Davis Faculty Association

Archive for July, 2009

“To appease lawmakers the university has cut deals that weren’t in its ultimate best interest.”

An interesting article published yesterday in “Inside Higher Ed.” The full article is at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/13/california1 and an excerpt is below:

“Like many in the system, Nosek [vice chancellor for administration at California’s Davis campus] sees the university’s fiscal problems rooted in the state’s political problems. To appease lawmakers, Nosek says the university has cut deals that weren’t in its ultimate best interest. ‘I certainly believe we have been part of the problem as far as leadership in higher education at UC, because we have allowed the political process to have too much influence on what we do in operating the university,” Nosek said.'”

Letter from CUCFA President Robert Meister to UC Regents re: Fiscal Emergency

Below is a copy of a letter written by Professor Robert Meister, President of the Council of UC Faculty Associations and also signed by the chairs of the individual campus Faculty Associations. The letter pertains to Wednesday’s discussion of Regents’ Agenda item J1
— the declaration of fiscal emergency.

———

July 13, 2009

Regents of the University of California
1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
tel (510) 987-9220
fax (510) 987-9224

The Council of University of California Faculty Associations strongly opposes the grant of “emergency” powers to UC’s President. We believe that no heightened powers should be granted unless there are severe consequences for renewing them, and unless the President is obliged to present a credible long-term plan to put UC on a sound financial footing without departing from its public mission.

1. The concept of a “financial emergency” does not adequately describe UC’s present situation, which is more akin to bankruptcy.

A true financial emergency would exist if UC had a viable financial plan for funding its educational mission that was suddenly, and temporarily, interrupted. UC has no such plan, however, and its financial problems are neither sudden nor temporary. In 2007, the Academic Senate reported to the Regents that UC was on a path to financial disaster, and described the end-state scenario of declining state support. This year’s events have realized that scenario, but, thus far President Yudof has merely acknowledged UC’s deteriorating state as an “emergency” without proposing (or expecting) that lost state funds either be restored or replaced from UC’s own resources.

The proper analogy is to enterprise insolvency. Indeed the Regents are a corporation with a special relationship to the State to administer the public trust that is the University of California. A corporation that can’t pay its bills can reasonably ask employees (and then other creditors) to accept payment at a discount rather than shutting down. The next step is bankruptcy, which takes place under court—and public—supervision. When this happens, stakeholders are entitled to know what other resources the enterprise has, and to demand that all these resources be made available to resolve the situation. A bankrupt enterprise cannot say, as President Yudof has recently done, that “It’s important not to take money from enterprises that are really entrepreneurial.” A bankrupt enterprise loses the autonomy to protect its profitable parts.

It thus makes no sense to talk about prolonging a crisis of solvency such as UC faces. To the extent that financial “emergencies” are prolonged, they open the way for huge windfalls (salaries and bonuses) in the still-profitable parts of an enterprise, and create an incentive to drain resources from the money-losing parts, which in UC’s case is public higher education. UC has all-but-said that this situation will be its new normality by proposing a renewable financial emergency. This would be like slow-motion bankruptcy – without supervision to protect the rights of stakeholders, and without the need for eventual restructuring and liquidation of activities that remain profitable.

The bottom line, however, is that UC can’t treat the state economic crisis as an opportunity to shift priorities from publicly-supported to privately-supported activities. UC was incorporated by the state as a public trust for the purpose of providing Californians with access to affordable, high-quality education, and it can hold assets and engage in other business in order to support that primary purpose. “Emergency powers” belong to the state, and UC cannot claim them without serving the purposes of the state.

2. No heightened powers should be granted to UC’s President unless he is also subject to heightened levels of public accountability, and given strong incentives to end the emergency quickly.

The declaration of emergency should oblige UC to produce and disseminate a long-term financial plan to return UC to fiscal soundness that clearly shows how its privately-funded activities will support its currently-underfunded educational obligations to the public. Such a declaration should expire before UC’s next round of admissions, and any proposed renewal must include targets for enrollment, state funding and tuition that move toward financial sustainability in a clearly specified number of years.

Such a declaration should further commit UC’s President and Regents to work aggressively to increase state funding to levels consistent with California’s Higher Education Master Plan, and to support reforms in the state budget process that could make this goal achievable.

Finally, the declaration of emergency should oblige UCOP to take the following steps before renewing the financial emergency

a) Salary savings in UC’s non-state funded activities should be returned to UC to offset losses in its state-funded educational activities.

b) Bonuses should be cut first. Even if these bonuses are part of expected compensation, they are soft compensation that should be contingent on the financial solvency of the UC enterprise as a whole. There is no justification for continuing to dock base salary if bonuses do not take a much larger hit.

c) Non-state funded activities should return funds to the UC President to subsidize UC’s educational mission on the campuses.

d) If UC does not receive a consistent return from activities that should be self supporting, it should consider selling them to the private sector in order to increase UC’s unrestricted endowment. UC’s primary mission should in all events be preserved. For example, UC hospitals might be sold to for-profit healthcare companies under provisos that guarantee their ability to continue to function as UC-affiliated teaching and research hospitals.

e) UC long-term reserves should also be on the table. Some of the funds are carried forward to meet UC’s legal obligations, and should not be touched. But a substantial portion are carried forward as a financial cushion against future cuts and/or a possible source of funds for plans that UC is not legally obliged to implement, or to pay out of reserves. Before declaring a financial emergency, UC’s administration should either spend down these funds, or explain why employee pay cuts should come first.

f) The interest UC earns on its short term cash holdings should be applied to the emergency.

We disagree with those who think it’s a victory that President Yudof has made the financial emergency renewable, rather than permanent. UC’s funding crisis is permanent, and an easily renewable emergency is likely to become permanent as well. If UC is allowed to remain in a state of permanent insolvency it will continue to cut back on money-losing higher education, while subsidizing non-state supported activities and leaving the profits where they lie. This is unacceptable as a financial model, and should be categorically rejected by the Regents and the public.

The grant of temporary powers, such as those President Yudof now seeks, must be conditioned on a commitment to return UC to fiscal soundness and to the vision of California’s Master Plan for Higher Education. Today, this includes educating the public about the value of UC to the state, and the need to reform the state’s fiscal process. But it also requires UC to turn away from a path that favors privately-funded goals at the expense of its state obligations. UC’s faculty has overwhelmingly opposed the UC “emergency” as presently conceived. If there has ever been a time for UC’s faculty representatives to oppose a Regental action, that time is now.

Sincerely,
Robert Meister – President, Council of UC Faculty Associations
Christine Rosen – Chair, UC Berkeley Faculty Association
Ian Kennedy – Chair, UC Davis Faculty Association
Shelly Errington – Chair, UC Santa Cruz Faculty Association
David Braff – Chair, UC San Diego Faculty Association
Warren Gold – Chair, UC San Francisco Faculty Association

cc: UC President Mark Yudof
Academic Senate Chair Mary Croughan

Faculty Associations and CUCFA send letter to Regents and protest legality of upcoming Regents vote

The following letter on UC’s “financial emergency” has been sent to the Regents and the media. CUCFA will speak at the Regents meeting, and have hired a lawyer who will, tomorrow, deliver a letter protesting the legality of voting on the SOR without 30 days advance notice. A copy of that letter will follow.

——————————–

July 13, 2009

Regents of the University of California
1111 Franklin St., 12th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
tel (510) 987-9220
fax (510) 987-9224

The Council of University of California Faculty Associations strongly opposes the grant of “emergency” powers to UC’s President. We believe that no heightened powers should be granted unless there are severe consequences for renewing them, and unless the President is obliged to present a credible long-term plan to put UC on a sound financial footing without departing from its public mission.

1.    The concept of a “financial emergency” does not adequately describe UC’s present situation, which is more akin to bankruptcy.

