| |

More Ready, Fire, Aim from the Legislature (although UC was amended out)

The pay cap bill described below passed the state senate yesterday. UC was amended out of the original version and – because of its constitutional autonomy – had been subject only to a suggestion. As in the recent tuition-cap bill cited in an earlier post, there is no recognition that rising student fees (said to be the motivation for the bill) are the result of actions by the legislature. Were this pay cap to be enacted, there would be blowback to UC, despite the exemption.

An act to add and repeal Section 89517.5 of the Education Code, relating to postsecondary education, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. 

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST 

SB 952, as amended, Alquist. Public postsecondary education: employee compensation. 
Existing law establishes the California State University, under the administration of the Trustees of the California State University, and the University of California, under the administration of the Regents of the University of California, as 2 as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in the state. 
This bill would prohibit, from July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014, inclusive, the Trustees of the California State University from entering into, or renewing, a contract that provides for a compensation increase for a California State University employee whose annual salary exceeds $200,000 from General Fund sources, as defined, in the fiscal year during which the contract is executed, relative to the immediately prior contract for that same position. The bill would prohibit, on or after June July 1, 2014, and until July 1, 2018, the trustees from entering into, or renewing, a contract that provides for a compensation increase of more than 10% for a California State University employee whose annual salary exceeds $200,000 from General Fund sources in the fiscal year during which the contract is executed, relative to the immediately prior contract for that position. 


The bill would encourage the Regents of the University of California to adopt a policy that reflects the goals of this bill. 

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. 
Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. 
State-mandated local program: no. 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 

SECTION 1. Section 89517.5 is added to the Education Code, to read: 
89517.5. (a) From July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014, inclusive, the Trustees of the California State University shall not enter into, or renew, a contract that provides for a compensation increase for a 
California State University employee whose annual salary exceeds two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) from General Fund sources in the fiscal year during which the contract is executed, relative to the immediately prior contract for that same position. 
(b) On or after July 1, 2014, the trustees shall not enter into, or renew, a contract that provides for a compensation increase of more than 10 percent for a California State University employee whose annual salary exceeds two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) from General Fund sources in the fiscal year during which the contract is executed, relative to the immediately prior contract for that position. 
(c) For purposes of this section, “General Fund sources” includes appropriations from the General Fund and student fee revenues. 

(d) The Regents of the University of California are encouraged to adopt a policy that reflects the goals of this section. 


(e) 

(d) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2018, and, as of January 1, 2019, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2019, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed. 
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: 
In order to respond to and alleviate the effects of the state’s current fiscal crisis and the resulting additional budget cuts and tuition increases for the California State University, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately. 

Similar Posts

  • |

    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…

  • | |

    Jerry Brown Suggests Master Plan is Dated

    Our previous post covered the Jan. 22 meeting of the Regents’ Committee on Educational Policy.  As noted, there was discussion of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, considered a major accomplishment of Brown’s father when he was governor. Below is a link to Brown’s comments in which he suggested the Plan was now dated.  [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RmjI4gVync?feature=player_detailpage]

  • | | | | | | |

    Listen to Part of the Regents Afternoon Session of 1-22-2014

    As we have noted in numerous prior posts, the Regents refuse to archive their meetings beyond one year.  So we dutifully record the sessions in real time.  Below is a link to part of the afternoon session of Jan. 22.  This segment is mainly the Committee on Educational Policy.  Gov. Brown was in attendance.  We will separately (later) provide links just to certain Brown segments.  But for now, we provide a continuous recording. There was discussion of designating certain areas of UC-Merced as nature reserves, followed by discussion of a new telescope.  The discussion then turned to online ed and…

  • | | | | | | | | |

    Tradition!

    The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has issued a report on UC and CSU funding.  LAO is usually viewed as a neutral agency.  But it is a component of the legislature.  So it tends to favor approaches that add to legislative control as opposed to, say, gubernatorial control.  This report is no exception. LAO seems to want to return to what it terms the “traditional” approach to funding, but with bells and whistles added to monitor legislative goals.  The traditional approach seems to be one focused on undergraduate enrollment.  But in fact the tradition – such as it is – has…

  • |

    7 Wasn’t So Lucky

    The cash statement from the California state controller for the first seven months of fiscal year 2013-14 is out.  Revenues are up about 1% from last year at this time.  That gain is not very good.  However, it may be largely due to an aberration last fiscal year when there was a surge of personal income tax revenue in January 2013.  The surge seemed to have something to do with antics back then in Washington over fiscal cliffs, etc., which might have resulted in some tax changes (but didn’t).  The current DC crisis de jour is the debt ceiling, but…