If approved, the restraining order would prohibit the two-day strike planned by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 3299. According to a statement released by the UC Office of the President on Friday, strikes that pose an imminent threat to public health and safety are illegal under state law, and the university believes the strike would improperly withhold health care from the public.

Dianne Klein, a UC spokesperson, said that if the union cared about patient safety, it would not endanger patients by striking.

“This (strike) is one of their tactics to get what they want, which is a special deal for their workers,” Klein said. “That is not only unfair but fiscally irresponsible.”

The strike comes amid ongoing contract negotiations that began in June 2012. The university proposed a pension reform that would increase contributions toward pension benefits from both the university and employees, but AFSCME 3299 rejected these reforms, arguing that the university is prioritizing pensions over patient care.

According to Todd Stenhouse, spokesperson for AFSCME 3299, the university is prioritizing executive pension benefits instead of adequate patient care and staffing.
“We are seeing the university cut corners in ways that are so dangerous for patients,” said Kathryn Lybarger, president of AFSCME 3299.

AFSCME 3299 has established a Patient Protection Task Force to care for patients during the strike, but that it is something in which the university refuses to participate, according to Stenhouse.

During pension reform negotiations, AFSCME 3299 asked for caps on executive pension benefits, which the university would not discuss, according to Lybarger.

“Right now, these executives are going to retire on upwards of $300,000,” Lybarger said. “That’s a lot of money to live on for doing nothing.”

The university filed a similar restraining order in July 2008 in response to a planned AFSCME 3299 strike. The court approved the restraining order, but the union went ahead with the strike.

“If the court says you are prohibited from striking and they go ahead and do it anyway, they are breaking the law,” Klein said. “We hope there is not a strike. We are prepared for one.”

University Professional and Technical Employees, another UC medical workers union, also held a demonstration Wednesday at the five UC medical centers.

AFSCME 3299 also held a sit-down protest at Wednesday’s UC Board of Regents meeting in Sacramento, resulting in the arrest of 13 demonstrators.

“We are in this fight to win real patient protection,” Lybarger said. “It’s not an option to emerge from this fight without having won real gains for our patients.”

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post University of California files for restraining order against union planning strike appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 3299, a union that represents UC workers, joined with University Professional and Technical Employees 9119, a union that represents UC technical workers, to protest recent layoffs at the UCSF Medical Center and the standoff in labor negotiations with the UC Office of the President.

“There’s a fundamental message that this rally is all about today,” said AFSCME 3299 spokesperson Todd Stenhouse. “That’s ‘put patients first.’ We need to send a message to the people of San Francisco that come into this hospital that the administration is not putting their priorities first.”

UCSF Medical Center recently cut 300 positions through layoffs, transfers and elimination of unfilled positions, which comes in the wake of a recent whistleblower report published by AFSCME in March detailing inadequate patient care at UC medical centers due to understaffing.

“Medical centers are going to continue to deteriorate,” said Wendi Felson, a retired UCSF employee and systemwide health care coordinator for UPTE. “All five UC medical centers have been cited for patient care violations.”

Since last November, the UC system and AFSCME have also been at an impasse over creating a new contract for UC workers focusing on pension reform.

Among the protesters were recently laid-off UC workers, including Miguel Herrera, a full-time custodian who was fired three weeks ago, and Connie Salguero, a former patient-care assistant who was fired this week.

“This was my only job here,” Salguero said. “Where will I get my food?”

According to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein, the protest is a tactic used by the union in labor negotiations, and AFSCME refused the contract without offering counter-suggestions.

“Bargaining in the media is not something we support,” Klein said about the protest. “We believe bargaining should take place at the bargaining table.”

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, and San Francisco Supervisors John Avalos and Eric Mar also appeared at the protest to support the workers.

“They’re understaffed in terms of things not being properly sanitized, and those are things that put patients at risk,” said Yee’s press secretary, Dan Lieberman. “As far as pensions go, there’s going to be a lot of continued discussions, particularly pensions that are for the executives that are quite substantial.”

The meeting for pension negotiations, which was scheduled for April 3, has been postponed to later this month.

“We hope to reach a multiyear contract that’s fair to employees … and the university that rewards employees for their hard work,” Klein said.

