Monthly Archives: February 2017

New LAO report on Gov’s higher ed budget proposal

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has just issued the following report:

The 2017-18 Budget: Higher Education Analysis
In this report, we analyze the Governor’s higher education budget proposals. Though we think some of these proposals are reasonable and recommend the Legislature approve them, we recommend rejecting others and requesting additional information in a few cases. Below, we highlight a few of these recommendations.
We recommend the Legislature consider providing base increases for the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges (CCC), as such increases would help the segments address certain cost increases, including salary, health care, and pension cost increases. Were it to support university cost increases beyond those that could be covered using the Governor’s proposed augmentations, the Legislature may want to consider tuition increases linked to anticipated inflation in 2017-18.
We caution against augmenting funding for some other proposals coming from either the administration or the segments—including UC’s Academic Excellence initiative, CSU’s Graduation Initiative, and CCC’s Innovation Awards—as they lack sufficient justification at this time. Instead, we recommend improving implementation of existing student support programs before expanding these initiatives.
We think a few proposals, such as the CCC guided pathways and CCC Chancellor’s Office staffing proposals, lack sufficient detail. We recommend the Legislature ask the administration to provide certain additional information about these proposals during spring budget hearings.
We discuss these recommendations as well as many others, including ones involving Hastings College of the Law, Cal Grants, and Middle Class Scholarships, in our report, which may be accessed using the following link: http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3559

If you’re looking for the CSU part. Here it is:

California State University

In this section, we provide an overview of the Governor’s proposed budget for CSU, describe CSU’s proposed spending plan, and assess key components of that plan.

Overview

CSU’s Budget Proposed to Reach $10 Billion From All Sources in 2017‑18. As Figure 15 shows, CSU’s budget would increase by $182 million (1.8 percent) over revised 2016‑17 levels. Of total CSU funding, about two‑thirds ($6.7 billion in 2017‑18) comes from core funds—a combination of state General Fund, state lottery, and student tuition and fee revenue. These three fund sources, which would increase by a combined $126 million (1.9 percent) in the budget year, supporting CSU’s core mission of providing undergraduate and graduate education. CSU also receives federal funds and operates various campus enterprises, such as student dormitories and parking facilities. The remainder of CSU’s revenues ($3.3 billion in 2017‑18) mostly supports these other operations.

Figure 15

California State University Funding by Source

(Dollars in Millions)

2015‑16 Actual 2016‑17 Revised 2017‑18 Proposed Change From 2016‑17
Amount Percent
Core Funds
General Fund
Ongoing a $3,271 $3,479 $3,714 $235 6.8%
One time 5 110 1 ‑109 ‑99
Subtotals ($3,276) ($3,589) ($3,715) ($126) (3.5%)
Lottery $58 $55 $55 — —
Tuition and feesb 3,022 2,963 2,963 — —
Subtotals, Core Funds ($6,357) ($6,607) ($6,733) ($126) (1.9%)
Other Funds
Federal funds $1,256 $1,385 $1,385 — —
Other CSU fundsc 2,104 1,844 1,899 $55 3.0%
Subtotals ($3,360) ($3,228) ($3,284) ($55) (1.7%)
Totals $9,717 $9,835 $10,017 $182 1.8%
a Includes CSU debt service on general obligation and lease‑revenue bonds and funds for pensions and retiree health benefits.

bIncludes funds that CSU uses to provide tuition discounts and waivers to certain students. In 2017‑18, CSU plans to provide $662 million in such aid.

cIncludes funds such as housing fees, parking fees, and extended education charges.

Governor’s Budget Proposes $3.7 Billion in General Fund Support for CSU. Under the Governor’s budget, ongoing General Fund support for CSU would increase by $235 million (6.8 percent) over 2016‑17 levels. This increase is offset by $109 million in expiring one‑time funds provided to CSU in 2016‑17. Altogether, General Fund support for CSU would increase a net of $126 million (3.5 percent).

Most of CSU’s General Fund Augmentation Unrestricted. Figure 16 details General Fund changes for CSU under the Governor’s budget. As the figure shows, the Governor proposes a $157 million ongoing unrestricted increase. This funding is a continuation of the Governor’s original long‑term plan for the universities, which since 2013‑14 has sought to provide annual unallocated base increases. In addition, the Governor’s budget provides a total of $78 million in earmarked augmentations. Specifically, the budget proposes (1) $50 million for increased pension costs, (2) $23 million for higher retiree health care costs, and (3) $5 million for higher lease‑revenue debt service for previously approved capital projects. (In an effort to encourage CSU to consider pension costs as part of its new hiring and salary decisions, the state changed how it budgeted for CSU pension costs a few years ago. Under the new policy, the state provides direct funding for CSU’s pension costs attributed to its 2013‑14 payroll level, but CSU is responsible for funding any additional pension costs using its unrestricted funds.) The Governor’s budget does not directly fund enrollment growth.

