Governor Vetoes Transparency and Accountability Bills
California Political Desk
October 13, 2009
SACRAMENTO – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) vetoed two bills authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) which would have brought greater transparency and accountability to the State´s public higher education institutions.
SB 218, which overwhelmingly passed the Legislature, would have updated the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to include auxiliary organizations that perform government functions at the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges. SB 219 would have provided UC employees who report waste, fraud and abuse, with the same legal protections as other state employees.
"The Governor has failed to keep his promise of bringing greater sunshine to government agencies," said Yee. "While he talks a lot about government waste, he vetoes the only bills to actually provide public oversight and accountability. His vetoes are certain to allow further scandal at these public institutions and will only result in fewer philanthropic dollars at a time when they are needed more than ever."
"We are outraged that the Governor vetoed SB 218," said Lillian Taiz, President of the California Faculty Association. "It would appear that his public commitment to transparency and accountability is only lip-service."
The UC and CSU have often evaded the public records act by shifting some responsibilities to foundations and other auxiliary organizations operating on campuses. Several recent examples demonstrated the need for increased public oversight and accountability provided by SB 218:
At Sonoma State, a $1.25 million loan issued to a former foundation board member two days after he resigned. He is now defaulting on that loan, which leaves less money in the foundation´s endowment for scholarships and other more important causes.
At Fresno State, a no-bid managing contract was given to a foundation member for a theatre complex he held financial interest in. A recent Superior court ruling found that, despite CSU´s claims to the contrary, the foundation board member must comply with the state´s conflict of interest laws.
At San Francisco City College, a campus executive has been indicted for using money from the San Francisco City College Foundation for personal and political purposes.
The latest example, as reported in the online community publication The Sacramento Press and verified by CSU Sacramento documents, indicates that University Enterprises, Inc., an auxiliary at Sacramento State, purchased a commercial building in 2007 just as the economy began to head towards a recession. The building has only one tenant, which prompted Sacramento State University and the CSU Chancellor´s office to give $6.3 million from their general fund to offset the lost revenues from a lack of tenants. These funding commitments were made at the same time the CSU has been forced to cap student enrollment, raise student fees, and impose harmful furloughs on faculty and staff. Additionally, while arguing in opposition to SB 218, the CSU has made repeated claims that campus auxiliary organizations are "self-supporting" and "do not rely on general fund dollars for support."
"With 87 foundations and auxiliaries operating on 23 CSU campuses, the SSU and FSU scandals may be just the tip of the iceberg," said Yee. "Taxpayers and students deserve to know how their public universities are run."
According to the CSU Chancellor´s Office, 20 percent of its $6.7 billion budget, or $1.34 billion, is held in auxiliaries and foundations, which is out of public view.
In 2001, the Fresno Bee newspaper was denied information, specifically concerning the identity of individuals and companies that purchased luxury suites at the Save Mart Center arena at Fresno State. The denial resulted in CSU v. Superior Court (McClatchy Company), in which the Court opined that although it recognized university auxiliaries ought to be covered by the CPRA and that its ruling was counter to the obvious legislative intent of the CPRA, the rewriting of the statute was a legislative responsibility.
SB 218, which overwhelmingly passed the Legislature, would have updated the California Public Records Act (CPRA) to include auxiliary organizations that perform government functions at the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges. SB 219 would have provided UC employees who report waste, fraud and abuse, with the same legal protections as other state employees.
"The Governor has failed to keep his promise of bringing greater sunshine to government agencies," said Yee. "While he talks a lot about government waste, he vetoes the only bills to actually provide public oversight and accountability. His vetoes are certain to allow further scandal at these public institutions and will only result in fewer philanthropic dollars at a time when they are needed more than ever."
"We are outraged that the Governor vetoed SB 218," said Lillian Taiz, President of the California Faculty Association. "It would appear that his public commitment to transparency and accountability is only lip-service."
The UC and CSU have often evaded the public records act by shifting some responsibilities to foundations and other auxiliary organizations operating on campuses. Several recent examples demonstrated the need for increased public oversight and accountability provided by SB 218:
At Sonoma State, a $1.25 million loan issued to a former foundation board member two days after he resigned. He is now defaulting on that loan, which leaves less money in the foundation´s endowment for scholarships and other more important causes.
At Fresno State, a no-bid managing contract was given to a foundation member for a theatre complex he held financial interest in. A recent Superior court ruling found that, despite CSU´s claims to the contrary, the foundation board member must comply with the state´s conflict of interest laws.
At San Francisco City College, a campus executive has been indicted for using money from the San Francisco City College Foundation for personal and political purposes.
The latest example, as reported in the online community publication The Sacramento Press and verified by CSU Sacramento documents, indicates that University Enterprises, Inc., an auxiliary at Sacramento State, purchased a commercial building in 2007 just as the economy began to head towards a recession. The building has only one tenant, which prompted Sacramento State University and the CSU Chancellor´s office to give $6.3 million from their general fund to offset the lost revenues from a lack of tenants. These funding commitments were made at the same time the CSU has been forced to cap student enrollment, raise student fees, and impose harmful furloughs on faculty and staff. Additionally, while arguing in opposition to SB 218, the CSU has made repeated claims that campus auxiliary organizations are "self-supporting" and "do not rely on general fund dollars for support."
"With 87 foundations and auxiliaries operating on 23 CSU campuses, the SSU and FSU scandals may be just the tip of the iceberg," said Yee. "Taxpayers and students deserve to know how their public universities are run."
According to the CSU Chancellor´s Office, 20 percent of its $6.7 billion budget, or $1.34 billion, is held in auxiliaries and foundations, which is out of public view.
In 2001, the Fresno Bee newspaper was denied information, specifically concerning the identity of individuals and companies that purchased luxury suites at the Save Mart Center arena at Fresno State. The denial resulted in CSU v. Superior Court (McClatchy Company), in which the Court opined that although it recognized university auxiliaries ought to be covered by the CPRA and that its ruling was counter to the obvious legislative intent of the CPRA, the rewriting of the statute was a legislative responsibility.
Print
Email
