Two state senators have joined forces last Wednesday to introduce an amendment that would remove the 130-year-old statute that grants the University of California immunity from legislative control.
Senators Leland Yee (D’-San Francisco/San Mateo) and Roy Ashburn (R’- Bakersfield) drafted the proposal in response to a number of ‘egregious offenses’ committed by the UC Board of Regents, according to Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin.
Among these offenses were allegedly unjust restrictions in the UC nonaffiliate speech policy, as well as the regents’ alleged lack of public accountability.
Most notably, Keigwin cited ‘exorbitant pay hikes to top executives’ amid an economic crisis and rising student fees as motivation for the proposal.
If passed, Yee and Ashburn’s amendment would strip the regents of their autonomy, giving the state the ability to pass laws on issues such as salary increases and speech rights. However, Keigwin said, ‘nothing theoretically changes with day-to-day operations.’
Keigwin pointed to the California State University system as an example, which is subject to state laws but also has a board of trustees to hand down operational decisions.
UC spokesman Pete King said handing over such tight control to legislators would endanger the university’s academic freedom, and pointed out that the government already has a say in the regents’ actions.
‘We go to them for our general fund money, the governor appoints a majority of the board and Californians get a say in that if we’re not doing a good job they won’t come to our schools,’ he said.
According to King, government interference in day-to-day affairs could not only cause financially and administratively harmful delays, but might also jeopardize the university’s freedom to teach more controversial subjects.
The UC system, King said, is a large organization that is currently maintaining a balanced budget, whereas the Legislature has ‘a job to do up there that’s big enough for them already.’
The university’s current administrative immunity was enacted upon it’s foundation, when there was strong public support for the UC system to become a series of agricultural schools.
The educational and legislative leaders at the time created an independent board of regents that could, without worrying about answering to voters, design campuses with a broader focus.
Keigwin acknowledged that ‘maybe [immunity] was the right decision for the time,’ but said the institution should now be made accountable to the public.
At the regents’ meeting last May, board members proposed increasing chancellor salaries at UC Davis and UC San Francisco to above $400,000 each. The university argued that even after the increases, those salaries were still below the market rate.
According to Keigwin, this pay hike was one of the primary reasons behind the new amendment.
‘[The regents] continuously take care of those at the top of the food chain and hurt those at the bottom,’ Keigwin said. ‘Enough is enough.’
The amendment would make state laws applicable to the university, though it does not explicitly contain any policy suggestions or changes.
One piece of legislation that could apply to the UC system should the amendment pass is Senate Bill 217, also drafted by Yee, which would prohibit executive pay increases in years of financial crisis.
Both the Senate and Assembly would have to pass the proposal with a two-thirds majority before it could go before the voters.
Readers can contact Hayley-Bisceglia Martin at [email protected].