Regent Gould Talks About Pensions, Tuition, Concerns About Creating New Programs, and Anderson Self-Sufficiency

UC Regents Chair Gould Talks Funds, Pension Plan

Jordan Bach-Lombardo, November 30, 2010, Daily Californian

http://www.dailycal.org/article/111368/uc_regents_chair_gould_talks_funds_pension_plan

The Daily Californian interviewed UC Board of Regents Chair Russell Gould - who previously served as director of the California Department of Finance from 1993 to 1996 - on Nov. 23 about the University of California's pension fund, which is facing significant changes due to its multibillion dollar funding deficit.

Since the state halted contributions to the pension fund in 1990, the fund's liabilities grew as its assets shrank, resulting in a $14 billion deficit as of August 2010. The regents voted in September to increase employer and employee contributions to the fund and will vote in December on a new model for the pension program, intended to return it to fully funded status.

The Daily Californian: The main focus of what I want to ask you about is the pensions. First, you came onto the board in 2005, so I'm wondering in terms of the history of it, in talking to administration members, they said they had started identifying this as a big issue in '06 -'07, and I spoke to Regent Blum at the most recent meeting and he said he had brought it up in '07, could you talk about the process of getting the ball rolling in terms of putting contributions back in and why didn't it start back in '07 when it was brought up initially?

Russell Gould: Well I think there have been a lot of us who have been pushing for getting the contributions back into the system. When we first raised this issue we were more than 100 percent funded, so with the other pressing needs of the system and with some concerns expressed by some of the staff and some of the participants we just didn't have the movement or the ability to move forward right then. I think over time we had to educate everyone as to the importance of making contributions to the system in order to sustain it. And so I think that it took a while to get everyone up to speed, and we're satisfied now that people understand the importance of contributing to the system and making it viable. And so we've made real progress, but there was a lot of work needed to be done to get there.

DC: In terms of it happening now, do you think it has happened fast enough? Because the situation seems bleak from where I view it.

RG: Yeah, well we're making, I think, good progress. Everyone wishes we were moving faster because we're not funding the entire unfunded liability and the normal cost. But we also have limited dollars and we're getting no support from the state, unlike Cal State University or retirements for community colleges, we get zero support from the state. Now, we're fighting for that and believe we should get support from the state, which would improve our ability to accelerate our contributions, a much more achievable goal. But right now we're basically cutting into programs and cutting into other priorities at the university in order to fund the retirement system.

DC: And this state issue was one reason I was particularly interested in speaking to you because you have worked on both sides of this coin. So how do you see that with that perspective, because right now you're on the university side asking for money from the state where the state is saying they don't have money.

RG: I clearly understand the challenge that Governor-Elect Brown has coming in, a $25 billion budget shortfall is huge. At the same time, I think every governor has to make his priorities and decide where his focus is going to be and we certainly believe that he is going to understand the importance of the University of California for the future of California, because I can't envision a healthy California economy without a healthy UC system. We just drive so much innovation and new jobs, just an absolute essential ingredient. So he has to make it a priority and he has to make a commitment that can be relied upon for UC to achieve what it can for California.

DC: And in terms of that commitment being relied upon, in talking to a lot of administration officials I've heard them reference the "state's obligation," but in terms of actual hard and fast legal compact, that doesn't really exist the same way it does with CalSTRS and CalPERS, so do you still view the state as having an obligation to fund the UC pension system?

RG: I do. It's unfortunate that there was a holiday where no one paid in for 19 years, but I think that in the history of the UC the state did contribute for what the retirement costs were going to be, and I think to be treated fairly and comparably to the other systems, that payments need to be made. So, I think, putting the uncertainties of legal issues aside, there's no question about the validity of state support for UC's pension system, and I believe that the legislature and the governor will agree with that.

DC: Have you spoken with Governor-elect Brown at all about this?

RG: I have not. It's awfully early and I'm sure we'll get the opportunity to discuss these things, he's very experienced and I'm sure will understand the issues very quickly. I'm certain that he will understand the role that UC can play in California's future and I'm looking forward to working with him.

DC: In terms of going forward and money, President Yudof at the last Regents' meeting said that the pension woes contributed greatly to the need for the fee increases, so I'm wondering, especially with the absence next year of the one-time federal funds and the continued bleak state budget outlook, is the problem of the pension system going to contribute to more fee increases?

