...Replacing actual with merely formal shared governance isn't only a matter of bad organizational theory, for it has negative real effects. One has been UCOP's creation of a task force to change the UC Retirement Plan via the cap on eligible salary noted above and a new Defined Contribution plan (DCP), the latter in direct opposition to the recommendation of the last full review of the pension plan in 2010. The lack of open discussion about the sources, motives, and goals of these changes has sown confusion and suspicion even among insiders to the process. One writes,
I have been asking UCOP for a copy of the agreement between UC and the governor [that supposedly requires the DCP], and no one can produce it. No one can also say what its status is or how it relates to the state budget, but campuses are making decisions on 3-year degrees, transfer students, and online education on the deal that, as far as I can tell, no one has ever seen. I had to convince two members of the pension task force that the DCP alternative is not in the state budget. So UC wanted it in the deal, it did not make it into the deal, and now UCOP is saying it is coming from the state or the governor...Source: http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-weak-vs-wrong-and-emerging.html
We have noted in past postings that not only is the deal not in the state budget, the state budget in fact contradicts it. Part of the deal is a multi-year sequence of payments to UC's pension. But the legislature explicitly provides only for only one year and states that it has no responsibility for anything else in the future.