Contingent faculty

As reported in the SF Chronicle, the Academic Council recommended last week that the University expand the use of contingent faculty "where appropriate" across the system, in the words of system-wide senate chair Dan Simmons. We have not seen any official announcement, or document such as meeting minutes to confirm this. But this would appear a major shift in the official position of the faculty: since when does the Senate recommend the expansion of non-senate faculty? It's enough that the administration has become addicted to the use of exploited, under-paid, and over-worked lecturers. It's a completely different position for the system-wide senate to come to the same conclusion. The senate should be in the business of expanding (at least some of) the benefits of the tenure system to contingent faculty – not sell our collective soul to satisfy the administration's appetite for a flexible workforce.

Six hundred and fifty

That's the size of the cut (in millions) that UC is being required to take with the Governor's new budget, with possibly another $100 million if the optimistic revenue projections built into the budget do not materialize. (CSU and CCs will also get similar reductions – the Governor's budget includes almost 12 billions in cuts to services.)

Having averted the worst-case scenario (a total reduction of $1 billion to UC), there is a temptation to sit back and enjoy the summer. But in fact (unless I am mistaken, I didn't check) $650 million is the largest cut the University has been required to take in a long time. Did Arnold ever do anything remotely approaching this?

Of course the Regents have announced that any reductions above the $500 million in the January budget will come from tuition increases. So the UC faculty can sit back, take it in stride, tell each other there is nothing they can do, and that this, too, will pass.

Small consolation

It's small consolation nowadays, as we learn of his lovechild with the housekeeper, to realize that we are not the only ones he screwed.

The May revise

The Governor released the revised budget. A very cursory look reveals that no further cuts are proposed for UC, CSU and CC, beyond the $1.4B already cut from higher ed in the January budget. However, the whole budget is predicated on revenue solutions that need voter approval — so we'll see.

The ides of May

Governor Brown will release his revised budget on Monday the 16th, just after the Ides of May (May is one of those months — including March — when the Ides fall on the 15th as opposed to the 13th). That is when we'll know if the University will bear the full brunt of the "all-cuts" budget, i.e., $1 billion, or whether it will be cut "only" $500 million.  It's a sad testimony to the state of UC that we are all sitting here hoping for a $500 million cut.

Some have surmised that the Governor is pursuing a "reverse Norquist." The Norquist doctrine contemplates implementing popular tax cuts in order to shrink the government, to the point where you can "drown it in the bathtub." A reverse Norquist, supposedly, pursues ruthless cuts to build up support for necessary tax collection. Both doctrines are, of course, flawed. The Norquist doctrine ignores that big corporations and the financial oligarchy have way too much to gain from their control of our supposedly democratic government to actually want to drown in the bathtub. It will never happen. Government might well get meaner towards the poor and the middle class, but it's way too useful to the oligarchy to disappear. And Brown's supposed reverse Norquist presupposes that people still value the services they are receiving — including the affordable quality education traditionally provided at UC. But California is no longer willing to pay for it. UC is not necessary for the upbringing of our very own jeunesse dorée (never was), and it no longer affords the middle class the means for upwards mobility, simply because social mobility increasingly works only one way in this country, i.e., down. So there you have it.

California Budget Shenanigans

Budget negotiations broke down between Gov. Brown and the Republican minority in the Legislature. So there won't be any tax extensions on the June ballot, which means we should brace for further cuts. If you thought $500M was devastating for the university, this is probably the nail in the coffin of higher education in California.

Last one out.

If you are not following the discussion over at Remaking the University on the presentation by Patrick Lenz and Nathan Bostrom to the Regents, well — you should. It seems that for once the Regents got the unvarnished truth about the financial state of the University (although see Bob Samuels' letter to the Regents for a different take).

Here is the bottom line: assuming only 1% year-over-year revenue increases from enrollment growth, 2015-16 revenue for UC will be around $5 billion, but costs will be around $7.5 billion in 2015-16, giving a gap of $2.5 billion (and that's optimistic: assumes tax extensions will be on the ballot and approved by the voters, limited increases in utility costs, etc). A number of measures can be implemented to reduce the deficit: the mythical $500 million in administrative efficiencies, better indirect cost recovery from funding agencies, tuition increases at the professional schools, more out-of-state students. Such savings and revenue increases are projected to add to about $1 billion.

So, how does the University go about closing the remaining $1.5 billion gap projected for 2015-16? There are only two sources of revenue left: state funding and student tuition. State funding would have to increase by 12.4% a year over the next four to five years to close the gap, or tuition would have to rise 18.3% each of those years. Or you could mix-and-match, with, say, 5% increases in state funding and 12.6% tuition increases. 18.3% tuition increases over 4 years, as pointed out by Bostrom in response to a question form a student Regent, compound to 95.85% — double the current levels.

It's clear that the University is out of options. Even the most draconian measures would only go a small part of the way towards filling the $1.5 billion gap:

• Increasing the student-faculty ration from 21.1 to 1 to 22.9 to 1 (a 9.1% increase) would save about $100 million. Do it 15 times, and you've closed the gap.
• Replacing 1,100 tenure-track faculty position by non-tenure track faculty, would also save about $100 million in salary and benefits. Therefore, replacing 16,500 TT faculty by lecturers would close the gap. 
• Eliminating 1,280 staff positions would also save $100 million. You get the picture.

Lenz and Bostrom pointed out that cuts are being "disproportionately" taken at the administrative level on the campuses. That might well be true. But looks like we are well past the point were significant economies can be achieved this way (much less the mythical $500 million). As much as we would like to see extravagant administrative salaries cut to size, the truth is that there is not much money there altogether. And in fact the cuts are pouring all over the place: more than 4,400 people have already been laid off (with more coming) and 3,700 vacant positions have gone unfilled. And my own department's instructional budget, used to support the graduate students with teaching assistantships and readerships, was just cut 25%. We are at the point were the mission of the University is being seriously jeopardized.  And did I mention that the budget of Corrections & Rehabilitation is not being cut, and that the oil severance tax has disappeared from the horizon?

So things are definitely not well at UC. The last one out, please turn the lights off.