Davis Faculty Association

Archive for 2000

Legislative Update

Update on LAO Proposed UC Budget Reductions:
Report on the Senate Budget Hearing March 8, 2000 and
Issues to Discuss at Assembly Budget Hearing Set for March 15:

The Senate chose not to accept the LAO recommendations to cut UC’s base budget to equal that of K-12, nor to reduce enrollment growth funding, nor to alter the marginal cost figure for UC.. The Senate subcommittee also agreed to the proposed $1.1M augmentation to begin planning for a UCSC off-campus center in the Santa Clara Valley with the agreement to work on language to restrict the funds to actual planning. The Governor’s proposal will stand on these issues unless the Assembly, which is scheduled to meet next week, acts differently. If so, these issues would go to the Conference committee near the end of the budget process. The committee put several items on a “checklist,” meaning items to reconsider after the May Revise when the state’s revenue picture is expected to improve considerably: Senator Brulte asked that they not act on the resident undergraduate student fee freeze because he hopes to be able to reduce student fees by 50%. The committee held over discussion of non-resident student fees pending more information from UC about financial aid. They held over consideration of the $25M to purchase medical equipment for the hospitals. UC needs to convince them that the money will actually be needed and used for the stated purpose rather than used to cover other medical hospital losses.

The Faculty Association presented the following “white paper” to key legislators prior to the hearing and will continue to meet with and present it to key members of the Assembly prior to their hearing next week. We will keep you informed of the progress of the budget.

UCFA “White Paper” re. UC Budget Proposals:

About the Council:
The Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) is a voluntary coalition of approximately 1500 dues-paying members of the University of California Academic Senate. The Council meets regularly with the University Administration to exchange views on selected issues, but it is not a trade union. The mission of the Faculty Associations is to support and safeguard the principles of University governance embodied in the Academic Senate; to improve the economic status and general welfare of the faculty; to consult with the University Administration about salary, benefits and working conditions; and to provide external advocacy on matters pertinent to the interests of the faculty. CUCFA works with the various branches of State government to improve and protect the terms and conditions of employment of Academic Senate members. Council representatives monitor legislative activity and meet with legislators to discuss pending bills and other relevant matters.

CUCFA Position on the UC Budget:

At the moment the Council position on the UC budget is very simply stated: we see the one submitted by the Governor in January as a highly encouraging departure point, but not necessarily the last word. We will very likely wish to revisit certain of its elements when the State’s revenue picture becomes clearer in May.
In the meantime, the Council is sorely troubled by the recent report of the Legislative Analyst, who recommended huge cuts in the Governor’s proposed budgets for higher education in a fiscal year for which State revenues are predicted to outstrip budgeted demand by more than $4 billion.

The most puzzling and damaging recommendation is one to shift some $83 million from the budgets for UC and Hastings College of Law to the K-14 systems. The stated reason–to equalize the percentage base budget increases for “higher” and “lower” education–is surely without precedent, and a truly absurd approach to budgetary policy making. At the proposed marginal cost of instruction ($8554 per FTE student) this cut would be tantamount to eliminating the funding for 9,700 FTE students. The University could not and would not take the cut that way, but instead would greatly reduce or even eliminate faculty and staff salary increases, further defer some critical maintenance projects, pare equipment and library expenditures to the bone, etc.

Within UC the net effect of these actions would be seen as a return to the difficult budgetary climate of the early 1990s at exactly a time when the State is well known to be flush, not strapped. Faculty recruitment would be nearly impossible and retention would be problematic at best; all this when Tidal Wave II is just beginning to break over our heads.

We are also troubled by the LAO’s recommendation to reduce the funding for enrollment growth to a figure equivalent to an additional 4000 FTE students rather than the 6000 FTE students called for by the Governor.