A true financial emergency would exist if UC had a viable financial plan for funding its educational mission that was suddenly, and temporarily, interrupted. UC has no such plan, however, and its financial problems are neither sudden nor temporary. In 2007, the Academic Senate reported to the Regents that UC was on a path to financial disaster, and described the end-state scenario of declining state support. This year’s events have realized that scenario, but, thus far President Yudof has merely acknowledged UC’s deteriorating state as an “emergency” without proposing (or expecting) that lost state funds either be restored or replaced from UC’s own resources.

The proper analogy is to enterprise insolvency. Indeed, the Regents are a corporation with a special relationship to the State to administer the public trust that is the University of California. A corporation that can’t pay its bills can reasonably ask employees (and then other creditors) to accept payment at a discount rather than shutting down. The next step is bankruptcy, which takes place under court—and public—supervision. When this happens, stakeholders are entitled to know what other resources the enterprise has, and to demand that all these resources be made available to resolve the situation. A bankrupt enterprise cannot say, as President Yudof has recently done, that “It’s important not to take money from enterprises that are really entrepreneurial.” A bankrupt enterprise loses the autonomy to protect its profitable parts.

It thus makes no sense to talk about prolonging a crisis of solvency such as UC faces. To the extent that financial “emergencies” are prolonged, they open the way for huge windfalls (salaries and bonuses) in the still-profitable parts of an enterprise, and create an incentive to drain resources from the money-losing parts, which in UC’s case is public higher education. UC has all-but-said that this situation will be its new normality by proposing a renewable financial emergency. This would be like slow-motion bankruptcy – without supervision to protect the rights of stakeholders, and without the need for eventual restructuring and liquidation of activities that remain profitable.

The bottom line, however, is that UC can’t treat the state economic crisis as an opportunity to shift priorities from publicly-supported to privately-supported activities. UC was incorporated by the state as a public trust for the purpose of providing Californians with access to affordable, high-quality education, and it can hold assets and engage in other business in order to support that primary purpose. “Emergency powers” belong to the state, and UC cannot claim them without serving the purposes of the state.

2.    No heightened powers should be granted to UC’s President unless he is also subject to heightened levels of public accountability, and given strong incentives to end the emergency quickly.

The declaration of emergency should oblige UC to produce and disseminate a long-term financial plan to return UC to fiscal soundness and that clearly shows how its privately-funded activities will support its currently-underfunded educational obligations to the public. Such a declaration should expire before UC’s next round of admissions, and any proposed renewal must include targets for enrollment, state funding and tuition that move toward financial sustainability in a clearly specified number of years.

Such a declaration should further commit UC’s President and Regents to work aggressively to increase state funding to levels consistent with California’s Higher Education Master Plan, and to support reforms in the state budget process that could make this goal achievable.

Finally, the declaration of emergency should oblige UCOP to take the following steps before renewing the financial emergency

a) Salary savings in UC’s non-state funded activities should be returned to UC to offset losses in its state-funded educational activities.

b) Bonuses should be cut first.

c) Non-state funded activities should return funds to the UC President to subsidize UC’s educational mission on the campuses.

d) If UC does not receive a consistent return from activities that should be self supporting, it should consider selling them to the private sector in order to increase UC’s unrestricted endowment. UC’s primary mission should in all events be preserved.

e) UC long-term reserves should also be on the table.

f) The interest UC earns on its short term cash holdings should be applied to the emergency.

UC’s funding crisis is permanent, and an easily renewable emergency is likely to become permanent as well. If UC is allowed to remain in a state of permanent insolvency, it will continue to cut back on money-losing higher education, while subsidizing non-state supported activities and leaving the profits where they lie. This is unacceptable as a financial model, and should be categorically rejected by the Regents and the public.

The grant of temporary powers, such as those President Yudof now seeks, must be conditioned on a commitment to return UC to fiscal soundness and to the vision of California’s Master Plan for Higher Education. Today, this includes educating the public about the value of UC to the state, and the need to reform the state’s fiscal process. But it also requires UC to turn away from a path that favors privately-funded goals. UC’s faculty has overwhelmingly opposed the UC “emergency” as presently conceived. If there has ever been a time for UC’s faculty representatives to oppose a Regental action, that time is now.

