So you think UC and CSU have it bad?

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/City-College-of-San-Francisco-on-brink-of-closure-3682955.php

Not directly because of lack of funding, but due to mismanagement leading to the possible loss of accreditation. Though the problem is partially described as failure to adjust to reduced funding.... 92% of money now goes to salaries and benefits.

Seems like they have had ample warning to clean their act up. Could be really bad for students who need the educational services. Though I am wondering if there is a measure of effectiveness of the various community colleges? If one is being more wasteful with less results when compared to others, it shouldn't be allowed to continue that practice.

Aren't they in the process of building a new downtown campus? Could they be too big to fail?

I don't see the problem with having the vast majority of money going to faculty salaries and benefits.

Who needs more administrators? A glut of overpaid administrators does not help education. The faculty is what allows an educational institution fulfill its mission. Of course there needs to be some administrative apparatus. Just not too much.

I have always thought that universities like Cal needs more top-notch (and well paid) faculty. We should settle for competent (and less well paid) administrators.

It seems that CCSF has crossed the threshold and is indeed mismanaged. But I don't necessarily see how more expensive vice presidents would solve the problem.

The Duke!;841906178 said:

---

I don't see the problem with having the vast majority of money going to faculty salaries and benefits.

Who needs more administrators? A glut of overpaid administrators does not help education. The faculty is what allows an educational institution fulfill its mission. Of course there needs to be some administrative apparatus. Just not too much.

I have always thought that universities like Cal needs more top-notch (and well paid) faculty. We should settle for competent (and less well paid) administrators.

It seems that CCSF has crossed the threshold and is indeed mismanaged. But I don't necessarily see how more expensive vice presidents would solve the problem.

---

+1

The Duke!;841906178 said:

---

I don't see the problem with having the vast majority of money going to faculty salaries and benefits.

Who needs more administrators? A glut of overpaid administrators does not help education. The faculty is what allows an educational institution fulfill its mission. Of course there needs to be some administrative apparatus. Just not too much.

I have always thought that universities like Cal needs more top-notch (and well paid) faculty. We should settle for competent (and less well paid) administrators.

It seems that CCSF has crossed the threshold and is indeed mismanaged. But I don't necessarily see how more expensive vice presidents would solve the problem.

---

I wish you were on the Board of Regents or the California Legislature.

The Duke!;841906178 said:

---

I don't see the problem with having the vast majority of money going to faculty salaries and benefits.

---

Then you're incredibly ignorant. You have no idea the amount of administration it takes to run the giant businesses that schools are these days.

There's a difference between saying that there is "over-administration" (which is a very arguable position) and saying that "the vast majority of money should go to faculty". The latter position is flat out absurd. Do you have any idea how many non-faculty it requires to operate a school?

elpbear;841906186 said:

---

Then you're incredibly ignorant. You have no idea the amount of administration it takes to run the giant businesses that schools are these days.

There's a difference between saying that there is "over-administration" (which is a very arguable position) and saying that "the vast majority of money should go to faculty". The latter position is flat out absurd. Do you have any idea how many non-faculty it requires to operate a school?

---

So you think more money should go to administration than to faculty salaries? Do you believe there should be as many administrators as professors or that they should get paid so much that a handful make what all the professors combined earn?

elpbear;841906186 said:

---

Then you're incredibly ignorant. You have no idea the amount of administration it takes to run the giant businesses that schools are these days.

---

Without knowing the details of your background dealing with and negotiating aspects of university budgets and budgetary policy, I would hazard a guess that I have a much better idea about this particular subject than you do (considering my background). So why don't you take a step back before you call someone ignorant.

elpbear;841906186 said:

---

There's a difference between saying that there is "over-administration" (which is a very arguable position) and saying that "the vast majority of money should go to faculty". The latter position is flat out absurd. Do you have any idea how many non-faculty it requires to operate a school?

---

Yes. I do. There are five categories of paid employees at universities:

1) Faculty.
2) Staff.
3) Teaching Assistants, research assistants, grad students on fellowships, etc. Such people usually not counted as "employees" for tax reasons, but they essentially are, as they get paid to do something and have to abide by the rules of their employer.
4) Administrators.
5) Other - athletics coaches, contractors, etc.

