By Christina Jenkins
DAILY BRUIN SENIOR STAFF
[email protected]
As the deadline for signing the state’s budget dawns, the
UC is crossing its fingers in hopes that it will secure a more
favorable financial future than it expects.
Though the proposal remains held up in a legislative conference
committee and open to revision, consultants say that the newest
version restores money designated for UC outreach that was cut in
the Gov. Gray Davis’ May proposal.
July 1 marks the deadline for Davis to approve the budget, which
he cannot review until an Assembly-Senate approved bill emerges
from the Legislature. Budgets are often late, especially in tight
fiscal years.
In the biggest amendment to the preliminary UC budget detailed
in May, 75 percent of the proposed cuts to outreach funding have
been restored in the current plan.
Approximately $25 million of Davis’ proposed $33 million
in cuts to programs that encourage students of diverse backgrounds
to participate in higher education has been preserved, signaling a
victory for underrepresented populations and students of lower
socioeconomic status.
“The university came out looking a little better, if in
fact these revisions made by the legislature hold,” said Max
Espinoza, senior consultant to the assembly budget committee and a
UCLA graduate who served as the UC student regent from 1998-99.
In May, Davis proposed to eliminate funding for the UC College
Preparatory Initiative (which provides online AP courses to
students who don’t have access to them in school), the
Central Valley outreach programs, and the K-12 outreach programs as
well as reduced funding for graduate and professional school
outreach.
Under the new proposal, all of the funding is restored for these
programs except for K-12 outreach, which will be partially funded,
amounting to a recovery of more than $20 million to
outreach-related funds.
Espinoza, who in May called the proposed slash to outreach funds
“extremely severe” and that there was “no way
we’re going to agree with those cuts,” said he was
reluctantly satisfied with this new proposal.
“It’s hard to be satisfied. It was unfortunate that
these programs were targeted to begin with,” he said, but
that preserving outreach funds was a “substantial
victory.”
And even with major changes to the cuts he proposed, Davis
welcomes the preservation of education funding.
“(Davis) is pleased that, overall, we will be able to
fully fund educational programs,” said Davis spokeswoman
Hilary McLean.
The remainder of the $25 million recovered will come from an
increase in non-resident tuition, a move that will generate at
least $4.3 million for the UC budget. According to the current
proposal, fees would increase by “at least” 6
percent.
Additional modifications include an additional $5.3 million to
the Student Aid Commission for work-study programs, and $4 million
in additional funding for Cal Grant C awards, McLean said.
The restoration of outreach funds is the only major change to
the UC budget even though legislators need to close a $23 billion
budget hole that led some to believe student fee increases were
imminent.
“We do not expect for student fees to go up as a result of
this budget. The Governor does not favor fee increases and
doesn’t expect to see any,” McLean said.
Instead, the conference committee is considering raising taxes,
Espinoza said, and that an increase in student fees is
“unexpected.”
However, the possibility of a fee increase still remains. Paul
Mitchell, chief consultant to the Assembly Committee on Higher
Education, speculated that if it occurred, it would come late in
the negotiations.
“When (legislators) go behind the scenes, they’ll do
things that are less appealing and nobody has time to squash them
three or four hours later,” Mitchell said, acknowledging that
raising fees is an “unappealing option” to legislators,
but might be considered.
Until the budget is signed, nothing relating the 2002-03 fiscal
year is a certainty.
“Everything’s on the table, because the budget is
not yet complete. The things we’ve done up until this point
could all unravel,” Espinoza said.
Once the budget bill arrives on his desk, Davis has the
authority to use a line item veto to eliminate provisions he
considers out of alignment with his own priorities.
Since the final bill is expected to carry substantial changes to
the outreach cuts he proposed in May, Davis may use this power to
adjust the funding to his liking.
McLean would not speculate “what specific action he might
take to get our reserve to the level that is responsible,”
she said Sunday, June 30.
“He believes outreach is an important part of our higher
education picture,” she added.
For more on the budget, visit the Legislative Analysis
Office’s homepage at www.lao.ca.gov