// API callback
related_results_labels_thumbs({"version":"1.0","encoding":"UTF-8","feed":{"xmlns":"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom","xmlns$openSearch":"http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/","xmlns$blogger":"http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008","xmlns$georss":"http://www.georss.org/georss","xmlns$gd":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005","xmlns$thr":"http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0","id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889"},"updated":{"$t":"2021-06-24T13:35:47.344-07:00"},"category":[{"term":"Budget"},{"term":"UC"},{"term":"Admin Responses"},{"term":"Crisis"},{"term":"guest post"},{"term":"Funding Model"},{"term":"Cuts"},{"term":"Faculty"},{"term":"Public Funding"},{"term":"UC Regents"},{"term":"Protests"},{"term":"Public vs. Private"},{"term":"Costs"},{"term":"Politics"},{"term":"UCOP"},{"term":"Governance"},{"term":"Students"},{"term":"Strategies \u0026 Goals"},{"term":"Academic Labor"},{"term":"California"},{"term":"Academic Freedom"},{"term":"Management"},{"term":"Inequality"},{"term":"Austerity"},{"term":"Jerry Brown"},{"term":"Online Education"},{"term":"Privatization"},{"term":"Employee Benefits"},{"term":"UC Berkeley"},{"term":"Janet Napolitano"},{"term":"Shared Governance"},{"term":"Campus Safety"},{"term":"Income"},{"term":"Research"},{"term":"Academic Senate"},{"term":"Cal State"},{"term":"Tuition Hikes"},{"term":"archives"},{"term":"Affordability"},{"term":"Contingent Faculty"},{"term":"Future University"},{"term":"Quality"},{"term":"Humanities"},{"term":"UC Santa Barbara"},{"term":"Race"},{"term":"UCOF"},{"term":"Administrative Overreach"},{"term":"Development"},{"term":"International"},{"term":"Mark Yudof"},{"term":"Pension"},{"term":"Unions"},{"term":"UC Care"},{"term":"UC Davis"},{"term":"public goods"},{"term":"Transparency"},{"term":"Liberal Arts"},{"term":"Covid-19"},{"term":"Events"},{"term":"Financial Aid"},{"term":"Community College"},{"term":"Furlough"},{"term":"UC Riverside"},{"term":"Graduates"},{"term":"Policing"},{"term":"STEM"},{"term":"Tenure"},{"term":"democratic university"},{"term":"For-Profit"},{"term":"University of Wisconsin System"},{"term":"Discrimination"},{"term":"Diversity"},{"term":"Economy"},{"term":"Steven Salaita"},{"term":"UC Los Angeles"},{"term":"Athletics"},{"term":"Corruption"},{"term":"Critical University Studies"},{"term":"Neoliberalism"},{"term":"Religion \u0026 Culture"},{"term":"Teaching"},{"term":"UCLA"},{"term":"UC Irvine"},{"term":"UCPD"},{"term":"UCSC"},{"term":"health care"},{"term":"Academic everything"},{"term":"Graduate Student Conditions"},{"term":"Isla Vista Shootings"},{"term":"Linda Katehi"},{"term":"Philanthropy"},{"term":"Academic Boycotts"},{"term":"Admissions"},{"term":"Biden"},{"term":"British Universities"},{"term":"Closures"},{"term":"Democrats"},{"term":"Grad Student Strike"},{"term":"K-12"},{"term":"Margaret Spellings"},{"term":"Presidential search"},{"term":"Quantification"},{"term":"Sexual Harassment"},{"term":"Student Debt"},{"term":"UC Health"},{"term":"Workforce"},{"term":"anti-racist pedagogy"},{"term":"higher education policy"},{"term":"reparations"},{"term":"2020 Election"},{"term":"ACCJC vs. CCSF"},{"term":"Budget Cuts"},{"term":"Cooper Union"},{"term":"Covid-19 Cuts"},{"term":"Cuts \u0026 Cuts"},{"term":"Debt-Free College"},{"term":"Fake Knoweldge"},{"term":"Fake Knowledge"},{"term":"FutherCuts"},{"term":"Gender"},{"term":"LGBTQ"},{"term":"Metrics"},{"term":"More Cuts"},{"term":"Newsom"},{"term":"Nonpecuniary effects"},{"term":"November 2009"},{"term":"President Drake"},{"term":"State Audit"},{"term":"Structural Racism"},{"term":"UC Merced"},{"term":"UCSB"},{"term":"UCSF"},{"term":"USC"},{"term":"University of Missouri"},{"term":"Vegara vs. California"},{"term":"abolition"},{"term":"abortion"},{"term":"carbon offsets"},{"term":"climate crisis"},{"term":"climate policy"},{"term":"human capital theory"},{"term":"opinion survey"},{"term":"public support"},{"term":"review of The Great Mistake"},{"term":"slavery"},{"term":"stimulus"},{"term":"value of a college degree"},{"term":"white nationalism"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Remaking the University"},"subtitle":{"type":"html","$t":"A blog on higher education and related issues."},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/posts\/default"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/-\/UC?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=10"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/search\/label\/UC"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"},{"rel":"next","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/-\/UC\/-\/UC?alt=json-in-script\u0026start-index=11\u0026max-results=10"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Chris Newfield"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/01078395415386100872"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"generator":{"version":"7.00","uri":"http://www.blogger.com","$t":"Blogger"},"openSearch$totalResults":{"$t":"242"},"openSearch$startIndex":{"$t":"1"},"openSearch$itemsPerPage":{"$t":"10"},"entry":[{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-1608217257865903573"},"published":{"$t":"2018-05-12T09:59:00.000-07:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2018-05-12T09:59:39.789-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Austerity"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Budget"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Cal State"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"California"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Financial Aid"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Funding Model"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Governor Brown Renews His Commitment to Educational Decline"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-8QRRfLiOgtY\/WvYZlUAP7gI\/AAAAAAAABWM\/nG7YI2m6NY8Sp7_OitmFRHD1uGF_9jrrgCLcBGAs\/s1600\/_aqueduct_ruins_2.JPG\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" data-original-height=\"1001\" data-original-width=\"1600\" height=\"200\" src=\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-8QRRfLiOgtY\/WvYZlUAP7gI\/AAAAAAAABWM\/nG7YI2m6NY8Sp7_OitmFRHD1uGF_9jrrgCLcBGAs\/s320\/_aqueduct_ruins_2.JPG\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003EGovernor Brown released his \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/budget\/2018-19MR\/#\/BudgetSummary\"\u003EMay Revision\u003C\/a\u003E of the California budget.\u0026nbsp; His higher education \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2018-19\/pdf\/Revised\/BudgetSummary\/HigherEducation.pdf\"\u003Erevisions\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;suggest little beyond his continuing refusal to recognize the challenges of contemporary higher education and the social need for an expanded and deepened system of tertiary education.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EPerhaps the most significant new element in the Governor's proposals is his announcement that, if either CSU or UC choose to raise tuition, the state will lower its general funding in the exact amount that the State must increase funding in Cal Grants to cover the raised tuition (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2018-19\/pdf\/Revised\/BudgetSummary\/HigherEducation.pdf\"\u003E7\u003C\/a\u003E). As \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com\/2018\/05\/no-change-in-basic-uc-appropriation.html\"\u003EDan Mitchell has pointed out\u003C\/a\u003E, this does not mean that either UC or CSU will lose all the revenue from tuition increases.\u0026nbsp; They may therefore be tempted to raise tuition.\u0026nbsp; But it does mean that the Governor is setting the most important source of tuition aid for Californians against the general needs of improving the campuses.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.co.uk\/2013\/01\/privatization-hits-wall.html\"\u003EAs early as 2013 then Speaker John Pérez warned that UC could not expect the State to \"buy out\" proposed tuition increases\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;and during the tuition freeze the state warned that it would lower base funding if the sectors increased tuition.\u0026nbsp; But the State did increase general fund revenues last year--even with tuition increases.\u0026nbsp; Now the governor is refusing to do that again and playing a game of explicitly setting off the financial needs of poorer students against the funding needs of improving education.\u0026nbsp; Not only has he offered a lower base increase (3% as opposed to the 4% that had been expected under his compact with President Napolitano) but he is now proposing that Cal Grant funding be treated as a trade-off for base funding.\u0026nbsp; He is thereby reinforcing Sacramento's insistence that spending on student financial aid be counted as part of the calculation of state funding for UC and CSU.\u0026nbsp; \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThere are some positive one-time allocations for deferred maintenance and selected programs at the two sectors.\u0026nbsp; But one time allocations are band-aids.\u0026nbsp; They do little to address the strain on faculty, staff and students caused by the increases in enrollments during the long decade of reduced state funding.\u0026nbsp; They do little to address the long-term capital needs of both CSU and UC.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The Governor has gone on record as insisting he doesn't \"\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.vanityfair.com\/news\/2017\/07\/jerry-brown-climate-change\"\u003Eknow what a legacy is\u003C\/a\u003E.\"\u0026nbsp; That's just as well.\u0026nbsp; In higher education at least it isn't a pretty one.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1608217257865903573\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2018\/05\/governor-brown-renews-his-commitment-to.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/1608217257865903573"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/1608217257865903573"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2018\/05\/governor-brown-renews-his-commitment-to.html","title":"Governor Brown Renews His Commitment to Educational Decline"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Michael Meranze"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/05336793340375780406"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-8QRRfLiOgtY\/WvYZlUAP7gI\/AAAAAAAABWM\/nG7YI2m6NY8Sp7_OitmFRHD1uGF_9jrrgCLcBGAs\/s72-c\/_aqueduct_ruins_2.JPG","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-5936906012924456612"},"published":{"$t":"2016-03-11T10:49:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T18:21:28.624-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Academic Senate"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Austerity"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Employee Benefits"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Governance"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Janet Napolitano"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Management"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Pension"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Shared Governance"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"President Napolitano Endorses ROTF: Fails to Respond to Senate and Union Analyses (UPDATED)"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-xazCyvbK2BI\/VuMSSm6hAdI\/AAAAAAAAA1U\/N2lpmRDHZxc42ihbNEeX_koFRIqjy_xgQ\/s1600\/AAUP--Pension%2Bimage.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-xazCyvbK2BI\/VuMSSm6hAdI\/AAAAAAAAA1U\/N2lpmRDHZxc42ihbNEeX_koFRIqjy_xgQ\/s1600\/AAUP--Pension%2Bimage.jpg\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003EPresident's Proposal\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EMarch 11, 2016\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EMEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EDear Colleagues:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EI am writing to outline the proposal for the new retirement program I am bringing to The Regents later this month that includes new retirement benefits for future UC employees.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAs a reminder, the new retirement benefits will apply only to UC employees hired on or after July 1, 2016. Current employees and retirees are unaffected by these changes as accrued pension benefits are protected by law and cannot be reduced or revoked.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EBefore getting into the specifics of my proposal, I want to share with you my thinking behind it.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe University of California is a very special institution. There are other fine universities, but there is no other university on the planet that contributes as much to the public, in as many ways as UC does. Arguably, no other single institution does as much for so many.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAnd at the heart of everything we do, and the excellence UC is renowned for, are our talented faculty and staff. Our people are what make UC great.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EMaintaining excellence on such a massive scale is no small task. And it does not come cheaply.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EEverything we do — from teaching students, to treating patients and training the next generation of doctors, to redefining the boundaries of what we know, to creating technologies that give rise to new industries, to helping to ensure the vitality of California’s agricultural resources, and everything in between, requires significant financial resources.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWhen I accepted the opportunity to lead UC two and a half years ago, it was clear to me that one of the most important goals of my presidency would be to maintain UC’s excellence while ensuring a solid financial foundation for UC’s future.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThis core principle of protecting both UC’s excellence and its long-term financial health was the basis for last year’s multi-year funding agreement with the State, and is the primary driver of my retirement proposal.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe budget agreement with the Governor and the Legislature last year marked a significant milestone in support of this goal by creating an era of increased State funding and financial stability for the University. Importantly, the agreement reflects the State government’s recognition of the need to invest in UC.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EUnder this agreement, UC is receiving nearly $1 billion in new annual revenue and one-time funding over the next several years, which will help ensure the University’s long-term financial stability and provides critical funding for many UC priorities.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAmong other things, this funding allows us to budget for regular pay increases for faculty and staff over the next several years, and make merit-based pay a more regular component of our systemwide salary programs.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe $1 billion includes $436 million in one-time funds to help pay down our unfunded pension liability, which is key to ensuring the long-term fiscal solvency of the UC pension plan.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ETo help secure the financial stability of UC and as part of the agreement, I am proposing to The Regents that they approve implementation of a new set of retirement benefits for future UC employees hired on or after July 1, 2016, that limits the pensionable salary for future UC employees, mirroring the cap on pensionable pay for state employees under the 2013 California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (the “PEPRA cap”).