Irvine Faculty Association

Alarming Changes to UC Regents’ Governance Structure

Posted on July 20, 2016 by admin

The IFA is deeply concerned that on July 20, 2016, he Regents voted to make changes that erode UC faculty’s legal and practical standing in shared governance. These changes might make it more difficult for students, faculty, staff and public to monitor policies that affect all of us.

As Robert Meister points out, this could be the end of shared governance as a constitutional principle in the UC system. Please follow these links for more analysis:

Regents Propose Centralization Without Real Justification, Tuesday, July 19, 2016, by Michael Meranze, Remaking the University

Alarming Changes to UC Regent’s Governance Structure, July 19, 2016, Robert Meister as posted on the Council of U.C. Faculty Associations’ (CUCFA) website.

Posted in Faculty and Governance, Future of the University | Leave a comment

Faculty Association Inquiry/Request for Information Regarding UCI’s Review Process of Recent Campus Protest

Posted on July 5, 2016 by admin

Dear Chancellor Gillman,

We are writing on behalf of the Irvine Faculty Association about UCI’s recent response to student protest on campus. UCI referred some protesters of the May 18, 2016 screening of the film “Beneath the Helmet” to the OC District Attorney, which we consider wrong and inappropriate in advance of a UCI report of serious misconduct by UCI students.

UCI needs to be clear on what basis it forwards allegations of misconduct on campus to the police. This information needs to be public at a public university. UCI’s response to protest against Israel should be consistent with its response to other protest or student conduct on campus.

We therefore ask for a clear policy statement on UCI’s referral of conduct cases to the DA—what the procedures are for forwarding cases to the DA, and when such forwarding has occurred or should occur.

It’s been reported in the press that students attending the screening said they were threatened by protesters and called the UC police. We take their charge seriously and believe all our students deserve to be safe and protected from harassment and intimidation. This applies to the protestors as well. UCI should investigate all student complaints fairly, and have compelling and complete evidence of criminal action before referring student conduct cases to the State. It is the IFA’s position that protest should not be referred to the DA in order that the DA determine whether there is reason to refer the actions to the DA.

We therefore hereby ask for the official police report on the student protest of “Beneath the Helmet” on May 18, 2016.

Particularly in cases of protest, free speech, and related activities, no case should be forwarded to the DA unless and until meaningful review has been carried out by appropriate UCI bodies, following an accepted process that determines whether students violated not only UCI policy but the criminal code. UCI should gather the complete evidence available about the event, and review it in a fair and consistent manner. To the best of our understanding, this review has not been carried out here. Instead you sent a letter to the UCI community the day after the event, criticizing the protesters for “crossing a line” into “uncivil” behavior, based on allegations that have yet to be investigated. To this day, no UCI review body or evidence of actions on either side of the dispute has been made public.

We therefore call on UCI to publicly withdraw the case from criminal investigation until such review process can be engaged fully, and to follow consistent and fair practices when doing so.

We look forward to your response at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,
The IFA board
Eyal Amiran
Mark LeVine
Kristin Peterson
Irene Tucker

UC task force considering pension cuts

Posted on November 5, 2015 by admin

If you are concerned about a further erosion of compensation at UC, follow the link below to read CUCFA’s (the Council of UC Faculty Associations) explanation of the proposals made by President Napolitano’s UC task force. The task force has been charged with developing a new UC Retirement Plan (UCRP) Tier 2016 for faculty and other employees hired after June 30, 2016.

The November 5, 2015 document from CUCFA also explains what you can do to make your views known to the task force.

Posted in Benefits and tuition, CUCFA Statements and Letters, University Managment | Leave a comment

We ask Governor Brown to sign SB-376

Posted on October 3, 2015 by admin

Dear Governor Brown,

As faculty of the University of California, we are writing to urge you to sign bill SB-376, requiring the University of California compensate its subcontracted workers at the same level as those who are hired directly, that is, requiring equal pay for the same work.