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post 10 arrested at UCSF protest against medical center layoffs appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Introduced by Assemblymember Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, the “New University of California” will not provide any instruction but only grant degrees to students who pass a certain number of examinations, according to a statement released by Wilk.

“It exists for a single purpose: to certify by examination that an individual has acquired the knowledge and skills necessary to compete and succeed in the work force,” read the statement. “It has no tuition, no faculty, and no bureaucracy.”

The creation of the university follows the proliferation of online education programs like Udacity and edX, which provide instruction but not academic credit.

“This bill would allow students to use whatever approach works best for them to obtain the knowledge needed to receive a college education, whether that is online courses, paid courses, or self-directed study,” read the statement.

Students would only be charged a small fee to finance the administration of exams.

“This smaller, more affordable fee makes college education more accessible for California’s students,” read the statement.

The university would have the authority to contract the development of the exams out to other organizations and would be structured similarly to the University of California. It would be managed by a board of 11 trustees and a chancellor.

The bill was introduced to the Legislature in late February and is currently waiting for review by the Assembly Committee on Higher Education.

Student leaders have expressed mixed reactions to the bill.

“Part of my feeling towards this bill is to be cautious about modifying our higher education system in ways that would substantially alter it,” said ASUC Senator and CalSERVE external affairs vice president candidate Nolan Pack. “I think the problem is that, while there may be arguments saying that it is cheaper, it circumvents the problem that we are not currently funding our higher education system to where it should be.”

UC Student Association Organizing and Communications Director Darius Kemp echoed Pack’s concerns.

“We always believe in a progressive conversation to improve higher education and are willing to sit down with any legislators looking to improve the accessibility and affordability of the UC system,” Kemp said. “While we encourage discussion towards any improvement to higher education, we also feel that it’s important that we fix the broken system we have now.”

The UC Office of the President has yet to review the bill and at this point has no comment, according to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein.

Analysis of the bill will occur in late April, with a hearing scheduled shortly thereafter, according to Josh Molina, legislative director for Assemblymember Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, chair of the Committee on Higher Education.

“What we have to do now is invest in public education again,” Pack said. “It might be an unnecessary fix to our higher education problem.”

Contact Sophie Ho at sho@dailycal.org.

The post Bill proposes establishment of fourth state university system appeared first on The Daily Californian.

According to a statement by Charles Robinson, general counsel of the university, the appeal was filed with the First Appellate District in San Francisco in an attempt to overturn a tentative ruling on Oct. 23 made by the Alameda County Superior Court that required the university to release information on investment returns for its $10.7 billion endowment fund.

Reuters America, a media conglomeration, filed the suit, claiming that the UC system did not provide recent data on individual fund details of its investments to Reuters’ Venture Capital Journal, according to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein.

“There is an overwhelming interest in the public being able to know how public money is spent and in being able to monitor the performance of public investments,” said Karl Olson, the attorney who filed the suit on behalf of Reuters.

The university disclosed information on two of its investments with Sequoia Capital and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in accordance with a similar lawsuit filed in 2003 by the San Jose Mercury News and the Coalition of University Employees — the union that represents most of the university’s clerical staff. However, Olson said that the university released information on an aggregate level with insufficient detail.

Klein said that the case is not about the public’s right to information but is motivated by private commercial interests. Reuters publishes the Venture Capital Journal and the website Private Equity Hub and, according to Klein, has a financial interest in publishing investment information about Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins.

“Reuters has tried to frame this case as one about the public’s right to know,” Klein said. “It is not. To safeguard the public’s right to know, we have the California Public Records Act, which UC fully supports.”

The CPRA mandates that public records be made available for inspection and copying unless an exemption applies. Klein said that the CPRA does not apply in this case because the university has never used the documents that Reuters seeks.

Klein also said that the ruling harms the university’s ability to profit from investment returns. According to Klein, Sequoia, Kleiner Perkins and other firms blacklisted the university from future funds after the 2003 ruling.

Joe Simitian, a former California state senator, authored SB 439 in 2005 to set clear standards for the scope of information that should be disclosed as public records.

“The question is what does the law allow and at what level of detail is disclosure required,” Simitian said.

Contact Matt Trejo at mtrejo@dailycal.org.

The post Regents appeal ruling mandating disclosure of investment information appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The extension of the $60 surcharge passed despite criticism that it was funding the costs of a settlement incurred when a court ruled the university had inappropriately raised tuition on students for the 2003-04 academic year. With the extension, the surcharge — which was first enacted in the 2007-08 school year — will now last through the 2017-18 academic year.

