I know it's unpleasant to hear but...

When you listen to Regents’ comments at their meetings on the state budget, you have the impression at times that they think that the state and governor have reversed course and now acknowledge responsibility for the UC pension plan.  So, for the record, here is the Legislative Analyst’s summary of the latest state budget and the UC pension:

Contains Intent Language Regarding UC Retirement Costs. The budget plan does not designate any funding for UC employer retirement costs, though the university expects these costs to increase by $67 million in 2013-14. Budget trailer bill language states, however, that the absence of such an earmark does not imply legislative support for UC employees paying more toward retirement. In addition, trailer legislation requires UC to apply any reductions in annual debt-service costs achieved as part of a debt restructuring... towards its pension costs, including its unfunded pension liabilities.

Source: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/bud/spending-plan/spending-plan-073013.pdf [page 31]

Sorry to rain on your parade, Regents. What's that you said?: