News and Updates from the Davis Faculty Association (DFA) February 21, 2018. Prepared on behalf of the DFA Board by Joe Kiskis and Eric Hays
The DFA board welcomes input from members via contact information at http://ucdfa.org/leadership/
Faculty interested in joining can be directed to a sign-up form at http://ucdfa.org/join/
As a service to Davis Faculty Association members, this informal newsletter will be emailed to members several times a year as developments warrant. The goal is to draw attention to items of likely interest related to UC Davis, the University of California, or higher education more generally.
The Davis Faculty Association is affiliated with the Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) and with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).
==============================
Topics:
DFA FORUM
The Future of the Public University in California
“TO BOLDLY GO” MEETING WITH KEN BURTIS
DFA board members provide input to Chancellor’s strategic planning
RECLAIM COALITION LOBBY DAY
March 13th or 14th
REPORT ON CAMPUS RESEARCH UNITS
UC Davis Senate/Administration report on Research units
UC 2018-19 BUDGET
Process slowed by political disagreements
ACADEMIC SENATE COMMENTS ON UC PRESIDENT’S INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AUDIT
Minutes from the Academic Council’s special meeting
RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS WORKING GROUP UPDATE
Working group formed but no transparency
LEGALITY OF TRIMMING PENSIONS
Appeals court sets high bar for pension trimming
UPDATE ON LECTURER WITH SECURITY OF EMPLOYMENT (LSOE) PROPOSAL
UCOP tries again to get approval for changes the LSOE series
MOODY’S DOWNGRADES HIGHER ED’S OUTLOOK FROM STABLE TO NEGATIVE
Muted tuition growth and uncertainty in federal policy changes
UPDATE ON NEGOTIATED SALARY PROGRAM
Senate comments on the proposal to extend the trial program.
SENATE SALARIES LETTER TO PRESIDENT NAPOLITANO
Another plea for a range adjustment
$48 FIX UPDATE
California Democratic Party set to endorse $48 FIX
——————————–
DFA FORUM
On February 2nd DFA hosted the public forum The Future of the Public University in California: http://ucdfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dfa-event-poster.jpg
Speakers Michael Burawoy, Amy Hines-Shaikh, and Delaine Eastin presented perspectives on challenges for public higher education in California, approaches to improvement including greater support from elected representatives, and funding improvements as proposed in the $48 Fix.
If you missed the event, the video is here: http://ucdfa.org/2018/02/forum-video/
The forum was the lead story for the print version of the California
Aggie on February 15.
—————
“TO BOLDLY GO” MEETING WITH KEN BURTIS
On January 25, the DFA board met with Faculty Advisor to the Chancellor and Provost, Ken Burtis, to provide DFA input to the Chancellor’s strategic planning initiative, “To Boldly Go.” Board members emphasized topics under three major headings: research, teaching, and outreach that links environmental preservation, technical and economic development, and human well-being; improvements in the quality of undergraduate education; and work to strengthen institutional foundations including shared governance, focus on the core mission, and deferred maintenance.
——————-
RECLAIM COALITION LOBBY DAY
The Reclaim Coalition Lobby Day this year is scheduled for March 13th or 14th. UCD faculty are invited to come and speak with legislators or legislative staff about the real damage that results from ongoing funding cuts to UC. Faculty interested in participating should contact Eric Hays at info@cucfa.org.
——————–
REPORT ON CAMPUS RESEARCH UNITS
UC Davis Senate/Administration report on Research units
If you struggle to make sense of the myriad campus interdisciplinary research units and their official status (and who doesn’t), this is the report for you. After surveying the UC Davis research unit landscape, the report recommends improvements in administrative and operational consistency, in recognizing individual contributions to research in the units, in program review, and in program establishment and funding.
Joint Academic Senate & Administration Task Force on Research Units
http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/rfc/view.cfm?or&id=1356
———————
UC 2018-19 BUDGET
Both the Governor and the Regents have presented UC budgets for 2018-19. Since the respective budget numbers are not so far apart, one could be optimistic about opportunities for level-headed compromise. However, the University and the Governor, along with the Legislature, have staked out starkly divergent political/philosophical views of the University. In addition, the Regents are now divided on how to approach the politics of University funding.
