Something finally happened - but nothing was resolved.

The special systemwide Senate Assembly Zoom session finally happened yesterday after a previous attempt failed due to a tech glitch. What seems to have been missed by Senate leadership is that three separate topics, one largely unrelated to the other two, were forced on to the agenda by a petition process - highly unusual - which suggests an underlying problem with shared governance.

It might be noted that the meeting was set up as a discussion (only). Actual motions could be passed only if there was unanimous agreement by all assembly members (a subset of those who attended). Over 400 were in attendance at the start of the meeting but the number tended to drop as the discussion went on for almost 3 hours.

The first topic dealt with mandated processes of cybersecurity. Issues raised involved the use of an outside vendor and thus fears of spyware and an outsider having access to individual computers. There were concerns about possible individual faculty liability in the case of breaches. There was concern about implementation within a one-year deadline. There were technical issues raised indicating that the mandated protocols would prevent certain types of necessary software from operating, thus causing loss of research opportunities and inability to compete for potential grants. Deans and department chairs who don't necessarily understand the technical issues entailed were nonetheless enlisted as enforcers. 

The response to all of this was in part statements about how it was necessary combined with some movement toward more transparency in the future.

Faculty pay range adjustments were the next topic. What seemed to animate the discussion was that faculty increases occurred on October 1 whereas top administrator pay was adjusted on July 1. But the underlying issue - at least as it appeared to yours truly - was faculty pay more generally. There were a lot of charts presented by Provost Newman and her group with regard to the different mechanisms by which faculty pay was adjusted - merit increases, etc. - as compared with other university employees. It was argued that compared with the comparison-8 universities, UC has been closing the gap in pay - although there remains a gap. One sensed general unhappiness.

The third item was the abrupt increase in health insurance premiums. Again, there were charts shown explaining why health care costs have been rising. It was noted that UC self insures a number of its plans, so that the insurance companies involved are administrators, not insurers, and thus the increase in costs represents external inflation of provider prices plus usage patterns by UC participants. And it was said the increases were not out of line with what other large employers were experiencing. 

There were several references to a study that had just kicked off on total compensation (pay plus benefits) and that we should wait to see what it reveals. (Actually, planning for the study had been under way for some time even though the actual study with an outside consultant is now beginning.) But it was not clear how that study would explain the abrupt announcement of the increases just before open enrollment. It was also noted that the subsidy from the university as a share of the total cost of health insurance had been declining.

After the three topics were discussed, there was a move to have the special assembly discuss the issue of a general UC switch to the semester system from the quarter system - except for Berkeley and Merced which were already on semesters. When reminded of the requirement that there would have to be unanimous agreement to have such a discussion and vote, the individual making the motion withdrew it. 

A second motion was made to have all administration salary bumps occur on October 1, just like those of faculty. But there were some abstentions, i.e., lack of unanimity. So the motion failed.

One participant tried to make a motion that the inflation adjustment in the pension plan should offset 100% of the increases in the Consumer Price Index, as Social Security does, rather than the partial adjustment in the UC plan. But that motion was made out of order and never discussed.