Davis Faculty Association

Archive for 1998

WHA – Western Health Advantage

If you have looked at your Open Renewal packets for this month, you will see that one of the HMOs available to UCD employees is WHA, Western Health Advantage, a consortium composed of Woodland Clinic and Hospital, Mercy Healthcare, NorthBay  Health System, and UCD Medical Center. Formed in 1995, WHA was supported by the Regents because it was felt that the HMOs involved would direct referrals for serious treatment to UCDMC. The Regents support was strong enough that they contributed $1.5 to  WHA’s formation. At the Sept. 19, 1998 meeting of the Regents, it was reported that WHA’s enrollments had fallen below estimation (26,300 as opposed to an expected 38,600), and costs had exceeded estimation. Since the Regents had agreed to share operating expenses, the bill to them was $4,183,006,  $2,683,006 beyond the original contribution, and $721,000 more than anticipated. WHA’s losses this current year are expected to be $3.4 million, and the Regents are responsible for one-third of that amount, plus ongoing operating expenses. It is claimed that most of the unanticipated expenses came from pharmacy and out-of-area claims.

From 1996-1998, inpatient referrals to UCDMC increased 25%, for a $12 million increase of net income, at least in part through affiliation with WHA. Through this larger umbrella organization, there are economies of scale, including licensing fees. There are also increased, and geographically expanded, opportunities for residency training

In the next two years, WHA plans to expand to four more counties (El Dorado, Calaveras, Placer, and San Joaquin). WHA will also  develop a Medicare Risk product that will increase it’s marketability to UCD retirees, and to seek contracts with other large public and private sector employers. WHA’s UC affiliation is a distinguishing feature that is expected to be significant in UC employee enrollment decisions.

CUCFA at Oakland On Healthcare

Topics of CUCFA’s conversations with the UCOP  have been on the fate of UC Care, Pru-High (especially as an affordable Medigap policy) , the development of risk adjustment policies in pricing, the need for greater freedom in out-of-area coverage and in pharmacy policies, and the continued desirability of a 3-tiered point-of-service alternative to HMOs.

Over most of the last decade, as medical costs through HMO containment has declined, the administration’s contribution to employee health care has also declined. Yet employee contributions have increased over this period  for lower quality, restricted-choice health care. Thus it is gratifying that UC’s contribution in 1999 has increased $7 for singles (to $146 monthly), $14 for couples (to $299), and $19 for families (to $405).

The administration is moving towards a risk adjustment policy (as CUCFA has advocated), but it will not be fully implemented this year. UC will try to get health plans to reduce premiums proportional to the number of low risk employees enrolled and raise them for high-risk enrollees. Those numbers are will be available after Open Enrollment.

UC Care, with its 3-tier options, is at risk because its price is higher than standard HMOs. Employees sensitive to increases in yearly premiums, largely younger, lower users of healthcare, may opt out of UC Care into cheaper HMOs, leaving older employees who demand more healthcare, driving up premiums. Currently enrollees of UC Care tier 2 use it as a conventional fee-for-service plan with a $500 deductible (1 person) and an 80% reimbursement plan.  This practice, ignoring the tier-one doctors, drives up the cost of the plan. Currently the fees are $17.23 (1 person), $35.33 for couples, $48.25 for families.

But the danger of driving up rates can be seen in Pru-High, used primarily by older retirees as a Medicare supplement. Its rates are $757.97 for one, $1406.70 for couples, and $1791.45 a month for families. Yet it and UC Care  the only  plans offered  that provide non-emergency out-of-district health care, for faculty  on sabbatical or for employees’ children going to out-of-state schools.

1999-2000 Year Budget Highlights

Now that the 1998-99 budget is in place and we are all enjoying the funding increases, including  a 4.5 % salary increase for faculty, CUCFA is beginning to monitor the evolving 1999-2000 budget. UCOP presented a proposal at the October Regents’ meeting; action is expected on expenditures at the November meeting; action on income sources will be postponed until after the Governor’s proposal is available, probably at the  January or February 1999 Regents’ meeting. We shall continue to report more on this budget as it moves to the Regents, the Governor, and through the Legislature in the spring. In what follows, we present some elements of the UCOP’s  1999-2000 budget proposal that we feel will be of particular interest to faculty.

