By Nanette Asimov

California’s public colleges and universities are changing too many rules unilaterally and should be more accountable to the public, the state’s independent Legislative Analyst’s Office said in a report released last
week.

California State University is setting its own rules for raising executive salaries; the University of California is shifting who is eligible to enroll; and community colleges are hoarding data that should be open to the public, say the higher education experts who advise the Legislature.

To fix the problem, the state should create a system for higher education oversight, according to the report, which points back to 1960 when the California Master Plan for Higher Education warned of the need to keep a watchful eye on the state’s three higher-education systems.

For years there was such a body, the California Postsecondary Education Commission. But it was weak, bogged down by bureaucracy and never fulfilled its original function, according to the report from Mac Taylor, the legislative analyst.

Before being eliminated in the latest round of budget cuts, that commission performed two key functions: It maintained the state’s higher education database, and it set rules for how California State University could raise executive pay.

It did that by choosing which universities CSU could compare itself to when setting executive compensation levels. Involved in the process were representatives from CSU, UC, community colleges and the Legislature.

With the commission gone, CSU is choosing its own comparison schools, which will be considered for approval by its Board of Trustees later this month.

Among them is Temple University, which has a medical school. None of the 23 CSU campuses has a medical school, which typically pay administrators far more than executives at other campuses. Other comparison schools
conduct more research than CSU campuses, which is another indicator for higher salaries.

“How can you even make those comparisons?” asked Judy Heiman, an education finance expert with the Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Clearly, self-interest would be the concern – that they could use that group to justify allocation of state resources that may not make sense.”

The report faults CSU for failing to consult anyone from the Legislature or state Department of Finance until a legislative committee insisted on being included.

“We always appreciate input and working collaboratively,” said Claudia Keith, a CSU spokeswoman. “We have a lot of accountability to the Legislature already.

“Without knowing how (a new oversight body) would work, it’s difficult to comment on,” she said.

The defunct commission also maintained community college education data. Now, if analysts want to study data, such as transfer rates from each school, they need the approval of the schools.

“We believe there is a potential conflict of interest in relying on (the institutions) for permission,” according to the new report. At UC, whose Board of Regents adopted a new eligibility system for freshmen entering next fall, spokesman Steve Montiel said that officials “look forward to engaging in a discussion about coordination moving
forward.”

Previously, UC automatically admitted the top 12.5 percent of high school students. UC will now admit the top 11 percent and place roughly the top 20 percent into a group to be considered for admission.

“It’s a significant change about access,” said Steve Boilard, director of higher education for the Legislative Analyst’s Office. “It raises fundamental questions of access that deserve involvement at the state level.”

— Reach Nanette Asimov at [email protected]

Comments

comments