The University has produced a more or less conventional budget for 2018-19. It includes a modest tuition increase to cover the difference between budgetary needs and expected revenue based on current tuition and the Governor’s proposed allocation for the coming year.
Governor’s proposed budget. Higher Ed starts on page 39, UC on page 49.
http://ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
Legislative Analyst on Governor’s budget.
Higher Ed.
http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3748?utm_source=laowww&utm_medium=ema%20il&utm_campaign=3748
“[…] We recommend the Legislature consider additional funding for UC’s
academic quality initiatives as lower priority. Though UC’s
student-to-faculty ratio has increased the past several years, its
student outcomes have continued to improve.”
UC:
http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3748?utm_source=laowww&utm_medium=ema%20il&utm_campaign=3748#University_of_California_1
Regents budget items discussed at January meeting.
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan18/b2.pdf
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan18/f5attach1.pdf
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan18/f5attach2.pdf
Oversimplifying a bit, the University’s position is straightforward business as usual: Here is the increase we need to cover inflation, more students, some restoration of quality, etc. If you give us less than that, we will increase tuition to cover the difference. It’s supposed to be more or less obvious that the things for which the money is needed are in the interest of the people of California. Once upon a time, this approach worked better than it does now. Politics have shifted.
Our present Governor is notoriously frugal. For him it is an article of faith that the University could produce the same quality education at a lower cost. He has made it very clear that he does not intend to add any UC funding beyond his January budget proposal. “It is enough. You’re getting three percent more and that’s it. They’re not gonna get anymore. And they’ve got to manage. I think they need a little more scrutiny over how they are spending things.”
The Legislature and most voters want it both ways. They want the U to increase enrollment, but they do not want to pay for it. One might conclude that they agree with the Governor, that they do not care about quality, or that they are engaged in magical thinking.
Very regrettably, the University (i.e. UCOP) has been rather less than adroit in dealing with Sacramento politics while the Legislature is skilled at exploiting UCOP mis-steps to exercise increasing control of the University via the budget.
For their January meeting, the Regents were scheduled to approve their budget with a tuition increase, which would be canceled if bought out by increased State funding. However, facing political pressure from students and from Sacramento along with internal disagreement, they decided to postpone the vote on resident tuition until May and the vote on nonresident tuition until March or May.
The lack of consensus among Regents results from more difficult external politics and from a change in the makeup of the Regents. Governor Brown has made several appointments to the Regents who are not from the traditional class wealthy and/or prominent citizens of California.
Several of the newer Regents are more sensitive to the political winds. At the meeting, they were critical of the University’s effectiveness in making its case in Sacramento, but it was not clear that they had creative and specific suggestions for how to do it better.
Of course the University’s political difficulties are exacerbated by the recent very poor behavior of the President in interfering with the State audit of UCOP. The situation is rich with irony at several levels.
Several other items related to the UC budget:
CUCFA signed on to Reclaim California’s Higher Education coalition letter to Governor Brown about the Governor’s budget proposal. The letter expresses significant concerns about funding for public higher education in the current proposal.
Statement from UC Board of Regents Chair George Kieffer and UC President
Janet Napolitano on Gov. Brown’s budget plan
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/statement-uc-board-regents-chair-george-kieffer-and-uc-president-janet-napolitano-gov
ONLINE AND THE COLOR LINE by Chris Newfield
https://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2018/01/online-and-color-line.html
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-regents-and-tuition-or-not.html
——————-
ACADEMIC SENATE COMMENTS ON UC PRESIDENT’S INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AUDIT
Bland Academic Council comments on poor behavior of UC President with regard to State Audit.
Minutes from the Academic Council’s special meeting on November 17th.
Council discussed the Board of Regents’ response to President Napolitano’s conduct during a recent State Audit.
