Archive for October, 2005
Dear DFA Members:
The DFA Board is sending the following information to you as a means of helping you determine whether or not to sign up for the disability insurance being offered during the Nov. Open Enrollment period. You, of course, will need to make that decision based on your own personal situation. Some faculty feel that if they are approaching retirement, it would not make sense to get Disability Insurance: if one were to become disabled,taking retirement might provide more than the Disability Insurance. See the link below for additional information and the following message sent to us at our request from Barbara Horowitz:
You are correct in that there is a draft of a new policy regarding medical separation which provides for the separation of an academic appointee who cannot return to work (or perform the essential duties of their position) after a period of medical leave (I don’t believe the length of time is stipulated). However, there is also a draft of a revised APM 710 (leaves) which puts a cap on paid medical leave for academics that do not accrue sick leave (this includes faculty). The cap would be 1 year for academics with at least 10 years of service and 6 months for academics with less than 10 years of service (see the quote below). Both of these drafts went to the campuses (including the various Senates) for informal review in March, 2005. They have not yet been released. Anticipating the release of these 2 policies, OP negotiated an opportunity for current academics to enroll in supplemental disability insurance without a medical exam during November’s open enrollment period. They can also change their waiting period during this time as well. OP is recommending a waiting period of 180 days. As you probably know, staff and some academics do accrue sick leave at the rate of 2 days/month. Faculty do not — but if they did accrue at the same level as staff and other academics, it would take 22 years to accrue 1 year of paid sick leave.
DRAFT Revised APM 710-22
“a. Academic appointees with less than 10 years of service may be granted a maximum of six months of consecutive or intermittent paid sick leave in a ten year period for personal illness or injury.
“b. A maximum of six months of paid sick leave with the possibility of up to six additional months of paid sick leave, subject to approval by the Chancellor, may be granted to academic appointees who have 10 years or more of University service in an eligible academic title at the time of personal illness or injury. The maximum amount of paid sick leave for those with 10 years or more of service is one year of consecutive or intermittent paid sick leave in a ten-year period.”
I hope the above helps.
For more information about the Disability Insurance, click on this link.
by Ian Kennedy
Non-resident graduate students are currently required by the University of California to pay significant tuition charges, in excess of the fees that are paid by resident graduate students. US citizens and permanent residents can become residents of the state of California following one year of residency. However, foreign nationals cannot follow this route to Californian residency. The non-resident fees are reduced by 75 percent following advancement of the student to candidacy for the Ph.D., usually following successful completion of their qualifying exam. Students then have three years to complete their degree, but if this time limit is exceeded the non-resident tuition once again increases to the full amount.
In order to support non-resident students, the Davis campus instituted a policy wherein research grants that employ students as a graduate student researcher must pay the full non-resident tuition. This has created a situation where the cost to grants employing non-resident students has become excessive, to the point where it may be more attractive to employ a postdoctoral researcher, as has been noticed in Washington. House Republicans are investigating the use of federal funds through grants to pay non-resident tuition, a practice that leads, in the estimation of the Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, to foreign students receiving more in total compensation than many post-doctoral scholars. The University of California Davis rates a special mention because the Committee used our Graduate Studies web site as a source of information.
Non-resident fees also wreak havoc with language departments that recruit native-speakers as graduate students and TAs. These departments have to use most of their block grants on huge out-of-state fees for students who cannot claim residency. The education of graduate students, both US citizens and foreign nationals, is an important mission of the University of California. The demise of the graduate program due to the imposition on non-resident fees on grants is a serious issue for the faculty
The imposition on non-resident fees arose during budget negotiations between the State Legislature and the University. It is apparent that the Legislature does not understand the important role of foreign graduate students, or graduate education in general, in the University’s mission. Nor does it appreciate the economic contribution of graduates who remain, or the political benefit of those introduced to our culture.
The Academic Senate of the University is not at liberty to lobby the Legislature in this regard. However the Davis Faculty Association, in conjunction with the Council of the University of California Faculty Associations, is free to undertake political lobbying activities. The DFA believes this is an important issue for many faculty members, and one which must be taken up with the legislators. It is not productive to complain within the University – we need to indicate to the Legislature the importance of training foreign students, many of whom remain in the United States and in California in particular, and who form the basis of the next-generation of faculty for the University and entrepreneurs in start-ups and high tech businesses and industries. This issue is a high priority for the Association. The DFA will work with CUCFA to educate legislators about the importance of graduate education and the role of non-resident students. To contact the DFA, email email@example.com.
DFA Opposes Regents Salary Proposal for Administrators and Possible Changes to Faculty Benefit Package
by Ian Kennedy
The DFA is closely monitoring discussion by the UC Board of Regents in regard to private sources of compensation for senior University administrators. At press-time, it was not clear whether the adverse public reaction to this proposal had persuaded the Board to drop the proposal. We are also tracking discussion of faculty benefits. A brief summary is provided below; the full document can be found on the web.
