As many of you may know, the Faculty Associations
representatives closely monitor the budget process for UC,
particularly in relation to issues of faculty concern, such as
salaries. As the 2001-02 budget unfolded in the spring, we
alerted our members to the strong possibility that faculty
salaries would suffer. We predicted that merits would be
maintained and that COLAs might be as little as 0.5%. Let us now
update you on information from UCOP regarding salary issues and
other budget issues of interest so that we may solicit input from
you on our lobbying efforts for the 2002-03 budget process.
Current economic realities will make that budget planning even
more difficult. Many of you already know from messages from the
Academic Council Chair and others that budget reductions are
being considered for UC in the areas of Employee compensation,
State funding for summer school, Enrollment growth funding,
Student fees, and Targeted cuts to special programs. In this
memo, we will also address these issues as they relate to the
Faculty Association efforts. We ask you to respond to the memo by
telling us your priorities in these various funding areas so that
we can represent the interests of our membership in our lobbying
effort.
Faculty and Staff Salaries:
Salary scales for the Oct. 1, 2001 range adjustment of academic
salaries have now been issued; these are now available at
http://manuals.ucdavis.edu/apm/690.htm
Salaries for non-represented academic employees have been range
adjusted by 0.5%, across-the-board, including above-scale
salaries. Off-scale increments will be reviewed and adjusted by
0.5%, if, when rounded to the nearest $100, the adjustment
results in an increase.
Merits have been maintained. Vice President
Hershman stated at the Oct. Regents' meeting that UC learned from
their experience during the budget crunch in the 1990s when a
judge determined that it would be discriminatory to deny merits
to one group of faculty members in any given year since faculty
are only eligible for merits every three years. That suit came
about as a result of Faculty Association action.
Faculty salaries now lag about 3.5% in relation to our
comparison institutions. Although final figures will not
be available for 2002-03 until February, UCOP is projecting that
faculty salaries may lag as much as 6 or 7% in the 2002-03 year,
depending on how our comparison institutions are also affected by
the economic slump. Our understanding is that in the budget being
prepared for Regents' review in November, UC will seek state
funding for regular merits, plus 4% for salaries now and an
additional 2.25% restoration of funds when the economy improves.
And Hershman stated that UC will probably not get all that we ask
for; his question is how big a lag can be allowed. We know from
past history that it takes a long time to recoup funds and to
regain parity once our salaries begin to lag.
Staff salaries: UC believes that it must treat
staff the same as faculty. States funding for their merits plus
COLAs for 2001-02 equals 2%, to be awarded according to whatever
agreements are made within collective bargaining. UC had
requested much more for staff in the 2001-02 budget. UC, the
Faculty Association, and the employee unions all lobbied
strongly, but neither staff nor faculty received what was
desired. The Legislature often compares UC employees to other
state employees; their few "increases" were in the form
of reducing their contribution to their retirement funds. This
action may help to account for the recently-announced proposal
for a CAP accrual credit for UC employees that is due for
discussion at the November Regents' meeting.
Enrollment Growth Funding: The Faculty
Association has strongly supported recent efforts to regain
funding lost during the 1990s when UC continued to accept all
eligible students despite state funding that provided for only a
portion of the additional students who came to us. Hershman asked
the Regents to consider whether we should limit enrollment to
match funding.
Student Fees: In the past the Faculty
Association has not taken a stance on student fee issues.
Legislators have felt very strongly that fees should be low; they
have supported fee buy-outs to keep them low. But, Hershman
pointed out that UC fees are low; they are $2000 below those of
our comparison institutions. Regents are concerned that poor
economic times are not good times to raise fees, but many of them
felt that fee increases may be necessary to meet funding needs.
Summer Enrollment: Hershman said that the
long-term goal to make summer term fully state-funded, like the
other three quarters, may need to be slowed down. . So far,
"full state-funding" has been provided to UCB, UCLA,
and UCB. The plan was to fund the remaining campuses beginning in
the summer of 2002.
Targeted cuts to budget augmentations for special
programs: In recent years while the economy has been
strong, the Governor and the Legislature have provided sizable
augmentations to UC's core funding to provide for special needs.
Some were proposed by UC, others by the Legislators. Many relate
to UC helping to improve K-12 education and to providing outreach
activities. Others are related to research funding requests. A
problem is that the State had the money because of stock market
capital gains and strong consumer confidence that led to
relatively unbridled spending. Legislators seem to have been
making long-term plans with essentially one-time dollars. Now the
gains have turned into losses and spending is way down--a
double-barreled hit. Hershman recognized that it will be very
controversial to try to decrease the level of some of these
programs, but everything must be on the table. In considering how
and whether to do so, he also stressed that UC must work with the
Governor and the Legislature. We agree and will be advocating
strongly for positions that support the interests of the DFA
membership.
Home | Current Activities | Newsletters | Join
| Contact | Links
All contents copyright 2001 The Davis Faculty
Association.