Davis Faculty Association

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.

The Nominating committee has selected the following slate of candidates to fill DFA Board positions as listed below with the following code (C – continuing; E – elect, RE – re-elect for one-year term):

Officers:
Chair  Ian Kennedy (Engineering) RE
Vice Chair  Terrance Murphy (DBS) E

Board Members:
1. Daniel Link (Radiology) C
2. Robert Rucker (Nutrition) E
3. Lyn Lofland (Sociology) E
4. Richard Scalettar (Physics) E
5. Peter Richerson (Env. Sci) RE
6. Peter Rodman ( Anthropology) RE
7.Norma Landau (History) E
8. Lynette Hart (VM: Pop. Health) RE
9.Kathryn Radke (Animal Science) RE
10.Joe Kiskis (Physics) E
11.Floyd Feeney (Law) RE
Charlie Nash (ex-officio)due to CUCFA position

All nominees have agreed to serve. Their two-year terms of office will begin Sept. 2005. Further nominations may be made upon petition of 5% of the membership (15 members) in good standing as of April 1, 2005. Such petitions must be delivered on or before June 13 2005 to the Executive Director at 41 Camrosa Place, Sacramento, CA 95835. If no nominations are submitted, the slate shall be accepted as elected.

Here is a link to an interesting piece that explains why some people feel that public pension plans based on defined contributions usually end up being more expensive for taxpayers than defined benefit plans as well as harder on retirees:

Commentary of the Day – March 3, 2005: The Myths and Realities of Public Employee Pension Plans. Irreverent Commentary on the State of Education in America Today. By Dr. Mark H. Shapiro.

The URL for the full article is: http://irascibleprofessor.com/comments-03-03-05.htm

Please note also that there is another link within the article in paragraph 7, under the words “For example.”

The Board of the Davis Faculty Association believes that this issue is of sufficient importance that we are sending this information to all UC Davis faculty and posting the link on our web site.

The Davis Faculty Association is an independent organization of UC Davis faculty concerned about salaries, working conditions, and the general health of the Campus. You can learn more about the DFA, including how to join, at the website www.ucdfa.org.

DFA Email Bulletins are meant to alert all UC Davis faculty to issues of general interest. This bulletin does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Board or the DFA membership. Your opinions and comments are invited by replying to this message. You can opt not to receive DFA Email Bulletins by replying and asking that your name be removed from the email list.

by Charles Nash and Eric Hays

For reasons that appear to be infinitely more political than fiscal, Governor Schwarzenegger and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association have joined forces with the expressed intent of changing the structure of all public employee pension plans, including UCRS, from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans for all employees hired on or after July 1, 2007.  They propose to do that by means of a Constitutional Amendment that they threaten to put to a vote of the people either via an act of the legislature or by collecting signatures in the parking lots of shopping malls.

In the legislative arena Assemblymember Keith Richman (R, Northridge) has introduced two measures ACA X1 and ACA 5 that have yet to go anywhere, and as a practical matter were effectively dead on arrival in their current form. That is because it takes a 2/3 majority vote in both houses for the legislature to put a Legislative Constitutional Amendment on the ballot, and the current legislature has a huge Democrat majority in both houses. What Richman has done, however, is insert benefits funding near the front end of a long list of budgetary matters that the legislature must now consider.

Legislative Committees have just started holding informational hearings on the structural features of the two types of retirement plans and the fiscal health of some specific public-employee plans in California. On February 15 the CEO of CalPERS, the CEO of CalSTRS, the Chair of the Legislative Committee of the State Association of County Retirement Systems, and Judy Boyette (UC’s Associate Vice President, Human Resources) discussed public pension plans at a hearing on the “Budget Implications of the Privatization of Public Pensions: Defined Benefit vs. Defined Contribution” held by Subcommittee #4 of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee.