We realize that there are discrepancies among the enrollment increases projected by various State agencies, but what is not arguable is that UC’s budgeted enrollment has never been equal to or greater than the actual enrollment at any time in the 1990’s. It is also true that the ratio of students to faculty across the UC system is the highest in American universities of the first rank. Enrollment funding at the higher figure mentioned above would either maintain the status quo ante if the projection of 6000 is correct, or lower the systemwide student:faculty ratio from 18.7 to 18.5 if it is not. We ask the Legislature not to heed this recommendation.

CUCFA is represented in Sacramento by James W. Bruner of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. Current Council contacts are listed on the letterhead above. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you from time to time, and welcome your comments and questions

Report on UC Budget Issues, the LAO Recommendations

The Faculty Association monitors the UC budget process and lobbies on behalf of faculty interests when the budget is discussed in the Legislature. We were pleased that the Governor’s proposal reflected faculty concerns in the Regents’ 2000-01 budget, such as a proposed 3% COLA for faculty. We were, therefore, shocked by the recently released report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) in which drastic cuts to UC’s base budget are proposed. UCOP has announced that should these reductions be approved, UC would need to reduce the proposed faculty COLAs from 3% to 1%. The LAO made these recommendations despite predicting that the strong economy will produce $4.2 billion more in tax revenue than expected in the Governor’s budget. Among the proposals, the LAO says that the state should spend more money on K-12 and less on UC and CSU. The FA concurs with a comment by Sacramento Bee columnist Peter Shrag that with such a strong economy, there should be money enough available to strengthen K-12 without reducing the higher education budgets. Both UC and CSU presented arguments against a number of other significant cuts in the Governor’s proposal for higher education at a Senate Budget committee hearing on Feb. 23. In the interests of brevity, we present in this report details of a few specific cuts affecting UC (not including capital projects and not including cuts or adjustments to CSU) followed by UC’s response in the text below. The Senate committee took no action; they plan to meet again on March 8. The Faculty Association representatives are preparing a “white paper” to present to the legislators to oppose the cuts. We invite your comments.

The LAO proposes that the Legislature should:

  • Shift $82.6 million in General Fund support from UC to K-12 and community colleges to equalize base increases at 2.84 percent.
  • Reduce General Fund support by $17.1 million to reflect demographically based enrollment growth of 2.9 percent rather than the 3.6 percent included in the budget.
  • Shift $71.3 million in General Fund support requested for K-12 teacher professional development institutes to K-12 schools to give them greater flexibility in meeting their accountability standards.
  • Not endorse the proposed “partnership agreement” with the Governor which would provide an annual automatic 5 percent increase in UC’s base budget.
  • Reduce General Fund support by $6.6 million to account for the fee-related support that UC will obtain for the additional students above the amounts assumed in the marginal-cost funding calculations.
  • Deny the budget request for a one-time augmentation of $25 million to UC teaching hospitals for the purchase of medical equipment because the LAO’s analysis of the hospital’s recent financial statements indicates that the hospitals are generating sufficient funds to purchase this equipment.
  • Direct UC to increase total fees paid by nonresident students by 4.5%. This would add $2million to UC’s fee revenue and result in a $2M reduction in General Fund costs. Also require UC to report on its policies for fees and grant aid for nonresident students because the LAO claims UC is providing virtually the same amount of grant aid to nonresident students that it receives from them in fees.
  • Deny UC’s request for $1.1M to hire staff to begin planning for a UCSC off-campus center in Santa Clara because UC has neither shown a need for the center nor gone through the established process for new center proposals.
  • Adopt budget bill language that provides full marginal-cost funding for all enrollment growth at UC regardless of the season in which it occurs; appropriate $12M to UC to reduce student fees in the summer to the same level as for other quarters; and expect reports from UC during the budget hearings on their plans for implementing year-round instruction.