Faculty Salaries:  UC is requesting funding for a  COLA averaging 2% for all UC employees and an  additional  0.2% parity adjustment for  Academic Senate faculty. Preliminary UC estimates  suggest that for 1999-2000, these increases along  with those coming from regular  merits and promotions  will keep  UC faculty  salaries at the mean of the salaries of our eight  comparison institutions. Updated projections will be available in November and the FA will examine them carefully.

Additional Market Adjustments: UC is seeking funding equivalent to a 5% increase for Coop. Extension Specialists. These academic appointees are recruited from the same population  as  ladder rank faculty, but they did not receive the  parity adjustments afforded the latter via the compact between UC and the Governor.  Thus, their salaries have fallen well behind those in the competitive  marketplace.  The DFA has several times urged the UCOP to provide parity adjustments for individuals in this title series, and will strongly  support the proposal as it goes through the Legislature. UC is also  requesting funding equivalent to a 5% market adjustment for Information Technology (IT) Professionals as the first step in a multi-year plan to provide them with competitive salaries.
Increases in Benefit Costs: UC is requesting funding for increases in the cost of health and dental insurance for its employees. This request is based one estimated cost increases of about 5.5%.

Funding for Enrollment  Growth: UC is seeking $31.6 million in State funds, or $7,900 per student, to support an  additional 4,000 FTE students, bringing the total budgeted general campus enrollment to 151,000 in 1999-2000. The added funding will provide salary and benefits for additional faculty positions and augmented  instructional support including clerical and technical personnel, supplies and equipment funds; teaching assistant positions; and support for libraries and student services.
The proposed enrollment growth of 4,000 FTE students includes 200 FTE students who would enroll in classes during the summer  and thereby earn teaching credentials sooner than would otherwise be the case. This new program represents one of UC’s efforts to attract well qualified students into the teaching profession. As was true in 1998-99, the enrollment growth includes a  target of 800 FTE students in engineering and computer and information sciences. The current plan calls for similar additions over a period of eight years, bringing the total enrollment in these fields to about 24,000 students  in 2005-06.

Student/Faculty Ratio Information: UC enrollments are expected to be at an all-time high in  1999-2000.  With a funded student-faculty ratio of 18.7 to one, UC will employ about the same number of faculty in 1999-2000 as it did in 1990-1991 (when the  ratio was 17.6 to 1) but enroll about 9,000 more students. (In the Regents’  meeting discussion,  one of the board members asked how much money  would be needed to return  to a 17.5 to 1 ratio; Vice President Hershman estimated the cost at $75 M.)

Library Initiative: With the goal of reducing an annual library budgetary shortfall that exceeds $39 million, UC is requesting $7.5 million as the first phase of a multi-year plan to address the needs of the campus libraries’  print collections, continue the development of the digital library, and increase the sharing of library materials across campuses.  UC notes that “for the foreseeable future, electronic information resources will complement, rather than  supplant, traditional collections, requiring the University to support existing collections and services in parallel with the development of digital library services.”

Continued Funding for Core Needs: If the State’s fiscal resources permit, UC will request that the $70M provided in 1998-99 to adress critical needs in deferred maintenance, insturctional technology, instructional equipment, and  library collections be continued in 1999-2000.

Legislative Recap for 1998

by Charles Nash

UC faculty had a great deal to be pleased about when the 1998 Legislative session ended. For example: faculty salary increases averaging 4.5% will bring UC salaries to “parity” with our Comparison-8 institutions for the first time since 1991-92; a $23M appropriation will bring our budgeted enrollment into balance with our headcount enrollment for 1998-99, and a $6M appropriation will provide support for an additional 800 students systemwide in engineering and computer science.