RG: Well, I think everyone hopes that we don't have fee increases. I just don't know though, this is unprecedented waters with a $25 billion budget gap on about an $80 billion base of revenues, so this is really tough sledding, and how gov-elect brown is going to deal with this and the legislature, there's no clear path, so all of us are going to have to work together on a solution. I certainly hope we don't have to ask for any more fees, we'll just have to see how the legislature and the governor, what plans they present relative to our funding, and then make a determination.
DC: I was wondering about a long-term fee schedule. It seems from hearing you talk about it that you support it, but it wasn't in the Commission on the Future final recs. I'm wondering why that happened and whether you think it's going to come up again? RG: I think when the commission looked at that question while everyone liked the idea of a long-term fee policy you can't negotiate with yourself. So for us to say we want a long-term fee policy it doesn't do anything unless we have a long-term funding commitment from the state. And with a long-term funding commitment from the state, we could fashion a fee structure that was predictable and modest and one that I think people would like. This kind of bouncing around from year to year based on what state funding we receive or the kind of economic crisis and state budget crisis we face is a terrible way to set student fees and to set funding for UC.

DC: My last question is if you think expansion - like the UCR med school and the law schools that other campuses have asked for - if they're really a feasible or responsible way to spend funds right now?

RG: Well I think you have to look at whether they can be supported within the revenue stream, either through the fees, through donations, through state support where they make a specific appropriation to support a medical school, so all these things will come into play but you raise a very good question. As we move forward we're going to have to assess every one of our commitments and we're even going to have to reassess existing programs to determine what's sustainable and certainly building out new programs raises serious questions without state support.

DC: And following off of that, if you're looking for alternative sources of revenue, what do you think of the Anderson School of Business's possible move away from state funding?

RG: You know I haven't seen a final plan on that, I know it has been talked about, I haven't seen a final plan, we'll examine it once they submit it. I think it has to come to the campus first, and we haven't seen it. We'll just have to see what the game plan is.

Contract Between UC, Academic Student Employees Challenged

Inside Higher Ed points to this article today:

Contract between UC, academic student employees challenged (excerpt)

By TOVIN LAPAN - Santa Cruz Sentinel, 11/29/10

SANTA CRUZ - A significant movement has emerged among the University of California's academic student employees to not ratify the agreement reached by UC and union negotiators two weeks ago. On Nov. 16, after negotiating since June, representatives from UAW 2865, which represents over 12,000 teaching assistants, graduate student instructors, readers and tutors on UC campuses, reached a tentative agreement with UC on a new contract. Union members on various campuses who are unsatisfied with the terms of the agreement started to organize a "Vote No" campaign almost immediately. By Monday a web site dedicated to the campaign had logged over 700 pledges to vote no on the contract.

…For the three years covered, the tentative agreement includes a 2 percent minimum salary increase per year with a guarantee for additional increases if state funding to the UC system is restored to above 2007 levels. Additionally, the maximum amount for childcare reimbursements is raised from $900 to $2,400, and would be extended to include the summer term. The union also reached an agreement with UC to maintain remission - a program that reimburses the employees for their student fees - for in-state academic student employees whether or not the UC Board of Regents vote to change the name from "fees" to "tuition," and added a partial remission for nonresident tuition.

Five members of the UAW bargaining team, including both members from UC Santa Cruz and Berkeley, endorsed the decision to vote no and signed an open letter to the union members explaining their rationale. …Those against the agreement have argued that the 2 percent increase does not keep pace with the rise in the cost of living, and that even with the raise in child care reimbursements, the amount does not come close to covering the actual cost for such services…

Full article at http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16736716

Note to the dissenters from yours truly:


UPDATE: The contract was in fact ratified by a 62% vote. See http://www.sacbee.com/2010/12/03/3231448/uc-grad-students-approve-new-contract.html#mi_rss=Our%20Region

Academic Council Endorses Yudof Plan on Retirement Benefit Changes

The Academic Council has endorsed the Yudof proposals for changes in post-employment benefits (pension, retiree health care) that will presumably be adopted by the Regents at the December special session.

Below is the text of a letter confirming the endorsement. I have verified that the letter is a public document, although - at this writing - it has not yet been posted on the systemwide Senate website.

November 24, 2010

MARK YUDOF, PRESIDENT

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Re: Post-Employment Benefits

Dear Mark:

I am pleased to advise you that at its meeting on November 22, 2010, the Academic Council unanimously endorsed your recommendations to the Board of Regents regarding post-employment benefits. I thank you for the consideration that you gave to staff and faculty concerns regarding the initial recommendations of the Post-Employments Benefits Task Force.

I also attach a separate resolution enacted by the Academic Council regarding plans developed by Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Peter Taylor and Associate Director of Strategic Initiatives Maria Anguiano to finance initial employer contributions to UCRP by borrowing from the short term investment pool (STIP). The Council, adopting a resolution proposed by the UC Committee on Planning and Budget and endorsed by the UC Committee on Faculty Welfare, urges that borrowing from STIP be done to the extent possible to fund contributions required on the state funded compensation base. Further, to the extent that STIP borrowing is used to fund contributions required from non-state funded payroll sources, the resolution calls for a plan to be developed to ensure repayment from those non-state sources. For your information, I attach copies of the UCPB and UCFW letters in support of this resolution.

Sincerely,

Daniel L. Simmons, Chair, Academic Council

Or, to summarize:


UPDATE: The letter is now posted at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/DS_MGYrePEBpplandSTIP.pdf

Presentation Available on Replacement of the UCLA Faculty Club

Earlier posts discussed the plan to replace the current UCLA Faculty Center building with a larger convention/hotel type facility. A meeting with Sam Morabito was held in the Faculty Center on Oct. 20 - which yours truly could not attend - but it was videoed and put on the Faculty Center website. Since the existence of the Faculty Club is in peril (although it is eventually supposed to be incorporated into the new building), I have captured the video from the live-stream it preserved it in four parts. That way, the video will be preserved - and whatever promises are made about it are preserved - even if it is not maintained on the Faculty Club website. (Video-Yahoo has a time duration limit, hence the four parts.)

By the way, a lot of underground (and therefore very expensive) parking is to be built under the new facility. An interesting question is whether the full marginal cost of that additional parking will be absorbed by the new facility. If not, some of the cost will inevitably shift on to everyone else's parking fees.

Note that there is an annoying hum on the video throughout, that some of the audio - particularly in part 4 - is not clear, and that the video does not start at the beginning of the presentation and was cut off before it ended.

A slide show that apparently went along with the Morabito presentation is available at:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0BzVLYPK7QI_4NzgzMzA5M2EtNTQ5Zi00ZDcxLWFmN2ItMTU3YzkyZGRjMGVh&hl=en&authkey=CPeykbAC

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4 (end)

Powers-That-Be at UCLA Still Positive About Anderson Self-Sufficiency Plan

The letter below from EVC Scott Waugh suggests that he and Chancellor Block (cc'd on the letter) remain positive about the Anderson School's financial self-sufficiency plan, despite the negative Academic Senate reaction. As earlier posts have noted, some critics are concerned about setting a precedent for privatization - although the actual plan falls short of privatization. Others saw budgetary risk to UCLA.

See the bold text in the letter (boldface added by yours truly) for the supportive comments by Waugh.

On the other hand, additional review is indicated in the letter and how long that process might take is not specified.

November 24, 2010

Dean Judy Olian

Dear Judy:

As you know, I invited comments from the Academic Senate, Vice Chancellors, and members of the Deans’ Council regarding the self-sufficiency proposal put forward by the Anderson School. Attached is a compilation of their feedback. As discussed, I will convene a small working group of faculty and administrators from the Anderson School, the Academic Senate, and Academic Planning and Budget to examine and as needed address the key issues raised in the reviews.

The Financial Self Sufficiency Proposal has many merits, and I am confident that the plan will benefit UCLA and establish an innovative model for the University of California. We intend to move forward as rapidly as we can with this important proposal. The process of reviewing the proposal will build support on campus and systemwide while clarifying or resolving questions about finances, budget, and management.

Sincerely,

Scott L. Waugh, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

cc: Chancellor Gene Block

Mystery Resolved: Special Regents Meeting Dec. 13

There are mysteries out there that are reported to be solved. And if you read the earlier post on the mystery of the missing December Regents meeting, I can now report that the mystery has been resolved.

