All currently Registered user names and addresses will be deleted as of

September 1, 2010 – because there has been a lot of robot-generated spam.

If you wish to re-Register, please do so after September 1.

Thank you.

to The Regents of the University of California, meeting July 14, 2010

by Charles Schwartz, Professor Emeritus of Physics, UC Berkeley

F is for Failure

It should be clear that the UC Commission on the Future has been a failure. Regent Gould and President Yudof have spent the last year rooting about in the underbrush of the University but have failed to come up with any plausible ideas on how to solve the long-term financial problem. The reason is simply that they never took the trouble to state openly and clearly what the problem is. It is not about funding for undergraduate education; it is about funding for the core research mission of the university.

The only path they offer will be a continued escalation of the tuition that you charge undergraduate students – although they are already paying for the entire cost of their own education – and that is how this great public university joins the club of private universities.

Let me show you another aspect of this same disease – the failure to provide a clear and truthful picture of how UC spends its money.  I’ll quote from a recent article published by Jon Coupal, the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

“As California faces an unprecedented budget crisis, students at California colleges have been asked to pay a greater share of the total cost of their education, most of which is still borne by taxpayers. …taxpayers pay 60-70% of the cost of CSU and UC students’ education, without even counting financial aid.”

Those numbers are false; but they come right from here – from the Regents’ Budget, which is published by the UC President and his staff.

How can you hope to gain public support when you don’t tell the truth about where the money goes?  This is the main duty of the Board of Regents; and you are all failing to meet your public obligations.

—————————–

for further related commentary, I recommend Chris Newfield’s latest post at
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2010/07/unhappy-anniversary.html

In the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate of the University of California

Approved by a vote of 263 to 113 in a formal mail ballot,  May 7-21, 2010

• Official Results of the Ballot

• Text of the Resolution

• Ballot Arguments For and Against

——————————————————————————————————–

June 17, 2010, announcement by Professor Christopher Kutz, Chair
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate

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.

——————————————————————————————————

TEXT of the Resolution

Whereas, There is widespread concern about the financial future of the University;

Whereas, The Regents and the President of the University have established a Commission to study alternative future arrangements;

Whereas, It appears that consideration of Major Reforms in the Top Level Governance and Leadership of the University is unlikely to occur within that Commission;

Whereas, Numerous members of the Faculty of the University have thoughtful contributions to offer in that regard; and

Whereas, Such Reforms might be a significant factor in efforts to restore public confidence in and public support for the University; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate asks its 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.

————————————————————————————————————

Statement FOR Resolution:

What is the motivation for this Resolution concerning Reform of the Governance and Leadership of the University of California?  It is in the last Whereas:

“Whereas, Such reforms might be a significant factor in efforts to restore public confidence in and public support for the University.”

We have heard from some Working Groups of the UC Commission on the Future that maintaining a strong share of financial support from the State will be essential to a healthy future for UC; and the two officials from the Office of the President who attended the April 22 meeting of the Berkeley Division made that same point.

How does one achieve that?  The standard reply is to advocate for all the wonderful benefits that UC provides to all of California.  We all support that effort.

But that is not enough. We are well aware that there are problems and there are criticisms from outside, about how University officials handle the public money and the public trust placed in the hands of The Regents and their top executives.

Many of us inside UC share some of those criticisms; and this endeavor, being led by faculty, can be relied upon to protect the integrity of academic functions within the University.

So here is a chance to act in a way that can serve both objectives: to advocate for reform in University management as we see it is needed and, at the same time, to respond positively to a public disapproval of mismanagement.

This Resolution does not ask you to endorse a preformed list of complaints; rather it seeks the creation of a constructive process, within the Academic Senate and initiated by the membership. This path should achieve the most uninhibited approach to this problem – and that independent character is also essential for gaining credibility in the public domain.

The Committee created by this Resolution will invite, collect and evaluate proposals for reform in the governance and leadership of the University. It will then select the most significant proposals, solicit arguments for and against each one, and then submit all that to the full membership of the Berkeley Division to be voted on, item by item.

This process will not guarantee the achievement of those reforms supported by the majority of the faculty; nor can it guarantee that this exercise will produce the influx of new public money that we all desire for the University.  Yet, it is a chance to pursue those goals, something that we the faculty can initiate; and it seems better to try than to forego the opportunity.

While the scope of this endeavor covers all of UC and might best have been undertaken by the systemwide Academic Senate, that has not happened. Therefore, we at Berkeley now have an opportunity to take this initiative, inviting colleagues at other campuses to join as they see fit.

