Photo by Prescott Watson

Held simultaneously at the Mission Bay campus in San Francisco, UC Merced, UCLA and UC Davis, (with UC President Mark Yudof absent from the proceedings) the meetings were conducted via teleconference and were temporarily disrupted by chanting protestors.

UC Office of the President said the decision to hold the meetings at different locations was “cost-effective.”

Students and protestors occupied the spaces in which the meetings took place, and held extended comment sessions. Under a hundred people attended each of the protests, in sharp contrast to the thousand-plus who rallied in San Francisco on Nov. 16th, when the meeting was originally scheduled to take place.

Rescheduled from Nov. 16th after the UCPD advised the Regents to do so, the meetings ended with the approval of a proposal to petition the state for additional UC funding. No tuition hikes were discussed today, contrary to public perception of the purpose of today’s meetings.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Regents Meetings Interrupted

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

At a meeting this past October, UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal told student media that UCSC was more of a “state-augmented” school, as UC students are now paying as much for their UC education as the state is.

Some take issue with the UC’s tuition hike strategy; an “Occupy Education” march is planned for Nov. 16 at UCSF to protest further fee hikes. At the heart of this debate is a question over what the UC really is — can it still call itself a public university with students footing so much of the bill?

Regardless of how one feels about education in California, the UC system is slowly losing the state support that brought about its inception. The UC Board of Regents — Richard Blum, specifically — said at a planning session in September that negotiating with Sacramento for more support is “a waste of our time.” In the 2009-10 academic year, the UC received 13 percent of its operating budget from the state and 12 percent from student fees. The latter is rising to be on par with state expenditure.

With this in mind, those involved in the day-to-day administration of the UC system are looking for benefactors outside of the governor’s office in Sacramento. At the September planning session, Blum said he thinks the UC system should be negotiating with those “who actually can write a check — Chevron, Apple, Cisco and Google — all those companies sitting on money they don’t know what to do with.”

Some students at UCSC feel apprehensive about the regents’ decision to petition the private sector.

“While I think it is good the regents are finally looking at alternate forms of revenue and finally doing something to address the lack of funding from Sacramento, I think we need to take a closer, critical look at what exactly they intend to do,” said SUA external vice chair Nelson Cortez. “Privatization of the university is not acceptable and won’t be tolerated by students. This is why students must be involved with the process and this is why the regents must be transparent with their actions.”

With California hobbled by the financial crisis crippling the nation as a whole, the UC regents have made it clear to the public that they feel other options like private sector funding have to be explored if the UC system is to survive and retain its essential character as an accessible institution.

“It’s frustrating that, though last year was great in terms of lobbying in Sacramento to bring the issue forward, at the end of the day higher education cuts were devastating,” Blumenthal said. “We have to do better, or we have to find alternatives.”

Looking at the UC now, the system already receives sizable amounts of private funding. The question arises, then: If the UC receives private aid already, and students are paying record highs for tuition — just over $12,000 a year currently — where can the UC system turn to solve its budget issues?

Private Investment in the UC

The UC system as a whole received $1.35 billion from the private sector for the 2009-10 fiscal year. For some perspective, the operating costs for the UC system tend to be around $20 billion per year, with state funding, student tuition and a variety of other sources filling in the rest of that funding gap.

With the exception of the 2007-08 fiscal year, in which the UC received over $1.6 billion, the amount donated to the university by the private sector remains fairly constant. Most philanthropic endeavors tend to be targeted at specific UCs.

“When it comes to private philanthropy, most of that funding is given to the UC [in question] directly,” said Dianne Klein, media specialist for the University of California Office of the President. “Right now, though, we’re placing a greater emphasis on giving to the university [system] as a whole.”

A large amount of private sector funding goes to the UCs that have medical centers, like UCLA. For those UCs, donations to their medical centers can account for almost half of all private sector aid they receive.

Personal connections to the UC have some impact on where donations go, according to Klein.

“If somebody was treated at one of our medical centers and they feel really grateful, then they’d donate specifically to that medical center,” Klein said.

Still, private funding for the UC system goes to a variety of departments, from arts endowments to engineering research funds and faculty positions. The fields this money is allocated to are still restricted, however. Only about 2 percent of private funds given to UC are allowed to be spent at the university’s discretion.

“We’re hoping to raise more for scholarships,” said Klein, unknowingly echoing Chancellor Blumenthal’s sentiment that he would “prefer undesignated [funds], but from a student perspective, having lots of money in scholarships is a good thing.”

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

Private Aid at UCSC

At UC Santa Cruz, private investment has made its presence felt in numerous ways. Jack Baskin Engineering itself is a cornerstone of philanthropic support at UCSC.

“Jack Baskin is a large supporter of the university, but he’s not an alum,” said Shayna Kent, alumni outreach coordinator at UCSC. “He met the chancellor and they had a connection. Some people just have general passions.”

Baskin, who has donated about $7 million to the engineering school at UCSC since 1983, helped launch the computer engineering program. Of that $7 million, $5 million was donated in 1997 to found the Jack Baskin School of Engineering.

Internships represent another convergence of private sector interests and public education.

“Internships provide students an opportunity to learn on-the-job skills while providing employers the opportunity to get to know a potential employee,” said Barbara Silverthorne, director of the Career Center at UCSC. “I welcome collaboration with the private sector with the goal of placing students in professional internships and jobs in their field of interest.”

Silverthorne said engaging employers with the UC system is increasingly important to fostering increased cooperation between the private sector and the UC.

“Due to the competitive job market, the Career Center is working harder than ever to engage a variety of private and public sector employers with on-campus recruitment activities,” Silverthorne said. “The Chancellor’s Undergraduate Internship Program (CUIP) is an example of an internship program which is made possible through matching funds provided through non-state and non-tuition sources.”

More recently, programs and focuses like Jewish studies and Sikh and Punjabi studies have been made possible and expanded by the work of philanthropic groups and foundations.

“Because of private investment and donations, Jewish studies has been able to add courses to the curriculum that would have otherwise not been offered through the normal course of the year,” said Stephanie Sawyer, an undergraduate program coordinator in the history department at UCSC, citing the addition of a course on modern Jewish history in Latin America, taught by Paula Daccarett.

Though hardly unique in the type of aid it receives, the Jewish studies program at UCSC is notable for how much it has expanded with the aid of private investment.

The Jewish studies program at UC Santa Cruz has been assisted by a variety of private sources, including the establishment of the Helen Diller Family Endowment and the Neufeld-Levin Holocaust Endowed Chair, as well as grants from private foundations and gifts from individual donors, according to Nathaniel Deutsch, co-director of the Center for Jewish Studies at UCSC.

“Without this support, our program would be smaller and we would not be able to meet the large student demand for our courses,” Deutsch said.

Sikh and Punjabi studies consists of an endowed faculty position and is paid for by the Sarbjit Singh Aurora fund, an external source of aid.

“It’s a good fit here,” said William Ladusaw, dean of humanities at UCSC. “Universities have always depended upon private philanthropy to enhance their programs and undertake new initiatives.”

Ladusaw remains less optimistic about the possibility of private aid supplanting state support, but hopes the plight of the UC system has raised awareness of the need for such aid.

“In my experience, relatively few people are motivated to make donations simply to replace lost state funds,” Ladusaw said. “But the financial crisis for state universities has certainly raised the visibility of the need  for scholarships and fellowships that can help address concerns about access and affordability.”

Outreach

The case of Sikh and Punjabi studies notwithstanding, the UC system isn’t always approached with windfall offers of financial assistance. Some outreach to potential investors is often needed.

“The UC system as a whole regularly promotes the value of the 10-campus system to the state of California,” said Lynne Stoops, executive director of strategic philanthropy and foundation relations at UCSC. “This is intended to help tell the UC story to state legislators, whose support the university badly needs. But it also has the effect of helping tell the UC story to the general public.”

Stoops said the failure of the state to provide adequately for the UC system increases the need for these outreach efforts.

“Given the state’s declining commitment to California’s highly regarded system of public higher education, those communication efforts are increasingly vital,” Stoops said. “In these difficult times, their generosity is critical to maintaining student access to UCSC. Support from individuals and foundations is absolutely essential if we are going to maintain the quality of the campus and student access to that quality.”

Ultimately, the goal of outreach programs at the UC is to prove long-term value to the private sector.

“In contributing to the campus they are also making a contribution to the long-term social and economic health of this state by providing educational opportunities to its citizens,” Stoops said.

Alumni outreach coordinator Shayna Kent also believes it’s important to educate people on the value of higher education.

“It’s not just fundraising — you have to educate people on why it’s important to give back,” she said. “It’s about educating people about the impact of philanthropy.”

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

Looking Forward

Statistically, it’s difficult to say whether the UC system counts as a private institution. Though state aid has declined sharply, it still exists and funds large aspects of the UC. Still, it might be time for students to have a look at where the private sector has had a hand in shaping their university experience. The UC is a constantly changing system, and more changes are surely on the way.

“Students here are really philanthropic,” Kent said. “[Philanthropy efforts are] going to Haiti, to Second Harvest. But there’s no one out there selling cupcakes for scholarships.”

Some say cupcakes are unlikely to save the UC, even with the best intentions behind them. SUA representative Nelson Cortez said counting on the private sector, whether in the form of a bake sale or a corporate endowment, is not a solution.

“The private sector can play a pivotal role in the UC, and has in the past,” Cortez said. “But relying solely on the private sector to fund the UC is unrealistic and will only lead to a private UC.”

The educational and professional fate of untold numbers of UC students may be decided beginning Nov. 16. UC regents will meet then to begin discussion of an 8–16 percent tuition increase every year for the next four years, contingent on state aid. If Sacramento fails to deliver to the UC, student tuition could reach over $22,000 by 2016. As a result, whether the private sector should, or even can, save the UC is a question that might need answering sooner rather than later.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at UC: Public or Private?

Illustration by Jamie Morton.

The recent UC Board of Regents planning session in San Francisco left many unsure about the UC system’s financial strategy for the next several years.

The regents met on Sept. 15 to discuss and plan a stable financial framework for the embattled UC system. Discussion of UC President Mark Yudof’s proposal to mandate an 8–16 percent tuition increase every year for the next four years was notably avoided. The regular increases were proposed in an effort to reduce the $1.5 billion budget gap faced by the UC system.

SFGate coverage painted the regents as largely opposed to Yudof’s proposal, with an increased focus on seeking sources of corporate donorship and philanthropy taking the bulk of the discussion period.

“Get real — and don’t fool yourselves and think the legislature will turn around, or you’ll be waiting for Godot,” Regent David Crane said, voicing the popular sentiment that state aid is unlikely to be forthcoming in any appreciable amount.

Many UC students are left wondering about the regents’ eventual plans.

“Historically, the regents have always supported what Yudof proposes,” said SUA external vice chair Nelson Cortez. “However, it seemed that this proposal was not going to be taken lightly by the regents.”

Cortez is wary of the regents’ focus on seeking more private sector funding.

“While I think it is good the regents are finally looking at alternate forms of revenue and finally doing something to address the lack of funding from Sacramento, I think we need to take a closer, critical look at what exactly they intend to do,” Cortez said. “Privatization of the university is not acceptable and won’t be tolerated by students. This is why students must be involved with the process and this is why the regents must be transparent with their actions.”

Steve Montiel, media relations director of the UC Office of the President, said though nothing was presented for a vote at the planning session, “[the planning session] was very distressing. It’s getting close to budgeting time and the ideal would be to have longer-term commitments from the state, rather than year-to-year.”