To recap: The Regents in November received the Yudof plan for modifying post-employment benefits (pensions, retiree health care). However, the November meeting was an information session regarding those benefits - no decision was made. The decision date was set for a special December meeting which was not listed on the UCOP/Regents website.

According to the email below, that session is set for December 13 and will be posted on the site about 10 days in advance, i.e., around December 3.

From: Anne Shaw

To: Daniel J.B. Mitchell

Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:06 AM

Subject RE: Dec. Regent meeting

We add “special” or off cycle meetings to the website typically 10 days in advance, when the Notice of Meeting is published. The meeting is scheduled for December 13, and the notice for that meeting will be on the web on Dec. 3

Sweet mystery resolved:



Update: A good write-up on the upcoming Regents meeting appeared today in calpensions.com. Below is an excerpt:

UC pensions: from free lunch to years of pain (excerpt)

By Ed Mendel, calpensions, 11/29/10

SAN FRANCISCO — UC Regents may vote on a costly retirement reform plan next month that officials say will not only lower benefits, but could squeeze faculty recruitment, research and medical centers for two or more decades. An institution known for its prized collection of intellects did something two decades ago that in hindsight now seems unwise. It stopped making employer-employee contributions to the pension system, getting by on strong investment earnings. A staff report to the Regents in September said that if normal contributions had continued since 1990, the University of California retirement system “would be approximately 120 percent funded today.”

But as of last July the system was 73 percent funded using the market value of assets and 87 percent funded on an actuarial basis, which spreads gains and losses over five years and won’t fully reflect the 2008 stock market crash losses until 2013. “The idea of having a defined benefit and not paying into it is insanity,” Richard Blum told his fellow Regents at a meeting this month. He said he began urging that contributions be restarted several years ago. A Regents faculty advisor, Dan Simmons, said the current problem is the result of failing to resume contributions seven or eight years ago. He said a faculty task force and others urged a restart “I think even before Regent Blum began pushing that issue here.”

…UC would like to get state funds for retirement, like California State University and the community colleges. But one of the consequences of stopping contributions two decades ago is that UC retirement is not part of the state budget. Now the timing for getting UC retirement back into the state budget could not be much worse.

…UC officials say not getting state money is a triple hit on the retirement system. The state provides a third of the UC budget. The rest comes from medical centers, federal sources, grants and other operations. Without an increase in the state share, UC cannot equitably raise retirement contributions from the other two-thirds of its operations. So every $1 not received from the state costs UC an additional $2 from other sources.

…For additional contributions UC is exploring several possibilities, including restructuring debt and borrowing at low interest rates from its pool of short-term investments…

Full article at http://calpensions.com/2010/11/29/uc-pensions-from-free-lunch-to-years-of-pain/

Further update:

Unkinder editorial below:
Time for UC regents to get serious about pensions (excerpt):

Subtitle: AS UNIVERSITY of California regents next month consider proposed changes to pensions and other retirement benefits for employees, one thing is clear: The adjustments don’t go nearly far enough.

MediaNews editorial - Contra Costa Times

11/28/2010

After two decades of mismanagement, the huge cost of digging out of the financial hole threatens to undermine the heart of the nation’s greatest public university system. Clearly, it’s time to rethink priorities — and re-examine the culture under which everyone, from faculty to staff secretaries, enjoys the same benefit structure.

The top-rate tenure-track faculty and the great minds at the medical centers must be retained. Without them, UC would be just another ordinary collection of colleges. Yet those elite comprise less than 15 percent of the employees in UC’s pension system.

Not to sound too harsh, but the other 85 percent are fungible. If they don’t like their salaries and benefits, they can be replaced. To be sure, we appreciate the work they do. However, UC, in its quest to preserve the best and the brightest, can no longer afford to offer the same packages to the rest of its employees...

Full article at http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_16728692

UCLA History: Nickel-a-Ride

Nickel-a-ride in 1965. UCLA digital archives.

Riding was big in 1965:

UC Budget Protest at UCLA (in 1967)

Photo from UCLA digital archives. Plus ça change... ?

Inquiring Minds Wonder About the December Regents Meeting: What's the Mystery?

A special Regents session to deal with President Yudof's recommendations on revising UC retirement benefits has been scheduled for December. That there will be such a session has been known for a long time.

