A Persistent funding
gap
Budget plan still fails to cover needs
by Cynthia lee
ucla today staff
Although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005-06 budget plan
offers a 3% increase in state funding for the University of California
— enough to provide merit and salary range adjustments for
faculty and staff, as well as funding for an additional 5,000 full-time
students — there is still a growing gap between state funds
that UC receives and the estimated amount it needs to operate, said
UCLA’s budget chief.
Speaking to Academic Senate members Feb. 8 at the Faculty Center,
Vice Chancellor Steve Olsen compared actual state funding received
with workload funding — an annual increase of 6.5%, the estimated
amount that UC needs each year to offset the effects of increased
salaries, operating expenses and enrollment growth.
From 1999-2002, UC was receiving more than it needed to cover those
expenses, Olsen said. Then, beginning in 2002-03, the trend reversed
during three straight years of deep budget cuts. Although UC will
likely be receiving slightly more state funding in 2005-06, the
cumulative difference between that number and workload funding is
at 24%, the largest gap in seven years, Olsen said.
The widening of the gap in 2005-06 is primarily due to the governor’s
proposed cut of $17 million for enrollment and academic preparation
programs, which Olsen called “a political football in Sacramento.”
Last year, when the governor attempted to eliminate all funding
for these programs, legislators worked out an 11th-hour compromise
to save the programs from near-extinction. This year, however, battle
over the proposed $17-million cut is looming.
UC President Robert C. Dynes said UC intends to work with Gov. Schwarzenegger
and lawmakers to demonstrate the importance of academic preparation
programs and to seek restoration of those funds.
Olsen also explained how UC has absorbed state funding cuts over
the last three years. While raising student fees helped cover 25%
of the budget cuts, and the lack of salary increases and range and
cost-of-living adjustments covered another 25%, half of the cuts
were absorbed as funding reductions to academic and administrative
programs.
“There’s no doubt that fees for undergraduate, graduate
and professional program students have all increased rather sharply
in the last three years,” Olsen explained. “But even
with those startling increases, that new revenue made up only one
quarter of the loss of state funds.”
|
