Legislature must not meddle with UC
By Daniel Feeney
June 21, 2009 11:35 p.m.
The state government has done enough to the University of California system already ““ now they want more control?
Most people will freely admit that the UC system is flawed. Like any institute of its magnitude, it can be mismanaged and difficult to control.
To address these flaws, California Sens. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, and Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, have proposed a constitutional amendment that would grant increased control of the UC system to the California Legislature. The bill would “give legislators the ability to set policy for the university, including limits on pay raises,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
However, this amendment would make the UC System inefficient, and it is a threat to the quality of education and the prestige associated with the UC name.
With the state saying that it needs increased control over the UC, it might seem that the state provides the majority of funding for the university. Co-sponsor of the amendment, Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, said at a press conference, “The people of California are sick and tired of how Sacramento spends their tax dollars.”
However, the UC system receives only $3.2 billion of the $19 billion annual budget of the state general fund, according to the Los Angeles Times. The low percentage of funds provided indicates that our student fees, donor funding and so on, account for the large majority of the UC system’s budget, not taxpayer dollars.
Furthermore, few expenditures are blatantly wasteful. High salaries for chancellors are intended to attract some of the smartest and most efficient managers to improve the quality of education at the universities.
The UC system is regarded by many as “the best public research university system in the world,” backed up by its numerous rankings of the top colleges and graduate programs, according to an article by the University of California.
As such, a prime focus of the university is the maintenance of the high reputation of the UC. Rather than providing a lower cost education, relative to other state colleges, the UCs provide a name that will, hopefully, make us more competitive candidates in the job market.
In return for the higher price tag, yet still low compared to private universities, students hope that the university will maintain prestige.
But, according to the Los Angeles Times, Yee said, “It is time for the UC administration to stop acting like a private institution.”
Rather, it is their comparable efficiency and prestige that make the UCs such competitive alternatives to a private education.
A change in the California Constitution, however, may risk the UC’s competitiveness. The current California Constitution, according to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, has “existing provisions of the California Constitution that provide that the UC constitutes a public trust and requires the university be administered by the Regents of California. … Provisions require that corporation to have all powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of its trust.”
The clause regarding “necessary or convenient” pinpoints why there is fault in having a complicated, partisan and bickering legislature rule over the UC system. A system requiring adequate management and quick response will not benefit from giving power to a large, unruly, often troubled legislature.
A legislative body is not the group of people who should oversee the system. There is a higher risk of inefficiency and the potential sacrifice of quality education by pandering to voters.
Rather, a smaller body, whose goal is to provide a quality education above all, is necessary to be able to respond quickly to issues and make the difficult choices that could see unpopular response.
If put in the hands of legislators, the fate of our education will be decided by attempts to garner votes from constituents.
Again, the UC Board of Regents is not perfect. It can be quick to raise fees at a college that is already emptying the coffers of many families. This issue should be addressed.
However, the solution is not legislative action, which would change a system that has been effective in providing quality education for decades. The answer is through pressure by students, faculty and everyone involved with the university.
As a system mainly largely autonomous from state government, the responsibility is not on politicians to press for change but on those who have a higher stake in our education.
E-mail Feeney at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].