Sincerely,

Robert Meister – President, Council of UC Faculty Associations
Christine Rosen – Chair, UC Berkeley Faculty Association
Ian Kennedy – Chair, UC Davis Faculty Association
Shelly Errington – Chair, UC Santa Cruz Faculty Association
David Braff – Chair, UC San Diego Faculty Association
Warren Gold – Chair, UC San Francisco Faculty Association

cc: UC President Mark Yudof
Academic Senate Chair Mary Croughan

Legislation to eliminate UC autonomy killed

Last month both the DFA and CUCFA wrote letters to legislators in opposition to Senate Constitutional Amendment 21 and Assembly Constitutional Amendment 24 — bills that proposed to end UC’s autonomy and allow the legislature to politicize Regent decisions (see http://ucdfa.org/2009/06/16/our-letter-to-senator-yee-re-regental-autonomy/ and http://cucfa.org/news/2009_june29.php).

An article in today’s San Diego Tribune indicates that the legislature has heard our misgivings and killed the proposed legislation. Details are available at:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/10/1n10uc232626-bills-giving-legislature-control-uc-s/?education&zIndex=129707

UCOP announces salary reduction plan

In case you have not received notice already of the UCOP plan for salary reductions, follow this link

http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/documents/presidents-plan_071009.pdf

UC, Unions input on cuts

The following is a letter from Karen Sawislak, Executive Director of UC-AFT to UC Labor Relations with their view of impending cuts. Begin forwarded message:

————————————————–

I am responding on behalf of the UC-AFT Executive Board to the invitation our union received from your office to comment on the pay reduction/furlough plans proposed on June 17, 2009 by President Yudof.

First, UC-AFT expects that the University will fully honor all applicable labor law in its dealings with our units and our existing contracts.

Second, UC-AFT is not convinced that the University faces a fiscal emergency.  While we recognize that state appropriations will fall dramatically for 2009-2010, we also wish to note that state general funds make up approximately 20 per cent of the University’s entire budget. California’s fiscal meltdown does not mean that UC is suffering an equally dire crisis.  Indeed, many University operations (i.e., auxiliary enterprises, hospitals) generate substantial profits for the institution and fundraising and capital expenditures remain robust.  The union does not yet see the justification for across-the-board cuts in employee compensation.

Third, there is no adequate framework or process for consultation and debate about the existence of a “fiscal emergency” and the measures proposed to deal with such an alleged “crisis.” President Yudof has asked the Regents to grant him an extremely vague set of “emergency powers.”  The Regents now appear to be poised to grant this new and untested authority to the President at the very same moment that the President seeks to declare a “fiscal emergency.”  These are not the conditions for informed deliberation, the mustering of expertise from all corners, and the building of a wide consensus throughout the University.

Fourth, UC-AFT is extremely concerned by the lack of transparency in the proposals put forward by President Yudof.  We have been told that three options for pay reductions and/or furloughs at 8% and 4% will yield $195 million toward closing the gap in state funding.  Clearly, cuts of this magnitude to an entire payroll of over $9 billion will yield far more than $195 million.   We understand that this lesser figure represents only savings in state funds.  But this only begs the question:  what will happen to the other savings recouped by this measure?  We have asked for a complete accounting of all expected savings and how those funds will be allocated, but, to date, have received no response. UC-AFT absolutely cannot condone a reduction in compensation of any kind without full disclosure from UCOP as to how these funds will be directed.

Fifth, since this “crisis” is a crisis in state funding, we fail to understand why a large portion of the funds saved through any paycut/furlough measure apparently will not directed toward closing the state budget gap.  We do not comprehend the logic of this plan.  If a shortfall in state funds is justifying these measures, why won’t the University use all possible savings from all possible forms of funding to alleviate this shortfall? It is our strong belief that all savings realized from reductions in compensation should be used to protect the University’s core teaching mission.

Sixth, we object strongly to the lack of any meaningful tiers in the structure of the proposed cuts.  The plans as presently imagined will inflict substantial inequities and hardship to lower-earning UC workers. An 8% cut in salary to an employee who earns $46,100 is an enormous blow compared to an 8% cut in salary for an employee who earns $350,000.  The tiering in any such program needs to be far more graduated and progressive, ranging from 0% for lowest paid workers to at least 20% for very highly compensated employees.