Ultimately, state aid is what is needed to close the budget gap, he said.

“What we’re looking to do is get some sort of signal from the regents on a multi-year plan so we can talk to the state about it,” Montiel said.

This signal, he said, would be the four-year tuition increase or something similarly preemptive.

“Some regents talked about corporate fundraising — we’ll do that with the regents and continue to look at alternatives, but when all is said and done, there’s that $1.5 billion gap,” Montiel said.

Seeking private sources of funding is nothing new to the UC system, despite it being a public university.

“$1.3 billion is given in gifts to the UC system every year, but they’re usually campus-specific and restricted,” Montiel said. “Only about 2 percent of gifts to the UC system are unrestricted.”

Still, some regents feel waiting for the state to come to their aid is pointless.

“[We should approach those] who can actually write a check — Chevron, Apple, Cisco and Google — all these companies sitting on money they don’t know what to do with,” said Regent Richard Blum at the Sept. 15 meeting.

Regardless of what method is chosen, Montiel makes it clear there is an interest in making the difficulties of paying for a UC education more predictable for families.

“The purpose [of the meeting] was to enable us to talk with the state about longer term commitments,” he said, “and to enable students to plan with their families with more certainty.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at UC Regents Divided on Financial Future of System

Chancellors from three campuses present the difficulties of absorbing past cuts. Chancellor Blumenthal of UCSC presented grave expectations for our campus’ future. “We will not be able to make these cuts strategically … These reductions will cut right to the heart of our instruction and research missions,” Blumenthal said. Photo by Prescott Watson.

The UC Board of Regents convened on March 16 in San Francisco to discuss how the University of California will address a $500 million drop in state funding from Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget. On March 24 Gov. Brown signed the bill that would slash this funding, and on Tuesday he announced that negotiations to extend taxes through a special June election ballot have failed.

UC vice president for budget Patrick Lenz said campuses could face more severe reductions if Gov. Brown’s proposed tax extensions aren’t enacted. If the proposed tax extensions fail, the state will need to find other areas to reduce spending. UC officials expect that the UC system will see a $1 billion cut to state funding.

Three UC campus chancellors from Berkeley, Irvine and Santa Cruz spoke at the meeting and addressed how additional cuts would have drastic impacts on their campuses.

“We have no model to accommodate that $1 billion,” said UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau. “It would devastate our staff and faculty.”

UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal presented direct effects from previous cuts. Like Birgeneau, Blumenthal said he does not have a plan to accommodate further cuts.

“I’m not sure what we’ll have to do if the tax extensions don’t go through,” Blumenthal said. “It’s going to be a much more noticeable change.”

Blumenthal said the cuts made UCSC vulnerable in many ways, and the campus “can’t even exempt public safety operations — fire, police, and environmental health and safety.”

Regarding future budgetary concerns, Blumenthal asked the regents to consider changing how the reduced budget is spent on individual campuses. Currently, all campuses generate funds and send them to UCOP to redistribute, which results in some campuses receiving more than they generated, and vice versa. UCSC had historically received less than 100 percent of the funding generated by its own campus community. A restructuring of the funding structure proposed by Yudof would change all of this.

“We’ve never had a coherent philosophy and we need one,” UC president Mark Yudof said regarding funding distribution across the UC campuses.

The proposal would ensure that each campus keeps the funding it generates, with UCOP assessing a tax and thus leaving the president with much less influence in funding matters.

Not all campuses are enthusiastic about this restructuring. Large campuses with medical facilities will receive less money than usual under the new plan, as they will then be limited by what their campus communities can generate.

“The smaller campuses will benefit from this,” said Nathan Brostrom, executive vice president for business operations for the UC. “The major opposition to this was from medical centers, [which] may be taxed more than they have been. [The proposal] is designed to be revenue neutral, not biased towards or against any campus.”

Brostrom said this restructured funding model would allow administrators to reduce UCOP’s budget by $50 million.

Protesters outside the meeting held signs calling for the resignation of UC student regent Jesse Cheng. Cheng was not present at the meeting, and was quoted saying he would not attend in hopes of preventing such protests. The UCI undergraduate was found guilty of sexual battery against an ex-girlfriend by the UC Irvine Office of Student Conduct.

Additional reporting by Arianna Puopolo

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Budget Cuts to UC to Exceed $500 million

The UC Board of Regents convened on Wednesday, March 16 to discuss how the University of California will address another half-billion dollar drop in state funding from Governor Brown’s proposed budget. The proposed cuts reduce the state’s expenditures by $12.5 billion. The state’s budget deficit is $25.4 billion. If Governor Brown’s proposed tax extensions fail, the state will need to find other areas to reduce spending and the university could see a $1 billion cut of state funding.

Chancellors from three campuses present the difficulties of absorbing past cuts. Chancellor Blumenthal of UCSC presented grave expectations for our campus' future. “We will not be able to make these cuts strategically … These reductions will cut right to the heart of our instruction and research missions.” Photo by Prescott Watson

The first half of Wednesday’s meeting featured Chancellor Robert Birgeneau of UC Berkeley, Chancellor George Blumenthal of UC Santa Cruz, and Chancellor Michael Drake of UC Irvine in a presentation on the effects of previous cuts to their campuses. Chancellor Drake said UCI “spent a year with Band-Aids just holding it together. We were just not breathing, not moving forward.” Blumenthal described the cuts as “making us vulnerable in many ways,” and said the campus “can’t even exempt public safety operations – fire, police, and environmental health and safety.”

Vice President for Business Operations Nathan Brostrom presents to the Board of Regents data on system-wide faculty and staff reductions. Since 2008 over 4,400 faculty and staff have been laid off and 3,700 positions were eliminated or have gone unfilled. Photo by Prescott Watson

Nathan Brostrom, vice president for business operations (left), and Chancellor George Blumenthal of UCSC (right) address reporters on the effects of a possible $1 billion reduction in state funding. Photo by Prescott Watson

Campuses could face much more severe reductions if Governor Brown’s proposed tax extensions aren’t enacted, said UC Vice President for Budget Patrick Lenz. The tax extensions could fail to get on a ballot measure or be rejected by voters in June. Though a statewide survey from the Field Poll at UC Berkeley shows the majority of Californians support the proposal, several regents said they doubted its viability. If the extensions fail, the UC could be looking at a $1 billion cut. Chancellor Birgeneau of UC Berkeley said, “We have no model to accommodate that $1 billion … it would devastate our staff and faculty.” Blumenthal said if the legislature cuts that much from the UC, “some fundamental assumptions have to be thrown out.” He said there is no way we cannot cut academic enterprises and that “we are at the point of compromising quality.”

UCLA Chancellor Gene Block looks towards Doug Wagoner, university affairs chair at the UC Student Assembly, after Wagoner made a passing reference to recent controversy involving a UCLA student’s racist Youtube rant, which attracted over a million viewers and garnered national media attention. Wagoner described a program designed to fight hate across the UC. Photo by Prescott Watson

Claudia Magaña, SUA’s external vice chair, and Doug Wagoner, university affairs chair of the UC Student Assembly, presented new information on hate crimes on UC campuses. “We are concerned that there is no mention of constructive means of healing hate on our campus,” Magaña said. UCLA has attracted national attention recently from a student’s racist rant posted to Youtube, which has drawn equally controversial responses. Decrying the hateful responses to the UCLA student’s video, Wagoner said the UC community must advocate for “restorative justice,” which involves “educating the offender instead of exacting retribution on the offender.”

SUA External Vice Chair Claudia Magaña presents to the Board of Regents information on increasing incidents of hate crimes at the UC. Photo by Prescott Watson

Doug Wagoner, university affairs chair at the UC Student Assembly, presents to the Board of Regents a plan for a program based on “restorative justice” to combat hate crimes. Photo by Prescott Watson

Chancellor Gene Block of UCLA talks to City on a Hill Press about the racist rant posted online by a UCLA student, which drew national attention to the campus. “The UCLA described in the video is not the university I know, and not the university that many of our faculty, staff and other students know,” he said. “Our community has always embraced our diverse make-up." Photo by Prescott Watson

President of the University of California Mark Yudof talks with the Chair of the Board of Regents, Russel Gould, about the decentralization of funding at UC campuses. Currently, funding at each campus is given directly to the University of California Office of the President (UCOP), and is then dispensed among the 10 campuses and other UC facilities. Decentralization would mean campuses would retain the funding they generate and pay a tax to UCOP. Photo by Prescott Watson

Chancellor Blumenthal of UCSC has been a strong advocate for increasing the amount of money UCSC gets from UCOP. Currently, all campuses generate funds and sent them to UCOP to redistribute, which results in some campuses receiving more than they generated, and vice versa. UCSC has historically received less than 100 percent of the funding generated by the campus community. Chancellor Blumenthal has fought to get what he often describes as UCSC’s “fair share” of funding.

Chancellor Blumenthal answers questions about President Yudof's decentralization plans. Photo by Prescott Watson

A restructuring of the funding structure proposed by President Yudof would change all of this. The proposal would have each campus keep its funding, with UCOP assessing a tax, leaving the president with much less influence in funding matters. Yudof said “no great university has ever been built from a central office.” Not all campuses are as enthusiastic about this restructuring as UCSC, however. Large campuses with medical facilities will receive less money than usual under the new plan, as they are limited by what their campus communities can generate. “The smaller campuses will benefit from this,” said Nathan Brostrom, vice president for business operations for the UC. “The major opposition to this was from medical centers, [which] may be taxed more than they have been. [The proposal] is designed to be revenue neutral, not biased towards or against any campus.” This restructured funding model would allow administrators to reduce UCOP’s budget by $50 million, said Brostrom.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Chancellors, Students Address UC Board of Regents

Student regent Alfredo Mireles met with a handful of UCSC students Tuesday afternoon and gave his thoughts on the California state budget, UCSC’s closure of the American studies department and his experiences as a regent. Photo by Prescott Watson.

Student regent-designate Alfredo Mireles Jr. visited UC Santa Cruz on Tuesday to encourage students to apply to be a regent. He discussed the issues currently affecting the UC and his role on the UC Board of Regents.

As part of his day-long schedule of meetings, Mireles met with the press and students interested in applying to be a student regent in the University Center Alumni Room. Student regent Jesse Cheng was also expected to be there but was not able to attend.

Mireles explained why he finds his role as a student regent worthwhile.

“You really get to feel like you have a say in the university,” he said. “We oversee the 10-campus, five-hospital, three-national laboratory university system that has about a $21 billion budget. Because of a constitutional autonomy, what we say goes, so we have a lot of authority.”

Of the 26 members of the UC Board of Regents, 18 are appointed by the governor for 12-year terms. Seven are ex officio members, such as the governor and the UC president, and two are student regents. Student regents are appointed for a two-year term.

After the application process, the student serves the first year as regent-designate, participating in all the regent meetings, but not voting.

The next year, the student gains the right to vote on policy and introduce measures before the board.

With the exception of UC Merced, UCSC is the only campus that has not produced a student regent since the position was created in 1975.

Because of the lack of diversity among student regents in recent years, Mireles is hoping for a wider array of applicants.

“It’s been five male student regents in a row,” he said. “And Jesse is the first undergraduate in eight years. The student population is 80 percent undergraduate, and I think it’s majority female too. I’m not saying, ‘Men, don’t apply,’ I’m just saying I’m encouraging undergraduate females to apply because I think their voice has been underrepresented.”

