Berkeley Campus Budget Cuts: Concerns and Responses

Recent campus news and developments - a commentary

Here are some expanded comments on the developments noted in my Calmessage.  I realize that even these comments may raise more questions than they answer.  I encourage you to use the comments section on this blog page, which I will monitor, or to write me directly, as aschair@berkeley.edu. Apologies for the wonky formatting: the typepad editor is acting strangely.

1) Resolution to reform governance of the University:  At our Spring 2010 Divisional Meeting Professor Charles Schwartz proposed a resolution that would:

Ask the Divisional Council to convene a special Committee charged to collect, study and formulate a set of Reform Proposals concerning the Governance and Leadership of the University, which will then be distributed to the membership of the Division for a ballot assessment. 

Upon a motion from the floor, this resolution was put to a mail ballot, using our new electronic election system.  The results were clear and impressive: the resolution passed by 263-113.  The next task is to form the Special Committee that will take on this difficult task.  The Senate will follow its usual policy for this: the members of the Committee will be named by the Committee on Committees, and then confirmed by Divisional Council.  I would expect the Special Committee to be formed at the beginning of the Fall (when Fiona Doyle becomes chair), with a report to the Division in the Spring.

  

2) Intercollegiate Athletics: The Senate Task Force on Inter-collegiate Athletics has issued its interim report, available here.   It will issue a more elaborate, final report in early Fall.

The Task Force, chaired by Professor Calvin Moore, spent an enormous amount of time over the spring and early summer studying the problem of exploding costs (and a consequent exploding burden to campus funds) stemming from the IA program, pursuant to its charge. As part of its investigation, the Task Force wrestled with the question of the value of an IA program – and under what conditions and with what commitments an IA program can have value at our university – as well as the question how to limit the costs and burdens.  I won’t rehearse the interim report’s conclusions except to say that it reflects vigorous discussion, some disagreement, and much agreement by the members of the Task Force, who I believe reflect the range of faculty opinion on the subject.  I won’t rehearse the conclusions of the report, which you should read directly, except to note the following highlights:

n  All members of the Task Force believe that the value of an IA program depends on its commitment to values of academic and managerial excellence as well as athletic excellence.  All members strongly believe that the IA program has not succeeded in managing its resources well, and that it must undertake immediate and significant changes in its management structure and financial systems.

n   All  members concluded that the total campus support (including Reg fee support) for the IA program must be immediately stepped down, culminating in a level of support far below existing levels by 2014.  Here members differed on the 2104 goal, with some believing – based on the benefits of the program, including philanthropic return to academic programs – that support up to $5M annually could be justified, while others believed that only lower levels could be supported, with one member believing that no outside support could be justified. 

n  Most or all members of the Task Force believe that the IA program does not subtract from philanthropy directed to our core academic missions, but rather serves as a portal for cultivating such philanthropy.  This conclusion was reached on the basis of discussion with the head of campus development, Scott Biddy, as well as other faculty who have been involved in academic fundraising.  This is not to say that the Task Force believes that  support for athletics is the only or best way to cultivate philanthropy at Berkeley, but only that it does not appear that athletics fundraising cannibalizes academic fundraising.  Indeed, the Task Force believes that IA needs to do more fundraising n its own, in order to both preserve athletic opportunities for students and to reduce demands on central campus funds. 

3) Post-Employment benefits:  As many of you know, the underfunding of UC’s post-employment benefits system (pension and medical) is one of the most serious issues the university faces.  The problem arises partly but only partly from recent market declines. The principal cause is the failure of the University to make contributions to the pension system, relying instead simply on market accumulations (as well as the grossly unfair failure of the state to contribute to our retirement funds, as it does to the funds for other state employees).  I note that had the Regents acted on the strong Senate advice five years ago to resume contributions, there would be little or no problem todat.  Instead, in order to meet the current and future absolute liability, a total contribution from employer and employee of up to 30% of payroll may be called for.  Yes, you read that correctly: 30%.  The numbers are daunting.

 A number of forums were held over the last year to discuss the problem and canvass opinion about some of the options being considered.  Slides from those forums have finally been released, here. There is also a very useful primer by Systemwide Vice Chair Dan Simmons on the issues, here.

Most of the issues are still in flux, awaiting decsions by the Presidential Task Force on Post-Employment Benefits amd further comments by the Senate, followed then by presentation to and decision by the Regents.  I expect Regental decisions to take place in the Fall.

The process is still highly fluid.  But it looks like the following will be elements of any decision:

n  Employee contributions will begin July 2011 at 3.5%, with employer contributions at 7%; they will rise to 5% in July 2012.  (Since April we have been contributed 2% up the social security wage base, and 4% thereafter, less $19 annually – but since this is in part a diversion of money that previously went to a defined contribution plan, the visible effect has not been great.)  Note that these levels of contribution are wholly inadequate to meet the funding problem.

