Insisting they support transparency, auxiliary organizations in the California State University system are working with California Congress to replace Senate Bill 330 by the end of February.
The bill is an effort by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) to force auxiliary organizations in the CSU and University of California systems to comply with the California Public Records Act. Auxiliary organizations currently don’t fall under the public records act since they argue that they’re private entities.
Among the auxiliaries at Cal State Long Beach are the CSULB Foundation, Associated Students Inc. and 49er Shops. SB 330 would accomplish transparency by redefining auxiliary organizations like these as state agencies.
Questionable use of auxiliary funds
A string of recent cases have made people question how auxiliary organizations and foundations use their funds. Sen. Yee’s Website lists the CSU auxiliaries funding at $1.34 billion, which accounts for about 20 percent of the CSU’s $6.7 billion budget.
Instances like the case at the City College of San Francisco, where the chancellor is charged with misusing $150,000 in public funds, gave urgency last year to Sen. Yee’s SB 218 transparency bill. That bill would’ve also redefined auxiliaries as state agencies, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying it endangered the privacy of donors and volunteer activities.
Auxiliaries’ issue with SB 330
Dave Edwards, president of CSU Auxiliary Organizations Association (AOA), said his organization, CSU, UC and the California Community Colleges system are currently working with state legislators to create alternative legislators to SB 330.
Edwards said the bill they are working on would accomplish transparency, while maintaining the auxiliaries’ private status. That status, he said, allows them to purchase things more efficiently and be more flexible in investment strategies.
“[Private status] allows the organizations to provide services that the state — the university — can’t,” said Edwards, who’s also the associate executive director of CSULB’s ASI.
Edward’s ASI colleague ASI executive director Richard Haller agreed.
Haller said through Christina Esparza, ASI communications coordinator, that he personally has problems with SB 330 because of how it would redefine auxiliary organizations. This classification would subject auxiliaries to “bureaucratic red tape” and increase their paperwork.
Another problem AOA has with the bill is the threat it could pose to the privacy of anonymous donors, who give to organizations like the CSULB Foundation.
Learning from last year’s veto of SB 218, the current transparency bill provides for donor privacy unless the donor receives anything in return above $500. However, Edwards said that SB 330 has contradictory language that could jeopardize anonymous donors’ privacy.
He also said SB 330 is poorly written and confusing as to what auxiliaries would be made to comply with the public records act. And he said it doesn’t provide accountability and transparency that AOA believes is needed.
“The problem with [SB 330] is that it doesn’t accomplish what it says it will,” Edwards said. “We know what auxiliary organizations are. The authors of this bill don’t.”
Yee’s office defends SB 330
Unsurprisingly, Yee’s office vehemently disagreed with the assertions by Edwards and Haller.
Adam Keigwin, chief of staff for the Senator, said California’s public record law already provides protection for business practices in state agencies.
“There are existing exemptions in the law to make sure those things aren’t exposed,” he said.
Keigwin also disagreed with the opposition’s arguments about the “bureaucratic red tape” auxiliaries would have to endure should SB 330 become law.
“It’s mind boggling what they’re saying,” said Keigwin, referring to the opposition’s estimate on how much it would cost to comply with SB 330. “Cost 1 percent of the budget? But they haven’t shown how.”
Keigwin also defended the language of SB 330, saying the bill is explicit. He pointed out that it passed in the state Senate on Jan. 28 by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote, 37-1.
“Let the students know how these [auxiliary] organizations are run,” Keigwin said. “This legislation is long overdue.”
Concern about SB 330 supporters
One of the concerns Edwards has about the bill relates to the motives of its supporters.
“This bill is politically driven,” Edwards said.
CSULB’s ASI President Chris Chavez said the organizations supporting SB 330 are “looking for pots of gold.”
The California Faculty Association is among the organizations supporting the bill.
When told of the opposition’s concerns about the bill’s supporters, Keigwin said he found it offensive that people would say SB 330 would be used to fatten faculty members’ pockets.
“I think the CFA is a pretty honorable organization,” said Keigwin, who added that the CFA has fought waste in administration costs.
ASI’s action on transparency bill
“The goal of transparency is certainly admirable; a lot of it we don’t have a particular issue with,” Chavez said.
However, Chavez said ASI is concerned how the bill will affect donors and vendors should the governor sign it into law.
For example, SB 330 may force ASI to make vendors like Carl’s Jr. go through a bidding process with other vendors. Chavez said the result would be a “vicious race to the bottom” that may make it difficult to find a bid.
Chavez said he knows there has been some discussion in ASI about SB 330, but he didn’t know when or if the ASI Senate will make a resolution for or against the bill.
“Obviously, since this would impact us we should make some statement about it,” Chavez said.