There were about 10 students at the meeting, a low count according to Mireles, who said he encountered a crowd of 50 at his recent trip to UC Irvine.

One of Mireles’ two main goals is a tobacco-free UC.

“I’m the first health sciences student to be a student regent, and I wanted to make sure my policies reflect that,” Mireles said. “I think people are entitled to the cleanest air possible.”

His second goal is to better educate students about private scholarships.

“I like to feel like I have ownership of my own financial circumstances,” he said. “We can go to the state and ask for money, but unfortunately those tactics haven’t worked almost ever.”

Mireles said the UC cannot follow the trend of increasing fees.

“As a conservative regent told me, we are close to a billion dollars underfunded,” he said. “The fee increase brought in about $116 million. Year after year after year, eventually they’re going to be like, ‘Enough is enough.’ Even conservative members believe that.”

He ended the meeting by describing what it takes to be a student regent.

“You have to be able to sit at a table with a millionaire on one side and a millionaire on the other side and advocate for the UC.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Student Regent-Designate Visits Campus

Ginny Sullivan, a second-year from New Mexico, is one of many students considering leaving the University of California to find a more affordable and higher quality education. Photo by Andrew Allio.

“I have a twin sister and everything always has to be fair,” Abe said. “When I compared my expenses here at UCSC to hers at Rutgers, it was double what she was paying. After [that], I knew I would come home.”

UC regents have made a goal of increasing out-of-state student enrollment to 10 percent of the total UC population. The $23,000 that these students bring to the university in annual fees is considered a way to mitigate the effects of state budget cuts. Campuses systemwide are scrambling to revamp recruitment of these high-paying students.

UCSC is focusing mainly on Internet resources such as CollegeWeekLive as a method of recruiting high achieving students from out of state, but have also adjusted more active programs. This year, the “Taking UCSC Home” program — which utilizes student volunteers to outreach at high schools in their hometown — has been extended to winter break in an effort to increase participation of out-of-state students.

Michelle Whittingham, associate vice chancellor of enrollment and director of admissions at UCSC, said high student fees and lack of financial aid puts the school at a disadvantage when recruiting out-of-state students.

“Since 2007, we have seen a decrease in non-resident enrollment, which is directly related to fee increases,” Whittingham said.

Whittingham said that UCSC has a lot to offer that is unique to the campus.

“The key for us [when recruiting] is that a lot of students are looking for that out-of-state experience. We want to make sure people are aware of the quality of education we offer here.”

At the same time that UC admissions offices step up their recruitment of students outside California, many non-residents are leaving the UC. Last year when Abe told her roommate — New Mexico resident Ginny Sullivan — that she was transferring, Sullivan tried to convince her to stay. Now, Sullivan too is applying to transfer out of California.

Sullivan, a second-year, was attracted to UCSC because she wanted the challenge of being far away from home and because of the prestige of the UC. While she has enjoyed her experience here at UCSC, Sullivan says she does not feel it represents a higher quality of education than she could receive at less expensive universities in other states. An only child of two working parents, she questions whether the UC education she receives is worth the $23,000 more she pays than California residents.

“I could go to another out-of-state school for in-state tuition through the western exchange program. Maybe my parents can scrape by and afford this,” Sullivan said. “But is that the right decision?”

Sullivan said that despite feeling like she is paying for more than she receives, her experience at UCSC has been mostly positive. For this reason, she has not made a firm decision about whether on not she will leave California after this year.

“I’m filling out the applications because I want the option to transfer,” Sullivan said. “I want to give this school a chance to win my heart this year. If at the end of the year I still feel the same underwhelming feeling about the quality of my education, I’m probably going to leave.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Out-of-State Students Say Goodbye to UC

Inside the November 2010 regents meeting, taken Wednesday. Photo by Molly Solomon.

The presence of roughly 300 student protesters and a violent altercation with police the day before prompted a sizable law enforcement presence at Thursday’s meeting as a precautionary measure; however, the day’s proceedings were more subdued than Wednesday’s.

With this increase, the basic undergraduate fees will reach a total of $11,124 per year. The 8 percent increase will provide the UC with an additional $115.8 million for the 2011–2012 school year.

“We’re struggling to maintain the UC under budget conditions that are impossible,” said Norman J. Pattiz, a regent who voted in favor of the measure. “I see no other options but to support this. It’s the responsible thing to do.”

The increase will amount to an additional $822 for students whose family income is above $180,000 per year. For families in the income brackets of $90,000 to $120,000 and $120,000 to $180,000 per year, the increase will be $472 and $688, respectively. Low-income students whose families earn less than $90,000 per year will not see an increase in fees, a point the regents stressed repeatedly before voting took place.

Five members voted in opposition to the increase, including student regent Jesse Cheng, and Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonando, who was particularly vocal in his disapproval and expressed skepticism that every other resource had been explored.

“Have we exhausted everything before increasing fees on students?” asked Maldonado, amid cheers from the few student activists present. “Are we going to cut at the top too? Because this is a two-way street.”

Another dissenting vote came from Regent Charlene Zettel, who spoke with emotion about her refusal to go along with trend of passing the financial burden onto the backs of students.

“We have whacked this group of students in this particular place in time attending the university,” Zettel said.

Many regents referred to the issue at hand as a “long-term structural problem” and expressed their personal struggle in choosing to vote in favor of another fee increase. However, many of these same regents nevertheless voted in favor of the increase, because they saw it as necessary to maintain the quality of a UC education, they said.

Eddie Island voted for the measure, but he cautioned against continued reliance on raising student fees in times of budgetary strife.

“Be careful what you ask for,” Island said in a comment directed at UC Office of the President. “You will get it.”

In one of the more critical speeches delivered by any of the regents, Island described what he sees as a grim reality.

“What we’re doing is accelerating the velocity toward the destruction of something we all hold dear,” Island said.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Another School Year, Another Fee Increase

Protesters clashed with police outside the UC regents’ meeting yesterday. The regents met to discuss a proposed fee increase and faculty pension plan. Photo by Molly Solomon.

Anticipation hung in the air at the UC San Francisco Mission Bay conference center while students and workers demonstrated in opposition to proposed fee hikes and a two-tier pension program.

UC President Mark Yudof dismissed allegations of inefficacy of UC Office of the President presented during the public comment period at the Nov. 17 regents meeting.

“Despite what you’ve heard the drop out rate has been flat,” he said. “This idea that [the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan] is a sham is nonsense.”

Meanwhile, outside the conference center, spectators, activists and journalists tried to access the public meeting. However, new protocol for regents meetings put a stop to the process of credentialing reporters, giving police officers the authority to deny entrance to anyone.

UCOP director of media relations Peter King blamed a San Francisco Chronicle article for this change.

King said reporters displaying press passes and abstaining from participating in any demonstrative actions will still be afforded the appropriate rights in the event that police dismiss protesters.

Inside the conference room, UC Student Association president Claudia Magaña urged the regents to avoid imposing another fee increase.

“Fee increases are no longer an option,” she said. “We have given too much.”

Magaña presented student testimonials as evidence of the negative impact of student fee hikes.

Student regent Jesse Cheng and student regent designate Alfredo Mireles Jr. agree that it is the state’s and UC’s responsibility to provide quality higher education to its own residents.

“The thing about alternative revenue is that it does give up this idea of public education,” Mireles said. “It seems impossible to have more students, fewer classes and the non-residential students not pushing out California students.”

Yudof denies this.

“We’re not privatizing,” he said. “My problem is the state legislature doesn’t want to fund the Master Plan.”

After the public comment session, an estimated 300 protesters assembled outside the building.

UCSC student organizer Brian Malone accused the regents of being apathetic.

“They’re not even pretending even a little anymore that they care,” he said.

One group of protesters attempted crossing the police line by overwhelming a single police officer stationed at the conference center’s stairway entrance from the parking garage.

UCSF police chief Pamela Roskowski reported that the officer responded to the advances of the crowd by drawing his baton. Peter Haul, a UC Merced student took possession of the baton and struck him on the head with it.

Haul was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Roskowski said that after the officer recovered his baton, he drew his gun when the crowd continued to advance toward him.

By the end of the day, 13 people were arrested. Roskowski said seven of those detained were UC Berkeley students and one student each was arrested from UC Santa Cruz, UC Merced, UC Davis and Peralta Community College. Two more people were also arrested.

Fifteen people were hit with pepper spray and four police officers were reportedly injured.

“There was excessive force used — this is the way the UC maintains power over students,” Malone said.

UC Berkeley student Victor Mendez, among the 15 pepper-sprayed, said he was both pleased that this dispute would merit the attention of the regents and media outlets.

“I hope this gets better and by better I mean I hope we shut this shit down,” he said. “So besides my burning face, I feel fucking incredible.”

Roskowski declined criticism of UCSF PD and SFPD of using excessive force.

“I have no information to tell me protocol was not followed,” she said.

In the last open session of they day, a joint committee of the UC Board of Regents approved an action item to change “student fees” to “tuition” that will be voted on Nov. 18.

Student regents Cheng and Mireles expressed concern about the hastiness with which the motion was passed.

“It’s a significant change to the Master Plan and although we’ve been paying what feels like tuition for years now, it merits notice, and it’s disappointing,” Mireles said. “Those of us who believe in the Master Plan still think there should be fees, not tuition.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at 13 Arrested at UC Regents Meeting

Of the 13 arrested, seven were form UC Berkeley, 1 each from UC Davis, Santa Cruz, Merced and Peralta CCC. The affiliations of the other two were not disclosed. Four officers were injured. One was hospitalized but has been released.

Photo by Prescott Watson. After being reportedly assaulted with his own baton, an officer draws his gun, calling for backup.

UC Santa Cruz graduate student Brian Malone has attended several UC Regents meetings. He said the protestors’ frustration has escalated in comparison to other meetings.

“Students are angrier,” he said. “UC regents have done more to isolate themselves, not even pretending that they care.”

Photo by Rosanna Van Straten. Demonstrators' picket signs echo the concerns voiced by those in attendance.

Meanwhile in the conference room, the regents committee on education policy and committee on finance met to discuss issues including non-resident enrollment and faculty pension plan. The fee increase to be voted on Nov. 18 was discussed in relation to these issues.

UC Student Association President Claudia Magaña spoke on behalf of students. She urged the regents to consider the impact of student fees on students and sympathize with the reactions of the protestors.

“Many have been maced and arrested. They’re not here to hurt you, they’re here to fight for their education,” she said.

Photo by Rosanna Van Straten. AFSCME representative Joe Pulido addresses a crowd of protesters in front of the UCSF Mission Bay Conference Center.

She also asked the regents to reevaluate their relationship with students. Magaña said that by keeping an open mind and opposing fee increases, the regents can prove to students that they care about the quality of education and access more than the bottom line.

In addition to the arrests, Roskowski confirmed that 15 people were pepper-sprayed. She reported that — although every confrontation is investigated — as of press time, she was confident that the officers who wielded weapons or dispensed pepper spray followed protocol.

“By appearances, the officer showed great restraint in the matter,” she said. “Our job as police is to keep the peace and ensure the safety of people attending these meetings.”

Photo by Rosanna Van Straten. Victor Mendez, student organizer from UC Berkeley, receives medical attention after being pepper sprayed.

With the anticipation of the Nov. 18 proposal to raise student fees eight percent, tensions ran high Wed. Without any indication of how this vote will end, it remains to be seen whether or not any resolution will be reached this November.