Current employees will likely be given a choice between continuing with the existing pension plan (that is, with the existing benefits levels) or opting for a less generous plan.  The current plan will require higher contribution levels than the new plan; I do not know, but assume, it will require higher contribution levels than the 3.% and 5% figures.  New employees may or may not have a choice.

n   A remaining contested issue is whether, as the Senate recommends, the University should borrow money in the form of Pension Obligation Bonds in order to begin filling the funding liability of the pension system.  While it may seem crazy to borrow money to pay a different obligation, the current low interest rates for borrowing, as against the quickly increasing liability, make this a reasonable approach – though also one with some risks, since it would tie up a significant amount of the University’s debt capacity.

 

4) The UC Budget: On the surface, the news from Sacramento on the UC budget is relatively hopeful.  The Governor, in his May revised budget, has maintained his commitment to restore $305M in funds cut from last year’s University budget.  Legislators, principally Democrats, have also announced their support for higher education.  The problem is that there is simply not enough money to fund all the things that both the Governor and the legislature value, and difficult choices must be made.  The Governor’s proposal would require significant cuts to health and welfare services, endangering many of the most vulnerable in California.  Democratic proposals rest on a number of alternative forms of borrowing and revenue increases that will probably be unacceptable to the 1/3 of Republicans sufficient to block any proposal.  Should those proposals be blocked, it is by no means clear that the legislature would favor higher education over these other budgetary needs.  In short, there is limited, but only limited, reason for optimism, and significant reason to plan for a worst-case scenario of more cuts.

 I spent a day on April 27^th lobbying in Sacramento for Higher Education.  One aspect of the day was important: UC joined with the CCs and CSUs to form a united front, demanding that the state fulfill the promise it has made to its citizens for democratic access to a superb system of public education and research.  I was particularly glad of the alliance with the community colleges, who link with us in a system of social mobility that literally brings tears to my eyes when I think about its successes and its challenges.  But another aspect was depressing: virtually all the legislators and staff with whom I spoke were in despair about the paralyzed political process, saying that they could see no way to get to 2/3rds agreements, given the polarized nature of the parties.

The real problem, as I have said in a number of occasions, is constitutional, not budgetary or political (in the narrow sense): the effect of Proposition 13, ballot box budgeting and – perhaps – polarized districts – is a system that demands services it cannot support through revenues, except in moments of bubble economies.  In my view we need to end the forty year holiday for commercial property taxes, reverse the 2/3s minority-veto rules, and drastically limit the popular initiative process.  And we need to do it yesterday.  Tomorrow is too long to wait.  Alas, the most promising reform efforts of the spring have failed to make it to the ballot, but I encourage you to become involved in new and emerging constitutional reform efforts.  I deeply believe that such efforts are the only long-term solution to our problem.

In the meantime, I also strongly encourage you to contact your local legislator and encourage them to support the long-term future of California by supporting higher education. The Cal Advocacy website has helpful links and information. 

 

5) Student Protests and the Police Review Board Report: The Police Review Board, chaired by Professor Wayne Brazil, has just issued its report on the November 20^th Wheeler events, available here.

The report is long and thorough – and also gripping reading.  I have not fully absorbed it, but I can say that the care, judiciousness, and research of the report are evident to me on every page.  I can also say that it accords with my own provisional and partial understanding of the events and the failures that led to them, principally failures in police command and tactics, especially governing the deployment of outside police (who seemed to inflame the situation significantly); and profound failures in communication between the Administration and the protestors, both inside and outside Wheeler.  On the problems with police command and control, it was dismaying to see the report detail mistakes that seem to be made regularly on this campus, as documented by prior Police Review Board reports. The Senate will be committed to ensuring that the lessons are learned this time.

The responsibility of communication – and of creating a more general atmosphere of trust and space for disagreement – is a central responsibility of leadership.  It is also a prerequisite to the legitimacy of authority.  The lack of engagement with the student protestors – and even with bystanders outside Wheeler, caught and confused by unclear police orders – had snowball effects over the course of the year.  The Senate will ask the UCPD to report on the changes it has made in response to the report, beyond those mentioned in Chief Celaya’s letter.  I continue to be deeply troubled by the still inexplicable forcible arrest of Professor Dudley early in the morning of the 20^th, before crowds assembled – and by the difficulty the PRB had in assembling a coherent account from the UCPD of the circumstances of the arrest.

Meanwhile, I and other members of the Senate have been heavily involved in trying to bring closure to the protest cases that emerged from the fall protest events.  Many faculty, including the unanimous Divisional Council, were deeply disturbed by irregularities and other problems in the student conduct process governing these cases.  I can report success in the informal settlement of many of the cases, and dismissal of the Dec. 10^th Wheeler cases.  This success is due to energetic and good faith efforts by  the students, their impressive representatives drawn from Berkeley Law’s Campus Rights project, and the Berkeley Administration (including the Office of Student Conduct) to come to a fair disposition of the remaining cases – one that reflects the act that conscientious civil disobedience can incur disciplinary consequences, but that such consequences must not chill legitimate protest activity.  Other cases remain and will probably go to formal hearings in the fall. 

We are simultaneously making plans for a substantial study and revision of the campus student conduct code and policy.  This process will involve a number of groups, including faculty and undergraduate and graduate students.  Its aim, as I see it, is to ensure that our disciplinary process, governing both academic and non-academic (including civil disobedience cases)  meets a gold standard of procedural fairness while reflecting Berkeley’s specific commitment to a community of responsible and honorable conduct and disagreement.

