CSUN University News Clippings

CSU administrators continue ´doublespeak’

(July 31, 2009)

The California State University administration again submitted hypocritical statements this week in a letter opposing SB 217 – legislation to prohibit executive pay raises during bad budget years. While the CSU administration has called for furloughs of faculty and other employees as a cost-savings measure, they claim that cuts to executive pay would cost them over $28 million.

“It is unconscionable that the CSU Chancellor´s office would argue that a freeze on executive pay hikes would cost the University money,” said Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo, the bill´s author. “Unfortunately, the hypocrisy and doublespeak continues at the CSU administration. The CSU seems committed to going down the same egregious path as AIG and other Wall Street corporations by providing for their top executives and hurting everyone else. SB 217 will ensure that top execs are not living high on the hog, while the students and faculty are unfairly suffering.”

Since 2002, top administrators at CSU have received raises in excess of 23 percent.

Two weeks ago, a Superior Court judge ruled that a CSU trustee had a conflict of interest when, as the chief executive officer of a movie-theater company, he cut a deal for his company to build a movie theatre at Fresno State University.

The CSU argued in court that the conflict of interest law did not apply because the deal was made with the CSU Fresno Association, which they argued was a private entity. Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Y. Hamilton Jr. adamantly disagreed. Just days prior to the ruling, a CSU lobbyist – in testifying against a bill (SB 218-Yee) to require such foundations to adhere to the Public Records Act – gave a contradictory response, stating that CSU foundations and auxiliary organizations adhere to state conflict of interest laws.

Last month, it was also unveiled that a Sonoma State University foundation used donated funds to provide huge personal loans to cronies of foundation board members, some of which may never be recovered.

In defending the loans, Sonoma State University President Ruben Armiñana recently told the Santa Rosa Press Democrat newspaper that SB 218 would potentially hurt donors who want to stay anonymous.

“Mr. Armiñana either did not read the bill or simply read from the Chancellor´s false talking points,” said Yee. “The bill specifically allows for anonymous donors, provided there is not a quid pro quo relationship. In those situations, the public clearly deserves to know.”

In 2001, the Fresno Bee newspaper was denied information regarding a quid pro quo situation at Fresno State University. The newspaper was denied documents concerning the identity of individuals and companies that purchased luxury suites at the Save Mart Center arena. The denial resulted in CSU v. Superior Court (McClatchy Company), in which the Court opined that although it recognized university auxiliaries ought to be covered by the CPRA and that its ruling was counter to the obvious legislative intent of the CPRA, the rewriting of the statute was a legislative responsibility.

According to the CSU Chancellor´s office, 20 percent of its $6.7 billion budget, or $1.34 billion, is held in auxiliaries and foundations and out of public view.

“It is imperative that we pass SB 218 to stop the CSU from evading the public records act by simply shifting responsibilities to foundations and other auxiliary organizations,” said Yee. “Taxpayers and students deserve to know how their public universities are run. SB 218 will ensure that our public higher education systems operate in the light of day and are held accountable.”

Publication: California Chronicle