Comments to the Chancellor for a Virtual Town Hall
Dear UCSD Faculty and Staff,
This blog was created to add our comments (in a manner that is part of the public domain) that may have been submitted to the Chancellor for her presentation to UCOP. Perhaps a good many letters already went to the Chancellor’s office and we hope that comparable statements find their way to this blog for the benefit of the community at large.
Please add your comments below for this Virtual Town Hall, so our UCSD community may know what fellow faculty and staff are proposing or expressing as comments.
Hopefully, there will be a synergy of ideas reflected by common knowledge of the litany of proposed solutions and concerns.
A feature to this blog is the prerogative of remaining anonymous or signing the statements.
CLICK HERE to add your comment »
CLICK HERE to watch videos of Chancellor Fox’s Town Hall Meeting Regarding UC Budget Reduction Proposals »
Noam Chomsky
University of Leeds (UCU) – Blog, November 30, 2009
http://chomsky.info/letters/20091130.htm
I had a startling experience a few weeks ago. I travelled to Mexico City for talks at the National University, an enormous and very impressive institution with high standards of achievement and scholarship. Entrance is selective, but the university is virtually free. I then visited an even more remarkable institution, the college in Mexico City established by former mayor Lopez Obrador. Again, the facilities and standards are quite impressive. It is not only free, but has open admissions, though sometimes that requires some delay and sometimes assistance for students lacking adequate preparation. Shortly after I went to San Francisco for talks, and learned more about the California institutions of higher education. They have been at the very peak of the international higher education system. By now tuitions are quite high, even for in-state students, and cutbacks are affecting teaching, research, and staff. It would be no great surprise if the two major state universities, UC Berkeley and UC Los Angeles, will soon be privatized while the remainder of the state system is reduced considerably in scale and level. Needless to say, Mexico is a poor country with a struggling economy, and California should be one of the richest places in the world, with incomparable advantages. I mention these recent experiences only to emphasize that the recent cut-backs in higher education seen in much of the world cannot simply be traced to economic problems. Rather, they reflect fundamental choices about the nature of the society in which we will live. If it is to be designed for the wealthy and privileged, mostly engaged in management and finance while production is transferred abroad and most of the population is left to fend somehow for themselves at the fringes of decent and creative life, then these are good choices. If we have different aspirations for the world of our children and grandchildren, the choices are shameful and ruinous.
Noam Chomsky
December 7, 2009 at 1:57 pm
A CORRECTION: FROM SHARED GOVERNANCE TO COLLECTIVE ACTION
An Open Letter to UC Faculty
August 31, 2009
Dear Colleagues,
We are grateful for Provost Pitts’ letter of 21 August—sent at the opening of a late summer weekend, with unimpeachably cowardly timing—for clarifying certain matters. Foremost among them is the farce of shared governance, in distinction to emergency powers. It is now finally inarguable that the polling of the faculty on significant matters is a fig leaf for the will of the Chancellors and the Office of the President. We stand corrected: shared governance is merely the polite name for emergency powers.
The implementation of the Regents’ furlough plan—approved on the same day as the President’s emergency powers—was presented to faculty as a process to be worked out at the discretion of each campus. On July 29, the Academic Council, representing the Academic Senates of all ten campuses, voted unanimously for systemwide implementation of at least six instruction-day furloughs over the academic year, with permission for campuses to have up to ten such days.
This recommendation—based on the expressly stated will of the faculty—was summarily rejected by the Chancellors and the Office of the President.
The reason for this unilateral decision is clear: the administration seeks to evade public accountability for the manner in which it has managed the budget crisis. It was the “optics” of the Senate Council’s recommendation that were judged untenable. The Office of the President has failed to arrive at a plan that would protect the interests of both students and workers. It wishes to disguise the harm this failure has done to the University’s mission. Or better: it seeks to shift the blame for this failure to the faculty, should we be so bold as to hold the President accountable to the consequences of his own plan. Toward this evasion, UCOP has flagrantly erased the difference between a furlough and a paycut, presenting the latter in the guise of the former.
The ten Academic Senates unanimously mandated furloughs taken on instructional days for good reasons. These reasons exceed the particular interests of the faculty; they pertain to the collective interests of all workers and students. Instructional furloughs pressure the state to cease defunding the UC system, and they pressure the Office of the President to confront the fact that its overall approach to budget reform is unsustainable and unjust. UCOP seeks to alleviate that pressure by feigning the minimal impact of cuts upon the operations of the University and the education of its students. By doing so it makes clear its real interest: not to engage in a serious reevaluation of budgetary priorities, but to occlude the necessity of doing so.
The University’s “paramount teaching mission,” we are told, justifies the imposition of furloughs on non-instructional days. But the President does not hesitate to fund the budget shortfall through ballooning tuition payments and increased class sizes. The decision on furloughs does not serve to mitigate the effects of these policies; it serves to perpetuate them while dissimulating their effects. We cannot allow either the California legislature or the Office of the President to proceed as though cuts to public education do not have debilitating consequences.
We are told that the management of the cuts is a collective process. In fact it operates by autocratic fiat. We are told that the cuts are temporary measures. But we know we are in the midst of a long-term crisis. Each day that we continue to accept our role as bystanders to the administration’s plan for remaking the University only helps to guarantee that the sequence of pay and enrollment cuts, layoffs, tuition and workload increases will continue. Thus far we have attempted to intervene by choosing among the options offered to us by the administration. The Office of the President has made it obvious that even such modest interventions will not be respected. We call for a decisive response.
If we find the President’s disdain for collective decision making unacceptable, we must make it clear, collectively, that we will not accept it. If we hope to intervene in the process of decision making that will determine the future of the UC system, we must interrupt our exclusion from that process—now.
