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 UC.” And UCLA Senate leaders, among other comments, noted that the proposal will likely harm efforts to diversify the faculty:

Once in place, this proposal will create a two-tier caste system with different compensation structures among faculty in the same departments and schools. The proposed plan will be unfair to diverse faculty as women and underrepresented groups are more likely to be hired in the future. Overall, the proposed plan will undermine the continuing efforts of the university to diversify the faculty.

Based on these responses, the Assembly of the Academic Senate unanimously (with one abstention) passed a motion rejecting the new tier. Read the text of the motion on Dan Mitchtell’s FA blog.

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 might expect to earn more than $117,000 annually (indexed to inflation) can plan on a reduced retirement income compared to those of us currently working at the UC.
The new tier will include a supplemental Defined Contribution (DC) plan which is not likely to earn as much as the current Defined Benefit plan.
The Gov. and UC Pres. Napolitano probably assumed adding a DC option would generate financial savings for the university. It doesn’t…
But it will substantially cut overall compensation for future faculty. How much less? See the charts starting at page 17 of White’s presentation.
The plan does nothing for the health of the current pension tiers, which are on a path to financial stability following an unwise, and lengthy pension “holiday.”

Following White’s sobering wall-of-data presentation, Megan Sweeney (Chair, Faculty Welfare) suggested the various ways “shared governance” is not in effect with this proposal. The Senate is expected to reply within a month to a proposal so complex it came with its own “how to read me” guide. Even so, key details of the plan were not available to the Senate as of Friday (1/29), meaning the Senate has less than 2 weeks to evaluate the full details of the proposal.

A strategic glimmer of hope lies in the fact that the proposed new tier does not seem to meet President Napolitano’s original charge to the pension Task Force. In particular the charge to devise a plan that would keep total compensation competitive with peer institutions. In Sweeney’s words, “The math does not add up.” As a result, we are likely to introduce inequities between new hires and currently-employed faculty, Sweeney worried. The complexity of comparing total compensation across pension tiers will be a nightmare for departmental academic personnel committees. The potential is real that faculty interests will splinter across benefit tiers, undermining the overall health of the university.

If you want to get an opinion in to the Senate, do it now. For those of you who don’t want to wait for the Senate response, consider signing the UC employee petition against the new pension tier (http://www.protectmypension.org/).

Diversity Requirement Debate Returns

The question of a diversity requirement for undergraduate students in the UCLA College of Letters and Sciences is back on the agenda, this time apparently heading for a vote of the entire UCLA faculty. Last October, faculty in the College of Letters and Sciences voted to adopt an undergraduate diversity requirement, and the measure was approved by the Senate Legislative Assembly. According to a January 26 email to Legislative Assembly members, in December, a group of 59 faculty members petitioned Senate Chair Joel Aberbach asking him to set aside the votes under a little used provision of the Senate Bylaws, which he did. The College Faculty Executive Committee has protested saying, among other things that Aberbach’s interpretation of Senate bylaws,

essentially renders meaningless any action taken by the Legislative Assembly since less than 2% of the faculty can overturn any and all of its actions and send them to a vote of the entire faculty; it also sets a troubling precedent, as it fundamentally undermines the long-held privilege of Faculties to determine the curricula for their students.

We’ve posted the entire email to the LgA members on the news feed: http://uclafaculty.org/2015/02/05/text-of-college-fec-letter-to-senate-lga-members/

Text of College FEC Letter to Senate LgA Members

The following is the full text of an email from the College Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) to members of the Senate Legislative Assembly (LgA) concerning the requirement for diversity-related courses.

From: FEC Chair
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 8:01 AM
To: FEC Chair
Subject: College FEC: Message to LgA Members

Dear Colleague,

Since you are a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Academic Senate, we wanted to inform you about a recent development related to a vote made by the LgA on November 20, 2014 to Amend Divisional Regulation A-458(C) in the College of Letters and Science, which would include a diversity-related course in the College undergraduate curriculum. The Academic Senate Office informed the College FEC Chairs on December 28, 2014 that on December 11, 2014, Senate Chair Joel Aberbach received a challenge in the form of a petition referencing Bylaw 155 and “asking for an electronic vote of all Senate faculty on the adoption of a diversity requirement for undergraduates in the College of Letters and Sciences.” (Memo from Senate Chair Aberbach dated December 16, 2014 to the Executive Board).

You may remember that the proposed College of Letters and Science regulation revision was included as a regular agenda item and opened up for a lengthy discussion at the LgA meeting on November 20, 2014. At the meeting, the LgA heard Pro and Con statements and entertained questions from the floor. The LgA meeting was well attended by at least 117 voting members, and a motion was made to approve the College diversity course requirement. The motion was seconded, and the LgA voted decisively to approve the regulation change (85 in favor, 18 against, and 4 abstentions).

You may also remember that after the vote passed, an LgA member who spoke against the Amendment to Divisional Regulation A-458(C) (also one of the faculty who signed a “con” email sent to College faculty on October 24) sought to immediately undo the favorable LgA vote by invoking a rarely used provision of the UCLA Senate Bylaw, Section 155 (B)(1), which states that “actions taken by the LgA shall be submitted to a…ballot of voting members of the Division if the request for the mail or electronic online ballot is made at the meeting at which the issue has been considered and one-third of the members of the LgA present join in the request.” A motion to compel a vote of the full membership of the Division was made, but it fell well short of the required one-third support from LgA members present.

