Thursday, July 28, 2011

State Audit Report on UC: "The budget process results in varying amounts per student distributed among campuses—in fiscal year 2009-10, amounts per student ranged from $12,309 to $55,186 among campuses. "

start with the letter, "it did not quantify their effects"...:

"To The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this audit report concerning the University of California (university), focusing on public funding, student fees, and auxiliary enterprises. The report concludes that public revenues increased from $9.3 billion in fiscal year 2005–06 to $11.3 billion in fiscal year 2009–10. Revenue from tuition and fees grew the most of any single revenue category due to increased rates and increases in enrollment. This revenue increase along with new revenues from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 helped to partially offset the decline in state funding in fiscal years 2008–09 and 2009–10. We also concluded that public expenses, excluding certain retirement expenses, increased from $8.2 billion in fiscal year 2005–06 to
$9.4 billion in fiscal year 2009–10. The retirement expenses increased by $3 billion because of a change in accounting rules and updated actuarial valuations. In addition, the university budgeted widely varying amounts to its 10 campuses. For fiscal year 2009–10, the per-student budget amount ranged from $12,309 for the Santa Barbara campus to $55,186 for the San Francisco campus.Although the university identified four factors that it believes contributed to the differing budget amounts, it did not quantify their effects. The university can also improve the transparency of its financial operations. Although the university publishes annually a report of the campuses’ financial schedules, it could provide other information including beginning and ending balances for individual funds and could publish consistent information for its auxiliary enterprises. We further reported that the Office of the President needs to more precisely track about $1 billion of expenses annually that it currently tracks in a single accounting code—Miscellaneous Services—and that a recent change in university policy allows campuses to subsidize auxiliary enterprises with funding from other sources, despite the intent that they be self-supporting. Finally, we discovered two instances when the university designated $23 million in student funding to pay for capital projects on the Los Angeles campus that were not authorized by the student referendum establishing the fee.
Respectfully submitted,
ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
State Auditor"


then, move on to:
The Full Report
-important: it is a 100 page report- please make sure to read from page 87- page 91 --if you can read nothing more... it is very telling...

Or, really skim and see:

Highlights, overview- HERE but when you have time -- go back and read page 87-91 from the full report (page 87 begins the section where the state auditor responds to UC's response on the state auditor's findings)...

"CALIFORNIANS who get it on UC" -- below we will link to like minded blog posts and well written news stories on this report:

State Releases Audit of UC System from Changing Universities

Sadly, Changing Universities notes:
"Turning to the most controversial aspect of the report, the auditor points out that the campuses serving the most under-represented students also get the lowest level of findings. While it is understandable that the university objects to this conclusion, they cannot object to the facts. Whatever the cause, the reality is that Black and Hispanic students may be receiving an inferior education because their tuition dollars are going to support non-under-represented professional students on other campuses. A more accurate description of this situation is that a side-effect of undergraduates subsidizing graduate and professional students on other campuses is that under-represented students are being under-funded." Is anyone in Oakland, East LA, Isla Vista etc. listening?

Please also read this story, for context, on the racial aspects as they relate to the audit findings,: Wealth Gap Rises to Record Highs Between Racial Groups

Capitol Alert: Audit says University of California should be more transparent

State audit suggests tweaks to UC budgeting SF Chronicle -it is an odd headline given what is stated in the story- like: "For example, $6 billion was budgeted for the UC president's office over five years, all of it falling under a line-item category called miscellaneous services." Does that sound like just a "tweak" to you?! But it also has an excellent breakdown campus by campus graph.

UC Criticized By State Auditor For Secrecy In Spending-
The University of California declines to explain to state auditors how it doles out funding to each of its 10 campuses, despite dramatic differences in per-student spending.

Auditor criticizes University of California system over distribution of funds
By Larry Gordon - Los Angeles Times via Bellingham Herald (sad the cuts in reporters at LA Times and weird that Bellingham,WA has Gordon's story featured better than the LA Times-- weird weird weird!)

State Auditor Slams UC For Secrecy in Spending-President Yudof disagrees but vows to improve transparency

-there's no problem, no problem was found-- but we will work on the problem, the problem that we refuse to acknowledge -- it reminds us of News of the World, Rebekah Wade Brooks or something like that...
is that UCOP disinformation logic or something?

"UC 'NewsRooms' Press Releaase": entitled "State audit: No evidence of waste, fraud or abuse "

Parroted by other news sources: State audit of UC finds no waste, fraud or abuse by 89.3 KPCC | Southern California Public Radio

and then there are those who want to be clever in their response: Disparities Between UC Campuses Should Be No Surprise

but fails to address sections of the report where the state auditor is calling out UC operations- particularly IT-- like this: “We appreciate the university’s concern about the trade‐off in staff time to implement this recommendation. In that light, the university may wish to consider implementing a Web site similar to the one we created that contains supplemental accounting information we obtained during this audit. On our Web site, we present a link (www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/2010‐105/) to information related to public funding from the university’s corporate financial system related to fund categories; fund groups; and funds that includes beginning balances, revenues, expenses, transfers, and ending balances. Our information technology team created this Web site using fewer than 60 hours of staff time. We therefore fail to see why the university believes it needs between 12 and 18 months to review and implement this recommendation.”

...and it is after reading that passage that we are reminded that this is UC's current CIO...we also seem to recall similar suggestions were made to UC in the 2006 audit.

much of the news coverage on this latest audit fails to address the real issues UC refuses to address- is it a $10 billion dollar hospital system financed by a undergraduate tuition? or, is it a university committed to undergraduates, grad, post docs and patients equally? if so, how can it quantify it? prove it? -- and these questions don't even begin to address 'the labs' in all of this...

and the $6 Billion dollar over 5 years miscellaneous expenses book keeping...

the student newspapers have only just begun to start covering it: here is Daily Cal's coverage. -- surprisingly, Daily Cal does not connect their latest stories on the ASUC auxiliary take over to the discussion of auxiliaries in the audit report...well, not yet anyway.

1 comment:

  1. University of California Berkeley tuition, fee increases are an insult. Californians face mortgage defaults, 12% unemployment, pay reductions, loss of unemployment benefits. No layoff of UC Chancellors, Faculty during greatest recession of modern times. Yudof curb wages, benefits for sons and daughters of Californians! If wages better elsewhere, chancellors, vice chancellors, tenured, non tenured faculty, UCOP apply for the positions. If wages are what commit employees to UC, leave for better paying position.
    UC wages must reflect California's ability to pay, not what others are paid. There is no good reason to raise UC tuition, fees when wage concessions are available.
    The sky will not fall on UC.
    ‘Pitch in’ UC President, Faculty, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, UCOP:
    No furloughs
    18 percent reduction in UCOP salaries & $50 million cut.
    18 percent prune of campus chancellors', vice chancellors' salaries.
    15 percent trim of tenured faculty salaries, increased teaching load
    10 percent decrease in non-tenured faculty salaries, as well as increase research, teaching load
    100% elimination of all Academic Senate, Academic Council costs, wages.

    (17,000 UC paid employees earn more than $100,000)

    However, rose bushes always bloom after pruning.

    UC Board of Regents Chair Sherry Lansing can bridge the public trust gap with reassurances that UC salaries reflect depressed wages in California. The sky will not fall on UC

    ReplyDelete