It has been made evident that we cannot intervene as governors; we are compelled to intervene as workers.
We call for a systemwide walkout of all UC faculty on September 24, 2009.
We call for the suspension of faculty teaching on this date pending three demands, which we understand as absolutely minimal:
1. No furloughs or paycuts on salaries below $40,000.
2. The immediate institution of the Academic Senate Council’s July 29 recommendation
regarding the implementation of furloughs.
3. Full disclosure of the budget.
These demands are addressed immediately to the Regents’ furlough plan and the Office of the President’s edict concerning its implementation. However, despite their local character, these demands are made in solidarity with those of all UC workers and students. They cannot be used as a pretext for further layoffs or fee increases.
We, the undersigned, ask all faculty who support this collective action to send their name and affiliation to the following address: ucfacultywalkout@gmail.com
Judith Butler
Maxine Eliot Professor
Departments of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature
UC Berkeley
Lyn Hejinian
Professor
Department of English
UC Berkeley
Nathan Brown
Assistant Professor
Department of English
UC Davis
Joshua Clover
Associate Professor
Department of English
UC Davis
Parama Roy
Professor
Department of English
UC Davis
Richard T. Scalettar
Professor
Department of Physics
UC Davis
Etienne Balibar
Distinguished Professor
Departments of Comparative Literature, French & Italian
UC Irvine
Catherine Liu
Director, UCI Humanities Center
Associate Professor
Departments of Film & Media Studies and Comparative Literature
UC Irvine
Ignacio López-Calvo
Professor of Latin American Literature
Chair of the World Cultures Graduate Group
Faculty Chair of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts
UC Merced
Sianne Ngai
Associate Professor
Department of English
UC Los Angeles
Piya Chatterjee
Associate Professor
Department of Women’s Studies
UC Riverside
Mike Davis
Distinguished Professor
Department of Creative Writing
UC Riverside
Michael Davidson
Professor and Vice-Chair
Department of Literature
UC San Diego
Rita Raley
Associate Professor
Department of English
UC Santa Barbara
Christopher Connery
Professor
World Literature and Cultural Studies
UC Santa Cruz
Barbara Epstein
Professor & Chair
History of Consciousness
UC Santa Cruz
Donna Haraway
Distinguished Professor
History of Consciousness
UC Santa Cruz
Ad Hoc UC Faculty
September 3, 2009 at 12:37 pm
http://ucfacultywalkout.wordpress.com/
FACULTY WALKOUT – UC WIDE 9/24/09
Hundreds of UC professors, from all divisions and campuses, wrote in support of the 9/24 walkout during the first two days of the call. With that support, the letter posted below will be recirculated to faculty throughout the UC system shortly. Student organizations throughout the UC system have begun mobilizing in solidarity. Help to keep the momentum building by sending your name and affiliation to ucfacultywalkout@gmail.com
* The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) has endorsed this call for collective
Zorro
September 3, 2009 at 12:34 pm
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/aug/20/uc-president-warns-more-budget-cuts-next-year/
UC President Warns of More Budget Cuts Next Year
By Samantha Young, AP
August 20, 2009
California — University of California President Mark Yudof says more budget cuts are ahead for the 10-campus system when federal stimulus money runs out next year.
In a speech Thursday to the Sacramento Press Club, Yudof warned there will be about $600 million less to run one of the country’s largest university systems.
Yudof says the drop in funding is likely to result in reductions “similar in magnitude” to the cuts instituted by the UC Board of Regents earlier this year.
State lawmakers in July slashed nearly $3 billion from California’s 110 community colleges, the 23-campus California State University and the 10-campus UC System.
In response, the UC system raised student fees by 9 percent, while making about $300 million in cuts.
Dan Landrum
August 21, 2009 at 5:06 am
UC Paradox: Raises for Execs Saves Money?
http://media.scpr.org/audio/upload/2009/08/14/yudof.mp3
Southern California Public Radio
Tuesday Aug. 18th, 2009
http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2009/08/14/uc-paradox-raises-for-execs-saves-money/
mark_yudof: Setting the record straight, again, re executive pay. A sensible invu with NPR in SoCal: http://bit.ly/8G5HM
Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=117732848378&ref=nf
Dan Landrum
August 18, 2009 at 5:18 am
———————
Two news Items
———————
2009-08-14
UC building projects and the budget crunch
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/21689
———————
The Walters Report
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Austin Statesman: Texas universities should capitalize on California’s budget shortfall
http://www.waltersreport.com/2009/08/austin-statesman-texas-universities.html
mark_yudof: Thanks, Sen. Mimi Walters, for your UC advocacy. Keep it up!
Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/note.php?note_id=117436328378&ref=nf
———————
Dan Landrum
August 17, 2009 at 5:22 am
UC must retain the best leaders
Russell S. Gould, Bruce D. Varner
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/11/EDIP196JU1.DTL
Russell S. Gould is chairman of the UC Board of Regents, and Regent Bruce D. Varner is chairman of the committee on compensation.
Dan Landrum
August 15, 2009 at 6:40 am
From: Jeffrey Bergamini
Date: August 5, 2009 9:16:55 PM PDT
To: President’s Office
Cc: “regentsoffice@ucop.edu”
Subject: Response to President Yudof regarding the furlough plan
cc: Anyone and everyone who will read, forward and/or publish this somewhere. Please do!
Dear Mr. Yudof:
I appreciate your reply to my letter. I am sure we all agree that pay cuts should only be implemented carefully and after much consideration.
Unfortunately, your letter contains a significant amount of spin and mischaracterization that needs to be addressed, which I will do here. In addition, I have found more information to share with you and the rest of the UC community. In short, it remains obvious that your plan lacks both care and consideration for the community as a whole. Thankfully we still have options.
