For reportage on the meeting and the vote, see:
Daily Cal
Contra Costa Times
The Nation

The Council of UC Faculty Associations, on behalf of all UC faculty, is making a petition supporting OWS available for UC faculty to sign.

We urge you to read the petition and support it by clicking here.

This petition was originally developed by faculty at Columbia and Barnard. For an excellent short article on this growing movement and how it relates to higher education, read Prof. Jonathan Cole’s post about OWS on the Huffington Post, which is linked here.

WBrown-UC Cybercampus Loan.4-18-11

Crane is outspoken opponent of public sector unions. He recently published an inflammatory editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle attacking collective bargaining rights for public employee unions, couching these rights as threats to public higher education and good governance.

You can read and sign the petition here

Please sign and distribute widely.

Chris Rosen, co-Chair of BFA

P.S. Senator Ted Lieu’s excellent rebuttal of David Crane

Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-Torrance), Chair of the Labor and Industrial
Relations Committee, released the following statement regarding the
confirmation of University of California Regent David Crane:

I actively oppose the confirmation of David Crane as a UC Regent. I
read Mr. Crane’s Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle in which he argues
for the elimination of collective bargaining for public sector
employees. I cannot support someone for the powerful post of UC Regent
who continues to perpetuate the myth that collective bargaining caused
our state economic crisis and has a fundamental misunderstanding of how
our state budget operates.

In his Op-Ed, titled “Should Public Employees Have Collective
Bargaining”, Mr. Crane argues that because of collective bargaining,
“general fund spending on higher education, parks and environmental
protection was flat or lower.” As a matter of historical fact, that is
false. Our general fund spending generally declined because of a
national economic recession. The recession was not caused by collective
bargaining or public sector unions, but by private sector, out of
control Wall Street firms at the time.

The specific reason our general fund spending sharply declined was
because the person Mr. Crane advised, former Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger, reduced the Vehicle License Fee and replaced it with . .
. nothing. As a result, the state general fund lost over $5 to $6
billion in revenues per year for every year Mr. Schwarzenegger was in
office. The VLF reduction has resulted in a total loss of over $30
billion to the state, an amount in excess of the current California
budgetary shortfall. How conveniently Mr. Crane forgot to mention that
critical fact when it doesn’t suit his ideological assault on public
sector unions.

Now that Mr. Crane senses his confirmation may be in jeopardy, he
attempts to marginalize his own Op-Ed by releasing a new statement
saying he really didn’t mean to attack all public sector unions, just
those who happen to have statutory civil service protections. For those
in Ivory Towers that distinction may have some academic meaning, but for
everyone else in the real world that is a distinction without a
difference. Civil Service protections do not prevent employees from
being terminated or laid off, they provide standards for government to
follow when firing or disciplining employees. Such protections do not
guarantee appropriate wages or benefits, nor address a plethora of other
issues, such as workforce safety issues.

Mr. Crane’s Op-Ed also discusses political spending by public sector
unions. In his world view, political spending by the California
Teachers Association is inappropriate, but the massive political
spending by the Koch Brothers would presumably be acceptable.
I cannot, and will not, support someone for the post of UC Regent who
blames public sector employees, such as teachers, for somehow being
responsible for our economic crisis or the resulting decline in general
fund spending. We need UC Regents who are interested in solving
problems, not those who twist historical facts to suit an ideological
agenda.

Originally posted at http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&aid=4613&ptid=9

Operational Excellence “mid-semester evaluation”

To sign the petition, go here

The petition reads:

We, the undersigned faculty and staff of the University of California, urge you to resist the request by 36 top executives and deans to raise the pensions of those making over $245K.

At a time when the UC pension system is endangered and the entire instructional and research enterprise of UC is imperiled we find it outrageous that these managers — whose very job it is to steward the system — would demand exorbitant pension compensation. They cannot have it both ways: private sector salary levels and public employee pensions.

The damage to the image of the university from excessive pay and benefits, and now from this ill-timed threat of a lawsuit from the 36 signees, has been immense. In order to restore public faith in UC, you must come forward quickly with a statement of intent to hold the line on pensions to elite employees.

The principle here is greater than this incident: this is a public university, one in dire straits financially. Most of us work for reasonable salaries but also for the public good. If the elite earners do not care enough about the public university to stay, then let them depart for the private sector. We believe you can find dedicated people within and without UC who would would be willing and able to replace these individuals.

Recently the San Francisco Chronicle reported that “three dozen of the University of California’s highest paid executives are threatening to sue unless UC agrees to spend tens of millions of dollars to dramatically increase retirement benefits for employees earning more than $245,000.”

Some of these “Gilded 36″ receive salaries in excess of $500,000. All will receive sizable pensions, even without this increase, while their salaries, bonuses, and perks allow opportunities for additional retirement saving and investment. These are opportunities most UC employees and Californians can only dream of.