However, the December schedule (or any reference at all to the December meeting), mysteriously does not appear on the Regents official website, which (at this writing) continues to list the mid-November session as the last 2010 meeting. As earlier posts document, the mid-November meeting was when the retirement proposals were outlined - but not decided. December is to be the decision date.

Since the special December session is not listed on the website, it is unclear whether it is to be open or closed. Presumably, at least some of it must be open. Nor is it clear whether the audio will be live-streamed as other open sessions have been.

Since inquiring minds want to know, yours truly has sent an email inquiry:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From Daniel J.B. Mitchell

To anne.shaw@ucop.edu

Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM

Subject Dec. Regent meeting

Is there some reason the special December Regents meeting is not listed on the UCOP website as part of the schedule of the Regents? I believe it is Dec. 16th - is that correct? Will the audio be live-streamed?

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

Excerpt below from Regents agenda page as it appears on Nov. 27, 2010, 9 AM. Note that the agenda jumps from the November 16-18 session to the meetings in 2011. The meeting for December 2010 at which the decision on revising retirement benefits is to be made is not listed.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

November 2 - session added Committee on Compliance and Audit (Regents Only Session, including Special Meeting in Regents Only Session, followed by Open Session) by teleconference;

November 2 Committee on Investments by teleconference

November 16-18 Regents Meeting - UCSF Mission Bay

2011 January 18-20 Regents Meeting - UC San Diego

March 15-17 Regents Meeting - UCSF Mission Bay

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

The full agenda page is at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/meetings.html

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

If and when I receive an answer to this mystery, I will provide an update on this page. In the meanwhile:

UCLA History: Atomic Energy at UCLA in 1948

This news photo from the UCLA digital archives is said to depict students and faculty studying atomic energy in 1948. Atomic energy was a major area of public interest at that time given the bombing of Japan at the end of World War II and subsequent A-bomb testing. Exactly what the individuals above are doing is unclear.

This Couldn't Be Happening at UCLA, Could It?

During boring classes, texting is the new doodling

By Michael Rubinkam, AP, LA Daily News

11/26/2010

Tom Markley, 21, of Lehighton, Pa., a senior at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., poses with his phone in a Wilkes classroom. A recent survey by two Wilkes psychology professors found that more than 90 percent of students at the university admit to sending text messages during class.

…It's no surprise that high school and college students are obsessive texters. What alarms Wilkes psychology professors Deborah Tindell and Robert Bohlander is how rampant the practice has become during class: Their recent study shows that texting at the school has surpassed doodling, daydreaming and note–passing to become the top classroom distraction. The anonymous survey of 269 Wilkes students found that nine in 10 admit to sending text messages during class – and nearly half say it's easy to do so undetected. Even more troubling, 10 percent say that they have sent or received texts during exams, and that 3 percent admit to using their phones to cheat.

…Almost all the students surveyed by Tindell and Bohlander said they should be allowed to have their phones in class. And a clear majority – 62 percent – said they should be allowed to text in class as long as they're not disturbing those around them. About one in four said texting creates a distraction.

…Tindell instituted a no–texting policy as a result of the study, which has been presented at a pair of academic conferences. She tells students that if she even sees a cell phone during a test, its owner gets an automatic zero. One Syracuse University professor has taken an even harsher stand. Laurence Thomas, a popular philosophy professor whose courses have waiting lists, walked out on his class of nearly 400 students last week when he caught a couple of students fiddling with their phones instead of paying attention to him.

…While Thomas keeps his eyes peeled for illicit texters, Tindell said most professors are likely as clueless as she used to be about the ubiquity of in–class cell phone use. Many of the surveyed students said their professors would be shocked if they knew about their texting habits.

…Tindell and Bohlander advise professors to have clear, written policies on texting, to circulate around the classroom and make frequent eye contact, and to avoid focusing all their attention on their lecture notes or PowerPoint presentations. Tindell does allow students to text before class starts – and almost all of them do. "If they are going to go through withdrawal," she quipped, "they might as well get their fix."

Full story at http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_16717821

=============

Editor's Note:

Did they text when he was at Wilkes U?

Update: http://www.wilkes.edu/pages/194.asp?item=61477

UCLA History: The Way It Was in 1930

Aerial view of UCLA and surrounding area in 1930 from the UCLA History Project collection.