“The university lost a lawsuit against students and made them pay for it,” said Student Regent Jonathan Stein at the meeting.

The regents should have found an internal mechanism to pay for the costs of the lawsuits instead of putting the burden of payment on students, he said.

Students from the university’s professional schools filed class-action lawsuits against the university in 2003 and 2010, and in both cases, the court determined that the UC system raised tuition without adequately warning affected students. In total, the litigation process cost the university nearly $100 million, according to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein.

Since UC insurance did not cover the lawsuit, the university had to rely on students to fund the settlement, Klein said.

“I don’t think this is right,” said UC Regent Eddie Island. “Students are being asked to pick up the surcharge for a lawsuit with no benefit.”

When Stein and Island drew issue with extending the surcharge, UC President Mark Yudof said that students would end up paying for the lawsuits in an indirect form even without the surcharge.

“I don’t know what to say,” Yudof said. “Where would you have us take the money?”

Nathan Brostrom, executive vice president of UC business operations, lauded the regents’ decision to be candid with students about the fees.

“This is actually a hallmark of transparency, to show what it is and that it will be paid off,” Brostrom said.

While he acknowledged the funds could have come from cuts to UC programs, he said that that would have come at the expense of the quality of UC services.

According to UC Regent Richard Blum, university officials made a mistake by pursuing costly litigation and should have settled the case.

The extension will expire when the costs of the second lawsuit, Luquetta v. Regents of the University of California, are fully paid off. The first lawsuit, Kashmiri v. Regents of the University of California, is set to be paid off this school year. As per UC policy, 33 percent of the fees collected from the extension of the surcharge on professional students will go toward financial aid.

“Let’s face it, this is ugly,” Klein said. “Nobody likes this. (The university) felt strongly that we were in the right — that’s why we went through all the appeals. And guess what, we lost.”

Contact Jeremy Gordon and Libby Rainey at newdesk@dailycal.org.

The post Regents vote to extend tuition surcharge appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The UC Board of Regents has issued $1.7 billion of AA+ bonds with a stable rating outlook to be sold by negotiation the week of Feb. 25. Fitch cites the university’s exceptional reputation and successful fiscal management as primary reasons for the bonds’ high rating.

“This is really a stamp of approval on what we’ve accomplished,” said UC spokesperson Dianne Klein.

This recent evaluation follows a trend of consistent AA+ ratings given by the credit rating agency Fitch Ratings for UC bonds.

Fitch’s report expresses confidence in the continuing strength of the UC system’s reputation and states that strong student demand and highly selective admissions have continued despite recent increases in student charges.

The report further suggests that successful strategic initiatives undertaken by the UC administration are expected to yield positive fiscal results, partially mitigating concerns over negative operating results and steep declines in funding.

“What we can really see is that the UC financial team is doing the right things,” Klein said. “Fitch has recognized their careful management of the university’s liabilities and debt-restructuring plans.”

Fitch anticipates that results of this successful financial management will be seen in the 2013 fiscal year but suggests that this process is likely to be slow.

In addition to these positive indicators, Fitch has stated that it regards the university’s diverse revenue base as a favorable credit factor. Decreasing reliance on state funding has provided a measure of safety against future cuts.

According to Fitch’s report, state funding in the 2012 fiscal year constituted 9 percent of UC revenues, down from 16 percent in 2008.

Fitch’s report also notes that the UC system is in a stronger fiscal position since the passing of Proposition 30, which has prevented further state funding cuts from higher education and provided the UC system with a $125 million injection.

While the majority of Fitch’s report focuses on the university’s successful fiscal planning, it also indicates a few areas that the university will have to address if it expects to maintain its AA+ rating.

The bonds’ AA+ rating is primarily contingent on the UC system stemming the operating losses that have resulted from a gap in the university’s budget — an issue that the UC system is currently seeking to address.

“While we assume that we are going to be in a better position (in 2013), there will still be a gap of $150 million between what we have and what we need,” Klein said.

Klein adds that despite ongoing budgetary difficulties, the UC system has issued the bonds during a period of historically low interest rates, a measure that could save the university millions of dollars.

Contact Tasha Osborne at tosborne@dailycal.org.