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EFollowing completion of the budget agreement, which was approved by The Regents, I convened a systemwide task force to suggest options for the new retirement benefits for future employees, consistent with the PEPRA cap.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ETask force members included faculty, staff, and representatives from the Academic Senate, the Staff Advisors to The Regents, the Council of UC Staff Assemblies, UC labor unions, and UC administrators.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe task force submitted its recommendations to me in December, and during January and February, \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EI invited members of the entire UC community to share with me their thoughts about those recommendations.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EI want to thank the task force members for their good and thoughtful work, and also the hundreds of faculty and staff who shared their comments, concerns, and ideas with me.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EMany of you expressed concern that a new set of retirement benefits could harm the University’s ability to attract and retain top-tier faculty. Improving overall employee compensation and the stability of the UC pension plan were also common concerns.  Another concern many of you raised was the need for more retirement education and services to help employees prepare successfully for retirement.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EFor those of you who shared your views with me, I want you to know I paid close attention.  My proposal addresses not only these concerns, but other priorities as well.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EBuilding upon the work of task force, and after much discussion with numerous stakeholders and careful consideration of the input I received from faculty and staff, I will be bringing a package proposal to The Regents that will allow us to:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cul\u003E\u003Cli\u003EEnsure UC’s long-term financial stability, including keeping the UC pension plan strong and continuing to pay down our unfunded pension liability;\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EWithin the fiscal constraints we face, maintain the caliber of UC personnel and the University’s excellence by offering attractive overall compensation, including retirement benefits, for new faculty and staff;\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EFocus on overall employee compensation by (1) allowing UC to budget for regular pay increases for faculty and staff, and (2) making merit-based pay a regular component of systemwide salary programs to reward employees based on their contributions to the University;\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EPreserve UC’s quality, which requires recruiting and retaining quality personnel, especially faculty, by devoting resources to help campuses attract and retain faculty and key staff, and improve the student experience; and\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EOffer enhanced retirement education and counseling services to all UC employees, as part of the University’s commitment to help employees be “retirement ready.”\u003C\/li\u003E\u003C\/ul\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ERegarding the new retirement program specifically, I am proposing that future employees hired on or after July 1, 2016, be offered a choice between two options:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EOption 1 – Pension + 401(k)-style supplemental benefit: The current UC pension benefit capped at the PEPRA salary limit (currently $117,020) plus a supplemental 401(k)-style benefit for eligible employee pay up to the Internal Revenue Service limit (currently $265,000).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EOption 2 – New 401(k)-style benefit: A new stand-alone 401(k)-style plan with benefits-eligible employee pay up to the Internal Revenue Service limit (currently $265,000).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ESince we compete in a global market for faculty, often against elite private institutions that can typically pay more than UC, maintaining a pension benefit along with a 401(k)-style supplement is important to attracting and retaining the caliber of personnel we need to maintain UC’s excellence.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAt the same time, our workforce is highly diverse and people have different retirement needs and goals. A new stand-alone 401(k)-style retirement benefit allows us to offer an attractive retirement benefit to employees who work at UC for only a few years and value a portable retirement benefit they can take with them, and\/or who prefer to personally manage their retirement savings.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EYou can find a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/rotf-fact-sheet.pdf\"\u003Echart that further summarizes the features of the two options online herePDF\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EIn short, I believe this proposal supports the University’s ongoing excellence and will significantly bolster the long-term financial stability of UC and its retirement program, while providing critical funding for other University priorities.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EI again want to thank the task force members, and the many faculty and staff who shared their views with me.  The input I received from the task force and the University community was invaluable in formulating this proposal.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EYours very truly,\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EJanet Napolitano\u003Cbr \/\u003EPresident\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe statement can be found posted at:\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/presidents-proposal.html\"\u003E http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/presidents-proposal.html\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EUPDATE: More detail can be found at:\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/faq.html\"\u003E http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/faq.html\u003C\/a\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5936906012924456612\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/03\/president-napolitano-endorses-rotf.html#comment-form","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/5936906012924456612"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/5936906012924456612"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/03\/president-napolitano-endorses-rotf.html","title":"President Napolitano Endorses ROTF: Fails to Respond to Senate and Union Analyses (UPDATED)"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Michael Meranze"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/05336793340375780406"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-xazCyvbK2BI\/VuMSSm6hAdI\/AAAAAAAAA1U\/N2lpmRDHZxc42ihbNEeX_koFRIqjy_xgQ\/s72-c\/AAUP--Pension%2Bimage.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-785598063146511321"},"published":{"$t":"2016-03-07T07:42:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T18:21:28.639-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Administrative Overreach"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"For-Profit"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Governance"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Management"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC Berkeley"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC Davis"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC Riverside"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Managerial Disconnect"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-yIOaTkThckM\/VtzaPIxhuAI\/AAAAAAAAA1A\/8bkQZnCLM0k\/s1600\/marlborough-house-time-of-anne-mansion-westminster-london-pall-mall-B8P4GJ.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"265\" src=\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-yIOaTkThckM\/VtzaPIxhuAI\/AAAAAAAAA1A\/8bkQZnCLM0k\/s320\/marlborough-house-time-of-anne-mansion-westminster-london-pall-mall-B8P4GJ.jpg\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.latimes.com\/local\/lanow\/la-me-ln-uc-davis-chancellor-20160304-story.html\"\u003Escandal engulfing\u003C\/a\u003E UC Davis Chancellor Katehi is only the latest sign of the disconnection between our managerial elite and the rest of the University. While students face increased tuition and debt, faculty and staff face a reduction in benefits, and the entire Berkeley campus faces the possibility of a reduction in academic range and quality, some managers operate in a bubble of their own, \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.weforum.org\/agenda\/2015\/01\/how-are-universities-adapting-to-globalization\/\"\u003Ehobnobbing in Davos\u003C\/a\u003E and \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.sacbee.com\/news\/investigations\/the-public-eye\/article64041327.html\"\u003Ebeing paid to sit on corporate boards\u003C\/a\u003E. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe story surrounding Chancellor Katehi is fairly simple.  It turns out that she \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.sacbee.com\/news\/investigations\/the-public-eye\/article63917982.html\"\u003Eaccepted a position\u003C\/a\u003E on the Board of the Devry Educational Group, a for-profit college under investigation by two federal agencies. Before that she had also served on the Board of John Wiley and Sons, a publisher of textbooks and academic journals from whom she received $420,000 in stocks and cash.  Each of these positions posed potential conflicts of interest: advising companies doing business with UC, her primary employer; supporting a for-profit (and arguably sub-prime) competitor to UC; and assuming responsibility for a textbook company (and implicitly its profits) at a time when the University as a whole has been seeking to ensure lower textbook costs for students.  To make matters worse, it appears that Chancellor Katehi accepted the position at Devry without getting the required approval from UCOP.  She has now resigned from the DeVry Board. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe case of Chancellor Katehi is remarkable, of course, because her choices have raised obvious questions about conflict of interest.  It is hard to imagine that neither she nor her staff could see that joining these Boards (especially DeVry) was unacceptable.  If nothing else, one would think that they would recognize that even the appearance of these conflicts would damage the ability of UC to justify increased state funding.  It certainly does not generate confidence in her effectively navigating the challenges facing higher education in general and UC in particular.  Indeed the situation boggles the mind. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EBut it would be a mistake to focus too much on her singular case.  She is not alone among Chancellors in serving on Boards (and receiving supplemental pay). Nor is she alone in assuming that it is\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.sacbee.com\/opinion\/editorials\/article64148602.html\"\u003E productive for Chancellors to serve on corporate boards\u003C\/a\u003E.  It is this last assumption that lies at the heart of the problem. One aspect of so-called \"new normal\" (which is \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/the-new-normal-isnt-normal-it-erodes.html\"\u003Eneither new nor normal\u003C\/a\u003E) has been the growing separation of campus and universities managers from the vast majority of employees and the everyday life of their institutions. Determining the extent of \"administrative bloat\" is admittedly complicated (most of the additional positions are not high-level) but the growth of administrative structures have shifted funds from the core practices of the university--teaching and research. Moreover, the persistence of administrative growth speaks to the lack of transparency that campus administrations provide about the actual functions and effects of this growth.  Whatever the justification, the end result is a senior administration cut off from campus and operating in an endless round of fundraising while caught in the echo-chamber of assumptions about the need for closer ties to business and their management models, which are in turn fueled by state funding cuts that rest in part on the belief in their inevitability.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EOne sign of this separation is Chancellor Katehi's retriggering of the perennial question of executive comp, but it is not the only one. Chris and I have pointed repeatedly to UCOP's consistent willingness to avoid the established mechanisms of shared governance in the University. (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/this-week-at-regents-ii-medical-centers.html\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/this-week-at-regents-budget.html\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E, and \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/the-weak-vs-wrong-and-emerging.html\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E for recent discussions).  The effect of withdrawing from public discussion is, paradoxically, a more deeply politicized process in which all the key decisions appear to be made by hand-picked participants in a closed system that wastes most of the collective intelligence of the institution. The campuses are not free of similar issues.  Let me mention two:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E1) The clearest example of the problem is the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/uc-berkeley-chancellor-says-new-normal.html\"\u003Eongoing crisis at UC Berkeley\u003C\/a\u003E.  In the period after Chancellor Dirks' held his meeting with faculty and staff (which provided little if any clarity by all accounts) the public discussion of change has proceeded through rumor and fear.  First were the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.dailycal.org\/2016\/02\/25\/campus-considers-dissolving-college-chemistry-cut-costs\/\"\u003Erumors of the closing of the College of Chemistry\u003C\/a\u003E with \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.dailycal.org\/2016\/03\/04\/students-rally-possible-dissolution-campus-college-chemistry-friday\/\"\u003Eresulting protests\u003C\/a\u003E,  Then there was the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/sph.berkeley.edu\/sites\/default\/files\/Undergraduate-program-update_2-29-16.pdf\"\u003Eclosing\u003C\/a\u003E and\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.dailycal.org\/2016\/03\/04\/school-of-public-health-reopens\/\"\u003E reopening\u003C\/a\u003E of the major in public health, amid rumors surrounding the possibility of major cuts to the School of Public Health.  Although it may be inevitable that there will be rumor and agitation at a time of crisis, what we might call \"negotiation by anxiety and innuendo\" is a sign of the lack of open and transparent discussion.  Even the Chancellor's meeting with faculty and staff \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/the-new-normal-isnt-normal-it-erodes.html\"\u003Eseemingly offered little to assure people\u003C\/a\u003E of genuine, open, campus discussion of budget options based upon shared evidence and data made available to the campus as a whole.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E2) A similar faux discussion recently took place at UC Riverside.  There \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2016\/02\/01\/uc-riverside-faculty-survey-suggests-outrage-cluster-hiring-initiative\"\u003Ethe issue concerned the constitution and extent of a new proposal for cluster hires\u003C\/a\u003E.  