Seventh, we are very alarmed by the lack of forethought and planning that appears to have gone into this proposal.  This proposal is for one year, but the conditions for a possible extension are not clearly elucidated. Significant and obvious questions about how pay reductions and/or furloughs will affect pension and benefit eligibility are “under study.”

Eighth, for our Professional Librarian unit only, IF pay reductions and furloughs ultimately face these employees, our members have an overwhelming preference for furloughs.  To be instituted appropriately, the following measures must accompany any implementation:  1) any salary cuts due to furloughs must be spread over the entire period affected; 2) overall benefits eligibility, including pension eligibility, must not be affected by this measure; 3) furlough must be in increments of 8 hours; 4) furloughs should not be a “take-back” of holiday pay but should be separate non-holiday furlough days; and 5) there should be a discussion and negotiation between any affected librarian and his/her supervisor as to the reduction in work and related expectations that will accompany the furlough.

Ninth, for our Non-Senate Faculty unit only, IF pay reductions and furloughs ultimately face these employees, since  lecturers’ duties exceed the hours they are actually required to attend the campus, they would not benefit at all from a furlough program unless it included clearly defined changes to workload expectations on a case-by-case basis.  Further, since most lecturers are compensated as part-time employees, any salary reductions must be calculated as a percentage of their actual compensation, as opposed to their annualized salaries.

Please transmit our union’s views to President Yudof.

Response from Regent Blum & President Yudof

Regent Blum and President Yudof responded to the letter sent by the chairs of several of the UC Faculty Associations (also posted to this website a couple weeks ago). Their response is below:

———————-

June 30, 2009

Professor Dwight Read, UCLA Faculty Association
Professor Warren Gold, UCSF Faculty Association
Professor Ian Kennedy, Davis Faculty Association
Professor Dale Seborg, Santa Barbara Faculty Association

Dear Colleagues:

We are writing in response to your June 17th letter to the Board of Regents expressing your concern about the process for determining the University’s response to the local crisis with which we are faced.

I assure you that these issues have the focused attention of the Board of Regents and the University’s administrative leadership. We have been working in close consultation with the Academic Senate, and these matters will occupy a substantial portion of the Board’s July meeting. Both the Office of the President and the campuses have done their best to communicate with faculty and staff about the nature of the challenges and the choices we face.

We agree, however, that the short-term budget decisions we face mask an extraordinarily challenging longer-term problem. State funding is unlikely to recover to a level that truly meets the University’s needs at any point in the near future. As a result, the University must develop a comprehensive plan for sustaining quality and addressing the many pressures upon the institution within the context of further diminished State support. Development of such a plan must involve reviewing, and potentially redefining, many long-held assumptions about the sources of support for the University’s operations, how the University can make best use of those resources, and what level of service the University can provide to the public in return for those resources. We are currently working on a plan to examine the fundamental questions before us, and to do it in an expeditious manner. Faculty, staff, and alumni will be well represented in this process.

In the meantime, we are approaching the immediate budget crisis with urgency and seriousness. For the first time in modern history, we initiated a process to curtail enrollment of freshmen in the University, reducing our enrollment plans for the coming fall by 2,300 students. As a way of ensuring that a path to UC stays open, we also increased the number of community college transfers by 500 students. We are examining options for further curtailment of enrollment in 2010-11. We have undergone a massive restructuring of the Office of the President, reducing its budget by more than $60 million and eliminating more than 600 positions. Campuses are undergoing a similar self-examination to identify efficiencies, eliminate duplication, and streamline processes. By way of changing the “business as usual” dynamic, we are beginning to look at new ways to deliver education at lower cost and still maintain quality. We are reviewing our ability to consolidate programs across the system where possible. And as you know, we are currently vetting options for a temporary furlough and/or pay reduction for faculty and staff. These actions are not indicators of complacency.

