SCA 21, authored by Senators Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) and Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) and ACA 24, authored by Assemblymembers Brian Nestande (R-Palm Desert) and Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), would remove the Regents autonomy and allow the Legislature to enact statutes affecting UC policy, similar to authority granted over the California State University. If approved by two-thirds of the Legislature, the measure would be put before the voters for final approval.
“My colleagues and I stand together in introducing SCA 21 and ACA 24. What these measures will do is rein in the arrogance of UC. For too long with the rarefied air that they breathe and the high rent district that they live in, they’ve been totally out of touch with the people of California.”
He continued:
“Time and time again they have demonstrated that they don’t understand transparency, they don’t understand accountability. They don’t understand anything about the struggles of the people of California are going through.
There has not been public oversight of that institution for too long.”
Moreover:
“Enough is enough; it is time for the UC administration to stop acting like a private institution. Only five other public universities in the country have a similar status, with UC receiving the greatest level of autonomy. This completely outdated model results in the Regents thinking they are above the law. They continuously violate the public trust and disrespect students and taxpayers.
What this legislation will do is to provide some voice, some people’s voice in the operation of UC.”
Co-sponsor Senator Roy Ashburn, a Republican, could not attend the press conference due to the graduation of his grandson from nursery school.
In a written statement he said:
“The people of California are sick and tired of how Sacramento spends their tax dollars. There can be no better evidence of this than the results of the recent special elections. The voters want us to do our job by stopping wasteful expenditures as blatantly demonstrated by the UC Board of Regents. SCA 21 will force the UC Regents to open up their books and justify how they spend every tax dollar by removing their autonomy and making them subject to the rule of law.”
As he pointed out, even as the Regents approved fee hikes for UC students, they also approved various exorbitant compensation packages to their top executives. He cited the example of incoming UCSF Chancellor who received a $450,000 salary on top of a University provided house, auto allowance, relocation expenses, etc. He also cited the incoming UC Davis Chancellor who received a salary of $400,000 which marks a 27% increase over her predecessor.
“This raise would have easily paid for the tuition of ten students for two semesters.”
Assemblymember Brian Nestande another Republican agreed with his colleague:
“At a time when the University has raised student fees and is considering cutting the pay of its lowest-paid workers, it is simply wrong to be giving the two new chancellors more gold-plated benefits. If students have to tighten their belts, then everyone in the UC system must also tighten theirs. If UC’s leadership does not get this, then perhaps it is time for the Legislature to review the autonomy that our state Constitution grants them.”
Assemblymember Anthony Protantino, Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee:
“ACA 24 and SCA 21 will fill the need for greater accountability and oversight of the UC Board of Regents. If enacted, these Constitutional Amendments will provide the appropriate amount of oversight by making the Regents directly accountable to the public. This will ensure the decisions they make are in the best interest of students and the State.”
Senator Gloria Romero who chairs the Senate Committee on Education:
“For too long the UC has operated as an independent Fiefdom. Audits of the UC during the last few years read more like AIG or Enron than what we expect from the University of California. This is a system that clearly has lost its sense of public accountability.”
She continued:
“In a statement last week regarding the budget revise, President Yudof said, “The choices are stark, and everything is on the table.” Well, Mr. Yudof, you are correct: everything is on the table and it starts with the UC being forthcoming and accountable to the public.”
Joining the legislators in support of this constitutional amendments were representatives from ASUCD, UC Davis’ student government body, AFSCME, UPTE, UC-AFT, CNA, and the Service Employees Trades Council.
Talia MacMath, a Senator at ASUCD:
“Affordability, accountability and accessibility are the pillars on which the University of California stand. Senator Yee’s actions today mark a sincere, necessary, and appreciated step towards guarding the integrity of these commitments. It seems too easy for the UC Regents who have already laid claim to their college degrees to make decisions without consequences. To think of the desires of the administrators and not the needs of students. When students are faced with the reality of the situation we cannot help but feel discouraged and frustrated. We find ourselves asking who is the university really here to help and why when we ask questions of our governing body, are they not answered. I recently attended a regents meeting to express my concern for students across the UC Campus and I found out why our questions were not answered. They’re not even heard. Only half of the regents could find the time to show up to the abbreviated public comment period and of those, they seem more interested in finishing their lunch and chattering with their neighbors than hearing the concerns of students.”
Willie Pelote who is executive director of AFSCME gave an explosive speech.
“The legislature has taken the first step forward to hold one of its own bodies accountable to the people in the state of California. I want to applaud the bipartisan support—this one where you don’t see one party or the other. This is bipartisan support coming forward to say that the University of California that’s out of step with the way that the people of California expect for a government to perform and they are going to what is required and what is necessary to bring them back into compliance by opening up the process and providing the transparency that is needed and making sure that the university of California operates the same way as any other prestigious institutions that educate the people of California. That no one is above the compliance that is required them that they operate when they receive taxpayer dollars.”
He pointedly continued:
“The last time I remember you had someone there that was in touch with everyday human beings was when Dolores Huerta was appointed by Gray Davis. It says something clear when you appoint people who have more money than the lord himself and make decisions everyday in a secret way. They do not feel obligated to do things in the public.”
He also referencee Ms. MacMath’s complaint about the regents lack of attentiveness to student concerns.
“You heard the young lady said that when it was time for the public to have a meeting before the regents, the regents felt it was more important to speak to their neighbors than less attentively to the people when it was time for them to have a say. It’s time for that to change and I’m looking forward to the challenge.”