There is much to be said in favor of cluster hires (although they are no panacea and in some cases can simply be a way of forcing more labor onto faculty members). But for them to work they need to be initiated from the bottom and grow out of teaching and research initiatives.  At Riverside the opposite was the case.  The proposal was initiated from the top by a new administration and, to listen to the results of a survey of faculty experience, the process was unclear, inconsistent, and in the end open to serious distortion at the top. From Inside Higher Ed:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003E\"The process was chaotic, disorganized and very opaque,” reads one narrative survey response, echoing dozens of others expressing similar criticisms. “Enormous amounts of the faculty’s time was wasted. … We’ve been given new instructions repeatedly, have had to redo job descriptions and must search for all the positions simultaneously, which will be very difficult. I doubt the outcome will be good.” \u003C\/blockquote\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe new Provost Paul D'Anieri, on the other hand, speaking in the language of ownership often typical of senior management, insisted that UC Riverside is \"\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/news\/2016\/02\/01\/uc-riverside-faculty-survey-suggests-outrage-cluster-hiring-initiative\"\u003Every excited\u003C\/a\u003E\" about the clusters.  In this context I suppose that the faculty who spoke out are not part of Riverside.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EEach of these cases--Chancellor Katehi's concealed service to UC competitors, UCOP's unilateralism, Berkeley's concealed re-engineering, and Riverside's top down hiring--is a symptom of the general disconnect of senior administrators from the everyday life of the university community.  Remarkably, their faith in the wisdom of that world survives the self-inflicted wounds that recur again and again through the disconnection between central administration and faculty and staff. In this the University mimics the world at large, where technocratic elites, anxiously mixing with the masters of capital and business, ignore the needs of the population while their societies and polities spiral ever downward.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/785598063146511321\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/03\/managerial-disconnect_7.html#comment-form","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/785598063146511321"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/785598063146511321"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/03\/managerial-disconnect_7.html","title":"Managerial Disconnect"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Michael Meranze"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/05336793340375780406"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-yIOaTkThckM\/VtzaPIxhuAI\/AAAAAAAAA1A\/8bkQZnCLM0k\/s72-c\/marlborough-house-time-of-anne-mansion-westminster-london-pall-mall-B8P4GJ.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-7600787055004370159"},"published":{"$t":"2016-02-13T11:27:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T18:22:39.634-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Academic Labor"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Academic Senate"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Employee Benefits"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"guest post"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Janet Napolitano"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Management"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"On the Virtues of Defining Benefits: Two Readings of the Retirements Options Task Force"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;helvetica neue\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;arial\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;helvetica\u0026quot; , sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-wkUWfJmT44Q\/Vr9v-ClAHlI\/AAAAAAAADEc\/lGRNRSkGBYI\/s1600\/protest-crap.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-wkUWfJmT44Q\/Vr9v-ClAHlI\/AAAAAAAADEc\/lGRNRSkGBYI\/s320\/protest-crap.jpg\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Ci\u003EIn the context of ongoing doubts about the value of Defined Benefit pensions to public institutions and the people who serve them, we offer two pieces of essential reading for your long weekend.\u0026nbsp; One is the UC Academic Senate \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/reports\/documents\/DH_JN_ROTF_2-12-16.pdf\"\u003EChair's letter to President Janet Napolitano\u003C\/a\u003E (Hare) about the Senate review of the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/rotf-report.pdf\"\u003Erecommendations of her Retirement Options Task Force\u003C\/a\u003E (ROTF). Posted a day after the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/reports\/documents\/AssemblyPensionResolution2-10-16.pdf\"\u003EAcademic Senate Assembly rejected the ROTF recommendations in their entirety\u003C\/a\u003E, this 6-page letter summarizes over one hundred pages of Senate commentary from across the UC system. The commentary is distinctive for detailing the abundant negative consequences of the proposed \"2016 Tier\" ROTF proposals: one is that the higher salaries required to make up for lower retirement benefits will come out of strapped campus operating budgets, insuring more structural crises of the kind the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/uc-berkeley-chancellor-says-new-normal.html\"\u003EBerkeley campus announced this week\u003C\/a\u003E.\u0026nbsp; It is also distinctive for rejecting the Task Force ground rules, meaning both the salary cap on DB pensions for 2016 Tier hires and the mode of its imposition--the back-room deal between two people, Gov. Jerry Brown and UC President Napolitano. The Hare letter notes that the ROTF recommendations \"received no positive support,\" and that their effect would help change UC into \"a stepping stone to a better institution rather than a university where faculty invest their lives and careers.\" Pointing out that since no current employees would be affected,\"no comments can be ascribed to self-interest,\" the Senate letter notes that members saw the ROTF options as \"the latest in a series of [UC] compromises to quality.\"\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; At a time when Jerry Brown and the rest of the Sacramento Democrats seem bent on making UC average, when even epochal decisions are often made by small, hand-picked executive groups, and when most Task Force members and assorted onlookers treated the cap and\u0026nbsp; new tier as a done deal, the Senate committees have rebelled. \u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Ci\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Ci\u003EWe cross-post a second piece below. Published yesterday in the \u003C\/i\u003EDaily Cal\u003Ci\u003E under the title, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.dailycal.org\/2016\/02\/12\/343390\/\"\u003E\"Retirement Plan Impacts Entire Community,\"\u003C\/a\u003E this article by Celeste Langan (an English professor and Berkeley Faculty Association Co-Chair) could also be called, \"How Defined Benefit Pensions Support Academic Labor.\" In addition to offering a useful summary of the critique of the ROTF plan (paragraphs 3 and 6), Prof. Langan ties the need for real retirement security to the early-career sacrifices made by academics of all fields, as they spend the first five to fifteen of their prime earning years on reduced or nonexistent salaries in preparation for their careers. To put it another way, academics in effect subsidize society in the formation of the high grade of \"human capital\" represented by everyone from anti-viral molecular chemists to pre-Columbian art specialists. Those who later get tenure-track jobs have freer and more interesting work than do most Americans, but the loss of much personal income can reasonably be balanced by DB stability (and efficiency).\u0026nbsp; Prof. Langan implies that the generic hostility to pensions is undermining the university's ability to reproduce its own existence, and that in any case pensions are not something academics need to be defensive about. \u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-family: \u0026quot;helvetica neue\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;arial\u0026quot; , \u0026quot;helvetica\u0026quot; , sans-serif;\"\u003E\u003Cspan style=\"font-size: large;\"\u003E***** \u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/span\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWhat’s all the fuss over pensions about? Why should you bother reading about retirement benefits, especially when the proposed changes don’t affect current faculty and staff, whose pensions are secure? Surely there are more important concerns in this age of austerity: Aren’t we expecting the campus to announce budget cuts this month? What about lecturers, custodians and parking attendants seeking a living wage, and students faced with rising fees and food insecurity?\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EHere’s why it matters: Unless we resist, the UC Office of the President is prepared to institute changes to the way faculty are compensated that will accelerate the privatization of the University of California. In effect, UCOP wants to make the remuneration of faculty and staff more and more dependent on the monoculture of “the market,” thereby undermining the partial protection from economic insecurity upon which the intellectual freedom of academic work depends. Although more subtle, the proposed changes are as much an attack on the principles of academic freedom as Wisconsin’s weakening of tenure protection for its university faculty. These are strong claims, I realize, so let me explain. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EPretty much everyone agrees that the only thing wrong with the current retirement plan for UC employees — UC Retirement Plan, or UCRP — is that both the California state legislature and university stopped making payments to it for 20 years — when investment returns were so robust that regular payments seemed unnecessary — until the financial collapse of 2008. Rather than collaborate on a gradual plan to fix the consequence of these suspended payments, however, Gov. Jerry Brown and UC President Janet Napolitano have privately negotiated a deal that places blame for the problem on the structural foundation of UCRP: defined benefits. The agreement is a bad deal, because it will neither significantly reduce the unfunded liability nor yield significant savings for the university. For that reason it ought to be opposed; we should return the proffered $96 million to the state and retain our current system. But we also need to consider more carefully what’s at stake in the attack on “defined benefit” plans such as the UCRP. While there’s been much criticism of Napolitano’s agreement to the PEPRA cap of $117,000 pensionable salary, that’s not the real issue; UCOP has made clear its intention to supplement benefits for higher-earning faculty and staff. The more fundamental interest — made explicit in the FAQs and other documents about the proposed plans — is to shift “risk” to employees. Even before she had appointed her “Retirement Options Task Force,” Napolitano had announced her intention to introduce a full “defined contribution” plan. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe difference between “defined benefits” and “defined contributions” is fairly simple, although the names are confusing. The employer makes “contributions” in both cases (contributions are deferred compensation, where the employee foregoes a higher current salary for future retirement security). In “defined benefits” (DB) plans, the employer invests these contributions, and the risk is lessened by scale; “defined contributions” go directly to the employee to invest privately in IRAs. In DC plans, if you don’t invest wisely, or if the market crashes, your retirement savings are wiped out (as happened to many with DC plans in 2008). The UCRP, by contrast, uses the DB model, described as “golden handcuffs.” Long recognized as the university’s “competitive advantage” in hiring and retaining a dedicated faculty and staff, the UCRP encourages long-term employment because the percentage of pensionable salary is multiplied by years of service. You can more easily dedicate your academic life to long-term projects or to research topics not likely to yield a “commercial application” if you know your retirement benefits are secure. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EUCOP defends the shift from DB to DC as “facilitating shared responsibility between UC and employees for individual retirement readiness.” That defense is galling for two reasons. First, the statement suggests that employees have not been sharing responsibility for retirement readiness, despite the obvious fact that employees contribute 7 to 8 percent of their salaries to the UCRP. But what’s almost sinful about UCOP’s moralizing tone is that it entirely ignores the enormous financial risk undertaken by scholars. In order to gain expertise in a discipline, develop an original research project and intern as teachers, graduate students postpone full-time employment for an average of six to 10 years, often taking on debt to pay fees or to supplement inadequate stipends (I remember my elder sister asking me, “Do you know I’ve made $400,000 while you’ve been in graduate school?” That was 25 years ago, and she was only making $50,000 a year). They take on this risk despite the (increasing) scarcity of tenure-track positions. Then, if they are lucky and talented enough to find employment — at the ripe age of 36, the average for assistant professors hired by the university in 2013-14 — they must move to areas such as Berkeley where housing costs are prohibitive. While home ownership has long been an alternative investment strategy for safe retirement, few assistant professors are now able to accumulate the savings that might enable a down payment on a house in or near Berkeley. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EIt’s clear that UCOP will not realize significant savings by capping defined benefits and paying higher salaries and supplementary contributions to offset the cap. What it would accomplish — and this is why their plan should be opposed — is the erosion of an ecosystem that has allowed research and free inquiry to flourish. Opponents often describe both tenure and defined benefits as obsolete, vestigial privileges. I’d suggest the reverse: The academic “guild” model (long apprenticeship, secure employment and retirement) offers proof that freedom is best protected when workers and thinkers are not subjected to the vagaries of the market, when they’re liberated by long-term investment strategies from the pressures of quick profit and just-in-time production."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/7600787055004370159\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/on-virtues-of-defining-benefits-two.html#comment-form","title":"7 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/7600787055004370159"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/7600787055004370159"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/on-virtues-of-defining-benefits-two.html","title":"On the Virtues of Defining Benefits: Two Readings of the Retirements Options Task Force"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Chris Newfield"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/01078395415386100872"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-wkUWfJmT44Q\/Vr9v-ClAHlI\/AAAAAAAADEc\/lGRNRSkGBYI\/s72-c\/protest-crap.