On the surface, the debate would seem to be over the economics of defined benefit plans vs.defined contribution plans, so at this point it is worth describing their salient features.  In brief, a defined benefit plan pools contributions from employees and employers and upon retirement pays a guaranteed monthly annuity to the employee or the employee’s dependent spouse for life. (UCRS is such a plan.)  A defined benefit plan is administered entirely by the employer. Because the annuity amount is guaranteed, the plan must be fiscally sound (by actuarial standards) at all times. Typically, California public employees make contractually-fixed contributions to the system and if there is “underfunding” after that, the employer bears full responsibility for maintaining the soundness of the plan.

A defined contribution plan creates individual retirement accounts to which both the employer and employee contribute.  The employee invests these funds in one or more externally-managed investment vehicles, which are often contracted for by the employer. At retirement the account balance is paid to the employee (in most plans as a lump sum, but it can also be paid as an annuity over the life of just the retiree). With this type of plan there can be no such thing as “underfunding.”  The financial risks and rewards are born entirely by the employee. A more detailed comparison of the two types of plans is given in the table below.

Proponents of the Amendment assert that changing all the public retirement systems to defined contribution plans would save the taxpayers money, and to date the general public seems to believe that fable    In an Op-Ed piece in the Sacramento Bee Assemblymember Richman asserted that “…public employee pensions are devastating government budgets throughout California, threatening priorities such as education, transportation, public safety and health care.” He noted that a “Public Policy Research Institute of California poll showed seven in ten California voters believe public pensions are a problem for state and local government.” His punch line was “Fortunately, a fiscally responsible solution is available—defined contribution plans—that would help eliminate deficits, lower costs and improve budget predictability.”

What he knows, but did not say in that piece, is that it will take at least ten, and probably more like twenty years for taxpayers to realize any savings whatever.  Public employees earn vested rights to benefits for the performance of their services.  Under the contract clauses of both the US and California Constitutions these rights cannot be impaired.  Pension system staff and the Legislative Counsel hold that the benefits of existing plan members, including the right to accrue benefits from future service and compensation, cannot be reduced for current members without an offsetting benefit.

As a practical matter, therefore, anyone currently employed by a public agency, or anyone hired on or before June 30, 2007, will be entitled to collect benefits equal to or better than those currently offered by the defined benefit plan in which they are enrolled as of the date of hire. An Assistant Professor, Step I, whose employment begins on July 1, 2006, must be able to retire some 35 years later with a benefits package (adjusted for inflation etc.) identical to the one provided to a departing high-step Full Professor who retires effective that same date.

If the Jarvis/Schwarzenegger forces are successful, it is virtually a given that public employers will be required to administer two different retirement plans for almost four decades.  To contradict an old saw: two (retirement plans) CANNOT live (be administered) as cheaply as one.

It is abundantly clear that the Governor is determined to get rid of defined benefit plans.  He summarily revoked the appointments of four of the five individuals (two Republicans and two Democrats) he had named to the board of the State Teachers’ Retirement System because they were part of a 10-2 majority that voted to oppose ACA 5.  (The law allows a Board appointee to serve for one year without Senate confirmation.  These individuals were in that grace period.). On February 16 the CalPERS Board also opposed changing to a defined contribution plan by a vote of 9-3.  The Sacramento Bee’s report on this outcome quoted a spokesman for the Governor as saying “the vote signals that PERS prefers to be a spectator instead of a participant (in discussions).  While we wish that isn’t the case, the debate on reforming the state public employee pension system will move forward.”

As the legislative hearings progress, the debate will surely be highly partisan.  In the Senate Subcommittee hearing mentioned above a Republican Senator attacked CalPERS for what he judged to be highly inappropriate meddling in corporate affairs. (Both CalPers and CalSTRS have blocks of stock that are large enough to give them a significant voice in annual stockholder meetings.)  After the CalPERS Board meeting on February 16 the newly-elected Board President, Rob Feckner, said that the $183 billion fund’s corporate governance agenda, including trying to rein in executive pay and health care costs would not change.  “One thing should be abundantly clear to the corporate wrongdoers: We will not retreat from our fiduciary duty to protect our shareowner interests.”