Regent Sherry Lansing declined to state how she will vote on the proposed fee increase tomorrow.

“I’d like to keep an open mind until discussion tomorrow,” she said. “I’m listening to everything.”

Student Regent Jesse Cheng promised to oppose the fee increase. He embraced the opposition that students face with humor.

The UCI fifth-year said, “When you become student regents you sign a document that says you will fight losing battles.”

Rosa Castañeda, Arianna Puopolo, Molly Solomon, Rosanna Van Straten and Prescott Watson contributed to this article.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Protesters and Police Clash at Regents Meeting

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

After all the rallying and demanding that the state reinvest in higher education, yet another proposed fee increase is on the table to be voted on at the regents meeting next Thursday.

The proposal, an 8 percent fee increase for the 2011–2012 fiscal year, which equates to an $822 raise in yearly payment, is disconcerting on many levels. It reduces what little faith we as students have in the UC governing system even further. It makes an education that is supposed to be public even less accessible and depicts a obscenely clear image of the bleak future structure of the UC system.

After voting for the 32 percent fee increase last November, UC president Mark Yudof and the regents told us to go to the state legislatures, not to Yudof and the regents, and to demand that the state reinvest in higher education. They said, “March on the capitol: Rally, and we will rally with you.”

We did. Thousands of us did. We did just as they suggested, and came from all 10 UCs and demanded on the steps of the capitol for the state to reinvest in us. The state did. And yet, our fees are still going up.

The state reinvested 12 percent more in higher education than in the previous year, granting $2.9 billion to the UC system in this year’s budget — nearly half of the UC’s budgeted educational expenditures. The other half is paid for almost entirely by student fees. Around $371 million of the $2.9 billion was granted to cushion the cuts that the UC has sustained in the past three years.

Our rallying and demands worked — at the state level. And it’s still not enough.

Yudof and the regents told us that they were not the problem. They said it was out of their control, their hands were tied. So we rallied. Our demands of the state were acknowledged, and yet we saw the same end result — another fee increase. The deflection has come full circle.

Already, students pay roughly 40 percent of their education, and it must stop there. We, as a state, are embarking on a repudiation of the system that has set California apart for over a century: a public secondary education system. The increases are indicative of a trend: privatization.

We must demand that Yudof and the regents stop deflecting. Yes, the state should give more to higher education, but the regents are not powerless. It is time for them to take responsibility — they must vote “no” on yet another fee increase. They must come up with alternatives that are not in violation of the intrinsic ideals of the University of California system.

Education for the public, by the public is something to be cherished. We are losing out on the beauty of that philosophy because no one wants to pay for it. We are rapidly approaching an ideal more attuned to “education for some of the public, by the public who can afford it.”

If this fee increase passes — and let’s be real, the chances that regents will not vote in favor of yet another fee increase are about as good as Yudof offering to make less than the president of the United States — our fees will have gone up 40 percent in one year.

This number is nothing short of absolutely ridiculous. Though our outrage was heard in Sacramento last year, it is imperative that we keep our presence at the forefront of state legislation and also make our outrage heard in San Francisco.

As students in this system, we must be informed about the proposals on the table and be present at these meetings. At these gatherings, decisions are made about our education and, when the student presence is dismal, it reflects poorly on the student body and gives us less clout in the decision-making process — and when proposals such as this are on the table, student presence is even more necessary.

We must put faces behind the dollar bills. Otherwise, we are just figures on a failing business model.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at 8 Percent Increase, 8 Percent Too Much

Allison Galloway was elected the new campus provost and executive vice chancellor Sept. 16. She says she hopes to bridge the divide between the administration and students. Photo by Prescott Watson.

Chancellor George Blumenthal appointed Allison Galloway to the position of executive vice chancellor (CP/EVC) Sept. 16. Galloway enters the position at a fiscally challenging time for UC Santa Cruz.

Blumenthal selected Galloway and she was subsequently approved by the UC Regents. Galloway succeeds David Kliger, who stepped down after a five-year term as CP/EVC. He has returned to his former position as chemistry and biochemistry professor.

Galloway has previously served in several administration positions at UCSC, including University Extension (UE), a program that required extensive budget restructuring. This year is the first time in over a decade that UE will be filing no deficit.

As CP/EVC, Galloway is responsible for academic and administrative operation of the campus, including budget planning. Since her appointment, Galloway has met with the departments on campus and made it a priority to grant more teaching assistantships and make classes more accessible for students, she said.

“That’s probably the [complaint] I hear the most, that classes are too full,” Galloway said. “We gave extra money to the divisions at the beginning and end of spring quarter with the contingency that they increase capacity.”

The school does not plan to cut any programs within the coming year, she said, though planning for the future of the community studies program is ongoing. Despite the failure of both the UC Regents and the state to release their budgets, UCSC is prepared for the potential outcomes, she said.

“Even if the state budget for education is less than we expected, we will not be taking back money from any of the departments,” Galloway said.

Galloway emphasized the importance of maintaining open communication with the university community.

“I want to bring a lot of communication and honesty to the position,” she said. “When people understand why a decision is made, they accept it a lot easier.”

In addition to managing university funds, Galloway will also manage day-to-day university administrative duties. Former CP/EVC Kliger was often the target of media attention and student action. Though Galloway said she will “definitely be the enemy” at times, she will attend the day of action to defend public education on Oct. 7.

“We all need to defend public education,” Galloway said. “It’s not the responsibility of one or the other.”

Though it is hard to hear news of the difficulties UC campuses face, Galloway said, working at UCSC makes her optimistic for the future of public education.

“The faculty, students and staff — they bring in the best minds and encourage great work,” she said. “That gives me hope and is something that has to be defended.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Allison Galloway Appointed Executive Vice Chancellor

UC Berkeley grad students don homemade military uniforms in protest of proposals for expanding the availabilty of online courses. Grad students are also waiting for the pending health care program to take effect. Photo by Julie Eng.

The pessimism of members of the UC community during the public comment period was juxtaposed by UC President Mark Yudof’s promise of a brighter future for the UC in the opening remarks at the latest regents meeting.

Yudof call the cuts that the UC system endured this year “unsustainable,” indicating a more promising budget for this 2010-2011.

“Even in tough times, the state needs to have a priority,” Yudof said. “We’ve been in crisis mode for the last couple of years, and some desperate and temporary measures were taken, almost none of which, in my heart of hearts, I feel good about … now we’re at the point where we must look over the horizon for longer-term, sustainable ways of operating.”

Yudof said that these more sustainable methods of operation will include ending furloughs this summer, providing further support for graduate students, and reducing UC Office of the President (UCOP) expenditures.

Cuts to the UCOP included the elimination of 400 office printers for a savings of $300,000 a year.

Reinvesting these administrative savings into academics was mentioned frequently throughout the meeting by several regents. Yudof briefly outlined the benefits of redirecting these funds over the next few years.

“Over the next five years, we can redirect hundreds of millions of dollars annually from administrative costs for the academic and research missions of the university,” he said. “And that’s only a piece of the puzzle.”

The seats in the public seating area were nearly all occupied. The meeting opened with a public comment period. Individuals — representing a number of different facets of the university — addressed the regents, including graduate students, post doc students, a UC parent, and union members from the Association of Federal, State, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

After the public comment period concluded, Yudof began his opening remarks, but members of the unions halted proceedings as they exited the room, chanting and clapping in protest of current UC policy regarding campus workers.

Also critical of the proceedings were several graduate students dressed in G.I. garb. The students’ satirized a comment made by UC Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley that “squadrons of GSIs” will “frontline online contact.” Edley’s remark was made in support of UC Berkeley’s plan to move to increased online courses.

“We didn’t join the military — we dressed like this to show how ridiculous the comments were,” said Jessica Tall, a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate at UCB. “We don’t think that a cyber-campus is the way to go.”

Graduate students were a hot topic at the meeting, as issues of adequate stipends and health care were raised by regents and student representatives. Graduate students at all campuses excluding UC San Francisco will now receive vision and dental benefits in their health care plans. All campuses’ health care programs will be centralized as a UC-wide plan, saving over $1 million.

Student Regent Jesse Bernal is optimistic about the efficacy of this new program.

“In the end, some campuses may be losing some autonomy that they had, but, overall, it will be benefiting the entire system,” he said.

The two-day meeting on May 19 and 20 was Bernal’s final meeting as student regent. Student Regent Designate Jesse Cheng will replace Bernal as a voting member in July. The candidate for student regent designate to succeed Cheng was selected May 18. His identity had not been revealed as of press time.

Although Cheng could not disclose the new student regent designate’s name, he is looking forward to working with him.

“He represents a very specific, really different part of the student population that other student regents have not brought in the past and I know that I don’t have,” Cheng said of his future colleague.

While it was Bernal’s last, Wednesday’s meeting was the first for newly appointed Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado and Regent George Kieffer. Also present was Regent Sherry Lansing, who was recently reappointed for her second 12-year term.

Lansing said her reappointment came at a critical time for the UC. She said that her return will enable her to continue her work on the issues that the UC currently faces.