For additional background materials, see what was provided for the April 22 meeting:

http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/meetings/meetings_background_Spring2010_2.html

Submitted by:  Charles Schwartz, Professor Emeritus of Physics

————————————————————————————————————

Statement AGAINST Resolution:

We recommend a no vote on this resolution. We understand the proposed resolution to have the goal of improving management of the entire University of California System by targeting the organizational structure of the University of California Office of the President for review. While we fully support that goal, we believe that the mechanism proposed has the potential to make matters worse because of the vagueness of the charge and because the action is not being taken in concert with the other campuses and their divisions of the Senate. The charge in the resolution does not make clear the extent to which its focus is UCOP or the campuses or how overlap between the two should be addressed. The resolution calls for creation of a Berkeley committee and then a subsequent Berkeley faculty vote on the recommendations of that committee. We believe that a Berkeley go-it-alone approach to systemwide issues will do more harm than good. Currently faculty across the system are aligned with the goal of the resolution–reducing inefficiencies at UCOP.  However, our experience with the systemwide Academic Senate leads us to believe that this go-it-alone approach from Berkeley is likely to be perceived as an attempt by our campus shape the outcome to Berkeley’s singular advantage, and thus create hostility to what would be widely supported proposals, were they developed by a systemwide committee. Should the current resolution pass, we hope the vague charge leaves room to insist that the committee formed actively involve our sister campuses and to put the recommendations to a vote on all 10 campuses.

Submitted by:

Ronald C. Cohen, Professor of Chemistry and of Earth and Planetary Science

Ignacio Navarette, Professor of Spanish and Portuguese

————————————————————————————————————

On the Agenda for the April 22, 2010, meeting of the
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., Booth Auditorium, School of Law

New Business
A. Resolution on the formation of a special committee to develop reform
proposals concerning the governance and leadership of the University
Emeritus Professor of Physics Charles Schwartz will introduce the following resolution:

Whereas, There is widespread concern about the financial future of the
University;

Whereas, The Regents and the President of the University have established
a Commission to study alternative future arrangements;

Whereas, It appears that consideration of Major Reforms in the Top Level
Governance and Leadership of the University is unlikely to occur within
that Commission;

Whereas, Numerous members of the Faculty of the University have
thoughtful contributions to offer in that regard; and

Whereas, Such Reforms might be a significant factor in efforts to restore
public confidence in and public support for the University; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate asks its
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.

- – - – -

Some Background Materials available at
http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/meetings/meetings.html

Two Views of UC from Out There – and a Response

Letter to the Editor, San Francisco Chronicle  March 9, 2010
http://www.sfgate.com

Education’s cost: a fact of life

What the public college students (and their parents) in this state must understand is that the days of the taxpayers subsidizing their higher education are over, sad as that may be.

Back in the palmy days when California’s leaders made that optimistic promise, they had no idea of the numbers as they now exist. The costs at all colleges and universities have risen dramatically over the last few years (much higher than the cost-of-living-index; why that is should be addressed to the institutions themselves).

Those of us in California who are taxpayers are having a difficult enough time paying our mortgages and for the education of our own children. It simply is not sustainable to expect that there will be free or substantially below-cost education provided on the backs of the state’s increasingly dwindling number of taxpayers.

Compare the costs at public and private institutions of higher learning, and be grateful for what you have. (Having a child at a private school, I would be overjoyed to pay only what the UC system is charging).

NANCY LEASIA, Saratoga

——————————————————————————————

A Reader’s Comment on http://UniversityProbe.org March 11, 2010

As a parent of a UC student and UC-bound student, I support my children’s quest for higher education financially though I am of limited financial means. I was recently made aware of Professor Charles Schwartz’ effort to address UC accountability by my daughter who is now of age as an independent and who will bear the brunt of the increased financial burden imposed by the UC system herself. This coming year, I will struggle to financially support my son’s transition to a UC school from the community college system.

Like many citizens, I have maintained a sense of ignorance and subjugation of the UC system believing that I am powerless to its monolithic hegemony over higher public education in California.

I have been asked by my children to take action toward the cause of accountability of the UC/CSU system. To that end, I am contacting my assemblyman, state senator, the governor (including prospective gubernatorial candidates) and the press to investigate and resolve the issue of UC/CSU expenditures and accountability. Though I am of limited financial means, I am duty bound by my parental obligation to my children to stand up and take an activist role for their benefit.