Julian Posadas, Executive Vice President AFSCME Local 3299 and food service worker at UC Santa Cruz:
“We applaud Senator Yee for introducing this legislation that will make UC more accountable to California taxpayers. Studies have shown that when executives are allowed to control funds without accountability that everything that they do is vote themselves big raises. This has clearly been happening at UC for far too long. Senator Yee and other legislators have not been able to cut into UC executives excessive pay, secret meetings, and misplaced spending priorities because UC’s constitution that shields the university from having to answer to everybody. “
SCA 21 and ACA 24 would require an eventual vote of the people. It would repeal the independent provisions of UC as administered by the Regents and place it under legislative control.
“Existing provisions of the California Constitution provide that the University of California constitutes a public trust and requires the university to be administered by the Regents of the University of California, a corporation in the form of a board, with full powers of organization and government, subject to legislative control only for specified purposes. These provisions require that corporation to have all powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of its trust.
This measure would repeal on January 1, 2011, the constitutional provisions relating to the university and the regents and would require the university and the regents to be continued in existence subject to legislative control as may be provided by statute. The measure would require the Legislature to enact legislation to implement these provisions.”
Senator Yee:
“We’re not going to take over the UC, all we’re saying is that we want to have a voice, the people want to have a voice. Parents come to me and say I can’t afford to send my kids to UC, they want to go to UC, they’re qualified to go to UC, but I can’t afford that anymore. What can you do? And for me to throw up my hands, I can’t do anything. That’s not doing my job. If there’s any message to be taken away from the election, it’s to do your job and this is what’s going to allow us to do our job.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sigh. After ruining everything that they touch in Sacramento, they have pulled out the pitchforks for the one state institution that’s the furthest away from bankruptcy. If they are serious about this, they would put UC into the same spiral of structural deficits that they are in. They are mad that UC is laying off workers and cutting wages, and they are mad that UC is raising fees. If UC doesn’t cut labor costs and doesn’t raise fees, what is it supposed to do?
Sure, they have an answer for that, they want UC to cut executive salaries. Clearly it would be politic right now for Katehi, Yudof, etc., to accept voluntary pay cuts. But they cannot use jealousy in place of the laws of arithmetic. They asked UC to find on the order of $500 million. All of the top executives at UC put together aren’t paid $500 million or even $50 million. They may or may not be about to admit this, but they want executive salaries to be zero at the most.
UC’s budget does not in fact look like Enron or AIG. But if the state legislature takes this too far, then eventually it will.
It’s a political world. Stuff like that matters. You don’t raise top executive salaries in a bad economy without attracting negative attention. It would have been better to wait for better times to raise salaries if it were necessary.
Your mathematician perspective doesn’t necessarily account for the irrationalities of human behavior.
[i]Your mathematician perspective doesn’t necessarily account for the irrationalities of human behavior.[/i]
Let me assure you that I don’t need to be reminded. You shouldn’t think that Yudof’s salary or Katehi was my idea. I never asked for a low salary or a high salary for them or anything in between. Are you saying that I have something to gain by joining the chorus of jealousy? I don’t see that I do.
Yes, there is a tidal wave of irrational behavior in the state government right now. Yes, I am concerned.
Greg, I agree with a good deal of what you say. It is frightening to think that the CA legislature would now be called upon to oversee the UC system – the same legislature that has allowed the state of CA to get into the financial mess it is in right now.
However, I would like to point out that this is not just about executive compensation to my mind. In the recent past, the UC President was given a 100% raise, the UCD Chancellor was given a 20% increase in salary, UCD built a new stadium, will build a new music auditorium, a new convention center, a new high-tech winery – at a time when UC is calling for more than a 10% hike in student fees, laying off professors and cutting classes. What is more important, students or a convention center? Students or a stadium? Students or a winery?
I understand that in many cases, large donations were given to further these projects, but the donations represent a very small proportion of the total cost. I also understand the need for the UC system to keep competitive with other universities/colleges, and the requirement for cutting edge technology. But I also understand budget constraints, and the UC system seems to think they don’t have any. It is time to reign them in – I’m just not sure the legislature is the body that should be doing it, since they can’t get their own house in order!
One more point. I have no doubt there will be an argument that funds for the stadium, music auditorium, convention center and winery (facilities funding) come from a different pot of money than funding for professors and classes (operating expenses). Technically that may be correct. But from a practical point of view, all of the funding comes from one collective pot of money – the taxpayers’ collective pocket, which is EMPTY at the moment in this souring economy!
While I share some of the same concerns that Greg raised about the legislature taking over UC, I’m not convinced that the legislature is as bad as the current situation appears. One of the problems that the legislature faces is one of the worst governmental structures in the nation when it comes to the ability to pass budgets.
At the same time, I have grown increasingly frustrated with UC becoming more and more of an autocracy governed by a few elite members of the UC Regents with absolutely no public influence whatsoever. In the ideal world, perhaps this measure fails but the UC Regents get the message that perhaps next time, they really will have to face control from the legislature.
I also disagree that this is only about executive pay.
The article was getting too long but here is a lengthy list of complaints that were included in the press release yesterday:
• the UC approved several executive compensation packages behind closed doors, resulting in SB 190 (2007) to require such actions to be done during public session.
• the UC continues to hold closed door meetings to discuss executive compensation packages.
• low-wage workers were forced out on strike after receiving no relief from their poverty wages and were later threatened with retaliation by UC administrators.
• the University conducts research on teen smoking cessation funded by the tobacco industry.
• campus auxiliary organizations fail to comply with the state’s public records act, resulting in SB 218 (2009).
