For UC to remain true
to President Daniel Coit Gilman’s promise in the 1800s to be the “University of
this State” – to help fuel its economy and provide opportunities for its
continually changing population and its needs – the University must strengthen its
pillars of support.
First, the University
needs a consistent and reliable funding agreement with the State. The Governor’s
proposal for a multi-year funding plan offers real promise, both in providing
the University a predictable source of funding for its pension costs and also
in giving it flexibility in restructuring its debt and, thus, in meeting its
other obligations.
Second, it needs a
student tuition plan that provides the campuses with money they need both to begin
the rebuilding process so necessary to prevent a deterioration in quality, as
well as to begin planning for the future. As crucially, the plan must provide
predictability for families who suffer more from the volatility in fees than
they do from modest and predictable increases for which they can plan.
The full item is at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/mar12/f9.pdf
Presumably, beyond general lamenting over UC's current distance from the two needs listed above, there will be some discussion at the meeting of
whether officially to support the governor’s (now-revised) tax initiative. UCLA ladder faculty will be aware that there
is a “memorial” to the Regents pending a vote by eligible faculty which would
request the Regents to support initiatives that might increase UC revenue. (It does not explicitly reference the
governor’s proposed initiative, currently in circulation for the necessary
signatures.):
INCREASED STATE
SUPPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY
Senate Bylaw 90.B.
authorizes the Assembly to initiate “Memorials to the Regents on matters of Universitywide
concern to be submitted to The Regents through the President...” The Memorial
would request the Regents to endorse specific ballot measures or legislation
that would increase revenue to the state and/or prioritize state allocation of
funds to the University. A vote in favor is a vote to send the “Memorial to the
Regents” to the President and ask him to transmit the Memorial to the Regents.
A vote against is a vote to not send the “Memorial to the Regents” to the
President.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At a meeting on
February 1, 2012, the Academic Council approved (14 in favor, 1 against) a motion
to ask the Assembly to initiate a Memorial to the Regents that would request
the Regents to endorse ballot measures or legislation that would increase
revenue to the state and/or prioritize state investment in the University. The
proposal was placed on the agenda for the Assembly’s February 15 meeting as
Item VII.B.2 and included in the Call to Meeting, together with the proposed
text and arguments for and against, as required by Bylaw 90.B. Substitute
language, which was circulated to the members of the Assembly prior to the
meeting and posted on the Senate website as an accompaniment to the Call to
Meeting, was proposed and adopted as an amendment. After debate and further amendments,
the Assembly voted (47 in favor, 12 against) to distribute a ballot to all
Senate faculty members in accordance with the procedures stipulated in Senate
Bylaws 90 and 95.
=================
Somewhat related to the issue of official endorsement of an
initiative is a Regents item before the Committee on Educational Policy that entitled
a “Report on Advocacy” which generally reviews efforts at University PR:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/mar12/e2.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment