LIVEBLOG: Next Steps & Public Comment


Yudof: Putting in any additional comments or recommendations are welcome from the public, staff, faculty, etc.etc.  These recommendations will be routed to the appropriate areas, and then possibly implemented.  He’s encouraging comments and recommendations from people, the recommendations are now in the hands of the Commission on the Future.

Dean Edley comments – the UC culture usually works from the bottom up…academics, etc.etc.  However, budget discipline comes from the top-down..and that’s the culture shift we need to see.   We cannot get bogged down in the endless consultation process which typifys the University.  We cannot afford to go through the normal consultative process, we need more muscular central system.

Now for the exciting energized part!  Public Comment!  I’ve heard that the group By Any Means Necessary is dominating the public comment list – it’ll be interesting to say what the messaging is!

Labor Unions are currently presenting

AFSCME: The most important question is how we restore the public taxpayer investment and support in the University.  Also, the labor involvement in the Commission has been unduly limited.  Large scale, multiyear, grassroots advocacy campaign is necessary – an effective campaign, political campaign.

AFSCME Researcher is now discussing UC spending – they want to direct the revenues of business operations into the the direct educational costs for the UC students.  The first recommendation they wanna mention is administrative bloat.  3% of your workforce taking up 6% of budget, they claim.  The second recommendation – use of funds frmo some of our other enterprises going to the core operational cost.

AFSCME Researcher has run out of time – Chair Gould has forced him to a stop and change over to the next AFSCME speaker.  The next speaker is giving her personal story “do you want to be the kind of Uni that charges students more and cuts services, and hurts workers?”

EVP Brostrum – We’re looking into administrative bloat – we just did a paper on where administrative growth has come from…the big ones have been medical centers and research.  Also about hospital revenues – a lot of those revenues are used to serve margainalized communities, and are difficult to move.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

BAMN is now speaking about Prop 209 – tey filed a lawsuit against the UC.  and are asking the UC to co-sponsor in declaring Prop 209 and affirmative action ban unconstitutional.

Charles Schwartz is calling the reform and governance of the leadership – saying that’s whats needed to develop public support for the UC.

Lisa Chen from Asian Law Caucus is speaking – Saying that undocumented students is also an API issue.  She’s speaking in support of undocumented students reciving institutional aid with 20 letters of different students.

UCLA Fights Back is now speaking – saying that the budget crisis is false…

Gaby Kirk (Banana Slug, UCSC) – she doesn’t want people to use the crisis to push through policies

Chair Gould has let three more speakers after time, at the request of Art Pulaski, they’re now speaking…

Advertisements

5 responses to “LIVEBLOG: Next Steps & Public Comment

  1. Today I was once again cringing in embarrassment when I heard President Yudof assert, at the Commission of the Future meeting, that English departments at UC lose money.

    This is demonstrably false. In fact, most administrators anywhere on campus know that the high-enrollment departments (like English, for instance) more than pay for themselves. The university then takes the enrollment-based profits and spends them on expensive laboratory research in low-enrollment fields. This is a widely known mechanism of cross-subsidization at UC.

    Someone has to stop the top public representative of the UC from repeating something so embarrassingly wrong that it makes faculty, students, staff members, and the public wonder whether the UC president actually understands the UC budget.

  2. Pingback: In case you missed today’s UC Regents meeting … « caledinsider.org: The Budget Literacy Project

  3. Pingback: The Worst of Both Worlds « UC Rebel Radio

  4. UC senior management loyalty to staff, faculty, employees is dead. We’ll all have to get used to it and act accordingly. and public universities are into a phase of creative disassembly where reinvention and adjustments are constant. Even solid world class institutions like the University of California Berkeley under the leadership of Chancellor Birgeneau & Provost Breslauer are firing staff, faculty and part-time lecturers through “Operation Excellence (OE)”. Yet many employees, professionals and faculty cling to old assumptions about one of the most critical relationship of all: the implied, unwritten contract between employer and employee.
    Until recently, loyalty was the cornerstone of that relationship. Employers promised work security and a steady progress up the hierarchy in return for employees fitting in, accepting lower wages, performing in prescribed ways and sticking around. Longevity was a sign of employer-employee relations; turnover was a sign of dysfunction. None of these assumptions apply today. Organizations can no longer guarantee employment and lifetime careers, even if they want to. UC Berkeley senior management paralyzed themselves with an attachment to “success brings success’ rather than “success brings failure’ and are now forced to break the implied contract with employees – a contract nurtured by management that the future can be controlled.
    Jettisoned Cal employees are finding that the hard won knowledge, skills and capabilities earned while being loyal are no longer valuable in the employment market place.
    What kind of a contract can employers and employees make with each other? The central idea is both simple and powerful: the job or position is a shared situation. Employers and employees face market and financial conditions together, and the longevity of the partnership depends on how well the for-profit or not-for-profit continues to meet the needs of customers and constituencies. Neither employer nor employee has a future obligation to the other. Organizations train people. Employees develop the kind of security they really need – skills, knowledge and capabilities that enhance future employability.
    The partnership can be dissolved without either party considering the other a traitor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s