You begin:
Clearly the furlough and corresponding salary reductions will be very difficult for all members of the University community in light of the current state of the economy. I appreciate your sharing your plan with me. It is obvious you have given this a good deal of thought, but I continue to believe the plan The Regents approved is the best course of action for the University. I would like to note that it is not factually accurate to assert that the reductions are more severe for lower-income employees than for those earning more. The furlough policy is progressive and, of necessity, takes into account the number of employees in each income bracket.
Simply stating that the policy is “progressive” is next to meaningless, as I am sure you know. My previous analysis also “takes into account the number of employees in each income bracket”, and illustrates how little the upper brackets would suffer in comparison with those below. The more accurate analysis I have now made available to the public at http://ucpay.globl.org also deals with precise numbers of employees and salaries in each bracket, both those proposed by you and other possible brackets.
Your graduated cuts come nowhere close to matching the real disparities in income levels, as I noted in my original analysis. Now that I have fairly accurate data to work with, further analysis is easy. Your top bracket, which makes on average roughly 14 times as much as the lowest bracket, is only cut 2.4 times as much, proportional to income. And since that range between $240,000 and $2+ million is so large, the bracket average is misleading, and the disparity between income level and salary cut is much larger. Worse, this still ignores the larger picture: Those with great amounts of income can easily absorb the cuts to those making relatively little.
In fact, instituting a “furlough” policy in instead of direct pay cuts is a great way of sneaking though a regressive pay cut. A temporary 25% salary cut for someone making $400K a year is certainly tolerable. However, the equivalent furlough of 65 days sounds somewhat ludicrous. Framing the discussion in terms of “furlough” keeps the rich from paying their fair share.
I don’t know your personal feelings on what constitutes a “more severe” reduction, but if you mean that $80 a month to someone who grosses $1,800 is not “more severe” than $3,000 to one grossing $30,000 — well, perhaps your wealth, which you have been extracting for quite some time now, has biased your perspective.
Alternatives Ignored
Leaving aside the question of whether pay cuts are even a necessary or desirable reaction to the budget problem, it is indeed apparent that your proposal targets lower wage workers unfairly. Visitors to my site have made numerous alternate proposals that would accomplish the same (or very similar) salary savings, with radically different effects:
* Modified from UCSD Lit proposal (less impact on lower wages)
This proposal does not affect any wages under $40K, and requires no more than 20% from the most wealthy. It looks quite reasonable.
* A 2.5 percent base cut, increased proportional to mean bracket salary; income capped at $25K/mo
This proposal is actually, linearly “progressive”. Salaries from $25K-50K are given a 2.5% cut, and the cut is increased proportionally while maintaining a $25,000/month limit on gross salary.
* Retire On Time
Starting with a 2% cut at a $75K-100K bracket, this proposal focuses on not endangering employees’ retirement savings and living expenses. See further description by the author.
* My two original proposals, A More Equitable Sacrifice and Let the Wealthy Pay, demonstrate how unnecessary it is to saddle lower wage earners with the levels of cuts you proposed.
I will not insult you or your analysts by assuming that you were unaware of your proposal’s bias against those with lower salaries. There must have been a reason for the nature of your proposal. In fact, you make a related claim:
No plan is perfect, but we have worked hard to involve the UC community in a broad consultation process in order to develop a plan that is as fair as possible while preserving, to the extent possible, excellence and access to opportunity for students, researchers and patients. I attach a copy of an information sheet put out by my office, The UC Budget: Myths and Facts, which you may find of interest.
The “Myths and Facts” document is also rather spin-heavy, and seems to introduce some myths of its own. You may find of interest some other facts, which are derived quite easily using UC salary data. They certainly cast doubt on the idea that your plan is “fair”, or that its idiosyncrasies are aimed at preserving “excellence and access to opportunity”.
(All numbers I will present ignore student salaries and casual employees when possible, with several caveats. See a more complete description of the data in the footer of any page at http://ucpay.globl.org.)
Example 1: Ridiculous and rising UCOP salaries
To pick one small example of where else UC could easily make some savings, let’s take a look at UCOP employees making at least $100K. My tool currently has data from 2006 and 2008, and it’s now easy to compare the two years.
UCOP employees with gross earnings of at least $100K in 2006 (link):
350 employees
Total gross pay: $53,568,920.72
UCOP employees with gross earnings of at least $100K in 2008 (link):
418 employees
Total gross pay: $65,063,296.82
Are we to believe that, between 2006 and 2008, UCOP required 68 more people making six figures, for an extra $11.5 million? I find it hard to believe that these positions contribute enough to UC’s “excellence and access to opportunity” to merit such grandiose salaries.
Here is some perspective for you: In your furlough plan, it takes the pay cuts of more than 10,000 average “bracket 1″ workers just to offset that extra $11.5 million. And this is only one very tiny example.
Example 2: Salary expenses are becoming increasingly top-heavy at an alarming rate
Now let’s look at the entire UC system to see where salary spending is concentrated, and how it is changing:
Employees making at least $100K
2006 total gross pay (14,654 employees): $2,286,581,129.06 (30.9% of total UC salary) (link)
2008 total gross pay (21,531 employees): $3,370,788,442.25 (37.4% of total UC salary) (link)
Dollar increase: $1.08 billion
Percentage personnel increase: 46.9%
Percentage dollar increase: 47.4%
Change in percentage of total UC salary: +6.5%
Employees making under $100K
2006 total gross pay (121,661 employees): $5,111,896,556.80 (69.1% of total UC salary) (link)
2008 total gross pay(129,018 employees): $5,631,676,479.14 (62.6% of total UC salary) (link)
Dollar increase: $520 million
Percentage personnel increase: 6.0%
Percentage dollar increase: 10.2%
Change in percentage of total UC salary: -6.5%
Note the trends:
1. In just this short span of time, the proportional amount spent on six figure salaries has increased at the same rate that the amount spent on everyone else has decreased.
