(From AFSCME 3299 website):
60,000 UC Union Members Call for
Vote of No Confidence in Yudof
WHEREAS University of California (UC) President Mark Yudof has declared his intention to force
crippling cuts on UC’s vital services and programs, and
WHEREAS the furloughs, layoffs , and student fee increases proposed by President Yudof are
unnecessary and extremely harmful to the University and its public service mission, and
WHEREAS as recently as July 2009, UC’s strong AA1/AA bond rating was reaffirmed by Moody’s
Investors Service, and UC’s Medical Centers reported a strong 5.2% operating margin and $171
million in profits for the three quarters ending March 31, 2009,and
WHEREAS UC has consistently refused to comply with state law in making transparent its financial
WHEREAS the University, as a leading institution of higher education and a recipient of American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act funds, is expected to reign in fraud, waste, and abuse, including
excessive executive compensation, and
WHEREAS Roughly 3,600 UC employees earn over $200,000 in yearly salary, Chancellors
currently earn an average of 22% more than their predecessors, and President Yudof earns
nearly 200% more than his predecessor, and
WHEREAS President Yudof’s planned solution to decreased State General Fund appropriations bars
high-wage University employees from contributing a balanced share to the budget solution, while
deliberately placing thousands of vulnerable low-wage Californians at risk, and
WHEREAS Yudof’s plan fails, at the expense of vital services, to redistribute over $220 million in
savings to the University by reasonably reducing spending on UC employees who gross over
$200,000 annually, and
WHEREAS we see at University of California a profound crisis of principles and priorities, and we
have a duty to act in unity to preserve our University and the services we provide to the people of
LET IT BE HEREBY RESOLVED THAT the University of California Union Coalition calls for a Vote of
No Confidence in President Yudof, commencing on August 26 and concluding on September 3.
By Phil Ting
Published Sunday, Jun. 21, 2009
Proposition 13 was sold to the public 31 years ago as a way of protecting homeowners during a time of rising housing prices – and the corresponding rise in property taxes. This was and remains an imperative policy for California. However, the measure also exempted all commercial property from regular tax reassessment.
Paradoxical to the law's initial intent, the commercial property loopholes in Proposition 13 have actually shifted the tax burden away from corporations and onto the backs of residential property owners.
For example, look at San Francisco, where I currently serve as assessor- recorder. Thirty years ago, commercial property owners contributed 59 percent of property tax revenues and residential property owners contributed 41 percent. Today, we see a virtual flip: commercial property owners contributed just 43 percent of property taxes in 2008, while residential property owners contributed 57 percent.
Nobody in California benefits – not small businesses, major corporations or workers – when we fail to develop an educated work force, halt progress on important infrastructure projects, cut vital services and go more than $24 billion in debt. As a reader wrote in response to an opinion piece I published recently: "My business benefits when I am able to hire decently educated employees who can spell, use good grammar, do math and solve new problems. I need maintained roads and police and fire services as well, or my customers will go elsewhere."For more, see: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1962187.html
By Kristin LukerIn their July 16 Op-Ed article, "UC system: layoffs, not pay cuts," Cooter and Edlin suggest that the way to solve the University of California system's budget crisis is to lay people off, not to cut salaries across the board. "With employees paid up to 20% below what peer institutions pay ... the best people will leave," they note plaintively ... Despite the fact that Cooter and Edlin are unquestionably outstanding members of UC Berkeley's law school, note what gets left out of their story. They argue for "staff" layoffs, but when looked at closely, what they really mean is layoffs for anyone but professors.
July 22, 2009
For more, see: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-luker22-2009jul22,0,7035500.story
In spite of favorable financial ratings, the UC Regents have declared a financial emergency allowing the University President to unilaterally impose extraordinary budgetary actions. AFSCME Local 3299 proposes alternative emergency budget measures that protect essential student and patient care services, while redirecting funds from areas that can most withstand temporary reductions. These reductions can provide a stop-gap until UC’s spending priorities are changed to permanently reflect UC’s intended mission as a public University.
For more see: http://www.afscme3299.org/media-press-dtl.php?recordID=316
by Charles Schwartz, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
On April 11, I wrote a letter to UC President Mark Yudof, complaining about a document put out by his office, titled, “The UC Budget: Myths & Facts”, which I described as a “load of lies and half-truths.” ... Now I have a letter from Patrick J. Lenz, UC’s Vice President for Budget, which says at the outset: "President Yudof shared your April 11 letter with me and asked me to respond on his behalf. I regret that you found "The UC Budget: Myths & Facts” misleading, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to address your concerns ...
Read more at http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/Part_18.html
Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, August 15, 2009
California State University students have sued the CSU Board of Trustees, claiming the university illegally billed them twice for tuition - accepting one payment in June for the fall semester and then demanding more money this month for the same semester.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/15/MNGK198KEL.DTL#ixzz0Oi99kbNI
Russell S. Gould, Bruce D. Varner
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The chairman of the UC Board of Regents "defends" enormous wage disparities at UC:
... At the same time, we operate in markets. The University of
California competes with the world's premier institutions, both in
terms of recruitment and retention. And top talent requires competitive
compensation, an unavoidable fact of life. That said, the people we
hire typically could command far greater salaries at private
universities or medical institutions. So we face a balancing act. The economy is dismal, and funding has
been slashed by the Legislature. But we also have an obligation to
California to maintain our historic level of excellence at campuses,
hospitals and research enterprises, a mission that only will grow more
important in the ascendant information economy. That means installing good people in key leadership roles ...
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/12/EDIP196JU1.DTL#ixzz0Oi8F5FCa
by Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, August 7, 2009
On the same July day that the UC Board of Regents cut $813 million from UC budgets - setting in motion pay cuts, layoffs and campus cutbacks - the board quietly approved pay raises, stipends and other benefits for more than two dozen executives.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/07/MNSG194N2P.DTL#ixzz0Oi6lnvLQ
by Nanette Asimov, SF Chronicle Staff Writer
The cash-strapped University of California - forced to lay off employees, cut pay and offer fewer classes because of deep cuts in state funding - has now agreed to lend the state nearly $200 million...
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/06/BAGK1942B2.DTL#ixzz0Oi5PVfRF