Undecided: The News Media Seem Uncertain About the Impact of Tuition Hikes

The media seem to be undecided as to how to play the impact of recent tuition hikes. They don't affect enrollment or they do affect enrollment. Below are two examples from today’s news items:

Enrollment numbers steady despite tuition hikes

Mediha Fejzagic DiMartino, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
11/25/2010

Early enrollment numbers seem immune to recent tuition hikes at California's public universities. The California State University system received more than 360,000 applications ahead of Tuesday's enrollment deadline for next fall, CSU spokesman Mike Uhlenkamp said.
The preliminary figures are inching closer to the 391,000 applications received by the CSU system for the 2009-10 school year, when tuition was significantly lower…

While UC's enrollment numbers will not be available until January, the flurry of incoming students is not a surprise to university officials. "UC schools are still among the best public universities, and still very desirable to students," UC spokesman Steve Montiel said. "Financial aid makes it accessible to those with family incomes below $100,000." …

Full article at http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_16711757

Middle class feeling squeezed by rising college tuition

Jean Cowden Moore, Ventura County Star
November 25, 2010

Some middle-class families are feeling squeezed out of an affordable, high-quality college education as the state’s public universities keep raising tuition. “It’s frustrating. ... It’s not like our salaries are going up,” said Kaval Ali, 17, a senior at Foothill Technology High School in Ventura. Ali is applying to six UC campuses, where tuition will increase by 8 percent next school year, going to $11,124. Tuition at CSU campuses is up by 15 percent, bringing it to $4,484. Both systems had already raised fees 32 percent for this school year…

With tuition hikes coming regularly at UC and CSU campuses, more students are applying to private and out-of-state schools, counselors said. “They see the value ... is similar to a Cal State or a UC,” said Barbara Lubaczewski, a counselor at Moorpark High School. “Those schools also have separate pots of money.”

That’s why Ali is applying to six private schools, along with UC campuses, hoping financial aid and scholarships will make the cost comparable…

Full story at http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/nov/25/middle-class-feeling-squeezed-by-rising-college/

California (and UC) Then and Now

The image above - which is not very clear - comes from today's Sacramento Bee. So go to http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/25/3211006_a3210969/california-browns-heyday-vs-today.html for a sharper view. When you do, note in particular the data on UC enrollment.

Of course, things were not just different for Jerry Brown in the 1970s:

Winners & Losers: Happy Thanksgiving

Apologies to vegetarians.
But it can be tough on the carnivores, too:

Why You Get Paid on Jan. 3; Not Dec. 31

Faculty and staff recently received an email from UCLA Corporate Financial Services reminding them that their paycheck will arrive at the beginning of January rather than the end of December. All other paychecks arrive at the end of the month - not the beginning of the month - so why the exception?

I can't tell you the date in which this occurred, but it was probably in the early 1960s. At that time, everyone was paid in all months at the end of the month - including December. Then someone had a bright idea. If the Dec. 31 paycheck was delayed until Jan. 1, for one year, all employees would have received only 11/12 of their normal yearly income in that particular calendar year. So they would have a windfall income tax saving due to the lower income.

However, once the powers-that-be at the university were persuaded to make the change to January, they had forever after to pay on Jan. 1 rather than Dec. 31. Any reversion to Dec. 31 would cause 13/12 of your normal income to be paid within a calendar year, thus creating a windfall loss for you in taxes.

Bottom line: Whatever inconvenience you may be caused by a January paycheck is due to a benefit that went to many who are now dead. But keep in mind: De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

Anyway there are things to worry about apart from your paycheck:

More Terrorism Against UCLA Researchers Reported

UCLA researcher receives threatening package; animal activists said to claim responsibility

November 23, 2010, LA Now blog of LA Times

A UCLA neuroscientist who conducts animal research received a package with razor blades and a threatening message, a university spokesman said Tuesday afternoon.

David Jentsch, who does research on rodents and primates, received the package earlier this month, spokesman Phil Hampton said.

In a news release issued Tuesday, the Animal Liberation Front said it had obtained statements from animal activists called “The Justice Department of UCLA,” which claimed responsibility for sending AIDS-tainted razor blades to Jentsch, whom the group alleges has injected the rodents with addictive drugs.

"How would Jentsch like the same thing he does to primates to be done to him?" the statement said.

