Rank Congratulations to Our Colleagues at UC-SB

From time to time on this blog, we have said skeptical things about the various rankings that occur in the world of higher education. But we do want to take the opportunity of congratulating our colleagues at Santa Barbara for their number 2 ranking among the top 10 party schools by the Princeton Review. From Inside Higher Ed today comes the story and here are the rankings:

Princeton Review’s Top 10 “Party Schools”
1. University of Iowa
2. University of California, Santa Barbara
3. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
4. West Virginia University
5. Syracuse University
6. University of Florida
7. Ohio University at Athens
8. University of Wisconsin at Madison
9. Pennsylvania State University at University Park
10. Lehigh University

Source: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2013/08/06/u-iowa-tops-princeton-reviews-2014-party-school-list

So, again, our congratulations.  And we’re not the only ones celebrating:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk3ZN3dSeDk?feature=player_detailpage]

Listen to Regents Meeting of Nov. 13, 2012

The UC Board of Regents, Committee on Grounds and Building met on the afternoon of Nov. 13, 2012.  On the agenda were public comments, approval of the UC capital budget plan, discussion of a long term plan for student housing at UC-Santa Barbara, and design approval of a $118.6 million faculty office building project at UC-San Francisco.

Two speakers in the public comments session referred to out-of-state students although exactly what was being suggested was unclear.

The capital budget is a wishlist of projects that it would be nice if the state funded through general obligation bonds.  However, given the governor’s concern about the state’s “wall of debt,” that seems unlikely for the most part.  There is some receptivity toward seismic upgrades.

There was discussion of a long-term housing plan for students at Santa Barbara.  One regents suggested that housing might be handled more efficiently through a public-private partnership of some kind.  Campus reps from Santa Barbara said that the housing the campus provides is 40% cheaper than in the private market for students.  This discussion was followed by design approval the UC-SF office building.

We note, as we have before, that the Regents typically approve large projects – such as the UC-SF building – without having the capability of independent auditing or of verification that what was promised is what was delivered after the fact. 

You can hear the meeting (under one hour) at the link below:

More and More Getting Off Scale

The Daily Bruin today has a piece on proposals for dealing with faculty salary scales which have grown increasingly outmoded.  As the table, based on a graphic in the Bruin, illustrates, most faculty at UCLA are paid off-scale.  The University, for recruitment and retention purposes, tries to meet the external academic labor market.  In effect, since there are only so many dollars to go around, paying more than the official scale has to mean a higher student/teacher ratio than would otherwise prevail.

Percent of faculty off scale as of 10/2010:
Merced 88%
UCLA 80%
Santa Cruz 73%
Berkeley 72%
Irvine 66%
Santa Barbara 66%
San Diego 64%
Riverside 59%
Davis 52%

The Bruin article is at http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2012/02/uc_considers_new_salary_scale_system 

Campus Demonstrations: Recent & Back in the Day

Videos from the Occupy demonstrations yesterday at UC-Berkeley are available at:

Of particular interest is the talk given by Robert Reich, shown above. Click on the link above (not the image above) to see the Berkeley videos.
Old timers will remember some of the scenes below:

UC-Berkeley

UCLA

UC-Santa Barbara

Unseemly Picture? A Proposal to Tax State Public Pensions – But Not UCRP – Is Among Three Initiatives Submitted by a Santa Barbara Group

A group called the California Center for Public Policy submitted three initiatives to the Attorney General Tuesday. One would ban collective bargaining in the public sector in California. Two others deal with public pensions. Notably, the two pension initiatives omit the UC pension and cover only CalPERS and CalSTRS. One initiative would tax pension benefits above $100,000 with progressive surcharges. The other raises the basic retirement age to 65.

Scroll down to the bottom of this entry to read the three initiatives.

(Reminder: Anyone can submit initiatives for $200. It takes $1-$2 million to pay signature-gathering firms to get things on the ballot as a practical matter. If the initiatives are controversial, TV advertising, etc., for the actual election can run in the tens of millions of dollars.)

