Thursday, May 16, 1996
State funding cuts create dependence on ‘family’ at largeBy
Michael Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
Ever since reports revealed individuals used influence to affect
the admissions process at the University of California, donors have
been placed on the offensive  and they resent it.
Some donors have charged that the recent articles linking them,
along with regents and legislators, with attempts to manipulate the
admissions process have been blown out of proportion, and were
mean-spirited and damaging.
With state funds for public higher education dissipating, many
supporters maintain private sector contributions need to receive
greater emphasis to maintain the operating costs of the
university.
Out of UCLA’s $1.7 billion operating budget, more than $98
million come from private individuals and corporations. The donors’
importance to the university has steadily increased over the years
as the state support has eroded.
In 1986, $49 million came from private funds while $399 million
came from the state. Ten years later, private sector support has
doubled while state support has stagnated at $408 million.
But critics have charged that it is this culture of dependence
that creates a situation where admissions officials might feel
pressured to entertain donors requests for fear of losing their
needed revenue. But supporters of the university maintain that
while private donations are crucial, donors would never seek
favoritism in exchange for their contributions.
Furthermore, some donors emphasized, whatever attention they
have received for their special relationship with UCLA is only
appropriate because they are valued customers.
Most were careful to distinguish between admissions favoritism
for donors’ requests, which they denounced as wrong. But donors
supported the notion of an attentive relationship where, while
their voices may not be heard above other officials, it is listened
to and acknowledged nonetheless.
The dynamic between the university and its donors is complex and
subtle, but crucial for UCLA’s survival, and lately has become
explosive.
Sen. Tom Hayden has called two senate hearings within the past
month to investigate the donors’, regents’ and legislators’ role in
seeking favoritism. He has vowed to put a stop to the practice in
the university.
At Hayden’s hearing at UCLA three weeks ago, Roy Aaron,
president elect of the UCLA Foundation and a donor, told the
senator how unfairly the donors feel they had been treated by the
press over this issue.
"We are deeply troubled and concerned about newspaper
investigations which imply that people who have come forward to
give their time, talent and financial support to UCLA are less than
noble and generous," Aaron testified at the hearing.
"It concerns us that donors are are being characterized as
greedy or that their gifts are made with the expectation of some
unproper gain or influence," he continued. "This is a truly odious
and totally inappropriate characterization, and it seriously
threatens a great institution with damage to its development
program."
John Anderson, one of the school’s largest contributors with $15
million given to the management school, said that donors are
absolutely critical to the university since such a large percentage
of funds comes from private sector.
"It’s really shameful and this hurts the university," Anderson
said of the negative image in which donors are being portrayed. "If
we don’t encourage gifts, we are going to be a very ordinary
institution."
UC Provost Judson King will report on his two-month
investigation on admissions policies in the university to the Board
of Regents in San Francisco today.
Numerous articles have been published in the past two months
detailing how influential individuals have sought back-door
admissions into UCLA and other campuses for their relatives or
friends.
Many donors have expressed anger that because of their
generosity, they are implicated in trying to manipulate the system
for their gain.
"The articles have almost cast a view that something is wrong
with being a donor and financially supporting the university,"
Aaron said.
Aaron added that the donors he has spoken with regard supporting
a university as becoming a part of it.
"Donors feel a sense of ownership. They felt they are expected
to give not only money, but advice as well," he said.
They expect their voices will be heard, Aaron explained, and
they feel it is important to the university that they share their
voice.
"The set of articles does have the potential to make donors the
objects of derision," he warned. "It could have a very chilling
effect on fundraising at the university. With less state funding,
we have to rely on donor funding. I don’t think the university is
for sale, but there’s nothing wrong with giving opinions or
advice."
Rhea Turteltaub, director of planned and major gifts at UCLA and
who is responsible for raising gifts more than $100,000, also
stressed the feeling of ownership that comes with being a
donor.
"Most people feel when you make an investment, you become closer
to family," Turteltaub said. "When you make such a statement, you
have a voice."
Even though that voice may not be heard above all others, she
stressed, it is important to make the donor feel that the
university has heard their voice.
"It’s a gracious way of working with people," Turteltaub
said.
Alumni Regent Judy Levin testified at Hayden’s hearing that it
is vital that the university takes care of its donors since they
bear a great deal of the financial burden for the institution.
Levin told Hayden she resented his intrusion into this matter and
advocated, that when dealing with donors, "an aspect of customer
service needs to be addressed."
Out of respect for the support of donors and volunteers to UCLA,
officials make inquiries on their behalf, said Levin, who is also
president of the UCLA Alumni Association. Donors don’t give to the
university in expectation of favors, but being attentive to their
requests falls under the category of "being responsive to a
friend," she said.
"Sometimes we may have to do what the rest of the world has to
do and I guess it’s like finding that your idol has feet of clay,
or having the community look at us from askance, saying, ‘Oh, you
do things that the rest of the world does.’ Of course we do. We
have to. We try to do it in as open and as minimal way as
possible."
Alumni, corporations and friends might decide to become donors
for various reasons, Levin explained. Whether it is to give back
for what they got in their undergraduate experience or out of a
realization that money is short in the university, she said these
individuals are highly valued members of the UCLA family and the
university needs to be attentive to them.
"I’ve been disappointed at the slant of (the media portrayal).
It really makes it sound as if something very sinister has been
going on," said Beatrice Mandel, who described herself as a
moderate donor. "But to a large extent, it’s just providing
additional information."
Mandel said that recommendations by donors are usually only
written if the donor felt the applicant was strong enough to get in
on their own merit alone and wrote the letter in order to provide
additional information. But she also added that the individual’s
donations should be a factor in the admissions process but not in
place of the applicant’s merit.
"First and foremost it needs to be the student’s qualifications
that should be dealt with," Mandel said, "then that student’s
family and involvement in the university. I don’t have a problem
with the inclusion of that, but it shouldn’t be a determining
factor."
Part of the complex nature of the donors’ relationship with the
university is the level of intimate involvement between the two,
Mandel explained. She has dealt extensively with relations between
the university and donors as a past UCLA alumni president and past
trustee of the UCLA Foundation.
"A lot of people who donate are very involved in every fashion,"
she said. "It’s not just a disembodied check coming in. I would
have a problem saying no consideration should be given (to donors
in the admissions process)."
The fundraising concerns of the university, especially severe
lately in times of short funds from the legislature, make the issue
of donor recommendations all the more delicate, Mandel said.
"Institutions are benefited in a multiplicity of fashions and to
say no consideration should be given (to donor recommendations),
that’s great in the best of circumstances," she said. "But in a
situation where the state is providing 27 percent of the budget,
the university has a tremendous task of insuring that the money
comes in."
It all comes down to one question, Mandel said. "If you come
down to the last space and two students with equal records and one
has a relationship with the university for the past 30 years,
should that be a factor?"
She left the question open, refusing to answer.
While many in the university and in the legislature are trying
to determine the answer to that question, some are already speaking
up.
Lt. Gov. Grey Davis, a regent by nature of his political office,
said he would approve of a program that admitted a few applicants
each year for economic donations, as long as it wasn’t a secret
process
"I wouldn’t be opposed to 1 or a half of 1 percent (of
applicants) being admitted on the call of the chancellor," Davis
said. "If it’s important to the UC’s economic well being, it
wouldn’t offend me, if it was out front."