• public contracts have often been kept secret, including financial audits at UCSF, resulting in SB 1696 (2008).
• workers have been disenfranchised during elections to a pension advisory board.
• UC Regents ignored a legislative resolution, SCR 52 (2007), requesting employees be given shared governance of their pension plan.
• the Legislature approved AB 2581 (2006) and SB 1370 (2008) to grant student speech rights and protect journalism advisors from retaliation.
• the UC has handed out several “golden parachutes,” including individual severance packages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
• after receiving generous severance packages, some high level executives have been immediately rehired at their previous salaries.
• it has become the yearly norm for Regents to approve double digit student fee increases.
• despite the state’s budget deficit, Regents frequently provide exorbitant pay hikes for top executives, resulting in SB 217 (2009).
• employees have been retaliated against for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse and given no legal protections, resulting in SB 219 (2009).
• some campuses have contracted with businesses that have violated wage and hour laws and failed to put contracts out to a competitive bidding process, resulting in SB 1596 (2008).
• for the past several years, the Regents have increasingly contracted out the management on the UC Retirement Plan to a number of high-priced pension consultants and money management firms, rather than stick to the decades-old and highly successful practice of using professional university financial staff to trade stocks themselves.
• a number of the management contracts of the retirement plan have been awarded to firms owned by members of the UC Investment Advisory Committee.
[i]I understand that in many cases, large donations were given to further these projects, but the donations represent a very small proportion of the total cost.[/i]
The press release was very clear that the winery is being built entirely with private donations. I have no idea whether the press release was true or not, but how did you learn that it is flat out wrong? The same goes for the convention center: Where did you learn that it is costing the taxpayers?
As for Aggie Stadium, I would like nothing better than to see it filled in. If you ask me, the university needs Aggie Stadium like a library needs a squash court. In fact they did ask me; I and a majority of the faculty voted no. The students voted for it.
But as UC Watcher said, I should be on guard for irrationality. Even though the students voted for the stadium and I voted against it, they could still blame for it they wanted to.
[i]But I also understand budget constraints, and the UC system seems to think they don’t have any.[/i]
No, Elaine, what’s so sad is that precisely because the UC system has a relatively good credit rating, it is defying [b]the will of the people[/b].
[i]One of the problems that the legislature faces is one of the worst governmental structures in the nation when it comes to the ability to pass budgets.[/i]
Exactly, David. Leland Yee thinks that it’s very important to pull UC into that structure.
[i]I also disagree that this is only about executive pay.[/i]
It certainly isn’t. Even if UC knocked executive pay down to the worst in the nation, there would still be a lot of anger.
But their grab bag of grievances does not work as the real explanation either. The timing of this bill is quite transparent. They are chasing after UC because they need a scapegoat. The state budget process will soon corral them into a circular firing squad — I don’t envy them at all. They see it coming and it gives them a little respite to vent fury somewhere else.
Don’t get me wrong about their numerous complaints; some of them undoubtedly have merit. But notice how your sequence of bullet points keeps revisiting compensation of executives and consultants. Notice that and the two really ominous bullet points, that UC shouldn’t cut wages and shouldn’t raise fees either.
Actually, only about 1/3 comes from the state if that. The rest is self supporting.
Another point that should be made is that the state is supposed to pay a certain amount for each CA student. I know that the state has not been covering its costs but a little homework (a 30 second google search) came up with a partial answer:
‘UC’s immediate state budget shortfall in its core funds budget, as of spring 2009, is $450 million – which is 15% of the $3 billion in state general funds UC receives. Even before today’s immediate budget challenge came along, UC had a huge problem: The State of California’s per-student funding for UC education had fallen 40% just since 1990. In 1990, the state contributed $15,860 per student, or 78% of the total cost of education. By 2007-08, that figure had fallen to $9,560 per student, or 58% of the total cost. (Figures for both years are in 2007-08 constant dollars).
On top of that, UC now faces an immediate $450 million gap in state funding. That gap consists of $115 million in budget cuts over the 2008-09 and 2009-10 years, $122 million in student enrollments not being funded by the state, and $213 million in unfunded costs over a two-year period for utilities, employee health benefits and other unavoidable inflationary costs. The gap amounts to 15% of the $3 billion the state provides UC.’
My issue is not that the Regents have any justification for their fiscal malfeasance thus far. I’m all for opening up the books and let the chips fall where they may. I could and probably should write a novella on waste and classism* at UC. My worry is that we’re talking about having Sacramento take a hand in governing another institution when they clearly can’t handle doing their present job.
Even more worrisome is opening UC to governance by CA proposition. After all look at how well the proposition platform has served the state up to now**.
* why does nobody ever talk about this?
**Yes, that was meant as a snark
“UCD built a new stadium, will build a new music auditorium, a new convention center, a new high-tech winery – at a time when UC is calling for more than a 10% hike in student fees, laying off professors and cutting classes. What is more important, students or a convention center? Students or a stadium? Students or a winery?”
I cringe at the salary packages, because there was clearly some control that individuals had over that.
But the mechanism for building projects in the UC and California college systems is largely voter approved through bond issues and private donations. There is a statewide list of construction projects that is funded off of those bonds. I suppose the state/colleges can slow down the construction schedule, but on the other hand, it is one thing that the state can do to offer jobs in a bad economy. And to tinker with the funds risks going against the will of the voters. The recent Prop. 8 results suggest how the courts value voter approved measures. So if you don’t like all of the construction during bad economic times, you can blame the voters, but the legislature has much less say over that money (construction bonds).
I also know that the music building is at least partially funded by private donations.