It is a disgrace that the University is seeking to balance its budget on the backs of its lowest-paid workers. Subcontracting increases the possibility of wage theft and generally exploitative treatment of workers. The recent case of Performance First Building Services, currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor for such abuses, is but one instance in a long and shameful history. SB-376 would remove the University’s incentive to allow such exploitation to take place, ensuring that subcontractors be used only in the case of tasks that could most efficiently be handled externally, and not as a form of backdoor access to cheap labor.

The University administration has spoken against this bill, concerned that the costs will further imperil the fragile economic condition of the University. We share that concern and urge the state to take these costs into consideration in allocating future resources. However, we strongly reject the suggestion that the University should solve its economic problems by outsourcing to private contractors who have demonstrated that they have no regard for the laws of our state or the welfare of the employees they hire to work on our campuses.

The University of California is an important public institution and, as faculty members committed to its historic public character, we urge you to ensure that it uphold that public mandate by paying its workers both decently and fairly.

Sincerely yours,

Joe Kiskis, Vice President External Affairs,
Council of UC Faculty Association

Posted in CUCFA Statements and Letters, State Politics and Economy, University Managment | 1 Comment

Statement by CUCFA and AAUP on Regent Blum’s Remarks

Posted on September 25, 2015 by admin

In response to remarks by Regent Blum at the September 17, 2015 Regents meeting held at UC Irvine, the IFA, as part of CUCFA and the AAUP, have released a statement expressing deep concern and condemnation.

_________________________________________

The Council of University of California Faculty Associations and the American Association of University Professors write to protest the following remarks made by University of California Regent Richard Blum and then supported by Regent Hadi Makarechian during the discussion of a proposed Statement of Principles Against Intolerance at the Board of Regents meeting on September 17, 2015:

“I should add that over the weekend my wife, your senior Senator, and I talked about this issue at length. She wants to stay out of the conversation publicly but if we do not do the right thing she will engage publicly and is prepared to be critical of this university if we don’t have the kind of not only statement but penalties for those who commit what you can call them crimes, call them whatever you want. Students that do the things that have been cited here today probably ought to have a dismissal or a suspension from school. I don’t know how many of you feel strongly that way but my wife does and so do I.”

These remarks by Regent Blum explicitly invoke his wife, U.S. Senator from California Dianne Feinstein, and threaten negative political consequences for the University if the proposed Statement of Principles Against Intolerance is not revised so as to be agreeable to him and Senator Feinstein. As such, they violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Article IX, Section 9 of the California Constitution, which declares that “The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs.”

Whatever varied opinions we may hold on the proposed Statement of Principles or any other matter for University discussion, we should all join in rejecting any attempt by a Regent to influence University deliberations by calling on external political forces in this manner.

The complex and competing issues involved in developing a suitable Statement of Principles Against Intolerance are matters of discussion and intellectual inquiry within the University. The purpose of academic freedom is to protect such inquiry from external political interference, and it is the duty of the members of the Board of Regents to uphold academic freedom and to protect the university from external constraints on this freedom. So it is very troubling to hear a Regent make statements that directly undermine free inquiry and the independence of the University. It is particularly disconcerting in this case, because among the central issues are academic freedom and free speech.

We understand that individual Regents, in their private capacity, like many others in the community, may hold strong views on this and many other issues. However, in their official capacity, the Regents have the responsibility to uphold the rights of University administrators and faculty to determine internal University policies through established processes of shared governance free of external political pressure and threats from any source, including the Regents’ own spouses, relatives and friends. We call upon the Regents, the President, and the Provost to provide explicit assurances that they will support and protect the independence and integrity of the continuing discussions of a possible Statement of Principles Against Intolerance.

Posted in CUCFA Statements and Letters, Student and Faculty responses, University Managment | Leave a comment

Statement to UC Regents about new UCRS tier

Posted on July 23, 2015 by admin

Professor Celeste Langan spoke on behalf of the UC Faculty Associations at the July 22, 2015 UC Regents meeting, during the public comment period. Below is a copy of her full comments:

As co-Chair of the Berkeley Faculty Association and on behalf of the Council of UC Faculty Associations, I wish to address the Regents concerning the third discussion item of the Finance Committee agenda, item F3, “Update on Final 2015-16 Budget.” The update, produced by the Office of the President, misleadingly claims that the final budget “incorporates the funding framework developed by UC and the Governor.” If you’ll recall, the “framework” of the May Revise proposed that the state make a contribution of $436 million toward the unfunded liability of the UC Retirement Plan. The final budget, however, promises only a “one-time payment” of $96 million; there is nothing in the budget that commits the state to two additional payments of $170 million. Yet even this meager one-time payment is contingent upon Regential approval of a cap on pensionable salary consistent with PEPRA (Public Employee Pension Reform Act) for employees hired after July 1, 2016.