2. UC apparently needed 47% more six figure earners, but only 6% more of everyone else. Quite interesting.
3. What happened during this time that merited a nearly 50% increase in salary spending for wealthy employees?
I think most would agree that these are alarming figures.
Example 3, in which we bust your own myth regarding “raises” vs. “promotions”
The “Myths and Facts” document defends increases in management salaries with the following:
There is an important difference between a “raise” and a promotion into a position with broader responsibilities … Most compensation actions coming to the Board of Regents are either new hires or promotions, of the kind just described, to fill vacancies.
Let’s take a look at another small sample of the situation at UCOP:
* Changes in gross pay at UCOP between 2006 and 2008 (no change in title)
A few examples:
* Randolph Wedding (“Senior Managing Director – Fixed-Income Investments”) — Apparently his experience with derivatives trading at Bank of America and Bear Stearns (names not exactly associated with wise investment practices these days) were worth an increase of $86,156 (24%) from $358,970 to $445,126 between 2006 and 2008. From annual reports, his position doesn’t seem to have changed for quite a few years. How are those fixed-income investments doing, by the way?
* Melvin Stanton (“Associate Chief Investment Officer”) — Mr. Stanton received an increase of $71,875 (18%) from $405,950 to $477,826. No sign of promotion or broader responsibilities.
*
* Kathleen Taylor (“IT Resource Manager III”) — Whatever Ms. Taylor does apparently merited an increase of $71,811 (58%) from $122,773.56 to $194,584.43. Presumably she now has duties much more important than compiling other people’s reports on badly placed logout buttons (and other issues) in a section of PPS.
There are many others. Take a look. It seems to me that there were plenty of very generous raises given to people at UCOP who maintained the same title over that period. As for those who changed title, it’s hard to imagine that they are really that much more valuable than before (Lynda Choi, for example).
Now remember that this is only a fraction of the real issue. Step outside UCOP and take a look at the same report including all UC campuses. You will see many massive increases for coaches, directors, chancellors, vice somethingorothers, etc. This may explain the trends in Example 2.
I repeat: There are much better solutions. If you will not act on our behalf, the workers must push the issue — and we can win.
Mr. Yudof, your proposal has become “policy”. However, it is not out of our hands.
It is my hope (and my goal) that UC employees of all stripes are receiving an education regarding the priorities of UC management. What we do with that education remains to be seen. I believe that an organized UC workforce can help to lead you, the Regents, and the state government on a better, more sane path. Anyone with democratic values understands that true leadership is in our hands, not yours.
Certainly we should all keep in mind the mission of UC: We teach, we do research, and we serve the public. In case you can’t tell, those three things are quite important to me. I try to incorporate them into my life, both personally and professionally. I will continue to do my best to make sure that we — all UC employees — push you to do so as well.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Bergamini
Programmer/sysadmin, Hart Interdisciplinary Programs, UC Davis
bergamini@ucdavis.edu / 530-752-9332
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:14 PM, President’s Office wrote:
Dear Mr. Bergamini:
Thank you for your July 22nd e-mail sharing your research on employee salaries and your proposed alternatives to the furlough plan recently approved by The Regents.
Clearly the furlough and corresponding salary reductions will be very difficult for all members of the University community in light of the current state of the economy. I appreciate your sharing your plan with me. It is obvious you have given this a good deal of thought, but I continue to believe the plan The Regents approved is the best course of action for the University. I would like to note that it is not factually accurate to assert that the reductions are more severe for lower-income employees than for those earning more. The furlough policy is progressive and, of necessity, takes into account the number of employees in each income bracket.
No plan is perfect, but we have worked hard to involve the UC community in a broad consultation process in order to develop a plan that is as fair as possible while preserving, to the extent possible, excellence and access to opportunity for students, researchers and patients. I attach a copy of an information sheet put out by my office, The UC Budget: Myths and Facts, which you may find of interest.
I appreciate your taking the time to write, and I thank you for your dedication and service to the University.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Mark G. Yudof
President
cc: Executive Vice President Lapp
Vice President Duckett
Executive Director Boland
Forward: Jeffrey Bergamini
August 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Unemployed Woman Sues College For Tuition
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/02/unemployed-woman-sues-col_n_249544.html
[...]
The college insists it helps its graduates find jobs.
Dan Landrum
August 3, 2009 at 5:26 am
AB 656 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Torrico – FEBRUARY 25, 2009
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_656_bill_20090225_introduced.html
The bill will go before the Assembly higher education committee next Tuesday, June 23.
For those interested in attending, the hearing will take place in the State Capitol room 437 at 1:30 p.m.
You can also support AB 656 by joining the Facebook cause at: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/250878/35918066?m=8267094b
Dan Landrum
July 16, 2009 at 10:54 am
SFGate
San Francisco Chronicle
“But Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a regent, upstaged some of the drama by challenging the regents and each chancellor to “stand up and fight” instead of passively accepting the cuts. He urged them to endorse AB656 by Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont, a bill making its way through the Legislature that would tax oil companies and direct the money to California’s colleges and universities.
‘We can fight fiercely in retreat, or we can stop and fight fiercely for the university,’ Garamendi told his colleagues, winning applause from the professors and other employees in the audience.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/15/BACA18PA83.DTL#ixzz0LRNnSpLf
Allan Havis
July 16, 2009 at 10:18 am
mark_yudof: Hearing some alarming facts about “brain drain” from UCSD. Top faculty going elsewhere, taking advantage of better offers.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=102921763378&ref=nf
Dan Landrum
July 16, 2009 at 5:21 am
UC spending cuts attempt to share the pain
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/14/ED1B18NLJN.DTL
Russell S. Gould, Mark Yudof – Tuesday, July 14, 2009
[...]
