- The recommendation is for furloughs (Option 2) rather than paycuts or a combination. This fits with the overwhelming majority view of the various Senate agencies that opined throughout the system.
- the furlough has a finite time limit (ending August 31, 2010), though the President would retain powers of modification (p 24).
- There is a sliding scale of reductions from 4% through 10% (see tables pp 7-8). An 8% reduction starts at $90,000 / year and equals 19 furlough days (or almost four weeks of working days).
- non-state-funded employees are exempted (if 100% non-state), as are Berkeley Lab employees, various categories of student employees, and employees on H-type visas (pp 10-11)
- pensions are not to be reduced by the pay reduction
- the furlough plan is completely intertwined with the proposed change to the Regental Standing Order that grants the President emergency powers. Attachement A is itself the Declaration of Extreme Financial Emergency. The abundance of bad budget news within the document itself is, I assume, meant to satisfy the requirements of the proposed Standing Order that justifies this declaration.
- there is no mention of greater student fee increases (beyond the 9.3% already voted for next year) or of any other revenue enhancements.
- all emphasis is on downsizing and shrinkage, e.g. Attachment C is a summary of costs savings and includes notation such as "Most campuses expect between 10 – 15 percent reductions in faculty FTE and similar reductions in staff positions. Campuses have laid off 724 staff so far and most anticipate more layoffs in the coming year. Most campuses are deferring planned faculty hires by at least 50 percent; some are entirely freezing faculty recruitment, despite the fact that enrollment is continuing to grow for FY 2009-10." See also the long paragraph on page 5.
The strategy leads, as I blogged only yesterday, neither to a stable privatized UC nor to a stable public UC but to a poor public UC with gated communities for small numbers that enjoy supplemental revenue streams. One reason it leads there is that state funds subsidize the non-state activity that is being exempted from the cuts; there are many other reasons as well.
This also continues UC's poor strategy with Sacramento and the public. If they know that we never fight, they will cut us first and most. This is exactly what Sacramento has been doing for 1990, and UCOP seems ready to continue the tradition.
The same goes for UCOP in relation to the campuses. It's easier to cut your own people's pay than to twist arms and make enemies in Sacramento and Silicon Valley. UCOP keeps doing this because, well, they always can.
If I am wrong, I would like to know why. I welcome reaction and discussion about next steps.