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"7"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-1953558967582000013"},"published":{"$t":"2016-02-10T12:30:00.004-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T17:56:39.508-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Admin Responses"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Austerity"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Budget"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Crisis"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC Berkeley"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"UC Berkeley Chancellor Says New Normal Is Here to Stay, Will Restructure Campus"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cdiv style=\"clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"212\" src=\"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-qI7p71_xmX8\/Vruel5VMWgI\/AAAAAAAADD8\/4c_xRZDTQY4\/s320\/Dirks%2BNicholas.jpg\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThe UC Berkeley community received this email this morning. You can find coverage at \u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/www.insidehighered.com\/quicktakes\/2016\/02\/10\/breaking-berkeley-plans-new-normal\"\u003EInside Higher Ed\u003C\/a\u003E and \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/chronicle.com\/blogs\/ticker\/acknowledging-new-normal-berkeley-announces-broad-plan-to-shore-up-finances\/108528\"\u003EThe Chronicle of Higher Education\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EFrom: \u003Cb\u003ENicholas Dirks Chancellor\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EDate: Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:13 AM\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ESubject: Launch of campus strategic planning and analysis process\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ETo: \u003Ca href=\"mailto:calmessages_communication@lists.berkeley.edu\"\u003Ecalmessages_communication@lists.berkeley.edu\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EDear Colleagues,\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EToday, we announce a strategic planning process designed to ensure our excellence in the face of continuing financial challenges. \u0026nbsp; This process is comprehensive, encompassing academic and administrative realignment, investment in our fundraising and revenue-generating activities, and the reexamination of all our discretionary expenditures, including athletics and capital costs.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWhether in California, Wisconsin, Michigan, or elsewhere, public research universities have been challenged not only by dwindling state support but also by shifting public opinion and momentous social and economic change. \u0026nbsp;Even without financial challenges, the pursuit of our goals would require that we continually assess the well being of our institution, while simultaneously holding true to our core values.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENow, for a variety of reasons, both internal and external, we face a substantial and growing structural deficit, one that we cannot long sustain. Because this deficit does not reflect a short-term dip in funding, but a “new normal” era of reduced state support, responding to this deficit requires that we take a long-term view. We must focus not only on the immediate challenge, but also on the deeper task of enhancing our institution’s long-term sustainability and self-reliance. This is a moment not just to stabilize our finances, but also to consider our future as a leading institution of higher education. The guide for this effort has to be our core mission: to enhance the educational experience we provide to students while maintaining our commitment to access; to increase the support we provide for ground-breaking research and scholarship; and to align our public outreach with 21st century societal needs.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EAccordingly, we are embarking on a comprehensive strategic planning process, the aim of which is to reimagine the fundamental structures and processes of our university. We need to evaluate how best to structure the university so as to maintain, above all, our excellence as an institution. To be sure, ahead of us lie difficult decisions and hard work, but we are fortunate to be taking this on early enough that we have the resources and time necessary to be thoughtful and strategic.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EIn this effort, we are committed to broad engagement with campus constituencies. Since last June, the senior academic and administrative leadership has been in discussion with the Academic Senate and the deans, the trustees of the UC Berkeley Foundation, our new Board of Visitors, and the Office of the President (which is ready to provide significant financial assistance). Now, as we transition from analysis to comprehensive planning, we want to be sure that Berkeley’s faculty, staff, students, and alumni are well informed. Even as some of the investments we make will be greeted enthusiastically, we also know that some of the changes we will undergo will be painful. Throughout the process, however, it is crucial that everyone work together to ensure both that we make the right decisions and that we make them in the right ways.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EEvery aspect of Berkeley’s operations and organizational structure will be under consideration. \u0026nbsp;Our decision-making, however, will be strategic. \u0026nbsp;We are identifying areas in which new investments will both produce additional resources and enhance our strength; and we are identifying other areas in which the expenditure of resources may be less critical to our overall excellence and core mission. \u0026nbsp;Some important campus-level initiatives, such as the Berkeley Global Campus and the Undergraduate Initiative, will be entirely supported by philanthropy and external partnerships (aside from small amounts of seed funding).\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWhile our short-term measures – some of which were outlined in our recent budget call letter – are relatively straightforward, our longer-term initiatives will be more complex. These include:\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cul\u003E\u003Cli\u003EEvaluating our workforce in relationship to our changing needs and resources. This will also entail a new mechanism for the monitoring and control of staffing levels – mirroring the discipline we have long applied to hiring of faculty. We will also review our senior administrative functions, including central units, to reduce redundancy and create new forms of collaboration. We will complete the assessment and analysis of Berkeley’s workforce and its future needs by the end of the current academic year.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EImproving support for our teaching and research while also redesigning many of our work processes in order to achieve greater efficiency. For example, to better support our faculty’s ability to compete for research grants, we have begun an end-to-end review that includes research support activities in academic units, the Sponsored Projects Office, Campus Shared Services (CSS), and Contracts and Grants Accounting. \u0026nbsp;The shortcomings in CSS, which we have already begun to address, will continue to be evaluated; we will make all necessary changes.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EMaking new investments to expand our fundraising capacity along with other new areas for external support. In order to achieve the best results in this domain, we are also designing a campus-wide approach to philanthropy – one that will increase our endowment, expand our fundraising abilities, improve donor relations and reach out more effectively to supporters.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EAchieving additional revenues through our “brand,” land, and other assets. \u0026nbsp;This initiative will ensure that we are earning maximum revenues from licensing and other financial agreements, while protecting our image and being true to our values. \u0026nbsp;It will also explore ways in which the wise use of our real estate and other assets can both yield revenues and help to address the ever-pressing housing needs of our faculty, staff, and students.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EWorking with the Academic Senate leadership and the deans of the schools, colleges, and Letters \u0026amp; Sciences divisions on the redesign of some of our academic structures. Realignment will ensure that we are excellent in all we choose to do, in our research and in our educational mission. \u0026nbsp;In some instances, this means strengthening units as is; in others, it means narrowing the focus to specific areas of excellence; and in some instances it means combining and rearranging to capture intellectual synergies and to ensure sufficient scale academically, administratively, and financially. \u0026nbsp;Even if our financial situation were better, these changes make academic sense, ensuring that all our units have a scale, and sufficient support, to mount the strongest programs. This initiative will involve extensive consultation, consideration, and testing.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003EExpanding online offerings and enrollments in University Extension, as well as professional and other master’s programs that earn revenue. In addition, over the course of the next few years, financial support for our admitted doctoral students will be improved, while some enrollments will be reduced and brought into alignment with those at peer universities in order to better support the quality of these programs.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003Cli\u003ERe-examining the gap between Intercollegiate Athletics’ revenue and expenses, which has widened in recent years. \u0026nbsp;To reverse this, we are pursuing major opportunities to increase revenues and donor support for scholarships, while looking at ways to reduce administrative costs and other team expenses.\u003C\/li\u003E\u003C\/ul\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cb\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cb\u003ELeadership and Engagement\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EExecutive Vice Chancellor and Provost (EVCP) Claude Steele is leading this effort, with Vice Provost for Strategic Academic and Facilities Planning Andrew Szeri and Associate Vice Chancellor-Chief Financial Officer Rosemarie Rae serving as the implementation leads.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EEVCP Steele has overseen the design and establishment of a structure that will provide for engagement and consultation with faculty, staff, students, and alumni, as well as effective leadership of and coordination between the various initiatives. An Advisory Council, to be co-led by Academic Senate Chair Ben Hermalin and Andrew Szeri will provide guidance and input. Final decisions will rest with the Chancellor and a body convened for this express purpose. To support the design and implementation of the individual initiatives, we are also establishing an Office of Strategic Initiatives, which will provide analytical support and coordination to the working teams and leaders of the various initiatives.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EWe realize that many of you will want to know more, and have many good ideas to offer for our consideration. In the months ahead, we will be engaging with faculty, staff and students in order to share more detailed information, answer questions and solicit suggestions.You will also hear more from the leadership of your school, college, or administrative unit as work on the initiatives broadens and deepens across the campus. We have already briefed and will continue to engage with the leadership of both the ASUC and the Graduate Assembly, as well as Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Committee and the Berkeley Staff Assembly, to ensure that staff and student perspectives, ideas and concerns are well represented and incorporated throughout the planning and implementation process.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThe phased implementation of changes and new policies will commence in summer 2016. While we will take some steps quickly, others, such as any significant academic and administrative realignment, will take longer. \u0026nbsp;To learn more and read regular updates, please visit \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/osi.berkeley.edu\/\"\u003Eosi.berkeley.edu\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cb\u003EThe Future of Public Higher Education\u003C\/b\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EThis endeavor must not be interpreted as an abandonment of our commitment to a public mission nor to our efforts to advocate for increased public funding for higher education. \u0026nbsp;We are fighting to maintain our excellence against those who might equate “public” with mediocrity, against those who have lost faith in the need for higher education to serve as an engine of social mobility, and against those who no longer believe that university-based inquiry and research have the power to shape our society and economy for the better. \u0026nbsp;What we are engaged in here is a fundamental defense of the concept of the public university, a concept that we must reinvent in order to preserve.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EBerkeley draws strength from its faculty, staff, and students that are second to none – doing excellent and innovative work in research, teaching, and public service. \u0026nbsp;We rely on a tradition of shared governance with the faculty that will be the basis for the decisions we make and the changes we implement in the months and years ahead. \u0026nbsp;Even now, we plan to do what we have always done at Berkeley: lead the way, and continue to serve as a beacon for the state, the nation, and the world.\u0026nbsp;\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003EFiat Lux.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003ENicholas Dirks\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cdiv\u003E\u2028Chancellor\u003C\/div\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1953558967582000013\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/uc-berkeley-chancellor-says-new-normal.html#comment-form","title":"4 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/1953558967582000013"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/1953558967582000013"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/uc-berkeley-chancellor-says-new-normal.html","title":"UC Berkeley Chancellor Says New Normal Is Here to Stay, Will Restructure Campus"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Chris Newfield"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/01078395415386100872"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-qI7p71_xmX8\/Vruel5VMWgI\/AAAAAAAADD8\/4c_xRZDTQY4\/s72-c\/Dirks%2BNicholas.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"4"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-2928806765894768807"},"published":{"$t":"2016-02-04T08:46:00.001-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T18:34:41.183-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Employee Benefits"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Faculty"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Governance"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Income"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Janet Napolitano"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jerry Brown"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Pension"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC Santa Barbara"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"UCSB Faculty Association Statement in Opposition to New Pension Tier"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator tr_bq\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: left;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-sn4xOXV66c4\/VrN_mZMQTwI\/AAAAAAAAAzs\/9h2dbcH7VYc\/s1600\/digging%2Ba%2Bhole%2Bdeeper.