| | | | | |

Grading the LAO Report on Higher Ed

We summarized the Legislative Analyst’s report on higher ed funding in a post yesterday and provided a link to the document.  One thing that faculty do is evaluate and give grades.  In this case, the grade for the report would have to be an “incomplete.”

Pensions: The LAO continues its assertion that the state has no legal liability for the UC pension.  It wants the legislature to say so.  The legislature can say the Moon is made of green cheese if it wants.  But the Moon will be what it is.  The question of state liability is a legal matter and no legal analysis is provided.  It is a legal matter that extends beyond the state into the federal constitution.  If the LAO wants to be serious about this issue, it could start with the history of the UC pension written by the UCLA Faculty Association’s Executive Director, Susan Gallick, and then get some outside legal advice from constitutional experts.  As the governor and the legislature continue to discover about the state prisons, it is the courts that ultimately decide issues of constitutionality, regardless of state pronouncements.

What is odd is that after its assertion of no liability, the LAO goes on to say that someone is going to have to fund the pension and says the legislature should do so.  It suggests that the UC pension should be compared to the recent state pension enactment for other public pensions and then the legislature should pay in some sense what the others get.  UC’s pension was omitted from the pension bill because the legislature and governor were persuaded that the pension changes enacted by the Regents in 2010 approximated what was later proposed for other public pensions.  What the cost implications are will vary from plan to plan, even with the same provisions.

Costs.  In loose terms, UC and CSU get comparable amounts from the state.  But UC has fewer students so the dollars/student ratio is going to be higher – which is what you expect in a research university.  There is little analysis in the report of what California gains by having a research university.  There is no analysis of what other states such as Michigan and Virginia have done once they concluded that they couldn’t afford, or didn’t want to afford, a research university. 

Pay for Performance.  As personnel directors can tell you, this is a slogan – maybe even a concept – but specifics are needed as to how you do it.  Is this year’s budget going to be based on a formula?  Transfers – dropouts + course loads + completion in Y years = X?  What?  Personnel directors can also tell you that you can get perverse results.  Quantity over quality is a prime example, but only one.

Capital Costs.  There is concern in the report about the handling of capital costs but the concern seems to be confined to state-paid capital costs.  At UC, as we have noted repeatedly on this blog, the Regents – members of a part-time unpaid board – are routinely asked to approve large and expensive capital projects which are said to be paid for from future revenues.  But the Regents have no independent capability to review such projects or to follow up on whether the promised revenues actually materialized.  If the revenues prove inadequate, like the pension, somehow the deficiency will be paid; the campuses don’t default.  The issue of Regental oversight and governance needed to be discussed regarding all capital projects, not just state-paid.

==
The rule at UCLA is that if you get an incomplete, you have one quarter to finish the work or the grade goes from incomplete to F.  There is an out from that rule in this case, however.  LAO can join us in what we have recommended in prior posts.  It is clear that we have arrived at a point in California where a new Master Plan needs to be developed to deal with the issues above and others.  To get there, we need to set up a review of the three segments – a process in other words rather than off-the-cuff “solutions” from the governor, the LAO, or anyone else.  The annual budget cycle doesn’t work when a fundamental review is needed.  It was done before under Pat Brown and it can be done again.
==
Of course, we’ll have to wait.  A process takes awhile to complete.  But in the meantime, we have just the selection to go with an incomplete report:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ySpn8E-dAE?feature=player_detailpage]

Similar Posts

  • Faculty call for pause on budget & network security changes at UCLA

    Over 250 UCLA faculty, including a large number of department chairs and center directors, have written Chancellor Block with a detailed critique of plans for administrative centralization. The letter follows earlier exchanges between department chairs and Executive Vice Chancellor/Provost Emily Carter and other top administrators. “Although we appreciated the fora that EVC/P Carter recently organized in response to an earlier letter requesting more time to evaluate the re-organization plans she is proposing, we continue to feel that there has been insufficient time or detail to evaluate their consequences and that we have not been adequately involved in the consultation process,”…

  • |

    Report: Affordable Public Higher Education is Possible Today

    A report this week from Reclaim California Higher Education (a coalition of faculty and student groups) makes the case that affordable (even free) higher education is within reach for California. The privatization experiment has failed. The harm to a generation of hard-working, high-aiming young people is proven. It’s time to return to what works: the proven Master Plan for higher education in California. California, with its own resources, can afford to restore top-quality, accessible, affordable college and university opportunity to every qualified student. In fact, Californians can afford nothing less. You can read a summary and download the entire report…

  • | |

    Academic Senate Rejects New Pension Tier

    Representatives of UC faculty on all campuses delivered a strongly worded rejection of the proposed 2016 pension tier. Reports from the campuses were extensive and overwhelmingly negative (link to PDF). Berkeley faculty called the proposal “imprudent and potentially fiscally irresponsible.” Davis faculty said, “It is a myth that UCRP is too generous,” and went on to detail a long list of likely negative outcomes from the new tier. Irvine faculty noted “the level of disappointment and depth of passion expressed from all quarters about the negative impact that the imposition of the PEPRA cap has on the future of the…

  • |

    Faculty Voice Opposition to Pension Proposal

    On Friday, the UCLA Academic Senate hosted an informational meeting that explained in clear terms that this is a bad, bad plan for faculty. What to do about it was less clear cut. Shane White gave a deeply detailed account of financial aspects of the plan (Slides here: Pension Presentation by Shane White). Among the things we learned: Last year’s budget deal introduced the “PEPRA cap” to UC retirement benefits. This is not a limit on retirement pay-outs, but a cap on the earnings that are used to calculate retirement pay-outs. So any new hire after July 1, 2016 who…

  • | | |

    Pension Changes Proposed: lower benefits, little savings, weaker UCRS

    The University of California will soon have a third pension tier if the Regents approve a plan put forth by the Retirement Options Task Force on Friday. UC President Janet Napolitano charged the Task Force, which included management and Academic Senate representatives, with finding a way to implement her agreement with Gov. Brown to set a cap on pension benefits in exchange for state funds to support the pension system. Over the weekend, as faculty activists read the task force report and a second report produced by Senate leaders (Guide to reviewing the recommendations of the Retirement Options Task Force)…