PD Editorial: UC regents should table tuition increase

UC regents are scheduled to vote today on an ill-advised plan to increase tuition up to 5 percent annually for the next five years. Before they act, the regents might want to review some recent news coverage of the university:

On Monday, the Sacramento Bee reported that UC’s unfunded pension liability exceeds $7 billion, much of it attributable to a two-decade holiday from making retirement contributions for the university and its employees. Meanwhile, the cost of retiree health care benefits, presently $263 million a year, is on pace to more than double to $671 million in 2024-25.

So, is a steep tuition increase really about expanding opportunities for students? Or is it addressing a failure to plan for benefits promised to UC employees?

A day earlier, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on UC’s failure to comply with a new state law requiring the university to detail its spending on undergraduate vs. postgraduate education and research as well as its various funding sources and how that money is allocated.

UC officials are now promising a final report next month, well after the tuition vote.

Finally, columnist George Skelton of the Los Angeles Times reminded readers that just two months ago the regents approved pay raises of up to 20 percent for the chancellors at four UC campuses. They also hired a new chancellor at UC Irvine, whose starting pay will be 24 percent more than his predecessor received after 10 years on the job.

None of this news inspires much confidence in money management at UC, where tuition, presently $12,192 per year, has doubled since 2006 and tripled since 2002.

UC President Janet Napolitano says the state isn’t providing enough money for the nine-campus university, leaving her no choice but to seek a tuition increase.

Brown, who is a voting member of the Board of Regents, counters that UC has received funding increases in return for a tuition freeze under an agreement that has two years left to run.

They’re both right.

The state’s financial commitment has eroded for two decades, shifting the burden for higher education to students and their families. In 2005, state funding covered about 60 percent of the cost of a year’s education. Today, it covers about 40 percent, and funding still lags behind pre-recession levels.

But pension debt and executive compensation aren’t the only valid concerns with UC’s leadership. Brown has made points about needing to help more students graduate in four years and getting tenured faculty members into the classroom more frequently.

For the moment, Brown’s strongest argument is the 2011 agreement to freeze tuition for four years in return for increased state subventions. He has kept his word; the regents need to do the same.

If they don’t, Brown and the Legislature could justifiably reduce state aid one dollar for every dollar the university charges in higher tuition. But that wouldn’t be the best outcome either.

The regents should table Napolitano’s proposal, and they should expedite the legally mandated report on university spending. From there, legislators, the governor, Napolitano and the regents could begin an informed discussion of the university’s finances, its future and the proper mix of public funding and student fees.