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-sn4xOXV66c4\/VrN_mZMQTwI\/AAAAAAAAAzs\/9h2dbcH7VYc\/s1600\/digging%2Ba%2Bhole%2Bdeeper.jpg\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003EThe following is a letter sent to Colleagues by the UCSB Faculty Association calling for opposition to the proposed new pension tier.\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cblockquote\u003EDear Colleagues:\u003Cbr \/\u003EWe are gratified by the strong response at the Town Hall of the faculty, resisting the unsound pension that UC is proposing to offer new hires starting July 1. Over 1,000 faculty have signed \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.protectmypension.org\/\"\u003Ethe petition\u003C\/a\u003E opposing the new tier proposals. We are resending this message to give you an opportunity to join your colleagues by signing the petition if you have not done so. The deadline for making known your opinions regarding these changes is February 16.\u003Cbr \/\u003EAllow us to share with you our reasons for objecting to the current proposal:\u003Cbr \/\u003E1) We share the task force chair's bleak account of the \"negative effects of the PEPRA cap on retention and timely retirement\" (A guide to reviewing the recommendations of the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/rotf-report.pdf\"\u003ERetirement Options Task Force\u003C\/a\u003E, p. 7). In other words, the future of the institution is at stake.\u003Cbr \/\u003E2) We take issue with the fact that while the acceptance of the PEPRA cap is presented as UC's side of the deal with the governor and the legislature, the latter's part of the deal has not been fulfilled:\u003Cbr \/\u003Ea) UCRP has NOT been acknowledged as a permanent state obligation;\u003Cbr \/\u003Eb) the State's promise \"of $436 M for the UCRP over the next three years\" to help finance the Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability (p.4 of the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/rotf-report.pdf\"\u003ETask Force report\u003C\/a\u003E) is a misrepresentation. As Michael Meranze has underlined, the Legislature actually has \"not engaged in any multi-year promise\". In addition, of the $10.7B or 12B UAAL (numbers depending on market-value or actuarial-value), the hypothetical sum of $436 is only a very small percentage, not accomplishing much. In sum, we object to completing our side of a (bad) deal, when there is no actual commitment on the other side.\u003Cbr \/\u003E3) We take issue with the top-down way this complex issue has been handled. The Task Force had to begin from a declared reality that no one in the UC system other than President Napolitano had a hand in ratifying. This is not shared governance. In addition, the fact that the recommendations of the Task Force, whatever their merit, can be taken or left by President Napolitano further erodes whatever good faith and intellectual effort went into these proposals.\u003Cbr \/\u003E4) We are not convinced by the Task Force's arguments that introducing a Defined Contribution option is fiscally advantageous. No credible empirical evidence exists in the report or in recent economic history to support the assertion. Moreover, the proposed options, in their concern for portability, favor short-term employees over long-term employees, further undermining faculty loyalty to the institution or a commitment to public service.\u003Cbr \/\u003E5) We object to the ramifications of adding a new tier to retirement benefits that creates financial divides between those hired before 2016 and those hired thereafter. Even more, we see these changes as part of a broader national trend to eviscerate tenure and full-time employment. Having to acknowledge such systematic differentials to new hires reduces not only our ability to recruit young faculty but also our pride in doing so as well as our willingness to encourage our students to become university professors.\u003Cbr \/\u003EFor more information on this issue, please visit our website at \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucsbfa.org\/\"\u003Eucsbfa.org\u003C\/a\u003E. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWe urge you to sign \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.protectmypension.org\/\"\u003Ethe petition\u003C\/a\u003E to express your opposition to proposed changes to the UC Retirement Plan.\u003Cbr \/\u003EUCOP has also set up a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/comments.html\"\u003Ecomment link\u003C\/a\u003E where you can provide your feedback on the task force recommendations. We urge you to express your concerns about the plan there. If you do, please also send a copy of your comments to us at \u003Ca href=\"mailto:newtier@cucfa.org\"\u003Enewtier@cucfa.org\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003EThank you for your attention to this important matter.\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe Board of the Santa Barbara Faculty Association\u003Cbr \/\u003EJulie Carlson\u003Cbr \/\u003EJorge Castillo\u003Cbr \/\u003ENelson Lichtenstein\u003Cbr \/\u003EConstance Penley\u003Cbr \/\u003EErika Rappaport\u003Cbr \/\u003EElisabeth Weber\u003Cbr \/\u003ERobert Williams\u003C\/blockquote\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2928806765894768807\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/ucsb-faculty-association-statement-in.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/2928806765894768807"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/2928806765894768807"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/02\/ucsb-faculty-association-statement-in.html","title":"UCSB Faculty Association Statement in Opposition to New Pension Tier"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Michael Meranze"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/05336793340375780406"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-sn4xOXV66c4\/VrN_mZMQTwI\/AAAAAAAAAzs\/9h2dbcH7VYc\/s72-c\/digging%2Ba%2Bhole%2Bdeeper.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-9182694895192572958"},"published":{"$t":"2016-01-20T13:32:00.000-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T18:33:45.509-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Employee Benefits"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Pension"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Shared Governance"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"UC Faculty Associations Oppose Proposed Changes to UC Pension Plan"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-cS3JmcPwe1c\/VqACphv03TI\/AAAAAAAADCM\/_vbl8ZylZpQ\/s1600\/Pension%2BCuts2.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-cS3JmcPwe1c\/VqACphv03TI\/AAAAAAAADCM\/_vbl8ZylZpQ\/s1600\/Pension%2BCuts2.jpg\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Ci\u003EThis is the statement released today by the Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA). A link to their petition can be found below.\u003C\/i\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe University of California is currently considering introducing a new pension plan for its employees hired after 2016.\u0026nbsp; These proposed changes will dramatically reduce pension benefits for most new faculty. The Academic Senate will be reviewing the proposals over the next few weeks. Your opportunity to provide input to the Senate lasts just a couple weeks. For some purposes, it will be most effective to provide input this week. Contact information is at the end of this document. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThis ill-conceived and ill-advised plan, which was negotiated behind closed doors by President Napolitano and Governor Brown without any engagement with the Academic Senate, the Regents, the Legislature, or the larger university community, will do serious damage to the quality of the University of California. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWhile the details are \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/rotf-report.pdf\"\u003Ehighly technical\u003C\/a\u003E the implications are not: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E1) This is a serious cut in benefits to faculty and many other professional staff, such as staff scientists and nurses, hired after July 2016.\u0026nbsp; (See pages 44, 45 and 84 of the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/rotf-report.pdf\"\u003Etask force report\u003C\/a\u003E.) \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E2) UC faculty are already \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/compensation.universityofcalifornia.edu\/total-remuneration-ladder-rank-faculty-2014.pdf\"\u003Emuch more poorly compensated\u003C\/a\u003E than faculty at UC's peer institutions despite the fact that the cost of living in most parts of California is very high. This plan will make it much harder to attract faculty and other professionals and keep them here. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E3) This plan does not do anything to make the existing pension system healthier and could actually decrease the rate at which the unfunded liability is retired. (See page 57 of the\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/rotf-report.pdf\"\u003E task force report\u003C\/a\u003E.) \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWe agree with the assessment of Academic Senate leaders J. Daniel Hare and James A. Chalfant's \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/ROTFReportGuide.pdf.pdf\"\u003Eanalysis\u003C\/a\u003E, who concluded: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\"If salaries don't increase to compensate for these reduced benefits, then UC will have to settle for a lower-quality of faculty who did not receive better offers elsewhere. Many UC faculty members were hired in spite of more lucrative salary offers elsewhere, just as many have either declined outside offers or declined to pursue them. It may have been true at one time that benefits made up for our uncompetitive salaries. The 2014 Total Remuneration Study showed that no longer to be the case. While salaries and benefits continue to lag, and we are contemplating making the lag even greater with the new-tier options, it is important to note that most of the non-pecuniary attributes of UC employment also are declining.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAs Academic Senate Chair Dan Hare stated in his remarks to the Regents in September: \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\"Any reduction in either salary or benefits surely will have consequences for the ability of UC to build and retain a future faculty that is as distinguished as the current faculty. As recommendations are brought forward in early 2016, I encourage the Regents to carefully consider not only the budgetary cost of future retirement options, but also their impact on how faculty members behave in terms of recruitment and retention. If we are not careful, small budgetary savings will risk far greater costs to the University, our students, and the citizens of California.\" \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EWe urge you to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.protectmypension.org\/\"\u003Esign our petition\u003C\/a\u003E to express your opposition to proposed changes to the UC Retirement Plan. We will forward the names of those that sign to local campus faculty welfare committees so they are aware of local concern about this issue. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EUCOP has also set up \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits\/comments.html\"\u003Ea comment link\u003C\/a\u003E where you can provide your feedback on the task force recommendations. We urge you to express your concerns about the plan there and please also send a copy of your comments to us at \u003Ca href=\"mailto:newtier@cucfa.org\"\u003Enewtier@cucfa.org\u003C\/a\u003E. "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/9182694895192572958\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/01\/uc-faculty-associations-oppose-proposed.html#comment-form","title":"13 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/9182694895192572958"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/9182694895192572958"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/01\/uc-faculty-associations-oppose-proposed.html","title":"UC Faculty Associations Oppose Proposed Changes to UC Pension Plan"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Chris Newfield"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/01078395415386100872"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"https:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-cS3JmcPwe1c\/VqACphv03TI\/AAAAAAAADCM\/_vbl8ZylZpQ\/s72-c\/Pension%2BCuts2.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"13"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-1108988961618480340"},"published":{"$t":"2016-01-17T13:32:00.003-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T18:33:45.460-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Administrative Overreach"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Employee Benefits"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Faculty"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Funding Model"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Income"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Janet Napolitano"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jerry Brown"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Pension"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UCOP"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Pensions, Politics, and the Failures of Leadership"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-sMP4DmtkRcY\/VpvtgAsZYlI\/AAAAAAAAAy8\/wvdt1jUZnHc\/s1600\/short%2Bterm%2Bthinking.png\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-sMP4DmtkRcY\/VpvtgAsZYlI\/AAAAAAAAAy8\/wvdt1jUZnHc\/s1600\/short%2Bterm%2Bthinking.png\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003EThe Task Force charged with making a silk purse from the sow's war of President Napolitano's pension agreement with Governor Brown \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003Eissued its report\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;on Friday. \u0026nbsp;To no one's surprise, the Task Force indicated that the task was impossible; given the limits the Task Force faced most faculty and many staff (especially in the health sciences) hired from July 1, 2016 \u003Cu\u003Ewill face dramatically reduced retirement benefits compared to current employees.\u003C\/u\u003E \u0026nbsp;This situation results from two interrelated factors: the actual budget deal that President Napolitano accepted and the desire on the part of Vice-President Brostrom that there be savings produced by the new 2016 tier. \u0026nbsp;In exchange for a relatively small (about 5% of UCRP's unfunded liability) short-term State contribution to UCRP, UCOP has agreed to reduce the compensation for generations of employees to come.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EIn this post I am going to do several things: \u0026nbsp;first, describe the contexts within which the Task Force was presented with its impossible task; second, provide a broad indication of the Task Force Majority's recommendations; and third, describe the process to come with some suggestions and comments on the situation facing faculty and unrepresented staff (as is often the case represented staff may have more control over their situation since they are entitled to collectively bargain on these matters).