“The press release was very clear that the winery is being built entirely with private donations. I have no idea whether the press release was true or not, but how did you learn that it is flat out wrong? The same goes for the convention center: Where did you learn that it is costing the taxpayers?’
I didn’t catch that the winery was to be built with all private donations, but I am not certain I believe it. For instance, the music auditorium is a case in point, as is the Mondavi Center and Wine Institute (or whatever the heck the formal name for it is). A small amount of money was donated relative to the total cost, most of which was borne by the University (although I wonder if the university was able to leverage some federal funding). This is the problem with no public oversight. We are never really sure exactly what is going on, and need to know precisely how our tax money is being spent. We shouldn’t have to guess at it, or hope that the press releases given to the media are truthful. In these tough economic times, with the call for student fees hikes and professorial layoffs, do you think the University would tell us if the convention center and winery were going to cost the UC system money?
Yudof, new UC President, took a 100% salary increase, then went hiked on over to the governor complaining about budget cuts to the UC system. How much credibility does he have in a situation like that? Not much. Why do you think Yee is getting traction with his argument for oversight? And by the way, this sort of overly generous executive compensation for upper management has been going on for years in the UC system. Remember the $1 million golden parachute given behind closed doors to the outgoing President of UC, who had only been at the job for a year? It caused such an uproar that Gov Pete Wilson got involved – to no avail. Some sort of oversight has been a long time coming – I’m just not convinced the legislature should be doing it! They need to get their own fiscal house in order first.
“As for Aggie Stadium, I would like nothing better than to see it filled in. If you ask me, the university needs Aggie Stadium like a library needs a squash court. In fact they did ask me; I and a majority of the faculty voted no. The students voted for it.”
Students should not be making this sort of decision, as they are not privy to the whole financial picture. Furthermore, I suspect upper management wanted the new stadium, then touted it to students, getting student OK as political cover. Color me cynical!
“No, Elaine, what’s so sad is that precisely because the UC system has a relatively good credit rating, it is defying the will of the people.”
Yes, the UC system has a good credit rating – bc they can arbitrarily hike student fees whenever they choose, fire professors, cut classes, as they give out golden parachutes like candy. The UC system has a stream of income beyond just the taxpayer, not to mention funding from the federal gov’t for low income students, another funding stream. But that doesn’t mean the UC system should spend taxpayers’ money w utter abandon, in these tough economic times, at the same time it cuts faculty, staff, classes, and hikes student fees, as well as cuts enrollment. A university is supposed to exist for the good of STUDENTS.
“It certainly isn’t. Even if UC knocked executive pay down to the worst in the nation, there would still be a lot of anger.”
But it would be harder to focus that anger without the executive pay issue. People more easily understand that the narrative raising salaries in a bad economy looks like inappropriate management. The rest of the complaints are generally harder for most to grasp or react to.
I am a product of a UC education, and I’m extremely grateful for it. And I don’t want to see the legislature get involved any more than it already has.
[i]But the mechanism for building projects in the UC and California college systems is largely voter approved through bond issues and private donations.[/i]
But, as you pointed out, this is the season for unreason. Just because these building projects were voter-approved and privately supported, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t “arrogance”, that they aren’t “above the law”, and that they aren’t “government waste”.
Meanwhile, according to PRED Old Times, only about 1/3 of UC’s budget comes from the state general fund. Undoubtedly the state legislature would love to get its hands on the other 2/3 right now.
I read a news clip last night that Schwarzenegger proposed to cut $1.8 billion from health care for the poor, even though it would also eliminate $3.7 billion in federal matching funds and $600 million in stimulus money. Save one dollar, lose more than two other dollars. They are really lashing out in every direction. Yes, we should be on guard for the irrational.
[i]And I don’t want to see the legislature get involved any more than it already has.[/i]
Good, let’s at least agree on that fundamental point.
“My issue is not that the Regents have any justification for their fiscal malfeasance thus far. I’m all for opening up the books and let the chips fall where they may. I could and probably should write a novella on waste and classism* at UC. My worry is that we’re talking about having Sacramento take a hand in governing another institution when they clearly can’t handle doing their present job.
Even more worrisome is opening UC to governance by CA proposition. After all look at how well the proposition platform has served the state up to now**.”
Nicely said. I am all for oversight, but not by the legislature, who can’t get their own fiscal house in order. Nor as you point out do I like necessarily having oversight by proposition – bc the voters just don’t know enough about the UC budgeting system.
“But their grab bag of grievances does not work as the real explanation either. The timing of this bill is quite transparent. They are chasing after UC because they need a scapegoat. The state budget process will soon corral them into a circular firing squad — I don’t envy them at all. They see it coming and it gives them a little respite to vent fury somewhere else.”
I think this is a point well taken. It does seem as if this is a “quick fix” for the state’s budget problem, and deflects attention away from the business at hand – the state’s fiscal insolvency and the underlying reasons for it. However, I think some of UC’s actions are indicative of the way taxpayer money is being wasted – money is being borrowed as if the loan is no interest permanently deferred! As Pred Old Timer points out, student fees have not covered costs, and UC has been going deeper into the red, just as with much of the state budget. Keep things going, don’t trim the fat, because tomorrow will be a better day. Well tomorrow is here, and the fiscal weather is certainly not sunny!
“But the mechanism for building projects in the UC and California college systems is largely voter approved through bond issues and private donations. There is a statewide list of construction projects that is funded off of those bonds.”
Did the voters approve specific projects, such as the Mondavi center? Or did they just vote to approve a general bond for “improvements” to the UCD system?