The flush state of the California treasury led to significant “May revisions” of the “January” Governor’s budget that will have very great long-term effects within the University. In March and April the Faculty Associations, mainly through our lobbyist, Jim Bruner, were marshaling support in both houses of the Legislature for a so-called “members request” for funds to arrest the deterioration of the library print collections systemwide. We had very warm receptions everywhere, but no legislation had yet been introduced. We were also actively supporting another “member’s request” coming out of Silicon Valley that was seeking  funds to replace obsolete equipment in teaching laboratories.

We were obviously delighted to discover in May that the Governor agreed with us that these were meritorious initiatives. The final budget provided $10M for the library print  collections and $20M for equipment replacement. We were even more pleased about having persuaded the legislature to include control language in the budget asking the University to “develop a strategy and a multi-year funding plan, including a request for additional state funding, to address the serious problems facing their libraries…” and to report about the progress being made  thereon by March of 1999.

In addition to our efforts on behalf of the budget, the Associations also took positions on other Legislative matters. We actively opposed a bill by Senator “Pete” Knight (R, Palmdale) that would have denied UC and CSU  the right to use state funds to provide  domestic partners’ benefits. (This bill did not even make it to its first committee hearing.)

We also opposed a constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Teresa Hughes (D, Inglewood) which would have made only the top 12.5% of the graduates of each particular high school eligible for admission to UC. The top 4% from each high school would have been “entitled” to admission. This bill was not heard in the 1997-98 session, but its author has reserved the right to bring it back if UC does not adopt something like the 4% rule on its own.

We supported a Higher Education Funding bill by Cruz Bustamante (D, Fresno) that is identical to the one that passed the Legislature last year but was vetoed by the Governor. To no one’s great surprise it suffered  precisely the same fate this year. In his veto message the Governor voiced his support for higher education but stated his preference for another “compact” like the one just concluded. UC and CSU are in fact currently pursuing such a compact even though it can be totally rejected by the incoming Governor and will have no standing with any future Legislature.

We followed but did not take a position on a bill authored by Senator Steve Peace (D, El Cajon) and signed by the Governor that will reduce resident graduate student (but not professional student) fees by 5% in 1999-2000. It also lifts the freeze on professional school fees that was enacted last year. In its present form the bill says that such a fee reduction will take place only if UC receives equivalent funding from the State. We will  continue to monitor the implementation of this provision.

What Have You Done For me Lately II

by Mary Ann Mason

I am now in my second year as President of the UC Council of Faculty Associations, the umbrella organization which unites all seven campus Faculty Associations and maintains a lobbyist in Sacramento. But my colleagues still don’t get it. One faculty member, whom I persuaded to join the Berkeley Faculty Association last year, marched up to me in the mail room with the latest bulletin from the Office of the President. “Look!” he said, “everything’s fixed, we have a good budget now, the times of trouble are over. You and your Council can retire.” I would have liked to respond that the Council was responsible for, at last, a decent budget from the legislature, but I did, in all fairness, concede some credit to the economy.

What I did tell him very forcefully was that no other group is solely advocating for UC faculty in Sacramento and that the budget is only one front on which we fight. Then I stood in the doorway of the mailroom and did not let him escape until I shared with him the highlights of what the Faculty Associations have done for him lately.

“Did you read about the unexpected windfall for the libraries?” I asked. “The Council of UC Faculty Associations lobbied long and hard, with others, to achieve a major victory; gaining an additional $10 million in funding to help restore the depleted collections of the libraries. This is in addition to the $3 million for the digital library that had already been requested by the Office of the President. Many Faculty Association members participated, along with our new lobbyist, Jim Bruner of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, putting pressure on our local representatives to achieve this victory and to insert budget language that requires UC to submit a multi-year library funding plan to the legislature.”