6) Network fees: Many faculty were alarmed at a new policy announced by Information Systems and Technology that would have levied a charge on all units (including all departments) on a headcount (FTE) basis to pay for the costs associated with the campus information network.  While the new system would have replaced the “node-based” (wired connection) charge system of the past, it would have had a very serious effect on departmental and unit budgets.  In part because of faculty concern and protest, the policy change has been deferred for at least the next fiscal year while the Provost and Chancellor consider other ways to pay for the costs associated with the campus network.  I have to say, I continue to be baffled by the difficulties in communicating the rationale for the proposed and now deferred policy, or the details of the deferral.  The problem of funding the network is a real one, since the node model was not working -- part of a more general problem how to fund common good resources on campus (and how to decide which are common goods). The Senate will watch this issue very closely.

 

7) Commission on the Future/Gould Commission: The systemwide Senate gave its views about the initial recommendations provided by the COTF Working Groups at the Commission meeting on Monday, June 14th.  A stream of the meeting may be found here, along with meeting materals.

Here are the responses I submitted on behalf of Berkeley, synthesized from the reports from Senate committees, chairs and deans, and individual faculty, along with responses from the other campuses.  As you can see, there was a great deal of agreement about the defects of many of the recommendations, and a general disappointment (perhaps inevitable, given the process) that the recommendations did little to solve the immense problems facing us.  (The systemwide Senate response is including in the meeting materials on the COTF website.)

Meanwhile, partly because the Working Group recommendations contained little that might save significant sums or raise additional revenues, the Office of the President provided the Commission with a new set of “expanded” recommendations.  Though these recommendation had been rumored for over a month, they were not released until the Friday immediately before the meeting, and so have not received any Senate comment. One interpretation of the new proposals is that they are mainly an attempt to show the legislature, notwithstanding the Working Group process, that the University is thinking hard about its future.  A different interpretation is that these recommend preferred policies of UCOP that were defeated in the Working Group process, and this represents another bite at the apple.  No doubt there is truth to both.

Speaking personally, I think the Working Group process mostly failed to rethink our future in a way that we can endorse (and I say that with a heavy heart, since I know how much work many very talented people put into the process – my sense is that the process made the task impossible), and that a great deal more thought is necessary.  But the need for new solutions shouldn’t entail rash solutions that result in diluting our greatest, and historically most distinctive qualities: research excellence and democratic access.

The new recommendations include a much more aggressive research and implementation schedule for online instruction, a plan to move all campuses to the semester system, and a plan to shift more faculty to a health sciences salary model, whereby some portion of salary is paid by outside grant funds.  

On the online proposal, while the Berkeley Divisional Council (and Committee on Courses of Instruction), as well as the systemwide Academic Council have enthusiastically endorsed a pilot program exploring the development of online courses, our endorsement has two significant qualifications: the pilot should be funded with outside funds, so that the University does not incur a significant financial risk – a risk that has ripened for many other institutions; and we must carefully assess the success of the classes before discussion of any sort of undergraduate degrees should take place.   While I and colleagues see some promise in expanding the portfolio of online courses we already offer, particularly with regard to oversubscribed “gateway” classes for both our students and community college students, the aggressive timeline gives me some worries that both of these qualifications may be overstepped.  The Berkeley Divisional Council has proposed that our Center for Studies in Higher Education host the systemwide pilot, because of the local expertise here.  And I should also add that I am part of a Berkeley Senate Task Force on Online Graduate Degrees, chaired by Professor John Lindow, to consider criteria governing the approval of online self-supporting graduate degrees, proposals for which are in the pipeline.  Obviously this will remain an interesting and contentious subject.

The Academic Council has also presented its own set of recommendations to the COTF, though the membership of the Council was closely divided on a number of the issues.  The Council’s chief three recommendations are that: 

Competitive faculty compensation must be the top priority of the institution, because an excellent faculty is the sine qua non of the University.  The issue of faculty compensation is especially acute not just because of the general competitive lag of UC salaries, but in light of the coming pension contributions, which if not offset by salary increases, will amount to a significant pay cut in take-home pay.  (All of us believe that faculty pay is crucial; some of us felt that it must be balanced with other priorities.)

Shrinking the tenure-line faculty through attrition.  The Council believes that the resources available are not adequate to the current size of the faculty, and that the least bad adjustment we can make is to shrink the faculty somewhat, to maintain resources for those remaining.  Berkeley’s hiring next year, with an anticipated 50-70 searches, is consonant with this plan, since it is below replacement but nonetheless can keep departments vital.  (It is more aggressive than other campuses are doing.)

Ceasing new buildings and capital projects except where life safety is at issue.   Here opinions differed sharply.  While the whole Council believed there should be a moratorium on new construction that does not satisfy urgent needs in the core academic mission of research and teaching.

The Council recommendations will be coming to the campuses and committees for further comment and elaboration.

8) Low-income infant child-care:  Late in the Spring there was an announcement that the campus was eliminating 19 spots of subsidized infant care provided through the Early Childhood Education program, in order for Student Affairs (which runs the entire childcare system) to reduce its operating deficit.  Infant care is extremely expensive, because of the very high caregiver-child ratios mandated.  Many faculty and Senate committees were deeply concerned about this, both because of the funding priorities represented (the amount of money was not that large, in the context of the overall budget), and because of the effect on low income students, including students of color. 