Many thanks to Professor Schwartz and others who are leading the charge in this most important crusade. Working together, we can make our voices heard by our elected representatives and seek the fiscal prudence and justice that California’s populace deserves; a UC/CSU system with a focus on its core mission – to provide higher education to all students who wish to achieve a post-secondary degree.

MICHAEL SMITH, Hollister

———————————————————————————————-

Charles Schwartz responds

I think it is possible to bring these two lines of thought together, to benefit the University and the people of California. It starts with providing some clarity on the simple question of how UC spends the money it takes in.

There are two great missions that California has assigned to its premier University:

• to provide top quality undergraduate education for all qualified students;

• to provide top quality academic research – and related graduate student programs – for the benefit of all.

These two missions are entrusted to the faculty; and in many ways the two efforts are related.  But these two missions are nowadays seen through two different financial lenses – by which I mean to ask the question,  Who should pay for what?

It used to be that the State of California paid for both, through generous taxpayer funding of the core budget to pay for the whole of faculty salaries, their support staff and the institutional infrastructure needed to let all that great work proceed.

However, over the last two decades there has been a significant shifting of this basic operating cost at UC. Undergraduate students have been seen as privileged individuals who are gaining a private good through their access to a UC education; and therefore, the cry goes, they should bear that cost, or at least a part of that cost, rather than having the general taxpayer carry all the burden for them.

The research mission is certainly something else: a public good, of great value in economic terms and in many other dimensions of modern civilization. This is an expensive business, this search for new knowledge; but it can only be viewed as something which should be paid for by the whole of society, for the benefit of the whole of society.

So, there is a simple question to be addressed to those who have the responsibility for the financial management of the University (which is defined in the California Constitution as a “Public Trust”):

• How much of the core budget at UC is allocated to undergraduate education and how much to faculty research and its related graduate programs?

(There are a number of other graduate programs, aside from the research-intensive PhD program, which prepare graduate students for various professional careers. Those programs carry rather heavy fees placed upon those students – a subject that I do not want to go into here.)

This suggestion of “disaggregating” the cost of undergraduate education raises the hackles of university administrators and faculty members alike, not only at UC but at all research universities across the country. The calculation cannot be done with any exact precision, but it can and must be addressed as a reasonable and necessary step in coming to terms with our public constituents.

The official accounting used  by UC reaches the conclusion that student fees now cover 30% or 40% of the Average Cost of Education at this institution. But that calculation includes the full cost of faculty research throughout the academic year.

My own calculations, as of two years ago, led to the conclusion that Undergraduate student fees at UC had reached the level of 100% of the actual cost to UC for providing Undergraduate education.

There is a sharp conflict here and it must be resolved.

If the administration’s number is accepted, then there will be continued objection from California taxpayers for any increased public funding of UC; they will say, let the students, whom we are now subsidizing, pay for their own education.

If my number is more correct, then there is a whole new situation to be recognized.  Undergraduate students (and their families) are now paying the full cost for the education they receive from UC. It is up to the state, and the taxpayers, to assume full responsibility for funding the research mission.

It would certainly be wrong to push the cost of that research – which is a benefit to all citizens – onto the tuition bills of undergraduate students. (In case you are wondering about the famous private research universities: they certainly do push all of that cost onto their undergraduates, with a little help from their big endowments.) We, as a public university, have an obligation to come clean about how we use the public money.

So, there is a challenge. The Board of Regents and their hired executives have the formal responsibility to address this matter; and my colleagues on the faculty need to come out and take part in this debate.

Peter Schrag’s profile of UC president Mark Yudof in San Francisco Modern Luxury deserves an A grade for keeping Yudof happy.  This article could have benefited from enhanced reporting.

First, the Regents never “came calling” to Yudof in Texas.  It is solely UC Regents Chairman Blum who did so.  Blum essentially imposed Yudof on the Board.  Blum meant well, but a number of Regents resented this imposition.  And Yudof made little attempt to overcome this resentment.  Some very powerful Regents were offended that Yudof did not reach out to introduce himself to them.  (In contrast, when Robert Dynes became UC President he made a point to meet and learn the concerns of every Regent on his/her home turf, showing up for lunch with me at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel even though I had only about a year left in my term).  And now that Blum is no longer Chairman, some Regents admit they were unwilling to confront Blum’s method or choice of Yudof because they wished to remain in the good graces of Blum’s U.S. Senator wife.