We appreciate your sharing your views and we welcome having them, but we do wish to remind you of Bylaw 16.9 of the University, which states that communications from members of the faculty to the Board of Regents must be presented through the President.

We look forward to working with the faculty on a plan for the future that reflects our fiscal realities and preserves the tremendous quality and service that the University provides to California, and we encourage you and your colleagues to share your thoughts and ideas with the leadership of the Academic Senate on your campuses and systemwide. In the coming days, we will be working closely with the Senate on these and other issues of concern to the faculty.

Sincerely,
Richard C. Blum
Chairman, Board of the Regents

Mark G. Yudof
President

cc: The Regents of the University of California
Chancellors
Interim Provost Pitts
Academic Council Chair Croughan
Executive Vice President Lapp
Senior Vice President Dooley
Vice President Lenz
Associate Vice President Obley

Letter from California business leaders supporting UC autonomy

A letter from big names in California business in opposition to the recently proposed constitutional amendments that would eliminate UC’s autonomy:

——————————-

June 18, 2009

Dear Honorable Sir or Madam:

We are writing to express our strongest opposition to an extremely troubling proposal that would irreparably harm one of California’s greatest academic, scientific, cultural and economic assets, and our state in general.

We are referring to Senate Constitutional Amendment 21 (SCA21), authored by state Senators Leland Yee of San Francisco, Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield and Gloria Romero of Los Angeles. SCA21 proposes to undo more than 140 years of successful, independent governance by the University of California, placing it under direct control of the state Legislature. A similar and equally harmful companion bill (ACA24) has been introduced in the state Assembly by Assemblymembers Brian Nestande of Palm Desert and Anthony Portantino of La Canada/Flintridge.

We write to you as both graduates and longtime supporters of the University of California and as California employers and business owners who believe that SCA21 and ACA24 represent a misguided and over-reaching attack on UC under the false guise of reform. Framing SCA21 around his accusatory rhetoric of scandal and secrecy, Sen. Yee has unfairly distorted UC’s record, maligned its leadership and conveniently failed to recognize that UC:

•    receives a relatively small and steadily declining subsidy from the state;
•    faculty and staff are, in fact, underpaid on average when compared to peer universities;
•    has instituted meaningful and substantive reforms to improve accountability and transparency in its governance;
•    has significantly reduced administrative and institutional costs; and,
•    continues to hold student tuition below the average of what comparable universities charge, even as state support has dwindled.

The direct and indirect harm that we believe Sen. Yee’s proposed legislation would cause to the University of California cannot be understated. Among the deleterious effects that we can anticipate from Sen. Yee’s SCA21 are:

•    diminishing UC’s ability to attract and retain the best and brightest leaders, academics and researchers;
•    exposing UC governance to the corrosive influence of partisan politics;
•    subjecting decisions regarding academic and scientific research to political calculation;
•    devaluing UC’s hard-earned and well-deserved international reputation as an institution of integrity, innovation and independence;
•    reducing educational quality and the quality of scientific research; and,
•    increasing UC’s vulnerability to the state’s own budget instability.

We also harbor grave concerns about the many unintended consequences that could stem from Sen. Yee’s ill-conceived bill. For example, would the state Legislature’s direct governance role create a chilling effect on private funding of scientific research? Would philanthropists be willing to donate money to an institution controlled by politicians? Would UC’s overall budget, including the 84 percent of total operating expenditures that don’t come from the state, be subject to control by the state Legislature, and what might that mean for UC’s future financial sustainability?

It’s hard to imagine the justification for such a drastic and sweeping proposal. Would anyone argue that over the past 140 years the University of California under the independent leadership of the Board of Regents – along with the state Legislature’s strong oversight role – has not grown into one of the most accomplished and respected public university systems in the world? Many of its 10 undergraduate universities consistently rank among the best in the nation, if not the world. Its 32 Nobel laureates are the most of any university or university system in the world. Its many other academic awards and honors are too many to list here.

It’s unlikely that any of the revolutionary advances in sustainable energy, medicine, agriculture and other sciences developed at UC – including breakthroughs in the treatment of infectious diseases, commercially viable biofuels, and food and product safety – could have been achieved if the University were subject to the political contention, gridlock and inaction prevalent in California’s legislative process.