One persistent suggestion is that we dip into “rainy day” reserve funds scattered throughout the system’s 10 campuses. Surely, proponents argue, this is a rainy day.
Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. A large portion of these reserves, in fact, were created for specific academic and research initiatives. Other funds in this category function as endowments dedicated to specific uses, which cannot be altered. Finally, some funds have been set aside to support university operations and repay principal and interests on bonds. There’s also the question of what lies ahead. If state funding continues to decline and federal stimulus dollars dry up, we will face an even worse scenario in fiscal year 2010-11. Plus, it now appears likely that the state will be unable to provide up to $1 billion in appropriations for UC core finances until late in the fiscal year. In this case, the UC reserves will be a vital tool in bridging that gap.
[...]
So we are left, it seems, with the course we have chosen – trimming our way through this crisis, as wisely and as fairly as possible, with a keen eye on preserving the quality education, research and patient care that California deserves from its public university system.
Russell S. Gould is chair of the UC Board of Regents. Mark Yudof is the president of the University of California.
Dan Landrum
July 15, 2009 at 5:26 am
The Sacramento Bee, Jul. 1, 2009
UC employees grappling with furloughs
http://www.sacbee.com/education/story/1991101.html
A good synopsis of the issues.
Dan Landrum
July 2, 2009 at 10:45 am
If there must be across the board salary cuts, the campus should be closed one day per week for the entire length of the budget crisis. Doing anything less is a cosmetic lie to the state of California and to the nation.
x
June 30, 2009 at 10:59 am
In 1939, two Bata Shoes company’s salesmen were sent to Africa in search of market opportunities. One reported: “Nobody wearing shoes. No market possibilities.” The other reported; “Everybody barefoot. Tremendous opportunities.”
I’m seeing tremendous opportunities in our current economic crisis. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” said JFK. Clearly, the tide has turned. How low will it go is anybody’s guess. What makes sense to me is to work towards creating buoyancy and new opportunities in the spheres I can most directly affect. The UC system, even UCSD are big boats. Big boats turn slowly. And I don’t feel I’m in a position to have much of an affect steering those big boats. Marshall College, on the other hand, is an appropriate scale, small enough to maintain effective human connections and with its constant flow through of additional community members, large enough to develop a self-sustaining “boot-strapping” engine with global reach.
So what enterprises can we pursue at the college level that could have an impact of at least lifting the boats within our lock of the canal? Here’s one vision: Build a bridge between the Ivory Tower and the Marketplace. A bridge connects. The idea is for TMC to become a connection between these heretofore separate sectors.
One means of going about being the bridge is to revitalize our connections with our intrinsic community by forming the Thurgood Marshall College Alumni Group. Central to TMCAG’s mission would be to develop a Jobs Board. The aim being to prep current students through real world connections and provide a field-appropriate selection of job opportunities to our graduating seniors.
What are the benefits? In the short-term, I can see the TMC Alumni Group using online forums and social networking to become a repository for potentiating “bridge building” dialog. The synergy of getting students – former & current, faculty and staff focused on developing this new terrain is bound to bear fruit. In the long-term, if authentic connections are maintained, I can see the enterprise becoming a reliable source of Information Age innovation. A powerful exchange brokerage of ideas, the faculty will naturally be informed by the cutting-edge concerns and inventions of business and industry, graduating seniors will be up-to-speed, market ready and succeeding generations of alums will see the value of giving back, keeping the nexus healthy and vital.
In getting started with a job-centric TMC Alumni Group, we have some natural allies on the UCSD Alumni Association Board of Directors who may be able to give us guidance – http://www.alumni.ucsd.edu/aboutus/board.htm
Secretary
Karen Hunter Moraghan (TMC ’81, Communication) is president of Hunter Public Relations and Special Events in Long Valley, NJ.
Director
Marc Bernard (TMC ’79, Computer Science) over a 30-year career, Marc has provided expertise and/or developed software products for a variety of organizations.
Director
Michelle Brega (’93, Political Science) is Vice President and San Diego Market Development Manager for Bank of America. As a member of the bank’s local leadership team, Michelle ensures delivery of the full power of the Bank of America brand, business capabilities and resources to the local market.
UCSD Alumni Groups are self-managed, volunteer-driven organizations that plan, promote, and staff events and programs to support affinity-based alumni constituents as well as current and prospective students and the broader UCSD community. It looks like it’d be pretty straight forward to set-up the TMC Alumni Group within the UCSD Alumni Groups – http://alumni.ucsd.edu/chapters/AlumniGroups.htm
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Dan
Dan Landrum
June 24, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Clearly it feels wrong to cut staff and faculty pay as a convenient mechanism in this crisis. Worse, to do this without a graduating scale to help lower-end salaries all the while knowing there are many robust salaries on our campus. If there must be such imposing cuts, our faculty should have the option of teaching more during the academic year rather than lose pay. Likewise, Senior Faculty Administrators should have the option to teach in summer session. In the same spirit then, California State Constitution should be amended to require UC pensioners making $90,000 or more to give back 5% to our campuses. Faculty with a lot of sabbatical credit should be allowed to trade the course relief time at 50 cents on the dollar rather than lose annual salary. Staff and faculty should be loaning the money to UC and 2.5% interest, jumbo CD and redeemable in 2019. Let this be a wiser variation on the GM bankruptcy in so far how bailout money is secured as a massive loan. Perhaps the Indian Casinos in our county might be enticed to direct 5% of their annual profits and, in return, our campus can give them naming rights to the new housing complex for transfer students and new roadways, lanes, and drives. That step might yield $30 million dollars alone. Perhaps Steven Job can be talked into giving UCSD $30-50 million dollars for the naming rights at Sixth College. The Regents should offer half of their salaries to the many staffers at $46,500 who are about to get slapped with 8% pain. The proposed indecent cuts must be seen and felt by the students and the families of our state; staff and faculty salary cuts only hide the bloodletting from public view. Finally, there must be genuine transparency with the revised master plan to our campus and to the entire UC network. We are now desperate for triple the UC out-of-state student enrollment and their higher tuition fees.