“I also know that the music building is at least partially funded by private donations.”
Partially funded is the key phrase – usually a very small percentage gets donated. The rest is funded by UC.
“But, as you pointed out, this is the season for unreason. Just because these building projects were voter-approved and privately supported, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t “arrogance”, that they aren’t “above the law”, and that they aren’t “government waste”.”
Do you suggest stopping all construction projects? The executive salary criticisms resonates more readily, I think, because it involves folks who are already relatively comfortable in these tough times. If you want to stop construction projects, then you run into arguments that these are good times to build (cheaper costs), that these projects benefit a less privileged class (students, as opposed to executives), and that the state is denying potential jobs at a time when the economy could really use them (sort of like the WPA of the Great Depression). To me the waste and arrogance criticisms don’t stick as easily to construction projects as they do to executive pay.
[i]Do you suggest stopping all construction projects?[/i]
No. Honestly I don’t know what to suggest. Strictly from the point of view of accusation politics — a sordid subject if there ever was one — UC chancellors probably should step forward with voluntary pay cuts. The problem is that the horse is out of the barn now. Leland Yee is going to claim that they are only doing this because they are afraid of him.
I really don’t do well in front of crowds, particularly not angry crowds. I enjoy doing mathematics; I enjoy explaining things that are hard to understand. Much of my life is structured to be inconspicuous to people with no patience to learn and listen. So when the pitchforks rise up because the stage budget has gone haywire, I’m hardly an expert on what to do.
Still, common sense does suggest a general outline of a plan. The UC Regents and executives should go to Sacramento and do everything they can to sound responsive. This is not truly possible, because Sacramento wants UC to cut revenue by a lot and keep its largest expenses (after gutting a handful of executive salaries). Still, they should concede everything cheap, offer at least a fraction of every other thing, and generally sound obsequious and sympathetic. After that, they should quietly work with moderates to somehow deflect these horrible bills. Maybe the bills could be replaced by something else less bad that looks equally punitive.
If that doesn’t work and UC does lose its autonomy, then probably nothing terrible will happen immediately. But if Sacramento makes much use of its new-found control, then a lot of faculty might well head for the exits after a few years. That will be a solution for them if not for California.
The State should subject all of the State colleges and State universities to operational audits – they could cycle through all of the campuses every 3 to 4 years. The focus would be on best practices and simply efficient financial operation – not fraud. They would look at things like-
organization structure – with focus on non teaching administrative organizations
hiring practices
benefit programs
salary setting
three year capital project plans
review of non salary spending
spending authorization procedures
budget development and budget control
The team of auditors should report to the State Controller and they should issue reports with rankings – bad audits should carry significant consequences including termination of employment for those responsible.
That should improve public trust.
Another thing – when UCD wants to hold elections to support building new facilities the vote should belong to the parents (the bill payers) not the students. The parents are the customers (in most cases) and UCD seems to be oblivious to that.
[i]Another thing – when UCD wants to hold elections to support building new facilities the vote should belong to the parents (the bill payers) not the students. The parents are the customers (in most cases) and UCD seems to be oblivious to that.[/i]
Elaine Musser is right that the student vote in favor of Division I Athletics, which let to Aggie Stadium, was no more binding than the faculty vote against it. The administration wanted to do this. Even so, I would have been elated if the state legislature, or activist parents, or any other such outside group had opposed the move to Division I. As I said, I think that UC Davis needs Division I like a library needs a squash court.
But who did speak out? My impression was that parents and alumni wanted Division I more than the students did. Indeed, the students did not vote in favor by a huge majority.
I’m concerned that the voters are not keeping track of who approved anything, nor when nor why, nor how much anything costs. All that they know is that the state is broke and that it’s time to eliminate “waste”. They want to gut executive salaries, but after that they will be out of ideas. Actually I’m not concerned about the voters themselves, because they shouldn’t be expected to study the details of these matters. But I’m concerned that legislature will fly blind too, that they will flail as a crazy expression of “the will of the people” because there is nothing else for them to do.
Every prosperous state has great research and teaching Universities. Without a top-notch and competitive UC system, the long-term prosperity of the state would be at risk.
The legislature knows nothing about sustaining and operating great research and teaching universities, and should not be micromanaging them.
Just about every university faculty and staff member I know is disturbed by the level of executive salaries and perks and the proliferation of high-level administrative positions. Although these abuses pale in comparison to the pensioner and savers’ subsidies of wall street executives and outrageous private sector executive salaries and bonuses, and although the abuses are less extreme than those of other University systems, they nevertheless should be addressed. However, turning the University over to the legislature is not the answer, and will destroy the University system. Why would a great researcher accept a job at an institution whose policies could radically change every two years? This proposal would have very serious long-term ramifications for the state.
The legislature does not want to sustain and operate the university system. They want oversight over it, not control.
[quote]Co-sponsor Senator Roy Ashburn, a Republican, could not attend the press conference due to the graduation of his grandson from nursery school.[/quote]Graduation from nursery school?!!! Graduation?!!!
I know I’m spattering like an old man when I say, “In my day….” But in my day, there were no graduation ceremonies at all until you had completed high school. We also were not given trophies for participation and all that #### that every kid gets just for showing up. I’m doubtful that all of this business about telling every child how great he is (regardless of his performance) better prepares kids for the real world. But then again, I would have loved to have given my valedictory address to the other 4-year-olds at the UC Davis preschool I attended back in 1968.
