California Students Go After Systemwide Reforms

(NLNS)—Donated $35,000 to current California Republican Governor Pete Wilson’s campaign. Co-manager of Republican Governor Deukmejian’s 1982 campaign. Chairman of state GOP in 1986. Ex-director of the Hoover Institute, the Stanford based conservative think-tank. Current overseer of Governor Wilson’s personal blind trust. Former aide to Presidents Nixon and Reagan.

These are just a few details about the personal backgrounds of the 18 regents that run the prestigious seven campus University of California system. Very rarely are any backgrounds in higher education listed on their resumes. They receive their posts through appoinments by the Governor of the State of California. These appointments last 12 years.

High School dropout. Multi-millionaire with $23.3 million due to the IRS in back taxes. Member California Republican State Central Committee. Appointments secretary to Governor Pete Wilson. Member Board of Directors of the American Bankers Association. Former CEO of a Fortune 500 multi-national corporation. . .

The above is some of the available background information on the 18 trustees that govern the 20 campus California State University system. 15 of the 18 are male, and all but a few are white. While many of these people may have backgrounds in large corporations, again, rarely do they have any higher education experience. They receive their positions through the Governor of California, and are appointed to eight year terms.

These are also the trustees responsible for selecting Barry Munitz as chancellor of the CSU system. Munitz, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), was substantially responsible for the failure of United Savings and Loan of Texas, which invested heavily in Michael Milken’s junk bonds. Munitz is also named in lawsuits for his role in unfair business practices related to the hostile takeover of California’s Pacific Lumber Company by Maxaam Corporation, of which he was Vice-Chair.

With all of the political favoritism and corruption governing California’s two univerisity systems, it is not hard to see why students are outraged about recent crises in higher education in the state. The University of California Student Association (UCSA), has set Regent Reform as their number one prioity for the 92-93 school year. Their plans include gaining equal representation of students, faculty, and staff on the UC Board of Regents. As of now these three sections of the univeristy community have either one seat on the board of regents, or none at all, as is the case for campus staff personnel. Instead of having the governor appoint all Regents, the UCSA is looking at proposals such as the following: 3 Regents appointed by the Governor, 3 by the state Senate, 3 by the state Assembly, 3 by the Students, 3 by the Faculty, 3 by the Alumni, and 4 voting ex- officios (those being the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker and Superintendant of Public Instruction). UCSA would also like to see the current 12 year term shortened.

While the CSU Trustees have not been appointed as political favors as obviously as the UC Regents have, CSU students began to take notice of their trustees’ questionable activities when CSU Chancellor Ann Reynolds resigned over a scandal of misuse of public funds in 1991, only to be replaced by Barry Munitz. The appointment of Munitz was a controversy in itself, sparking widespread student protests, and resulting in the passing of “No Confidence in Barry Munitz” resolutions on three CSU campuses.

On the weekend of October 10-11 at UC-Irvine, the Cal State Student Association (CSSA) and the UCSA had their first ever joint conference. The two groups met to discuss issues of mutual concern and to see where they could provide mutual aid and support to each other. One such area was to make the state legislature stick to the state constitution which supposedly guarantees all students in the state the right to an “affordable accessible education.” The Cal State University System has always accepted students who met its basic entrance requirements; that is until a couple of years ago. Projections now show that 70,000 eligible students will be turned away from the CSU system alone in the 93-94 school year, due to the fact that higher education received the highest percentage of cuts of any state funded program for 92-93. This decrease of 8.9% came at the same time as prisons received a $4 million increase, the only state program in California to receive an increase at all in 92-93.

Many California students feel that one of the largest problems in higher education is the lack of accountability of these two governing bodies of the CSU and the UC systems. This is especially apparent when the Trustees and Regents actively raise CSU and UC student tuition by over 60% in a two year period, in a time when as many of 33% of all classes are cut.

Why should the Regents and Trustees work on behalf of the students when they are only accountable to the Governor?

While the task of democratizing these bureacracies that run California’s Higher Education may sound difficult, definite progress is already being made. State Senate Speaker David Roberti has already expressed interest in sponsoring legislation to reform the CSU Trustees. CSSA is working to author legislation by the time the state legislature convenes in January. Cal State University at Northridge and Humboldt State University have taken on the responsibility of being coordinators on this issue, with Legislative Analyst Anne Blackshaw working from CSSA’s lobby office in Sacramento. The current background check of the Board of Trustees has already revealed some damning information, with more being checked regularly by students.

With more time, it is hoped that coalitions will be built with the California Faculty Association, the Cal State Employees Association (the state’s union for staff), and students of California’s 108 campus Community College system, who are also governed by boards with inadequate student representation.

The campaign for reform is seen as a real winning issue. As Anne Blackshaw states, “Trustee reform is a starting point for reformulating the state’s priority on higher education.”

Also, when students realize that they can have more control over their own education, they will be more vocal about the funding they receive from the state. With reformation of the CSU Board of Trustees, and the UC Board of Regents, not only will students have direct control over where higher education funding goes, but they will be able to have direct control over issues such as affirmative action, curriculum control, selection of campus administrators, and dealing with priorities of what truly need to be researched on our campuses. Should research be prioritized the way it has been in the past, with priorities placed in areas such as nuclear weapons research? Or instead, should we be looking to the future, and placing priority on finding ways to maintain a healthy environment or how to create a strong sustainable economy for the future of the State of California?

For more information, or networking, contact: Anne Blackshaw, CSSA Legislative Analyst, 916-441-4514, or Tobin L. Freid, President University of California Student Association, 408-459-2189.

♦ ♦ ♦