Senate leadership met with Student Affairs officials, along with Vice Provost for Faculty Welfare and Equity Shelly Zedeck.  We learned a number of important things:

n  The immediate issue is less difficult, because Student Affairs has succeeded in arranging with the federally-funded Head Start program to open a program with 16 spots at Albany Village, where a many low income student families live.  This, we regarded the immediate cause of our meeting as resolved.  (It should be said that the Head Start program will take up space that previously went to drop-in care.)

n  The overall issue is more difficult.  There is obviously a much greater need than 16 spots for not just low-income care, but infant and child care all around.  It is clear that it does not make sense to fund childcare almost entirely through Student Affairs, which is mandated to balance its books through its revenue streams.  (Furthermore, the Governor’s budget, referred to above, jeopardizes low income infant care subsidies.)  Berkeley must rethink its provision of child care, and must work to develop both on site and local models to begin to meet the need.

Obviously, the need for childcare is felt enormously by faculty.  One piece of good news is the great success of our family friendly policies, developed in large part by Shelly Zedeck and Assoc. Vice Provost Angela Stacy, which have resulted in many more junior faculty with children.  But these children need to be cared for so that these faculty can do their work. The wildly popular new program of emergency childcare begun by Zedeck last year has helped, but, again, demand far outstrips supply, particularly for part-time and infant care.

9) Operational Excellence: I will leave discussion of this for another occasion.  The main point is the Professor Al Pisano of Mechanical Engineering has been named the Program Manager for the effort, with continuing assistance for a period from Bain Consulting.  He is now in the process of forming design teams for the different aspects of the program.  You can read more here.

As always, please feel free to let me know of any concerns or comments you have, ataschair@berkeley.edu, or here on the comments page.

 Yours in shared governance,

Chris Kutz

P.S.: As a bonus (10): I finally took the current cycle of the annoying online ethics class.  The good news is that you no longer have to take a certain amount of time, and was able to complete it in under 5 minutes.  I recommend getting it over with . . .

Senate Task Force on Intercollegiate Athletics

  As many of you know, at our Fall Division Meeting of November 5th, the faculty present voted, by 98-63, for a resolution whose chief purpose was to rein in campus spending on intercollegiate athletics, and end a pattern of deficit spending.  Over its history, and despite increasing revenues, IA has come to absorb significant support from campus, through both deliberate subventions from the Chancellor (including a substantial registration fee component), and through decisions to forgive accumulated deficits by the program.  The issues about the costs of athletics and the arguments for and against its support are complex, and they may be visited or revisited here, on the Senate website, along with an audio recording of the meeting and the full text of the resolution: http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/meetings/meetings.html.

    The Resolution also directed the Senate to create a Task Force to “confirm the satisfactory accomplishment” of the goal of fiscal self-sufficiency.  I have now created the Task Force on Intercollegiate Athletics, based on suggestions by COMS, as well as discussions with the designated chair, Cal Moore, and others. The following people have all agreed to serve -- all of them immediately, too, reflecting the importance of the charge.

The members of the Task Force are:

Calvin Moore, chair (Math, emeritus, former CAPRA chair who develop the original “glide path to self-sufficiency” plan)
Margaret Conkey (Anthro, and co-chair of the UAB gender equity subcommittee)
William Drummond (Journalism, former Div. Chair and UAB co-chair)
Gary Firestone (MCB) (former COMS chair, former member of Faculty Athletics Advisors)
Leslea Hlusko (IB)
Stanley Klein (Optometry, member of CEP)
Katie Snyder (English, Vice Chair of AEPE)
 
     I think this will be a superb group, reflecting a range of perspectives and expertise, with a shared commitment to restoring fiscal responsibility to IA.  I have urged the administration to give full cooperation to this group, and I will personally work to ensure coordination of efforts with the UAB finance subcommittee.  (I will sit with the Task Force on occasion, but not as a voting member.)  As I understand Cal Moore's plans, the committee will also take open "testimony" on the topic as well. 
 
   I have also pasted in below the charge for the Task Force, as approved by Divisional Council.  It reflects an attempt by Divisional Council to incorporate the concerns expressed in the Resolution in a form the Task Force can actually attempt to accomplish, given the Senate’s limited authority over athletics. These are, as it were, constitutionally required revisions to the charge. 
 

On shared governance

It just occurred to me to post this Youtube clip, of me trying to  explain shared governance at the ASUC discussion of the budget cuts a few weeks ago, organized by Catherine Cole.  Click around on the You Tube page to see the other speakers (Cole, Doyle, Roy, Barsky, Lakoff, Karras).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uihyer24l3I

On hiring Bain Consulting for our efficiency review (aka "Operational Excellence")

[This is the cleaned-up text of an email I sent to the Faculty Budget Forum, responding to questions raised about UCB's hiring of Bain for $3M plus expenses to spend 6 months doing an efficiency analysis.  Those questions include worries about Bain's role in advising on the failed UCSF-Stanford merger,as well as the need for outside consultants at all.]