In their letter to UC President Mark Yudof, these executives and deans stated that failure to increase their pensions would be “demoralizing.”

We – faculty who teach and guide students toward careers and contributions to society – point to far more demoralizing trends on UC campuses: Tuition increases that force students to borrow more, take on second jobs and withdraw before finishing degrees; budget cuts that vaporize classes, wipe out library access and leave unfixed broken chairs, projectors and lavatories; layoffs of skilled staff that gut essential services; declining graduate student funding that leads the best applicants to choose private universities over UC; realizing that teaching and working at UC does not mean that you can afford to send your children to its campuses.

The question to ask the Gilded 36 goes beyond contracts and lawsuits: Can their demand for millions of dollars in additional pension payout be justified morally and ethically given California’s fiscal shortfall, when budget cuts imperil the instructional and research mission of UC, and when the UC employee pension faces a $21.6 billion unfunded obligation that threatens the futures of thousands of UC employees and their families?

By making the UC pension appear to be an excessive giveaway, the Gilded 36′s demand obscures the real function of the pension as deferred payment for the hard work that UC employees do now to ensure that the university remains an engine of education, innovation and shared benefit for California.

We feel no sympathy when the Gilded 36 complain that a deal is a deal. The master plan for higher education was a “deal” with the people of California, their children, and their children’s children. It has been broken repeatedly by the state’s defunding of public education and mismanagement by UC presidents and regents. Some deals, when broken, mean the difference between a higher or a lower six-figure pension. Other deals, when broken, undermine the world’s greatest public university system, narrow access to education, and threaten California’s economic recovery and cultural vitality.

We feel no sympathy for the administrative and academic elite who claim the right to be compensated at “market value.” They have accepted employment at a public university and receive salaries that, while not at market value, are often higher than those of the majority of UC employees and Californians by a factor of 10.

We reject the assertion that executives at the top must be retained whatever the cost. This big business notion is antithetical to UC’s core missions: expanding access to the highest quality teaching and maintaining the highest caliber of research for the good of California. The Gilded 36 should model themselves not after private sector executives but UC faculty and staff who teach and work at non-market-value salaries because they care about more than personal financial gain; they care about the public good.

We feel no sympathy for the suggestion that these high-paid UC employees have sacrificed much during this crisis. How many of the Gilded 36 worry about meeting basic living costs, not the costs of luxury? Many Californians and UC employees and students worry daily about keeping a roof over their heads and paying for heat, food, health care, day care and transportation.

The hardships of the fiscal crisis at UC are felt most painfully not by its elite but by the majority of students, staff, lecturers and faculty. This majority – together with UC alumni and indeed all Californians who value fairness and equity – should speak out forcefully against the blatant greed demonstrated by the Gilded 36 as well as the larger ideology of private entitlement that is destroying public education and, arguably, the state as a whole. UC’s leaders, as servants of the public good, must demonstrate to the governor, Legislature and people of California that educational access and quality, and support for advanced research – being essential to California’s future – must come before the disproportionate personal gain of the few.

UC FACULTY OUTRAGED BY “THE GILDED 36″, WORRIED ABOUT REPERCUSSIONS FOR UC

Nearly 1000 UC faculty and staff have signed a petition to UC President Mark Yudof condemning the demands of the 36 UC executives threatening to sue UC over the pension cap on salaries above $245K. The number of signatories is remarkable given that the petition has been circulating for less than two days and campuses are only slowly reopening after winter break. Approximately 80% of the signatories are faculty.

The petition, http://www.gopetition.com/petition/41718.html, reads in part:

“At a time when the UC pension system is endangered and the entire instructional and research enterprise of UC is imperiled we find it outrageous that these managers — whose very job it is to steward the system — would demand exorbitant pension compensation. They cannot have it both ways: private sector salary levels and public employee pensions.

The damage to the image of the university from excessive executive pay and benefits, and now from this threat of a law-suit….has been immense. Most of us work for reasonable salaries but also for the public good. If the elite earners do not care enough about the public university to stay, then let them depart for the private sector. We believe you can find dedicated people within and without UC who would be willing and able to replace these individuals.”

Signatory comments, many of which issue from distinguished faculty, range from “disgusting,” “immoral,” “shameful” and “fire them all” to “how about capping UC salaries at $245K?” and “this arrogant act of greed is symptomatic of the whole orientation of the current UC administration.” Many signers, both faculty and staff, emphasized in their comments the importance of working for UC as public servants rather than as a road to private wealth. None bought the argument that excessive compensation packages are essential to attracting the talent that makes UC great or makes it run well.

The Berkeley Faculty Association and SAVE the University, sponsors of the petition, are committed to maintaining the integrity of the UC pension system in combination with public sector salary scales. For more information, please contact:

Richard Walker, BFA Vice Chair walker@berkeley.edu
Wendy Brown, BFA Co-Chair wlbrown@berkeley.edu
Shannon Steen, SAVE Coordinating Council steen21@berkeley.edu