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cu\u003ETHE CONTEXT\u003C\/u\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/u\u003EYou will recall that following UCOP's Fall 2014 proposal for a 5% tuition increase, UC and the Governor's office established the so-called \"Committee of Two\" to examine the cost structure at the University and secretly negotiated a budget agreement. \u0026nbsp;(For the Senate's Committee on Planning and Budget's critique of this process see \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/reports\/documents\/MG_JN_SenateConsultation.pdf\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E). \u0026nbsp;Despite the hullabaloo that accompanied those high level discussions it was clear from the start that the Governor was only interested in cost controls and that the likelihood that the University would gain in substantial ways was quite low. \u0026nbsp;In the end those expectations were met. \u0026nbsp;Although UC received a \u003Ci\u003Epromise\u003C\/i\u003E\u0026nbsp;from Governor Brown that he would extend his planned base budget increases for an additional 2 years he succeeded both in locking UC in an ongoing under-funding and also in increasing the demands on the University. \u0026nbsp;In addition, the threat of tuition increases alienated the Legislature and, at least indirectly, led to UC having to agree to expand resident undergraduate enrollment without \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/this-week-at-regents-budget.html\"\u003Esufficient funding to pay for the increased costs\u003C\/a\u003E.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;We have commented on the weaknesses of that deal before (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/06\/new-budget-little-improvement.html\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E, and\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/05\/the-may-budget-revision-uc-budget-goes.html\"\u003E here\u003C\/a\u003E). \u0026nbsp;But as part of that deal President Napolitano accepted a permanent reduction in pension benefits for future employees in exchange for the Governor's promise of a temporary State contribution to UCRP.s unfunded liability of $436M over three years.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EUnder the terms of President Napolitano's agreement with the Governor, UC is committed to reducing the cap on the amount of income that can count in calculating an employee's pension benefits in UCRP. \u0026nbsp;UCRP as you know is a Defined Benefit Plan. \u0026nbsp;As a result an employee is promised an annual payment after retirement based on a calculation that takes into account an employee's three highest salary years, years of service, and age at retirement. \u0026nbsp;For employees hired before July 1, 2016,\u0026nbsp; earnings up to the Federal Cap (now about $265,000) could be counted. \u0026nbsp;For those hired on July 1, 2016 or later the University is proposing to shift to the PEPRA State Cap (now at $117,020 and tied to inflation). It is important to recognize that these numbers are limits NOT on retirement benefits (which are lower) but on the amount of earnings which can be used to calculate retirement benefits. \u0026nbsp;Starting with those hired on July 1, 2016 earnings above the PEPRA cap will simply not be included in the calculation. \u0026nbsp;The Task Force estimates that these new rules will affect roughly 25% of employees hired on or after July 1, 2016 (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003E13-14\u003C\/a\u003E). \u0026nbsp;These individuals tend to be concentrated in the Ladder Faculty, the Health Sciences, and Management (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003E13\u003C\/a\u003E) Because of the large number of represented nurses. about 40% of these individuals will have the ability to engage in bargaining over these terms.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe Task Force was charged with figuring out how to change the retirement system.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/u\u003E\u003Cu\u003ETHE PROPOSAL\u003C\/u\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe basic parameters of the proposal can be sketched quickly (and you can find them at pages \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003E5-7\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;of the Report).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe Task Force is proposing that new employees be given two options:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E1) The first (Plan A) is hybrid plan. \u0026nbsp;In it an employee would participate in the Defined Benefit Plan offered by UCRP (with benefits calculated on income up to the PEPRA cap) with a Supplemental Defined Contribution Plan (with University contributions) on income between the PEPRA cap and the Federal Cap. \u0026nbsp;Employees who choose Plan A would continue to vest after 5 years (as is the case now) and would continue to contribute the same amount annually to their pension as do employees hired before July 1, 2016. Once in Plan A you would be committed to Plan A. \u0026nbsp;Plan A is proposed as the default choice. \u0026nbsp;It is important to note that the Defined Benefit portion of this proposal would operate under the conditions imposed on the 2013 Tier--who already had a later retirement age than earlier hires.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E2) The Second (Plan B) is a Defined Contribution Plan with both the employee and the University contributing up to the Federal Cap. \u0026nbsp;Again, the amount that the employee would contribute would be the same as Plan A. \u0026nbsp;Employees who chose Plan B at hiring would be allowed to switch to Plan A after 5 years of employment (this would be a one-time opportunity).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EA Defined Contribution Plan, as you know, promises a certain amount of annual contributions to a pension fund but no obligations as to payouts after retirement. The risk in the latter type of plan is borne by the individual (just as s\/he accrues greater portability and the benefit of any investment brilliance). \u0026nbsp;A DC plan can be better for shorter term employees. \u0026nbsp;But the employee bears the risk of either poor investment performance or longevity risk. \u0026nbsp;It is not exactly clear why the Task Force chose to include a DC plan (it was not required by the Budget Act).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe actual details of the proposal are considerably more complex and depend on a variety of options concerning the actual amount of contributions (by the University) to the different plans, the expected annual growth of the value of the DC plans, the costs to the University of choosing between different contribution levels, the age of hires and the distribution of choices between plans, etc. \u0026nbsp;These questions mean that the actual effects of these two plans are still in flux as both the Task Force Report and Senate Leaders \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/ROTFReportGuide.pdf.pdf\"\u003EDan Hare and Jim Chalfant\u003C\/a\u003E make clear. \u0026nbsp;So university employees are being asked to respond to a concept without precise numbers on which to make that decision. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EBut despite the complexities it is clear that the \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ci\u003Eretirement benefits for affected future employees will be dramatically reduced\u003C\/i\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E. (for a quick way to see this effect see\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003E84\u003C\/a\u003E) \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cu\u003EMOVING FORWARD\u003C\/u\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cu\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/u\u003EThe Academic Senate (and I assume staff associations) have until February 15th to formulate responses to the Task Force Report. \u0026nbsp;The Senate, in turn is asking for comments and responses by February 5th. \u0026nbsp;I want to underline these dates because they show quite clearly the closed-off nature of the process. \u0026nbsp;Despite the claims by both UCOP and the Task Force about consultation, faculty and staff at large have less than a month to respond to a proposal that will significantly change the compensation for future employees with an unknown effect on the University as whole. \u0026nbsp;Given this situation I would argue that the Senate and other faculty and staff organizations proceed on two tracks. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe first, involves a series of technical considerations but is politically the easiest to do. \u0026nbsp;This option would be to insist that wherever the Task Force provides alternatives in the amount of the University's contributions to retirement income that President Napolitano and the Regents choose the most generous alternative. \u0026nbsp;In addition, the proposed opportunity to switch from Plan B to Plan A should not be set at 5 years but later to allow for faculty to make the decision after their cases for tenure have been resolved. \u0026nbsp;The \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/ROTFReportGuide.pdf.pdf\"\u003Eguide\u003C\/a\u003E provided by Chair Hare and Vice-Chair Chalfant is the best place to start for evaluating these different questions. \u0026nbsp;But this avenue is the conventional one.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe second and more significant option is to \u003Ci style=\"font-weight: bold;\"\u003Ereject the proposal\u003C\/i\u003E. \u0026nbsp;I think that the Task Force did the best that they could under the circumstances. \u0026nbsp;And I recognize that trade-offs often need to be made. But the funding gained under this agreement is not worth the damages done to compensation nor the potential damage done to the University as whole. \u0026nbsp;The Senate should oppose this deal even if it means returning the initial payment of $96M. \u0026nbsp;There are a variety of reasons for this:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E1) As I indicated above there is no question that acceptance of this deal will reduce retirement benefits for a significant portion of future employees. \u0026nbsp;Nor is there any reason to think that the University has any real program to make these losses up in other ways. \u0026nbsp;Indeed, as the Report indicates, the University does not have an accurate idea of total compensation and competitiveness (the last report having been done in 2009). \u0026nbsp;(\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003E64-65\u003C\/a\u003E)\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E2) What does the University get in return in financial terms? \u0026nbsp;Not much. \u0026nbsp;As I indicated above, the three year state contribution addresses only a very small amount of the unfunded liability. And according to the calculations of the Task Force, establishment of the New Tier under present conditions will speed up the elimination of the unfunded liability minimally if at all. \u0026nbsp;In fact, under certain scenarios the elimination of the unfunded liability might be faster under the 2013 Tier (with borrowing) than under most of the 2016 options. \u0026nbsp;(\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003E57\u003C\/a\u003E) \u0026nbsp;Nor does there seem to be much savings in yearly terms. \u0026nbsp;And these savings are placed far down the road as individuals hired under the 2016 come to replace the 2013 Tier in retirement.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E3) The pension deal and the Task Force proposal mark a crossroads for President Napolitano and also for shared governance within the University. \u0026nbsp;It is conceivable that the President did not realize the extent to which the pension deal would reduce benefits. \u0026nbsp;But faced with the Task Force report it is clear that the reduction would be significant and that the financial benefits are limited. \u0026nbsp;If there is significant opposition to this proposal President Napolitano would have the option of concluding that the deal was a mistake. \u0026nbsp;If there is significant opposition President Napolitano would also have the option of demonstrating an openness to shared governance on policy rather than just on implementation of policy already decided by senior managers.\u0026nbsp; It is possible, of course, that UCOP has calculated that given overall market conditions they are willing to weaken recruitment and retention of top faculty and staff (that certainly is the implication of the Governor's position). \u0026nbsp;But at least we would be clearer on that.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cu\u003ECONCLUDING COMMENTS\u003C\/u\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E1) If the University wants to consider revamping the retirement system it should, \u003Cu\u003Eat the least\u003C\/u\u003E, demand that the State acknowledge its own obligation to funding of UCRP and restart contributions on an ongoing basis. \u0026nbsp;Much is made of UC's \"pension holiday\" and it clearly went on too long. \u0026nbsp;But it is important to remember that there has been a State \"pension holiday\" from funding UCRP as well (as it funds other public employee retirement systems). \u0026nbsp;Renewed ongoing funding would enable UC to eliminate the loss in retirement income or total compensation on the one hand and to reinvest in core functions on the other.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EI recognize that this is a politically challenging route. \u0026nbsp;Taking this route would not be without its dangers in terms of relationships with the governor and the legislature or in terms of motivating those who are opposed to all pensions (especially public ones) But the Governor is at best disingenuous on this issue. \u0026nbsp;If you look at his 2016 budget proposal, he includes UCRP as part of the debts and obligations under Prop 2 when he wants to indicate how much debt the State has. \u0026nbsp;(\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2016-17\/pdf\/BudgetSummary\/Introduction.pdf\"\u003E3\u003C\/a\u003E) \u0026nbsp; But as a matter of policy he refuses to acknowledge that UCRP is a permanent state obligation. \u0026nbsp;Moreover, even the short-term funding is only a gubernatorial promise at this point. \u0026nbsp; The Task Force, to be honest, was less than forthright in this regard when they open their report with the statement that \"As part of the 2015\/2016 Budget agreement between the University, the Governor, and the  Legislature,  the  State  will  provide  a  total  of  $436  million  for  the  University  of  California  Retirement  Plan  (UCRP)  over  the  next  three  years.\" (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003E4\u003C\/a\u003E) \u0026nbsp;The Legislature \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com\/2015\/08\/todays-lesson-why-you-should-worry.html\"\u003Ehas not engaged in any multi-year promise\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E2) If nothing else, the Report of the Task Force is another indication that UCOP's tuition gambit and subsequent \"Committee of Two\" process was unsuccessful. \u0026nbsp;Although I commend President Napolitano for actually advocating for increased State funding (something her predecessor was particularly poor at doing) the Tuition strategy seems to have backfired. \u0026nbsp;The Legislature was alienated, the budget deal that resulted showed little if any improvement from what the Governor had indicated previously, UC has now agreed to take large numbers of additional students without adequate funding, and the pension deal was a mistake. \u0026nbsp;Moreover the secrecy of the process not only sidelined effective shared governance but, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/this-week-at-regents-ii-medical-centers.html\"\u003Eas with the proposal on the governance of the health sciences,\u003C\/a\u003E precluded an effective mobilization of debate and ideas about the best ways for the University to move forward. \u0026nbsp;As with so much of the debate over higher education today, efficiency and speed is held in higher regard than thoughtfully considering the long-term implications of policy and practice or aiming to improve the quality in higher education (as opposed to simply lowering spending). Rushing to produce a bad idea just means you produce a bad idea more quickly.