The Council of UC Faculty Associations is opposed to the University making permanent changes in the structure of its retirement plan in exchange for a very modest one-time contribution from the State. We are especially opposed to the introduction of a full defined-contribution option. There is absolutely no justification for the proposed introduction of a full defined-contribution option; neither the Legislature nor the Governor called for the introduction of a Defined Contributions plan in aligning the UCRP with PEPRA. Yet UCOP seems bent on introducing such an option, to the point that their statement exposes their intention as a foregone conclusion rather than a possible outcome of consultation and deliberation — those elements of what we once understood as “shared governance.”

I call your attention to the third paragraph on page 3 of the F3 agenda item. First OP declares, “The President will convene a retirement options task force to advise on the design of new retirement options that will include the pensionable salary cap consistent with PEPRA. The retirement options will be brought to the Regents next year for review and approval.” But apparently the “design of new retirement options” is a fait accompli, for the penultimate sentence of that paragraph declares, “new employees will have the opportunity to choose a fully defined contribution plan as a retirement option, as an alternative to the PEPRA-capped defined benefit plan.”

Since the two minutes allotted in the public comments session is the temporal equivalent of Twitter’s 140 characters, let me ask: #What’s up with UCOP? If I had to speculate, I’d say that UCOP’s attempt to replace Defined Benefits with Defined Contributions suggests its preference for a mobile, “flexible,” precarious professoriate with a consequently short-term institutional memory — a professoriate that wouldn’t recall that only 6 years ago, the relative merits of defined contribution versus defined benefit plans were thoroughly, carefully, and widely discussed by UC constituents. Given substantial evidence that defined benefits are more cost-efficient than defined contributions in achieving the same level of benefits, it was agreed that the University of California was best served by continuing with UCRP as a defined benefit plan. Thus in 2010, when the President recommended and the Regents endorsed pension reforms, UCRP was preserved as a defined benefit plan.

Ironically, the paragraph in question concludes, “For represented groups, retirement options will be subject to collective bargaining.” Well, the UC Faculty Associations represent a good number of those faculty, members of the Academic Senate, without collective bargaining rights, and we say that UCOP has vitiated the interests of that faculty, both those vested in the current UCRP and those who will be hired after 2016. We deplore the introduction of a different tier of faculty benefits, but we firmly oppose the attempt of UCOP to introduce a fully defined contribution plan in this untoward and unjustified manner.

Posted in Benefits and tuition, CUCFA Statements and Letters, Faculty and Governance, State Politics and Economy | Leave a comment

IFA Statement in Support of Wisconsin Faculty

Posted on June 19, 2015 by admin

The IFA opposes the alarming attack on tenure at our fellow public university system, the University of Wisconsin, and calls on President Napolitano and the UC Regents to affirm unambiguously the UC’s commitment to tenure and to academic freedom.

Posted in Faculty and Governance, Student and Faculty responses, University Managment | Leave a comment

CUCFA Governance Questionnaire, 2015

Posted on April 25, 2015 by admin

Dear Faculty Association Member,

The Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) is working to assess recent challenges to UC faculty governance. Please write to us at outreach@cucfa.org and answer YES, NO, or I DON’T KNOW to the first 2 questions.

1. Have faculty at your UC participated adequately in searches for administrative positions of Dean or above?

2. Do you find that important academic decisions that used to or should be the provenance of faculty at your UC (from hiring to school restructuring and policies) are being made or impinged upon by administrators?