Allan Havis
June 22, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Ariana Hernandez’ idea about LOANS instead of cuts is brilliant!
T.G.
June 22, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Instead of focusing on ill thought out alternatives from President Yudolf and the Regents, UCSD’s major effort must be to engage the creative power and strength that brought it to such great heights in such a short time. There are innovative faculty and staff on this campus that must join together now to form solutions that will actually work for this campus. But, first, we must question some of the pabulum we are being fed.
We must question the notion that suddenly all the UC’s are a “family.” When did that come about? Were we all a family when the good times were rolling? I must have missed it these last 20 years because I don’t recall sharing in any good fortune from any of the other campuses. Do you? What a silly analogy. So, why is OP playing the Equity Card? Perhaps it is to make it easier on themselves and their systems. It is certainly not on behalf of the faculty and staff of UC San Diego or any other UC. Their inhumane proposals smack of unethical actions one pictures emerging from a smoke-filled back bar room. UC San Diego must rise above such unprincipled suggestions.
We must look out for this great campus and its people. Can one of our own renown economists figure out the proper formula for actual equity using some sensible realities some have mentioned? We have 17% more federal funding. We have a certain dollar amount in endowment and slated donor gifts. We could borrow if we absolutely had to. I’m sure there are others. If we receive 12% funding from the great state of California, then what is the real percentage of shortfall, if there is one, that UCSD should be responsible for if we take into account our assets?
Not in any order, some suggestions for revenue once we know our true obligation:
1. After projecting the savings first, close the campus for the summer, part of the summer, two weeks, a month, a quarter — whatever it takes to amass the revenue. Meeting the shortfall should not come only from the faculty and staff salaries and student fees. How about including savings in utilities, grounds keeping, and maintenance costs and so forth? If you are bankrupt you go out of business.
2. Institute a sliding scale on tuition, drops/adds, withdrawals, overloads, maximum units so that students pay according to units taken and dropped. Pay for what you take and do.
This won’t generate the revenue needed now but it may help UCSD for steady state and avoid losing future money.
3. Have your UCSD and UC Counsel earn their salaries and force the California Lottery to pay up! Years ago when the lottery was voted in by the public the premise for this statewide gambling system was that money was to go to education.
4. Contact some of our wealthy donors and offer to name some of these buildings — or pieces of buildings — after them, perhaps even Sixth College. Sol Price might like another building or a whole college. Bill Gates might. Peter Preuss too.
5. Engineering has wanted to branch off and be its own College with its own GE. Perhaps a way to do that could be devised to allow that option but it would cost a significant amount and ongoing fee to the campus. Nothing should be free anymore.
6. Perhaps Rady School and Medical School could pay a premium for using the UCSD logo as if one were paying for a franchinse or for use of a patent.
7. The Athletics Division has access to significant sources of funds as does Engineering. Partnerships with such divisions would be timely.
8. Pay attention to what some staff and faculty have noted as legal issues. But, when you can change a rule to make something positive happen, do it. It’s not the time to hide behind unnecessary rules and regulations.
Last, a powerful presence of UCSD leaders needs to furnish President Yudolf in person the facts and action UC San Diego will unequivocally take.
Anne Porter
June 22, 2009 at 4:22 pm
The next Regents Meeting is July 14-16 @ the Community Center, UCSF – Mission Bay.
v
June 22, 2009 at 8:29 am
This is really unfair that postdocs who are already working extra long hours and weekends, but receive poor wages and living support in california are considered equals in the UC system.
8% out of their already pity salary is pathetic. UC system should recognize that these hardworking postdocs earn the lowest salary, probably work the longest hours, have to support a family, and are mostly on the verge of a break down and may pursue another path.
PissedoffPostdoc
June 22, 2009 at 7:23 am
That raises an interesting question, would postdocs be working any less with the Furlough in place? That my brother is exploitation.
anonym
June 22, 2009 at 4:08 pm
universityprobe.org/2009/05/looming-autocracy-at-the-university/
There was a warning
June 20, 2009 at 9:49 pm
The Courts might be the way to go. Please read this. In some states, furloughs imposed on state workers have been found unconstitutional:
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/Financial/Legal/
L
June 20, 2009 at 9:27 pm
now the comments are posted upside down…
a
June 20, 2009 at 3:06 pm
ooops, what happened to my previous comment? It disappeared?
i was providing links to:
- the audio of the townhall meeting:
communication.ucsd.edu/TownHall.wav
- a commentary by the Huffington Post
huffingtonpost.com/shira-tarrant/california-college-up-in_b_217702.html
- the SDSU page on the cuts
atwork.sdsu.edu/
a
June 20, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Could we get rid of this comment’s moderation and let the debate flow? Whoever s moderating, you can remove comments later if they use fowl language or are of porngraphic nature and so on. No moderation would allow for a real-live debate.
Thanks.
