See SF Gate:
"Napolitano’s office will also offer its 2017-18 budget to the regents for approval, and one difference from last year’s budget is already obvious.
Last year’s budget was seven pages long. The new one is 30 pages, packed with details about spending and expected fund balances that were previously absent.
Another difference: The new budget, $813.5 million, is 19 percent higher than this year’s $686 million.
The president’s two-part budget document for programs and administration says the budget grew because of the rising cost of the university’s education abroad system, patent management and other programs. In addition, the president’s office has been gradually taking over payroll functions for the university system.
The president’s office raises money in part by charging a fee to campuses. In her audit, Howle criticized the president’s office for repeatedly increasing the fee even as it squirreled away millions of dollars in reserves it didn’t report to the regents. Many of Howle’s recommendations call for the president’s office to consider returning money to campuses.
In her new budget, Napolitano offers for the first time a chart showing details of the campus assessment.
It shows that her office raised the campus fee by 7 percent last year and 3 percent the year before, but that it had reduced it by nearly 1 percent the year before that. In the new budget, the campus fee remains at $312 million from all campuses. That’s an average of $31.2 million for each campus, although the amount varies depending on the number of students, employees and expenditures.
But another campus charge for the payroll service had not been previously included in the budget. The new presentation shows that the fee will rise by 16 percent to $52 million per campus, up from $20 million last year."
- in Sacto there was talk of a deficit in OP's gen counsel section
And of course the driver of UC PATH history and currently in this...
And LA T had some USC vouching for higher education expenditures:
“I'm troubled that the UC is a punching bag for fiscal extravagance when in the grand scheme of things this is not what the audit found,” said Tierney, co-director of the USC Pullias Center here:
And then some coverage of today's meeting,
but no mention of Regent Perez taking issue with opening comments from Lozano, chalfant, Napolitano as the sole representation of UC Regents position on audit findings- he wanted it clear that there was no uniform UC Regents position other than to adopt the 33 recommendations...
And then check out what's being peddled to the Cal alumni here:
“The legislators who are complaining about this reserve fund are the same ones who have been starving UC, CSU, and the community colleges for a very long time,” he said. “I understand that there’s only a limited amount of money to go around. And maybe K-12 education, Medicaid, and low-income housing are more important than higher education. But our universities have been hurt a great deal over the past few decades by a lack of state appropriations. That’s the real issue.”
"The University of Alabama pays their football coach [more than $11 million a year],” he said. “Is it worth it? Apparently it is to Alabama: they make a lot of money on football, and being number one in college football is important to people in a state with significant poverty and other problems. Alabamans are proud of the University of Alabama. And we’re proud of Berkeley, but for reasons of research and academics. But if we don’t stay competitive, the best and the brightest grad students and undergrads will go to Harvard or Stanford or MIT.”
“The optics are not the greatest here, and the president is now vulnerable.”
Returning to his main thesis, Sugarman noted UCOP ultimately isn’t responsible for ensuring the university is adequately funded: That’s the job of the state legislature. He does believe, however, that Napolitano didn’t handle the survey issue well and that she was not forthcoming in providing information to the state auditor on specific discretionary spending programs. And this legitimate criticism, he said, has hobbled UCOP."
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Wm. De La Pena
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- Norman Pattiz (AGAIN!)
- John A. Pérez
- Bonnie Reiss
- Richard Sherman
- Bruce Varner
- Charlene Zettel
- VACANT (M Anguiano?)
- VACANT (L Park?)
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- VACANT (E Tauscher?)
- VACANT (H Guber?)
- Paul Monge
- Vacant (by Lozano)
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)