Gov. Gray Davis has suggested nearly $300 million in new state funding cuts at UC as part of his 2003-04 state budget proposal released Jan. 10. With these proposals, the UC system’s state-funded budget falls nearly $1 billion below the level the university had expected under its Partnership Agreement with the governor, an agreement that outlines the university’s basic funding requirements.

Since the beginning of the 2001-02 year, UC has taken $533.3 million in state funding cuts and has forgone an additional $423.5 million in expected Partnership funding for faculty and staff salaries and other cost increases, for a total shortfall of $956.8 million. UC’s proposed state-funded budget is thus approximately $3 billion at a point when, under the Partnership, it was expected to be roughly $4 billion.

The governor’s cuts for 2003-04 are part of a series of state budget cuts intended to address a state budget deficit estimated by the Department of Finance at an unprecedented $34.6 billion. UC cuts include spending reductions in areas including administration, libraries, research, educational outreach, teacher professional development, student services, and Cooperative Extension and other public service programs.

The proposal does, however, provide funding for enrollment growth, allowing the university to continue providing a place for all eligible students seeking a UC education.

"The source of these devastating cuts lies than $34 billion."

The Davis campus’s share of systemwide cuts is generally 15 percent, though the Office of the President hasn’t yet advised the campuses on the magnitude of their potential cuts.

None of the proposed cuts are final until the governor and Legislature agree on a state budget. Discussions are expected to continue through the summer.

Many of the areas identified for further reduction were also targeted for $74 million in mid-year cuts this year: research, administration, student services, and outreach and public service.

Research, already hit with a permanent 10 percent cut this year, would be cut an additional 10 percent, resulting in a 20 percent reduction for 2003-04. Such a cut hits the Davis campus – and the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences – disproportionately hard because research, largely the state Agricultural Experiment Station, is a significant portion of the total budget for the college and the campus.

Cuts in student services are also expected to climb to 20 percent, a jump of 15 percent from a mid-year 5 percent cut.

In addition, some portion of a proposed $34.8 million unallocated reduction for UC would be required of the Davis campus.

"That reduction would be done strategically, not across the board," said Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Virginia Hinshaw.

She said she would continue to base budget decisions on earlier-announced principles and priorities (see www.news.ucdavis.edu/budget) and on the advice of a budget planning workgroup appointed last fall.

The governor also proposed a $179 million reduction in the university’s budget with the assumption it would be offset by a student fee increase. The UC Board of Regents will not take action on 2003-04 fees until later this spring.

"The governor is trying to protect instruction and access for students," Meyer said.

The governor’s budget proposed funding for several projects to be financed by state bonds. Such voter-approved proceeds can’t be redirected to operating budgets. The Davis campus projects included $20.6 million for planning and construction of the Robert Mondavi Institute for Wine and Food Science and $574,000 for seismic safety improvements to seven buildings.

Both Hinshaw and Meyer acknowledged the challenge ahead.

"Certain areas of the campus have been hit disproportionately hard," Hinshaw said. "Accommodating those reductions in a pretty short time frame will be challenging."

These new cuts are compounded by those made in the early 1990s, Meyer said. "In many ways, we haven’t yet recovered, which makes it that much more difficult," he said.

Both reiterated their commitment to communication and to protecting staff members whose positions may be vulnerable.

"Our pledge is to keep communicating with the campus, to tell people where we are at every stage and to protect staff as best we can," Meyer said.

"In the 1990s, the campus did an excellent job of placing people facing layoffs," Hinshaw said. "One of our major priorities is to protect people."

Hinshaw said she remains optimistic for the campus’s future. "A lot of good things will still happen even though we have reductions right now," she said. "California will recover."