“Have you noticed the bulge in your paycheck? The budget this year included a COLA of 2% plus a parity salary increase of 2.5%. This parity increase should finally bring us back to parity (which means our salaries fall in the middle) with our comparison 8 institutions. Reaching parity, after the serious slump in the early 90’s, has taken five years. This has been a major priority of the Council. We have carefully watch-dogged the progress of this movement in the legislature and in the Office of the President toward restoring our salaries. We have been vigilant to efforts to further delay the onset of the effective date of the increases each year and have lobbied actively to quash these efforts.”

“Are you perfectly happy with your health coverage?” I asked. ” I suspect, like most faculty you are critically concerned about the quality and shifting nature of our health care plans. The Council has pushed for maintaining a triple option plan, providing better access to primary care physicians and offering all UC faculty the opportunity to use UC medical school faculty and facilities. We also advocate better out of town coverage for our peripatetic faculty and an affordable Medigap plan for UC retirees with Medicare coverage. Our representatives are actively participating in the negotiations for the year 2000 health care contracts.”     “Do you own your lectures, or does the university? Do you want your courses to become freeware on the net? We are carefully monitoring the situation on each campus with regard to possible infringements of faculty intellectual property rights and copyrights. Our staff is fully engaged in researching these issues .The Council published a newsletter devoted to Technology in Higher Education: Opportunities and Threats and will continue to defend faculty rights in this volatile area.”

“Do you want some departments to be able to hire new faculty solely with private money? The Council has challenged the Office of the President’s memo to allow private, rather than state funding to support ladder rank faculty. We insist that there must be Senate review and approval of positions supported with non-19900 funds and adequate oversight and management of funds used for long-term support of faculty positions. We have urged the President to gain more faculty input from Senate committees and other forums before irrevocably changing the nature of the faculty culture.”

As he tried to push his way past me in the doorway I attempted to quickly list the wide range of other activities the Council has pursued lately. I told him that we had severely criticized the text of the proposed APM changes on termination for incompetence for failing to define incompetence adequately; how we had pointed out the alarming rise in part-time faculty, and how we were helping the medical school faculty in their efforts to make their compensation plan fairer.

He finally escaped into the hallway and yelled back at me from down the corridor. “Okay, Okay, just keep those good paychecks coming.”

Annuitant Benefits

Of interest to our Emeriti members, we note that the Governor’s January budget included $4.8M for the increased cost of annuitant health and dental benefits. The May Revise lists an additional $2M. There was no discussion of this issue in the budget subcommittees. We will see how the final budget treats this issue.

Can UC Care Be Saved?

UC Care is  the only low-cost option for out-of-state medical care for UC employees and their families. According to the UC Faculty Welfare Health Subcommittee, it is in a downward spiral: rising costs and premiums have driven some employees away in favor of free or low-cost HMOs; enrollee exodus further drives up UC Care plan premiums. The urgency of the situation is compounded by the planned departure of Prudential from the health care business. UC is initiating a process that will lead to a competitive bid for the majority of the University-sponsored health plans to be effective January 1, 2000. The coverage currently provided under UC Care, Core, Prudential High Option, Health Net, and PacifiCare plans will be included in this bid. To give your input, access the Benefits Web Page www.ucop.edu/bencom through the end of August.

The DFA has  historically considered health care a central mission and  CUCFA  has  requested a consultation session on UC Care with the UCOP. Employees need to know about the economics of risk adjustment and why there might be value in paying a bit more for a health plan that offers freedom of choice now so that options are available in the future. For a full discussion of this issue, see the CUCFA Web page home.pacbell.net/ucfa which contains an article summarized below:

SUMMARY: Over 90% of the Pru-High enrollees over the last 5 years have left that plan and gone to UC Care. Between 1995 and 1998, UC Care premiums  increased by approximately 10% more than a weighted average of HMO premiums offered at the University. The 1998 employee contribution rate of $16.82 , $33.83, and $47.08 (for 1 party, 2 party, and families, respectively) for UC Care was roughly twice as high as in 1997 and may increase dramatically in 1999. The HMOs at UC in 1998 are less costly: Kaiser,  PacifiCare , and WHA are free; and Health Net is $1.60, $3.50, $5.07. When Health Net premiums rose in 1996 from zero for families to $20,  Health Net  lost 20% of its members to free programs and therefore reduced its premiums in order to regain membership. If UC Care increases premiums to accommodate some of the increased risk from Pru-High enrollees switching to UC Care, more healthy employees may leave UC Care.

