The Master White Paper Executive Summary

Cooking the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs:

California’s Public Higher Education System in Peril

A Master White Paper for the CSU

By

Dennis Loo (CSU Pomona), Dorothy D. Wills (CSU Pomona), Yasha Karant (CSU San Bernardino), Mayra Besosa (CSU San Marcos), Päivi Hoikkala (CSU Pomona), Chris Nagel (CSU Stanislaus), Nicholas von Glahn (CSU Pomona), Ranjeeta Basu (CSU San Marcos), Ralph Westfall (CSU Pomona).

The crisis today in California’s public higher education, a system that until now has been the envy of the nation, is not the lack of money, bad instructors, or stupid students; the problem is that the executives in charge embrace values that will destroy the very system they are charged with representing. Their championing of a path toward privatization and corporatization of public universities is leading to the impoverishment of the student learning experience, curtailed research, and the degradation of the teaching and scholarly community, undermining the future of our youth and of our state. California stands at a crossroads. We face a choice between two radically different visions: those who uphold and celebrate private interests versus those who believe in the public interest and in public goods.

Learning and scholarship cannot be equated with the delivery of manufactured goods on an assembly line, like selling hamburgers at a fast food restaurant. The effort to emulate the assembly-line model will lead to the diminution not only of what university degrees mean but the general shrinkage of our people’s ability to think holistically, creatively, and to distinguish truth from falsehood. What is at stake, in other words, is not just the health and fate of our until now extraordinarily successful public higher education system. What is at stake is what kind of people and society we will be.

The faculty who author this policy paper present our criticisms and recommendations for the solution to the problems in the public higher education sector based upon our caring deeply for our students and for the future of the state, both of which are tragically and needlessly being jeopardized by the current austerity regime.

Our indictment herein of the leadership of the public higher education system and the State of California arises from our commitment as academics to the truth. Our observation that the current leadership has not been truthful about the major factors affecting us today, and the fact that they are leading us down a path of destruction, forces us to speak up, no matter what power is arrayed against us. It is not teachers, public employees, unions, or workers in general who have created the great recession. It is the grossly irresponsible financial sector, the gluttonous wealthy and their craven political representatives, and the unregulated, shortsighted business world who have savaged our economy. They have been rewarded for their recklessness and selfishness with massive tax breaks, historic bailouts, and more deregulation. In order to maintain the enormous gains being reaped by the wealthy and corporations, the State of California is taking a giant step backwards in deciding to decimate the public higher education system, along with other services that should be provided by the state. This is a fateful and fatal choice.

Thirty years of “reform” by the state and higher education administrators have not produced an improvement in the educational potential of higher education institutions or in students’ academic performance, learning, or knowledge. This is because the “reform” measures all lead higher education closer to the business models at the heart of the political philosophy that has dominated and degraded the country for over thirty years. While the teacher/scholars of higher education are expected to work for the love of education, the executives who actually run the system are recruited and retained on the basis of personal financial wealth and perks. You cannot run a system that is supposed to serve the public interest under the leadership of people whose primary interest is private enrichment. This upside-down value system mirrors the one that rules the business world. These values do not work for education and will destroy it. The faculty are the heart and soul of higher education and must have greater say in educational matters; the management that has made such a mess of things and who are attempting to make an even grander mess must take a back seat. Those who are in charge now should resign and those who would replace the current managers must be recruited and retained on the basis of their devotion to education and the public interest, not their envy and emulation of the CEO world.

The current contract bargaining process between the California Faculty Association (CFA) and the California State University System (CSU) has so far been characterized by CSU executives attempting to further strip faculty of power so that they can exercise even more control over education. They seek to rob the universities of all the values associated with academic careers: tenure (and thereby academic freedom), sabbatical leave, and any job security associated with length of service or seniority in order to implement their private over the public ideology. The CSU administration’s dream university would have a teaching staff of temporary lecturers who receive no benefits, can be fired at will, and earn poor salaries, and the doors that are now open to many students who seek and can perform in higher education will be closed. These executives wish to turn California’s esteemed public higher education system into a version of the University of Phoenix. Generations of experience with traditions such as academic freedom and tenure tell us that these elements are critical components of quality teaching, research, and an educated and sophisticated citizenry.