All of these are essential to a world class university. But comparatively speaking, #2 and #3 don't receive large salaries. 4 and 5 are usually overpaid relative to the core mission of the university. The actual mission of the university is fulfilled by faculty.

I would rather see a university hire another two or three tenure-track faculty and settle for a competent $65-80k/year administrator than hire another $200-300k/year vice president. Most students looking for an extra class would like to see the same. And so would most alumni who are distressed at extravagant administrative salaries and sinking academic rankings at public universities.

The Duke!;841906178 said:

---

I don't see the problem with having the vast majority of money going to faculty salaries and benefits.

---

You don't see the problem?

Back in the late '60's, when I was on the staff at UC, doing research, professors complained all the time about how they had to publish 3 or 4 papers every year to get their salary up the the level it would have been if they were working for private industry. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and those salaries and benefits are a major component of the budget problem at UC.

On another personal note, I have a friend who recently retired from her position on the faculty, at a pension of $109,000 per year. I have another friend who recently retired from his position as an engineering manager at Lockheed Missles and Space division. He was manager of a group of 350 engineers, and his pension is $45,000 per year. Most people who retire from jobs in private industry don't even get a pension. I worked 45 years for several well known engineering companies, and I received no pension. The salaries of faculty members are, in my mind, very excessive, especially when they have the fabulous perk called tenure, and their benefits are outrageous and no longer affordable.

It's a little more complicated than this. At a university such as Cal, it takes more than a "competent" administrator (look at the difference between Dines and Yudof at UCOP). The difference between Ruth Simmons and her predecessor at Brown was worth $1.6 billion (the amount she was able to raise over and above the previous administration). Would you forego that in order to save a few hundred thousand in salary?

Having said that, CCSF is different from UC. It is not a university, it is a community college. It doesn't do much fundraising. It is much more heavily state-supported, so the role of the administration is different. However, no one is suggesting that most of the budget should go to administration. The criticism is that with only 39 administrators for a set of campuses of 90,000 students, there isn't enough management and oversight to run the institution efficiently. This is a matter of proportion, not "either or."

SFCityBear;841906201 said:

---

You don't see the problem?

Back in the late '60's, when I was on the staff at UC, doing research, professors complained all the time about how they had to publish 3 or 4 papers every year to get their salary up the the level it would have been if they were working for private industry. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and those salaries and benefits are a major component of the budget problem at UC.

On another personal note, I have a friend who recently retired from her position on the faculty, at a pension of $109,000 per year. I have another friend who recently retired from his position as an engineering manager at Lockheed Missles and Space division. He was manager of a group of 350 engineers, and his pension is $45,000 per year. Most people who retire from jobs in private industry don't even get a pension. I worked 45 years for several well known engineering companies, and I received no pension. The salaries of faculty members are, in my mind, very excessive, especially when they have the fabulous perk called tenure, and their benefits are outrageous and no longer affordable.

---

My understanding is that our faculty compensation is below that of their counterparts at similar universities and that UC is losing faculty as a result.

Pensions may not be standard in industry but they are in academia.

I don't know all of the facts regarding your friends situation. Does he have a doctorate degree (people can become "managers" in private industry without graduate education)? Was his salary higher than that of professors? (Usually, private industry pays more than academia, but the latter offers richer benefits.)

I can assure you that college administrators enjoy all the benefits of professors on top of their high 6-figure salaries.

Times have changed, and most college administrators left the lecture hall to become professional administrators (a new career), but it's interesting to note that our best leaders were not "administrators" by profession but were selected from being professors (Benjamin Ide Wheeler and Clark Kerr, for example). Robert Gordon Sproul, on the other hand, was an administrator (I believe he was treasurer of the university) but does not appear to be highly paid.

southseasbear;841906188 said:

---

So you think more money should go to administration than to faculty salaries?

---

I think that saying "the vast majority of the money should go to faculty" is ignorant.

If you are going to respond, please don't try to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

In order to evaluate your anecdote, we would need to know all the comparables. How long did your friend work, v. how long the professor worked. What was their top salaries? Their education level? Professors don't make salaries commensurate with their education in general, but the compensation is job security and more generous pensions.

UC is a 6-7 billion dollar a year entity, yet the Chancellor makes in the low 400K range, and the President around 600K. The CEO of a comparable corporation would probably make 8 figures a year (and get a huge golden parachute if he failed).

