A shift in the way the UC Office of the President gathers funds from each campus has caused some concern about the impact on student fees and the financial state of individual campuses.
In previous academic years, revenue generated from individual campuses had been collected and then redistributed across the UC system, but a change in policy implemented at the start of the 2011-12 academic year has allowed campuses to keep these revenues and instead pay 1.6 percent of that amount to UCOP.
The taxed funds can come from sources such as tuition, state general funds, application fee revenue and patent revenue. The funds then go toward shared systemwide needs such as multicampus research projects and central administrative services.
UCOP has left the question of whether to tax revenue such as fees generated by student fee referenda up to the chancellors at each campus, according to UCOP spokesperson Shelly Meron. The Berkeley campus currently does not collect revenue from student fee referenda for this purpose, but concerns have been raised at other campuses where fee referenda face taxation.
After UC Santa Barbara Associated Students expressed concern over the impact that the new funding model might have on student fee referenda, a forum was hosted on campus on April 16 at which students discussed the tax with UCOP Executive Vice President of Business Operations Nathan Brostrom and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Peter Taylor.
Student leaders on the Berkeley campus have raised objections to the inclusion of student fee referenda funds in the 1.6 percent tax.
Bahar Navab, campus Graduate Assembly president, said she felt that the inclusion of student fee referenda was unfair because students might have been aware when voting for the new fees that some of the money might go toward the UCOP tax.
“I’m hoping that UCOP will offer a stronger message to chancellors that this money shouldn’t come from student fee referenda and student money, but in the long term we’d like to see UCOP not include student referenda or student money in these calculations,” Navab said.
Erin Gore, UC Berkeley associate vice chancellor and chief financial officer, said that the new tax method, which resulted in UC Berkeley paying approximately $27 million this academic year, is better for the campus because the previous method of gathering revenue made it difficult to determine the actual revenue amount Berkeley would receive from taxed funding sources.
“As a campus, we are seeking ways to achieve financial stability — both by knowing the revenues we expect to receive and the expenses we expect to incur,” Gore said in an email. “This change is a move in the right direction, it supports our ability to predict campus revenues and expenses.”
Gore added that the amount the Berkeley campus paid this year under the new funding initiative was comparable to “off the top” funds UCOP would have received under the previous revenue collection model.
The new method of collecting revenue also gives campuses more of an idea of how money will be applied, according to Elizabeth Deakin, co-chair of the campus division of the Academic Senate Committee on Academic Planning and Resource Allocation.
“We are actually better off because we have a clearer picture of what we bring in on each campus and what we are paying for shared systemwide services,” Deakin said.
However, in light of financial problems, UCSF Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann has expressed concerns with the new tax, and the campus has made moves to increase its independence from the system in order to strengthen its financial situation.
According to UCSF spokesperson Jennifer O’Brien, Desmond-Hellmann has asked the UC Board of Regents and the UCOP to partner with UCSF to review governance and financial issues. The regents have responded by agreeing to convene a work group, which will report to the regents in July.
Jamie Applegate covers higher education.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Gore and Deakin are both spouting bullshit, very little specific information from either, document the ambiguities:
1) previous method of gathering revenue made it difficult to determine
2) seeking ways to achieve financial stability
3) a move in the right direction
4) was comparable to “off the top” funds UCOP would have received
5) more of an idea of how money will be applied
6) we have a clearer picture of what we bring in
comparable? does that mean +/-10%, or does it mean order of magnitude,…
At best this is a blanket admission that both budgeting and accounting at UC are atrociously mismanaged, b/c to date they haven’t really
“know[n] the revenues we expect to receive and the expenses we expect to incur”.
That’s what you get from a bloated administration and their sky-high salaries!
Prof. Kessler accused UCSF of misappropriating hundreds of millions in federal grant monies (2003), UC brought in KPMG to do an audit. UC lied to the press and State Legislature about the results of that audit, saying ‘everything’s kosher’.
Unfortunately for UC, Reality Intrudes:
“KPMG did not address the accuracy of the figures contained in the Boyden Letter because UCSF was not able to provide a documented process/methodology used to create the “Sources of Funds” Schedule. Therefore, computation of the “Sources of Funds” Schedule was not repeatable and the figures contained therein could not be reconciled to the General Ledger.”
http://pogoarchives.org/m/co/grassley-letter-to-university-of-california-system-20091207.pdf
http://chronicle.com/article/Audit-Firm-Sides-With-Ex-Dean/40376
Wow. You found an ambiguous event from 9 years ago! And immediately proceeded to mis-represent the results of the professional audit. Thanks for providing the links, though.