Figure 16

2017‑18 California State University General Fund Changes

(In Millions)

2016‑17 Revised Funding $3,589
Unrestricted base increases:
   Funding per Governor’s original long‑term plan $131
   Redirected savings from Middle Class Scholarship modifications 26
Subtotal ($157)a
Pension adjustment $50
Retiree health benefits adjustment 23
Lease‑revenue bond debt service adjustment 5
Remove one‑time funding provided in prior year ‑87
Other adjustments ‑21
Total Changes $126
2017‑18 Proposed Funding $3,715
aCSU indicates that it would use these funds to cover recently ratified bargaining agreements ($139 million) and various other cost increases ($18 million).

Governor’s Budget Does Not Assume Tuition Revenue Increases. The Governor’s budget assumes that CSU does not raise its tuition charges. Unlike recent years, however, the Governor does not condition his proposed General Fund increases on CSU holding resident tuition levels flat.

CSU’s Spending Plan

CSU Proposes to Spend the Vast Majority of Its Unrestricted Base Increase on Compensation Commitments. Of the $157 million unrestricted base increase proposed by the Governor for 2017‑18, CSU indicates that it intends to spend $139 million (88 percent) for collective bargaining agreements ratified by the CSU Board of Trustees in spring 2016. CSU indicates that the remaining $18 million would fund basic cost increases, such as higher medical and dental premiums for current employees and additional pension costs (on payroll exceeding the 2013‑14 level).

CSU Proposes to Support 12 Previously Approved Capital Projects. CSU’s 2017‑18 capital outlay request includes 27 projects totaling $1.6 billion. Of these 27 projects, 17 were previously approved by the state (virtually all of them as part of the 2016‑17 budget process) but have not yet been funded by CSU. The other ten requests are new submissions. At its November 2016 meeting, the Board of Trustees approved a multi‑year plan for CSU to finance up to $1 billion of the $1.6 billion in submitted capital projects using university revenue bonds. Using this bond authority, the Chancellor’s Office would fund 12 of the previously approved capital projects. The associated annual debt service is estimated to be about $50 million.

CSU Proposes Using Existing Funds for Projects. CSU indicates it would support this associated debt service using existing core funds. This is possible because a like amount of monies were “freed up” from expiring debt from former projects as well as restructuring of outstanding State Public Works Board debt. (Under recent changes in state law, CSU is permitted to pledge its General Fund main appropriation—excluding the amounts necessary to repay existing debt service—to issue its own debt for capital outlay projects involving academic facilities.) The CSU estimates that the first $200 million in CSU revenue bond proceeds would provide $35 million for new facility space at CSU Monterey Bay as well as $165 million for building replacements and renovations to facilities and infrastructure at most campuses in the system.

CSU Indicates It Would Not Be Able to Fund Several Other Priorities Under Governor’s Budget. Due to the size of the employee contract costs that CSU is committed to funding in 2017‑18, CSU indicates that the augmentation provided in the Governor’s budget is insufficient to address other budget priorities. These priorities include enrollment growth, additional targeted funding for the segment’s Graduation Initiative, and a compensation pool for represented employee groups that have open contracts in 2017‑18 (as well as nonrepresented employees, such as administrative managers).

CSU Considering a Tuition Hike to Boost Funding Primarily for Graduation Initiative. Given that CSU believes the funding included in the Governor’s Budget is insufficient to address all of its budget priorities, CSU is considering a tuition increase. Under the proposal discussed by the Board of Trustees at its January meeting, tuition for resident undergraduates would increase by 4.9 percent. Tuition for nonresidents and resident graduate students would increase by about 6.5 percent. The proposed increase would generate $78 million in additional net revenue, which CSU officials have indicated would be used primarily to augment funding for the Graduation Initiative. The Board of Trustees likely will vote on the tuition proposal at its March 2017 meeting.

Assessment

CSU’s Spending Plan Raises Several Issues for the Legislature. We think the Governor’s funding plan and CSU’s spending plan is a mixed bag, with some components more warranted than other components. Below, we provide our assessment of several key budget components—compensation, enrollment growth, and the Graduation Initiative. In the final part of this section, we consider the trade‑offs between additional state funding increases and student tuition increases.

Compensation

Compensation Is the Largest Component of CSU’s Core Budget. Like other departments and agencies, salaries and benefits make up a significant share of CSU’s core budget (more than 80 percent). As noted earlier, compensation also accounts for the largest augmentation in CSU’s spending plan, with almost all unrestricted state General Fund allocated for compensation increases. The Legislature has several compensation‑related issues to consider.