“There are so many things we are in the process of doing that I care very much about,” she said. “It’s such a difficult time in the fiscal nature that one has to come up with alternative ways of creating revenue that don’t involve student fees. There are just so many things left undone.”

~~~~~~

Additional reporting by Arianna Puopolo

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at UC Targets ‘Sustainable’ Spending

Illustration by Louise Leong.

The UC Regents need to get in touch with the students they supposedly represent. Over the past few years, the UC system has slowly moved its way towards a privatized, more expensive education system that has put education farther out of reach for thousands of students.

This has all been discussed and decided within the confines of UC San Francisco, a good distance away from many schools that want to be represented or take part in these discussions. UCSF is a graduate school that recieves over 100 percent of its educational fees back. This favortism towards graduate campuses excludes all the undergrads that make up the majority of the UC system. Regents should return to the policy of rotating to a different campus for each of their six meetings every year. This would allow them to hear more student perspectives during public comment sessions, as they weigh our futures.

This past year, students have voiced their disapproval with protests and strikes across the state, both on campuses and at the capital. But the regents aren’t getting the hint. Recently, a member of the UC Commission on the Future pitched an idea of annual fee increases ranging anywhere from 5 to 15 percent over the next five years. This proposal comes at a time when the UC system is experiencing the largest fee increase in its history.

Nothing is for sure, and members of the commission have made this clear with the inclusion of a disclaimer underneath the policy suggestions. It reads, “Nothing in this policy constitutes a contract, an offer of a contract, or a promise that any fees ultimately authorized by The Regents will be limited by any term or provision of this policy.” But the fact that the regents are even considering a new fee increase is unacceptable and frightening.

The regents will do what they please to push the UCs toward their vision, and from the looks of it they plan to do so without consulting the student populace. Aside from the much-ignored public comment portion of the regent meetings, during which Richard Blum usually ends up asleep at the wheel, the only way student opinions are expressed and accounted for is through the one student regent on the panel. It’s not the fact that students across the state are not speaking their minds, it’s the fact that the regents don’t care to listen, and would prefer to pursue their own goals and visions.

The regents need to recognize that students are not going to tolerate having their fees increased again while their voices continue to go unheard. Students want to have a say in where their money goes. They should not have to see their fees increased by a group of undemocratically appointed officials who do not have the students’ best interests in mind.

The UCs have seen some positive changes due to the protests — most notably when the governor cited student activism as an influence in his decision to cut prison spending in order to increase finances towards public education. The regents should look to continue this momentum in the state by working to push education bills like Assembly Bill 656, which imposes a gas and oil tax on any producer and puts that money back into public education. Instead they are looking for ways to dip back into the students’ pockets.

The regents need to use the student population as an asset and an ally, and raising our fees again is not the way to do it. Not giving us a reasonable amount of say in decisions that affect our whole system is not the way to do it. We need to come together to build a UC system that reflects what we all want, not just what the regents believe to be best.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at UC Regents Are Out of Touch

One hundred empty chairs filled the board room of the regents meeting on Jan 20. Photo by Kathryn Power.

The UC Board of Regents, the 26-member governing body of the UC system, met yesterday to discuss issues of the newly proposed budget. The regents, who meet six times each year at different campuses, specifically addressed the state’s possible increase in higher education funding. Student presence was markedly low compared to the last regents’ meeting, but UCSC’s Student Union Assembly external vice chair has high hopes for attendance at a March 1 rally in Sacramento.

Budget Woes Continue, Despite Partial Funding Restoration

Despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent commitment to higher education, the University of California’s budget woes still lingered in discussions at the Jan. 20 Board of Regents meeting at UCSF Mission Bay. Regents and those in attendance questioned whether the promised funds would make a serious dent in their UC cash-strapped balance books.

Comparing the governor’s recent proposal to last year’s, student regent Jesse Bernal said, “I wouldn’t say that I’m optimistic, but I’m less disappointed than last year.”

On Jan. 8 the governor gave a surprising jolt to the UC in his proposed 2010-11 budget. The UC received a $224.5 million increase from last year, a restoration of $370 million from previous cuts and $51.3 million for enrollment growth. Last year, the State of California removed $813 million in funds for the UC.

Patrick Lenz, UC vice president of the budget, applauded the new focus on higher education in a presentation to the regents.

“We really welcome the investment in the state dedication to higher education,” Lenz said, while pointing out that higher education’s boost in funds was an anomaly in the governor’s prospective budget of “fairly Draconian proposals.”

The proposed increase in state funding, along with the recent fee increases, still leaves the University of California in a $237 million fiscal shortfall.

The regents expressed appreciation for the governor’s recognition of higher education, but skepticism of his policy recommendations.

“[This is] a budget you can’t believe in,” Regent Richard Blum said. “I don’t think half of this stuff is going to come true.”

UCSC’s Student Union Assembly (SUA) external vice chair (EVC) Victor Sanchez said in a speech to the Regents that the SUA will lobby to prioritize higher education in the state’s budget. He spelled out five issues they would push: a $1 billion increase for higher education in 2010-11 budget; support for Assembly Bill 656 (oil severance tax for oil companies); the maintenance of the core of the UC Master Plan; keeping Cal Grants intact; and supporting higher education by reducing prison spending.

He announced that the University of California Student Association (UCSA) calls for the month of March to be the “March for Higher Education,” and is planning to rally at the state capital in Sacramento to kick off the month.

“I ask that the board truly consider joining us in some way, shape or form March 1 as we begin to shine accountability toward Sacramento,” Sanchez said. “Collaboration is a must if we are to be successful.”

Student Presence Lacking, but Unions Make an Appearance

Student presence was stark at the regents’ meeting yesterday. Only two students were in the audience, both of whom were “whiteliners,” funded to attend the meeting through advocacy group the UC Student Association. Whiteliners are granted access to the separate seating area and the regents throughout the day. The 100-seat section for public observation sat vacant except for a couple of security guards throughout the day.

“It is disappointing … to go from the last meeting, where we were so represented, to this. It is depressing,” said Malerie Michael, third-year UC Irvine student and whiteliner. “We are not continuing our voice and are just present when something is going to directly affect us.”

No vote was held during the meeting, but Board of Regents chairman Russell Gould said student presence is always important.

“Students are a legitimate voice,” Gould said. “[Students] are there as a consumer, and we are seeing if our product is fulfilling your needs.”

The low student turnout could be attributed to the bad weather, but might also have to do with the inconvenient location and UCSF’s status as a university of only graduate students.

“It is very isolated and slightly underdeveloped, there are also no undergraduate students, and this makes rallying and protesting a lot harder to mobilize,” said Calvin Sung, chair of the UCSA Council on Student Fees, and another UCI white lighter.

This is significant because the majority of meetings are scheduled at UCSF.

A number of individuals from various unions, most predominantly American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), made their appearance during the the public comment section of the agenda in the morning.

They protested briefly and as they left, union members inflated balloons embossed with the message ‘Keep California’s promises and UC for everyone.’

The protesters left milk cartons with labels advertising “missing” regents, playing on the practice of placing missing children on the side of milk cartons. The missing regents were those who according to AFSCME do not adequately make themselves available for public discussion. They had to leave the milk cartons in the hallway for fear that the objects could be used as projectiles.

UC police officers had only positive things to say about the protesters.

“Today was peaceful, and they were cooperative,” said UCSF Police Sergeant Jim Lunnen. “They acted very professionally.”

While action at the meeting yesterday was minimal, SUA EVC Sanchez describes the trend of actions since the beginning of the year.

“If you look at September up to now, you see an escalation of mobilization,” Sanchez said.

Such actions have grabbed the regents’ attention.

“What has happened with recent student actions has made student activism part of the equation,” student regent Jesse Cheng said. “Regents are now saying ‘we recognize your force, and want to be part of it.’”

As of press time, the anticipated pinnacle of student action will be the march on the Capitol, to take place March 1. Across all 10 UC campuses, various student organizations are mobilizing to gather in protest of current trends and in hope of more funding for higher education.

Sanchez said he expects to see thousands in attendance, but is doubtful that the regents will make an appearance.

One regent is unsure of whether he will march with the students, but nevertheless asserts the necessity of such action.

“I don’t know,” said Gould, regarding whether he will be in attendance on March 1. “[Students and regents] have a lot of common ground, and we need to wake up Sacramento.”

Chancellor George Blumenthal echoes the sentiment and expresses his support of the planned march on the Capitol:

“I think it’s fantastic that students are going to Sacramento to make a case for funding for higher education.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at ‘A Budget You Can’t Believe In’

Illustration by Maggie McManus.

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

“Citing decreased state revenue [the governor] has ordered the UC system to absorb an emergency budget decrease for the current fiscal year … The UC Regents will probably institute a student fee surcharge for the spring quarter.”

This passage, sounding like it could be drawn straight from today’s news stories, is from a City on a Hill Press article from 1981. That year the governor, Jerry Brown, instituted cuts to the University of California that led to a 28 percent student fee increase for the 1981-82 school year and 30 percent increase the next year.

State funding cuts to the UC are not a new phenomenon. The measure passed by the UC Regents two weeks ago to raise fees by 32.5 percent within the next year will mark the 15th time UC undergraduates have seen their cost of education increase by 10 percent from the previous year. During this same time, the state of California — the largest single contributor to the UC’s budget — has halved its contributions.

The Current Crisis

“The reason the UC’s are getting less state funding is because the state has less funding. It’s that simple,” said Steve Boilard, the director of higher education for the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the California Legislature’s nonpartisan policy analysts, in an email. “[This past year] the state has experienced a drop-off of tens of billions of dollars.”

In fact, the past three fiscal years in the state of California have been doleful at best. According to the California Department of Finance website, the state’s general fund has dropped from $102 billion in the 2007-2008 fiscal year to $84 billion for the current fiscal year.

“Revenue coming into the state treasury is highly volatile, resulting from the way our taxes and other income streams are structured,” Boilard said. “Almost all sectors of state government have experienced significant declines in state funding, including social services, health, resource protection.”

The State of California has four main funding priorities: K-12 education, prisons, Health and Human Services, and higher education. All four took hits in this current major economic crisis. According to the California Department of Finances, in the 2008-2009 fiscal year, K-12 education lost 20 percent of its funding from the previous year, while higher education lost 14 percent. In the same fiscal year, Health and Human Services and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation lost 13 percent and 17 percent of their funding, respectively.

But for the last 40 years, according to statistics on the Department of Finance website, it has been higher education that has seen continuous funding cuts, receiving a smaller and smaller percentage of overall spending from the state’s general fund.

“You can see that the state has other priorities,” said Patrick Lenz, the University of California’s Vice President for the Budget, “[and] the problem is in the state’s fiscal system.”

In 1976, higher education received 1.8 billion dollars — almost 18 percent of the $10.37 billion in the state of California’s general fund. In the 2009-10 school year, higher education will receive 12.5 percent of the $84.5 billion of the state general fund distributions. This is while the population of students in the UC system has nearly doubled since 1976, growing from 121,791 to 222,000 in 2009 according to the California Postsecondary Education Commission.

“Demand has never been greater for higher education,” Lenz said. “We [the University of California] have 14,000 more students than the state pays for — that costs an extra 155 million dollars.”

In contrast, the other three main state programs have seen increases in their proportion of the California budget since the late 1970s. K-12 education has seen the biggest increase, from 27 percent in 1976 to 41.5 percent in 2009. This can be partially attributed to Proposition 98, a ballot measure approved by California voters in 1988, which mandated a minimum amount of funding for K-12 schools and community colleges.

Funding for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has also received an increasing percentage of state funds, almost tripling from 3.4 percent in 1976 to 9.7 percent in 2009. This follows the rise in incarceration rates in California. California has the third largest prison system in the country, trailing only the federal government and the state of Texas. Prisons also have powerful advocates in Sacramento. In a 2004 article Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters called the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, a union representing 30,000 correctional officers in the state, the “state’s most powerful union.”

The State and the Student

Money from the state along with student fees and the UC general fund (nonresident tuition and operating costs from the state and federal government) are the core of the University of California’s budget, making up 28 percent or $2.5 billion of the UC’s $19 billion in funds.

This $2.5 billion pays the salaries and benefits for faculty and staff, funds the costs of equipment and utilities and extends financial aid to students in need. The remaining $16.5 billion are restricted funds, or funds that are given to the UC for grants and research and can only be used by certain institutions, departments or labs.

The State of California has contributed less and less to the UC’s overall budget: from 29.6 percent of its expenditures in 1967 to 16.6 percent in 2008. To make up for this decrease, the UC has relied more and more on student fees, which have increased 427 percent since 1965 when UCSC first opened. In this time, student fees have risen from $245 in 1965 (calculated to inflation it is $1,875 in 2008 dollars) to its current level of $8,020 a year.

Since 1967 the percentage of student fees and state expenditures in UC’s core funds have diverged dramatically. In 1967, money from the State of California’s general fund made up 89 percent of the UC’s unrestricted core funds, while student fees made up 6 percent. In 2008, state funds made up only 58 percent while student fees contributed 30 percent.

“Clearly,” Lenz said, “there is a disconnect with the state of California and its system of higher education.”

Solutions?

While UC appropriations from the state of California ebb and flow along with the revenues, neither California citizens nor university leaders see a way to fix this issue.

“The financing of higher education is broken,” said UC President Mark Yudof in an interview with UC student media organizations.

Yudof said he was hesitant to push the UC to ask for refinements in the state’s appropriation process.

“I don’t really think a public university can be the leader in actually proposing reforms,” Yudof said. “I don’t want to politicize us like that. But we stand ready to cooperate with whoever is seriously thinking about these issues … I guess the right role for the university is to play a facilitating role.”

But in an interview with the Sacramento Bee, Yudof cemented the UC reliance on state funding.

“I still think the primary responsibility [of funding] lies with the state of California,” Yudof said. “I have not given up on the state.”

In October, President Yudof issued a report calling for “an expanded federal role” in higher education and asked UC affiliates to “aggressively lobby our lawmakers in Sacramento to have … our funding restored.”

While university leaders are in a quagmire over reliance on the state and its lax funding, residents of California pointed their anger at state officials. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a state-based think-tank, released a poll earlier this month called “California and higher education” that surveyed Californian’s sentiments on higher education.