UC’s Response:

In a statement prepared for the hearing, President Atkinson said that he could only describe his reaction to the LAO report as one of “grave disappointment.” He noted that the recommendations for UC are “not only mistaken but also troubling in the message that they convey about the priority accorded to higher education in California.” He delineated the possible effects by saying, “The Analyst’s recommendations to reduce our basic budget increase, change our projections on enrollments, and reduce the marginal cost would have the effect of:

  • denying access for students who are eligible under the Master Plan-the LAO recommendation cuts out approximately half the funding needed to accommodate projected enrollment growth;
  • preventing us from providing competitive salary increases for both faculty and staff. We planned a 3% COLA for faculty (based on the State-approved CPEC methodology) and 2% for staff. . .The LAO’s proposal would allow only a 1% COLA for faculty and staff;
  • eliminating increases for research that will make the California economy more competitive. The LAO recommendation ignores the future revenue-generating aspect of our research proposals;
  • eliminating increases for core needs, such as maintenance, libraries, instructional equipment replacement, and instructional technology-areas that, year after year, the Legislature has identified as high priorities.

He defended the K-12 Teacher Professional Development Programs by saying that the Governor proposed them because UC has a history of operating highly successful professional development programs for new teachers.

He stated that the LAO proposal makes no attempt to recognize the fiscal plight of our hospitals which are heightened by insufficient reimbursement for clinical care, disproportional responsibility for the poor and medical education costs, and compliance with SB 1953 (Hospital Seismic Safety Act). UC estimates the seismic problem alone to be in excess of $600M.

He asserted that the budget is built on funding principles contained in a preliminary version of the Partnership Agreement and that significant progress has been made on the accountability principles, with an expectation of finalizing the agreement with the Governor sometime this spring.

In response to the Legislature’s request for UC to assess the feasibility of year-round operations (YRO), Atkinson said that UC will submit its report by April 1. It will conclude that, in order to accommodate projected enrollment growth, UC will need to move to YRO. UC intends to begin operation of a State-supported summer term by the summer of 2001 and will request funding for the instructional program, using the marginal cost of instruction, just as for the regular year, at a projected cost of $50M. The YRO program will be phased in over a three-year period, bringing different campuses in at different times. Resolving the YRO issue is a very high priority for budget negotiations this spring.

He concluded his statement on the LAO report by saying that adopting the recommendations would “signal to the University and to the State that higher education is not a priority in California, despite the wave of enrollment increases already occurring. Such a signal would be a major setback to recruiting and retaining the best faculty and staff and ensuring an excellent education for our students. It is even more puzzling that such recommendations would occur in a year when the state’s economy is booming and revenue is exceeding expectations.” He urged adoption of the Governor’s budget.

Lecture Notes Protection Legislation

In response to the joint concerns of the California Faculty Association (the CSU faculty’s union) and the Council of UC Faculty Associations (of which the Davis Faculty Association is a member), Assemblymember Gloria Romero has introduced AB 1773, which deals with the intellectual property rights of faculty members with respect to classroom presentations in California’s three public, post-secondary educational systems. (Dr. Romero, the Assembly Whip, is a former Professor of Psychology at CSU Los Angeles.)

Under existing law this bill would apply to the University of California only if the Regents, by appropriate resolution, make its provisions applicable.

The bulk of The Legislative Counsel’s Digest of AB 1773 reads as follows:

AB 1773, as introduced, Romero. Intellectual property: ownership.

Existing case law provides that in the absence of evidence of agreement to the contrary, a teacher, rather than the institution for which he or she teaches, owns the common law copyright to his or her lectures.

This bill would provide that a faculty member of the California Community Colleges, the California State University, or the University of California has an exclusive ownership in any presentation, as defined, in a classroom, laboratory, library, studio, or any other place of instruction, performance, or exhibition, notwithstanding any law or provision of contract to the contrary.

The bill would prohibit any person from recording or making any use of a presentation or transfer the record of the presentation to a third person without the prior written permission of the faculty member. (N.B.: At the request of the UC Faculty Associations, an amendment is being prepared that will allow students who are formally enrolled in a class to take and share such course notes with their classmates.)