Board of Trustees, Not the Legislature, Approves CSU Collective Bargaining Agreements. For most departments and agencies in the state, the California Department of Human Resources represents the Governor in labor negotiations between the state and its employees. The resulting agreements must be ratified by the Legislature before going into effect and the state directly funds the associated costs of the agreements. In the case of CSU, state law gives the Board of Trustees authority to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. The Chancellor’s Office represents the Trustees during these negotiations and the resulting agreements must be ratified by the Trustees before going into effect. The Trustees are expected to manage these agreements within CSU’s overall budget.

Trustees Recently Approved Sizeable Collective Bargaining Agreements. The CSU system has 13 represented employee groups. The largest group is the California Faculty Association (CFA), which represents more than 25,000 CSU faculty, librarians, counselors, and coaches. After extensive negotiations with CFA (and a near‑strike by union members), in spring 2016 the Trustees ratified a multiyear contract. Under the agreement, all faculty unit employees receive a cumulative 10.8 percent general salary increase effectively over a two‑year period and eligible faculty unit employees receive an additional 2.7 percent increase in 2017‑18. Ratification of the CFA contract triggered revised agreements with several other CSU bargaining units, which resulted in general salary increases for those members. Altogether, the Chancellor’s Office estimates these new contracts will cost CSU an additional $139 million in 2017‑18.

Virtually All Other CSU Bargaining Units Have Open Contracts in 2017‑18. With a few exceptions, CSU’s contracts with its other represented employee groups expire at the end of 2016‑17. The Chancellor’s Office has expressed a desire to provide funds for 2017‑18 to support a compensation pool for these represented groups, as well as nonrepresented employees. The Chancellor’s Office calculates that every 1 percent increase for such a compensation pool would cost $18 million. Were the Legislature to want compensation to keep pace with inflation year over year, it might consider increases between 1 percent and 3 percent. (In 2017‑18, the state and local government price index is expected to increase 1.1 percent, whereas the California Consumer Price Index is expected to increase by 3 percent.) Were CSU to increase tuition levels in 2017‑18, some or all of the resulting revenue could be dedicated to the desired level of compensation increases.

Enrollment Growth

CSU on Track to Meet Enrollment Target for 2016‑17. The 2016‑17 Budget Act sets an expectation for CSU to increase resident enrollment by 1.4 percent (an additional 5,194 FTE students) over 2015‑16. Based on preliminary enrollment data provided by CSU, campuses appear to be on track to meeting this target, with fall 2016 FTE student enrollment about 1.3 percent higher than the previous fall.

Several Factors for Legislature to Consider in Deciding Whether to Grow Transfer Enrollment in 2017‑18. The past several years CSU has reported denying admission to some eligible transfer students. Given this development, together with statute that requires CSU campuses to prioritize eligible transfer applicants over freshman applicants, the Legislature may want to consider targeting enrollment growth funding for transfer students in 2017‑18. Every 1 percent growth in transfer enrollment would result in about 3,600 more FTE students—for a total cost of $38 million ($20 million state General Fund and $18 million in tuition revenue generated by the additional students).

Could Withhold Decision on Freshman Enrollment Growth Until May. Existing data suggests CSU is drawing from beyond its freshman eligibility pool. Given that a freshman eligibility study is currently underway and that CSU must report by March 2017 on recommended budget or policy changes to produce more bachelor’s degrees, the Legislature may wish to wait until the May Revision before deciding on enrollment growth funding for freshmen. Regarding potential changes to its policy on the size of CSU’s freshman eligibility pool, we encourage the Legislature to take time to explore the potential consequences of any specific proposal. Any change to this pool would have significant fiscal and programmatic implications moving forward not only for CSU but also CCC, UC, and the state.

Graduation Initiative

CSU Has Set Ambitious Performance Targets. As noted earlier, the state and CSU currently are funding a Graduation Initiative. The goals of this initiative, which was originally launched by the Chancellor’s Office in 2009, are to boost graduation rates for freshmen and transfer students as well as eliminate achievement gaps for low‑income and other traditionally underrepresented students. For example, CSU seeks to more than double its four‑year graduation rate (for all entering freshmen) between now and 2025, moving from its current rate of 19 percent to 40 percent.

CSU Implementing Various Improvement Strategies as Part of Graduation Initiative. These strategies include hiring more faculty and increasing the faculty‑to‑student ratio, encouraging faculty to adopt new instructional methods, and providing enhanced student support services such as tutoring and advising. CSU reports spending $48 million in base funds on these Graduation Initiative strategies. CSU maintains it will need additional resources to carry out campus plans and achieve the segment’s performance goals. CSU has not undertaken a systematic evaluation to assess the impact each of these strategies is having on its graduation rates.