Second, there’s lots of contrary evidence that Yudof left Minnesota and Texas universities “bigger and grander than when he came.”  In particular, Minnesotans were happy that Yudof’s leavetaking meant they could finally find a university president who would consider building them a football stadium, and a quick search of University of Texas professors’ association sites offers myriad reasons why they were happy to see Yudof go.  The Texas professors’ sites also predicted a lot of Yudof’s managerial problems at UC.  In other words, evidence here is mixed.

Third, after Dynes was sidelined, UC Provost Wyatt R. Hume served as Acting UC President for almost a year.  It is Hume who led and managed the downsizing of 450-plus people in the UC Office of the President.  Hume made a number of presentations to the Regents during that period about how he was downsizing UCOP.   Indeed, Yudof currently is being criticized for adding back a number of high-paid positions to UCOP.

Fourth, how can Schrag label critics of UC administrators as populist opportunists?   I believe UC Berkeley professor-emeritus Charles Schwartz is sincere in his claims that undergraduate student fees cover undergraduate student education, although I disagree with his finding and methodology.  And UC Santa Cruz Professor and President of the Council of UC Faculty Associations Robert Meister is absolutely correct in reporting that UC has pledged student fees in the repayment of construction bonds.  Whether this is proper or not, I do not know.  UC administrators stonewalled Meister before presenting him with limited answers concerning this practice.

Fifth, I disagree that Yudof inherited an UC administration that was disengaged from the process in Sacramento.  In the opinion of many Regents, UC President Atkinson, External Affairs Vice President Darling and UC Sacramento Office Director Arditti were overly solicitous to Legislative requests.  Apparently Yudof and Schrag are ignorant of the Latino legislators’ leverage over numerous changes in UC admissions policies over the past decade.

Sixth, Yudof’s current push for the federal government to save public research universities is contrary to Yudof’s published statements attributing diminished state support, first, to the aging of the U.S. population, as resources are shifted from education to senior citizens’ other areas of interest, such as health care and security, and, second, to globalization, as multi-national corporations become less tied to specific geographic locations and thus less interested in developing well-educated, local workforces.[1] These arguments explain why UC’s advocacy requests for increased funding from the California Legislature yield limited results.

Finally, like Schrag I find Yudof personally engaging and smart.  And, like Schrag, I question whether UC — and society — can afford a law school at UC Irvine.

[1] Mark Yudof, “Higher Tuitions:  Harbinger of a Hybrid University?,” Change Magazine, March/April 2002.

Charles Schwartz, UC Berkeley

Rather than just waiting for delivery of the Governor’s proposed increase in funding for higher education, the University should engage in some needed fiscal reforms to convince the rest of the state that their reinvestment will be well spent. Foremost is a need to clean up some bad habits of the UC administration; and such reform is unlikely to come from the top. So here is a worthy campaign for the faculty to take on.

The new (January 6, 2010) educational initiative announced by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger – to put funding for higher education above funding for prisons – surprised many of us. (Not all were surprised, since we also saw a rapid deluge of favorable press releases coming from the leaders of UC.)

The Governor has proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would set state funding for UC (University of California) and CSU (California State Universities) at a minimum of 10 percent of the state General Fund budget while limiting the state’s prison budget to a maximum of 7% of that General Fund. (In recent years the funding of those two sectors has been roughly in the reverse proportions.)

What does this mean for those of us who have been engaged in the ongoing struggle to save UC from the twin perils (Scylla and Charybdis) of mediocrity and privatization?

First we note the letter issued by Berkeley’s Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, in which he claims credit for this bonanza:

But it is also worth noting this report (in The New York Times, January 7, 2010)

And most of us on this campus know what a distance there has been between the Chancellor and the protestors.

So, now, what do we think of this? Do we just sit back and wait for new money to flow in, solving all our troubles?  Or is there some clear direction that we may undertake to help assure that desirable outcome?

None of us knows the future but we can use our minds to try to glimpse alternative possibilities.  Below are my own thoughts.

In the short term, I see Schwarzenegger’s initiative as helpful in avoiding the rush to decision-making.  The Regents’ Commission on the Future seemed to me as nothing more than a fig leaf to cover the push for faster privatization of UC. The discourse at the regents meeting in July 2009 seemed to say: One Year is all the time we have to solve the problem of unreliable state funding, before top quality research faculty abandon UC for greener (academic) pastures. Now the Governor has placed a new option on the table that allows us all to say, Wait, Let’s try to make this work.

What are the likely oppositions to Schwarzenegger’s plan?