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EFor your convenience:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe Task Force Report can be found \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/RetirementOptionsTaskForceReporttothePresident11516.pdf\"\u003EHERE\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe Guide to the Report produced by Chair Hare and Vice-Chair Chalfant can be found \u003Cb\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/underreview\/documents\/ROTFReportGuide.pdf.pdf\"\u003EHERE\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/b\u003E.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/1108988961618480340\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/01\/pensions-politics-and-failures-of.html#comment-form","title":"17 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/1108988961618480340"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/1108988961618480340"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/01\/pensions-politics-and-failures-of.html","title":"Pensions, Politics, and the Failures of Leadership"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Michael Meranze"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/05336793340375780406"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/-sMP4DmtkRcY\/VpvtgAsZYlI\/AAAAAAAAAy8\/wvdt1jUZnHc\/s72-c\/short%2Bterm%2Bthinking.png","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"17"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-5430970245716758281"},"published":{"$t":"2016-01-09T10:49:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T18:17:02.364-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Budget"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Cal State"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"California"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Funding Model"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jerry Brown"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Public vs. Private"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":" Follow Austerity Road: The Governor's Higher Education Budget"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-dRU4oBXdX2U\/VpBIZYz_u3I\/AAAAAAAAAyU\/Tq-OjXZ4zuM\/s1600\/land-of-oz3.JPG\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"212\" src=\"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-dRU4oBXdX2U\/VpBIZYz_u3I\/AAAAAAAAAyU\/Tq-OjXZ4zuM\/s320\/land-of-oz3.JPG\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003EGovernor Brown has issued his \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2016-17\/BudgetSummary\/BSS\/BSS.html\"\u003Eproposed 2016-2017 budget\u003C\/a\u003E. \u0026nbsp;Shorn of its rhetorical invocation of technocratic answers, the Governor's Higher Education budget simply locks in the continuing underfunding of CSU and UC (I won't offer an analysis of the community college budget in this post). \u0026nbsp;When I first read the budget, I was tempted to think that Governor Brown was now governing openly as an Eisenhower Republican. \u0026nbsp;But Eisenhower actually helped expand higher education for the country. He did not diminish it.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003EUC\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003C\/b\u003EThe Governor's proposal fundamentally restates the agreement reached in secret negotiations with UCOP under the auspices of the so-called Committee of Two. \u0026nbsp;There is the $125M general fund increase that the Governor had intended as part of his \"sustainability\" plan (about 4% of this year's base funding) and the one-time $171M contribution to the UCRP unfunded retirement obligation. (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2016-17\/pdf\/BudgetSummary\/HigherEducation.pdf\"\u003E18\u003C\/a\u003E)\u0026nbsp;The proposed budget continues the supplemental $25M appropriation to pay part of the costs of \u0026nbsp;the additional 5000 California resident undergraduate students that UC has agreed to admit by next academic year. \u0026nbsp;This appropriation is about half of what the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2007-08-EN\/Enacted\/BudgetSummary\/HED\/26655625.html\"\u003EState appropriated for enrollment expansion during the Schwarzenegger administration\u003C\/a\u003E. \u0026nbsp;There is no sign that the Governor is willing to fund the additional resident students that President Napolitano has indicated she would like to admit above next year's 5000.. \u0026nbsp;As per the agreement there will be no increase in resident tuition\u0026nbsp; in 2016-2017. \u0026nbsp;The base General Fund allocation is $3,260,544,000. \u0026nbsp;This number does not include the one-time UCRP payment.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe Governor's office, of course, would like to spin these appropriations as indications of a serious refunding of the University. \u0026nbsp;But in reality what Brown has done--and what UCOP has accepted--is the permanent under-funding of UC. \u0026nbsp;The Governor's proposal will finally restore general fund appropriations to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2007-08-EN\/BudgetSummary\/ImagePages\/FG-HED-02.html\"\u003Eapproximately the level of 2007-2008\u003C\/a\u003E. \u0026nbsp;But the resident student population is considerably larger. \u0026nbsp;The 2007-2008 budget assumed a total (undergraduate, graduate, and health science) resident student population of 198,455. (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2007-08-EN\/pdf\/GovernorsBudget\/6000\/6440.pdf\"\u003E4\u003C\/a\u003E) \u0026nbsp;The 2016-2017 budget assumes a resident population of 216,897. (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2016-17\/pdf\/GovernorsBudget\/6000\/6440.pdf\"\u003E10\u003C\/a\u003E) \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Allowing for inflation and the agreed-upon (inadequate) marginal cost of increased enrollment, that leaves the state's appropriation to the base UC budget over half a billion dollars below 2007-2008. \u0026nbsp;Of course, this estimate does not include the explosive rise in Cal Grant funding tied to the rise in tuition and the increasing total costs of attendance--each an indication of the extent to which the State continues to shift the burden of higher education costs onto students and their families. \u0026nbsp;On the other hand, it does not include include the additional costs for UC Merced or the other mandated increases which would likely outweigh the growth in Cal Grants..\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003ECSU\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe proposal for CSU is similar in its implications. \u0026nbsp;The Governor proposes $125.4M in base increase, $15M in funding available through changes in the Middle-Class Scholarship Fund, and $7.9M for leasing properties coming to a General Fund increase of $148.3M. \u0026nbsp;In addition there will be a $35M one time appropriation for deferred maintenance (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2016-17\/pdf\/BudgetSummary\/HigherEducation.pdf\"\u003E49\u003C\/a\u003E). \u0026nbsp; All told, the Governor is proposing a $3,157,805,000 General Fund appropriation for CSU in 2016-2017. Again, for comparison sake, CSU's enacted General Fund Appropriation in 2007-2008 was \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2007-08-EN\/BudgetSummary\/ImagePages\/FG-HED-02.html\"\u003E$2,976,300,000\u003C\/a\u003E. \u0026nbsp;So Governor Brown is proposing that CSU receive approximately $200M more from the general fund, not corrected for inflation, or enrollment increases.\u0026nbsp; The 2007-2008 budget presumed that CSU would enroll a total of 342,553 resident students. (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2007-08-EN\/pdf\/GovernorsBudget\/6000\/6610.pdf\"\u003E4\u003C\/a\u003E) \u0026nbsp;Governor Brown is projecting a resident student population 374,174 (these are FTE not actual individuals). \u0026nbsp;In inflation terms this leaves CSU several hundred million dollars behind. \u0026nbsp;And that does not account for the additional 30,000 FTE students.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe Governor has a somewhat different model for CSU, compared to UC, as his CSU widget theory of higher education focuses more on 4 year graduation rates. \u0026nbsp;Once again, the Governor is fixated on technology and fails to see that if he expects CSU to dramatically increase these rates he will need to do more than simply hector CSU while providing minor incremental increases in funding. \u0026nbsp;Instead, the State will need to commit to providing the funds needed to expand faculty and staff in order to improve graduation rates and the teaching resources available to the system's educators.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EI'll add another word about the way the Governor continues to vest his higher education hopes in technocratic solutions. The most obvious of these continues to be his insistence that problems can be solved through online education. \u0026nbsp;But just as striking is his office's insistence that the problems facing higher education in the 21st century can be solved by accelerating throughput of students into the workforce.\u0026nbsp; I found nothing in the Governor's discussion of higher education that indicated any awareness that as they face a complex world of\u0026nbsp; local and international challenges, students might need to develop more knowledge, not less, by acquiring more complex skills and interdisciplinary knowledge structures, which is likely to take more time, not less. \u0026nbsp;The pressure he puts on UC and CSU is to cut costs, not to improve quality. \u0026nbsp;Now I agree that shortening time to degree is important; but the way to do that is to provide adequate funding to enable students to focus on their studies.\u0026nbsp; When all you want to use is a hammer, everything looks like a nail--even human beings.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe state \u003Ci\u003Edoes \u003C\/i\u003Ehave money to start improving higher education again, rather than just chiding and squeezing it.\u0026nbsp; As the California Budget and Policy Center \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/calbudgetcenter.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/First-Look-2016-Budget-Proposal-Misses-Opportunity-to-Invest-in-Californians-Focuses-Instead-on-Adding-to-Reserves.pdf\"\u003Ehas pointed out\u003C\/a\u003E, the Governor's obsession with the State's Rainy Day Fund has led him to refuse to spend $2 billion that could be appropriated. The Governor is reasonably afraid of a recession in the next few years. \u0026nbsp;But as his budget acknowledges, the recovery has hardly been shared equally (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.ebudget.ca.gov\/2016-17\/pdf\/BudgetSummary\/Introduction.pdf\"\u003E10\u003C\/a\u003E) and as I have indicated above his proposals do more than resist new commitments--they continue to lock in recession-era losses.\u0026nbsp; This Governor's budget makes clear, as we enter the twilight of his political career, that he will be remembered for failing to promote a politics of hope rather than succumbing to the politics of fear that has governed the state since Howard Jarvis embarrassed him in the late 1970s.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/5430970245716758281\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/01\/follow-austerity-road-governors-higher.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/5430970245716758281"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/5430970245716758281"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2016\/01\/follow-austerity-road-governors-higher.html","title":" Follow Austerity Road: The Governor's Higher Education Budget"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Michael Meranze"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/05336793340375780406"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-dRU4oBXdX2U\/VpBIZYz_u3I\/AAAAAAAAAyU\/Tq-OjXZ4zuM\/s72-c\/land-of-oz3.JPG","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1170716682680204889.post-2318986121408914666"},"published":{"$t":"2015-11-16T15:00:00.002-08:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2016-03-18T18:21:28.576-07:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Affordability"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Budget"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"California"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Costs"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Faculty"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Funding Model"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Governance"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Income"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Janet Napolitano"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Jerry Brown"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Politics"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Students"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UC Regents"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"UCOP"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"This Week at the Regents: The Budget"},"content":{"type":"html","$t":"\u003Cdiv class=\"separator\" style=\"clear: both; text-align: center;\"\u003E\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-Be4un0P1K-Q\/Vkj7Gnheg3I\/AAAAAAAAAw8\/mT5DYWgqzXw\/s1600\/t1larg.charlie.chaplin.modern.times.scene.gi.jpg\" imageanchor=\"1\" style=\"clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;\"\u003E\u003Cimg border=\"0\" height=\"180\" src=\"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-Be4un0P1K-Q\/Vkj7Gnheg3I\/AAAAAAAAAw8\/mT5DYWgqzXw\/s320\/t1larg.charlie.chaplin.modern.times.scene.gi.jpg\" width=\"320\" \/\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/div\u003EThis week's Regents \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/regents.universityofcalifornia.edu\/meetings\/agendas\/nov15.html\"\u003Emeeting's Agenda\u003C\/a\u003E is chock full of important items. \u0026nbsp;In particular, UCOP is presenting the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/regents.universityofcalifornia.edu\/regmeet\/nov15\/j5.pdf\"\u003E2016-2017 budget proposal\u003C\/a\u003E along with a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/regents.universityofcalifornia.edu\/regmeet\/nov15\/j6.pdf\"\u003Ethree-year \"sustainability\" plan\u003C\/a\u003E, a proposal to improve the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/regents.universityofcalifornia.edu\/regmeet\/nov15\/f2.pdf\"\u003Efinances of UCRP through internal borrowing\u003C\/a\u003E, and a proposal to \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/regents.universityofcalifornia.edu\/regmeet\/nov15\/j1.pdf\"\u003Ecentralize the management of the Health Care system\u003C\/a\u003E. Unfortunately, the lessons from this week's Regents' agenda is that despite UCOP's efforts to tout its agreement with Governor Brown, last year's tuition gambit has done little to change the fundamentally underfunded situation of the University. \u0026nbsp;Nor is there any indication that either the Regents or UCOP are prepared to break from long-standing patterns of strategy in order to begin to ensure a UC focused on its educational mission and on increasing the quality of its offerings.