CAMPUSES IN CRISIS: SAVE OUR CLASSES / PROTECT INSTRUCTION

CAMPUSES IN CRISIS: SAVE OUR CLASSES / PROTECT INSTRUCTION Save Our Classes: Enforce the Supplemental Report Language Protect Campus Diversity: Reject the Connerly Information Ban (Prop 54) ProtectHigher Education Funding: Reject the Recall Stopthe Budget Gridlock: Support the Budget Accountability Act

Supplemental (Budget) Report Language The CFA and CSU recently agreed to Supplemental Report Language (SRL) to the 2003/04 budget..

The SRL Agreement says, "The CSU will give priority to funding core classroom instructional needs, student services, and libraries."

The SRL agreement goes on to say that the CSU shall: 1. “Ensure that budget reductions are apportioned to mitigate their impact on the quality and availability of CSU class offerings, student services and libraries.”

SRL: the CSU shall: 2. "Use alternative funding sources, to the extent permissible under law, to help mitigate the impact of budget reductions on students, faculty and staff.”

SRL the CSU shall: • “Reduce administrative costs, while at the same time maintaining sufficient resources necessary for the campuses and system to operate efficiently, serve students effectively, manage the CSU system and remain accountable to the state.”

SRL: the CSU shall: 4. "Defer expenses in 2003-04 for implementation of the Common Management System (CMS) on campuses proposing new start-up projects, where feasible."

SRL CSU officials recently expressed a willingness to investigate and, if need be, engage in corrective actions if it can be demonstrated that campuses are not in compliance with the supplemental report.

SRL Chapters should be proactive to see that their campuses follow the provisions of the Supplemental Budget Report Language.

SRL Examples of non-compliance: • across-the-board reductions in all divisions • (rather than differential cuts) • no MPP cuts while the campus suffers • significant lecturer non-renewals; etc. • evidence of continued expenditures • on CMS implementation

SRL If you feel your campus is not in compliance with the language you should immediately notify Andy Lyons alyons@calfac.org Documented evidence of non-compliance would be helpful, but not necessary, if we are to pursue an investigation

• Protect Instruction.• Focus on Management Expenditures.• Reduce Non-Essential Operating Expenditures• Reassess CMS/PeopleSoft Expenditures.• Avoid Campus-Based Fee Increases.• Seek Out Non-General Fund Resources.• Transparency.• Consultation.• Post-Reduction Assessment. CFA’s Principles Relating to Budget Cuts

Protect Campus Diversity: Reject the Connerly Information Ban (Prop 54)

Protect Campus Diversity: Reject the Connerly Information Ban (Prop 54) Proposition 54 would prevent the state from collecting demographic information about race, gender or ethnicity in regards to education, health care, and other programs.

Protect Campus Diversity: Reject the Connerly Information Ban (Prop 54) The lack of such information would undermine efforts to hold administrators accountable for just distribution of public resources, and it would make it difficult to track differences among racial and ethnic groups in healthcare, disease patterns, educational opportunities, and academic achievement.

Protect Campus Diversity: Reject the Connerly Information Ban (Prop 54) Doctors, educators, scientists, and advocates find that demographic information is a powerful tool to identify and measure how well we’re doing to treat, educate, and protect all Californians.

Protect Campus Diversity: Reject the Connerly Information Ban (Prop 54) This kind of information ban would block community groups, local governments, and the state as they develop solutions to healthcare, education, and other disparities in our diverse state.

Protect Campus Diversity: Reject the Connerly Information Ban (Prop 54) • CFA has taken a strong stand opposing Proposition 54. • A voter registration drive will be among the many actions CFA joins in response to the special October 7 election. • The last day to register to vote in the special election will be September 22.