UrsaMajor;841906202 said:

---

....The criticism is that with only 39 administrators for a set of campuses of 90,000 students, there isn't enough management and oversight to run the institution efficiently....

---

I would really love to find out the salaries of those 39 Admins. On paper, who knows, maybe CCSF could hire double the number of Admins with the same amount of money these 39 are putting into their pockets.

Since I don't have the numbers in front of me, this is just me speculating on the matter after watching too many episodes of American Greed...but maybe it's a possibility.

elpbear;841906215 said:

---

I think that saying "the vast majority of the money should go to faculty" is ignorant.

If you are going to respond, please don't try to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

---

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth as much as understand the rationale of the ones in your head. Please educate those of us you view as "ignorant."

So, if the vast majority of money shouldn't go to the faculty (the only ones who are carrying out the purpose of the college - educating students) where should it go?

In your opinion, what percentage of a community college budget should go to faculty, and what percentage should be committed to other areas?

LOL... Please let me know where you can find a competent administrator for $65-$80K. I'd like to ask them why they are underselling themselves....

go poaching - the FB coach (Geo. Rush?) runs a hell of a program and usually has 3-4 JC All Americans each year - yeah, I know Ayoub (sp?) went to CCSF, but Rush has had a lot more successes than wash-outs - would be especially beneficial if any of the "studs" were direct qualifiers out of high school

Scooterville Gau;841906248 said:

---

go poaching - the FB coach (Geo. Rush?) runs a hell of a program and usually has 3-4 JC All Americans each year - yeah, I know Ayoub (sp?) went to CCSF, but Rush has had a lot more successes than wash-outs - would be especially beneficial if any of the "studs" were direct qualifiers out of high school

---

Indeed Rush does run damn good program. Our very own Desmond Bishop also came from there. Thier practices are often plagued by scouts from various schools. Been hearing that Nebraska has been spending quite a bit of time on that campus in recent weeks. They are defending National champs and most of that team is coming back this season. Some Notables are former bear OLB/DE Chris Martin, ILB/OLB Tyrone Ward, Former Grant HS(sac) stars CB Darvin McCauley and WR Dezmon Epps.

southseasbear;841906214 said:

---

My understanding is that our faculty compensation is below that of their counterparts at similar universities and that UC is losing faculty as a result.

Pensions may not be standard in industry but they are in academia.

I don't know all of the facts regarding your friends situation. Does he have a doctorate degree (people can become "managers" in private industry without graduate education)? Was his salary higher than that of professors? (Usually, private industry pays more than academia, but the latter offers richer benefits.)

I can assure you that college administrators enjoy all the benefits of professors on top of their high 6-figure salaries.

Times have changed, and most college administrators left the lecture hall to become professional administrators (a new career), but it's interesting to note that our best leaders were not "administrators" by profession but were selected from being professors (Benjamin Ide Wheeler and Clark Kerr, for example). Robert Gordon Sproul, on the other hand, was an administrator (I believe he was treasurer of the university) but does not appear to be highly paid.

---

Interesting. As to your question and also those of Ursa Major, my friend who was an engineering manager had an MS in engineering. My friend who was on the Cal faculty had an MA. Neither one had a Phd. Both were in scientific fields. The engineer worked some 35 years for Lockheed and his salary at the end was about $125,000. The faculty member worked about 40 years at UC Berkeley. I would guess her top pay was at about the same level. Since they have retired, the former faculty member (now Emeritus) is very busy, knocking down $200 per hour on various consulting gigs, and the engineer is living on his pension plus social security, which when taken together is about 40% less than the UC pension of the faculty member.

I would say that it is no longer true that salaries in private industry are higher than that of Academia, especially in public universities, and salaries and benefits in private industry in my field, engineering, are most certainly lower than that of engineers working for state and local governments doing similar work. It used to be that government jobs paid less, but provided excellent security and good benefits, to attract people to those jobs where there was little chance for someone with initiative to be greatly successful. With the advent of public employee unions, much of this has changed, and now not only are benefits higher, but the salaries are much higher as well for public workers. In addition, there is very little job security in private industry now, and that was true even before the recession. The chance to succeed is higher in private industry, and I'd venture to say the stress level and risk is higher as well. Why university faculty and administration salaries and benefits have gotten so far out of hand, I can't answer. I only know it has happened, and it will require great political will, effort, and pain to fix.

