20 November 2009

And if there was not reason enough to worry ...

As pointed out by Daniel Mitchell (UCLA), buried in a document of the Legislative Analyst's Office, is the recommendation that the state not resume its share of payments into the UC retirement system when employee contributions resume this coming April. It is left up to the Regents to replace the state's contributions with other "non-state funds." As Prof. Mitchell points out, "non-state funds" can only mean tuition and fees (as if the 32% fee hike passed yesterday was not enough), and it is tantamount to the de facto complete privatization of UC. For all practical purposes, the state is telling UC faculty and staff that they are no longer state employees.

1 comment:

  1. The Legislative Analyst's Office has been consistent on this this year. In January, commenting on the Governor's proposed budget they explicitly mention student fees as a way of finding the employer contribution:

    "Nevertheless, we believe that UCRP funding must resume soon in order to keep the plan relatively well–funded. In future years, therefore, the Legislature will need to consider the state’s role in providing additional General Fund money to UC to cover part of its employer contributions to UCRP. Failure to provide additional funds will mean that UC will have to identify other resources to cover the full costs of its employer contributions to UCRP—including, perhaps, reductions in services or increases in student fees."

    (See UCRP section at http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/analysis.aspx?year=2009&toc=1&chap=9).