The post Fitch assigns UC bonds AA+ rating appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The bill — SB 10 —  binds the ASUC to complete the withdrawal of any of its $3 million in total investments from fossil fuel companies. CalSERVE Senator Nolan Pack, an author of the bill, said he sought to use UC Berkeley’s position as a global leader to curb the effects of climate change. SB 10 was supported by a coalition of campus environmental groups and Cal Berkeley Democrats.

The bill is part of a wider movement at universities across the nation to support divestment from fossil fuel companies by institutions of higher education.

Senator Sadia Saifuddin, chief of the senate finance committee, was unsure of how the ASUC would logistically divest from fossil fuel companies, saying that the senate would discuss that now that the bill has passed.

According to a press release, divestment would most likely involve requesting managers of the ASUC’s funds, such as the Boston Trust & Investment Management Company and Union Bank, to move investments out of fossil fuel companies.

While acknowledging that investments in fossil fuels tended to yield the highest returns, Pack said that divesting from fossil fuels was not inherently risky and that strong profits could be made in an environmentally friendly way.

“Social responsibility does not have to be unprofitable,” Pack said. “I don’t think the two have to be mutually exclusive.”

Senator Nils Gilbertson, who abstained from voting on the bill, acknowledged that climate change was a problem but said that it was important to maintain maximum profitability.

“They’re thinking about it more idealistically, while I’m thinking about it in a more pragmatic way,” he said, referring to the other senators. “It’s not clear that the long-term benefits are going to be worth all the short-term problems this may cause for students.”

According to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein, the university treasurer’s office makes decisions regarding investment policy, and any action toward divestment must be voted on by the regents.

“If there’s a good reason, then it happens, regardless of the financial consequences to the university,” Klein said. “We’ve made the decision to divest before, from apartheid South Africa and from tobacco.”

Pack said that he was unsure of how much of the UC system’s estimated $70 billion endowment was invested in fossil fuel companies, adding that increasing transparency is another action he urged the university to take.

Jeremy Gordon covers higher education. Contact him at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post ASUC bill calls for divestment from fossil fuels appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The refinancing is expected to lessen the university’s debt burden by reducing the interest rate on a portion of the debt from about 5 percent to 3.5 percent, according to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein.

“It’s 100 percent refinancing, and the transaction is being used to save money on debt service,” said Tom Dresslar, director of communications for the state treasurer’s office. “The interest rate environment is pretty good right now.”

The bonds for sale this month are General Revenue Bonds, which the university uses to borrow money for general expenses like education and research. Klein said the bonds will mature from 2014 through 2039 and be sold through the California State Treasurer’s Office.

“Based on current market conditions, the university expects to save approximately $200 million,” Klein said. “The university is taking advantage of the current low interest rate environment to reduce its cost of capital.”

The savings from refinancing, however, are not yet certain because the bond sales have not finished. Through refinancing, the UC system saved $20.5 million in 2012 and $19.1 million in 2011, according to its 2011-12 Annual Financial Report.

“The revenue that pays off these bonds — some of it comes from students,” Dresslar said. “So to an extent, when the UC saves money on borrowing costs, that means that students have to shell out less from their pockets for the bonds.”

The UC currently has $17.3 billion of outstanding debt — an increase of almost $3 billion over the last year — according to the annual report. A majority of those funds came from the sale of $2.5 billion of General Revenue Bonds over the course of the last fiscal year.

Jacob Brown is the lead higher education reporter. Contact him at jbrown@dailycal.org.

The post UC to save millions through bond refinance appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The DREAM Act’s AB 131 allows undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition under AB 540 to apply for need-based financial aid such as Cal Grants, greatly increasing access to public higher education for California’s approximately 25,000 annual undocumented high school graduates.

Patti Colston, a public information officer for the Student Aid Commission, said that she expected about $19.5 million in Cal Grants to be awarded to undocumented students from a pool of about $1.7 billion in available funding. This significantly bolsters financial aid opportunities for undocumented students, which since 2012 have also included private university scholarships and university grants.

The DREAM Act has been increasing access to financial aid for undocumented students since granting them eligibility for privately funded university scholarships in 2012 and is a critical asset for undocumented students whose accessibility to public higher education has been limited.