I'll weigh in here too, with the disclaimer that I am (now) one of three faculty on the steering committee of the efficiency review, along with Carlos Bustamante (Physics/QB3/MCB) and Catherine Wolfram (Haas).  I approached initially with skepticism.  That I now think the effort is worthwhile is, i hope, not a sign that I drank the Kool aid in the conference room.  But be warned.

A couple of initial points:

-- I think what Lyn has sent around is the same report that is posted on our Senate website, which I posted before the second Town Hall, where we discussed the initial plans for the review.  It should provide a rough model for what Bain will do here, since it is similar scope (no medical school, no teaching or research).  UNc set a model for making absolutely transparent (save the identity of the funder) everything that Bain did.  We are doing the same.  This didn't require much deep investigation by UPTE, in other words.

-- I have done some background research into Bain's advice on the UCSF-Stanford merger, since that alarmed me as well.  I would welcome more information.  Here is what seems to be the case: At the outset, they advised on the business case for the merger -- what kind of "market share" the combined hospitals would have.  I don't know what the advice was, but I assume it was positive.  Next was the phase of actually integrating the hospitals.  Bain was not involved in this part; another firm was.  My understanding from the news stories at the time was that here is where the merger failed - in the integration of the two firms.  So while there's no evidence that Bain did not make an analytical mistake, there's also no evidence that they did (or what it was).

-- Beyond that, I do know that this review involves none of the same personnel, nor is it the same research question, on market feasibility.  The project for us is a familiar sort for them, in the generic sense that most of the likely savings are in things we do that are common with other large organizations: procurement (most of the likely savings), IT (which, yes, may involve some centralization), and other forms of paper processing.  An area that is more specific to our public character and UNC's relates to the growth in mid- to high-level administration, as well as regulatory compliance.  Here Bain's specific experience distinguished them from other firms.

-- The steering group picked Bain for a couple of reasons: the experience and references from UNC and Cornell, the realism of their approach, the scale of resources they could devote, and their absolute clarity that they are working for us, entirely subordinate to our values and mission.  They do not aim to change anything about what we do or who we are except for the cost for our back-office operations, as well as their efficiency.  (Think how many people's lives would be easier with a travel reimbursement system that didn't require 4 or 5 different people to enter data, plus another (maybe you) to tape little receipts on pages, etc.)  UNC's public character makes their experience especially valuable, because some of NC's work rules parallel ours, particularly the rules that mean that to give someone a raise, the person must be promoted into a supervisory capacity, even if that then multiplies needlessly the cost of their job.

-- UNC anticipates a very high degree of savings - -they say $70m annually.  That would be an amazing return off a one-time investment in the $2-4m range.  But even with a much more conservative target of, say $35m a year, that would be a fantastic return here on our investment.  (Incidentally, we are deferring at least half the cost until the savings are begun to be realized.)  One especially important area they will target is the cost of student services.  Any savings there are direct savings to students and families -- as important as reductions in tuition (or more, since the Blue and Gold plan fully covers tuition, including increases, for those with family incomes under $60k, but doesn't cover room and board.)  We have some of the most expensive room and board in the system, so there is room for improvement, without a decline in quality.

-- The admin, from top to bottom, is within the scope of the review.  Indeed, this is one of the main reasons I have come to support it.  We faculty (especially Charlie Schwartz) have been complaining for a long time about the growth in administration.  I think our best shot in getting big reductions or savings in admin is by bringing in a third party, rather than leaving it as an internal exercise for the administration.  But getting this right means that we will need massive faculty participation, to point them to where the bodies are buried.

-- And no, the Academic Senate cannot do this, nor can a couple of Haas experts relieved from teaching for a semester.  Reviewing the operations of a mutli-billion dollar enterprise is not an exercise for a bunch of English and Biology professors with day jobs, even accompanied by some grad students from Haas.  It is a massive data gathering and analytical enterprise, requiring detailed comparisons with best practices elsewhere.  Yes, at 30,000 feet one can identify rough areas of inefficiency (e.g., travel).  But figuring out how to fix it requires a great deal of time and work, as well as experience in that specific area.  We will make great use of our faculty with expertise in the area.  But they have neither the time nor the specific experience to do this as well or as quickly as an outside firm.  As I have said before, the expertise of our faculty is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for getting this right.  I note that the business experts at Berkeley I've talked to about this firmly agree that we need to bring in an outside group.  I have asked Bain also to work with the "shadow group" set up by SAVE, of Louise Fortmann, Kevin Padian, and Max Aufhammer (who also supplied the committee on committees with a terrific list of names for the steering committee).  I also note that one of their first appointments is with Charlie Schwartz.  They are eager to do this.

-- Bain has already started meeting with a lot of people, and will meet with many more.  They will be meeting with the Senate committees (they met last week with the budget working group and are coming to Divisional Council in a couple of weeks).  I'd love your thoughts on what other fora might be most valuable -- general town halls, etc.  My sense is that the most useful fora will be at the departmental or school level, where people will have similar needs and concerns.  But do please let me know.

