Davis Faculty Association

Yesterday, the Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy released a report titled “Consequences of Neglect: Performance Trends in California Higher Education.” The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary reads:

California lawmakers have found it increasingly difficult to protect the state’s investment in its colleges and universities over the last decade despite the growing evidence that the state needs far more of its citizens to earn postsecondary credentials. Additionally, California higher education continues to operate without effective coordination and with no state-level planning, despite continued calls for the state to set goals and develop plans to ensure that its colleges and universities will drive 21st Century economic competitiveness and social well-being. This report demonstrates the consequences of resting on reputations and policies of yesteryear. California is nowhere near a leader on the measures of higher education performance that the nation’s governors and educational leaders have been tracking for over a decade. We are average, at best, and trending downward.

The report is available online at:
http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/pages/publications.html

The Los Angeles Times has an article about the report, available online at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-college-decline-20110721,0,965810.story

Inside Higher Ed took notice as well. See:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/21/qt

Here is an excerpt from an article in yesterday’s New York Times titled “California Cuts Weigh Heavily on Its Colleges”:

The compromise to close the state’s huge budget gap included cuts  to state agencies of all kinds, but none were as deep as those to
the state’s public colleges and universities… “There’s no question that California has had the most emulated public universities in the nation, and for the rest of the world,” said Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education. “What we are seeing is the abandonment of the state’s commitment to make California’s education available to all its citizens.” … While states across the country have tightened their belts, none of their higher education cuts have matched the severity of California’s, Dr. Hartle said.

The article also references the brain drain of faculty leaving UC for greener pastures in Texas, the inability of UCR to get its medical school accredited, and other recent hot topics. The full article is available at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/us/09uc.html?_r=2&hp

Governor Brown and state legislative leaders have agreed on a state budget proposal that the legislature is scheduled to vote on tomorrow. The Sacramento Bee has some details at:http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/more-details-on-the-democratic.html

What does it mean for UC? As was the case in last week’s budget proposal, this budget would cut UC $150 million on top of the $500 million cut in the March budget. But this proposal may go further: if an anticipated $4 billion in revenue expected due to the improving economy falls more than $1 billion short, UC would take an additional $100 million mid-year hit in January of 2012.

At least a $540 million deferral of payments from the state to University of California that had been proposed in last week’s budget has been eliminated in this proposal.

As mentioned above, the legislature is scheduled to meet tomorrow to vote on this. No GOP votes are necessary to pass it. Gov. Brown has already promised to sign the budget tomorrow, so he obviously expects the Democrat’s votes to be there.

The Council of UC Faculty Associations, CUCFA, is the systemwide organization of local campus faculty associations. Over the past few weeks, CUCFA officers Joe Kiskis and Stanton Glantz and CUCFA staff Eric Hays have conducted a series of visits with the staff of Governor Jerry Brown, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton, and Assemblymembers Fiona Ma and Warren Furutani.Our primary message in all of the meetings was the importance of a public university and, using the working paper that Stanton Glantz and Eric Hays produced last year, the affordability of restoring California’s system of public higher education – $32 to the median tax filer.

http://keepcaliforniaspromise.org/553/working-paper

An important part of the above discussion was requiring UC’s administration to act like the administrators of a public university. In addition, descriptions of the negative effects on quality and fees of past, present, proposed, and worse than proposed cuts were reviewed. As always, our message was heard by knowing and sympathetic ears. More significant and less heartening is the position of higher education relative to other priorities, both substantive and purely political, for either party. Our sense was that although there were possibilities for a compromise budget agreement, the time for serious dealing had not yet arrived. (As of today, a budget deal that requires no GOP votes but that would cut UC a further $150 million is being voted on by the legislature).

In meetings with staff of the Governor and the President Pro Tem of the Senate, we also discussed the nomination of David Crane as a UC Regent. We asked several investigatory questions about the nomination procedure, particularly as related to a committee that the state Constitution requires the Governor consult before selecting a nominee. It seems that for the last decade or so, consultation has devolved to the governor simply notifying the committee of his selection at about the same time that it is announced to the world at large. So far, we have not been able to obtain documentation that would confirm even notification in the case of Crane. Most recently, our California Public Records Act request to the Governor’s office was rejected by an invocation of the blanket exception granted to that office. In the absence of any evidence that the correct process was followed, we continue to have serious doubts about the validity of David Crane’s nomination. Our discussions were useful, but clearly we have a lot of work to do to restore the consultation process that used to exist in the nomination of Regents.

Regardless of uncertainty on the technical legality of the nomination, there is considerable political opposition to the nomination. This case would be significantly strengthened if the basis for opposition were more than Mr. Crane’s infamous opinion piece. This is a place where academics could make a real contribution. We call on you who are researchers in the humanities and social sciences to supply additional evidence, as factual and objective as possible, that addresses the suitability of David Crane to serve as a Regent. This is important because the failure of Governor Brown to withdraw the Schwarzenegger nomination means that Crane is now considered to be Brown’s nominee. It would be far easier for a Democratic Senate to reject a Democratic Governor’s nominee if the case is objective rather than purely political.

Joe and Eric

It has become a tradition in recent years for the members or potential members of the DFA to get together towards the end of each year to discuss the faculty issues of the day. Consider yourself and any potential member invited to join us Thursday, May 26th, at 5pm, at Sudwerk (2001 2nd street). The first round of drinks is on me.