A
June 20, 2009 at 2:28 pm
We have removed every option that would hold comments for moderation. Comments will post as they are written, and will not be moderated in any fashion (unless as you suggested above). Thank you for bringing to attention the comment post delay.
ucsdfacultyandstaff
June 20, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Hello again,
here’s the audio of friday’s townhall meeting:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/TownHall.wav
here’s a commentary on the Huffington Post (of yesterday’s)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shira-tarrant/california-college-up-in_b_217702.html
And here the San Diego State University page where you can follow what’s going on at the CSU level:
http://www.atwork.sdsu.edu/
[It does look like furloughs is the state’s /regents’ only option – salary cuts can only be taken by workers voluntarily. To get around it, our Chancellor suggested that furloughs would be taken on holidays, and at CSU they are talking about fridays -either way it is somewhat of a disrespect to workers’ rights, including faculty).
ariana hernandez
June 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm
We need to question the premises that are presented to us. Instead of debating the merits of three ridiculous – and fundamentally identical — options, I encourage people to change the discussion.
A. The university system and the state are in a mess, this much is clear. There are many factors that got us into this mess, but a shortage of resources to support the work we do is not among them. UCSD is profitable. The state’s cuts should be a pesky irritation that is barely noticed.
1. UCSD receives approximately 12% of its budget from the state.
2. The state is cutting allocations to UC by ~30%.
3. According to the Chancellor’s presentation, sponsored projects (i.e., grants funded externally) etc were INCREASED by 17% last year at UCSD.
4. 8% is really more than 8%. Add 2% for required payments to retirement; add 2% for no cost of living adjustment; add an unknown amount for increased medical premiums that administration has said we will bear.
Despite the massive economic engine that is UCSD, we face these cuts because the office of the president ignores the differences between campuses. All campuses must absorb the cuts at the same proportion. This should be a non-starter. The principal that all campuses are equal does not apply in undergraduate or graduate admissions or in faculty hiring or promotion.
B. With due respect, senior administration have not been doing their jobs.
1. The compensation scandals of the past few years have made UC vulnerable. The dollar amounts are not the issue – they don’t add up to a fraction of the state reduction, but they have antagonized the legislature and the people of California. The irregularities in handling compensation, including the mortgage origination program, were major screw-ups that we are paying for now.
2. Our leaders have failed us. Staff get evaluated on their performance of their respective duties, teachers on their teaching, researchers on their publication. Leaders should be judged on their leadership. Where was the leadership in averting this crisis? Why were we on a hell-best course of aggressive growth only to come to a screeching retraction now? Where were plans to weather inevitable storms of the California state budget process? How is it that the case for the UC system has not been made to the public? Where is the leadership proposing realistic strategies for dealing with an acute budget cut to UC?
3. At every opportunity senior administration boasts about feeling the pain as much as other workers at the university. They too will take at least the same pay reduction. Of course, their housing is sometimes free; they sit on corporate boards in their free time for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I do not begrudge them these benefits if they actually delivered on their job expectations. But they have contributed to, not ameliorated, the problems we face.
These are the same people in whose hands our fate is now. We should be very, very concerned. Their intentions are, no doubt, good, but there is little evidence of vision, of bravery or even backbone. They have careers to protect and risking them for the sake of the university is probably not high on the agenda.
C. The budget “solutions” make no sense at all and are counter-productive. Case-in-point: someone who works at UCSD but whose salary comes from a federal grant will be required under the proposal to have an 8% reduction in pay. Note that the 8% savings does not become available to UC to spend on other things. Properly, that money should probably be returned to the granting agency. Ironically, if it is returned, the university would also have to return the overhead costs that go with it (in most cases about an additional 50%). More likely, the funds could be spent by the worker on other aspects of the project – just not her salary. THERE ARE NO SAVINGS ATTACHED TO THIS POLICY. IT IS EITHER A WASTE OF TIME OR SOME KIND OF POLITICAL DISTRACTION. IT IS SHERE CRAZINESS presented as an issue of equity: we are told, that it would be uncomfortable if the some workers received pay reductions while others were spared, and thus this symbolic gesture of sharing the pain is warranted. But usually the tables are turned: Despite UCSD’s tremendous success in obtaining outside funds, many researchers have lapses in funding or are only able to pay a fraction of their salary. At those times, they are on their own: The university does not rush in to make up the difference, but here these same individuals are expected to share in the state’s loss. LEAVE THESE PEOPLE ALONE. (I, while receiving NIH funds, am a fully tenured and salaried member of an academic department, so this is not a self-motivated argument).
What to do:
1. Be angry and vocal.
2. Demand that other “solutions” be proposed.
3. Make clear what the consequences of these proposals will be.
What other solutions are there?
Several that I have heard floated are below. Implicitly the office of the president considers these less acceptable than what is being proposed. No doubt there are others.
1. Increase tuition and pair it with financial aid for lower-income students. In-state tuition at UC is thousands less than at other state campuses (Michigan, Minnesota etc). Don’t let the state continue to underfund its education.
2. Limit slots for in-state students and admit out-of-state students. This achieves MASSIVE income for the campus.
3. DISCUSS, DECIDE and ACCEPT what aspects of the university mission can be substantially compromised – access, diversity, excellence, teaching, research, enrichment, student experience, athletics. They cannot all be preserved.
Although I urge a changing of the terms of debate, I offer these few words about the options presented to us now.
1. Any cuts need to be less regressive. Cuts should range from 0% to 20+% for the highest paid employees. Arguably, senior administration should be considered 100% state-supported and thus should take ~30% cut. Already, entry-level staff pay an obscene fraction of their salary on parking.
2. If there are SALARY CUTS, at a minimum, our pay must be deferred. I was not at UCSD during past pay reductions in the 1990s, but I understand that during that crisis, equivalent funds were allocated to each worker’s retirement account (No doubt we’ll be discussing that crisis ere long).