According to Meng So, director of UC Berkeley’s Undocumented Students Program, the DREAM Act aims to allow undocumented students to drop their part-time jobs to focus on academics.

“It’s not just the scholarships but the holistic support services Berkeley offers,” So said, describing the accommodations the campus makes to ensure the success of undocumented students, which include the Dream Lending Library, free legal services, emergency grants and financial aid workshops.

Still, the act’s annual aid cap of $12,192 makes it necessary for its beneficiaries to secure additional sources of financial aid to account for the other costs of attending college — such as books, health insurance, and room and board.

Jesus Chavez, a fourth-year social welfare major and undocumented student, reflected on the uncertainty that has defined the struggle to finance his education.

“My family came to the United States 18 years ago, when I was 3,” he said. “In high school, it was expected that my siblings and I would go to college, because we were very smart. But from the beginning, I couldn’t rely on my family — they had a hard enough time on their own.”

Chavez navigated multiple channels of financial aid and worked multiple jobs in his free time to support his college education but still found his registration blocked in his junior year after he fell $3,500 short. Only a well-timed stipend of $4,000 allowed him to continue his studies until the DREAM Act kicked in, providing Chavez a more stable source of financial aid.

But Chavez insisted that he was fortunate to be an undocumented student at UC Berkeley, with its welcoming environment, network of services and ally in Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.

“They have helped me a lot and still help.” Chavez said. “Berkeley is one of the leading universities, and undocumented students here are privileged compared to undocumented students at other schools.”

Jeremy Gordon covers higher education. Contact him at jgordon@dailycal.org.

The post DREAM Act implementation secures state aid for undocumented students appeared first on The Daily Californian.

UC Berkeley’s endowment returns ­— a source of the private funds on which the university increasingly relies ­­—  decreased by about 1 percent in line with the national trend for the 2012 fiscal year.

Using data from 831 U.S. universities, NACUBO and the Commonfund Institute’s report shows that short-term endowment returns have fallen to an average of -0.3 percent in the 2012 fiscal year. Last year, average returns were about 19.2 percent.

On a longer time frame, however, 10-year endowment returns have remained healthy; on average, 10-year returns for endowments were 6.2 percent, compared to 5.6 percent last year.

According to the report, institutions with the largest endowments assets produced the highest returns. Institutions with over $1 billion in endowments, primarily including private universities such as Yale University, produced an average of 0.8 percent in returns.

Those with “mid-sized” endowments, including the University of California and many other public higher education institutions, reported negative returns.

According to the treasurer of the regent’s annual endowment report, the university’s endowment returns fell to -0.36 percent, and UC Berkeley’s returns fell to about -1.0 percent. The returns remained above their -2.48 percent benchmark, according to the report.

The UC system’s endowment assets are split between the regents and foundation assets from each of the campuses. Returns for the regents’ endowment assets, valued at about $6 billion, fell to -5.5 percent, while returns for total foundation endowment assets, valued at about $4 billion, declined to -0.7 percent.

Drops in endowment returns, however, are not expected to deter donor support for the university, said Lee Goldstein, a board member of the Berkeley Optometry Alumni Association.

“At this point, (the returns) do not seem to have much of an impact on what you plan to donate,” he said.
The university has seen increased financial support from donors, as state funding has become an increasingly unreliable source of funds over the past several years, according to Goldstein. Many alumni groups have increased their organizational efforts to maximize their fundraising abilities.

Both the UC system and UC Berkeley depend heavily on private funding. According to the UC’s 2012-13 budget report, 7 percent of the university’s revenue comes directly from private support, while about 11 percent comes from the state.

“The University of California is a treasure. Those of us who have been lucky enough to attend the university have benefited immensely from its impacts,” Goldstein said. “Hopefully we can be beneficial to the state as well.”

UC spokesperson Dianne Klein said the change in short-term endowment returns does not have significant implications for the university since they reflect a short period of time.

“All of these reports only calculate a snapshot of where we are now,” she said. “You can’t interpret this to say we are really down or up, since it really evens out.”

Additionally, Klein said the endowment returns will not have serious implications concerning the university’s accessibility or future funding.

“It isn’t as though if the endowment is down, the cost of education is down,” she said.

Alex Berryhill covers higher education. Contact her at aberryhill@dailycal.org.

The post Endowment returns drop for UC Berkeley, universities across the nation appeared first on The Daily Californian.