The bill would permit any court of competent jurisdiction to grant such relief as is necessary to enforce its provisions, including the issuance of an injunction and the recovery, from a nonstudent, of a civil penalty, as specified.

The bill would require the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, and the governing board of every community college district to adopt or provide for the adoption of specific regulations governing a violation of these provisions by students, along with applicable penalties for a violation of the regulations, and to also adopt procedures to inform all students of those regulations.

Impact of Governor’s 2000-01 UC Budget on Faculty

The Faculty Association follows the UC budget process and reports regularly to its members on elements in the budget that are of particular concern to faculty. The following press release contains details of the Governor’s proposed budget for UC. Of specific interest to faculty are some points that are not fully spelled out in the press release.

The budget provides funding for an average COLA of 2% for ALL UC employees plus regular merits; funding is also provided for faculty to receive an additional 1% parity increase to maintain competitiveness with our comparison institutions. (NOTE: UC Budget VP Hershman stated at a Regents’ meeting that with merits, COLA, and parity combined, faculty salary increases total 4.5%.) Also, there is $5M for library materials (which the Faculty Associations lobbied for) and a one-time $25M augmentation for the teaching hospitals to purchase medical equipment. And the Governor’s budget not only funds full enrollment (with enrollment growth of 6,000 FTE students) it also provides $6M to “strengthen the quality of undergraduate education;” translated, that means funds for UC to hire additional faculty as a first step in reducing the student/faculty ratio. The ratio has soared to approximately 19.5 to one. Our comparison institutions average 17 to one at the publics and 10.4 to one at the private institutions. UC’s goal is to return to the historic 17.5 to one, which existed before the drastic budget cuts of the 1990’s.

The Governor’s budget reflects the one proposed by the UC Regents. But, these are just the first steps in the process of setting a UC budget; there will be discussions in the Legislative budget hearings this spring, with possible revisions when the May tax information becomes available. However, one might expect that a Democrat-controlled Legislature would support the Governor’s proposal. We will keep faculty informed as the process continues.

Press Release:
Monday, January 10, 2000
Brad Hayward


Gov. Gray Davis today (Jan. 10) unveiled a 2000-01 state budget proposal that would fund a dramatic expansion of the University of California’s professional development programs for K-12 teachers and make a major investment in UC research benefiting the state’s economy.

The governor’s budget also would provide funding for UC to enroll 6,000 new students, strengthen undergraduate education, provide faculty and staff salary increases to help maintain quality programs, and prevent any increase in mandatory systemwide student fees for the sixth consecutive year.

“This is a superb budget for the University of California,” said UC President Richard C. Atkinson. “We are pleased that the governor has affirmed UC’s role in assisting the public schools and fostering economic growth in California. The governor also has provided an increase in our basic budget that allows us to maintain access, quality and affordability.”

Atkinson also thanked the governor for honoring key funding principles of a partnership agreement that UC, the California State University and the Davis administration have been developing. Such an agreement would provide long-term funding stability for higher education, and UC and CSU would commit to accountability on performance measures of importance to the state.

Overall, the 2000-01 budget proposal would provide UC with a 12.1 percent, $328 million state General Fund increase over 1999-2000. More than one-fifth of this increase is attributable to the governor’s teacher development initiatives for UC. The university’s state-funded budget would total $3 billion under the plan.
K-12 and Outreach Initiatives

The budget includes nearly $70 million to create or expand UC-led programs providing professional development to teachers in California’s public schools. The proposals include a $20 million expansion of the California Subject Matter Projects, which provide subject-specific professional development to K-12 teachers; and a $14 million augmentation to the Governor’s Reading Professional Development Institutes, which would expand to serve 14,000 K-3 teachers, up from the 6,300 now being served in the program’s first year.

The package also includes funding to establish the California Algebra Institutes for high school algebra teachers; to initiate the California Mathematics Institutes for teachers in grades 4-6; to double state support for the English Language Development Professional Institutes for high school teachers; to establish Professional Development Institutes for high school math and English teachers; and to expand the New Teacher Center at UC Santa Cruz.