California Center for Public Policy

“The California Center for Public Policy is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to non-partisan public dialogue and research in a variety of areas of California public policy. These include public employee compensation, education, energy and economic issues. The purpose of the Center is to identify workable policy solutions to societal issues.” Statement from the Center’s website: http://www.californiacenterforpublicpolicy.com/index.html

The board of the organization generally overlaps with taxpayer groups, chamber of commerce, and local politicos in the Santa Barbara area. http://www.californiacenterforpublicpolicy.com/board.html. One of the board members is a now-retired UC-Santa Barbara economic professor who gave a chair to the university in 2008. See http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1789

As executive director, the Center’s website lists Lanny Ebenstein, who in news articles is described as a UC-Santa Barbara economist. See, for example, http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2011/07/california-bid-to-end-collective-bargaini.html The UC-Santa Barbara econ department lists him as a lecturer http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/people/faculty_directory.html?f=lanny_ebenstein although no bio is provided.

However, on the website of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association, his bio reads: “Lanny Ebenstein grew up in Santa Barbara and is a graduate of Santa Barbara High School, UCSB, and the London School of Economics. He served on the Santa Barbara Board of Education from 1990 to 1998, and has written biographies of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. This year, he will be teaching in economics at UCSB. In addition to serving as treasurer of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association, he is a member of the board of directors of a number of non-profit and charitable organizations.” See http://www.sbcta.org/lannyebenstein.html

Now here’s the thing. We have pushed to get UC – whose Regents modified the university pension plan last December – removed from any potential ballot propositions that deal with California public pensions. We have particularly pushed UCOP and the Regents to become engaged in this issue so that the December Regents program would not be overridden – perhaps inadvertently – by some statewide proposition. Indeed, back in 2005 – when then-Governor Schwarzenegger seemed likely to put such an initiative on the ballot – the UCLA Faculty Association took an initiative on pensions which the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association had submitted and resubmitted it a few weeks later with identical language but with a UC exemption added. (The hope was that, because of timing issues related to signature-gathering, those pushing the Schwarzenegger agenda would have to endorse our version. It’s a long story and the pension proposal did not get on the ballot.)

Anyway, anyone – or at least anyone with $200 to spare – is free to do anything in the ballot proposition area. But undoubtedly, if some backer or group decides to finance the signature-gathering costs of putting the three initiatives below on the ballot, much would be made by the opposition of the unseemly appearance of UC-affiliated folks initiating limits or taxes on everyone else’s pensions, but not on theirs.

= = = =

THE 3 INITIATIVES (from http://www.californiacenterforpublicpolicy.com/initiative.html)

Proposed amendments to the California state constitution:

1) Article 14. Section 6. Prohibition of Public Sector Collective Bargaining

No state, county, municipal, or like government officer, agent, or governing body is vested with or possesses any authority to recognize any labor union or other employee association as a bargaining agent of any public officers or employees, or to bargain collectively or to enter into any collective bargaining contract, memorandum of understanding or other agreements with any such union or association or its agents with respect to any matter relating to public officers or employees or their employment or service.

2) Article 13, Section 36. Income Tax on Public Sector Pensions Above $100,000 Per Year

A state income tax of 15 percent above the standard state income tax rate is hereby instituted on all public sector pensions paid by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System on annual pension income from these sources, exclusive of health benefits and health insurance, between $100,000 and $149,999; and of 25 percent above the standard state income tax rate on all public sector pensions paid by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and California State Teachers’ Retirement System on annual pension income from these sources, exclusive of health benefits and health insurance, above $150,000.

3) Article 7, Section 12. Retirement Ages of Public Sector Employees

No new memorandum of understanding or other contract or agreement between any public agency and public sector employees utilizing the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and California State Teachers’ Retirement System may allow retirement of employees with full retirement benefits at an age younger than 65, with the exception of sworn public safety officers, who may receive full retirement benefits starting at age 58.

Hot Potato?

