No concessions were made but, that said, turnout was surprisingly strong and I think [Chancellor] Yang and [Executive Vice Chancellor] Lucas were likely surprised by the degree of anger and condemnation and by the strong suggestion that they had mishandled things by not adequately representing the university's importance to the state. Comments and questions were quite pointed and I think they felt the heat, but they committed only to communicating our concerns to Yudof and the Regents. For what it's worth, there were particularly loud cheers at the suggestion that we needed a better President.
"UCs are located in US cities that have some of the highest costs-of-living in the nation. Santa Barbara consistently ranks in the top five and often in the top three. In managing numbers in the tens of millions, measuring percentages, and weighing funding options, we lose the human face of the impact of this salary cut. Except for a select few, UC employees, both staff and faculty, are not rich. When making a deep 8% salary cut, the UC threatens our ability to meet basic living expenses. which are not declining precipitously or even significantly in California. After paying the first tax to the government, people (not numbers) working for the UCs in these expensive locations pay half or more of their income on rent, two-thirds or more on mortgages. Where will employees go when we cannot afford housing, when we lose or are forced to sell our homes. We are not talking about reducing our contributions to retirement plans or our entertainment budget; this cut does not move us farther from yearly vacations and luxury items--for most people we are talking about cutting our ability purchase groceries, maintain utilities, pay for daycare. This cut damages our ability to take care of our children and ourselves. We cannot afford this paycut. We cannot afford this paycut. We cannot afford this paycut."
2 hours ago