UC Regents propose new fee increases

UC Regents propose new fee increases

University financial health at stake while officials try to
bridge budget discrepancy

By Philip Carter

Daily Bruin Senior Staff

SAN FRANCISCO — Financial storm clouds loomed over the UC
Regents’ meeting yesterday as university officials reported that
student fees must be raised once again to keep the university in
the black.

Starting next year, fees would rise 10 percent each year for the
next three years, or about $380 total, if the regents accept the
proposed budget. First-year law and business students will have
$2,000 more tacked onto their existing $6,000 fees, and students in
other professional schools will pay $1,000 more in fees.

Late last year, the regents anticipated a larger piece of the
state budget and said student fees would be raised at a lower rate
than previous years. But the new budget shortchanged the regents’
earlier estimate, giving them only a fraction of what they asked
for.

The proposed raises are an attempt by the university to bridge a
$65.1 million gap between the UC budget and the money the state is
giving to the university. Student fees will contribute $43.8
million towards filling this gap if the proposed budget is
passed.

UC President Jack Peltason opened the budget discussion by
saying that fee increases came as a part of a larger plan to ensure
the university’s financial health.

"The commitment to a framework for budgetary stability, coupled
with necessary student fee increases, is a formula through which
the UC can provide students a quality education," Peltason said.
"(Our budget) means students and their families will have a greater
measure of predictability about what their costs are going to
be."

Speaking before the regents, UC Provost Walter Massey added that
Gov. Pete Wilson’s budget did not give the UC as much money as had
been hoped for, and that raising student fees will help keep the
university afloat in light of this.

"In the best of worlds and best of times, we would not be
recommending any fee increases ­ unfortunately, these are not
the best of times," Massey said. "A policy of modest fee increases
combined with increases in financial aid shifts more of the burden
to those who can afford to pay more, while still preserving access
for others."

Both during and after Massey’s reports, several regents blasted
the notion of raising students’ fees, especially in light of fee
increases totaling a 160 percent increase over 1990 fees.

Delaine Eastin, the superintendent of public instruction who
supervises K-12 education, criticized the board for sitting idle
while the budget passed through the state government. She implored
the regents to use their clout for the system’s benefit.

"You are some of the most powerful people in California, and you
can impact the budget as it goes through the legislative process,"
she said. "With all due respect, we are not merely pawns in the
legislative process, we are active participants."

Regent Roy Brophy tried to explain the fee increase, saying that
California’s poor economy deserved as much blame for increasing
tuition as did the regents or the state government.

"There has to be some understanding out there, that we have
(only a little) control over the fees," he said. "Our fees are
directly proportionate to the money we receive from the
legislature, and that is directly proportionate to the dip in the
economy ­ this board and system are not in control."

Students spoke on the proposed fee increases before the meeting
started, arguing that it would remove the university’s renowned
accessibility.

"Students have suffered too much under skyrocketing fees," UC
students’ association president Andre Quintero said. "A quality
education without access is nothing ­ we can’t let (the
regents) make our minds a commodity."

Hastings College of Law student Dean Poulakidas, spoke before
the regents, imploring them to consider the long-term risks of
raising fees so high they would "price-out" poorer Californians. He
added that by forcing students to take on loans to finance a
high-cost UC education, they were taking away UC graduates from
low-paying, public-service jobs which do not allow graduates to
repay loans.

During the discussion period, Regent John Davies defended
Wilson’s strategy of raising student fees while cutting taxes,
saying that these tax cuts were needed in order to jump-start
California’s economy.

"In order for California’s economy to be competitive, we must
make this tax cut," he said. "Our hope (with the tax cut) is to
build our economy, not to take money away from the UC."

Eastin, who is the elected head of California’s K-12 education
system, criticized this defense, saying that the university added
much more to the state’s economy in the long run than Wilson’s tax
cut.

"We talk about stimulating California’s economy ­ we (the
UC system) have a long-term value added to this economy if we have
a well-trained work force."