$750 Million to be cut from CSUs and UCs with the signign of Budget (California)

[Rusty Shackleford]

so bastard brown signed the California Budget into law.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_18420601


every time your liberal friend brings up pragmatism, point this out.




fuck jerry brown.


oh and the prison system wasnt touched.

[Sensible Socialist]

What's the status on the movement against education cuts in California? I remember it being pretty strong a year or two ago. Any news since then?

[CynicalIdealist]

Pragmatic just means slightly less against cuts, not a religious extremist, and the same on everything else as the Republicans. It's an empty, dumb term devoid of meaning used to justify the Democrats as a slightly less right-wing party than their religious pathological alternative.

[Rusty Shackleford]

What's the status on the movement against education cuts in California? I remember it being pretty strong a year or two ago. Any news since then?


there was a April 13th CSU-wide protest. CSU Sacramento occupied its administration building for 3 nights and Fullerton did for one or 2.

Right now, as usual, the summer is a low point. But, with this kind of news, there is a chance of a major uptick.

[wunderbar]

Well, I guess my chances of transferring from the community college to CSU system within the year just narrowed a bit more.

[Property Is Robbery]

Fuck. Just as I'm about to start school in California.

[Rusty Shackleford]

there was already an 8% increase set by the board of trustees of the CSU system, now there will probably be another %8-%10 increase.

[Le Socialiste]

Man, just as I'm preparing to transfer too...

Fuck the Democrats (and their Republican cousins).

[A Revolutionary Tool]

So what does that mean for me when I start at a community college in August?

[Rusty Shackleford]

right now, CC tuition is still around 20-30 dollars. it may increase if revenues fall short of the projection made by the governor

[wunderbar]

So what does that mean for me when I start at a community college in August?

Besides tuition increases, if you're not signed up for classes (or at least waitlisted) yet, you'll probably have a very difficult time getting into anything.

[Property Is Robbery]

right now, CC tuition is still around 20-30 dollars. it may increase if revenues fall short of the projection made by the governor
At my CC in so cal units went from $24 to $36. It makes a big difference :/

[Rusty Shackleford]

oh also, i think they are restricting admission. something like 400,000 less students across the state will be accepted to CCs

[A Revolutionary Tool]

At my CC in so cal units went from $24 to $36. It makes a big difference :/
Yeah I'm talking to my sister about this(who's going to the same one I'm headed to) and she said the price went up by $10 from last year. This year we have to pay $31 while she said last year she only paid $21.


oh also, i think they are restricting admission. something like 400,000 less students across the state will be accepted to CCs
Good thing I already got accepted :D


Besides tuition increases, if you're not signed up for classes (or at least waitlisted) yet, you'll probably have a very difficult time getting into anything.
:crying: I heard they've been dropping a lot of classes too. Which sucks because I wanted to take journalism but I think the CC I'm going to dropped it.

[A Marxist Historian]

there was a April 13th CSU-wide protest. CSU Sacramento occupied its administration building for 3 nights and Fullerton did for one or 2.

Right now, as usual, the summer is a low point. But, with this kind of news, there is a chance of a major uptick.

The movment is at an impasse. Jerry Brown just *doesn't care* if buildings get occupied, and neither do the Democrats in the legislature. The whole perspective of the movement has been around pressuring the Democrats to do the right thing. Well, maybe some of 'em would prefer to do the right thing, but the state is broke.

And the Democrats, unlke Schwartzenegger, feel that since there is no left alternative to them, they can pretty much do what they want whatever the students, teachers and parents want.

Be it noted that the California constitutional amendment that the unions successfully pushed through last year made things worse, we'd be better off if it had been defeated. Now it takes a two-third vote to raise taxes, but only a majority to pass a budget. So that means that budget confrontations will *always* be resolved by budget cuts, and *never* by tax increases. You just have to do the math.

Schwartzenegger actually did throw in a little extra money for higher education on his way out of office, as he really did believe in higher education after all, and those student protests frightened him a bit, he knows about the Sixties.

Brown believes in balancing the budget, end of story. We're in an "era of limits," don't you know?

-M.H.-

[Rusty Shackleford]

check it out. Board of Trustees to vote on increasing tuition by 12% for CSUs AND voting to raise President's pay by $100 Grand.


CSU considers raising president's salary - and students' tuition (http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/07/california-state-university-considers-raising-presiden.html)
California State University trustees will take up two hot-button issues when they meet in Long Beach (http://topics.sacbee.com/Long+Beach/) tomorrow: increasing student tuition by 12 percent and setting pay for the new president of San Diego State (http://topics.sacbee.com/San+Diego+State/) -- proposed to be $100,000 higher than his predecessor.
Stephen Weber, the outgoing president of San Diego State, earned an annual salary of $299,435 at the end of his 14-year tenure at the helm of the campus. CSU Chancellor Charles Reed has proposed paying his replacement, Elliot Hirshman, $350,000 plus an additional $50,000 to be paid by the San Diego State University Foundation. Hirshman also would receive housing provided by the university and a car allowance of $1,000 a month, according to the compensation package Reed is presenting to the board (http://calstate.edu/bot/agendas/Jul11/UFP.pdf).
The California Faculty Association, the union that represents professors at Cal State's 23 campuses, is raising questions about the pay increase. (http://topics.sacbee.com/pay+increase/) It comes as trustees are being asked to approve a second tuition increase (http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/csu-california-state-university-tuition-increase.html)for the 2011-12 school year that comes on top of a 10 percent increase for the fall they approved last year. Combined, the two increases would bring undergraduate tuition at CSU to $5,178 this fall -- or $948 more than it was in fall 2010.
"Tone deaf?" the union asks on its Facebook page, where comments from faculty are flying. Sacramento State professor Michael Fitzgerald posts: "It is just wrong. What are the CSU trustees smoking?"

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F07%2F02%2FBA991K5M 87.DTL

i forgot to post this when i read it. but, here it is.

SAN FRANCISCO -- University of California President Mark Yudof will recommend that the UC regents approve a 9.6 percent tuition increase to make up for an unexpected loss of $150 million in state funding.
If approved at the regents meeting in San Francisco the week of July 12, annual tuition would rise by more than $1,000, to about $12,200.
It's not clear when the new price would take effect. The increase would be the seventh successive tuition hike since 2006, and the eleventh in a decade. State Cal Grants for low-income students have kept pace - so far.
UC officials had anticipated a cut of $500 million from their $3 billion state allocation, and planned to absorb the hit with revenue from an 8 percent tuition increase approved by the regents in November.
But the new budget signed Thursday slashed deeper, bringing the cuts to $650 million, and Yudof said students would have to pay the difference.
"The campuses have exercised all of the budget reductions they can manage," said Larry Pitts, UC's provost and executive vice president. "With this round of budget cuts, we're perilously close to affecting the quality of the university."
Two years ago, news of an impending 32 percent tuition increase set off sometimes violent student protests throughout UC. Will it happen again?
"The difference here is that it's summer, and students aren't around," said Claudia Magaña, president of the UC Students Association and a student at UC Santa Cruz. Magaña is in Washington, D.C., at an AFL-CIO internship. But she said students are no less upset for being unable to protest.
"I'll have to drop my minor in education," she said, because the work would take her beyond four years, and she can no longer afford it.




http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/07/university-california-regents-hike-tuition-again


A tuition increase of 9.6 percent at all University of California campuses was approved by the UC Board of Regents on Thursday in San Francisco.
UC regents are the second governing body of higher education in California to raise tuition this week. The California State University board of trustees approved a 12 percent tuition increase Tuesday at its meeting in Long Beach.
The increase approved Thursday is the second such hike the UC system has seen in eight months. An 8 percent increase was approved by regents in November.
California residents enrolled as undergraduates at any of the 10 UC campuses will pay $12,192 in tuition.
Mandatory campus fees will bring the total to $13,218 per year starting this fall.
Alex Jreisat, 22, a student at UCLA, said this will only add to his total debt.
“It makes it more difficult to go to school,” he said outside the meeting, wearing a Buzz Light year costume. “I’ve already had to give up some of my academic dreams and drop a minor because it’s just not feasible.”
Jreisat drove more than six hours Wednesday with more than 20 students dressed as Disney characters — including Captain America, Snow White and even Tinkerbell — to express their anger that Regent Monica Lozano voted to increase tuition while the Walt Disney Co., whose board she also sits on, receives millions of dollars in state tax breaks.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom attended both the UC regents and the CSU trustee meetings to urge the boards to vote against the increases because, he said, they will negatively impact the middle class.
“We’re losing quality and we’re pricing out people,” he said.
The increase, however, will only cover 26.3 percent of the system’s shortfall. The UC system received a $650 million cut in the state budget approved in June, bringing the deficit to more than $1 billion.
“I’ll be voting regretfully in favor so that we’re not putting our institution at risk today,” Regent Sherry Lansing said.
If the state does not meet its projected revenue, higher education might face an additional $100 million cut by the end of the calendar year.






My bolding

[Rusty Shackleford]

UC uses $140million from tuition hikes to pay for raises (http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4626%3Acommentary-uc-takes-140-million-dollars-from-student-tuition-to-go-to-raises&Itemid=118)