Here are some interesting results  from a survey taken recently by the UC Alumni Advocacy group called Friends of the University of California. The survey was distributed to active alumni advocates for UC interests. More information about this group is available on the web at http://www.ucforcalifornia.org/ucfriends/home.html

RESULTS:

What issues pose the most critical opportunities for the University of California in the coming years?

Advocates were asked to check up to three of six choices. UC should:

88% Continue to provide access to a high-quality education at a reasonably affordable price for all eligible students.

52% Continue to drive California’s international economic engine and create new jobs by developing cutting-edge technologies and training a highly skilled workforce.

48% Use UC’s size and scientific breadth to mount “big science” initiatives to conduct multi-disciplinary research with broad applications, such as what’s being done by UC as part of the new California stem cell research initiative.

40% Lead a new initiative to dramatically increase the training of math and science K-12 teachers in California.

36% Launch new efforts to better reflect the diversity of California’s growing population and serve the needs of all communities throughout the state.

32% Continue to provide quality patient care at its hospitals, train California’s doctors and nurses, and develop new treatments to fight life-threatening diseases.

Selected comments:

“UC needs to be both visionary and traditional. We must continue to be the best public university in the world. We must attract the best faculty and the most dedicated staff. Only then can we continue to offer an unparalleled educational experience. From that position of strength, we can be an asset to the state and the world. We can foster math and science education to sustain our strength. We can take advantage of our status as a multicultural state to show the world how to be a diverse, respectful, and productive community in these days where international borders are increasingly artificial.”

“Fund the University of California in a manner that is not so dependent on the variabilities of the political process and insures the excellence of all campuses and the global preeminence of several campuses.”

“I think that increasing the diversity of the university really has to be addressed. Over the last 10 years, the student population has become less diverse due to the rising of standards and the inability of students in areas plagued by poor K-12 education to be prepared to meet those standards. UC’s need to focus some attention and efforts on creating programs as well as initiative that will prepare students to meet the rigors and demand of the UC application process. All students benefit from a diverse student body, and the world benefits from having individuals entering the work force who come from a variety of perspectives as well as point of views.”

“The University needs to continue to create both a workforce and the engines of new work to make the state economy strong enough to support all of its citizens and again be a national if not an international leader worthy of respect. In all of that, the University needs to never diminish its role in creating a thoughtful and compassionate citizenry that the critical thinking skills and ethical understanding to use wisely what it creates.”

“I think that providing quality patient care and training California’s doctors and nurses and developing new treatments is extremely important.”

“UC should pursue research efforts that help the world with environmental efforts and issues such as global warming, pollution, quality of drinking water, deforestation, etc. and other “natural” threats to humanity (e.g., meteor striking Earth, tsunamis, and supervolcanoes). These are not fantastic fabrications of a Bradburyian mind, but pressing realities. Especially because of California’s prominence and physical location next to the Pacific Rim countries, the UC is in a very good position to be a leader in these and other similar areas.”

“I just retired after 39 years teaching American history. I realize that math and science must be top priorities but I feel that it just as important to improve the teaching of history. All of the UCs have eminent historians who should get their feet wet and work with all of the schools, primary through secondary.”

“As a scientist I feel the most important goal for the next two years is to retain the contracts at the national laboratories.”

“UC should conduct leading-edge research in all disciplines not just the sciences – economics, the social sciences, the arts, etc. With the resources of the UC system, the world and its challenges is our laboratory.”

“I worry about the stress on science. Why train only math and science teachers? What about English, history, etc.? I am afraid “big science” will crush the liberal arts.”

“Maintain the quality of the libraries and other research resources.”

“I consider our advocacy efforts to be a high priority. We must continue to inform legislators of the benefits UC provides to California’s economy in order to solicit more financial support from the State.”