way to keep all of our correctional and CHP officers . Priorities…
biddlin
Corrections certainly has it’s share of (in my opinion self induced) problems
at the moment with the Supreme Court mandated inmate reduction and now the threatened hunger strike. It will be interesting to see if your prediction is accurate
David, the latter might be a suggested topic for you when you have the time.
[quote]At the same time, the regents granted very large pay increases to at least three top executives.
Mark Laret, Chief Executive Officer, Medical Center, San Francisco Campus received an annual base salary increase of $195,300 and a graduated retention incentive arrangement that would bring Laret’s total cash compensation to $1,222,000 for year one.
Patrick J. Lenz, Vice President of Budget and Capital Resources at UCOP, and Santiago Munoz who was promoted to Associate Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer in the Office of the President were given smaller raises.
UC Officials defended the move, arguing most of the money for Mr. Latet’s salary increase would not come from state funds or tuition money but rather hospital revenue.[/quote]
Raising tuition at the same time as salaries are raised for top level executives is inexcusable, insensitive, arrogant, damages credibility when crying poor mouth, and most definitely sends the wrong message…
Slightly off topic, but there was an excellent op-ed piece in Tuesday’s Davis Enterprise by Tom Elias, complaining how we are training foreign students, so they can go home to their own countries and build companies with the technology/techniques they have learned and effectively compete with our own businesses in this country. Or the foreign students displace our own students, so that our own students are not getting educated. Food for thought…
Regarding the foreign students, does anyone know what they pay in tuition compared to in state fees ? Might be a short term vs long term gain consideration.
[b]Elaine[/b], one other possible outcome:
…or, the best and brightest might stay here, become citizens and build successful companies that provide hundreds of jobs for their fellow Americans.
My opinion (unsupported by any legit research, as far as I know) is that the changes we’ve made in our higher education system shoulder more blame than do foreigners edging our kids by stealing university slots.
Our tuition-free universities suffered from Prop. 13 and subsequent financial shenanigans, from “big business” strategic plans for the schools and for the overwhelming of Big Education at universities by Big Sports. A few open the doors for their future careers in sports (never mind that they tend to depart without an education whether or not they go pro).
The schools recruit these athletically gifted folks as well as otherwise-gifted foreigners who can help us balance university budgets by paying even higher tuition.
Haven’t we pretty well given up the old-fashioned, tuition-free-days’ goal of providing a quality education to every Californian? Instead, we come up with lame rationale to “justify” health-care-like inflation at public schools.[quote]”I hate that we have been forced by our state politicians to raise tuition, but I hate even more the possibility of letting UC slide into becoming a second-rate institution…,”[/quote]jokes Ms. Reiss, who must be the only non-politiician Regent.[quote]”We are very unhappy that we have to raise student fees, but it only meets about a quarter of the need….Quality just cannot go down….We have a much greater risk of losing future students not from having the costs go up, but because the quality goes down,”[/quote]jokes Mr. Pitts, who calculates that every $1 of student fee increase somehow will cover $4 of potential lost quality.[quote]”UC Officials defended the move, arguing most of the money for Mr. Latet’s salary increase would not come from state funds or tuition money but rather hospital revenue,”[/quote]jokes someone, pretending that a $1-million-plus starting pay schedule really doesn’t mean anything because the money comes from a different pile (RDA funds, perhaps?).
[quote]Regarding the foreign students, does anyone know what they pay in tuition compared to in state fees ? Might be a short term vs long term gain consideration.[/quote]
Foreign students are paying out of state tuition, which is a lot of the reason the university systems are courting them.
[quote]..or, the best and brightest might stay here, become citizens and build successful companies that provide hundreds of jobs for their fellow Americans. [/quote]
From the Elias op-ed piece: “This scientist… worries that “Americans don’t understand the theft that goes on. The Chinese, for example, have no real higher educational system of their own, so they send people here to learn not only methods but also our ways of thinking….What the NSF statistics also don’t show is that many of the foreign-born Ph.D.s listed as staying in the U.S. after they graduate also are working in their home countries.”
That was a great op-ed piece by Elias. It was a little alarmist, but I found myself thinking about the left template that blames greedy over-paid corporate executives for outsourcing so many American jobs… but nary a peep about greedy over-paid state university executives training so many foreigners to take over whole industries and giving away our industrial and technology secrets that are our competitive advantage.
I think the latter is much more concerning. Manufacturing jobs will come back as global wages begin to level. However, we will not easily get back industries that we lose from the actions of these greedy UC executives doing everything they can to maintain their organization’s bloated pay and pension benefits.
Thinking about this… middle class residents are first priced out of the higher learning opportunity by the same institutions destroying future job opportunities.
As I have said, the next bubble will be about our education system.
Don, am I over-thinking this too?