Day 53

I got yelled at yesterday by the boss. Well, maybe not really "yelled" at, but I did get an over-the-glasses glare, along with some particularly terse words that escalated in volume as they poured out. I hadn't done anything wrong myself, I was just trying to share some information, be positive about a crappy situation, and I was pretty much told "don't try to tell me something, because I know what's going on, and I don't need you trying to tell me what I already know!" Um, OK. Just trying to be helpful. Lesson learned. This is just the sort of thing that, once the economy improves and everyone else starts hiring again, will expedite a mass exodus brain-drain of the staff, something few seem to be publicly concerned with. My neighbor talks about the "attaboys" that staff plebes appreciate a lot more than many employers seem to realize. I know I've said this before, but some words of encouragement and appreciation sans demeaning attitude could go a very long way to keeping intact the outstanding group of people I work with during a time of pay cuts and no foreseeable raises.

Speaking of pay cuts, did you know that faculty can compensate themselves with research grants? This means that if a faculty member has a non-state funded grant, and can meet other various criteria, he or she can fill in the pay gap from the furlough with grant money, which then means they have less money for research, but a full paycheck. That seems fair. Why is it that the "haves" always end up making out or breaking even in these situations and the "have-nots" who don't have these options take the brunt? Well, I suppose if I could get myself awarded a federal grant for research on envelope stuffing and data management, I could compensate myself, too, so I have no right to complain. This is America after all, the land of opportunity, where we can shape our own destinies and make our own fortunes, and it's just our own damn fault if we don't.

This morning campus members received an email from the Chancellor Birgeneau "encouraging your participation in the work of the Commission on the Future." He points us to a letter written to "UC Colleagues" from President Yudoff, and Chair of the Board of Regents, Russell Gould. In the letter, Yudoff and Gould tell us that we have "several" ways to participate. We can post a question or suggestion on their website, or we can attend a forum on campus to voice our opinions to the commission's working group leaders while they are on system-wide "listening tours." I realize that by "several," these gentlemen mean to say that these two options will not be the only ones (unless they missed the day in second grade on the difference between "several" and "a few"). But by starting with these two options, they at least give the impression that while our comments are welcome and encouraged, there is no guarantee that they will make any difference whatsoever. In an earlier letter, Regents were invited to participate or nominate other UC members to join the working groups, but so far this appears to be the only opportunity for non-upper administration UC community members to have an official voice in the process. After looking over the selected member list, of the 28 members of the commission, only three are non-upper administration or Regent: two faculty and one alum. According to the "University of California - Commission on the Future" website, here are the goals of the commission:

How can the University of California best serve the state in the years ahead and maintain access, quality and affordability in a time of diminishing resources?

The UC Commission on the Future will address that question and others as it develops a vision for the future of the state’s public research university – one that reaffirms UC's role in sustaining California's economic and cultural vitality, while recognizing that limited state funding will require creativity and new strategies to meet that mission.

The Commission and its five working groups – on the size and shape of UC, its education and curriculum, access and affordability, and funding and research strategies – will meet through March to consider, among other issues:

• What is the right size and shape of the University going forward? Where should it grow, or should it?
• What educational delivery models will both maintain quality and improve efficiency for UC's future?
• How can UC maximize traditional and alternative revenue streams in support of its mission?

I notice that they continue to use the phrase, "delivery models" for the education of students, which I remember one faculty member taking issue with, and saying something to the effect that professors are not FedEx drivers and do not "deliver" educations. Nor do I and my colleagues "deliver" advice to students and faculty. If we could deliver advice and educations, the need for humans on campuses would hardly exist, and students could possibly just stand under the end of a conveyor belt and have their needs met with a good healthy clunk on the head from a package containing all the information we members of the university bloat used to give. Perhaps this concept should be added to the delivery models list of maybes. It would certainly save the institution a good deal of money on delivery costs, especially if the conveyor belt is solar powered.