Private Funding to Augment Salaries
The Finance Committee of the Board of Regents recommended a change in compensation for senior administrators, from the President of the University of California down to the Deans of professional schools. They proposed that private funding be raised to increase the compensation paid to these senior administrators because the total compensation package received by this select group lags the market. They believe that this discrepancy impedes the recruitment and retention of highly qualified and talented administrators.
This issue may have ramifications for the faculty and the University as a whole. First, the concept of raising private funding to pay the compensation of University employees is troubling to many of the faculty. Second, it is not clear that general private donations to the University will be safe during times when the gifts are not sufficient to maintain the elevated salaries. The administration may be tempted in times of budgetary difficulty to dip into the general donations to support compensation packages, reducing available funding for other academic activities such as student support, research initiatives, classroom and laboratory construction, inter alia.
Retirement Benefits Threatened
Within the same document the Finance Committee made note of the cost of benefits paid to the faculty and retirees, having employed a private consulting firm to study the issue. Although salaries lagged behind measures of the current market, total compensation was found to be similar to the market due to the generous benefits paid by the University. This report noted that the University of California is one of the few remaining employees that provide generous retirement and health benefits to its employees and retirees and suggests that this practice may end: “Within the next couple of years, following intensive review, it is expected that there will be reductions in these benefits…. Additionally, it is anticipated that the value of both the Health and Welfare benefits and the Retirement and Retiree Medical benefits will be reduced significantly over the next few years….”
This is an issue which is of substantial concern to both present employees and retirees. In particular, reduction in the benefits for health coverage for retirees is likely to have a significant impact on the more senior faculty and possibly on retirees. This is a very important issue that DFA is keenly interested in. We are expressing our concerns about both of these proposals to the University and the Regents; we will monitor developments closely. As more information comes to light, the membership of the association will be informed.
by Charles P. Nash and Eric Hays
The Davis Faculty Association is a member of the Council of University of California Faculty Associations (CUCFA). CUCFA advocates on behalf of senate faculty in the UC system. Its member organizations – including the DFA – set CUCFA’s agenda. The Council coordinates government relations activities and exercises its right to meet and consult with the UC Office of the President on matters affecting the systemwide terms and conditions of faculty employment. As an independent entity with its own financial resources and its own lobbyist, CUCFA has the power to lobby on behalf of faculty in ways that are impossible for the Academic Senate.
The 2005 legislative session was a busy one for CUCFA. This article will discuss the key bills on which CUCFA was active. It also identifies the issues that will most likely deserve attention in the months to come.
AB 992: Law Enforcement Surveillance (T. Spitzer, R-Orange)
In January of 2004 the University administration asked the 2003-2004 Academic Council to review and comment upon a request from the UC Police Officers Association for UC to sponsor legislation that would have given the UC and CSU campus police forces the same authority to overhear and record communications that virtually every other law enforcement agency in the State already had under existing law. At that time the Academic Council believed that the proposed legislation did not impinge on academic affairs, and consequently decided not to take a position on it.
The legislation in question was introduced in February, 2005, whereupon some members of the 2004-2005 Academic Council had second thoughts about the broad authority that the UC police would have if the legislation were enacted. The current Academic Council began to consider the matter at its March meeting, and at its April meeting voted to oppose AB 992, reversing the position taken in 2004.
The turnaround on AB 992 was expressed in a letter from Academic Council Chair George Blumenthal to Senior Vice President Joseph Mullinex dated May 19, 2005. In it, Professor Blumenthal wrote that because the Academic Council had not instructed him to communicate its opposition to the bill anywhere other than to Mullinex, he had “no plans to pursue this matter outside the University.” He noted, however, that the letter in question was “a public document” so that other faculty members who “may choose to oppose this bill as individuals” could “use this letter as evidence of Council’s views.”
On the same day that the Academic Council’s letter was written, AB 992 passed out of the Assembly by a vote of 65 ayes to 3 noes and went to the Senate for their consideration. In spite of the daunting Assembly vote, some faculty members continued to oppose the bill – now with the Academic Council letter as ammunition – and contacted CUCFA seeking our support. Very shortly thereafter the CUCFA Board voted its own unanimous opposition to the bill.
CUCFA’s lobbyists from the firm of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe contacted Assemblymember Spitzer’s staff, conveying our specific objections to the bill that had passed out of the Assembly. In particular, virtually all of the other law enforcement agencies that already had the proposed surveillance authority are answerable to elected officials, which campus administrations are not.
In the Senate the bill was assigned to the Public Safety Committee. We sent a formal letter of opposition to the Chair and members of that committee, as did other organizations, including the ACLU and the California Faculty Association (the CSU faculty union). Individual UC faculty members also lobbied the Senate committee staff, making good use of the Academic Council letter. As a result of all these efforts the version of AB 992 that had passed the Assembly so handily was voted down in the Senate Committee on June 14, 2005 by a vote of 2 ayes to 3 noes, 2 members not voting.