SFCityBear;841906294 said:

---

Interesting. As to your question and also those of Ursa Major, my friend who was an engineering manager had an MS in engineering....

...With the advent of public employee unions, much of this has changed, and now not only are benefits higher, but the salaries are much higher as well for public workers. In addition, there is very little job security in private industry now, and that was true even before the recession. The chance to succeed is higher in private industry, and I'd venture to say the stress level and risk is higher as well. Why university faculty and administration salaries and benefits have gotten so far out of hand, I can't answer. I only know it has happened, and it will require great political will, effort, and pain to fix.

---

First, I find it hard to believe that Cal had a tenured faculty member without a PhD or other doctorate. From what I recall, an MA might get you an untenured lecturer position.

Second, UC faculty are not unionized. Non-tenured lecturers are and so are the clerical workers. CSU faculty are unionized.

SFCityBear;841906201 said:

---

On another personal note, I have a friend who recently retired from her position on the faculty, at a pension of $109,000 per year.

---

One of the primary reasons so many States are going bankrupt or are in massive debt is due to outrageous pensions. You do not see those kind of pensions at the federal level (where it takes roughly 30 years of employment to get about 30% of your highest salary as pension, meaning it would take a salary of >$300k to get a $100k pension), but at the State level you see all sorts of employees making unsustainable pensions (exacerbated by blue collar type employees retiring in their 50s or even late 40s) at taxpayer cost and at the risk of financial insolvency for the State itself.

What you need in a lot more States is what's going on in Wisconsin...

/rant

OskiMD;841906305 said:

---

One of the primary reasons so many States are going bankrupt or are in massive debt is due to outrageous pensions. You do not see those kind of pensions at the federal level (where it takes roughly 30 years of employment to get about 30% of your highest salary as pension, meaning it would take a salary of >$300k to get a $100k pension), but at the State level you see all sorts of employees making unsustainable pensions (exacerbated by blue collar type employees retiring in their 50s or even late 40s) at taxpayer cost and at the risk of financial insolvency for the State itself.

What you need in a lot more States is what's going on in Wisconsin...

/rant

---

Don't buy the rhetoric. The average public pension in California is under $25,000 per year. (Where in the state can one live on that amount?) Other than police, no one gets to retire and collect a pension before the age of 50. Teachers have to work 30 years or reach the age of 55 for "early" retirement, not reaching full retirement until 60 at which point they earn 2% of salary for every year worked. (Understand that almost half of the pension is taken out of monthly paychecks, while the rest is deferred compensation.)

The Duke!;841906178 said:

---

I don't see the problem with having the vast majority of money going to faculty salaries and benefits.

Who needs more administrators? A glut of overpaid administrators does not help education. The faculty is what allows an educational institution fulfill its mission. Of course there needs to be some administrative apparatus. Just not too much.

I have always thought that universities like Cal needs more top-notch (and well paid) faculty. We should settle for competent (and less well paid) administrators.

It seems that CCSF has crossed the threshold and is indeed mismanaged. But I don't necessarily see how more expensive vice presidents would solve the problem.

---

What about accounting staff, computer staff (very critical at a school), librarians, maintenance workers, HR, and I could just go on. You do appreciate this is an operating organization? A better analogy would be a professional firm, like a large law or accounting firm, where a good portion of the income goes to the professionals (faculty being considered professionals). But 90%? No wonder the school is unsustainable.

Comment: this post speaks to the 92% number for faculty salaries and benefits obtains at SFCC, not the average public pension number cited by another poster. I don't know the numbers for all public pension. My principal client is a state entity, and under CALPERS, vested employees get a portion of the average of the last five years of their salary. After 20 plus years that number is close to 100%, which means with long time state employees, they make well more than $25K when retiring. That said, short timers could draw significantly less, and you need to throw in local governmental employees, as well. However, when cities are declaring bankruptcy and the state experiences a brain drain because state employee managers are leaving with almost full salaries and then going out to consult, something isn't working right. BTW, I have no problem with governmental employees, especially those that have worked their way to managerial positions, being paid competitive salaries, so the public can continue to benefit from their knowledge and skills.

This is not a CCSF only issue - almost half the community colleges in the state are facing a lack of accreditation due to the uncertain state funding issues and the lack of reserves and ability to sustain for the future. The accrediting bodies are looking at the state schools and the funding and telling the state to get it's act in gear. It is a wake up call and one that is sorely needed.

