(Academic Council) Senate Review of Proposed Campus Curtailment Program

[Senate]

[cid:image002.png at 01D6B2C4.335D6060]

Dear Colleagues,

Please find below and in the attached memo by the UC Academic Council written by Chair Gauvain in response to the curtailment review.  This reflected a rapid but thorough consultation by the ten campuses and UC systemwide committees.

Jason Stajich, Chair
UC Riverside Division of Academic Senate


November 3, 2020
MICHAEL DRAKE, PRESIDENT
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Re: Proposed Campus Curtailment Program

 Dear President Drake,

As requested, I distributed for systemwide Senate review the proposed campus curtailment program for 2020-21. All ten Academic Senate divisions and five systemwide committees (UCAP, UCACC, UCPB, UCFW, and UCAADE) submitted comments. These comments were discussed at Academic Council's October 28, 2020 meeting and represent the structured and informed views of UC faculty. They are attached for your reference.

We understand that the plan is the initial product of the Strategic Planning Task Force convened to develop options for addressing the financial challenges of the pandemic - specifically, workforce-related savings that also minimize impacts to lower-wage employees. Under the draft proposal, UC employees would be grouped into salary tiers and allowed to use a different combination of paid and unpaid time off to cover a minimum five-day curtailment.

Thank you also for sending the curtailment plan "update" document to Council prior to the October 28 meeting, which provided additional information about the proposal, including the possible salary tiers and minimum salary threshold under consideration, and estimated savings under the plan. This information was received after completion of the systemwide review, but it helped inform Council's discussion with you in October.

I regret that the Academic Council is unable to endorse the current version of the plan. Council recognizes the University's need to consider cuts as part of a strategy to address the $300 million reduction in UC's state-funded budget, but it feels the current plan needs further development before it can be considered as a response to UC's budgetary challenges. The attached responses from Senate reviewers show considerable convergence in perspectives across campuses. Some of their main points are summarized below, and Council would like to draw your attention to the joint letter written by UCPB and UCFW (co-signed by UCFW's two task forces), which it feels is particularly effective in capturing faculty concerns. Should the administration not accept our recommendation, some of the Senate comments may be informative about how to implement the policy so as to mitigate some aspects of harm.

First, reviewers found that the proposal obscures the nature of the curtailment as a de facto furlough that would also represent a salary cut for faculty, who will be unable to use accrued vacation to offset the curtailment days and will experience no reduction in work or responsibilities. Council reads Regents Standing Order 100.4 (qq) as requiring the President to declare an Extreme Financial Emergency before implementing a systemwide program that involves furloughs or salary reductions. However, we understand that no plans exist to declare an emergency. Moreover, we are unsure if, at the present time, an emergency situation exists systemwide, given the University's liquid reserves. It would be helpful to clarify the University's current financial situation, and how it justifies this proposed program in the context of Regents' policy.

Reviewers also cite numerous ways in which the proposal as written is vague or silent about critical details, including who counts as an "essential" employee; and how the additional curtailment days would be implemented for clinical faculty and others paid from external funds, student employees who do not accrue vacation days, staff who normally work through the existing holiday curtailment period, and other specific groups of faculty, staff, and student employees. The Council is concerned that this lack of clarity could hinder fair implementation of the plan, will increase burdens on non-represented staff and workers classified as essential, and will exacerbate inequities particularly among women faculty, faculty of color, junior faculty, and lecturers.

In addition, while we would support, in principle, a progressive and flexible approach to addressing financial challenges in a way that minimizes impacts to lower paid employees and that protects jobs, the current plan is not clear or transparent about how it will prevent layoffs. For example, layoffs tend to be predominantly in the auxiliaries (housing, parking, dining, etc.) as a consequence of reduced demand and income, yet auxiliaries cannot be subsidized using core funds, such as money saved from faculty salary cuts. In addition, salary savings on one campus with a small budget gap cannot be used to prevent layoffs on another campus with a large budget gap.

The plan projects salary savings that are modest at best, and do not make a significant impact in addressing the University's budget shortfall. Council found that these potential savings do not outweigh the certain harm to faculty and staff morale and the administrative cost of implementing the program on the campuses and through UC Path. Such unintended consequences seem particularly likely in the current situation of the pandemic, in which many faculty have invested enormous amounts of time and struggled greatly with adapting their teaching to remote instruction and in dealing with the disruption and/or realignment of their research programs and graduate student training. Moreover, many faculty have taken on additional duties because of hiring freezes, often while shouldering caregiver responsibilities at home as we all cope with the difficulties presented by the pandemic.

The proposal is also not informative about non-salary options and strategies for stabilizing revenues the University is considering or may have considered. The Council encourages the University to consider creative alternatives such as borrowing and tapping internal reserves, before turning to furloughs and pay cuts. The joint UCFW-UCPB letter calls on the University to use all free reserve funds, including unrestricted endowment funds, before enacting any pay cuts, and notes that should the crisis magnify to an emergency level next year, a full range of systemwide options, including pay cuts and furloughs, will need to be considered instead of curtailment.

The Council understands that some administrators see the plan as a component of state budget negotiations moving forward. As reviewers make clear, however, campuses have already undertaken painful actions to reduce costs, including hiring freezes and layoffs and cuts to various campus units, including those central to the core teaching and research missions. And, as previously noted, faculty too have made considerable sacrifices- working extra hours to transition to remote instruction and refocusing their research to align with pandemic priorities. These campus-based actions make clear the seriousness with which the University views the current crisis.

Several reviewers also questioned the wisdom of a systemwide approach to curtailment when the financial situation of individual campuses differs widely. These reviewers feel that any systemwide program should provide flexibility for campuses to tailor the program to suit their unique financial needs. However, other reviewers were concerned that allowing campuses to implement curtailment days beyond the five-day minimum would encourage an uneven application across campuses and threaten the unity of the UC system. These issues need careful thought, as I believe we are at a crossroads in thinking about the future of the University: should UC remain a closely unified system or be considered merely a loose collection of campuses?

As I mentioned during your October meeting with Council, the Academic Senate wants to partner closely with the Administration to craft a transparent, comprehensive solution to our current crisis that also positions us well to tackle our longer-term structural issues. I say this both in the spirit of shared governance, and because I know the faculty's expertise and commitment can help the University set a sustainable course. We look forward to working with you.

Thank you for the opportunity to opine. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions.

Sincerely,

Mary Gauvain, Chair
Academic Council


Cc:       Academic Council
Provost Brown
CFO Brostrom
Chief of Staff Kao
Senate Directors
Senate Executive Director Baxter
Encl.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/allsenatemembers/attachments/20201105/2be9d032/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20392 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/allsenatemembers/attachments/20201105/2be9d032/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MG-MD-campus-curtailment-proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 3419098 bytes
Desc: MG-MD-campus-curtailment-proposal.pdf
URL: <https://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/allsenatemembers/attachments/20201105/2be9d032/attachment-0001.pdf>