-- Finally, let me just say: I am a philosopher by trade, not a business person, and I take no special interest in procurement reform, etc.  I'm putting in a lot(!) of personal time to this effort for one reason: I think reducing our non-research and teaching costs is absolutely central to the sustainability of our public mission.  This is too important to get wrong.  I view my specific role on the Steering committee as making sure that this is as open and participatory a process as can be.  So let me know how I can do that job.

thanks,
Chris

A sad goodbye to the Berkeleyan and Jonathan King

Very sad news today that the Berkeleyan is ceasing publication, and its excellent editor Jonathan King is ceasing being with us.  I found that week after week, what might have been a drab hash of campus press clippings managed to be a lively, quirky, and often moving account of the interesting people in our community, and the interesting past we have enjoyed.  Let us hope that we will figure out equally good ways to remember our future.  Au revoir.

Dear Campus Colleagues and Friends....

As you may already be aware,  the position of Berkeleyan editor has been eliminated as part of Public Affairs' costcutting efforts. In addition, the print edition of the Berkeleyan, a campus fixture for nearly 25 years, is being discontinued as of this issue; however, the remaining editorial staff will continue to cover campus news and events of interest to staff and faculty on the UC Berkeley NewsCenter (www.berkeley.edu/news), also produced by Public Affairs.

I've greatly appreciated the opportunity to help this campus "talk to itself" in our pages since 2002, and wish my colleagues in 2200 Bancroft all success in transferring that mission to the online platform. I regret that I won't be an active part of that effort, especially during these times of struggle for all of us at Berkeley and around the university.

And of course, my best wishes to all of you as well: After producing more than 225 issues of "the school paper," nothing has changed my belief that UC Berkeley is the most stimulating reservoir of stories any editor can be fortunate to tap, thanks to you and the talents you bring to bear on your own research and projects, as well as on the issues that concern every one of us.

My email signature to the contrary, I've never said "Go Bears!" and I don't intend to start now ... so let me just say farewell, and good luck to you all.

With admiration,

Jonathan King

Gould Commission update

At the Academic Council events of Tues. and Weds,  I heard a couple of briefings from Marsha Kelman yesterday.  It appears that no work-group has yet been formed, partly because UCI seems not to have submitted its names yet, partly because the call for nominations produced a confusing flood of responses for the systemwide committee on committees, partly because  . . well, it doesn't seem to be a well-thought out process, does it?

   I made the point a couple times about the concerns people have in regard to the Commission, and the absolute need for publicity in its operations.  Apparently the Commission meetings will all be open; some of the work group meetings will be closed.  I asked that the minutes from these groups be made public as soon as they are approved -- I got no promise on that, on grounds of inadequate staffing (Kelman says there is no budget for the group), but that she would try.  I will, obviously, continue to press for this.

   Kelman said the group hopes to offer recommendations in March (which seemed to me and others rather quick), and that implementation, she hoped, would be speedy.  "Wait a minute," we all cried -- implementation requires deliberation by the Senate, and cannot proceed without.  She said she understood that.  Again, this calls for close monitoring.

--Chris

Letter to the Editor of the New York Times Magazine

[Update: The Magazine will print this letter in its 10/18 issue.]

As you may have seen, President Mark Yudof was featured in the notoriously snarky (and highly edited) interview column by Deborah Solomon last Sunday.  Apart from the -- well, let's be charitable -- ill-chosen quips, one theme of the interview was especially disheartening to many of us: describing the defunding of public education as an apparently inevitable "secular trend," because the "shine is off."  Missing from the interview was the righteous anger he showed in his remarks to the Regents.

I am pleased to report today that the other 9 UC Division chairs happily signed on to the following letter I proposed that we send to the Times Magazine editors.  (The full Academic Council -- the 10 chairs plus the systemwide committee chairs -- then endorsed it as well.)  I hope the Times sees fit to print it.

--Chris

To the editor of the New York Times Magazine:

We, the leaders of faculty governance of the ten University of California campuses, read Deborah Solomon’s interview of President Yudof with concern.  While we realize these interviews are edited for readers’ amusement, we worry that the interview gives an impression that U.C. has given up on state funding.  We too recognize a trend of defunding public education, but we are emphatically not ready to concede the defeat of California's exceptional experiment.  Collectively, the campuses of the University of California include six that are counted among the elite of American research universities, and our faculty boast 22 awarded Nobel Laureates since 1995, and 12 Macarthur Fellows just since 2003.  We educate 8 times the number of the poorest Americans as the entire Ivy League, and produce more than 7% of the nation’s Ph.Ds.  If the legislators and the public have come to see investment in an educated citizenry as anything less than the central pillar of social and economic growth, then we educators must redouble our efforts to make the case.  As our (other) President said, “We are not here to fear the future.  We are here to shape it."

Christopher Kutz, UC-Berkeley
Robert Powell, UC-Davis
Judith Stepan-Norris, UC-Irvine
Robin Garrell, UC-Los Angeles
Martha Conklin, UC-Merced
Anthony Norman, UC-Riverside
William Hodgkiss, UC-San Diego
Elena Fuentes-Afflick, UC-San Francisco
Joel Michaelsen, UC –Santa Barbara
Lori Kletzer, UC-Santa Cruz

Another good piece by Newfield

This "Budget Q & A" sheet by Chris Newfield is worth a look: Download Newfield Budget Q & A.