If UC employees had only HMO choices available, possible consequences might be: 1. inability to receive treatment away from home (on sabbatical and out-of-area coverage for children at college); 2. lack of provider choice; 3. reduced access to specialists; 4. inability to choose a plan relying on fee-for-service reimbursement; 5. access problems for persons with chronic diseases.

Faculty Welfare is investigating risk adjustment strategies to control rising costs and still preserve a choice among providers. Among the strategies being considered are (1) UC would  determine an average payment to health-care providers based on overall age of those insured. Employer contributions would remain constant but employee contributions would vary  based on age (less for those younger and in better health, more for those older and presumably more in need of health care). (2) Institute graduated employee payments for those who are older. (3) Raise the  deductible and/or copayments for POS  (point of service) care, especially for services beyond primary care.

Perhaps no single adjustment will save UC Care, but almost everyone who has looked at the matter agrees that if nothing is done, it is not a question of if but when UC Care will self-destruct.

UC Budget Update

Let me update you on the current state of the UC budget negotiations in the Legislature, recognizing that nothing is final yet. The Assembly and Senate budget subcommittees have acted on issues of concern to us, in some instances agreeing with each other but in others disagreeing, which forces the issue to a Conference Committee. From there,  if past years’ actions continue, matters may be taken up by the “Big Five,” consisting of the leaders of both houses and the Governor. Final action comes from the full Legislature, often late at night in frenzied activity to finish a budget  long past published deadlines.

Background:  Early in the 1998 Legislative Session,  the Council of UC Faculty Associations expressed support for the Governor’s budget proposal for 1998-99 and, in light of predicted additional state revenues,  set three goals for augmentations to the Governor’s proposal: 1. Adequate funding for enrollment growth ($23 million to fund 3200 students); 2. Restoration of  funding for the California Subject Matter Projects , and 3.  Adequate funding for all library resources at UC. The governor’s budget included a $3M appropriation for the California Digital library. CUCFA expressed early concern that this appropriation, while important in itself, could come at the expense of support for the  traditional print collections that are indispensable elements of the teaching and research programs of every discipline in the University.

CUCFA representatives and our lobbyist, Jim Bruner, have been meeting with legislators and other key people to advance these goals.  In the course of these meetings, we were asked to support a proposal to provide a budget augmentation for laboratory equipment for undergraduate science classes, to which we agreed.  That triggered a plan to advance our own request for a budget augmentation to fund the UC libraries. We distributed information to legislators, including an article by Leon Litwak, published in the California Monthly, which describes the dismal state of the DOE library.  Among others, we met with Senators  Jack O’Connell (Chair of the Senate budget subcommittee), Cathy Wright (R-Simi Valley) and Bruce McPherson (R-Santa Cruz)  and Assemblymembers Jack Scott (Chair of the  Assembly budget subcommittee), Helen Thomson (D-Davis) and  Dion Aroner (D-Berkeley). Aroner  expressed great enthusiasm for our library proposal.  Within days of our meeting, we learned that Aroner had brought the issue up in the Democratic caucus. Concurrent with these activities, UCB Chancellor Berdahl pledged to provide  very substantial additional funding for the Doe library.  Shortly thereafter, the Governor released his May Revise proposals which included: $23 million to fund an additional 3200 students; $12.2 million to restore funding for the Subject Matter Projects (with control language re. the projects and their oversight) ; and  $10 million to upgrade and restock library materials. CUCFA is continuing  to press for these funds; a report on the status of each augmentation is provided below:

Library Print Collections Recognizing that the system-wide administration’s efforts were concentrated on the enrollment funding and Subject Matter projects, we turned our lobbying efforts primarily to seeking additional funding and possible supplemental budget language to restore the UC libraries to their former preeminent positions among research institutions.