3. If we are FURLOUGHED, we should have an approved furlough plan that documents what duties we are not performing as a result of forced reduction in effort (e.g., not seeing patients, not performing outreach at a high school, not reviewing for a journal, not giving lectures on topics y and z in a class, not assigning/grading writing, not holding office hours, not sitting on university committees, not pursuing a patent, not admitting a graduate student). The same principal is already applied for faculty taking sabbaticals: when they are paying for it, the university wants to know that the time away from the university is being spent for the academic enrichment of the university. This may seem petulant, small minded, and self-serving, but it is not. It is transparency that serves the interest of the university in the long run by identifying the actual costs of these cuts.
If, as a worker, you can reduce your effort by 8% and accomplish the same thing, then do so. Maybe you are overpaid. But I cannot and am not, and I see no evidence of people around me wasting the government’s money. In short, the system is not bloated. There is little fat to trim. Let us drop the fiction that we can do the same with less. Let us stand up for ourselves. Let us not be taken advantage of. I do not want to be like the primary school teachers who pay for necessary supplies out of their personal funds. It is a noble and self-sacrificing gesture, but it doesn’t fix the systemic problems of how we value and fund education.
g
June 20, 2009 at 1:15 pm
The Regents meet(in Oakland?)in July. Should faculty across the system organize to disrupt these meetings in as sensational a way as possible to at least tweak the attention of news agencies, officials, the legislature, and state citizens?
v
June 20, 2009 at 10:49 am
There seems to be a lot of things that have the character of luxuries rather than necessities. Taken togeter, they may have a signficant impact. Possibilities include:
1. Close UC Santa Cruz. Its existence cannot be justified in the way that UCR (deomographics, new medical school, Citrus Experimental Program) and UC Merced (underserviced part of the state) can.
2. Eliminate all administrative positions that have been created in the past 10 years that contain the words “Dean”, “Chancellor”, or “Director” in their titles.
3. The proliferation of separate college requirements is both expensive and bewildering – eliminate it. The college systems at Oxford and Cambridge, which this is suppsoed to emulate, do not have this feature.
Before I upset too many people, I’ll stop here. I gues there would be many very different lists and the only approach will turn out to be the accross-the-board cut.
B
June 20, 2009 at 10:44 am
My suggestions/proposals to the chancellor in case there are salary cuts:
1. NOT CUTS BUT LOANS. That these so-called cuts are loans that we are making to the state, and that these loans are returned to us when the state recovers financially. Just like the government wants to recuperate its money when bailing out banks, we must recuperate our money used to bail out the state. We must get our money back.
2. That our temporary contributions be recognized by the TAX CODE, and we get additional deductions in our state income tax return to even out the disparities in terms of contribution among the citizens of the state of California (we will be contributing disproportionately compared to other citizens).
3. That the amount of the contributions follows a SLIDING SCALE paralel to that established in the state and/or federal tax codes. A flat tax is regressive, and furthermore should not be imposed arbitrarily. THese amounts, percentages and tears we are presented with are arbitrary, and obviously tax the poor a lot more than the rich.
4 THat if there are furlough days (instead or in addition to salary reductions), the workers be those determining which days, in agreement with their department and/or division colleagues. To furlough us on sundays is a mockery.
ariana hernandez
June 20, 2009 at 1:27 am
I sent the following message to the Chancellor, President, and several Deans.
The recent news about across-the-board pay reductions and furloughs is
dispiriting. Of course we all understand the difficulty of the current
budgetary situation; and most of us would likely want to “share the
pain” rather than disproportionately targeting already vulnerable
units and constituencies.
If memory serves, a recent email from UCOP noted that the UC currently
has a much higher bond rating than the state of California, and that a
new bond offering to raise funds in the short term might be in order.
I’m wondering if this might play a role in discussions about faculty
and staff salary cuts.
Rather than simply slashing 8% or more of our salaries, why not create
a mandatory bond buy-in (or whatever the legal equivalent of that
would be), even at very low (even 0%) interest rates, for all UC
employees? This would have an identical effect on our paychecks in the
short term, but would “invest” us directly in the longer-term success
of the UC. And since we would eventually receive a return on that
investment–even if the return is essentially flat–I imagine the
effect on employee morale would be quite different than with a simple,
flat pay-cut option.
Such a move would be innovative, perhaps even unprecedented in the
current dismal economic climate at US colleges and universities. I don’t know the legal issues with this idea, nor do I know how it
would be implemented. But since we’re all grasping at straws here, I
thought I’d at least toss this idea into the mix.
p
June 20, 2009 at 1:17 am
I’m wondering if we can take a second look how the reduction is distributed across pay scales. For instance, in OPTION I: 8 Percent Salary Reduction Plan: “Salaries for all faculty and staff be reduced by 8%. Salaries for faculty and staff earning less than $46,000 per year be reduced by 4%.”
Doesn’t this $46,000 per year threshold pose an inequitable burden for someone earning $46,500 relative to someone earning $45,500? Wouldn’t it be more fair if it was distribute more uniformly, say 0.1% per $1,000 of earnings?
Dan Landrum
June 19, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I lived through the disintegration of the SUNY system in the 70s. In the early 1970s, the SUNY system was moving forward so rapidly that all indications were that it would become the best university system in the US within a few years. Then, suddenly, funding collapsed, cutbacks were deep and permanent and the system never rose above the mediocre level it now occupies. Our UC system can similarly go from greatness (we are certainly the best in the world at the moment) to mediocrity in just a few years. That is all it takes. And, it could take decades to retrieve what is lost.
Arnold Rheingold
June 19, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I was very surprised with the options presented to us yesterday by the Regents and the President. I don’t see any equity at all. How can 8% across the board for those who make more than $46,000.00 be considered equitable. Shame on the Regents and the President!
It is amazing to me that the University of California cannot come up with options that make more sense. Are we already losing our intellectual and creative pool? This whole process is very disturbing and shameful.
Karen Correa-Fowler
June 19, 2009 at 10:09 pm