Unlike UC, which has diversified it's income stream by private grants, government grants, endowment, raising tuition, etc, the community colleges do not have as many options. CCSF should be taking to the city to get some help, working with local businesses to get some funding, etc. But they do none of that. THat is the problem.

southseasbear;841906214 said:

---

My understanding is that our faculty compensation is below that of their counterparts at similar universities and that UC is losing faculty as a result.

Pensions may not be standard in industry but they are in academia.

I don't know all of the facts regarding your friends situation. Does he have a doctorate degree (people can become "managers" in private industry without graduate education)? Was his salary higher than that of professors? (Usually, private industry pays more than academia, but the latter offers richer benefits.)

I can assure you that college administrators enjoy all the benefits of professors on top of their high 6-figure salaries.

Times have changed, and most college administrators left the lecture hall to become professional administrators (a new career), but it's interesting to note that our best leaders were not "administrators" by profession but were selected from being professors (Benjamin Ide Wheeler and Clark Kerr, for example). Robert Gordon Sproul, on the other hand, was an administrator (I believe he was treasurer of the university) but does not appear to be highly paid.

---

"My understanding is that our faculty compensation is below that of their counterparts at similar universities and that UC is losing faculty as a result."


The number of faculty Cal lost to other school last year was in the single digits, and the ones that almost left that Cal wanted, Cal was able to find ways to keep, except in one or two cases arguably. Directly out of the mouths of one of those "overpaid" Cal administrators who has Chancellor at the beginning of his name. UCLA's Block has been quoted as saying the same thing by the LA Times. I might add that this is quite a feat considering the cost of living in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

My relative who is one of those "overpaid" administrators at another UC school doesn't seem to think that salary levels are the biggest issue with respect to retaining tenured faculty, who are competively paid if you take out the cost of living in CA. If you ask my relative, losing top students, eliminating research opportunities, hindering expression or research (a private university issue), the school's prestige and intellectual environment, and other concerns are all in the equation. The faculty are not these mercenary salary driven types that move to job to job base on salary change (which btw often happens in the private business). Do you appreciate that the Cal faculty voluntarily agreed to a significant salary reduction? Its not just about salary.

Can't speak of what is happening at other UC schools than the 3 I know about. But this is not an accurate statement if you were talking about Cal, UCLA or the other UC I know about.

AND, teachers in California are not participants in Social Security.

southseasbear;841906303 said:

---

First, I find it hard to believe that Cal had a tenured faculty member without a PhD or other doctorate. From what I recall, an MA might get you an untenured lecturer position.

Second, UC faculty are not unionized. Non-tenured lecturers are and so are the clerical workers. CSU faculty are unionized.

---

I hope I haven't misled you. I did not say my friend at UC was tenured, and as you probably know, not all faculty members are tenured. My friend's title was Education Specialist Lecturer (now Emeritus). She was a faculty member, as defined by the UC regulation APM 110-4, which includes lecturers.

If my friend in fact was a member of a union representing lecturers, the union may have won higher salary and benefits for her and other lecturers. However, recent articles in the press have pointed out that many institutions are hiring lecturers to teach classes instead of hiring professors, the reason being the lecturers cost less. Does this mean that professors of similar experience teaching at Berkeley are making a higher salary and getting correspondingly higher benefits than my friend, the lecturer?

On yet another personal note, a couple of years ago, I was working as an engineering manager, running two offices for a national firm. My salary was $120,000. I got laid off, and went looking for a job. When I couldn't fnd anything right away, I applied for a position as a part-time mathematics instructor at CCSF, which paid about $92 per hour. In my previous job, I had been working an average of 50 hours per week, and that worked out to $46 per hour, exactly half of the CCSF instructor salary. Does a math instructor contribute twice as much to society than an engineer who actually designs and builds things, sells projects to clients, and creates jobs? I think not.

Only if they particate in Cal STRS. If they are part of CalPERS, they do pay SS taxes.

thanks for the correction.

Oski87;841906359 said:

---

This is not a CCSF only issue - almost half the community colleges in the state are facing a lack of accreditation due to the uncertain state funding issues and the lack of reserves and ability to sustain for the future. The accrediting bodies are looking at the state schools and the funding and telling the state to get it's act in gear. It is a wake up call and one that is sorely needed.