[quote]Just about every university faculty and staff member I know is disturbed by the level of executive salaries and perks and the proliferation of high-level administrative positions. Although these abuses pale in comparison to the pensioner and savers’ subsidies of wall street executives and outrageous private sector executive salaries and bonuses, and although the abuses are less extreme than those of other University systems, they nevertheless should be addressed[/quote]
Although there is no valid argument against the evidence of run-away Wall Street greed, private sector compensation is largely self-correcting if the free-market mechanisms are not subverted by government manipulation and intrusion. There is also the point that is none of our business unless we are an owner or stockholder. As I understand, UCD takes in 30-40% of its operating revenue from state and federal coffers. It is laughable that so many on this blog cringe at the thought of government inserting themselves into the business decision-making apparatus of a public university, but register slightly a whimper of concern when the Obama administration does the same for entire private-sector industries. This is either telling of our politics, or telling of our confusion.
This sounds like a terrible idea to me.
“…would remove the Regents autonomy and allow the Legislature to enact statutes affecting UC policy….”
They have the power of the purse, and have apparently not hesitated to introduce legislation about policies and practices already, as shown by the list of bills above. So I can’t see what possible good would come from this, and I can think of any number of adverse effects.
‘it is laughable that so many on this blog cringe at the thought of government inserting themselves into the business decision-making apparatus of a public university, but register slightly a whimper of concern when the Obama administration does the same for entire private-sector industries. This is either telling of our politics, or telling of our confusion.’
Don’t include me in that many! In fact, I’m constantly surprised we don’t have rioting in the streets but then most people don’t really know how egregious the interference is. But that is a soap box for another time and by people smarter then me.
“This sounds like a terrible idea to me.”
It is too bad the public trust has been lost – the perception is the Regents have failed to perform their duties. There is no doubt this will pass if it goes to the voters.
“But then again, I would have loved to have given my valedictory address to the other 4-year-olds at the UC Davis preschool I attended back in 1968.”
I think you have a potential topic for a future column, or else a blog comment. Forty-one years later, as you were looking to the future at that age,…
😉
Here’s a start: “Fellow playmates, secure your future! Invest in Microsoft!”
I was thinking of parroting young Abraham Lincoln:
[i]”Four years and seven minutes ago, my mother set forth, upon this continent, a new child, conceived in wedded bliss, and dedicated to the proposition that all toddlers are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great finger-painting contest, testing whether this academy, or any preschool so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great playground of that contest. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their finger-paints that that nursery might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow this ground. The brave babies, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The citry council will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored students we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these pupils shall not have finger-painted in vain; that this school shall have a new birth of colorful paints; and that this nursery of the children, by the children, for the children, shall not perish from this university. [/i]
[i]It is too bad the public trust has been lost – the perception is the Regents have failed to perform their duties.[/i]
Yes, and perception is quite a racket these days. Here are four well-paid executives at the University of California: head Cal football coach, head Cal basketball coach, head UCLA football coach, head Cal basketball coach. These four men get paid more than the president of UC and all ten chancellors put together.
How much sense does it make to stew over Yudof’s salary, when Jeff Tedford made $2.8 million, three and a half times as much as Yudof, the year before Yudof was hired? Does Tedford do anything more important than what Yudof does?
Nonetheless, when these legislators said that UC executives are overpaid, they did not have in mind Tedford, Montgomery, Neuheisel, or Howland. Instead it was Yudof, Katehi, and Desmond-Hellmann.
That’s perception for you.
[quote] Here are four well-paid executives at the University of California: head Cal football coach, head Cal basketball coach, head UCLA football coach, head Cal basketball coach. These four men get paid more than the president of UC and all ten chancellors put together. [/quote]While I have long doubted the argument that D-1 athletics serves the university’s mission, I think in fairness it should be pointed out that none of those salaries are being paid for by the taxpayers or by the students. Those salaries come from television contracts with the NCAA. The moral question is why none of the TV money goes to the talented football and basketball players who produce on the field of play?
I could not find anything more recent, but here ([url]http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/18/news/ncaa/[/url]) is a 1999 story about the $6 billion CBS paid for rights to show the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. The money for regular season games is worth even more, of course. And there is much more money paid to broadcast regular season and bowl season college football. That’s why coaches get the HUGE money.
[i]Those salaries come from television contracts with the NCAA.[/i]
And more of that money could go to the players on the field, then they can’t also divert more of it to the UC general budget because…?
They could just as easily have sheltered Yudof’s and Katehi’s salary inside alumni donations as they shelter Tilford’s salary inside football revenues. But they didn’t do that, because the Regents are more accountable than the NCAA. And the other difference is that Yudof, unlike Tilford, sometimes has to bear bad news.
I think the negative perception goes beyond salaries of a few people. It has more to do with bloated administrative staffs, sweetheart deals (like large relocation allowances when housing is already part of the compensation package, and simply too many non-teaching/research positions. Also there is too much empire building going on.
You can not lay people off and give them a large severance package along with an equivalent job – too much double dipping. You can not fire somebody and give them a package simply because they are Black and it makes you feel better.
[quote]And more of that money could go to the players on the field, then they can’t also divert more of it to the UC general budget because…? [/quote]Because… there is very stiff competition among universities for the top coaches. If UCLA didn’t offer millions of dollars to Ben Howland, he never would have left the University of Pittsburgh, where he was very successful, to come to Los Angeles. He would have likely gone to a school like Arizona, which would then be much better now than UCLA.
If you divert a lot of that money to the UC general budget, you don’t get a good coach and you don’t win the national championships, as UCLA has under Howland. If you don’t win, then you don’t bring in nearly as much money. Coaches at top D-1 schools who don’t win don’t get paid big money. They get fired.
That is not to say that some NCAA TV money is not diverted. The percentage paid to top coaches is actually quite small. Most of the income from Men’s basketball and football pays for all of the other NCAA sports, including almost all women’s sports. It pays those coaches (much less), travel expenses, scholarships, housing, food, tutors, equipment, etc.
[i]Because… there is very stiff competition among universities for the top coaches.[/i]
Why does that excuse apply to head coaches, and not to university presidents and chancellors?
[i]The percentage paid to top coaches is actually quite small.[/i]
Okay, why does THAT excuse apply to head coaches, and not to university presidents and chancellors?
[i]Most of the income from Men’s basketball and football pays for all of the other NCAA sports[/i]
And for the third time, why does that excuse apply to head coaches, and not to university presidents and chancellors? After all, university leaders attract many millions of dollars in private donations.
Leland Yee says that it’s time to share the pain. They could take 20% of the salary of these four celebrity coaches alone, compared to which even Yudof is in the poor house, and provide a small athletic scholarship to every UC student who can run a mile in 15 minutes. (Plus disability waivers, of course.)
Anyway, thanks very much to Davis Councilmember and ex-Mayor Greenwald for her statement of support in this season of unreason. I apologize that we chatterboxes have buried the comment.
[quote]Why does that excuse apply to head coaches, and not to university presidents and chancellors?[/quote]Because the marginal value (MPl) of university presidents is far lower than it is for top coaches.
I’m sure some private university officials who are unusually great fundraisers get paid bonuses as a share of the funds they raise. However, it is not normally the case that these administrators are hired for their skills as fundraisers. If they were, then that’s how all of them would be compensated. Top level basketball coaches are hired for their ability to raise funds — TV funds, especially. If they fail to generate those revenues, they get fired. The math is not complicated.
[quote]After all, university leaders attract many millions of dollars in private donations.[/quote]That’s not necessarily true, even if it seems like it is on the surface.
Larry Vanderhoef raised millions in the name of UC Davis. That’s true. However, had Vanderhoef quit five years ago and been replaced by another chancellor of equal experience, the replacement (very likely) would have raised just as much money over the last five years. Hence, Vanderhoef was paid close to his marginal value, which in fundraising terms is close to zero.
The reason is that fundraising of the type chancellors do is worth so little on the margin is twofold: 1) the universities sell themselves. Alumni don’t give to Harvard or Stanford or UCD because of the chancellor’s pitch. They give because they have an emotional investment in the place, or more commonly lately, a commercial investment (as with Chevron’s large gifts to UCD); and 2) chancellors are not generally hired for their marginal skills as fundraisers. Look at Linda Katehi’s resume: Was she selected because among all of the candidates interviewed, she had better skills as a fundraiser? No.
Here is what she did at the University of Illinois: [quote]“The Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is the chief academic and budget officer for the campus. The Provost oversees academic and budgetary policy and priorities, ensures the quality of the faculty and student body, and maintains educational excellence. All of the deans and directors of academic units report to the Provost.”[/quote]If she raised any money for Illinois, it does not say.
Insofar as raising money is an important skill for chancellors, it may come to pass that we will one day [i]hire[/i] them for that skill and then [i]pay[/i] them based on their performance as fundraisers. However, when that happens, qualified candidates won’t have backgrounds as PhDs or Provosts. They will have been corporate salesmen or quasi-celebrities (such as former governors or senators) who are personally tied into a network of rich people willing to give lots of money to universities.
[i]Because the marginal value (MPl) of university presidents is far lower than it is for top coaches.[/i]
I had thought that it was enough to point out that Katehi’s salary is below the median for leaders of public research universities, in order to argue that her position does have a marginal value on the scale of what she is paid. Moreover, that leaders of private universities are even better paid. Moreover, that since university leaders claim to be under enormous pressure to attract donations, maybe their high compensation has some connection to fundraising.
But I suppose not. I suppose that unlike athletic coaches, whose competitive value is obvious, the salaries of university presidents across the United States have spiraled up for no real reason. It certainly isn’t because of free-market competition. Yes, millions of dollars in donations roll in, and you might think that it has something to do with whose hand is on the magnet. But that’s an illusion. Actually the magnet is nailed in place by the university’s reputation, and the president’s hand is on it just for show.
Capitalism works in strange ways.
Anyway, since marginal fundraising value is not the explanation for the salaries of campus leaders, we might as well promote some insider to be the chancellor at UC Davis. Ideally we would promote a long-time faculty member with community roots and a two-body problem who won’t be distracted by outside offers or median compensation. It’s better not to run that risk.
Even so, it’s vaguely unsatisfying that Jeff Tedford gets more than three times as much as another salary that has been deemed obscene in certain circles. Yes, you’ve convinced me that Tedford deserves the money. He’s much more than a university president, he’s a head coach. Sharing the pain has nothing to do with it. But what if he donated money to reduce students fees by a few dollars as a charity move? It would cement his reputation as the most valuable employee of the University of California system. In fact, it might not really cost him anything, if he leveraged it for a raise a few years down the road.
It looks like Operation “Look Over There!” has begun.
There is another side to this story that was mentioned in passing in the news clips, and that has not been discussed here at all: Why would Leland Yee, a UC graduate with a PhD from Hawaii, spearhead a jealousy-tinged assault on the University of California? Why would his constituents be furious about the items in his laundry list of grievances? For instance, why would they be all that upset that Yudof is paid a whopping 30% as much as Tedford? Would they care a lot about the food service union contract?
