http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2012/05/we-know-view-from-berkeley-from-ucla.html
The Young email also refers to long-term funding problems from the state he foresees and suggests that greater reliance on tuition will be needed by UC. However, he argues that the Regents have not fully confronted this issue and need to do so.
The email is reproduced below by permission:
May 16, 2012: Former Chancellors of the Campuses of the University of California
Dear Fellow Ex-Chancellors,
After much soul searching and with some trepidation, I am writing to
lay before you two items of business-- one old and one new.
UC Funding:
Much time has passed since our meeting in San Francisco last June. Unfortunately, not a lot of good news regarding
funding of UC has come along in that period.
To me, the picture looks bleaker than ever. While the Governor touts his proposed ballot
measure which would raise income and sales taxes on a temporary basis and pass
the amount derived from it, over and above what would be required to balance
the budget, on to education, the prospects for the initiative’s passage are far
from certain. Moreover, there would likely be no funds left for UC and the CSU
system after balancing the budget and covering the obligations to K-12 in
response to the requirements of Prop 98.
In short, I believe next year’s state funding is likely to be worse than
the current year, which is by all far the worst in that regard UC has ever
experienced.
Fortunately, the University’s several campuses have been allowed to
take a number of actions that have substantially mitigated some of, but not
all, the harm that would have come from the historic trend of cutting State
support. These actions included
increasing non-resident enrollment as we proposed, which produced substantial
additional net income to partially offset the cuts. In addition, the amount of tuition and
financial aid were both increased by the Regents on the recommendation of the
President. Together, these two changes
increased available income and continued to insure access to students who
otherwise might not be able to attend a UC campus.
Unfortunately, however, the recommendations which we made last summer
with regard to the size of the tuition increases, and the changed use of the
State’s appropriations have neither been implemented nor, as far as I can tell,
been given serious consideration by UCOP or the Regents. Indeed, as I write
this letter, the Regents are meeting in Sacramento to try to persuade the
Governor and the Legislature to get more funding, in spite of the sad news
provided by the release on Monday of the so-called May Revise, which suggests
even further likely cuts than had for next year.
The funding issues we discussed and about which we made recommendations
to President Yudof, therefore, remain unresolved. I hope we can come together figuratively if
not literally, to once again press this issue, through to discussion and
Regental adoption before the past and current practice of raising tuition just
enough to make up some, but not all, of the losses from the State (what we
referred to in our letter to President Yudof as asking the students to pay more
while getting less) seriously erodes the quality of UC’s education, research
and service missions.
If the Regents and administration could be convinced to start pitching
this approach to the various publics, internal and external, but especially to
the elected officials to whom they now appeal for a greater piece of a
constantly receding part of the State General Fund, I believe we could foresee
a brighter future for our University.
UC Organization:
While the comments above are a continuation of our June discussion, on
which we achieved a substantial consensus, I am now going to move into new
territory, which I point out I have not discussed with any of you, including
our co-chair from last June, Dick Atkinson.
I am, at this point, therefore, clearly speaking for myself.
I am enclosing a copy of a paper entitled, “MODERNIZING GOVERNANCE AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: A Proposal that the Regents Create and Delegate
Some Responsibilities to Campus Boards,” that has been put forward by UCB
Chancellor Birgeneau and authored by him, in collaboration with Provost
Breslauer, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance John Wilton, and
Director of the Center for Studies in Higher Education Jud King.
[Note: The Birgeneau et al
document and the Yudof response referenced above and below can be found at:
While I do not agree with all the details put forth in the report or
with all of the specific language, I believe it is an excellent piece to
accomplish what was intended by its authors—to put the matter on the table for
serious discussion within UC including the Regents; and to pave the way for
discussions with its various publics, including alumni and other supporters,
the media, and the legislative and executive representatives of the State.
In my opinion this discussion is long overdue. Real delegation or devolution from the center
to the campuses has been needed for a long time, and that rationale has grown
ever stronger in recent years, as UC grew ever bigger and more complicated. However, under the conditions which exist
today (and will, I believe, be more intense in the future) it is necessary for
the campuses to be able to move more quickly, to pay more attention to market
conditions specific to their situation, to get attention and help from a board
more knowledgeable of, and supportive of the campus’ needs and goals than can
ever be the case with the Regents.
Some, including editorial writers for the Sacramento Bee and the Los
Angeles Times, have argued that the proposed creation of campus Boards of
Trustees is a step toward disintegration of UC.
My experience leads me to believe that Presidential and Regental
delegation of the authority to local boards allowing them to manage the
transactional business of the campuses, would not only make the campuses
stronger and more effective, but also free the central administration and
Regents to fulfill their more basic and important functions of policy
development, strategic planning and oversight of the campuses.
This is the essence of the Birgeneau paper. Surely, such a proposal deserves open, frank
and thorough discussion. However, I am
not sure that this discussion is likely to occur, given the comments by
President Yudof in a recent letter to the Regents advising them of Chancellor
Birgeneau’s proposal (a copy of which I have also attached).
A number of current and former, faculty, administrators, alumni and
friends have come together to bring this discussion about by contacting key
administrators, Regents, alumni, friends, the media and State officials. We would like to have your reaction to this
effort, and if you agree with the goals I have set forth, your help in pursuing
them.
I know each of you is busily engaged in a variety of competing
activities, including the more normal pursuits of retirement. However, I also know that you hold the future
of UC high in your system of priorities, and will respond as your experience and
knowledge dictate on this important matter.
Some time ago I informed President Yudof that I was likely to go public
in supporting discussion of the Birgeneau proposal and asking him for an
appointment to discuss the matter. For
whatever reason that meeting has not occurred.
I am sending him a copy of this letter so that he remains apprised of my
activities. He may choose to weigh in,
in response to my comments. If so, the
discussion I suggest will have begun.
In any event, please let me have your reactions and suggestions at the
earliest possible time.
Chuck Young
No comments:
Post a Comment