Bipartisan coalition urging vote on civil asset forfeiture bill

Good morning! Happy hump day.

Proponents of a measure to close a loophole that allows local law enforcement agencies to seize citizens’ property without a criminal conviction or even an arrest — a practice dubbed “policing for profit” — are moving behind the scenes to shore up support for the bill that died last September after a last-minute flurry of opposition from law enforcement.

The high-profile coalition of supporters — which spans the partisan divide with powerful advocacy groups and influential members of both parties — is aiming for a vote in the Assembly next week to block law enforcement from circumventing strict state law by partnering with the federal government in a program called “equitable sharing.”

On the right, Republican consultant Mike Madrid and Shawn Steel, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, are urging Republican support while California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton is working with Democrats. 

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news:

• Kevin Faulconer, the Republican mayor of San Diego, says he will not run for governor in 2018 if re-elected in November as mayor, reports the San Diego Union-Tribune. Faulconer was widely seen as Republicans’ best potential candidate for governor.
• The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a measure on Tuesday that amends its sanctuary city policy, giving local law enforcement greater discretion to notify immigration officials of an undocumented felon’s release from custody, according to SF Gate.
• “The Cal State Board of Trustees approved a plan Tuesday to raise faculty salaries by 10.5% over three years, capping a long-running dispute over pay that threatened to wreak havoc on the nation’s largest public university system,” writes the Los Angeles Times.
• “Assemblyman Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, has spent $41,500 in political funds to support Proposition 50, an anti-corruption measure put on the ballot in response to issues raised when his uncle, former Sen. Ronald Calderon, was indicted in a bribery case,” writes the Los Angeles Times.

Assembly:

• Full slate of hearings, including packed appropriations meeting.

Senate:

• Several joint hearings, including one on a ballot initiative to redirect bag fees away from grocers.

Gov. Brown:

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @kelseybrugger @mattmahon

By John Seiler

I keep giving Republicans ideas so they can have some fun with Democrats. So far, the GOP remains about as fun-loving as teetotaler at a Sonora wine-tasting party.

But here’s an idea. Proposition 30 just passed and is raising $6 billion in new taxes. As you’ll recall, in the ads last fall the money was advertised as going entirely to education. And Gov. Jerry Brown’s  new budget proposal even says, “Proposition 30, the Governor’s Initiative, was premised on the need to reinvest in education.” (For Democrats, tax increases always are “investment.”)

But in that budget proposal, Brown gives just $2.7 billion to K-14 education, just $150 million to Cal State and $250 million to the University of California. Total: $3.1 billion to education.

That leaves $2.9 billion for the general fund, meaning pensions.

Now here’s where Republicans can have some fun. Put an initiative on the November 2014 ballot that allocates all the Prop. 30 funds to education! Make it $5 billion to K-14 and $1 billion to Cal State and UC.

Is that “ballot-box budgeting,” which I always have attacked because it distorts the budget? Yes, but so is Prop. 30. So, it’s just reallocating what’s already been budgeted at the ballot box.

And here’s the best part: The Democrat’s main interest groups, the teachers’ unions, will have to support it “for the children.” Yet the initiative also would deny money to the government-workers’ pensions, forcing an earlier date that reforms must be made.

Republicans: If you can’t beat Democrats, at least have fun causing division and chaos in their ranks.

By John Hrabe

Every good protest has a catchy rallying cry. A simple memorable phrase that summarizes the movement’s agenda. The Vietnam War: “Hey-hey! Ho-ho! LBJ has got to go!” The Women’s Rights Movement: “What do we want? Equal Rights! When do we want it? Now!”

Over the past year, students, faculty and staff have organized protests and rallies at California State University campuses, as the country’s largest higher education system copes with annual tuition increases and budget cuts.  The California Faculty Association announced on Tuesday that, after all the protests, it finally had reached a tentative contract agreement with trustees. And the rallying cry is clear:

“What do we want?” 

* “Salary for 12-month department chairs on sabbatical shall be based on a 12-month — not academic year — salary schedule.”

* “The age of dependents eligible for fee waiver will increase from ‘up to 23 years of age’ to ‘up to 25 years of age.’”

That’s not a parody, but two exact quotes from the faculty association’s fact sheet on the deal that could end the faculty’s holdout. Have they really been holding out for revised sabbatical pay schedules and an increased age for dependent tuition waivers?

The faculty association’s fact sheet confirms how badly they were beaten by trustees. In fact, faculty members only played defense. The first 19 bullet points contain some variation of the phrases: “stopped management’s attempt to,” “defeated CSU administration’s legislative effort to,” and “beat back a chancellor proposal to.” Another CFA victory brought Cal State “up to date with state law to prohibit discrimination against faculty.”

The deal only goes into effect “upon ratification by CFA members and the CSU Board of Trustees.” CFA members can and should veto the agreement. They’re the only group with any leverage over trustees and could use their contract negotiations to change the corruption at Cal State.