They wouldn’t. However, his constituents do care deeply about another fairness issue which is not listed among the bullet points, but which did attract Yee’s attention two months ago. UC is changing its admission formula, with a predicted increase European-American admissions and a predicted reduction of Asian-American admissions.
Asian Americans are about 40% of full-time UC undergraduates and about 14% of graduating seniors in California (counting Filipinos). For Hispanic Americans, it’s 17% UC vs 37% high school. For European Americans, it’s 35% UC vs 40% high school. The remaining significant group is African Americans, which are 3.5% UC vs 7.5% high school.
UC is shifting its admissions formula to eliminate the SAT subject tests (SAT II) and make more use of the SAT reasoning test (SAT I). This has come up in hallway talk on campus. A first guess as to what this means has been that UC wanted to do this to attract more underprivileged minorities, i.e., Hispanics and blacks. In fact, when UC ran the numbers, the main shift was away from Asians and toward whites, although the underprivileged groups could be boosted some. Asians were projected to lose 4 to 7 percent of total admissions.
UC did not exactly trumpet this news. Still, the data came out at the last minute, because it more-or-less had to. Yudof seemed dismissive in response to protestations from Asian Americans.
So there you have a different kind of jealousy politics. Unless UC changes the trend, Asian Americans will eventually be an outright majority of UC undergraduates. At Irvine they already are. Now, I am just as susceptible to jealousy as anyone else, whether the issue is someone’s astronomical salary or the amazing academic surge of Asian Americans. But on this issue, my sense of fairness contradicts my sense of envy. Yee could be right about the admissions policy.
But that does not mean that UC should lose its autonomy. That’s the pitchfork solution and it would be a big mistake. I’m not even sure that Yee is committed to it. He obviously wanted to confront Yudof; he may or may not follow through later.
[quote]Even so, it’s vaguely unsatisfying that Jeff Tedford gets more than three times as much as another salary that has been deemed obscene in certain circles. [/quote]Would you have kept Tom Holmoe as the head coach at Cal? He made well less than half of what Tedford is paid.
[quote]But I suppose not. I suppose that unlike athletic coaches, whose competitive value is obvious, the salaries of university presidents across the United States have spiraled up for no real reason.[/quote]The reason why [i]some[/i] university presidents are paid for more than earlier presidents has a reason: they have a lot more value to their institutions.
I don’t doubt at all that some or much of that value for [i]those top performers[/i] is tied to fundraising. That makes sense. However, what I doubt is that, when UC was looking for a new chancellor at Davis, they chose Katehi because she had a proven track record as a fundraiser. As far as I can tell from looking at her background, she had no record at all in that regard.
If UC saw the job as chancellor of UC Davis as principally being one about fundraising, they probably would not have hired Dr. Katehi, and the person they hired would be making a lot more money than she will be making.
[quote]Yes, millions of dollars in donations roll in, and you might think that it has something to do with whose hand is on the magnet. But that’s an illusion.[/quote]The [i]margin[/i] is no illusion at all. The illusion would be to think that chancellors at UC, despite the amount of time they devote to fundraising, are hired or fired for their marginal fundraising skills. They aren’t. If you think they should be, then say so.
[quote]Unless UC changes the trend, Asian Americans will eventually be an outright majority of UC undergraduates.[/quote]Maybe instead of rigging the entrance requirements to get in more people of various groups, people who don’t have the cultural values and norms of Asians should stop whining and start doing what the Asians do: study! And then study some more!
[i]Would you have kept Tom Holmoe as the head coach at Cal?[/i]
If it were up to me, Cal, UCLA, and Davis would all be in Division II.
[i]What I doubt is that, when UC was looking for a new chancellor at Davis, they chose Katehi because she had a proven track record as a fundraiser. As far as I can tell from looking at her background, she had no record at all in that regard.[/i]
The cynical truth is that Katehi already had fundraising all over her resume when she was Dean at Purdue and Illinois hired her.
Anyway, now that I turn it over in my mind, it seems preposterous that Yee truly wants the legislature to seize control of UC admissions. Maybe he would personally would enjoy more leverage, but he is subject to term limits. And it’s not as simple as rigging or not rigging the entrance requirements. The truth is that entrance requirements have no natural resting point. They will be politically contentious forever.
“people who don’t have the cultural values and norms of Asians should stop whining and start doing what the Asians do”
The UCD school of education should pick up on this and find ways for prospective teachers to promote some of the “asian” behaviors in their classrooms. Promote success!
“Anyway, now that I turn it over in my mind, it seems preposterous that Yee truly wants the legislature to seize control of UC admissions.”
It is more likely Yee is trying to make political hay out of anything that takes attention away from the fact that he has no solid solutions to the budget crisis, other than to point the finger at the UC system and its overly generous executive salaries.
As for the new entrance policies, shame on anything that would not ensure the best and the brightest attend our public universities – regardless of ethnicity.
“It is more likely Yee is trying to make political hay out of anything that takes attention away from the fact that he has no solid solutions to the budget crisis, other than to point the finger at the UC system and its overly generous executive salaries.”
Yee has been working on this issue for years, so that comment shows plain ignorance about Yee. He is also in a safe district, so I doubt he feels the need to do as you suggest.
“Yee has been working on this issue for years, so that comment shows plain ignorance about Yee. He is also in a safe district, so I doubt he feels the need to do as you suggest.”
OK, so what wonderful ideas does Yee put forth to handle the budget crisis besides pointing the finger at UCD exec salaries? Educate me – please.