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003ETHE PLAN ITSELF\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EUCOP's proposed budget is a work up of the deal that President Napolitano and Governor Brown negotiated by sidelining both the Legislature and the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/reports\/documents\/MG_JN_SenateConsultation.pdf\"\u003EAcademic Senate\u003C\/a\u003E. \u0026nbsp; \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/05\/the-may-budget-revision-uc-budget-goes.html\"\u003EChris \u003C\/a\u003Eand \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/totherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/06\/new-budget-little-improvement.html\"\u003EI\u003C\/a\u003E have already commented on the deal itself so let me simply point to some of the more important elements. \u0026nbsp;The \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/regents.universityofcalifornia.edu\/regmeet\/nov15\/j5attach1.pdf\"\u003Eproposed Budget for 2016-2017\u003C\/a\u003E assumes another 4% increase in base funding, $96 million in one-time funding in \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/08\/ucop-begins-process-to-reduce-pension.html\"\u003Eexchange for changes in UC's retirement system\u003C\/a\u003E, $25 million for enrolling an additional 5000 California residents, $25 million for deferred maintenance, and an additional $68.7 million in new Non-Resident Tuition (NRT) revenue. \u0026nbsp;It continues to make the annual promises about the fantastic savings that UCOP is gaining through various technological and management initiatives. In all, UCOP reports a total 2015-16 revenue of $28.3 billion of which core funds constitute $7.3 billion. \u0026nbsp;In 2016-2017 they are budgeting for an increased core revenue of $481.3 million.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EAlong with the proposed budget UCOP is submitting what it calls a three year \"\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/regents.universityofcalifornia.edu\/regmeet\/nov15\/j6.pdf\"\u003EFinancial Stability Plan\u003C\/a\u003E.\" \u0026nbsp;The plan restates the Brown-Napolitano deal that calls for continued 4% annual base budget increases through 2018-2019 and fulfillment of the Governor's promise of $436 million over 3 years (although the Legislature has only promised the first $96 million) in exchange for reducing retirement benefits substantially for future employees.\u0026nbsp; It includes the proposed $25 million that the Legislature has offered for an additional 5,000 California resident students in 2016-17, and offers to enroll an additional 2500 more in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 (hopefully in exchange for additional funding). It increases the NRT by 8%, the student services fee 5% annually, and proposes tuition increases tied to inflation beginning in 2017-2018.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EA first point, which Chris has made many times, is that the 4% increases, while better than the extreme cuts of the late Schwarzenegger and early Brown administrations, are too small to overcome the \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/04\/the-lao-and-permanent-university.html\"\u003Elonger-term under-funding of the University that goes back 15 years\u003C\/a\u003E. \u0026nbsp;To make matters worse, both the Budget and the Financial Stability Plan each bake in increasing burdens on campuses and their students, faculty, and staff. \u0026nbsp;The $25 million promised for the upcoming year's 5000 additional resident students is approximately half of what both UC and the LAO agree is the marginal cost of an additional student (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.lao.ca.gov\/handouts\/education\/2015\/Enrollment-Funding-for-UC042115.pdf\"\u003E8\u003C\/a\u003E). The new underfunded students will force campuses to shift funds from other efforts to pay for these costs (costs that will draw on core funds).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EIn order to help pay for these students, UC campuses will continue to increase the number of non-resident students, although they say at a slower pace (due to political pressures), so that there will be an additional 1200 non-resident students next year and the latter will be paying an 8% tuition increase. \u0026nbsp;UCOP apparently believes that the State will continue to pay $25 million each year to help support the initial 5000. \u0026nbsp;This seems a reasonable assumption in the short term, though it is a long-term problem if it is not included in an expanded base allocation. \u0026nbsp; If the additional 5000 are also inadequately funded, UC will have added 10,000 resident students over 3 years without providing campuses with the resources needed to properly educate and support these students.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EUCOP insists that they are determined to lower the faculty-student ratio throughout the system. \u0026nbsp;But does anyone really foresee an increase in faculty numbers that could do that even as student numbers jump--6200 new students in 2016-2017 plus at least an additional 2500 additional residents in each of the following two years? \u0026nbsp;For those campuses with significant NRT, at least some of those funds will need to go to supporting the new enrollments. \u0026nbsp;For the other half of the UC system without significant NRT, \u0026nbsp;those enrollments likely will eat up a chunk of the monies they will receive from rebenching and the additional 4% in base state funding. \u0026nbsp;This plan may be sustainable in the sense that the campuses and students will still be here at its conclusion. \u0026nbsp;But it doesn't suggest that UCOP's stated commitments to increasing quality and improving campus facilities can be met.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThe Budget and Sustainability plan together lock in continued under-funding, increased burdens on campuses, faculty, and students, and further erosion of shared governance at UC. \u0026nbsp;At its best it is predicated on a set of promises from Governor Brown. \u0026nbsp;I needn't remind people how well previous compacts with Governor's have held up over time.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003ETHE FUTURE FOR THE FACULTY\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EA second aspect of the Budget, one of special importance to both faculty and staff, is the proposed reorganization of the retirement system.\u0026nbsp; In her negotiations with the Governor, President Napolitano agreed to create a new tier for those hired on or after July 1, 2016. \u0026nbsp;These employees would have a pensionable salary limit (i.e. the amount of annual salary that can be considered in calculating the size of a person's pension) based on the state's PEPRA limits rather than the previous, and much higher social security cap. \u0026nbsp;In return, the Legislature agreed to release $96 million once these changes have been made, and the Governor has promised additional funds up to the $436 million I mentioned above. \u0026nbsp;The Legislature has made no commitment to the last two years of the Governor's promise. (For good accounting of these developments there are various posts on this site and by Dan Mitchell on the\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com\/\"\u003EUCLA Faculty Association Blog\u003C\/a\u003E).\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EI have no doubt that there was, and is, political pressure on this from Sacramento. \u0026nbsp;But to get some sense of the extent of UCOP's concessions on this score it might be helpful to turn to another item on the Regents Agenda--a proposal to borrow money over the next three years from the University's Short Term Investment Pool (STIP) to help pay down the legally defined unfunded liability of UCRP. (As Bob Samuels \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/bob-samuels\/how-a-republican-accounti_b_529944.html\"\u003Epointed out long ago\u003C\/a\u003E, this legal liability is based on the requirement that UCRP has enough money on hand to pay out pensions if everyone retired immediately). \u0026nbsp;This short term funding is something that the Senate has been pushing for several years, though campuses, perhaps especially those with medical centers, have been resistant. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EIn very basic terms, the proposal will allow the University to borrow from its own funds to help pay into UCRP, thereby helping to keep the University's annual contribution to UCRP at a steady state and to shorten the time until the unfunded liability has been paid. \u0026nbsp;Strikingly, UCOP is proposing to borrow $1,463,400,000--or put another way nearly three times the amount of money that the Governor is promising in exchange for a dramatic reduction in the worth of UC benefits. \u0026nbsp;As UCOP continues to emphasize, perhaps in the hopes of muting opposition, this new plan will not affect anyone employed before July 1, 2016. \u0026nbsp;But it will affect new generations of UC employees and lead to a significant reduction in overall compensation. \u0026nbsp;Although \u003Cu\u003Etheoretically\u003C\/u\u003E\u0026nbsp;some of this loss could be made up in salary and other forms of compensation, \u0026nbsp;those forms of compensation do not have the same tax benefits as do pensions. More importantly, they increase retirement risk. \u0026nbsp;Nor is it clear why anyone should think that state funding for salaries will increase in the future at a rate that will cover the lost compensation value for future employees.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThere is presently a \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits-advisory-task-force\/index.html\"\u003ETask Force \u003C\/a\u003Echarged with determining what the new pension tier will look like and with coming up with strategies to minimize the reduction in benefits to future employees (since it is unlikely that they can be eliminated). \u0026nbsp;The \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/cucfa.org\/2015\/11\/uc-task-force-considering-pension-cuts\/\"\u003ETask Force is expected to present its conclusions to President Napolitano next month \u003C\/a\u003Eand there will be a limited period for comment early next year. \u0026nbsp;But as Dan Mitchell has repeatedly pointed out (e.g.,\u0026nbsp;\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/regents-pension-funding-item-short.html\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E, \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/history-of-pension-preemption-sentence.html\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E, and \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/today-is-nov-15-time-to-fix-uc-regents.html\"\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E), the proposal for STIP funding includes a statement that \"New employees will have the opportunity to choose a fully defined contribution plan as a retirement option, as an alternative to the PEPRA-capped defined benefit plan.\" (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/regents.universityofcalifornia.edu\/regmeet\/nov15\/f2.pdf\"\u003E3\u003C\/a\u003E) \u0026nbsp;This statement is included despite the fact that even the University's own FAQ on the question insist \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu\/compensation-and-benefits\/2016-retirement-benefits-advisory-task-force\/faq.html#decided\"\u003Ethat no decision has been made as to whether to have a purely defined Defined Contribution Plan\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;(h\/t Michael Buroway). \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003ESo we have a cut in retirement benefits negotiated outside of the regular shared governance plan, a special Task Force, set up by the President to determine the shape of those cuts, official information on the Task Force site saying that no decision has been made about a defined contribution plan, and an item on the Regents Agenda suggesting that that decision has been made even though the Task Force has not finished its discussions. \u0026nbsp;This situation exists despite the fact that several years ago, after extensive study, the University recognized that a Defined Contribution Plan was less able to serve either the needs of individuals or the needs of the institution as a whole. \u0026nbsp;Nor does the amended language of the Budget Bill (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB97\"\u003Esection 85\u003C\/a\u003E) require the University to start a Defined Contribution Plan. This decision by UCOP to overturn the carefully established retirement consensus builds upon \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/senate.universityofcalifornia.edu\/reports\/documents\/MG_JN_SenateConsultation.pdf\"\u003Eother indications\u003C\/a\u003E that UCOP is perfectly happy to sideline shared governance when it is convenient for them. \u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cb\u003ETHE RETURN OF THE REPRESSED\u003C\/b\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EThere is one other item, or rather the absence of one other item, in the Budget proposal that is significant. \u0026nbsp;In its Budget Summary (\u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB97\"\u003Epg. 29\u003C\/a\u003E) UCOP notes a series of accountability measures required by the State. Interestingly, I could find no mention in the documents (please let me know if I missed it) of another set of legal obligations that are important for the budget. \u0026nbsp;Those are from \u003Ca href=\"http:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB97\"\u003Esection 84\u003C\/a\u003E\u0026nbsp;that requires the University to provide much more detailed transparency about its administrative structure--especially concerning the Managers and Senior Professionals Group (MSP) and to rethink its proclaimed market comparisons for the Senior Management Group. \u0026nbsp;I mention this not because I want to demonize the people in either group but because it is difficult to see how a truly sustainable future can be created for the University that does not seriously rethink its administrative structure, starting with a better understanding of the relation between administration and the educational core.\u003Cbr \/\u003E\u003Cbr \/\u003EIf UC truly wishes to create a sustainable future for itself, it will need to create a more decentralized administrative structure, one more attuned to the actual teaching, learning, and research that goes on in the everyday life of the institution. \u0026nbsp; That sort of transformation might have resulted from the UCOF process a few years ago--but it didn't. \u0026nbsp;It is clear that it will not emerge from UCOP. \u0026nbsp;But it is needed more than ever."},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/feeds\/2318986121408914666\/comments\/default","title":"Post Comments"},{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/this-week-at-regents-budget.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/2318986121408914666"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1170716682680204889\/posts\/default\/2318986121408914666"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/utotherescue.blogspot.com\/2015\/11\/this-week-at-regents-budget.html","title":"This Week at the Regents: The Budget"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Michael Meranze"},"uri":{"$t":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/profile\/05336793340375780406"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"16","height":"16","src":"https:\/\/img1.blogblog.com\/img\/b16-rounded.gif"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/2.bp.blogspot.com\/-Be4un0P1K-Q\/Vkj7Gnheg3I\/AAAAAAAAAw8\/mT5DYWgqzXw\/s72-c\/t1larg.charlie.chaplin.modern.times.scene.gi.jpg","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}}]}});