Unlike UC, which has diversified it's income stream by private grants, government grants, endowment, raising tuition, etc, the community colleges do not have as many options. CCSF should be taking to the city to get some help, working with local businesses to get some funding, etc. But they do none of that. THat is the problem.

---

and focuses on mismanagement at CCSF. But the JC system is in peril, and it has nothing to do with mismanagement. The question is as the top 10% (let's face it, most Cal grads are going to fall into this category) do we want educated people working for us? '87 is dead on.

If "normal" professorial pensions were that high, you wouldn't have tenured professors waiting until their 70s (or 80s) to retire.

Asst. profs in the humanities and many social sciences can't afford to live in the Bay Area on what Berkeley pays them. Many might be surprised to learn that stanfurd salaries are also insufficient to cover an asst. prof. in the humanities (especially if s/he has a family).

Presidents and chancellors are very important. With notable exceptions, they are not the "administrators" I was speaking of. I am talking about overpaid vice-presidents. For the most part, they do not hold PhDs themselves. They have JDs or MBAs, and get paid far too much.

I would rather have a competent administrator than another vice-president of information technology or assistant vice president of human resources, each making $200-$350k per year. Or let a computer science or business prof take over those responsibilities on three year terms.

Oski87;841906359 said:

---

This is not a CCSF only issue - almost half the community colleges in the state are facing a lack of accreditation due to the uncertain state funding issues and the lack of reserves and ability to sustain for the future. The accrediting bodies are looking at the state schools and the funding and telling the state to get it's act in gear. It is a wake up call and one that is sorely needed.

Unlike UC, which has diversified it's income stream by private grants, government grants, endowment, raising tuition, etc, the community colleges do not have as many options. CCSF should be taking to the city to get some help, working with local businesses to get some funding, etc. But they do none of that. THat is the problem.

---

I would respectfully disagree, in that we can't close our eyes and not examine or audit the spending side. These schools, both UC and CCSF are massive bureauracracies, undoubtedly top heavy. We need to cut back on the bureaucracy, and cut back on the money spent by and for the bureaucracy, not raise more revenue to fund this ever growing beast.

The City is not going to be much help to CCSF, as the City is having financial issues itself, and is desperately looking at ways to increase revenues. As one small example, there is now a plan to put parking meters in residential districts and in Golden Gate Park. A parking meter violation in outlying neighborhoods is now a $55 fine. As for the meters themselves, you get 7.5 minutes for a quarter, and downtown parking meters are more expensive. The City is raising every fee it can think of, and dreaming up new fees and taxes. Much of the City government (MUNI, Water and Sewer departments, etc.) can not run or repair facilities without an influx of subsidies from the State, which is broke, and the Federal government, which is nearly so.

City businesses are stretched to the limit with taxes, fees, and regulations. More and more businesses are moving out of the City. There is a lot of empty office space in the city, with few businesses willing to take the risk and move in. I don't see much, if any, help coming from the City government or the City's businesses. The problem is about out of control spending, not about not having enough funding for that spending.

SFCityBear;841906482 said:

---

I would respectfully disagree, in that we can't close our eyes and not examine or audit the spending side. These schools, both UC and CCSF are massive bureauracracies, undoubtedly top heavy. We need to cut back on the bureaucracy, and cut back on the money spent by and for the bureaucracy, not raise more revenue to fund this ever growing beast.

The City is not going to be much help to CCSF, as the City is having financial issues itself, and is desperately looking at ways to increase revenues. As one small example, there is now a plan to put parking meters in residential districts and in Golden Gate Park. A parking meter violation in outlying neighborhoods is now a $55 fine. As for the meters themselves, you get 7.5 minutes for a quarter, and downtown parking meters are more expensive. The City is raising every fee it can think of, and dreaming up new fees and taxes. Much of the City government (MUNI, Water and Sewer departments, etc.) can not run or repair facilities without an influx of subsidies from the State, which is broke, and the Federal government, which is nearly so.

City businesses are stretched to the limit with taxes, fees, and regulations. More and more businesses are moving out of the City. There is a lot of empty office space in the city, with few businesses willing to take the risk and move in. I don't see much, if any, help coming from the City government or the City's businesses. The problem is about out of control spending, not about not having enough funding for that spending.