We sent key legislators  a letter of support for all three issues and  hand-delivered  a position paper on the libraries’ current state. Because of deep budget cuts and inflation, print collections have been steadily eroding.  Systemwide, the impact of inflation has resulted in serial cancellations at over 40,000 titles since 1988. The last previously-budgeted acquisition rate of  614,000 volumes has not been adjusted despite increases of almost 38,000 FTE students. The combined effect of these factors have resulted in an annual budgetary shortfall that currently exceeds $37M, of which approximately $10M is for staff; the rest is for acquisitions.

Both the Assembly and the Senate committees approved the $10M augmentation proposed in the May Revise. In addition, we persuaded Senator O’Connell  to get supplemental report language (SRL) approved. We were unable to get the SRL onto the Assembly agenda, but Assemblymembers Thomson and Aroner will continue to help us with this effort as the issue goes to the Conference Committee. The language we submitted is as follows:

“In order to address the critical need to enhance University library resources, most specifically the acquisition of books, documentary materials and other information resources required by UC students and faculty for effective study, research and instructional missions of each campus, the Legislature directs the University of California to:

1) restore the campus libraries to their former preeminent positions among  research institutions world-wide and to their proper roles as the intellectual centers on the campuses;

2) provide to the Legislature a two-year budget cycle plan beginning with the FY 99/00 budget year to restore the print collections (the traditional print library sources) in the UC libraries;

3) direct system-wide funding within FY 98/99 to address specific minimal base collections requirements matching individual campus augmentations; and

4) report to the Legislature and to the Governor on progress and plans in this regard prior to the FY 99/00 legislative budget deadlines.”

Enrollment Funding: Estimated enrollment for the budget year  is 147,000 FTES, which is 3,200  higher than the projected budgeted level. UC asked for a $23M augmentation to cover the 3,200 FTE shortfall.. CUCFA sent letters of support for the augmentation and provided a position paper detailing the negative impact of  overenrollment on undergraduate education, using  facts and figures  provided by the Davis campus. As noted above, the May Revise included the  $23M requested. The Senate agreed to this augmentation, but the Assembly changed the figure to $20.3M in order to force further discussion of the matter in the Conference Committee.

Subject Matter Projects: CUCFA supported UC’s objection to the Governor’s proposal to redirect $12.2M from the nine Subject Matter Projects (SMP) by writing letters and providing background information. The SMPs comprise a professional staff development network with 99 sites statewide. The nine subjects are mathematics, writing, reading and literature, science, history-social science, international studies, foreign language, the arts, and physical education-health.

During the early budget sessions, this issue was deferred while UC negotiated with the Governor’s office. Just before the release of the May Revise, the Assembly approved the restoration of the $12.2M.  The May Revise restored the $12.2M but with supplemental language agreed to by UC and the Governor: The control language stipulates, among other things, that the projects will be fully aligned with State Board of Education standards, be limited to core academic subjects (denying state funding for foreign language, arts, and physical education-health), and require that 75% of the teachers participating be from low-performing schools. It further requires that governance be strengthened to ensure adherence to state policies and that the program will be evaluated by June 30, 2002.  The Senate budget subcommittee  voted two to one to approve the funding but require that the language be subjected to a policy committee discussion since the negotiations were not public.  The language needed  to meet the Senate’s demand would require separate legislation.  Thus, this issue is still open.

Other Issues of Interest:  In addition, CUCFA has followed a few other budget items of possible interest to faculty:

1. California Virtual University: The Governor’s budget included $1M apiece for CSU and UC and $3.9M for the Community Colleges to allow each segment to initiate the development of courses for the California Virtual University. Both the Assembly and the Senate committees deleted the money for CSU and UC and reduced the amount  for the Community Colleges by $1M.