CSU Has Much More Work to Do on Rethinking Assessment and Placement Policies. Though the above strategies may be helping more students graduate and graduate on time, we believe CSU could be doing more to promote better student outcomes. Specifically, we think CSU could improve its assessment and placement policies. Currently, CSU primarily uses placement tests to assess college readiness. Based on these test results, CSU deems more than 40 percent of its admitted freshmen as unprepared for college‑level math, English, or both. Students who do not demonstrate college‑level skills are required to enroll in remedial coursework. National research has shown that relying solely on placement tests routinely results in college‑ready students being misplaced into remedial courses, which, in turn, increases education costs for them and the state while also reducing their chances of graduating on time. (Data from the Community College Research Center and CCC system reinforce these findings, with their data indicating about 30 percent of incoming community college students are put into remedial courses based on placement test results when they could have succeeded in college‑level coursework.) A growing amount of research is finding that a better way to assess college readiness is to use multiple measures (including data from students’ high school records) to place students.

Secondary Assessments Are Exacerbating Inefficiencies. Additionally, a number of CSU campuses currently have policies requiring even students who are deemed college ready in math to take a second diagnostic (department) test in order to enroll in many lower‑division math courses (such as calculus and college‑level algebra). Students who fail to obtain a specified cut score on these department exams may be required to enroll in precollegiate‑level courses (such as intermediate algebra), thereby delaying their progress toward a degree. These secondary diagnostic tests also are at odds with national research on effective ways to identify students who are capable of success in college‑level coursework.

CSU Also Continues to Have Problem With Students Taking Excess Units. CSU continues to have a problem with excess unit‑taking by both freshman entrants and transfer students. Students who accrue more units that their degree requires generally take longer to graduate, generate higher costs for the state and themselves, and crowd out other students. Based on the experience of other institutions, a number of causes may be contributing to CSU’s high rate of excess units, including unclear degree pathways for students and uneven articulation of lower‑division transfer courses between community colleges and CSU. Were CSU to reduce excess course‑taking, it could increase the availability of required courses within existing resources.

Recommend CSU Implement Other Strategies Before Augmenting Funding for Graduation Initiative. To date, CSU has made progress on improving student outcomes. We believe CSU would make even more progress were it to modify its assessment methods and placement policies as well as address the issue of excess units. To this end, we recommend the Legislature direct CSU to study these issues in more depth and, based on its findings, implement new policies using existing Graduation Initiative monies and other system resources. So that the Legislature is kept apprised of CSU’s activities, we recommend the Legislature require the segment to report by January 1, 2018 on (1) its plans to put in place research‑based methods for assessment and placement, as well as (2) opportunities for campuses to make available more course slots by reducing the number of excess units that students earn. Given these opportunities for further reform and given the many other competing cost pressures facing CSU in the budget year, the Legislature may wish to place a lower priority on providing additional funding for the Graduation Initiative in 2017‑18.

Weighing State Funding Increases With Tuition Increases

Legislature Has Key Choices to Make on CSU’s Budget. Each year, the Legislature fundamentally decides: (1) which costs to fund and (2) how these costs should be shared between students (and their families) and the state. In some years, the Legislature has decided to cover all CSU spending increases using state General Fund, holding student tuition levels flat. Other years, both General Fund support and tuition levels have increased to cover cost increases. (In still other years, state support has declined, with tuition levels rising to cover costs.)

CSU Facing Four Notable Cost Pressures. Most notably, CSU faces the pressure to fund the collective bargaining agreements already ratified by the Board of Trustees last spring. It also faces pressure to cover basic cost increases (for example, health care and pension cost increases). Given that CSU continues to report denying admission to eligible transfer students, another notable cost pressure is funding enrollment growth for transfer students. Given recent compensation increases for faculty, pressure also exists to provide some compensation increases for other employee groups with open contracts in 2017‑18.

Various Ways to Share Costs Between General Fund and Students. Were the Legislature to approve the General Fund level proposed by the Governor, CSU asserts that it would be able to cover the costs of the previously ratified collective bargaining agreements and basic cost increases (such as higher health care premiums). A tuition increase could provide funds for its other priorities. While CSU resident tuition charges have been flat for the past six years, a 5 percent increase might be considered high for one year. In addition, a 5 percent increase in 2017‑18 would be notably higher than anticipated inflation. If the Legislature were to consider tuition increases, we suggest it signal to CSU that a more modest rate increase would be acceptable. Based on our calculations, a 2.5 percent increase in tuition charges would generate net revenue of roughly $38 million. These funds, in turn, would be sufficient to support (1) 1 percent enrollment growth for eligible transfer students and (2) a 1 percent compensation pool for bargaining groups with expiring contracts in 2016‑17. If the Legislature wished to support even higher levels of enrollment growth or employee compensation (that is, more than 1 percent increases), the Legislature could increase General Fund appropriations for CSU above the Governor’s proposed level or permit CSU to raise tuition along the lines of what the Chancellor’s Office is proposing.

