UC System Flunks Test with Increases
The UC Board of Regents has decided to raise statewide fees some 32-percent, while ignoring their own fiscal waste, inner-circle intelligencia perks and favors, and continual funding of the egregious UC Labor Institute.
Suffer the students, let them eat cake.
College students across the country are paying higher tuitions, as state budgets evaporate inside of a recession. But nowhere are the increases as dramatic as they are in California. Earlier this year the CSU System increased their fees by 32-precent as well.
If you are a college student in California, there is nowhere to hide.
In two steps over the next year, the UC System will hike up fees to a whopping $11,287; an overall 29-percent increase from the original rate beginning in 2009. And they’re not finished; a report today indicates that increases will also include fees that attach themselves to financial aid costs.
Students are outraged; over the past few days student’s protests have been organized. UC Berkeley featured over 1,000 students, nearly 300 at UC Santa Barbara and hundreds more at UC Davis. Much of the outrage focuses on the salaries, perks and special treats that the UC Administration holds for themselves.
State Senator Jeff Denham, (and a candidate for Lt. Governor), released his Student Protection Act on Wednesday, saying, “We need to protect students from sudden, unexpected and excessive fees and tuition increases,” said Denham. ”The legislation I plan to introduce will give students and parents some time to prepare for higher costs, and make sure those increases are not too much to bear.”
Denham’s Student Protection Act calls on the UC and CSU to provide a 180-day waiting period between when a governing board approves a tuition or fee increase and when students have to pay the hike. It will also limit fee increases to just a 10 percent increase.
Senator Denham joined the students protest, “It is outrageous that the Regents are planning to hike fees midyear. They should instead be looking at how to cut waste, like the UC Tahiti island getaway and obscene UC administrative salaries, benefits and severance packages.”
According to the San Jose Mercury News, (April 14, 2008, “Amid state budget crunch, UC runs island paradise”), “The University of California has created a little-known South Pacific station it calls research “paradise” on what some travelers consider the most beautiful island in the world…surrounded by clear waters lapping white-sand beaches, and covered by forests topped by jagged peaks, it’s ‘UC Berkeley’s best-kept secret,’ declares the Berkeley Science Review. Real estate agents call it ‘Fantasy Island.’”
In addition, The UC Chancellor makes in excess of $800,000 a year in salary and benefits, and according to the Sacramento Bee, “16 employees (were) paid a total of $682,431 to leave jobs in the UC President’s Office.”
Some of these same employees were rehired at different UC campuses just a few days later, earning more than their previous positions.
For example, UC employee Ingrid H. Schmidt received a five-figure severance package to voluntarily leave her position in Oakland, and then started a new job at UC Davis the next day. She kept $46,100 in severance from the old job, and then received a 13 percent raise for her new position.
And there is still more to this saga. Consider the continual funding of the UC Labor Institute, something that we have discussed previous here at HOGUE NEWS.
The UC Labor Institute is a tax dollar supported recruiting and training program established by Governor Gray Davis
in 2000. The students that journey through these programs at Berkeley and Los Angeles campuses volunteer their time to benefit the liberal politicians, partisan political agendas, initiative campaigning and efforts of the public employee unions of California.
The “research” that the UC Labor Institute produces is nothing more than slanted, poor research based on a biased hypothesis that is then manufactured to prop-up the arguments, campaigns and raw propaganda of the unions of this state, and their workers interests.
And all of this is supported by your tax dollar.
Since the decline in state revenues, there is a forgotten story the media refuses to report. Numerous politicians faced off with the UC Board of Regents and strong-armed them into funding the UC Labor Institute, while cutting a mere $150 million worth elsewhere in the UC System.
I spoke to Kevin Dayton, a Senior Fellow with the Pacific Justice Instutute in October. Dayton referenced that when the state’s budget crisis became acute in 2008, the Legislature gave the labor institute another $5.4 million. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger then vetoed the funding.
This prompted Attorney General Jerry Brown, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and then Senate President Pro Tem-elect Darrell Steinberg to pressure the UC Office of the President to find an alternative funding source. The demand challenged the UC leadership financially and ethically.
“I think if we give them more than $1 million or so in cash, we’d be doing a disservice to the rest of the University,” said an e-mail from Debora Obley, associate vice president in the UC Budget Office.
In a later e-mail, she remained dismayed about diverting limited funds from other programs to the labor institute.
“We have $150 million worth of cuts to deal with. That is huge and we don’t have money just lying around. Can you imagine the firestorm inside the University if we cut everyone more in order to fund this one?”
Pressure from top legislative Democrats remained fierce. Greg Campbell, a top labor consultant for the Assembly speaker, declared in an e-mail that “any solution that includes ‘well, the unions should just pay for some portion of the overall mission’ is a tired old argument we have heard before and will not go over well.”
Finally, UC President Mark Yudof caved to the extortion and included $4 million for the labor institute in his proposed budget approved by the UC Board of Regents. This amount could have protected more than 6,000 resident undergraduate students from the fall 2009 semester fee increase of $662.
So while college students continue to be gouged by more costs and fees, the UC Board of Regents and administration continue to live in the lap of luxury; visiting their fantasyland resorts and funding their union bosses liberal ideology factory with the UC Labor Institute.
Somebody is not passing the test of integrity here.






Students at UC Davis were arrested yesterday for protesting. Although I am not a proponent of civil disobedience, I am not sure there are many options left for you and me at this stage and I understand why they did it. Until the UC systems cuts out all the fat, cuts salaries like all of the rest of us have experienced, I will be backing the students. When education becomes cost prohibited except for just the elite, this country has turned into everyones worst nightmare!
What in the hell has happened to our country and our way of life?
There are more factors here than just the UC top dogs trying to hold on to their lifestyles. Why have the costs risen so high, so quickly?
Have tax subsidies made it more difficult to compete with the UC and CSU systems? Ever notice that there are not many private, middle-of-the-road universities in CA? Why has the market not provided?
An admittedly simple example:
2 schools: 1 private, one public
Both have equal numbers of students and operating costs.
the public school gets 1/2 of its costs paid by tax money
The other must charge more tuition, making it less attractive (or more elite).
The high barrier to entry prohibits new competitors, with the exception of targeted schools: Drexel’s extension, Ashford, Phoenix, and online schools. With a more equal playing field, more schools could open to accommodate the demand. Competition would drive prices down.
This story sound eerily familiar to those we heard late last year about AIG and others of that ilk, “too big to fail.” The arrogance that has been displayed by the UC system for all too many years because they are involved in education has caused this so-called “crisis.” I can’t think of no example more glaring than when Michelle Obama came to speak at UC Merced at this year’s commencement. UC Merced budgeted $100,000 for the ceremony, but whoops!, the final price tag ended up to be $1.04 Million! Let’s consider just a few questions? Who budgeted and approved that amount and was off by a factor of ten? If they are that incompetent (or lied) why do they still have a job? How often in the multitude of budget items across the many campuses in the UC systems are “mistakes” such as this go unpunished? Or is it encouraged?
To rescue this broken system, significant changes are needed, or it should be cut off as a California entity and allowed to spin-off as a private entity.