Archive for May, 2009
A lot of recent activity in Sacramento that could hurt UC faculty. Ian Kennedy, DFA Chair, has asked me to send out this quick summary.
First of all, the Governor professes to take from the special election results that Californians want to balance the state budget without any new taxes or borrowing. A “cuts only” budget. He released his budget proposal, called the May revise, followed almost immediately by two rounds of further proposed cuts (to compensate for shrinkage in the revenue forecast). UC has prepared a spreadsheet that explains the cuts:
|University of California|
|Fiscal Impact of Governor’s May 26 Proposals|
|May 26, 2009|
|(dollars in millions)|
|Budget Actions for UC 2008-09 and 2009-10 Fiscal Years|
|Mandatory one-time savings target included in budget act||$ (33.1)|
|Mid-year permanent base budget reduction||$ (65.5)|
|One-time reduction in May revise||$ (510.0)|
|Proposed one-time federal stimulus funding||$ 640.0|
|Additional one-time reduction (May 26)||$ (207.5)|
|Net State funding reduction — 2008-09||$ (176.1)|
|New revenue, 2008-09 student fee increases (net of financial aid)||$ 84.9|
|Net impact on 2008-09 UC budget||$ (91.2)|
|Actions Approved in the February Budget Act|
|One-time reduction associated with “trigger” funding||$ (50.0)|
|One-time Governor’s veto reduction||$ (255.0)|
|Governor’s May Revise Plan B|
|Permanent unallocated reduction||$ (50.0)|
|Permanent elimination of UC outreach programs||$ (31.3)|
|Governor’s May 26 Proposal|
|UC budget reduction extended through 2010-11||$ (167.5)|
|Net State funding reductions — 2009-10||$ (553.8)|
|New revenue, 2009-10 student fee increases (net of financial aid)||$ 125.9|
|Net impact on 2009-10 UC budget||$ (427.9)|
|Net Two-year Impact of State Funding Reductions||$ (519.1)|
|Two-year Fiscal Impact to UC Budget|
|Reductions and Unfunded Cost Increases|
|Overall budget reduction based on February Budget Act|
|and May revise proposals||$ (519.1)|
|Overenrollment (11,000 FTE)||$ (121.8)|
|UC mandatory cost increases||$ (213.2)|
|(health benefits, collective bargaining agreements, utilities,|
|faculty merits, non-salary price increases, etc.)|
|Total Fiscal Impact||$ (854.1)|
Next, on May 27, five state legislators proposed legislation that would strip the UC Regents of the autonomy they have enjoyed since 1879. The revision to California’s constitution (SCA 21 in the state Senate and ACA 24 in the Assembly) is backed by Senators Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) and Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) and by Assemblymembers Brian Nestande (R-Palm Desert) and Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge). The legislators are apparently primarily angry with UC’s executive compensation practices. Their press release is available at http://cli.gs/qnAV0H
UC responded with an unusually strongly worded rebuttal, which begins: “It is absurd that Senator Yee and his co-sponsors want to rewrite the California Constitution to strip the university of its historic autonomy and place it under direct control of the state Legislature. Given the current $25 billion hole in the state budget and the political paralysis that chronically plagues Sacramento, tossing a 10-campus public research university that is the pride of California and the envy of the world into the Sacramento mix should be a non-starter.” The full press release is available at: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/21252/
Then, on May 29, UC President Mark Yudof sent a letter around announcing a 5% pay cut for UC senior managers. The pay cuts will apply to about 30 positions and will start with the next fiscal year – July 1. Ominously, Yudof said in his letter “Given the magnitude of the budget shortfall, all options need to be considered, and, unfortunately it is likely that every member of the UC community will be affected negatively.”
President Yudof is scheduled to attend the state legislature’s Conference Committee on the Budget meeting tomorrow. CUCFA Vice President Joe Kiskis will also be attending. We will notify you all of any issues of note that arise.
Proposition 1A: Part of the problem, not part of a solution.
The Council of University of California Faculty Associations announced today that it opposes Proposition 1A on the May 19 Special Election ballot. Proposition 1A would exacerbate the structural deficiencies in California government, which already make it impossible for elected representatives to govern effectively and provide for the needs of California’s citizens. And Proposition 1A would lock in the present inadequate levels of state support for public higher education that are forcing California families to pay higher tuition and fees for a lower quality education.
Proposition 1A will also make it all but impossible for future public leaders to solve the problems that California faces.
According to the Council, years of budget cuts have decreased the State contribution to the University of California by 40% on a per student basis. This has already seriously undermined the University’s capacity to deliver high quality education to the state’s eligible students and has forced huge student fee increases.
The Council’s Board of Officers voted unanimously to oppose Prop 1A, stating that “the long-term, high priority goal of the State and the University should be a return to the healthier per student State support of year 2000, and this flawed initiative would prevent that.”
The Council, whose membership includes 800 professors in faculty associations on six University of California campuses, is committed to restoring the promise of the California Master Plan to provide the highest quality education, preserve healthy and stable institutions of higher education, maintain public access to those institutions, assure adequate public investment to meet these goals, and ensure accountability to the public. “Previous generations of students have benefited from this vision and have guided the State to a leading intellectual and economic position in the world,” said Joe Kiskis, the Council’s Vice President of External Affairs.
“Today’s students deserve the same opportunities California provided their parents. California depends upon it. The restrictions in Proposition 1A would make it impossible to achieve that goal, therefore CUCFA will actively work to defeat this ill-conceived proposition by explaining the flaws to our statewide membership.”
The Council of University of California Faculty Associations is a coordinating and service agency for the several individual Faculty Associations on separate campuses of the University of California, and it represents them to all state- or university-wide agencies on issues of common concern. It gathers and disseminates information on issues before the legislative and executive branches of California’s government, other relevant state units dealing with higher education, the University administration, and the Board of Regents. For more information go to http://www.cucfa.org/