 

President Harrison’s Op-Ed: On sexual assault prevention, a message to Devos from universities

Kudos to President Harrison for this LA Daily News editorial pressing Secretary DeVos on campus sexual assault policy:

With the confirmation of new Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who has not yet stated her support for the 2011 Title IX language about the role of colleges and universities to prevent sexual assaults, it is more important than ever for all institutions of higher education to send a clear signal to Washington, D.C., that we will not and cannot retreat from the progress made in combating sexual violence on our campuses.

In recent years, universities and colleges across the country have adopted new measures to tackle the issue of sexual assault. At California State University, Northridge, we have taken a comprehensive and holistic approach to address campus sexual assault to be responsive to the needs of our diverse community. This is not something from which we or any campus should retreat, no matter what the U.S. Department of Education under the new administration may propose.

I am pleased with the legislative support and spotlight placed on the rights and protections for victims of sexual assault in recent years. Even with these gains, sexual assault remains grossly underreported on a national scale. Those who have been the target of sexual assault or sexual misconduct deserve support…..

Read the whole thing: http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20170216/on-sexual-assault-prevention-a-message-to-devos-from-universities-guest-commentary

 

AAUP resources

For those interested, this is from a recent AAUP email which was forwarded to me from several sources

Here’s what the AAUP is doing to protect academic freedom and tenure across the country:

  • We’ll be holding a webinar on February 28 entitled Academic Freedom in the Age of Trump. It will provide an overview of the concept of academic freedom, describe recent attacks on it, and tell you how to defend it. RSVP here (you’ll need to login with your member credentials).

  • We’ve released a statement on the targeted online harassment of faculty, addressing increasing concerns about efforts to intimidate and harass faculty. Read that here.

  • We’ve also created an FAQ with the American Federation of Teachers addressing frequently asked questions about discussing the 2016 election in the classroom, responding to intimidation and threats, and other issues. Here is the FAQ.

Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities Annual Conference CFP

CSUN is a member of this organization.

Submit your proposal for the 2017 CUMU Annual Conference: The Urban Advantage, in Denver, Colorado. We invite presentations that encourage in-depth, meaningful conversations around the challenges and opportunities facing our collective communities. The submission deadline is April 21, 2017.

This year, new formats—a blend of short presentations and deep-dive discussions—have been added to allow attendees to ‘dig in’ and connect on common themes.

  • Best Practices Presentation: Presenters will showcase their work and/or methodologies; highlight what worked; and present positive outcomes in our traditional presentation format.
  • Lightning Sessions: In five minutes, presenters will inspire attendees to learn more about a topic in a quick, engaging, inspirational, and most importantly, fun way.
  • Panel Presentation: A group of panelists with diverse view points and perspectives will create a question and answer dialogue around a topic.
  • Mini Workshop: In these how-to-sessions, presenters will create a focused, interactive session that engages attendees on new processes, infrastructure, or policy approaches.
  • Think Tank Sessions: One presenter will lead a discussion around a hot topic and issues facing our campuses and communities. These are not about defining solutions, but rather problems, ideas, or practices that keep you up at night.
  • Poster Sessions: This is a great opportunity to gain significant attention for your work in a more social atmosphere.
Learn more about the new formats and submit your proposal.

 

LAO report: Debt free college

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has issued the following report:

Creating a Debt Free College Program
The Supplemental Report of the 2016-17 Budget Act directs our office to estimate the cost of a new state financial aid program intended to eliminate the need for students to take on college debt. The reporting language envisions a program under which the state covers all remaining college costs (tuition and living expenses) after taking into account available federal grants, an expected parent contribution, and an expected student contribution from work earnings.

We estimate such a program for resident undergraduate students attending public colleges in California would cost $3.3 billion annually. Of this amount, $2.2 billion is for California Community College (CCC) students, $800 million is for California State University students, and $300 million is for University of California students. These amounts are on top of all existing gift aid. The cost varies by segment primarily due to differences in the number of students they serve, as well as some variation in current levels of gift aid per student. Adding certain eligibility requirements to the program could reduce these costs notably. For instance, excluding part-time students or assuming a higher work expectation from such students could decrease CCC program costs by $1.6 billion.

The new program likely would reduce but not eliminate student loan debt. This is because some students might prefer to borrow instead of working, some might borrow if they experience difficulty finding employment, and some might borrow if their parents fail to provide their full contribution. Additionally, the new program could create behavioral changes not factored into our estimate. For instance, students living at home might choose to live off campus due to the increased state support.

This report is available using the following link: http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3540?utm_source=subscription

 

10 Ways to Support Students Facing Immigration Crises

This article from Inside Higher Ed looks helpful:

10 Ways to Support Students Facing Immigration Crises
Anita Casavantes Bradford, Laura E. Enriquez and Susan Bibler Coutin offer advice to faculty members and administrators.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2017/01/31/how-faculty-members-and-administrators-can-help-immigrant-students-essay

IASP Global year against post-surgical pain

I’m really stretching the boundaries of the purpose of the blog with this one, so my apologies to those uninterested….

One of the professional organizations I belong to (the International Association for the Study of Pain) has been choosing a theme for each of the past several years. In conjunction with that theme, they release a whole bunch of free materials which often turn out to be useful and generally accessible to non-specialists. This year, the topic is post-surgical pain. I thought some of you might be interested in the current best practices and open issues. Here’s the main website: http://www.iasp-pain.org/globalyear

You can find materials from past year’s themes at the above site. Here are the fact sheets for this year:

Fact Sheets on Pain After Surgery

Below are 14 Fact Sheets prepared by the world’s top experts on various aspects of postsurgical pain. IASP thanks the scientists and clinicians who wrote and reviewed the Fact Sheets and members of the SIG on Acute Pain for their valuable contributions. The documents, edited by task force chairs Daniel B. Carr and Bart Morlion, are free to download.

  1. What the Public Should Know About Pain After Surgery
  2. What Health-Care Professionals Should Know About Pain After Surgery
  3. Pathophysiology of Acute Postoperative Pain
  4. Chronic Postsurgical Pain: Definition and Impact
  5. Management of Postsurgical Pain in Adults: Pharmacotherapy and Regional Anesthesia
  6. Behavioral Techniques including Hypnosis for Pain After Surgery
  7. Management of Postsurgical Pain in Children
  8. Management of Postsurgical Pain in Older Adults
  9. Management of Postsurgical Pain in Patients Treated Preoperatively with Opioids
  10. Management of Pain Related to Surgery and Procedures in Patients with Known or Suspected Cancer
  11. Pain Management in Critical Care
  12. Acupuncture for Acute Pain and Nausea After Surgery
  13. Management of Patients First Presenting with Chronic Pain After Surgery
  14. Using Outcomes to Improve Care: Real-Time, Short-Term, and Long-Term

LAO report on volatility of CA personal income tax base

The Legislative Analyst’s Office has just issued the following report:

Volatility of the Personal Income Tax Base
From 1990 to 2014, personal income in California grew fairly consistently, with limited volatility. On the other hand, California’s personal income tax (PIT) base was much more volatile. This is because (1) some of the more stable pieces of personal income are not taxed under California’s PIT and (2) the PIT tax base includes capital gains, which are extremely volatile and are not counted as part of personal income in federal statistics. This brief examines the volatility of the PIT tax base, one important element of the PIT’s overall volatility in California. (This brief does not focus on other reasons for PIT volatility, such as California’s PIT rate structure, in which high-income Californians pay a bigger fraction of their income than lower- and middle-income Californians.)

This report is available using the following link: http://lao.ca.gov/publications/report/3548?utm_source=subscription

Remember that the CSU does not have guaranteed funding (ala K-12 et al under Prop 98). Thus volatility in the California budget means volatility in the CSU budget.

 

Systemwide webinar (14 Feb): Faculty Proposal Development

This webinar on writing grant proposals is officially intended for new faculty. But I am told it is open to all interested faculty. Apologies for the weird formatting and other copy-paste artifacts…..

To: New CSU Faculty
From: Research, Office of the Chancellor / Dr. Ganesh Raman RE: Faculty Proposal Development Webinar

“Faculty Proposal Development Webinar”

Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Presentation: 9 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.
(Lobby / Phone Line opens 10 minutes prior to live session)

Presented by Research, Dr. Ganesh Raman

Guest Speaker – Dr. Richard Ziegfeld

Two CSU Faculty Panels: Federal Grants Awarded and Selection Committees Served

TOPICS

  • Developing a Strategic Plan for Your Research
  • Proposal Process Best Practices
  • What Evaluators Want and Characteristics of Winning Proposals
  • CSU5 Campus Faculty Panels: Federal Grants Awarded and Selection Committees Served

WEBCAST LINK

No registration is needed. Join at this link: http://coconnect.calstate.edu/proposaldevelopment

AUDIO
Simply login and stream the audio via your computer speakers. Communicate with the host & presenters by typing into the on- screen Chat Pods.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?