The Assn. of American Universities (AAU) is a organization with major research universities as its members including UCLA. Its current president, Robert Berdahl, is a past chancellor of UC-Berkeley. UC-Berkeley is a member. Davis, Irvine, San Diego, and Santa Barbara are also members. On March 31, the AAU issued the press release below with other organizations concerning the federal deficit. (This is not a timely piece of information; yours truly just stumbled on it, a month late.)

Also a signatory to the document is the Assn. of Public and Land-Grant Universities which includes the UC campuses above plus Santa Cruz and Riverside (and some CSUs).

The motivation for the statement from the perspective of higher ed seems to be that federal budget cuts threaten research and other higher ed-related funding. However, the statement goes beyond expressing concern about higher ed funding and gets into complex territory, calling (sort of) for reductions in Social Security and Medicare, for example, not calling for tax increases but rather for tax “reform,” and (sort of) endorsing Simpson-Bowles.

I suspect that there would be different perspectives on the issues here within the faculty of the various UCs that seem to be endorsing this document and within the Regents for that matter. Perhaps the Regents discussed this matter, but I am unaware of it if they have. I don’t think the Academic Senate did.

Dealing with federal fiscal policy is a potential hot potato. It’s not clear that the AAU in fact speaks for the various member UC campuses on this issue, or – if it does – how that decision was made.

STATEMENT ON THE FEDERAL DEFICIT

As representatives of the nation’s business, university, science and engineering communities, we believe the future of our nation depends on our willingness to take immediate actions to rein in the federal deficit and drive economic growth.

Americans know the exploding federal debt is unsustainable. The Congressional Budget Office projects a 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within 10 years, a dangerous prospect that would saddle the country with crippling interest payments on the debt. If we do not act soon, the country at some point will be forced to make truly draconian cuts in government expenditures and impose huge tax increases, while simultaneously experiencing prolonged slow or zero growth. This will weaken our nation and reduce the standard of living of current and future generations.

We can still choose our path, however. Past generations of Americans have risen to great challenges, and so can we.

Current discussions about deficit reduction by the Administration and Congress have largely concentrated on domestic discretionary expenditures, which are only about one sixth of the budget. If defense and security-related expenditures were included, the debate would still be focused on only about one-third of the budget. We would need to eliminate nearly all of this spending to balance the FY2012 budget. Moreover, concentrating exclusively on reducing discretionary expenditures threatens to undermine the human capital and the physical, technological and scientific infrastructure upon which our future economy, health, and security depend.

Largely missing in the budget discussions to-date are entitlement programs, particularly the major ones: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These three programs alone account for about 40 percent of the budget and their expenditures will grow dramatically in the decade ahead: Social Security by an estimated 71 percent, Medicare by 75 percent, and Medicaid by 125 percent. Any serious and sincere deficit reduction plan must include entitlement reform.

An effective deficit reduction plan cannot focus entirely on decreasing discretionary expenditures; it must also include tax reform, spending prioritization and actions to strengthen economic growth. Economic growth and job creation require federal investment to prepare our children with world-class educations and to support the scientific and technology research and innovation infrastructure that enable the private sector to create jobs and compete in the global economy.

Americans must set priorities and share in the sacrifice required to put our fiscal house in order. This is consistent with the model discussed in the bipartisan majority report of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform – the Bowles-Simpson commission. We applaud those bipartisan efforts now underway among some Senators to put a broad-based deficit reduction plan on the table, and we welcome the recent letter signed by 64 Senators calling for a ‘broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package.’

We urge the President and the Congress to emphasize bipartisan compromise rather than contention. We call upon them to join together with Congress in making the tough choices on all elements of the federal budget in order to reduce deficits, bring the national debt under control and empower economic growth and job production.

Norman R. Augustine
Chairman and CEO (retired)
Lockheed Martin Corporation

Robert M. Berdahl
President
Association of American Universities

John Engler
President
Business Roundtable

M. Peter McPherson
President Association of Public and Land-grant Universities

Charles M. Vest
President
National Academy of Engineering

Deborah L. Wince-Smith
President & CEO
Council on Competitiveness

The document can be found at http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=3095