PDA

View Full Version : Another Article By Barsky, Nader, et. al.


BAMSPhD
04-19-2010, 03:27 PM
Link: OPEN FORUM: On prioritizing spending at UC Berkeley (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/opinionshop/detail?&entry_id=61511)

The article says (among other things):
-University rules say athletics is supposed to be self-supporting
-Every year since 2003 athletics has spent $7M to $14M more than revenues
-Even the NCAA can not show that athletics benefits donations to academics
-the Chancellor's hand-picked special advisory council on IA does not reflect the views of the faculty
-IA spending threatens the core mission of the university

operbear
04-19-2010, 03:53 PM
For Nader exercise is lifting her belly off the ground.
Of course, she is against athletics. It never could have benefited her!

BAMSPhD
04-19-2010, 04:10 PM
For Nader exercise is lifting her belly off the ground.
Of course, she is against athletics. It never could have benefited her!

Could you explain your comment? Are you implying that she is obese? In videos such as this budget crisis video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3wJ3QgNFgc&feature=related) she appears to be elderly and thin.

If you read the opinion letter you'll see that one of the many complaints made by the faculty signatories is a 50% budget cut for physical education courses.

wifeisafurd
04-19-2010, 04:20 PM
Turns out the bond issues which the author referred to as for the SHAPCand the ever ignorent Professor Barksy labelled as subprime type financing are:

1) For approximately 70 projects, on all ten UC campuses, for the following projects:

a) faculty and student housing
b) student ceters
c) faculty centers
d) recreation and event centers (hey, why are we subsidizing those arts Professor?)
e) research facilities
g) facilites renewal projects
h) intercollegiate atheletic facilites (wait, that is plural!!!!!)
i) certain seimac retrofits.
j) infrastruture projects
k) academic, adminstrative and other UC facilities.

2) The Regents may use the proceeds for an entire project, a portion of the project or not at all on an individual project. Its conceivable little or no bond proceeds will be spent on the SHAPC

3) An interest rate can't be used since both tax-free and taxable bonds were used and the proceeds are fungible in that either type of bonds can be used to fund any project. The cost is low in any event, as the market is relying on the UC credit rating. So much for Porfessor Barsky's label of the nature of the financing.

4) The bonds actually total $1.3 billion, not the $300 million total menitoned by the Chron author who with the ignorant Professor Barksy was trying to somehow tie the issuance just to the SHAPC project.

5) There are many billions dollars of UC bonds out there funded by the same revenues as the subject bonds, General UC Revenues, so whatever funds may even be use on this one issuance for the SHAPC, are minuscule in comparison to the level of bond obligations payable from General UC Revenues. What the heck is Professor Barsky taking about that the SHAPC will take down UC or can't be paid. I assume there is some type of inter-fund accounting that provides for reimbursement from the Cal AD to UC for any amounts used for the SHAPC. Given the amount already donated, the long time frame to pay off the bonds, and the continuing annual amount of surcharge to ticket holders, the SHAPC portion (if any) can be easily paid off. Both the author and the professor are grossly uninformed and misleading the public.


6) Earth to the the author and Professor Barsky, the Regents have used bonds to finance intercollegiate athletic facilities at other campuses. My guess is that it matters now only because of a greater agenda.

The author is a music blogger, so I expect as much from him. Professor Barsky's ignorance can only be viewed as self-inflicted, and should be considered an attack on the ingtegrity of the Cal faculty. He should be embarrased and labelled a liar by ommission.

BAMSPhD
04-19-2010, 05:07 PM
The author is a music blogger, so I expect as much from him

You should supply a link to the article you mention. The article I referenced was authored by 8 UC professors. I suppose one of them (Barsky?) could also be a music blogger, but it doesn't seem likely.

In other words, this isn't another rehash of an old article. This is a new Open Forum letter to the SF Chronicle.

Jeff82
04-19-2010, 05:09 PM
I'm tired of listening to these intellectual snobs.

Unit2Sucks
04-19-2010, 05:45 PM
I think reference to Cal's annual budget can help frame this discussion. This chart shows revenues for the year ended 6/30/09: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/news/budget/img/revenue0809.gif

The approximate annual budget is $1.8B. Educational appropriations went from $484M in 2008 to $390M in 2009. That is a lot more meaningful than a $14M shortfall in intercollegiate athletics.

This is just classic scapegoating. The professors are, justifiably in my opinion, angered by what they see as a financial crisis in Berkeley. It's not surprising that some of the professors decided to scapegoat the athletic department. It wouldn't surprise me if other professors are scapegoating certain academic departments as well, or the crippling administrative bureaucracy.

Bottom line, if we cut all of athletics and didn't have to worry about the $14M lost there this past year, Berkeley would still be in the EXACT SAME budget crisis that it's in right now.

I studied computer science at Cal, and one of the core tenets of software engineering is that if you want to speed up your program, you need to figure out where most time is being wasted, and optimize that portion of the code. Maybe Barsky needs to apply that concept to his criticism of UC spending. If he did, he would likely determine that focusing on less than 1 tenth of one percent of Berkeley's total budget is not going to turn things around.

93gobears
04-19-2010, 06:01 PM
Laura Nader:http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:zt3mnAOo93fdnM:http://www.gpaulbishop.com/
That dirty sexy beast. Unfortunately she strongly resembles her brtoher.