Those polled were critical of California’s leaders, with 61 percent disapproving of Governor Schwarzenegger’s handling of public higher education while 68 percent disapproved of the legislature’s job on the same issue.

Seventy percent characterized budget cuts to higher education as a “big problem,” while 62 percent were very concerned about increasing tuition and fees for students to deal with state budget cuts.

While 72 percent of those polled believed in the importance of California’s public higher education system to the “quality of life and economic vitality of the state over the next 20 years,” 56 percent of those polled were unwilling to pay higher taxes to make up for state budget cuts to higher education and 68 percent of those polled did not want to increase student fees for the same reason.

“[This poll] came out saying how important the University of California is to Californians,” UC Regent Chairman Russell Gould said. “[Sacramento must] fund it. Stand up for it and fund it!”

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently estimated that the State of California is facing a $20.7 billion budget gap for the impending 2010-2011 fiscal year.

Next year, if faced with similar cuts from the state, Yudof did not fully rule out any further fee increases.

“I can’t make any categorical promises,” Yudof said, “but I would be very reluctant to do that.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at The Insolvent State of Higher Education

UC president Mark Yudof speaks to reporters after the Finance Committee voted to increase student fees. Photo by Nita Rose-Evans.

A student is escorted out of the Regents meeting at UCLA on Wednesday. Photo by Nita Rose-Evans.

The UC Board of Regents’ Committee of Finance passed two undergraduate educational fee increases — a 15 percent mid-year increase which will take effect in January, coupled with another 15 percent increase for the 2010-2011 school year.

Student Regent Jesse Bernal, a UC Santa Barbara graduate student, was the only committee member to oppose the measure.

“Fairness seems to be highly unbalanced,” Bernal said. “In principal I oppose and will not support the fee increases.”

The proposal will go before the entire Board of Regents on Thursday, Nov. 19.

“It’s probable, but it’s not over ‘til it’s over,” said UC President Mark Yudof on the chances of the measures being passed by the entire board.

The meeting, which was held at UCLA’s Covel Commons, was temporarily adjourned three times due to singing and screaming by students inside. Expletives and screams of “vote no” and “we shall overcome” permeated throughout the meeting, which was open to the public.

Twelve students were arrested at two different points prior to the committee vote and eventually all spectators were cleared out of the room by UC police officers after numerous disruptions. The fee item was passed without any students present.

The first of the fees would begin next quarter and would consist of a system-wide fee of $585 and the second increase would begin in the 2010-11 school year, increasing student fees by $1,344. Overall, student fees will be raised to a yearly total of $10,302, or a 32.5 percent increase in current fees.

UCSC fourth-year and President of the UC Student Association Victor Sanchez spoke to the regents before the vote took place.

“I implore this committee to vote no,” Sanchez said. “If you vote yes, not only will the public perception continue to yield negativity for the UC, but the prospect of working together in a year where thousands have expressed discontent will be lost and severely damaged.”

Before the vote, some members of the finance committee stressed the need for the fee hikes.

“We will make a departure from our core values. Fee increases take us in the wrong direction, but they are necessary,” said regent and committee member Eddie Island. “There must be a limit to student fee increases … [but] I will vote yes. It is reluctant and it will be my first time. I hoped to never do so.”

The regents emphasized that most students, especially those with lower incomes, would not be affected by this fee increase, emphasizing that 33 percent of the revenue from the hikes will go to financial aid.

“We want [high school] graduates in need to know that fees are not a barrier to a UC education,” said Marsha Kelman, UC associate vice-president of policy and analysis. “[The regents] estimated 81 percent of students this year are covered by financial aid, 74 percent of students will be covered by financial aid due to the mid-year fee hikes and 53 percent of students will be covered in the 2010-11 school year.”

In a separate press briefing during lunch recess, President Yudof commented that “If you’re a family making under $70,000, you don’t have a problem, we are taking care of your fees.”

The Finance Committee also approved an expansion of the Blue and Gold Opportunity plan. Under this new plan all undergraduates whose parents make $70,000 a year or less will have their fees covered by the University. The previous threshold for the plan was $60,000.

“What’s happened this year, after a steady erosion over the past 20 years, is this year we hit the negative jackpot,” Yudof said about California’s contributions to the UC.

“The result of budget cuts [from the state] is that we are recommending a mid-year fee increase,” said Patrick Lenz, UC’s vice-president for budget, in a presentation to the regents.

The State of California, currently experiencing it’s worst fiscal crisis in years, subtracted $637.1 million in allocations to the UC in Spring 2009 — leaving the UC with only $2.6 billion in state funding for the 2009-10 fiscal year.

“I think we are doing it in a way that makes sense … [student fee revenue] will end the furlough plan and extend library hours,” Yudof said in a speech addressed to the regents.

Without revenue from fee increases, the UC would have faced a $792 million dollar budget deficit.

Along with hiking fees, the regents approved a budget that will request $913 million from the California State Legislature for the next fiscal year. This money will be requested to alleviate the financial issues that have arisen from the one-time cut of $305 million the legislature made last year. The regents also hope the money will shrink the gap between the number of students currently supported by state funds and the actual number of students attending UCs.

Even if the $913 million is granted, however, the UC will still face a $144 million gap next year.

“We have to fix this,” said John Plotts, the UC assistant vice-president of finance, about the budget deficits, “or we have no future.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Regent Committee Passes Fee Increase Measure

Students from all 10 UC campuses flocked to UCLA to show that they do not support increased student fees. University union leaders who represent teachers, custodial and hospital workers, technical employees and graduate students were present along with workers themselves to voice their views

Chants of “They say cut backs, we say fight back” rocked the crowd as protesters raised signs in unison. Above the crowd messages such as “Last generation college student” and “Debt: My Grad Present” were seen on signs.

Cindy Amobi, a third year Journalism major from UC Irvine, traveled to UCLA to oppose the student fees.

“Even though they pretty much already decided on the vote, it’s important to still come and show our displeasure and solidarity with all students,” she said.

Students began amassing with the commencement of the regent’s meeting at 8:30 a.m. By 10 a.m., students were being escorted out of the public comments section of the meeting for disruptive behavior. Approximately 14 students were arrested for disorderly conduct.

Following a group of students’ attempt to enter the meeting by force, UC police began arriving on the scene armed with batons, pepper spray and other weapons that they aimed at the protesters.

At 12 p.m. police announced that the protest had become in violation of California law. They demanded that the protesters disassemble and informed the crowd that those who did not leave would be arrested, however no further arrests were made.

Despite the police’s actions, UC President Yudof said he could identify with the protesters.

“I feel complete empathy with them. Years ago I might have been out there with them,” Yudof said.

UC Students Association president Victor Sanchez, a fourth-year student at UC Santa Cruz who addressed the Regents on behalf of UC students, felt that the police officer’s actions were unacceptable.

“I think it’s ridiculous. I don’t think it’s warranted. It’s disrespectful to students,” Sanchez said.

Updated 9:29pm Nov 18, 2009

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Day of Protests Renders At Least 14 Arrests

The proposal goes to a  final vote before the entire Board of Regents tomorrow.

“It’s probable, but it’s not over til its over,” said UC President Mark Yudof, on the chances of the fee increases passing tomorrow.

The fee item was passed without any students present. All spectators in the open session were forced to leave by UC police officers after numerous disruptions during the 20 minute public comment period and during the committee on finance’s deliberation. Fourteen students were arrested on two different occasions in the meeting preceding the committee vote.

The first fee increase, a system wide fee of $585 dollars for every undergraduate student,  will begin next quarter.  The second increase kicks in during the 2010-11 school year and will increase student fees $1,344 dollars per undergraduate. When all is said and done, student fees will be raised to $10,302 dollars, a 32.5 percent increase from current fees.

According to the regents, 33 percent of the revenue generated by both fee increases will go to financial aid.

“The result of budget cuts [from the state of California] is that we are recommending a mid-year fee increase,” said Patrick Lenz Vice President for budget, in a presentation to the regents.

The State of California, experiencing its worst fiscal crisis in years, ­­cut $637.1 million in allocations to the UC, leaving it with $2.6 billion for the 2009-10 fiscal year, twenty percent less of what it used to receive in state funding.

In a speech addressed to a regent, UC President Yudof said, “ I think we are doing it in a way that makes sense… it will end the furlough plan and extend library hours.”

Without the fee increases the UC will fall short $792 million dollars in its budget.

Along with the fee increase, the regents will request that the California state legislature provide UC with $913 million dollars for the next fiscal year. Even if the  state legislature responds positively to this request UC, will still face a $144 million dollar gap.

“We have to fix this,” said John Plotts, the Assistant Vice President of Finance. “Or we have no future.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Regent Committee Passes Fee Increase Measure; Full Board Vote Tomorrow

Illustration by Kenneth Srivijittakar.

Next week, the future of UC students, faculty and workers could all change. The UC Regents will meet Nov. 17 to Nov. 20 at UCLA to vote on raising student fees by 30 percent.

This is after voting last summer to raise student fees by 9 percent. This is after implemented furlough days for UC faculty and staff, where they are required to take unpaid days off. This is after UCs experienced cuts to programs and classes, where students and workers all have to do and pay more, only to receive less education, services and compensation.

The Student-Worker Action Team at UC Berkeley called for a UC-wide student and teaching strike beginning Nov. 18, the second day of the regents meeting. The major demand is that the UC Regents vote no on the proposed fee increases. They also call for a stop to cuts and layoffs to UC workers. They want to continue the strike if the regents vote to pass the fee increases and continue with the furlough program.

“But to the extent that we call for an event with a predetermined end-date, we risk a purely symbolic action,” they wrote. “Walkouts, strikes, library sit-ins: these are powerful because they affect the university materially as well as symbolically.”

On their Web site, students, faculty and staff have signed a petition to pledge their support for the strike. The University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) union, made up of over 11,000 UC employees, also pledged to protest.

UC Santa Cruz students have shown tremendous support, following UC Berkeley in the number of signatures. However, the overall number of signatures at press time was about 1,500, a dismal number compared to the approximately 220,000 students in the entire UC system. Many professors at UC Berkeley and UC Davis have pledged online to cancel courses for the day. On the UCSC Web site, none have done so.

We’ re calling on the UCSC community to pledge and support the strike: it our last chance to show our united dissent, distaste and disdain for the regents’ actions.

In an open letter to UC students, Robert Meister, president of the Council of UC Faculty Associations, wrote that many people make excuses for not protesting. Maybe it’s because they have classes they don’t want to miss. Maybe it’s because they believe it’s a statewide budget issue and the UC crisis is a reflection of those times. Maybe it’s because this is not the time and place to address these issues.

Meister, who is also a professor of political and social thought at UCSC, gave a simple reply to those concerns. He wrote one “should not conclude that, if a problem exists everywhere, it can’t be confronted anywhere; nor should [one] conclude that if a problem is ongoing, it can’t be addressed now.”

We agree with him when he says the UC has “a large body of students, faculty and staff who are ready to be educated and engaged in action” and that this is the “place and time for us to confront a wider long-term problem.”

UCSC hosts many of these people. The spirit of activism runs deep at our campus. Even if you haven’t participated in a protest before, now is the time — the last chance to walk out and speak up before it gets worse.

Imagine what Nov. 18 could look like: Northern California students rallying at UC Berkeley, Southern Calfornia schools congregating at UCLA to protest the regents meeting. At UCSC, there will be a protest in the Quarry at noon, to be followed by a march down to the base of campus at 2 p.m.

On that day, we could stand by our fellow Slugs, UC students, faculty and workers to show — not just tell — the UC Regents that we want change.

In his infamous quote to the New York Times Magazine, UC President Mark Yudolf caused an uproar when likened his job to being a manager of a cemetery. “There are many people under [me],” he said. “But no one is listening. I listen to them.”

Here’s our chance to rise from the dead. We are no longer dormant. By walking out, we will let Yudolf hear us loud and clear that we do not accept more student fee increases.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Say it Now, Say it Loud

Illustration by Rachel Edelstein.

The University of California (UC) Regents will vote Nov. 18 on whether or not to increase undergraduate educational fees by a total of 32 percent, or approximately $2,500, starting next school year. By raising fees, regents and the University Office of the President (UCOP) plan to make up for a loss of state funds.

For UC Santa Cruz students, this partly means paying more to support other UC institutions.

In a student media press conference held on Nov. 2, UCSC Chancellor George Blumenthal told student representatives that “the last … six fee increases have generally not gone back to the campus where they’ve been collected.”

Educational fees, or base fees, are priced the same across the UC campuses by the UCOP.

Once collected, one-third of all educational fees are set aside for financial aid and the other two-thirds are used to support the operating budgets of each university. In the end, UCSC only gets back 82 percent of the income that it generates.

The remaining 18 percent is allocated to other UC campuses. The decision on where to allocate that money is made by the UCOP is based on actual enrollment levels.

“I don’t like the idea that students at UC Santa Cruz, by paying increased fees, are in fact supporting other institutions,” Blumenthal said.

Before 2007, only 67 percent of educational fees paid by UCSC undergraduates came back to the university.

That 67 percent increased to 82 percent after Blumenthal became an acting chancellor and was able to negotiate with the UC president.

If regents pass the fee hike next week, UCSC students will pay an estimated total of $10,280 annually in education and campus registration fees. After the funds are distributed, UCSC will lose approximately $1,850 per student, as opposed to the $1,400 lost now.

Out of the 10 schools within the UC system, three receive more money than they generate in educational fees. They are UC Davis, UCLA, and UCSF. Davis and UCLA receive approximately 105 percent and 110 percent respectively, while UCSF ends up with a 459 percent return.

UCSF is renowned for its medical facilities. The university’s medical school is ranked fifth in the nation and its hospital is ranked seventh, according to a 2009 US News and World Report publication. UCD and UCLA also have extensive research programs that are said to require the extra money.

One of the issues surrounding the idea of returning 100 percent of educational fees back to the UCs is that UCSF would no longer have the necessary funding to continue their high caliber research and care. President Yudof echoed this in an October press conference.

“On the one hand, grad and professional education is more expensive, so that’s a reason to claim more [fees],” Yudof said.

Chancellor Blumenthal disagrees, and has championed the idea that the UCs should get back all that they put in the pot.

“They can support themselves,” Blumenthal said. “UCSF gets … far more grant money than we do. They have hospitals, larger infrastructure and many of their faculty gets a significant fraction of their salary from clinical income. They have alternatives that we don’t have. We’re kind of wstuck with … state income.”

A budget process overview by UCSF published during the 2008-09 year said that even in these tough economic times it is important to remain a competitive institution with money to spend.

“Fee increases imposed by the UCOP have made it more cost-effective for many UCSF researchers to hire postdocs in lieu of graduate research assistants,” the overview said.

Both Yudof and Blumenthal agree that the model for how campuses are funded needs to be re-examined.

“It would go a lot better if we have more money,” Yudof said, “but we’re going to look at the formulas.”