Protect Campus Diversity: Reject the Connerly Information Ban (Prop 54)

ProtectHigher Education Funding: IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT GRAY DAVIS

A statewide election will be held on October 7, 2003 to determine whether California’s Governor should be recalled. ProtectHigher Education Funding:

Recall proponents will attempt to make the campaign about Gray Davis, but don’t be fooled! ProtectHigher Education Funding:

Spending over $1.5 million to put the measure before California voters, the recall effort was sponsored by the extreme right wing of the Republican Party –– the very same people promoting agendas that are ProtectHigher Education Funding: * anti-choice, * anti family leave, * anti-common sense gun safety, * and anti-environmental safeguards.

These are also the same people who demonstrated their attitude toward public higher education by supporting a proposal to cut an additional $300 million from the CSU budget during recent budget negotiations. ProtectHigher Education Funding:

Recall proponents are forcing taxpayers to spend anywhere from $30-$60 million to pursue their agenda. ProtectHigher Education Funding: In these tight budget times, these vital resources could be used to help real Californians, and not perpetuate permanent gridlock in Sacramento and an endless cycle of divisive elections.

CFA opposes the recall campaign and will work with other groups across the state to fight against this power-grab. ProtectHigher Education Funding:

The Recall Wastes Taxpayer’s Money ProtectHigher Education Funding: The cost to the state of the special election is between $30 and $60 million. With the possibility that reimbursement could be required if the recall fails, the total cost could run up to $75 million.

ProtectHigher Education Funding: The Recall Wastes Taxpayer’s Money With $75 million, the state could . . . • Hire 1,100 tenure track faculty in the CSU • Open up 13,000 CSU classes in one year • Pay the starting salaries of nearly 1,500 firefighters • Provide another 50,000 poor children with health coverage under the Healthy Families program.

The recall is an attempt to get taxpayers to foot the bill for a Republican led “do-over” of an election held just nine months ago. ProtectHigher Education Funding:

You don’t have to love Gray Davis to think the recall is a bad idea. The California Business Roundtable, a collection of CEOs of both parties, opposes the recall. The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce opposes the recall. Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote an opinion piece urging people not to sign the recall petition. * The Los Angeles Times editorialized against the recall, saying, “There is no honest cause for undoing an election that occurred seven months agao; the risk of putting the state into a deeper fiscal hole and partisan political chaos is too great.” The San Diego Union Tribune and the LA Daily News, two conservative newspapers, also editorialized against the recall.

California families don’t need another election – we need leaders who will put the needs of Californians first. ProtectHigher Education Funding:

CFA urges you to VOTE “NO” ON THE RECALL ProtectHigher Education Funding:

Stopthe Budget Gridlock: Support the Budget Accountability Act

California’s budget process is broken. • California hasn’t had an on-time budget since 1986. • Legislators face no consequences when the budget isn’t completed, they still get paid and can even go on vacation. • A small number of legislators are able to hold the majority of legislators hostage by just saying “no” to any budget solution. • California families – including our CSU students – are harmed by political gridlock and late budgets. • Revenues go up and down but the need for public services steadily grows. • Few know how California spends its money or how their legislators have voted on budget related issues.

We need to hold legislators accountable to deliver a fair budget, on time. The Budget Accountability Act gives Californians the tools needed to hold legislators accountable.

Stopthe Budget Gridlock: Support the Budget Accountability Act It will enact permanent solutions to fix the broken budget process.

The Budget Accountability Act: • Holds Legislators Accountable to pass a budget on time. No budget, no pay and no action on other bills. • Reforms the Budget Process by changing the supermajority vote requirement to pass a budget and related tax legislation to 55%. The 55% vote still requires broad consensus to pass the budget, but will end the gridlock caused by our current system. • Gives Voters the Facts about the budget by showing where the money goes and how their elected officials vote on the budget. • Encourages Fiscal Responsibility by setting up a “rainy day” fund to protect services in poor economic times.

The Budget Accountability Act: CFA enthusiastically supports this important initiative that provides the long-term structural budget reform necessary to hold legislators accountable for the state’s fiscal soundness.

CAMPUSES IN CRISIS: SAVE OUR CLASSES / PROTECT INSTRUCTION