While UC would take the lead in administering these programs, all segments of education would collaborate in their implementation, Atkinson said. “We look forward to working with our partners in higher education and the public schools to expand opportunities for the professional development of California’s teachers,” Atkinson said. “Well-trained teachers are indispensable to seeing that all students receive an education that will ensure they reach their full potential.”

Beyond the $70 million for teacher development programs, the budget includes a $3 million augmentation to a UC program providing online Advanced Placement courses to students in schools with few or no AP classes; additional funding for the California State Summer School for Math and Science, which provides enrichment to academically talented high school students; and funding to develop Algebra and Pre-Algebra Academies for students in grades 7-8 and 4-6, respectively.

The budget also would provide $1 million to improve the transfer rate of community college students to UC; $1 million to expand outreach efforts for graduate and professional school students; and $500,000 for research on the root causes of educational disparity in California .

Research Initiatives
The governor has made a major commitment to university research benefiting the state’s economy by offering $75 million in capital funding for three California Institutes for Science and Innovation to be established at UC campuses. Each center would focus on scientific and engineering research in a sector key to the future of the California economy, bringing together faculty, undergraduates, graduate students and industrial partners to work in cross-disciplinary teams aimed at developing the next generation of knowledge in the field.

Specific sites for the centers would be selected based on proposals submitted by the campuses. State funding for the centers would be matched by private and federal sources.

“The research innovations and skilled workforce provided by UC have played a critical role in the success of the California economy in the 20th century,” Atkinson said. “These centers will help California remain competitive in the 21st century by mobilizing the state’s best scientists and engineers to stimulate innovation in fields critical to our collective future.”

The budget also would provide funding for UC research in several areas of high priority for the state, including engineering and computer science, environmental science, and collaborative research with Mexican scholars on U.S.-Mexico issues. It also includes $8 million for UC to provide access for faculty and students to Internet2, a high-speed data transmission network.

Overall Operating Budget
The governor’s overall budget for UC includes funding for an enrollment increase of 6,000 students, or 4 percent, consisting largely of Tidal Wave II students – the Baby Boomers’ children who are expected to swell UC’s enrollment 43 percent by 2010. The budgeted enrollment increase for 2000-01 also reflects UC’s efforts to increase enrollments in engineering, computer science and education credential programs in order to meet state workforce needs in these areas.

The governor’s budget would provide state funding to avoid a 4.5 percent increase in mandatory systemwide student fees, which have not been raised since 1994-95. These fees, not including campus-based miscellaneous fees, would remain at $3,429 for undergraduates and $3,609 for graduate students. The budget also would prevent an increase in professional school fees.

Other highlights of the budget include $6 million as the first step in a multi-year plan to strengthen the quality of undergraduate education at UC; a $26 million augmentation for deferred maintenance, instructional technology, instructional equipment and library materials; $25 million in one-time funds for equipment at UC teaching hospitals; funding for salary adjustments, including merit increases, for faculty and staff as part of a continuing effort to maintain competitive salaries; and augmentations for the California Digital Library and Cooperative Extension programs.

The budget provides $1.1 million to begin planning an off-campus center in the Santa Clara Valley, one of several strategies UC is pursuing to accommodate enrollment demand over the next decade. UC also has requested state funding for summer instruction as part of an effort to expand summer course offerings, which are not currently state-supported. UC will work with the governor and Legislature this spring to address the policy and funding issues associated with this proposal.

Capital Budget
In addition to the capital funding provided for the three research centers, the governor would fully fund the Regents’ $213 million capital budget. This capital budget includes 36 construction, renovation and seismic retrofit projects at the nine existing UC campuses and also includes $14.3 million for initial site development, planning and infrastructure at UC Merced

You are currently browsing the Davis Faculty Association blog archives for the year 2000.