~~~~~

For corresponding audio, tune into “On What Grounds?” next Thursday from 7:30 to 8 p.m. on KZSC 88.1 FM

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Questions Arise Over UCSC Fee Allocations

Illustration by Joe Lai.

The UC regents may have reached a new low. Or high, rather.

In the proposed fee increase, set to be discussed at the upcoming Nov. 17 regents’ meeting at UCLA, resident undergraduate fees will more than likely experience another upward jolt, this time including a mid-year fee increase in addition to planned spikes for the 2010-2011 school year.

While it’s fair to say no UC student would happily invite a tuition increase, this merits more than a few grumbles. Resident undergrads can expect to experience a $585 increase mid-year, $633 for nonresident undergrads. Graduate students will be similarly affected. Assuming everything goes according to the regents’ plan, all student fees will exceed $10,000 by Fall 2010. The decision to lay this on us in the middle of November, a mere two months before the mid-year line, shines a light on a bigger, continuous problem with the regents: their relationship to students.

The regents make a big point of talking to the public, hinting at proposals and potential changes through impersonal e-mails and brief open sessions during their meetings. The problem is, there is currently no productive way for us to talk to them.  While we are always welcome to fire off an angry e-mail or elbow our way to the microphone during open sessions, these options represent little more to us than a running wheel to a hamster.  An e-mail is far too easy to ignore, and the typical schedule for regents’ meeting allows them to meet privately regarding each topic prior to opening the floor to the public — and even when the public finally takes to the floor, their time to speak is capped at a disrespectfully brief 20 minutes. Any exclamation of emotion during the open sessions is treated as an unruly interference and the offender, often a union member, teacher or student, is escorted forcefully from the room and barred from reentering.

It would be foolish to believe that what’s said by the attending public has any real effect on the regents’ votes. It’s far more likely that many minds are made up before we can even say a word.

This new fee hike proposal leaves us especially helpless. We’re already in school, close to having a third of this year done, and many of us are well into our long-term academic tracks. Proposing increases for next year is one thing, as it allows us to finish out our year and plan accordingly. But applying these fees mid-year feels like a trap: pay the increase or leave. And unless we want to stunt our well-earned momentum from this quarter, paying more seems to be our only real option.

The severity of this situation highlights the amount of harm the regents have caused to their would-be significant others: the students. Assuming these proposals do pass on Monday, which is practically a given, we will be stuck with a decision we have no venue in which to effectively react. These choices directly influence us and our ability to get a UC-caliber education, and yet reflect nothing of our voice. The reverberations from previous fee hikes have become more apparent, and yet, as we look ahead to further increases, we remain unable to influence regents’ future decisions.

As economy and budget struggles continue to hinder our university, it is imperative that we have more say in what happens to us. At the end of the day this is still our university.  It is an establishment which should be centered around our education and our needs.

No one knows our needs and thoughts better than we do, and until we are given a productive, effective way to express them, no one ever will.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Our Mid-Year Crisis

Illustration by Joe Lai.

The University of California’s Office of the President has shelved a potential plan to raise fees for undergraduates of certain majors. The plan, presented Sept. 15 to the UC Regents, intended to charge business and engineering majors an additional $900 starting at the beginning of the 2010-11 school year. While regents will vote on two other fee increases for all students at the November Regent’s meeting, they will not take a vote on the differential fee plan.

“The University is not going forward with this fee action item,” Ricardo Vasquez, a UC spokesman, told City on a Hill Press. “The administration will take a further view and have an ongoing conversation to consider this plan’s impact on diversity, access and affordability.”

The fee action item, one of three ideas proposed to close the budget shortfall, was proposed by UC Regents anticipating a larger budget deficit next year than it is currently facing. At the beginning of the 2009-10 fiscal year, the University of California faced a one billion dollar budget gap. After implementing a plan of debt restructuring, faculty salary reduction and student fee increases, that gap will be lowered to $535 million.

According to the University of California Office of the President website, this fee increase would be in recognition of the higher costs associated with these programs.

“These disciplines were under consideration because they usually have higher costs, with expensive lab and equipment and higher paid faculty,” said Vasquez.

Student leaders and University officials showed concern about the idea’s fiscal impact and its effect on diversity at the UC.

Victor Sanchez, a fourth-year from Oakes and the external vice chair of the UCSC Student Union Assembly (SUA), called this plan “a backhanded attempt to tax students.”

“The impact of this plan is more than just the price — it’s the diversity and amount of students who may now be unwilling be in these majors,” Sanchez said.

Kalwis Lo, chair of the UCSC SUA, met with UC President Yudof on Oct. 15 to discuss the fiscal situation on the universities. Lo expressed a view similar to Sanchez’s. He said he was disappointed in the proposed plan for fee hikes and was “definitely satisfied,” that the idea to raise fees for specific majors was taken off the table.

“The SUA brought up this issue a lot and advocated against it for quite a while,” Lo said. “I do not believe that money is the root of the issues here. I simply believe that someone isn’t looking hard enough or willing to go the extra mile to come up with some solutions. If we truly are the best institution in the world, here is the opportunity to astound the world and show how impressive we can be.”

Regents will vote on two other fee proposals at their next meeting, taking place from Nov. 17th to 19th at UCLA. The first proposal is a mid-year tuition hike of $585 for undergraduates, to be implemented spring quarter. The second, to begin in the 2010-11 school year, is a $1,334 tuition increase for undergraduate students — together amounting to a 32 percent rise in current tuition for University of California undergraduates.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Differential Fees Plan off the Table

by Alex Zamora

Twenty masked individuals blockaded themselves within the Graduate Student Commons earlier today, following a rally at the base of campus.

Over-turned dumpsters, potted plants and students secured entry ways as a sizable crowd gathered in front of Joe’s Subs and at the building’s rear entrance. Individuals could be seen hauling chain-linked fencing to further block off access to the building.

Those standing in solidarity with the protesters, who themselves could not be reached for comment, said the protest was directed towards the recent budget allocations of the University of California Board of Regents, which resulted in thousands of lay-offs, mandatory furloughs and cuts to courses at the UC’s ten campuses.

“It’s not just about budget allocations,” third-year Emily Andersen said. “This is an entire critique of the way the university has been run.”

She and second-year Jackie Reinagel were among the dozen or so students at the rear entrance who committed to “defending the people inside” by positioning themselves in front of access points and, should the need arise, linking arms to prevent police from entering the building.

“[Budget issues] affect us all and I’m glad people here are getting involved in protest,” Reinagel said.

“I’m getting classes taught by T.A.’s instead of professors,” Andersen interjected. “I’m having sections cut. I hope people walk away from this and get more involved in politics instead of sitting around and complaining and take action themselves.”

Jim Burns, public relations officer for UC Santa Cruz, was about 100 yards from the protest, watching the scene amongst a group of university officials. He could not comment on the acts of the Commons’ occupants as he didn’t know enough details about who they were or what they were doing.

He did address some of the primary concerns the protesters and spectators had regarding the actions of the regents, emphasizing the need to recognize where the source of financial strain stemmed.

“This campus has sustained more than $50 million in budget reductions from the state of California,” he said. “That’s the reason why fees are increasing, that’s the reason there are lay-offs, that’s the reason there are furloughs, and that’s why access is being denied to a great public university.”

A student standing close to Joe’s Subs, who wished to remain anonymous, didn’t know too much about the issues at hand but said she wasn’t bothered by the occupation and protest.