The CSU administration has conducted itself dishonorably and incompetently vis-à-vis the budget situation, shockingly opposing any measures such as AB 1326’s oil extraction tax which would solve the budget crisis for higher education, measures that have worked well in Alaska and Texas for decades. These administrators have done a miserable job of defending the university against destructive budget cuts and have failed to promote the fundamental interest of the public in educating our youth. These things must change. We call on all members of the public who care about their state’s future to join us in this effort. It will take a movement to accomplish these goals.

Problems/Recommendations/Results

A.    Leadership.

1.     Problem:  “Shared governance” at the level of the individual university is a failure.

Recommendations:  Administration must consult with faculty on all matters that pertain to the educational and research missions of the university. Current administrators should resign, beginning with the Chancellor and his respective presidents and provosts, and their replacements recruited on the basis of their devotion to education and the public good, not their personal material enrichment. Pay for administrators should be brought closer to that of faculty and the other differentials between the two reduced drastically. The power shift to administrators away from faculty for the last thirty years must be reversed.

Results:  University will represent educational needs of students and the community and achieve greater cost effectiveness.

2.     Problem:  Board of Trustees (BOT) and system leadership have wrecked the CSU.

Recommendations: The majority of BOT should sit for popular election by the campuses; more faculty and student members.

Results:  CSU answerable to people it serves, not the special financial interests who export good jobs out of California.

B.     “Educational Management Organization” model.

Problem:  Thirty years of educational “reform,” all based on business efficiency thinking, have failed.

Recommendation:  Universities adopt a collegial, student-centered educational approach modeled on a scholarly community whose purpose is to expand knowledge.

Results:  University united in purpose, greatly diversified and decentralized in activity, not distracted by administrative fads and power grabs.

C.     Stratification of faculty.

Problem:  Decline of tenure-track faculty numbers has placed greater pressure on both them and lecturers, and increased tension between them.

Recommendation:  Tenure-track faculty should comprise ¾ of the teaching staff. Lecturers’ issues of compensation and security should be addressed seriously.  Research-qualified lecturers should be considered for tenure-track positions immediately.

Results:  Students receive instruction and advising from faculty who have a permanent commitment to the university and the time to give them full attention. Cost of national searches can be reduced by aggressive hiring from advanced lecturer ranks.

D.    Call things what they are.

Problem: Policies and programs with innocuous names disguise their true purpose. Examples, “re-structuring” = elimination of programs; “assessment” = measurement for executive control over faculty; “efficiency” = cutting resources, reducing quality; “doing more with less” = cutting resources and speed-ups that reduce quality. 

Recommendation: use terms that reflect their true purposes.

Results: Transparency that thereby enables accountability

E.     Support public programs, services, and institutions.

Problem:  Withdrawal of funding from public higher education is necessitated by nothing other than ideology and greed.

Recommendation:  Dedicated revenue stream (such as oil tax AB 1326).  Consider merging CSU and UC where necessary. Increase faculty participation in the process and distribution of private donations. Work to reverse the trend of privatizing public services.

Results:  Stable funding stream assuring reasonable class sizes, more tenure stream faculty, program growth, greater student access.

F.     Fix the middle class financial aid problem.   Raise the ceiling on grants and scholarships to accommodate the real cost of a middle class lifestyle in urban and suburban California.

G.   Revamp the administrative ranks.

Problem:  The system administration and campus administrations are too costly and wasteful; MPPs (Management Plan Personnel) are over-paid and too numerous, with many of their positions and duties unnecessary.

Recommendation:  Eliminate non-essential managers (whose functions are unrelated to instruction) and the expanding pay gaps, bring salaries and perks down to near-faculty levels, make some administrators part-time (especially those who can also teach and do research).

Results:  Greater efficiency, lower cost, more instructors and operational, not management, staff in critical areas.

H.   Regularization of actual programs of the CSU with actual RTP (aka RPT) requirements.

Problem:  Current practice for faculty job requirements and load is out of line with the original concept of the CSU, as a teaching university.

Recommendation:  Support the research mission of faculty by awarding Weighted Teaching Units to scholarly and creative activity.  Alternatively, return the description and requirements for retention, tenure and promotion to the original model (more like a six-year community college).

Results:  A university in which the actual mission under which Faculty are evaluated and expected to perform will be consistent with the mandated mission under the Master Plan.

CHANCELLOR SOUGHT TO COVER UP STANISLAUS CONTROVERSY

CFA HEADLINES


May 11, 2010 - SPECIAL EDITION FROM CFA

Emails released by CSU Stanislaus reveal Chancellor Reed ordered secrecy of Palin contract in an attempt to avoid bad publicity

Documents released earlier this week implicate CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed in the ongoing controversy at CSU Stanislaus regarding Sarah Palin’s planned visit.

Among several documents released by California State University Stanislaus regarding the upcoming visit by Palin is an email correspondence between Reed and Bernie Swain, chairman of the Washington Speakers Bureau, the entity with which the university contracted for the Palin event.  The email exchanges reveal that documents were withheld simply to avoid “another round of newspaper stories.”

In an email to Reed, Swain states: “The release of the fee, while well-intentioned to share all details, will likely only serve as the financial headline for a new round of stories rather than the intended purpose of clearing the air and making the stories go away. Your event needs fewer story lines, less oxygen for the fuel, not more. We believe, as others have said, any real damage has already been done and after a few days these inquires and stories will slowly, but surely, end…You are a dear friend and I wish I could make this instantly better for you.”

Reed responded and copied other CSU officials: “Bernie, I agree with you that the damage is done and the disclosure will just cause another round of newspaper stories. The campus should have worked this through with you all in the beginning. I will try and call you the next time I am in Washington and see if we can have lunch or a cup of coffee.”

Kristen Olsen, who heads the Stanislaus campus public relations office, responded to Reed’s email: “Good news. The Chancellor is satisfied now with not disclosing the fee.”

State Senator Leland Yee, who is author of a bill to bring more transparency to CSU auxiliaries, is apparently incensed by the latest revelation in the CSU Stanislaus Foundation’s secrecy saga.

“More and more evidence is demonstrating a clear violation of the public records act by CSU officials, and now there is proof that Chancellor Reed was complicit in it,” said Yee in a news release.  “Chancellor Reed and President Shirvani were more concerned with covering up an embarrassing story than complying with state law.”

“There is absolutely no doubt that public funds – through the use of university resources and employees – have been used for this event and yet the taxpayers are being kept in the dark,” Yee said, adding, “Chancellor Reed is well aware of the law that requires foundation documents in the possession of university employees to be disclosed. The administration has failed the taxpayers and the students. It is now imperative that the Board of Trustees hold these executives accountable.”

View these emails online at: http://calfac.org/allpdf/newsreleas/2010_pressrel/ReedEmailsonStanislaus.pdf

FACULTY REACTION

Upon hearing about the most recent twist in the Stanislaus saga, CFA President Lillian Taiz, a professor of history at CSU Los Angeles issued this statement:

"We have seen many of questionable activities in the California State University, especially involving the foundations and other auxiliaries.

"But even we are stunned to learn that CSU Chancellor Charles Reed himself made the decision to cover up the amount of the speaker fee being paid to Sarah Palin by the CSU Stanislaus Foundation.

"The Chancellor’s intimate involvement in avoiding public information requests made under state law because of his fear of negative publicity is a shocking demonstration of poor judgment and questionable leadership.

"His lack of commitment to openness in the governance of our public university system harms not only his image but the credibility of our entire system. Revelations like this embarrass all of us who have spent our careers building this great university.
"CFA calls upon the Attorney General Jerry Brown to expand the scope of his investigation into CSU auxiliaries to include Chancellor Charles Reed and his office at Golden Shores. Apparently campuses hiding information from taxpayers is not only campus policy, but is also the chancellor's system wide policy."
SHOWS THE NEED FOR CSU TRANSPARENCY


CFA emphasizes that the controversy at Stanislaus – which centers around the campus foundation – shows the pressing need for the passage of CSU transparency legislation Senate Bill 330.