To answer that, we can start by acknowledging some other plans that have attracted much attention throughout the University. There is George Lakoff’s plan, an initiative for the November 2010 ballot that seeks to restore “majority rule” in California by eliminating the requirement of 2/3 vote in the Legislature for any tax or budget measures (See http://www.californiansfordemocracy.com/ ). There is also Stan Glantz’s calculation that it will require only $4.6 Billion in additional annual funding to restore UC and CSU to their good level of state funding as last seen in 2001 (See http://keepcaliforniaspromise.org/?p=553 ). Both of those proposals, as well as the Governor’s will face opposition from that sector of the California population (and their elected officials) who have a strong aversion to more taxes, more state spending, especially when they see that spending as wasteful in one way or another.

What is significant about all three proposals mentioned above (Schwarzenegger, Lakoff, Glantz) is that each one of them simply asks for more public money to be given to the University without requiring anything in return, other than more of the same.

Now, California’s system of higher education has done a wonderful job of serving California citizens since the inauguration of the Master Plan in 1960. So, “more of the same” has a lot going for it. But we are also well aware that there have been substantial problems (bad management and bad public relations) in the way that UC has handled its financial matters.

Mark Baldassare, President of the Public Policy Institute of California made a presentation to the regents’ Commission on the Future on November 12 in which he reported on their recent survey of public opinion regarding higher education in this state. (See http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu/presentations/ ) When asked to summarize his findings and give his advice to the Commission, Baldassare said,

That leads me to suggest this general plan:

We, the UC Faculty, should undertake a bold initiative to reform the mistaken financial priorities and practices of our own University administration – and this effort should be part of any campaign to restore adequate state funding for our multiple missions of teaching, research and public service.

Here is a tentative list of specific critiques and proposed remedies.

Changes for the UC Administration

I. Cap executive compensation as recommended by the Berkeley Division in 1992.

II. Justify or remove excess management that has been documented.

III. Tell the truth about UC’s average cost for providing undergraduate education.

IV. Provide transparent accounting for how student fees are spent.

V. Provide annual disclosure of how all discretionary funds are allocated.

Changes for the Board of Regents

I. Recognize and repair the harm done by excessive intrusion of big business values into the academic community.

II. Consider some basic democratization, in order to make The Regents more accountable to the California public, whose university this is.

(For some background on these issues, see my recent posting, http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/ToTheCommission.pdf ).

This list is not meant to be definitive but only an opening suggestion. Let all interested faculty members engage in open debate about what to add, what to change, how best to formulate this set of proposals and how best to assemble a large consensus of faculty support for this plan.

As for process, I would not advocate asking the Academic Senate to undertake this study and debate. That institution, especially at its higher levels, is closely tied in with the existing administrative apparatus; and so it is unlikely that they would have the freedom to be as critical of those same top executives as may need to be done.  When this work is completed, as an independent, grassroots faculty initiative, it may then be brought forward to the Academic Senate asking for a formal endorsement by the full membership.

Department of Physics
University of California, Berkeley
December 11, 2009

Executive Vice President Peter Taylor
Office of the President
University of California
Peter.Taylor@ucop.edu

Dear Peter;

I have received your letter of December 7, responding to my inquiry of November 1, 2009.  This provides some definite progress in bringing clarity to the controversy over the University’s program of General Revenue Bonds; but some important corrective measures await action.   [I have posted a copy of your letter at http://UniversityProbe.org/wp-content/Taylor12-7-09.html ]

Let me follow your format, treating the two questions (A and B) that I had posed.

A. Since The Regents created the General Revenue arrangement in 2003, has there been any occasion when a particular capital project was unable to meet its scheduled debt service obligations from the originally specified revenue source and thus funds were needed to be used from the General Revenue pool?  If the answer is Yes, please provide details.

You reply definitively: “To the best of our knowledge, since the Regents created the GRB credit vehicle in 2003, there has never been an occasion when an individual project was unable to meet its scheduled debt service obligations, thereby necessitating a process of obtaining permission to use other funds.”

This is, at last, the authoritative answer to the question that has been hanging in the air following Bob Meister’s article, published two months ago, and his subsequent call for some kind of audit. What is bothersome is why it took so long for you to issue this clear and simple answer. Perhaps what follows will indicate the explanation for that tardiness.

B. If such a situation were to occur in the future, what is the established process by which this substitution of funds would be managed and what reporting mechanism, within the University, would be entailed?

Your reply here is quite different in character: “Charlie, it’s hard to speculate about a speculative question. Suffice it to say that we would work with the individual campus in question to identify where the shortfall exists, in the exact amount, and then lead a process to rectify the situation including if necessary identifying a specific replacement source of repayment. One can create all kinds of imagined situations where bad things like this might happen, …”

The rest of your letter rambles over abstract concepts without ever addressing the precise questions asked in B. The unavoidable implication is that the University does not have any established procedure for dealing with a default situation and, furthermore, there is no existing requirement for reporting of such occurrences to the governing authorities of the University.

This is quite shocking!

In my first letter on this topic (October 15, addressed to Regents Ruiz and Lozano) I wrote: “It is unclear, at this point, whether this situation might be a lapse in the exercise of fiduciary oversight by The Regents or merely a failure to provide the Accountability and Transparency that has been promised by the President.”  Now, you show us that it is the former, and much more serious, failure.

You are the Chief Financial Officer of the University of California, and so I feel somewhat embarrassed to be the one who must tell you that your immediate duty is to rectify this shortcoming in the functioning of your office.  I suggest that you implement the following steps without undue delay:

1. Recommend to The Regents that they instruct the President to establish appropriate procedures to be followed in the eventuality that any debt service obligations connected to the General Revenue pool come into default.

2. Recommend to The Regents that they instruct the President to establish appropriate reporting requirements, related to the General Revenue pool, that not only convey prompt information about the actual occurrence of any default situation but also give advanced warning of any such likelihood.

This last concept (a “watch list”) might easily be achieved with an addendum to the annual Debt Capital Report to The Regents, which lists the current debt service coverage ratio for each project connected to the General Revenue pool.

I look forward to hearing your response to these suggestions.

Sincerely,

Charles Schwartz
Professor Emeritus

Cc: Regents Gould, Ruiz, Lozano, Bernal
President Yudof
Professor Meister

For Your Consideration, I submit the enclosed proposal:

A BETTER PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

3 pages summarizing this comprehensive PLAN, followed by 20 pages of relevant background material from my recent seminar on this topic.

In submitting this proposal, I request a thoroughgoing review that will produce a critical response: first identifying any faults you may find in my assertions of fact or logic; then offering whatever opinions you may develop about the feasibility and desirability of the changes that are proposed. That is the caliber of work we expect in the University.

The overall concept of this PLAN is to seek a partial renewal of state funding for the University of California together with substantial changes in the way that UC handles the money it receives. This approach (“walking on two legs”) should be the best way to bring the University and California together again and thus avoid the perils of UC either decaying from its preeminent academic standing or abandoning its invaluable public character.

To be perfectly frank, these proposals do step on the toes of certain factions of the University, namely, the Board of Regents and their chosen executives. But, please remember, our primary goal is to preserve the University, this center of great learning in the service of the public good.

I will be happy to provide an electronic copy of this presentation, so that it can be posted on the central website of the Commission for any interested persons to access.

Thank you,

Charles Schwartz

The PLAN is also posted at  http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz

meeting in Oakland, CA, November 12, 2009

by Charles Schwartz

Having sat through two of your public Commission meetings, the most interesting thing I have heard was the presentation at the beginning [today] by Mr. Baldassare [Mark Baldassare, President of the Public Policy Institute of California], who connects to the world of the people of California.  And his most interesting comment was his response to a question from Mr. Pulaski.  I hope I am quoting him correctly.  Baldassare described the people as having mixed views about higher education and the University. He said: what the people want from higher education is efficiency, responsiveness and accountability.

Now I know the President’s Office uses those words a lot. They have a program for accountability.  I have looked at a lot of the stuff that they have put out there. And I judge it to be primarily a public relations job; and I think most people see it as that. And therefore it fails to provide the people with what they say they want.

Let me give you a few examples. A familiar cliché: student fees go up; and the educational services that we provide to the students go down.  Standard excuse: It’s Sacramento’s fault.  No, that doesn’t wash.  We take in a billion and a half dollars this year and two billion dollars next year of Educational Fees.  How are you spending those monies?  Nobody can find out.

There is a lively controversy between Professor Meister and Vice President Taylor.  There is no transparency there. It is a PR game.  You can’t win friends that way!

Another example, from my own research:   The fantastic growth rate of administrative bureaucracy throughout this university. It’s been ignored, ignored, ignored for a long time. Well, maybe there will be some progress made on that now.

I think it would have been a wonderful thing if there were a Working Group appointed whose job was to bring forward specific critiques aimed at the top administrative structure, and that would include the Board of Regents, the President and the Chancellors and that whole non-academic activity; how is it funded; where is the money going; what’s going on?

Now, of course, since you are the people who created this structure, it wasn’t likely that you would appoint such a working group. But there is an idea.

Thank you.