--Chris

Looking to out-of-state students - a debate

Chris Newfield, English professor at UCSB and close student of UC, recently posted a blog item about the Task Force’s proposal to roughly double out of state students (now being implemented by the Administration), largely as a way of providing much needed revenue for Berkeley, and thus for the underfunded California students. 

Newfield’s full and insightful post is here: http://toodumbtolivearchive.blogspot.com/2009/09/cont-can-doubling-out-of-state-students.html. 

For those in a hurry, the gist is as follows:
(1)  The additional revenue from out-of-state students amounts to roughly $20M per year (once the campus is at 20-25% out-of-state students overall), and this represents a mere 2.3% of Berkeley’s instructional expenditures.  It cannot thus be a significant part of a solution to the underfunding of the system.

(2)  Any increase in out-of-state tuition is likely to be matched by a diminution in state support: legislators will realize that Berkeley can easily substitute NRT dollars for tax dollars.  Hence there will be little or no net financial benefit.

(3)  Trying to attract out-of-state students will mean that Berkeley will end up in a rat race competing with other, pricier institutions to upgrade its facilities.  (Put bluntly, no one paying top dollar for Berkeley will put up with the current crummy facilities.)

I will add a fourth, commonly-voiced concern as well: because out-of-state students do not receive financial aid, they will tend to be much wealthier and perhaps less ethno-culturally diverse than the California students they displace.

Let me offer responses to these points (responses partly gleaned from conversations with members of the Task Force).

(1) Newfield’s math differs from the Task Force, which calculated additional revenue (net) of $7m per year, with a steady-state increase of revenue to $29m, annually.  Some of these differences in calculation are a result of different assumptions and data, e.g., about the portion of NRT returned to aid, as well as the proportion of out of state students paying NRT (not all do, because some, for instance, qualify for residency if they have attended a California high school for 3 years).

In any event, Newfield’s main point is that $20-30m/year is a drop in the bucket compared to our total expenditures.  The main response to this point is that it misses the dramatic marginal effect of the recent decline in state funding.  The $180m shortfall this year at Berkeley has led, quite clearly, to the furloughs, layoffs, and tuition hikes we all deplore.  The effects of the cut are functions partly of the amount of UC expenditures tied up in protected labor costs (including faculty salaries).  Against this $180m shortfall, $29m makes a significant difference.  It is not a complete solution, but it is a part of a path towards sustaining our excellence.  Put another way, the marginal effect of the revenue increase is significant, as against the marginal decline of funds – and we are living at the margins.

(2)  The concern about a political backlash, or further drop in support, is a plausible view of the politics of the proposal.  However it is also plausible to think that we have already taken our lumps from the legislature, and that further diminution is less likely (at least on that score) – that is, Sacramento could as easily see the revenue increase as a response to what they have done, not a first move to which Sacramento can now respond.  Moreover, the response to the budget cuts should not be fear of doing anything else, lest matters get worse yet.  That is a recipe for sliding into mediocrity.  Rather, the task is to continue the case for restoring public funding – showing that the increase in out-of-state students is a reversible symptom in that decline.

(3)  Newfield’s point could be taken in reverse: the drive to compete for out of state students (and the resources those students provide) is the incentive Berkeley needs, institutionally, to perform the upgrades in its services and the accessibility of its curriculum that all its students deserve.  This, indeed, was a central pillar of the Task Force’s recommendations: non-resident enrollment should be increased so long, and only so long, as it results in a net improvement of the education of in-state students as well.

(4)  The worries about diversity are well-taken, and were taken extremely seriously by all members of the Task Force.    Here is the quote from their report:

Although the reductions in the numbers of under-represented freshman and transfer students in the proposed enrollment plan may seem minor, they would be imposed on what are already unacceptably small numbers of these students currently enrolled at Berkeley.  Revenue generation, even in a time of great financial stress, should not be touted as a sufficient end to justify an approach to problem-solving that inherently runs counter to the campus mission with respect to our obligation to educate the broadest possible spectrum of qualified CA residents. New policies should be developed and implemented, with full personnel and logistical support, that are designed to bring the anticipated reductions in student numbers detailed above as close as possible to zero, i.e., with the expressed goal of no net loss of students in any of the categories of under-represented students as a result of decreasing the number of CA residents.  If a fraction of the revenue generated was devoted to the most effective academic preparation and yield activities, along with re-doubled efforts to achieve parity of graduation rates among all students, that would help save UC's commitment to serve its broad population equitably, utilize the full talent pool, and derive the academic benefits of diversity.

In short, there is no law of nature that says wealthy out-of-state students must bump less wealthy in-state students.  Attention to our admissions, financial aid, and recruitment practices can mitigate this effect.  But that is a promise so far, not yet a policy.

I welcome debate on these matters.

--Chris

Town Hall Discussion on September 3rd, 2009

We had a lively discussion at the September 3rd Town Hall, attended by about 70 people.   Background  materials for the meeting are available here.

I began with what I hope was a not too-sermonizing set of comments stressing something I have come to believe very strongly: that we must all avoid the temptations of mistrust with respect to other groups or individuals within the university – other schools or disciplines, administrators, or individual faculty with whom we disagree.  I said that I think this is a mistake both descriptively and pragmatically.  It is a descriptive mistake because, in my experience, everyone at Berkeley with whom I have worked is desperately concerned with ensuring that we maintain our twofold commitment to democratic access and comprehensive excellence. 