It has been a busy week, but we have to note with stunned amazement the continued audacity of the University of California, who announced this week that they will spend approximately 140 million dollars that was raised from increasing student tuition to give merit raises to thousands of faculty members and nonunion employees earning up to 200,000 dollars.
So much for any reasonable notion of shared sacrifice. The University of California is experiencing what officials have called their worst fiscal crisis in history, they have lost nearly a billion in state funding over the last years, forcing layoffs and huge fee increases, but they have absolutely no problem giving out raises to top executives and now money for merit increases.
According to one source, the faculty has consistently received these raises for the last few years, but nonunion staff members have not.
In July the UC Regents added a new fee hike of 9.6 percent, along with the 8 percent hike they already approved last year, and it will raise tuition to around $12,192 annually for UC Davis students.
As Mr. Yudof wrote to students at that time, "I want to emphasize that the regents and I made this painful decision only after the campuses and the Office of the President had absorbed as many cuts as possible without irreparably damaging the quality of the system."
While he was spilling his guts out last week talking about how painful it was to increase fees to students, in a letter to faculty he argued that these raises were necessary to keep faculty and other staff from being lured away, and that staff also deserves more money as a signal that they are appreciated.
"One purpose of this pool is to give you a tool in your efforts to recruit and, most importantly, retain leading faculty members, who increasingly are being courted by competing institutions. As I have said on many occasions, University quality cannot be compromised, and our excellent professors and researchers are the fountainhead of that quality," he wrote.
"Another purpose is to demonstrate to non-represented staff members that we understand and appreciate how hard they have worked, through difficult times, on behalf of the University and California," Mr. Yudof wrote. "Fairness dictates that we take this step."
He defended the policy, arguing that they have not received any increases in nearly four years, have taken pay cuts through the furlough programs, and "Many are working longer hours as a result of budget-induced layoffs of their coworkers."
He added, "It should be noted, as well, that most of our colleagues who are represented by unions, by virtue of existing, negotiated contracts, have received regular pay increases throughout this long-running fiscal crisis."
Union officials took exception to that notion, noting that their lowest-wage workers make below $13.75 per hour.
AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) 3299 Union President Lakesha Harrison objected, "Mark Yudof needs to make a commitment to all of his workers."
Students questioned whether faculty and staff members earning up to $200,000 needed pay hikes.
"So all of a sudden they have money?" said Claudia Magaña, a UC Santa Cruz student who is president of the UC Student Association. "Is this where our fee increase went to? I wouldn't want to say they don't deserve it, but I think it's questionable that all of a sudden there's money for this, but there's no money for our services being cut."
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Lieu introduced legislation that would limit CSU salaries and raises within three years of a tuition increase.
This comes in the wake of California State University trustees granting a $100,000 raise to a campus president immediately after approving a 12-percent tuition hike
"I believe a $100,000 annual raise to San Diego State University's new president was unreasonable, especially while tuition fees for students were increased by 12 percent," Senator Lieu said. "They have not listened to my call to reverse the pay hike. I'm pushing to limit salaries to a reasonable level of compensation."
Under the legislation, CSU trustees cannot approve any pay hikes or bonuses if a student tuition increase has occurred within three years.
Senator Leland Yee also re-introduced his bill to stop executive pay hikes at CSU and UC.
"After the governing boards of the University of California and the California State University hiked executives' pay while also raising student fees last month, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) today reintroduced (SB 27x1) legislation to prohibit pay raises for top administrators during bad budget years," a press release indicated.
"The action taken last month by the Regents and Trustees is appalling and reinforces the perception that they are completely out of touch," said Senator Yee. "UC and CSU are public institutions, not Wall Street banks. Once and for all, it is time to stop these egregious compensation practices and restore the public trust."
Senator Yee's legislation would prohibit such pay increases for the system's top administrators, including campus presidents and chancellors, in years in which the university's allocation from the state does not increase.
"Time and time again, rather than protecting the needs of students and California families, the Regents and Trustees line the pockets of their top executives," said Senator Yee. "While these public administrators are living high on the hog, many Californians are struggling. We deserve better."
Unfortunately, it seems that President Yudof remains tone deaf both to the propriety of raising salaries while taking more money from students and middle class families, as well as to the politics of it all. It simply looks bad.
In our "let them eat cake" commentary last Sunday, we argued that while President Yudof writes an apologetic letter to students, stating that he wanted to emphasize that he and the regents made this painful decision only after the absorption of as many cuts as possible without irreparably damaging the quality of the system, he doesn't exactly feel their pain.
Here he is sitting there receiving over $800,000 in salary, surrounded by people who make half a million in salary, talking to parents who are worried about their children's education as though he feels their pain.
Of course, Mr. Yudof would prefer to not have to raise tuition. It's one thing to take a huge salary while raising everyone else's costs, it is quite another to then turn around and give $140 million from student tuition - blood money - and give it to faculty members and staff who make up to $200,000.
I want to know how much is going to those making between $100 and $200,000, because those people are hurting a lot less than the students.
Sadly, Mr. Yudof took a bad and unfortunate situation, that he likely had no other choice but to do - raise tuition - and made it worse.
I just don't get it. He can justify it all he wants by arguing that people will leave if they are not properly compensated - I don't buy it for a second, not in this economy and this market - but what he fails to realize is that every time he raises tuition and then gives money to top executives, he makes it look like they have more money than they are letting on.
That makes it easier for the legislature to cut money to education and tougher for the voters to sympathize when they do. In short, he is undermining the entire higher education system through his sheer arrogance and tone deafness.
He is presiding over the death of public higher education and he is the one pushing it over a cliff with his own stupidity. There is no justification at all for raising anyone's salary at a time when students and middle class families are being asked to sacrifice.
The average taxpayers is left with the impression that increased taxes would just mean more money to the top executives and the funniest part about it is that they are not wrong.
It does not matter the situation, at the end of the day, the people at the top always benefit at the direct expense of the people at the bottom. This is just the punctuation mark at the end of the sentence.
Let them eat cake, indeed.