THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET PROPOSAL : Cuts May Bring Major Changes to State Campuses : Education: University officials assail funding, foresee tightened enrollment. San Diego city schools may face a $35-million shortage.

Gov. Pete Wilson’s proposed budget hits education hard, reducing per-pupil spending in public schools to 1985 levels and forcing the University of California to consider not admitting all eligible freshmen from the state in the fall of 1992.

But Wilson would spend about $200 million in new state money to improve education and health services for preschool children, as part of his belief that preventing problems before they occur is wiser and cheaper than dealing with them later in prisons or drug addiction programs.

Public education officials were expecting austere funding levels from the new governor in his 1991-92 proposal, but some said Thursday the reductions were worse than expected.

The San Diego city schools system--the nation’s eighth-largest urban system--may face shortages of $35 million or more from what would be needed to maintain services in this year’s budget, Supt. Tom Payzant said Thursday.

“We don’t know specific numbers yet, but there’s no chance we can avoid a review of every program that we have,” he said. “Based on a review we’ll make next week, the shortfall could go even higher.”

Payzant said the pain of cutting services will be the worst in a decade, surpassing the $20-million shortfalls in the 1980s when maintenance and other support services were slashed to levels that remain below standard even today. Although he hopes not to increase class sizes--California already has the largest number of students per class of any state--Payzant said that there may be no way to avoid affecting classroom instruction next year.

“Even if we only cut support staff, health, materials and textbooks, you can’t say that that won’t affect children in the classroom,” he said.

The nine-campus University of California will effectively lose $176 million in its base budget from the current year, when inflation and enrollment growth are included, UC Budget Director Larry Hershman said.

UC President David P. Gardner said the budget “falls so far short in funding our essential needs that the university’s array of programs, accessibility to eligible students and the historic policy of low fees for California residents cannot be sustained.”

UC will be forced “to take dramatic steps in order to maintain the university’s capability and reputation as one of the world’s great centers of learning,” Gardner said.

Asked what “dramatic steps” might be taken, top UC officials said it is probable that, in the fall of 1992, the university will not be able to guarantee the top 12 1/2% of the state’s high school graduates a place at one of the system’s campuses.

They said it might also be necessary to limit the number of students who want to transfer to UC from community colleges or other higher educational institutions.

“We did commit ourselves to take all eligible students next fall because we’re so far into the process that we can’t stop now,” Hershman said, “but it’s fair to say that 1992 will be another story.”

The UC Board of Regents will discuss the possibility of limiting enrollment and other options at its February meeting.

Chancellor Ellis E. McCune of the 20-campus California State University system called the proposal a “disastrous budget” that will “make it very difficult for us to carry out our mission.”

To make up for declining state support, Wilson has proposed that both UC and CSU increase student fees by 20%. Annual tuition and fees at UC would climb by $325, to $1,949; tuition and fees at CSU would increase by $156, to $936.

Part of the money raised would be used to provide financial aid to students who otherwise could not attend the schools because of the fee increases. Part of it would also be used to make up for the drop in state General Fund support--$50 million for UC and $46.8 million for CSU.

Tuition and fees for community college students would rise $10, to $60 per semester under the proposed budget.

San Diego State University President Tom Day, found no good news in the spending plan.

Day said he estimated that San Diego State would suffer cuts between 5% and 8%.

Day said he will try not to let academic quality deteriorate, meaning that fewer classes will be offered students in order to keep the quality high in the remaining offerings. That could mean that students will need more time to complete graduation credits, he said.

“We may be entering a qualitatively different arena in this state than in the past” in regard to education’s funding future, Day said, adding that he expects to project the next three or four years based on flat or declining budgets. Wilson’s proposed 1991-92 capital budget for SDSU alone is a meager $2.5 million--only 10% of last year’s.

At UC San Diego, the proposed University of California budget will delay the ability to expand the number of graduate students, a longstanding goal of Chancellor Richard C. Atkinson, as well as many building projects.

UCSD had asked for $24.1 million for new building projects, V. Wayne Kennedy, vice chancellor for administration, said Thursday. The governor’s proposed budget slashes that amount to about $12 million, which will allow completion of a new visual arts facility and planning for a new engineering building.

“But there will be delays in construction of a campus service complex, a new building at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, as well as improvements to Mandeville (arts) center,” Kennedy said.

UCSD had planned for an additional 275 to 300 undergraduate students beyond the existing 13,300. “For the moment, we expect to have that 2% growth, since the budget allows for it while cutting us back in other areas,” Kennedy said, including another delay in plans to increase the number of graduate students.

Kennedy said the one-year budget crunch should not severely harm the university’s ability to attract top-rate professors from other institutions.

But he warned that there could be a short-term psychological impact, depending on how potential faculty members assess the next four or five years of the UC system.

At the embryonic CSU San Marcos, Wilson’s proposed cuts of $800,000 to $1.5 million ate only slightly into the school’s proposed $14.2 million operating budget. CSU San Marcos President Bill Stacy said Wilson’s budget “simply asks the campus not to develop quite as quickly as it planned.”

Wilson’s budget calls for public schools to lose about $2 billion in state funding in the next 18 months. About $500 million would be lost in the current budget year because state revenues have dropped so precipitously that the lowest level of funding allowed by Proposition 98 is now in effect. Another $1.4 billion would be lost in 1991-92 if, as Wilson requests, funding levels required under Proposition 98 are suspended for that year.

Proposition 98, approved by voters in 1988, calls for public schools and community colleges to receive at least 40% of state General Fund revenues. Suspension of Proposition 98 would require a two-thirds vote by both houses in the Legislature.

DEUKMEJIAN AND WILSON: COMPARING BUDGETS

This chart compares former Gov. George Deukmejian’s proposed budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year with the 1991-92 fiscal plan forwarded by Gov. Pete Wilson. Listed below are the dollar amounts allocated to each program along with the percentages of the total budget that each program represents. These figures represent totals from the state general fund only, which excludes funds from such areas as vehicle license fees and bond sales.

Deukmejian Wilson 1990-91 1991-92 K-12 $16.14 billion 37.86% $16.26 billion 37.57% Higher Education $6.27 billion 14.71% $5.89 billion 13.61% Health and Welfare $13.06 billion 30.65% $13.96 billion 32.26% Business, Transportation and Housing Agency $118 million 0.28% $192 million 0.44% Tax Relief $924 million 2.17% $716 million 1.65% Youth and Adult Correctional Agency $2.85 billion 6.69% $3.23 billion 7.46% Resources $746 million 1.75% $799 million 1.85% State and Consumer Services Agency $274 million 0.64% $289 million 0.67% Other $2.23 billion 5.25% $1.94 billion 4.49% Total $42.61 billion 100% $43.28 billion 100%

Source: California Dept. of Finance