---

City employees have no qualms about stealing from residents to cover their costs - see meters running on the holiday yesterday or Costa Rican street maintenance with a $7 billion budget...

wifeisafurd;841906360 said:

---

...The number of faculty Cal lost to other school last year was in the single digits, and the ones that almost left that Cal wanted, Cal was able to find ways to keep, except in one or two cases arguably. Directly out of the mouths of one of those "overpaid" Cal administrators who has Chancellor at the beginning of his name. UCLA's Block has been quoted as saying the same thing by the LA Times. I might add that this is quite a feat considering the cost of living in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

My relative who is one of those "overpaid" administrators at another UC school doesn't seem to think that salary levels are the biggest issue with respect to retaining tenured faculty, who are competively paid if you take out the cost of living in CA. If you ask my relative, losing top students, eliminating research opportunities, hindering expression or research (a private university issue), the school's prestige and intellectual environment, and other concerns are all in the equation. The faculty are not these mercenary salary driven types that move to job to job base on salary change (which btw often happens in the private business). Do you appreciate that the Cal faculty voluntarily agreed to a significant salary reduction? Its not just about salary.

Can't speak of what is happening at other UC schools than the 3 I know about. But this is not an accurate statement if you were talking about Cal, UCLA or the other UC I know about.

---

Are you suggesting that the UC fundraising drives about losing faculty (which I have always found compelling) are deceptive advertising? I will keep that in mind the next time they call or send a solicitation (or read an ad in California magazine).

SFCityBear;841906373 said:

---

...When I couldn't fnd anything right away, I applied for a position as a part-time mathematics instructor at CCSF, which paid about $92 per hour. In my previous job, I had been working an average of 50 hours per week, and that worked out to $46 per hour, exactly half of the CCSF instructor salary. Does a math instructor contribute twice as much to society than an engineer who actually designs and builds things, sells projects to clients, and creates jobs? I think not.

---

Shaping hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of minds a year is not a trivial undertaking. Good teachers can help nurture an army of engineers who actually design and build things, sell projects to clients, and create jobs.

The $92 per hour that a part-time mathematics instructor makes does not include the time spent preparing lessons, grading papers, meeting students during office hours, etc. Moreover, it may look good per hour, but how many people can live on $92 per hour for part time work?

71Bear;841906380 said:

---

Only if they particate in Cal STRS. If they are part of CalPERS, they do pay SS taxes.

---

Teachers are part of CalSTRS ("State Teacher Retirement System") not CalPERS. They do not collect Social Security. If they came from private industry (such as engineers who become teachers) they will lose some of the Social Security for which they worked due to an "offset" that is based on a theory that collecting their entire accrued benefits would constitute a "windfall."

Just to provide info about CAL-STRS pensions:

1. Membership:K-12 and community college instructors and academic administrators only. K-12 and community college Clerical staff, maintenance workers, etc are in CAL-PERS.

2. Retirement age minimum 55

3. Pension Factors: Service Credit x Age Factor x Final Compensation. Example at 55: 15 years x factor 1.4 x $50,000 = $875 monthly. Highest factor is 2.4 at 30 years or 63 years of age example: 30 years x 2.4 x $50000 = $3000 a month. Both examples are for a single person but if the person is married, they can elect to lower their monthly to provide for their spouse.

4. Social security: There are two federal laws that cut the amount of Social Security a person in CAL-STRS will be awarded. The first law cuts the employee by 50% or more depending on years in Social Security (more years in social security the lower the cut in social security benefits. The second law prohibits their spouse from getting any social security from the teacher's account.

5. Teachers pay 8% of their salary into CAL-STRS and the district kicks in 8.25%. The state kicks in 2% to pay for older retirees who's benefits have decreased due to inflation. (Unlike Social Security, there is no cost of living increase in CAL-STRS but a straight 2% increase annually and if inflation is higher, the state protects the pensioner after the value gets below 75%.)

6. When the legislature and everyone started throwing additional pension benefits to public employees around 1998, the teachers got the following: the age factor which used to max at age 60 or 30 years and 2.0, went to age 63 or 30 years and 2.4 .

7. CAL-STRS was nearly fully funded until the stock market crash. Now it is debatable but it is around 70%.

You can decide if this is a deal compared to either CAL-PERS safety personnel or CAL-PERS other personnel, other educational groups (UC, CSU) or private industry.