2. Tenth Campus: The Governor’s budget included $9.9M to continue the planning and development of the tenth campus. The Senate committee agreed to this funding along with a requirement presented by the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) that UC report annually on their progress. In the Assembly,  the former Speaker, Cruz Bustamante,  proposed a member request for $200M to accelerate the development of the tenth campus. The Assembly budget committee agreed to provide $50M. Thus this issue will need to go to the Conference Committee.

3. Outreach: The Governor’s budget included  $5M to expand student outreach programs so that more K-12 students can become  academically prepared to gain admission to the University. UC planned to add $2M to match the state’s $5M. The Senate committee approved the requested  $5M. Before the May Revise,  the Assembly committee, expressing concerns about admissions data indicating a reduced number of under-represented students at UCB and UCLA, voted to add an additional $5M and to require UC to redirect $10M from its base budget to outreach,  thereby  creating  a  total of $20M. After the May Revise, the Assembly  committee agreed to a compromise with UC to reduce the redirected amount from $10M to $5M and increase state funding for outreach by an additional $18M, thus creating  a total of  $33M. CUCFA is concerned about where the redirected $5M could come from in UC’s budget. As many of you may recall, in the budget negotiations last year, UC dealt with an undesignated cut of $9.5M  by delaying all range adjustments by one-month .

Conclusion:  All of this budget activity assumes a substantial wind-fall in state revenues,  estimated  to be $4.4B by the Department of Finance. The Legislative Analyst sets the figure somewhat lower. And, of course, every one has plans for it. The Governor has proposed a Vehicle License Tax rollback which could take the lion’s share. The state employees are still fighting to get their pay increases, complicated by collective bargaining issues, etc. Meanwhile,  many  people in the Capitol are trying, so far unsuccessfully, to craft a bond measure for all of education for the November ballot. The job of the Legislature is far from over for this session. Nonetheless, things look promising for UC so far, and we believe that CUCFA’s effort, albeit with support from a number of other sources, has benefited the University and served the interests of the faculty.

DFA Board Elections Slate

A Nominating Committee consisting of Allan Edelson, Demo Pappagianis, and Kathryn Radke has selected the following slate of candidates to fill DFA Board vacancies:

Eugenio Amparo (Med: Radiology), Alan Elms (Psychology), Bill Lasley (VM:PHR), and  Ariena  Van Bruggen (Plant Pathology). All nominees have agreed to serve. Their two-year terms of office will begin in Sept. 1998.

Further nominations may be made upon petition of 5% of the membership (15 members) in good standing as of April 1, 1998. Such petitions must be delivered on or before June 8, 1998, to the Executive Director (address above). Nominees must have agreed to serve.  If no nominations are submitted, the slate shall be accepted as elected.

Members of the above slate will join the current Board: Jonathan Sandoval, Charles Nash, Ben McCoy, Yvette Flores-Ortiz, Floyd Feeney, Cecelia Colombi, and Don Abbott. Current board members  leaving the Board are Sidney Gospe, Mark Matthews, and Lenora Timm.  We thank them for their fine service.

DFA Board Elections

by Myrna Hays

According to DFA bylaws, it will soon be time to conduct elections for new Board members for 1998-99.

Current board members whose terms are due to expire in September are Sidney Gospe, Bill Lasley, Mark Matthews, and Lenora Timm.

Board members who will continue in 1998-99 are Jonathan Sandoval, Charles Nash, Ben McCoy, Yvette Flores-Ortiz, Floyd Feeney, Maria Colombi, and Don Abbott.

To submit your name or that of one of your colleagues for the nominating committee or to serve on the board, please contact Myrna Hays at 756-6413 or by email at dfamhays@wheel.dcn.davis.us

Continued strong leadership is essential to a strong Davis Faculty Association.

You are currently browsing the Davis Faculty Association blog archives for the year 1998.