The University’s success for students, faculty and California has come against a backdrop of increasing demand on the institution, including enrollment growth and declining financial support from state government. Over the past almost 20 years, state government’s share of UC’s core spending has declined by 40 percent. Even with recent and proposed increases in student fees to help offset lower state support, UC’s undergraduate fees are an average of 20 percent lower than those charged at comparable universities. We believe it is important to note that UC has worked hard to insulate students against the full brunt of declining state revenue, drawing on public and private research funding and revenue from its own internal enterprises to blunt the financial impact on students.

Much attention has been focused in recent years on management and compensation issues at UC. Sen. Yee has been among the shrillest critics of UC and the Board of Regents over these issues. Like all Californians, we agree that UC must be accountable and transparent in its operations and governance. And we believe that UC and the Board of Regents have taken tangible and effective actions to ensure that the University honors and upholds the public’s trust. In 2007, the University began implementing of number substantive reforms to increase accountability and efficiency, including reducing overall administrative costs. These actions and many others were taken in direct response to and in consultation with the state Legislature.

Senator Yee simply refuses to acknowledge the substantial changes the University has made and is continuing to make in improving accountability and transparency. Moreover, that a member of the California Senate is calling for more transparency from UC when the Legislature’s own budget process revolves around closed-door meetings of four legislative leaders and the governor is incongruous at best. We can’t help but wonder why Senator Yee is not directing a similar fervor to cleaning up his own house, whose failings are currently pushing our great state to the brink of insolvency.

Above all, we believe that the University of California must remain true to its mission, which is firmly and historically rooted in its independence. UC must continue to compete to maintain its position as a world-class academic and research institution. This is truer now than ever before as we work to restore California to economic health. UC has always been one of California’s primary economic drivers, pushing innovation, creating thousands of jobs, spinning off hundreds of new businesses and educating our future work force. We should not take lightly any attempt to weaken UC’s ability to compete and succeed and, in turn, weaken California’s future. Sen. Yee’s misguided proposal would do just that.

Please help us keep an independent University of California healthy and strong. Please withdraw SCA21 and ACA24.

Sincerely,

Warren Hellman
Co-founder & Chairman, Hellman & Friedman LLC

Arthur Rock
Principal, Arthur Rock & Co.

William K. Coblentz
Attorney and former Chairman, UC Board of Regents

Robert D. Haas
Trustee, Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Fund; former CEO, Levi Strauss & Co.

Walter J. Haas
Co-Chair, Evelyn & Walter Hass, Jr. Fund; former Chairman & CEO, Oakland A’s

Gordon Moore
Co-founder and Chairman Emeritus, Intel

George Shultz
Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Former U.S. Secretary of State

Donald Fisher
Founder of Gap Inc.

Frank E. Baxter
U.S. Ambassador to Uruguay; former Chairman and CEO, Jefferies & Co.

Richard Rosenberg
Chairman, University of California San Francisco Foundation; former Chairman & CEO, BankAmerica

Michael D. Goldberg
General Partner, Mohr Davidow Ventures

Douglas Shorenstein
Chairman & CEO, Shorenstein Properties LLC

William F. Cronk
Former President, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream

Theodore Geballe
Class of ’41, UC Berkeley; Professor Emeritus, Applied Physics, Stanford University

Gerson Bakar
Gerson Bakar& Associates

Edward E. Penhoet
President, The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

T. Gary Rogers
Chairman, Levi Strauss & Co.; former Chairman & CEO, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc.

Arthur Kern
Director, Yahoo!

Charlotte Shultz
Chief of Protocol, State of California

Janet McKinley
Board Chair, Oxfam

Warren E. “Ned” Spieker, Jr.
Chairman, Continuing Life Communities; Managing Partner, Spieker Realty Investments

Lynn Feintech
A.B. 1971, M.A. 1974, UC Berkeley

Georgia Lee
Managing Director, Hellman & Friedman LLC

You are currently browsing the Davis Faculty Association blog archives for July, 2009.