3. Overall, what grade would you give to ‘shared governance’ at your UC over the last 3 years?

If you know of specific instances of good or bad shared governance practices at your UC, please fill out, anonymously or not, in part or more fully, our Survey on UC Governance available at:

http://cucfa.org/uc-governance-questionnaire/

You are also welcome to contact the CUCFA subcommittee on governance.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,
Claudio Fogu, UCSB, claudiofogu@gmail.com
Eyal Amiran, UCI, eyal.amiran@gmail.com

Posted in Faculty and Governance | Leave a comment

Petition to protect UC healthcare options

Posted on April 25, 2015 by admin

Update: The healthcare petition was sent to President Napolitano on April 7, 2015. It generated 2,611 signatures, the vast majority senate faculty. We hear that the plans have been postponed, perhaps indefinitely. We would like to think our efforts played a role in their pushback. We hope that the energy and concern generated this time can be sustained in the future, should it become necessary to mobilize again.

The original announcement and call for signatures is below:

**********************

Dear Faculty Colleague,

As you may be aware, the University of California is considering restructuring the provision of medical plans for its employees across the ten campuses of the system. These changes would have a dramatic impact upon the health care options currently available to faculty and other UC employees. In brief, the plan is to create a new UC Care HMO program that will replace Health Net and possibly Kaiser. The aim is to generate savings for the university by forcing UC employees into a monopoly healthcare system that will be both less convenient and more expensive to use, as well as cause severe inequities of provision between campuses.

More details can be found in a letter that the CUCFA Board (CUCFA is the systemwide organization of faculty associations that the Berkeley Faculty Association belongs to) has written and plans to send to President Napolitano, asking her to undertake serious study of the manifold consequences of this plan and to make transparent the financial projections driving it. We would like for faculty to add their names to this letter so that President Napolitano sees how important these health care options are to us. If you are a UC faculty member, please add your name to the letter by visiting:

http://cucfa.org/healthcare-options-petition/

Posted in Benefits and tuition, CUCFA Statements and Letters, Student and Faculty responses | Leave a comment

Continuing deterioration of compensation and benefits

Posted on February 26, 2015 by admin

A year ago, the Berkeley Faculty Association drew the attention of faculty across the ten campuses of the University of California to the continuing degradation of their pensions, benefits and salaries.

Faculty were, they noted, still underpaid in relation to their peers at competitor institutions. Despite this salary gap they were being increasingly asked to pay more but get less from their health insurance and pensions. Moreover, the introduction of a new and less generous pension ‘tier’ for those hired after 2013, last year’s chaotic roll out of the new health plans with the prestige UC Care option working only on campuses with medical schools, and the cutting adrift of out of state retirees from all health plans with a good luck lump sum payment of $3,000, created new inequities between UC faculty.

This analysis has recently been confirmed by UCOP’s own study of total remuneration. The executive summary of this document contains the following depressing bullet points:

• Between 2009 and 2014, UC’s total remuneration fell from 2% below market to 10% below market.

• Health and welfare benefits fell from 6% above market in 2009 to 7% below market in 2014, primarily caused by higher medical employee contributions at higher salary bands compared to the market.

• Changes to retirement plan designs since 2009 reduced positioning against market from 29% above market to 2% below market.

• Total retirement decreased from 33% above market to 6% above market.

• Total benefits decreased from 18% above market to 1% below market.

It is the first UCOP study to compare the new (2103) and old (1976) tier benefits for UC faculty with equally depressing results.

• New tier retirement benefits (the defined benefit plan) are valued 16% below old tier retirement benefits.

• New tier retiree health benefits (medical, life, dental) are valued 23% below old tier retiree health benefits.

• New tier retirement benefits (defined benefit plan plus retiree health) are 17% lower than the old tier.

In short, we have moved to a new system where the old deferred benefits of our pension and healthcare helped offset lower salaries to one in which the cash compensation of salaries still lag behind our competitors and in addition benefits have now also been reduced to a point where they are below comparable institutions. In 2009 UC cash compensation by salary represented 68% of total remuneration, yet for assistant professors in 2014 it represents 86%.

The IFA and the Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) believe that it will be difficult to retain and protect the quality of UC faculty if their salaries remain uncompetitive and their benefits and retirement packages continue to erode.

Posted in Benefits and tuition, Student and Faculty responses, University Managment | Leave a comment