Hampton said the incident is under investigation by the FBI and UCLA police. Activists claimed to have sent a similar package to one of Jentsch's researchers, but there is no evidence that package was received, UCLA said.

For several years, UCLA researchers have been harassed by groups seeking to halt animal research.

In March 2009, Jentsch's vehicle was blown up outside his home, an incident for which extremists also claimed responsibility, UCLA said in a statement.

Jentsch's work, much of it funded by the National Institutes of Health, has provided key information on biochemical processes that contribute to methamphetamine addiction affecting teens and disabilities affecting speech and behavior of schizophrenia patients, UCLA said.

"Responsible use of animals in research aimed at improving the health and welfare of the mentally ill is the right thing to do," Jentsch said in a statement. "We will continue to do so because we have a moral responsibility to society to use our skills for the betterment of the world."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/ucla-animal-researcher-receives-threatening-package.html

If They Build It (With Federally Subsidized Bonds), Someone Will Come

If only we could get the LA-area unemployment rate up higher, maybe UCLA could get some of those bonds. See below:

UC Merced turns to federal bonds (excerpt)

Jamie Oppenheim, November 23, 2010, Modesto Bee

MERCED — Merced County's recent classification as an economic recovery zone has been a boon to the University of California at Merced — making its future expansion more affordable. That could mean lots more construction jobs and a positive trickle-down impact on the area's economy. Merced County supervisors recently gave the OK for UC Merced to use low-interest recovery zone bonds, designated for areas with high unemployment, for the construction of a $49.7 million residence hall. Merced County supervisors declared the county an economic recovery zone in January, which allowed the university to qualify for the federal bonds, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act…

John White, UC Merced vice chancellor for Capital Development, said the UC can get other types of bonds, but this was the most attractive financing option because it discounts the cost of financing significantly. Chin said the university may be the state's only public university that has taken advantage of these bonds… "We hope that this will go out to bid summer 2011," White said…

Full article at http://www.modbee.com/2010/11/22/1441003/uc-merced-turns-to-federal-bonds.html

Good idea:

Another Take - This One from Insider Higher Ed - on Pushback on Anderson's Self-Sufficiency Plan

Inside Higher Ed's take on the Anderson self sufficiency issue (with a nice plug for our blog)

Pushback on a B-School's Bold Plan (excerpts)

November 23, 2010, Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed

The blog of the Faculty Association of the University of California at Los Angeles features a video, labeled "a little self-sufficient music" -- the Supremes singing "Stop in the Name of Love." The clip starts not with the famous title line of the song, but with the refrain: "Think it o-o-ver." The reference to "self-sufficient music" is a play on the plan of the business school at UCLA to stop accepting any funds from the state -- in return for greater flexibility over such matters as tuition rates. And what's become clear in the past few weeks is that the more faculty leaders think it over, the less they like the plan, which many view as privatization…

Many Senate bodies feel that a paradigm shift of such profound significance warrants a much more complete and substantive proposal as the basis for a thorough review."

Judy D. Olian, dean of the Anderson School of Management at UCLA, is undeterred. She said in an interview that there have been "misinterpretations" of her plan and that she would work hard to dispel them. …When Olian first discussed the idea publicly in September, she said it had been approved at the campus level and was awaiting a review by Mark G. Yudof, president of the university system…

The Academic Senate's analysis of the business school plan questioned all kinds of assumptions. It noted, for example, that all of UCLA would applaud the business school for raising more private money to support spending that the state couldn't provide -- and that this wouldn't require a new relationship to the state. And the report said that based on UCLA's own data on business school faculty salaries, the university does quite well compared to leading private and public institutions -- with no evidence of top scholars leaving…

Olian, the business school dean, said that the fundamental problem with the criticisms is that they assume that a change in financing would lead to many other changes. "This is not privatization. This is not changing the relationship between the school and the university, or the faculty interaction with the university," she said. "All of the mission-related issues are, frankly, not accurately stated" in the faculty analysis, she said. "We will continue to be part of UCLA and part of the state," she said, with all of the commitments to public service associated with such ties… She said that while faculty members are correct to note various risks of going ahead with any change, "we look at the alternative as riskier. The alternative is to continue the current model, which is troublesome for the future." …

Full article at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/23/ucla

Anyway, the Senate apparently doesn’t want Anderson to walk away from UCLA – or at least its budget: