Wednesday, November 11, 2015

ROTF (but not LMAO) - for next week's UC Regents Meeting?

So, the $$$$$ crisis but not crisis mostly has to do with the pension etc
Stuff - UCLA Fac Blog gets into the Napolitano ROTF task force - and some recent developments resulting from one sentence in the UC Regents agenda for next week's meeting, here:

Regents' Pension Funding Item Short Circuits Planning for New Tier

This past August, a committee was named by Napolitano now known as the Retirement Options Task Force (ROTF).** ROTF includes faculty (including Senate), administrators, and staff as members. It has yet to make any recommendations. 
And concludes with:
It would be interesting to know exactly how the offending sentence got inserted into F2. Someone seems to want DC-only as an option. But in any case, the offending sentence in Item F2 needs to be removed and an amended F2 without the sentence substituted before the Regents meet next week. If it isn't removed, the process by which the new pension tier was to be designed is undermined.**** 

Another item:
The 'UC-$$$$$-crisis-but-not-crisis' is also taken up - under a discussion of "state funding", "tuition", the "public mission" and "The Public Trust" via Daily Cal,  here:

Intro: In 1960, California passed the Master Plan for Higher Education, which established a framework for public higher education in the state. It envisioned a University of California without tuition that guaranteed access for the top one-eighth of the state’s high school graduates, funded by taxpayers who believed in the university as a source of economic and social mobility.

UC Berkeley, in particular, as an elite public school, has aimed to reconcile its responsibility to the state's people with its status as a highly selective academic institution — a challenge faced by few others.

Today, state disinvestment, rising tuition costs, more out-of-state students, increased private research funding and a greater emphasis on alumni giving have left some questioning whether UC Berkeley is drifting farther from the public ideal of the Master Plan and closer to the private universities with which it has always competed.

Some have suggested that UC Berkeley adapt to the reality of the state’s financial priorities, that a public university is not defined by its level of state funding, that the values ingrained throughout 147 years of history are immutable. Others worry it is only a matter of time before UC Berkeley’s shifting funding model undermines the institution’s public mission.

The Master Plan defined the University of California as a public trust. Half a century later, in the face of the fiscal and political uncertainty of its current situation, what makes UC Berkeley a public institution?

No comments:

Post a Comment