BY CYNTHIA LEE
UCLA Today Staff

With the state months away from finalizing a spending plan for 2003-04 and a new alternative proposal from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, uncertainties about next year’s budget abound. But to shed some light on the ongoing process, Chancellor Albert Carnesale on Feb. 11 updated the Academic Senate on the budget and possible impact on UCLA.

For the current 2002-03 fiscal year, UCLA already has sustained midyear cuts totaling $7.6 million in the areas of research, outreach, student services and institutional and academic support — cuts well within the range of what administrators had anticipated and planned for, the chancellor said.

The proposed 2003-04 budget released last month by Gov. Gray Davis attempts to close a $35-billion gap between projected state revenues and expenditures over the next year and a half. Under that plan, UCLA would sustain $24 million in cuts for 2003-04. State funds for research would be cut by $1.7 million (10%) across the board; outreach programs would lose $2.8 million (50%); student services $4.7 million (30%); institutional and academic support $7.5 million (3%); with unallocated cuts of $7.1 million.

Cuts in research would be especially painful to the north campus, with limited access to federal funds, the chancellor said. But as mandated, the cuts — 10% midyear and a projected 10% in the Davis budget — have to be made across the board, Carnesale said, not at the discretion of the campus.

“When people ask why did Murphy Hall cut this program, the answer is we had no choice. The mandate was 10% across the board on every line item,” he explained.

To preserve instruction, student mandatory fees would need to rise, according to the governor’s plan. The University of California Regents have already approved an increase to offset $19 million of UC’s $74-million midyear cut. Together with another increase proposed for next year, the fee increases would help UC recoup $179 million of its $373-million reduction in state funds. Together, both increases represent a 35% hike in student mandatory fees.

“These are increases in fees to compensate for reductions in funding by the state,” Carnesale said. They do nothing to increase funding to the university, he explained.

The increases, which would hike fees from around $3,500 to nearly $5,000 a year, will not cut off access to students who are least able to afford it, the chancellor explained, because one-third of the increase will be set aside for financial aid. “That means that if you have one child in college, and your family income is $60,000 or less, there will be no effect because financial aid will pick up the difference in fees.”

While the Davis plan would protect instruction from cuts, core student services, such as admissions and the financial aid office, also would be preserved. However, some student programs funded by registration fees — student health, intercollegiate athletics and student activity programs — may be impacted.

On the 50% proposed cut to outreach, the chancellor said that the Legislature is likely to restore some funding to outreach as it has in the past. UCLA is involved in outreach programs at 86 middle and high schools in the greater Los Angeles area.

Carnesale also reassured the faculty that while Davis’ budget provides no new funding for faculty merit raises, UC plans to redirect existing funds to raise the $25 million to provide merits to UC faculty who are scheduled for academic advancement.

On Feb. 19, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) offered an alternative budget plan that proposes less funding for enrollment growth, a lower student fee increase than assumed by the governor and a significant reduction in the amount of new fee revenue that UC could commit to financial aid. Instead, the plan suggests increasing funding to the Cal Grant B program.

UC officials, still assessing the LAO proposal, expressed initial concern that it would impact lower- and middle-income students, especially with the proposed shift in financial aid funding.

The LAO report also suggests that the Legislature direct UC to temporarily increase its student-faculty ratio in order to minimize cuts to instruction.

As negotiations continue, campus leaders await the next major step in the process, the governor’s May Revision of the budget, which will reflect negotiations to date.

“We’re roughly in Act 1, Scene 2, of a three-act play,” the chancellor reminded Academic Senate members. “We’re in the very early stages of the budget process. But I wanted at least to let you know where it stands.”