It is a pragmatic mistake because clearly one of the most urgent and difficult tasks before us is to make the public case for public funding for higher education.  If we are turning on each other, regarding some as betraying the cause in some way, we cannot possibly hope to make that case.  We will disagree vehemently about the means to these goals, and we can be properly skeptical of the facts and arguments we marshal in these arguments – but I believe we owe each other a presumption of good faith.

We then moved on to the substantive discussion, beginning with the report by the Joint Senate-Administration Task Force on Enrollment, co-chaired by George Johnson, chair of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Enrollment, and Preparatory Education; and Cathy Koshland, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (available here). 

This report recommended a net decrease in Freshman enrollment, from 4300 to 4100, and an increase in the enrollment of out of state (including foreign) students.  While the panelists all said that the recommendation reflected the constrained circumstances in which we live, and would not be their preferred policy absent these constraints, all felt that the recommendations would result in a net improvement for Berkeley, by reducing impaction of lower division courses, providing more geographical diversity in the student body, and making use of a new stream of revenue from out of state students that might simultaneously sustain the quality of education of the in-state students, given Calfornia’s failure to do so.  (By some estimates, the entire Freshman class at Berkeley, of 9600 students, is unfunded by the state.)  The administration has since submitted a request to UCOP to follow the recommendation of the Task Force on out of state enrollment, and to reduce Fall freshman enrollment from 4300 to 4200.

Faculty at the Town Hall raised a series of concerns about the recommendation, focusing on the impact to ethnoracial and class diversity, and possible political backlash.  (Coming soon to the blog, a longer discussion of these issues.)  These were all acknowledged to be weighty concerns, and indeed had been weighed by the Task Force.  The members of the Task Force spoke to the commitment to maintain diversity in the class, and to their judgment that given our state defunding, worries about backlash were overstated – we have already taken our lumps.  George Johnson also stressed the iterative and reversible nature of these policy decisions.

One more point: the Task Force will continue, with its charge now shifting to a study of how we might ensure the quality of education within the lower division especially, given the continuing pressures from our over-enrollment.  This is also an urgent matter, as we raise tuition while cutting curriculum.

The second major topic of discussion was the forthcoming “Operation Excellence,” which will be a full-scale, top-to-bottom efficiency review of all aspects of Berkeley’s operations with the exception of teaching and research (but including support functions for teaching and research).  This analysis will be led by a large consulting firm; we are now in the final stages of negotiating with a firm.  (I am a member of the steering committee, along with the Chancellor, EVCP Breslauer, AVC Frank Yeary (who is really the leader in the effort), AVC Nathan Brostrom, Rod Park (a former Executive Vice Chancellor at Berkeley, and Chancellor at other institutions); and alumni Judy Wade (a former McKinsey partner, not playing any role in the decision of the winning firm), and Arun Sarin (former CEO of Vodaphone).

Such a review has become de rigueur for many universities in the wake of the financial crisis, including UNC-Chapel Hill, whose work with Bain will provide a good model for our efforts, as well as Yale and Cornell. It will be costly – again, UNC is probably a good reference point, where the analysis cost between $2 and $4 million.  But it promises substantial savings, perhaps as much as 20 to 30x the investment, per year. 

This will be a significant piece of working our way out of the budget problem.  I stressed that the steering committee and the firms know one thing: which is that these efforts will necessarily fail without great transparency and massive participation by faculty and staff – and that we are committed to seeing that this effort succeeds.   So I ask that faculty be willing to step up to participate in this project, so that we can get it right -- working with the consultants, shadowing them, and so forth.

This post is already two long.  Let me close with some links to sources with further information and commentary about the budget cuts.  (And let me make clear that I am not endorsing any of these positions – simply providing them as further commentary.)

•    The “Faculty Budget Forum” list serv, for Berkeley faculty, which has lots of news items related to the budget crisis, as well as running discussions of these matters by our colleagues. If you'd like to join, please send an email to either of the list's administrators, Prof. Colleen Lye at clye@berkeley.edu and Prof. Mark Goble  at mgoble@berkeley.edu.

•    The website of the California Faculty Association (CUCFA): http://keepcaliforniaspromise.org/

•    A blog by Chris Newfield, UCSB-English, mentioned above.  Newfield is a close student of the political economy of higher education: http://utotherescue.blogspot.com.

•    A research seminar being offered by our Physics colleague, Charles Schwartz, “Financial Futures for UC”, will be meeting this semester on the Berkeley campus starting September 15, 2009: Tuesdays 3:30 – 5:00 in Room 468 Birge Hall.

This will be an intellectual effort to understand and scrutinize the familiar ideas now afloat and hopefully to create alternatives. Questions about finance, philosophy, politics, pedagogy, etc. are all relevant. Faculty and students are invited to attend and participate.

(Note: Charlie also has a blog: http://universityprobe.org/).

I would love to hear your thoughts and comments on any of these matters.  I would also be grateful for any thoughts about making this blog or the Senate website more useful.

--Chris Kutz