Traditionally, a positive vote by the LgA is the final approval necessary for College curricular changes involving a regulation change. However the Academic Senate Office informed the College FEC Chairs on December 28, 2014 that on December 11, 2014, Senate Chair Joel Aberbach received a challenge in the form of a petition referencing Bylaw 155 and “asking for an electronic vote of all Senate faculty on the adoption of a diversity requirement for undergraduates in the College of Letters and Sciences.” (Memo from Senate Chair Aberbach dated December 16, 2014). In the document accompanying that memo, entitled “Extended Summary of Divisional Bylaws related to the Challenge to the November 20th LgA vote on the College Diversity Requirement,” it is explained that the petition was signed by 59 Divisional (rather than LgA) members (who asked to remain anonymous) “requesting that the issue of the Diversity Requirement for undergraduates in the UCLA College of Letters and Sciences be put to a ballot of voting members of the division” (Extended Summary accompanying memo from Senate Chair Aberbach).

This petition has been accepted by Senate Chair Aberbach. As a result, the favorable vote by the College faculty in October 2014 and the final vote of approval by the LgA in November 2014 are effectively invalidated by individuals who remained unknown outside the Academic Senate office. Instead, the proposal to establish a College of Letters and Science diversity course requirement has been scheduled to be put to a vote of the entire UCLA faculty (approximately 3,600 individuals).

On January 8, 2015, members of the College Diversity Initiative Committee and the College FEC Chairs submitted a formal appeal to Senate Chair Aberbach as well as the UCLA Rules and Jurisdiction committee on the grounds that Bylaw 155 has been misinterpreted and that a petition to take a vote to the full faculty must be made by one-third of the members of the Legislative Assembly. This interpretation is more consistent with the language of the entire 155 bylaw than the interpretation offered in Senate Chair Aberbach’s Extended Summary. Moreover, this interpretation preserves the fundamental principles underlying faculty governance. In contrast, the interpretation presented in the Extended Summary essentially renders meaningless any action taken by the Legislative Assembly since less than 2% of the faculty can overturn any and all of its actions and send them to a vote of the entire faculty; it also sets a troubling precedent, as it fundamentally undermines the long-held privilege of Faculties to determine the curricula for their students.

To date there has been no response to the appeal from Senate Chair Aberbach or the UCLA Rules and Jurisdiction Committee addressing concerns over the interpretation of Bylaw 155 or the decision to allow this petition action to proceed anonymously. Instead, individuals have had to resort to filing requests for a copy of the full petition through the Public Records Act, which was released on January 21 by the Records Management & Information Practices Department. Although the minutes of the LgA meeting have yet to be formally distributed, and Legislative Assembly and Faculty members have not been formally informed, the Senate leadership has already scheduled a campus wide vote based on this petition for February 25 – March 10, 2015.

As a member of the Legislative Assembly, it is critical that you are aware of the current situation because the integrity and legitimacy of the Legislative Assembly are at stake. For your information, we have also included an abbreviated version of the appeal that was submitted as a challenge to the petition.

It is our understanding that a formal letter raising concerns about the lack of transparency of the petition process, the unresponsiveness of senate leadership, and the precedent set by this anonymous petition action is being circulated. However, we are writing you as a member of the Legislative Assembly to inform you of the situation and encourage you to contact Senate Chair Aberbach and the UCLA Rules and Jurisdiction Committee to call for transparency and request that they provide a clear explanation to all UCLA faculty as to 1) their unusual interpretation of Bylaw 155 that has allowed this petition to proceed, 2) their decision to allow this action to occur in secrecy, and 3) why faculty of the College of Letters and Science should not have the autonomy to decide upon their own curriculum — decisions supported by a vote of College of Letters and Science faculty and approved by the Legislative Assembly.

Christina Palmer, Chair Mike Alfaro, Co-Chair
College Faculty Executive Committee College Diversity Initiative Committee

Joseph Bristow, Vice Chair M. Belinda Tucker, Co-Chair
College Faculty Executive Committee College Diversity Initiative Committee

College of Letters and Science Faculty Vote on Diversity Requirement

UCLA faculty with appointments in the College of Letters and Science are voting this week on a proposed Diversity Requirement for undergraduate students in the College. The vote is open between October 24th and October 31st.

The Academic Senate has an extensive informational site (votediversity.ucla.edu) that includes documentation on the requirement, a frequently asked questions section, and a forum for faculty to share information and views on the requirement. The forum includes six separate faculty statements in support of the requirement, and one statement in opposition. An additional statement in support circulating on Wednesday has garnered about 80 co-signers.

The proposal envisions undergraduates taking one 4-unit course that “substantially focuses on diversity issues” and “takes seriously issues of diversity with respect to race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, religion, disability, age, language, nationality, citizenship status and/or place of origin.” Courses would be approved by a Senate committee appointed by the Undergraduate Council, could be offered from any university department, and could include community and service learning as well as traditional courses.

The vote is open until October 31st, 2014. Past efforts have seen very low turnout, so be sure to vote if you are in the College of Letters and Sciences!