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