“I think [the protest] is ridiculously important,” she said. “Even if the issue is small, people need to take action if they’re passionate about something. Organizing and protesting is important no matter what the issue.”

Protesters Andersen and Reinagel said the twenty occupants had been planning the take-over for weeks and are prepared to remain in the building indefinitely.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Protesters’ Take Over at UCSC

Photo courtesy of Jesse Cheng.

Photo courtesy of Jesse Cheng.

Jesse Cheng, a third-year Asian American studies major at UC Irvine, was nominated by the UC Board of Regents Special Committee as the candidate for the 2009-10 student regent delegate.

The committee met on May 20 in Santa Monica to nominate Cheng. Their choice was not public until the following Friday because of a protocol which mandates that the UC President and chairman of the board of regents be notified first.

On June 30, the Board of Regents will vote Cheng or one of two other student regent finalists into the office. Though the regents have voted in accordance with the Special Committee’s nomination in nearly every election, nothing is certain until that date.

As of July 1, the current student regent designate, Jesse Bernal, will become a voting member of the board and the new student regent designate will assume the responsibilities of that position.

Cheng’s résumé is laden with political experience. He has participated in several university organizations including serving as external chair for the Asian American Students Union at UCI, Academic Senate representative for the Council for Educational Policy, chair of the Student Fee Advisory Committee, an administrative intern for the College Cultural Center, and a summer intern for the UC Student Association.

If elected, Cheng will be the first undergraduate student regent in more than five years. As an undergraduate, the student regent nominee said, he will bring a new point of view to the board.

“Being an undergrad really affects what I bring to the table,” he said. “I want to be very cognizant that I bring all perspectives.”

The student regent nominee opened up to City on a Hill Press about his plans, aspirations and reservations serving as student regent designate.

Why did you want to be a student regent?

When I first applied, I applied because one of my mentors had told me to apply. It was kind of on a whim. As the interviews went on, you grow a more developed reason you want to become a UC regent. The decisions we make in the next few years are going to shape the model of the university for the next few decades and I want to be part of that. I want to preserve the quality of education we find here at the UC system.

What are your top priorities as a student regent?

There’s a lot to learn about the UC system. In my lifetime of experiences there is no way to understand the complexity of the University of California’s history. I don’t really have an agenda. I want to be able to have a broad perspective as a regent.

How will you represent the students at your school and the other UC campuses?

I cannot claim to represent every student in the UC system. I am not necessarily a representation of all the students in the UC system. What I do have is my perspective, my perspective as a UC student. Through that perspective, that’s how I say I serve the UC. I have a shared experience of many students. I would like to believe that I have shared values and shared beliefs.

What is the first step you’d take to solve the UC budget crises?

Maybe we need to think more broadly than fee hikes. How we address these cuts will affect our model for higher education for decades to come. Even if we increase tuition it’s not going to answer back.

The problem is very complex but I think we need to take a step back. They’re much more complex and nuanced than raising tuition. My issue for tuition increases is accessibility and affordability.

I don’t want the public to de-invest from the University of California. We need to be able to explain to the state that this is still a public institution for everybody and a vehicle for social mobility.

Are you nervous about the appointment?

Oh yeah. That’s why I’m being careful about what I’m saying now. Not that there’s a misrepresentation of what I’m saying. I just want to be cognizant of what I’m saying and how I’m saying it. Part of me is very hesitant about putting out something that I may later regret when I have more information or I have a new perspective.

I stand for what I stand for. I spoke [at the May 7 regents’ meeting] because I believe in accessibility and affordability. I know where my values stand. I know what I’d like to do and what I want to do. It’s a level I’ve never had to operate at before. I’d like to believe that my values won’t change when I get to that level, but maybe my information will.

Many people are talking about privatization and adopting a model like that used at the University of Michigan. Do you think that’s a good idea?

I’m really deeply invested in the idea of the UC as a public higher institution model. The idea of being a part of public higher education is really what has made the university so great. If the UC were to go private I think we’d lose something that really makes us special.

How do you think the state should reprioritize taxes and ballot initiatives to fund public education?

It’s a system that’s so much larger than whether we increase or decrease tuition. It says something about how drastic these cuts are, and how dire the budge situation in the state of California is, when the university is saying they can’t absorb all the cuts in one year.

The history of propositions build up to this time. Our solutions must be very fundamental and deep, and a solution will take just as long as the legislation has to get us to where we are now.

How do you plan to act as a liaison between the regents and the students?

A part of me really believes that they want to do the best for the students. They want to do the best for the University of California. That’s the role of the student regent — to bring the student perspective to the regents and bring the regents’ perspective back to the students. For me, it’s about understanding that these regents are here voluntarily. They want to do good by the university.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at The New Voice of UC Anticipates his Election

Sheryl Vacca (left), University of California Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, talks to Regent Gould at the recent Regents meeting. Photo by Arianna Puopolo.

Regents Richard Blum, Leslie Schilling and Russell Gould sat under the fluorescent lights of the UC San Francisco community center at Mission Bay, conducting side conversations while the regents’ senior vice president and chief of compliance and audit directed the May 7 meeting. 

The office of the regents cited  swine flu as the cause for reorganizing the event, which was adapted from a three-day conference in San Diego to a six-hour teleconference.

Thanks to the change of plans, and despite the fact that a potential student fee increase was the topic of discussion, there were none of the protests that usually mark each of the six regent meetings held every year. 

One or two students at each of the dozen participating satellite sites took turns speaking during the public comment period. Although, in some cases, these students were separated by hundreds of miles, they were joined in solidarity against the proposed fee hikes. But even after listening to 35 minutes of students crying, begging and pleading, only four of the 26 regents voted against the increase. Beginning fall 2009, student fees will go up by 9.3 percent. 

Adam Brown, a second-year engineering major at UCLA, resented the likelihood that he would see many tangible benefits from the hikes.

“If we’re not going to see any return on [the fee hikes], it’s unfair,” he said. “We’re being taken advantage of.”

Lisa Chen, a fourth-year at UC San Diego, was aggravated by the regents’ lack of accessibility.

“I’ve never felt so silenced and so marginalized as I do right now,” she said through the teleconference speakers. 

Many of the students who participated in the public comment period condemned the “high-fee, high-aid” model that the regents seem to be subscribing to. In this model, they said, middle-income and undocumented students suffer the most.  

UC President Mark Yudof dismissed these claims, saying that the UC is far from a high-fee, high-aid model. He said the fiscal implications are intended to be minimal for students.

“You are exaggerating the impact,” Yudof said to those listening in from the other teleconference sites. “Everybody has a compelling case.  We just don’t have a lot of money.”

Andrea San Miguel is a fifth-year community studies major affiliated with College Ten. She joined the Coalition to Save Community Studies and was approved by SUA to attend the conference call in San Francisco as a whiteliner, someone who has permission from the office of the regents to have the same access privileges as a member of the press.

San Miguel approached Yudof after the meeting went into private session. She wanted to discuss program cuts at UC Santa Cruz, but said Yudof was unreceptive.

“I tried to speak with [Yudof] after the meeting, asking if he minded if I got a few more seconds with him, and he said yes, he did mind, [and] that our conversation was over,” she said. 

Lucero Chavez, UC Student Association (UCSA) president and second-year UC Berkeley Boalt Hall Law student, commiserated with the student body and promised the regents retaliation if the fee hike trend continues.

“I have a very high threshold on pain,” Chavez said. “But we’re reaching a breaking point.  As students, we’ve been really quiet this year and we don’t have to be.”

Chairman Blum responded to Chavez by saying, “Please just don’t come here and complain.”

Many of the regents extended their sympathy and regret to the students anticipating financial crises due to the fee hike and blamed the legislature, denying that there might be any other solution to the budget crisis.  

Retired attorney Eddie Island was one of four regents who voted against raising fees. 

“The continuous increase of student fees changes the fundamental principle of the university creating access and affordability,” Island said. “Every time the legislature says they’ve got other priorities, the regents respond by raising student fees. It’s time for us to turn to … a model that will guarantee the funding and security of the university.”

Island said that treating this year’s fee hike like an isolated incident is inaccurate and deceitful because similar hikes have happened in seven of the last eight years. The exception, he noted, was an election year.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi serves on the Board of Regents. He was one of the four to oppose the fee hike. Garamendi explained that his opposition reflects the respect with which he regards public education and what it can contribute to California.

“If we stay on the course we’re on with ever-higher fees, we will have lost one of the most important economic systems that can benefit this state,” Garamendi said. 

“The result of the vote to raise students’ fees will have a bigger impact on students than some of the regents and President Yudof are willing to admit to themselves,” UCSC student San Miguel said.  “Increasing financial aid does not necessarily neutralize the effect of higher fees, and it does have an impact on who applies and how hard high-school students attempt to get into four-year schools, as UCSA said in their presentation at the meeting.”

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at Six-Hour Teleconference Seals Financial Fate of UC Students

Illustration by Joe Lai.

The recent outbreak of swine flu has our Board of Regents scared. 

In these times of fear we see people act irrationally. From airplanes landing prematurely to the UC Board of Regents canceling their annual meeting, the H1N1 virus has many on edge.

This year, pressing budget issues facing the entire UC system would’ve been the main priority of the Regents’ three-day meeting. In Santa Cruz alone, community studies, American studies, Latin American studies, feminist studies, and men and women’s water polo are but a few of the programs in danger of being cut back or cut completely.

Another vitally important topic that was to be discussed is the raising of annual tuition for students. In the past decade, fees have more than doubled, with the state now paying half of what it was 20 years ago. The proposed fee hike for the 2009-2010 year is 9.3 percent.

The issues and solutions that the Regents decide upon affect every single UC student. By turning what would be an extensive three-day meeting into a one-day conference call, the Regents have effectively denied public comment and press access to the meeting while belittling issues that are extremely important to the very students they should have been serving.

Amid all this foolishness, the UC Regents have not only found an excuse to skirt some of their most important duties, but by treating San Diego, where the meeting was to be held, like a plague-ridden city, they’ve shown that they care about themselves more than their students.

The flu, or influenza, has been a common illness among humans for decades. Every year, people flock to medical centers to receive flu shots before the season begins. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the flu hits about 5 to 20 percent of our population and kills around 36,000 people annually. 

Conversely, the H1N1 virus, caused by a mutated influenza virus that infects pigs, had 1,516 confirmed hospitalizations as of Wednesday afternoon, and it has caused approximately 160 total deaths to date. 

Yet during all the frenzied media coverage of World Health Organization security alerts, we as students have carried on with our everyday responsibilities. We continue to juggle our school and work responsibilities; there’s no time for some pig flu scare in our hectic lives.

The UC Regents’ cowardly avoidance of San Diego and their duties is inexcusable. If H1N1 is such a problem that they cannot risk going down to San Diego themselves, it is difficult to understand why they are allowing UC San Diego, with approximately 28,000 total enrolled students, to stay open. 

As servants of a public institution that faces major budget cuts, educates thousands of students from all over the world and is considering raising tuition by nearly 10 percent, the Regents do not have the time or luxury to cancel a meeting as important as this bi-monthly, three-day Regents gathering. 

In light of such strenuous financial times, the actions of the Regents are ill-advised, cowardly and selfish. Their position of privilege does not put them above doing their jobs. This meeting was too important to shy away from, and yet they decided to regardless.

---- (C) 2011 City on a Hill Press. All Rights Reserved. View online at UC Regents Run Scared from the Flu