SB 330 – which is currently being considered by the state legislature – will bring greater transparency and accountability to how private donations and student campus fees are used at the California State University, University of California and California Community Colleges. It will place the institutions’ subsidiary organizations – known as “auxiliaries” – under the scope of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) without creating new state costs.

Under existing law, although the CSU, UC and community colleges are already subject to the CPRA, almost all of their auxiliaries are not. This allows these public institutions to hide billions of dollars in “private” entities funded by student campus fees and private donations that have little, if any, transparency or accountability to the public or elected state leaders.

This secrecy has encouraged colleges and universities to create an increasing number of auxiliaries to run campus operations such as food services, parking facilities, housing and bookstores – all of which would be subject to the CPRA and public oversight if they were administered directly by the college or university rather than an auxiliary.

By its own admission, 20 percent of the CSU’s operating budget – or $1.34 billion – is funded by the hidden budgets of its campus and system auxiliaries.

Cal Poly Pomona Provost Wants to Ax Fine Arts

1. 
   
   
   In an article posted at Furlough Fridays on the meeting between the Provost and students and faculty protesting his proposal to eliminate the Fine Arts option at Cal Poly Pomona, the intrepid Furlough Friday reporter states:
   "Once again during the lunch-time forum, support for AB 656, a proposed oil extraction tax bill was mentioned by students as a possible solution, but [Martin] den Boer came out strongly against the bill saying funding from the bill would not lead to a net increase in Higher Education, but would just lead to 'a reallocation of funding.'” 
   This is the comment that I left on the article:
   "Provost denBoer’s assertion that passage of AB 656 would only result in the legislature’s reallocation of funds away from higher education echoes the talking points that originate from Chancellor Reed’s office. President Ortiz made the same ridiculous claim in his exchange with me last month during the Brown Bags with the President.
   "If AB 656 passed the state assembly then why would the same body that just passed the bill turn around and take money away from what they just gave money to? And if AB 656 passes and the governor tried to reallocate money away from higher education, then what kind of reaction do you think the governor would have to deal with from the assembly and from the public?
   "It is dishonest and disgraceful for Reed, Ortiz, denBoer and the rest of the high administrators to be opposing AB 656 and slashing programs such as Fine Arts, slashing faculty and cutting classes and students. Students organized by SQE were going to hold a 10-day hunger strike this week demanding restoration of the $305 million that was cut from the budget this year. When word leaked out about this strike before it started, the governor’s office quickly issued word that they would restore the $305 million. The point is, that political action makes a difference and is the only thing that will do any good."
   --
   I am reminded of the role played by the infamous BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) when considering the role played by our ostensible CSU administrative leaders. Like the BIA, they are supposed to see to the interests of their charges - in their case American Indians and in our case, the faculty, staff, students and the community that makes up and depends upon the CSU. Like the BIA, they consistently betray the interests of those they supposedly represent. Lying about why they continue to oppose the solution to the budget crisis is shameful behavior. They should resign or be forced from office. 

Privateers Strike Out Again

From Firedoglake, May 2, 2010:

"Charter Schools: Yet Another 'Free Market' Innovation That Can't Stand on Its Own Two Feet"

Ho-hum. Another day, another "free market solution" that just can’t stand on its own two feet:

But for all their support and cultural cachet, the majority of the 5,000 or so charter schools nationwide appear to be no better, and in many cases worse, than local public schools when measured by achievement on standardized tests, according to experts citing years of research. Last year one of the most comprehensive studies, by researchers from Stanford University, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools nationally offered a better education than comparable local schools, almost half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.”

Although “charter schools have become a rallying cry for education reformers,” the report, by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, warned, “this study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well” as students in traditional schools.
Researchers for this study and others pointed to a successful minority of charter schools — numbering perhaps in the hundreds — and these are the ones around which celebrities and philanthropists rally, energized by their narrowing of the achievement gap between poor minority students and white students.

It’s not like this is a new or unusual thing with the charter school movement. The only thing that kept Edison Schools alive was constant propping up by outside sources (such as when Jeb Bush raided the pension funds of Florida’s genuine public-school teachers to subsidize Edison when it was about to go belly-up), as well as a dependence on Wall Streeters to be unusually forgiving of financial failure:

According to the company’s September 2001 proxy statement, the company lent [Edison CEO Chris] Whittle $6.6 million on November 15, 1999 and $1.2 million on April 13, 2000 to exercise options to purchase stock in the company. In other words, the company was loaning him money to purchase stock in itself — not an uncommon practice. By September 30th, 2001 the combined principal and interest on those two loans totalled $9.2 million.

So far so good.

Now what’s interesting is the collateral Whittle put up for these two loans. It turns out it was the shares themselves, the shares he was buying with the loans. As the proxy statement says "The loans are collateralized only by the shares …"

Now the problem is, like the Chicago Bulls and ten year old beer, that stock ain’t what it used to be. In fact, as you can see from this handy diagram, Edison’s stock is now virtually worthless. A year ago shares in Edison went for about $23 a pop. Today the stock closed at 85 cents, its lowest close all year.

What all of this means of course is that there now isn’t any collateral for those loans. That stock is now worth only a fraction of what it was back in the day. In the real world, Whittle would now be facing the dreaded margin call.

So why, if this thing is such an utter failure by free-market, get-government-out-of-our-lives standards, has it been kept on life support for the past decade?

Simple: It’s all about destroying yet another set of unions — in this case, the teachers’ unions. That’s why so many rich people and Third Way (or what we know as DINO) types back it — and why the recent push for unions to organize charter-school teachers is freaking out the people who back these schools.

***

I would differ about the rationale here being just about destroying unions. It is about that, but it is also, and mainly about attempting to destroy public education and public goods and the public interest more generally. This agenda is what animates and drives those who are leading the CSU system as well: privatize, privatize, privatize.

On Deliverology's Claims That Graduation Rates Can Be Accelerated and the Achievement Gap Narrowed

The CSU administration, as most people know, is attempting to impose Sir Michael Barber's Deliverology upon the CSU system. Chancellor Reed and his loyal lieutenants claim that they can thereby accelerate time to degree and bridge the achievement gap with this fine British import. How they think they can accomplish those goals when they are slashing the budget for academic services, reducing class offerings, reducing admissions by forty thousand students, furloughing faculty and laying off staff and faculty, and eliminating programs such as CalWorks (designed to help parents on welfare get a college degree and get off of welfare), is beyond my feeble comprehension. But then, Deliverology perhaps can violate commonsense and pull a rabbit out of the hat. 


In a widely circulated, discussed, and reportedly influential White Paper by one of the CSU presidents in July 2009, however, author President Qayoumi stated explicitly what was reasonable to expect as a result of the budget cuts:


From "Perspectives on CSU Budget Gap," July 24, 2009 by Mohammad H. Qayoumi, President California State University, East Bay, reprinted on this blog here: "I think we can expect that average student course loads will decrease, time to degree will increase, lines (or digital queues) will get longer, and traditionally under-represented groups will be hit disproportionately harder than others."


The only way that Deliverology can produce the results they are claiming that it can produce - and the top CSU administrators know this - is by cutting back on what is expected from students to get their degree. This is why the administrators, for example, have been floating the idea of reducing GE requirements and number of courses required for a degree. They want to cheapen a CSU degree's value, in other words. 


You don't sensibly advocate having someone running faster when the person in question is having trouble walking in the first place. 


Deliverology is a sham. It is not a misguided program with laudable goals but poor implementation. It is a program that from its inception, from its practice in England, and from its premises, is designed not to improve performance but to tighten command and control from the top. Deliverology's imposition upon the CSU would be a disaster for this reason. It must be opposed. 

CSU Palin Controversy Incites Hate Messages

Update, April 21, 2010: See also this very good article at the LA Progressive by Joseph Palermo, "Cal State Stanislaus: Let Sarah Palin Speak - Somewhere Else." The comments to his article as reposted at Reader Supported News are particularly good as well, such as this one: "Actually, there are two other options available to CSUS. If there's no contract, CSUS doesn't have to pay Palin a dime! Or if there is a contract, CSUS officials responsible for its shredding can go to jail."


Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Yee threatened with racist, homophobic phone calls and faxes
From Sen. Leland Yee's website

SACRAMENTO – The controversy surrounding an upcoming Sarah Palin event at California State University Stanislaus and calls for greater transparency from Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) has spurred several racist and homophobic phone calls to Yee’s office and even a fax threatening the Senator’s life.

An expletive-laden fax received yesterday in the Senator’s San Francisco and Sacramento offices says, “To: JoBama Rectum Sniffer Fish Head Leland Yee” and then in all capital letters, “WERE YOU TO EXTRACT YOUR HEAD FROM TREASONOUS MARXIST NIG**R HUSSEIN OBAMA’S RECTUM, YOUR BRAIN WOULD STILL FUNCTION AT ITS PRESENT MUCH DIMINISHED LEVEL BUT AT LEAST THE NIG**R SH*T SMELL WOULD EVENTUALLY DISSIPATE.”

The fax, which included a graphic of an American flag adorned pickup truck dragging a noose, also states “FIGHTING The Marxist Nig**r Thug Hussein Obama” and “Safeguard the Constitution, Death of all Domestic Marxists!”

Another fax received by the Senator’s office with a similar graphic says, “NEW WEBSITE COMING SOON:  lyeesucksobamasnig**ras*.com,” as well as “JoBama.  HE IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO KILL OUR UNBORN, JUST NOT BRAVE ENOUGH TO CALL OUR ENEMIES WHAT THEY ARE: Muslim Terrorists!”  The fax also includes a rifle scope targeting a shirt with the communist hammer and sickle symbol dripping with blood.

One of the phone messages left after hours in Yee’s office voicemail says, “You know, I heard that Senator Yee wants to nix Sarah Palin from speaking at Stanislaus State…Maybe we ought to have a homosexual with a long enough di*k to where he can stick it up his as* and fu*k himself while he is on stage giving a speech.  That would be acceptable to Leland Yee.  So, good thing you run in San Francisco ‘cause you’d never make it anywhere else.”

These and other messages have been forward[ed] to the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to investigate.

“It is quite disturbing that such racist and homophobic sentiment still exists in our country,” said Yee.  “It is unfortunate acts like these that demonstrate why we must continue to be vigilant against hate and intolerance.”

The hate messages come after Yee has demanded greater transparency of the CSU Stanislaus administration regarding an upcoming visit from the former Alaska governor.  After the university claimed they had no documents or correspondence pertaining to the Palin visit, students testified that they found pages 4 through 9 of the Palin contract in the administration’s dumpster, which show her visit requirements include a hotel suite, first class airfare or a private Lear jet, pre-screened questions, and “bendable straws.”

The Attorney General has since launched a formal investigation and Californians Aware has filed a lawsuit.

And from Sen. Yee's website on April 13, 2010:

Documents Surface in CSU Stanislaus Palin Case

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Students uncover Palin contract, other public documents – some shredded by university administrators

SACRAMENTO – Students from California State University Stanislaus have uncovered several public documents pertaining to the upcoming controversial visit by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The documents – including parts of the university’s speaking contract with Palin – were found in the dumpster outside the university’s administration building two days after Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and Californians Aware were denied such public information by the university, resulting in a request of the Attorney General’s office to investigate.

On Friday, April 9, CSU student Ashli Briggs was informed that suspicious activity (specifically, document purging) was taking place within the administration building.  Alicia Lewis and other students then found the documents after seeing several administrators’ cars in the parking lot on the university’s scheduled furlough day.  Many of the public documents were shredded, presumably by university personnel.

“It is truly shocking and a gross violation of the public trust that such documents would be thrown away and destroyed during a pending investigation,” said Yee.  “Found within the same files as regular university business were financial statements and documents of the CSU Stanislaus Foundation – demonstrating that the foundation is operated by taxpayer-funded employees within the university itself.  How can they possibly claim that no tax dollars are being used for the Palin event when state employees are called in on their furlough day to help avoid public scrutiny?”

“Turning over this information to the Attorney General is important so that any wrongdoing can be addressed and prevented from reoccurring in the future,” said Lewis.  “If this helps push for financial transparency on college campuses, then those of us involved know we did the right thing.”

“My hat is off to these students who had the courage to come forward and report such information,” said Yee.  “They are to be commended for protecting our precious and limited public resources.”

Among the documents found intact where pages 4 through 9 of the university’s contract with Palin.  While the actual compensation – suspected to be nearly $100,000 – cannot be found within the intact documents, pages 4 through 9 shows that Palin is expected to receive:

• “Round-trip, first class commercial air travel for two between Anchorage, Alaska and event city”
• Presumably for Palin’s guests, “full, unrestricted round-trip coach airfare for two between event city and lower 48 US States.”
• If the university chooses to use a private jet, “the Speaker, their traveling party and the plane crew will be the only passengers.”
• Ground transportation in both the originating city and the event city “will be by SUV(s) from a professionally licensed and insured car service.”
• “security arrangements as deemed necessary by [Washington Speakers Bureau] and the Speaker.”
• Accommodations are to include “a one-bedroom suite and two single rooms in a deluxe hotel” as well as a “laptop computer and printer (fully stocked with paper) and high speed internet” and “all meals and incidentals.”
• “For Q&A, the questions are to be collected from the audience in advance, pre-screened and a designated representative shall ask questions directly of the Speaker.”
• The contract also includes other stipulations regarding autographs, photographs, press releases, advertising, recording, lighting, bottled water and “bendable straws.”
Among the papers found shredded are documents dated as recently as March 2010, the same date as on the Palin contract.
Today, Lewis was submitting the documents to the Attorney General’s office to assist in their investigation regarding violation of the California Public Records Act (CPRA), and now potential tampering and destroying of evidence relevant to an ongoing investigation.

CSU Stanislaus Office of the President last week denied public records requests made by Yee and Californians Aware to disclose how much Palin is getting paid for an upcoming speaking engagement as well as documents and correspondence regarding the university’s 50th Anniversary Gala.

The responses from Campus Compliance Officer Gina Leguria state, “The University has no documents that are responsive to your request.”

CSU officials have often declared foundations as separate private entities even though the CSU Stanislaus Foundation is entirely located within the public university:

• the foundation chair is campus president Hamid Shirvani, a state employee who makes upwards of $300,000/year;
• the executive officer, the treasurer, and the secretary of the board are all employees of CSU Stanislaus;
• every staff member listed on the foundation website are CSU Stanislaus employees, with the exception of one;
• the foundation’s website and the Palin Gala website are located at the taxpayer-fundedwww.csustan.edu;
• the Palin fundraiser solicitation and information line is a university telephone number at the university advancement office;
• the foundation’s offices are housed within the campus administration’s building and fully staffed by university employees;
• the work of the foundation is conducted using CSU Stanislaus email accounts, telephones, computers and other taxpayer-funded resources.

“There is not a fine line or even a blurry line between the foundation and the public university; there is absolutely no line,” said Yee.

Prior to denying the CPRA request by Yee and Californians Aware, CSU Stanislaus officials stated that they could not release Palin’s compensation due to a confidentiality term in her contract.  State law, however, specifically prohibits a state or local agency from allowing an outside entity to control the disclosure of information that is otherwise subject to the CPRA.  In addition, a 2001 case involving Fresno State required the university to disclose documents they held regarding the operations of their foundation.

Several recent examples demonstrate the need for increased public oversight and accountability at public college and university foundations and auxiliary organizations:

• At Sonoma State, a $1.25 million loan issued to a former foundation board member two days after he resigned.  He has since defaulted on that loan, which leaves less money in the foundation’s endowment for scholarships and other important causes.
• At Fresno State, a no-bid managing contract was given to a foundation member to build a theatre complex in which he held a financial interest.
• At San Francisco City College, a campus executive has been indicted for using money from the San Francisco City College Foundation for personal and political purposes.
• At San Jose/Evergreen Community College, the chancellor recently resigned after it was found she engaged in several financial improprieties at the foundation’s expense, including lavish travel, purchasing expensive art pieces, and even buying coffee and mints on her work credit card.
• Sacramento State recently acknowledged their campus is being audited by the Attorney General in relation to inappropriate expenditures of campus auxiliary money, including $200,000 to remodel the school president's kitchen in 2007.  Additionally at Sacramento State, $6.3 million of public funds was transferred to University Enterprises Inc., a campus auxiliary, to backfill losses from a property acquisition.

According to the CSU Chancellor’s Office, 20 percent of its $6.7 billion budget, or $1.34 billion, is held in their 87 auxiliaries and foundations.

“It is time for CSU and UC administrators to stop acting like they are running private country clubs,” said Yee.  “These are public institutions that should embrace transparency and accountability, and not be finding creative ways to do the public’s business behind closed doors.”

This session, Yee is authoring SB 330 to clarify that campus foundations and auxiliary must adhere to the CPRA. 
###
Contact: Adam J. Keigwin
(916) 651-4008

Et Tu, Ortiz?

The following Letter to the Editor appeared today, April 13, 2010, in the Poly Post newspaper. There is also another Poly Post news story entitled: "Tempers Flare at Brown Bag," (a follow-up to their initial article), about the April 6 Brown Bags event. The story reports some of the students' and staff's comments and reactions to the administration's actions, conveying a sense of the stakes for students and staff due to these cuts and the perversity of the administration's statements and actions.

I wrote this Letter to the Editor below a few days ago, prior to Ortiz's Monday, April 12, 2010, message that's the subject of my previous post here on this blog.

Et Tu, Ortiz?

By Dennis Loo

California’s higher educational system faces an unparalleled crisis. The CSU administration speaks of radical, transformative changes and the cuts of CalWorks, the tennis teams, and so on [at Cal Poly Pomona], are only part of the deep cuts that are coming.

What, in the face of this terrible news, are our top administrators doing to protect the CSU system? Rep. Torrico introduced a bill to protect California’s universities, AB 656. AB 656 would impose a severance tax on the oil companies.

California’s the only state that doesn’t impose this tax. Under Sarah Palin as Alaska governor, Alaska hiked its severance tax to over 20%, more than twice the rate that AB 656 would impose. Texas supports its well-endowed public university system with their severance tax. AB 656 would solve our problems entirely, as it would raise between $1-2 billion annually. This would be a tax on oil companies whose quarterly profits run in the tens of billions of dollars.

So there is a way to prevent students from being blocked from realizing their dreams. There is a way to prevent more faculty from being furloughed and laid off. We can even hire the people who’ve been laid off and we can hire more badly needed professors. There is a way to protect this system that has been California’s pride and joy. You would think that our administrators would be pushing for AB 656’s passage with all their might, wouldn’t you?

But Chancellor Reed is opposed to AB 656. Reed says he doesn’t want to be forced to spend the money raised only on teaching. The Chancellor’s Office has, they say, many other things they want to spend the money on besides teaching.

This is like my offering to pay my friend’s grocery bills and having my friend refuse the offer because he wants to have no strings attached to what he can spend the money I’m giving him on.

When I pressed President Ortiz last Tuesday to declare in favor of AB 656 he offered various extraordinary excuses not to support it and then finally declared that he was for it after all. I was pleased to hear this, as were the others in the crowd. Shortly after this public declaration his spokesman, Ron Fremont, informed the Poly Post that Ortiz’s declaration in support of AB 656 was only his personal opinion and it did not reflect the views of the Cal Poly Administration.

Here is my question for President Ortiz: If the Cal Poly Administration can take a position contrary to your own on a question so vital to Cal Poly as AB 656, then who is really running Cal Poly? Is it Chancellor Reed? If it’s Chancellor Reed, then why are we paying your nearly $300,000 salary annually? Why don’t we dispense with your position and have Reed order what he wants directly? And if Reed refuses to support a bill that would save our system, why are we paying him more than twice what Obama’s paid? Why don’t we ask for his resignation?