The Senate Committee granted the author’s request for reconsideration, and on June 22 he introduced a heavily amended version of the bill that would have limited UC and CSU police officers’ authority to the overhearing or recording of communications only in criminal investigations related to sexual assaults or other sexual offenses. Through our lobbyists, CUCFA then withdrew its opposition to the bill.
The amended bill was considered by the Public Safety Committee on June 29 and again failed to get a majority “aye” vote. This time the vote was 3 ayes, 2 noes, 2 members not voting. By the rules of the Legislature, a bill that fails to get the necessary votes to pass it out of committee “may not be considered further during the session.” The current session is now over, but a new one will convene in January and it remains to be seen whether or not AB 992 is truly dead.
SB 724: California State University Doctoral Degrees (J. Scott, D-Altadena)
As originally introduced in February of 2005, this bill would have authorized the California State University to award free-standing professional/clinical doctoral degrees, which were defined as post-master’s degrees that would qualify their holders to enter professional practices other than university faculty research and teaching.
This is not the first time that CSU has tried to extend its authority to include the award of independent doctoral degrees. The ostensible motivation for this latest attempt was the looming need in the state for a professional doctoral degree in audiology. The national accrediting body for audiology has decreed that two years from now a master’s degree will no longer be accepted for certification/licensing in that field
The UC administration vigorously opposed SB 724 as being contrary to the provisions of the venerable Master Plan for Higher Education. They argued that the projected demand for professional degrees in audiology, education, and other fields was exaggerated, and what needs there really were could be met by the proper implementation of planned or existing UC/CSU joint doctoral programs. UC also questioned the plausibility of the proposed funding strategy whereby CSU proposed to pay for the new programs at no additional cost to the state by combining the existing formulaic capitation funding with a fee that would be higher than the standard CSU fee but lower than UC’s graduate program fees.
CUCFA also formally opposed this bill in letters to the Senate Education Committee (chaired by Jack Scott, the bill’s author) and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Contrary to the administration’s rigid position, ours acknowledged the possibility that at some point there could be needs “that might be met most effectively by using the expertise and resources of CSU acting on its own.” To us, however, the legislation then at issue had inadequate mechanisms and criteria for addressing this question on a case-by-case basis. We also doubted that quality programs, particularly in fields with significant library or equipment requirements, could be created or sustained at the bargain-basement costs that the bill projected.
Over the opposition of UC, a bill authorizing the CSU to award doctoral degrees “in selected professional fields” passed out of both Senate committees with no dissenting votes and on May 31 passed on the Senate floor by a vote of 34 to 3. During the next month, UC and CSU reached a compromise whereby CSU would be authorized to offer only an independent Doctor of Education degree. The bill as amended in that manner was passed by the Assembly Higher Education Committee in mid-July by a vote of 5 to 2, the Assembly Appropriations Committee without dissent on August 25, and on August 30 the Assembly as a whole by a vote of 73 to 3. Because the new version of SB 724 was totally different from the one that was originally passed by the Senate, the bill was returned to that body for its concurrence.
The final version of SB 724 requires the CSU to fund the program with resources derived from enrollment growth budgeted at the marginal cost of instruction, and without changing the ratio of graduate to undergraduate enrollment in the system. Students can be charged fees no greater than those charged for students in the UC or joint UC/CSU Ed.D programs, and CSU will be required to pay startup costs from existing academic support budgets without diminishing either the quality of the support for or the enrollment in its undergraduate programs. It was signed by the Governor.
ACA5: Public Retirement Systems (Richman, R- Northridge)
ACA5 is a proposal to eliminate all defined benefit retirement programs for new public employees in California, replacing them with defined contribution plans. As part of Governor Schwarzenegger’s “year of reform” – legislation backed by voter initiatives – ACA5 received considerable press attention. Many people may think the issue died when Schwarzenegger withdrew his support of the underlying voter initiative when it became clear the wording of the initiative might result in the elimination of death benefits for the families of police and firefighters. However, ACA5 is not dead. It has been placed on the calendar for legislative consideration next year and is a high priority item among Republican legislators.
SB5: Student Bill of Rights (Morrow, R-Carlsbad)
This bill, along with similar ones throughout the country, was formally opposed by the AAUP. SB5 is a political intrusion into the intellectual life of the University. It poses a threat to the independence of faculty members to determine course content. It failed in the Senate Education Committee at the end of April by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes, with one member not voting. However, it is probably NOT dead. By a vote of 11 to none the Committee granted the author’s request for reconsideration, so in some form or other it will more than likely be revived in 2006.
Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Dues – Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions.
If passed in the November special election, Proposition 75 would apply to the Santa Cruz Faculty Association and all of the public employee labor unions in the state, including those in the UC system. The DFA is not a union but we do benefit from the fact that UCSC is. Any of these organizations would be required to get the written permission of each of its members if it wanted to contribute any of his/her dues money to political causes. There is no companion proposition on the ballot that would require employers or corporations to get a piece of paper signed by each employee or each shareholder before spending money on political campaigning. Accordingly, we urge you to vote NO on Proposition 75 on November 8th.