Contact Jennifer Wicks, Executive Producer, Systemwide Professional Development at (562) 951-4525 or jwicks@calstate.edu. Feel free to contact Jennifer to pre-test, making sure your computer is webcast ready, 2 days prior to the live webcast.

Webcast Produced by Systemwide Professional Development http://SPD.calstate.edu

 

CFA Report: Equity Interrupted

 

In case you haven’t seen it yet, CFA has released a new report. Here’s where to find it:

As you may know,  the California Faculty Association is issuing a series of reports analyzing research and findings related to issues impacting the students, faculty, and staff of the California State University system. First in this series is “Equity, Interrupted: How California is Cheating Its Future.”

Read the report:
http://www.calfac.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/equity_interrupted_1.12.2017.pdf

News items on ‘Equity, Interrupted.’
http://www.calfac.org/pod/equity-interrupted-news

Related stories from across the nation.
http://www.calfac.org/pod/race-class-and-college-affordability

Board of Trustees Highlights

Prof. Catherine Nelson, the inimitable vice-chair of the statewide senate has compiled the following brief summary of the highlights of the Jan/Feb 2017 Board of Trustees for statewide senators. I’m thus happy to share this with you:

A few highlights of the Trustees meeting.  Underlying themes included the Graduation Initiative and integral to it hiring more faculty, hiring more advisors and providing more classes so students graduate in a timely manner; and student opposition to the “Tuition Adjustment Proposal” (as one student said, “call it what it is, an increase”). The full Trustees Agenda is available at:

https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees/Pages/agenda.aspx
Tuesday, 1/31/17

Committee on Collective Bargaining

In the public comment section several union representatives spoke about compensation, the need to value duration of service for the institutional memory it provides, career advancement, and the need for a systemwide policy about the time, place and manner of expression that protects union activity and provides for an appeal process for administrative decisions made under the policy.  Successor CBAs with units 2, 5, 7 and 9 were approved (CSUEU, SEIU Local 2579).

Committee on Finance

There was extensive discussion of the CSU 2017-18 support budget request and the “tuition adjustment proposal.” The CSU Administration reported that the governor’s budget proposes a recurring augmentation of $157.2 m of state general fund monies.  That amount is $167.7 less than the trustees’ support budget request of $324.9m.  The governor also proposed phasing out the Middle Class Scholarship Program (http://www.csac.ca.gov/mcs.asp).  Given that the Department of Finance has not forecast an economic downturn, the Administration suggested it is reasonable to argue that the additional reserve funds Governor Brown wants can go to other purposes.  Board discussion included whether financial aid would cover the increase and for whom, the need to fund mandatory costs and the Graduation Initiative, the fact that even with the tuition increase funding for the CSU would still fall $90.2m short of the full support budget request, and the possibility that if the Trustees approve the increase in March, they could revise it during the summer if more funding is forthcoming from the state.

During the committee’s public comment period, students spoke movingly about the need for sanctuary campuses and talked about the direct, negative impact the tuition increase would have on them.  Themes included educational costs, working two or more jobs, student homelessness and food insecurity, and the state legislature’s responsibility to fund public higher education.  Jen Eagan, CFA President, introduced the CFA’s report “Equity, Interrupted:  How California is Cheating It’s Future” that documents the state’s disinvestment in higher education (report available at http://www.calfac.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/equity_interrupted_1.12.2017.pdf ). In particular the authors find that as the number of students of color has increased, public funding for the CSU has decreased. During Board discussion of the increase, Trustees Morales, White, Abrego and Norton expressed varying degrees of opposition, concern or ambivalence about the increase.

Wang Family Excellence Awards 2017

 https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/faculty-staff/wang-award/Pages/default.aspx

  1. Dr. Debra Y. Griffith, SJSU, Outstanding Administrator
  2. Dr. Mariappan Jawaharlal, Cal Poly Pomona, Outstanding Faculty, Natural Sciences, Mathematical and Computer Sciences and Engineering;
  3. Dr. Anita Silvers, SFSU, Outstanding Faculty, Visual and Performing Arts and Letters
  4. Dr. Keith A. Trujillo, CSUSM, Outstanding Faculty, Social and Behavioral Sciences and Public Services;
  5. Dr. Ruth H. Yopp-Edwards, CSU Fullerton, Outstanding Faculty, Education and Professional and Applied Sciences.