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/committees/council/council-11-17-17-minutes.pdf
You may recall that the Regents’ Chair had a much stronger statement:
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov17/b2attach1.pdf
And not unrelated to all of this:
UC President Janet Napolitano considers overhauling her office amid
political criticism
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/higher-ed/la-me-uc-president-office-overhaul-20180129-story.html
——————–
RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS WORKING GROUP UPDATE
http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2018/02/retiree-health-benefits-working-group-formed-to-study-options-for-benefits-stability.html
So far, the Working Group does not have a website, the charge letter has not been made public, the roster of members has not been made public, and the materials distributed to members have been deemed confidential. It appears that there is still some work to be done before “[…] working group members will actively engage those they represent, share their constituents’ insights and feedback, and keep them apprised of the working group’s progress.”
Informal communications indicate the following member list:
Co-Chairs
Dwaine Duckett UC Office of the President Chief Human Resource Officer
Peggy Arrivas UC Office of the President Systemwide Controller
Faculty
Shane White Academic Senate representative
Robert May Academic Senate representative
Rick Kronick Campus faculty representative
Bob Anderson Campus faculty representative
Andrew Bindman Campus faculty representative
Staff
Lina Layiktez CUCSA representative
Edward Abeyta Staff Representative
Jason Valdry Staff Advisor to the Regents Represented UC Employees
Paul Brooks Union representative
Retirees
John Meyer CUCRA representative
Roger Anderson CUCEA representative
Campus Leadership
Teresa Costantinidis VCPB
Ramona Agrela HRLC
Sarah Latham VCA
UC Health
Tim Maurice Medical Center CFO
———————
LEGALITY OF TRIMMING PENSIONS
A little if not quite good then at least well-it-could-have-been-worse news on the pension front.
Not So Easy
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2018/01/not-so-easy.html
“An appeals court yesterday ruled that the pensions of current employees can be cut without providing an offsetting new benefit, but only if there is ‘compelling evidence’ that a reduction is needed for the successful operation of the retirement system…”
—————-
UPDATE ON LECTURER WITH SECURITY OF EMPLOYMENT (LSOE) PROPOSAL
The UCOP proposal to make changes in the Lecturer with Security of Employment (LSOE) series has drawn considerable Senate criticism. In response to that, the proposal was revised and is now out for review again.
http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/rfc/view.cfm?or&id=1354
——————–
MOODY’S DOWNGRADES HIGHER ED’S OUTLOOK FROM STABLE TO NEGATIVE
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Moody-s-Downgrades-Higher/241983?cid=wcontentlist_hp_latest
“In a report, the agency cited financial strains at both public and private four-year institutions, mainly muted growth in tuition revenue. But it also cited ‘uncertainty at the federal level over potential policy changes.'”
——————-
UPDATE ON NEGOTIATED SALARY PROGRAM
Senate comments on the proposal to extend the trial program.
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/SW-SC-NSTP.pdf
“[…] The Senate will support continuation of the pilot only if the subsequent evaluation adopts metrics to address concerns that the negotiated salary: 1) undermines the UC tradition of salary advancement based on peer review; 2) exacerbates inequalities between disciplines and campuses and increases gender and racial inequalities; 3) pushes faculty to engage in particular types of research that are more likelyto result in outside funding; and 4) has negative impacts on teaching, graduate student funding, and mentoring.
[…]
“The NSTP should not relieve UC from its obligation to pay a competitive salary for all faculty across all disciplines, including those disciplines for which external funding is less common, nor should it replace efforts to improve the UC faculty salary lag and the salary scales. Moreover, the NSTP must not be allowed to undermine a merit-based review process that is grounded in having salary scales with a relevant connection to the market.[…]”
————————
SENATE SALARIES LETTER TO PRESIDENT NAPOLITANO
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/SW-JN-faculty-salaries.pdf
“[…]In addition to providing all faculty members with a raise and improving equity, Council agrees that a comprehensive faculty salary plan should focus on improving the competitiveness of the published salary scales to ensure they have a relevant connection to the market and can continue to fortify UC’s merit and promotion system. Relatively few UC faculty are paid on scale, and many have off-scale supplements provided by the administration as part of a recruitment or retention action. Council agrees that the comprehensive plan should recognize the complexities associated with off-scale differentials, without necessarily seeking to maintain or eliminate them.[…]”
———————–
$48 FIX UPDATE
It is believed that the California Democratic Party will soon vote to incorporate the $48 Fix into their platform for the 2018 elections.