Wednesday, 2/1/17

ASCSU Chair Miller’s Report

Using the theme of a meme of a meme about celebrity deaths to frame her report, Chair Miller reported on AS 3282 Opposition to the Proposed Tuition Increase in the California State University (CSU); AS 3281 Advice to the CSU Tenure Density Task Force.AS 3276 Academic Freedom Policy; AS 3274 Support for the CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning (ITL) Summer Institute; AS 3279 Support for the Letter to President Trump from the Leaders of California’s Systems of Higher Education ant the Continuance of DACA; AS 3280 Opposition to the Appointment of Betsy DeVos as US Secretary of Education; and AS 3277 Lactation Resource Policy and Practices in the California State University.  Chair Miller summarized issues addressed by resolutions in first reading including job security for contingent workers, tax reform and funding the Master Plan, and support for DACA students. She discussed progress on establishing the GE Task Force and expressed concern that the Chancellor’s Office was not open to ASCSU recommendations on how best to implement the Quantitative Reasoning Task Force’s recommendations.  She also reminded everyone about the Academic Conference on February 9-10.

CSSA

CSSA President David Lopez (CSU East Bay) highlighted CSSA opposition to the tuition increase and their advocacy plan to oppose it.  Two major themes were the need for the state to understand that the CSU is a public institution and should be funded by the state and the need for a sustainable funding model that doesn’t include a tuition increase but relies on state funding.

Chancellor White’s State of the CSU Address

As of this writing the video of the address or print were not available on the CSU website.  When it is posted, it should be available at: https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/chancellor/the-chancellors-communications/Pages/chancellors-communications.aspx

 

Black History Month Celebration

I tried sending this to everyone the other day, but the attachment caused it to bounce from some of the subsidiary listserves.

Here’s the Event schedule (the link is to a file in a public Box folder, fingers crossed it works.)

Here’s the email announcement from Chair Theresa White:

Greetings,

Please join us as we celebrate Black History Month. See attached calendar. Our theme this year is: Africana Studies 360º – Black Synergy.

Please consider offering extra credit to your students to incentivize attendance. Help us spread the word!

I look forward to seeing you!

Warm regards,

Dr. Theresa White

I hope to see you at many of these events.

BOT meeting

If you want to watch the forces which shape the CSU in action, I bring you the Board of Trustees Jan 31-Feb 1 meeting livestream: https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees/Pages/livestream.aspx

If you are not used to this level of excitement, I recommend titrating up by starting with having it on in the background while you work. To deal with the random moments of terror that come with realizing how little our trustees understand about the CSU and its students, just think of it as a slowly plotted horror film.

Here’s the full agenda in pdf: https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/board-of-trustees/past-meetings/2017/Documents/january-31-2017-full-agenda.pdf

Pro tip: Don’t try reading the agenda unless you have insomnia. Use your pdf reader’s find function to search for terms of interest. I usually start with CSUN related stuff (e.g., ‘CSUN’, ‘Northridge’, ‘Harrison’) and then check in on things like GE, fees, and other more parochial matters.

I’d also recommend glancing at the items where the BOT approves settlements of lawsuits. It fosters a sense of empathy for our colleagues in risk management and provides insight into the landscape our administrators see themselves as navigating.

About this blog

As Faculty President, it feels like I am on virtually every campus committee. I also spend a good amount of time at the Chancellor’s Office.

I consequently come across a lot of, well, stuff that many CSUN faculty members will be interested in. But I can’t justify sending the vast majority of it via the all faculty email list. This blog will fill the gap.

I will use it to post, inter alia:

  • Campus and system-wide news and announcements.
  • Written reports and presentations received by the Senate on behalf of the Faculty.
  • Notices of events, grants, and other things which happen on particular future dates (beware: philosopher)

More speculatively, I might also post:

  • My own explanations of weird but important CSUN minutia (e.g., The Dysfunctional Relationship of the Faculty Bylaws to Department Handbooks or the Mystery of What’s in Sections 100-500). I’ve spent a lot of time figuring some of this stuff out. I figure I might as well share it…..
  • My own interpretations of state-level events, trends, strategies, or issues.
  • My own views on system or university matters. (I do not intend to do much of this)

When I am doing more than just reporting, I will try to clearly demarcate when I am speculating and when I am opining. Obviously, those are blurry lines, so, as in all things, caveat lector.

Finally, the title of the blog reflects the role of its author. That said, everything I write and post here is in my capacity as an individual faculty member. I speak only for myself and not for any of the bodies I am affiliated with or serve in.

Resolutions of the Senate or Faculty are the only official voice of the Faculty. Nothing else herein should be taken as the position or as reflecting the views of the Faculty, CSUN, the ASCSU, or the CSU.