Cal State Administrators Immune from Austerity Measures

Cal State Trustees have been arrogant. Top administrators continue to be dismissive of student and faculty concerns. And CSU presidents have been entirely immune from any budget cuts.  Since 2008, student fees have nearly doubled.  Faculty members have matched student sacrifices by foregoing pay raises and taking furlough days. Over that same time, there’s been no end to Cal State’s administrative excess. Don’t forget that these figures are just the president’s base pay.

* Elliot Hirshman, the president of San Diego State University, has received an annual salary bump of $154,500. He made $267,000 per year at the University of Maryland, but now makes $421,500 at San Diego.

* San Jose State University’s Mohammad Qayoumi takes home 38 percent more per year now that he moved over from the Cal State East Bay campus. He earned $237,072 per year at East Bay and earns $328,200 at San Jose.

* Dianne F. Harrison, the new president of Cal State Northridge, has increased her salary from $270,315 to $324,500 per year, a 20 percent raise over her previous base salary at the Monterey Bay campus.

* Mildred Garcia, Fullerton’s new president, also scored a 10 percent pay raise by changing campuses. She now earns $324,500 annually, a 10 percent raise over her previous post.

* Leroy Morishita, the new president at CSU East Bay, receives $303,660 per year, a 10 percent increase from his salary as the interim campus president.

* Leslie Wong, the new president of San Francisco State University, earns $123,000 more than he did at Northern Michigan University. His salary increased from $201,995 to $325,000 per year.

Enough Money for Pay Raises for Top Managers

Cal State presidents have shared the wealth with their top managers.  According to an analysis of payroll data, Cal State presidents awarded 486 pay raises to top managers from 2008-10. Cal State Chancellor Charles Reed handed out another 80 pay raises to his chosen bureaucratic elite.  Those figures excluded promotions for staff that have internally changed positions.

“On an annualized basis, these discretionary raises added $6.5 million to the cost to run the CSU system,” the study’s authors concluded. You’d expect the California Faculty Association to highlight such inequitable measures in their negotiations, especially given that they authored the report.

Cal State has repeatedly defended the pay raises as necessary to retain and recruit the best talent. “We need to be able to recruit and retain the best and the brightest individuals,” said Mike Uhlenkamp spokesman for the Cal State chancellor’s office. Apparently, that logic only applies to presidents and not faculty members.

“Fair Agreement in Hard Times”

“It’s a fair agreement in the context of hard times,” said Lillian Taiz, the president of the California Faculty Association. “We are disappointed we were not able to get a raise, but that wasn’t in the cards. It was a tough pill to swallow, I won’t kid you.” Taiz is right. Given the current budget situation, it’s completely unreasonable for faculty to secure higher pay or increased benefits. However, Cal State faculty could have achieved something worth more than money: respect.

Faculty Association Should Demand Faculty Salaries Be Tied to Administrators’

The California Faculty Association should reject the current contract and demand just one additional contract provision: All salaries, including administrators, campus presidents and top managers, shall be linked to the faculty’s pay and benefits. To keep trustees honest, the policy should be applied to all pay, including bonuses paid out by nonprofit auxiliary foundations.

With just this one demand, CFA members could fix Cal State’s attitude problem. No more presidential pay raises. Faculty members could force a new policy of shared sacrifice and tie administrators’ success to their own.  Everyone at Cal State would be on the same page and face the system’s upcoming challenges together.

Faculty members don’t teach for the money. They do it because they love teaching. But, more and more, faculty are finding it hard to teach for a university system that creates one set of rules for administrators and another for faculty members. It’s especially disrespectful given that faculty are the only ones in the classroom.

Shared Sacrifice! Equal Austerity! Not bad slogans for the next Cal State protest.

By Stan Brin

Some of us are good at math, some of us struggle merely to get through it.

Whether we’re good at it or bad, few of us will ever again use anything we learned in calculus or trigonometry class ever again, not even once. After graduation, few will even be able to recognize such general terms as sine and cosine, much less be able to explain what they mean.

For those who want to become engineers, scientists or economists, math is the foundation of their careers. It’s vital, not to be questioned.

For the rest of us — and I include technicians and medical workers* among the rest of us — math is, more often than not, a painful and soul-breaking ritual that we are forced to endure if we hope to have a decent life.

The official line is that lots and lots of math is supposed to prepare us for work. It’s supposed to teach us to think logically. It’s also supposed to help America compete against Asian Tiger economies that are eating our national lunch.

These assumptions may be mistaken. For many, if not most students, math education, at least as taught in this country, is little more than a cruel and expensive obstacle course designed to force large numbers of them to fail.

Even wore, this torture machine produces generations of Americans who graduate utterly unprepared to tackle real-world studies.

Consider the following sample problem that all students bound for higher education are expected to understand:

Explain how the unit circle in the coordinate plane enables the extension of trigonometric functions to all real numbers, interpreted as radian measures of angles traversed counterclockwise around the unit circle.

This requirement, taken word for word from page 60 of the California Common Core standards, is among the norms used by 45 states and the District of Columbia to determine what every student should know. There are many, many, more examples, all equally opaque.

Obviously, somebody in 45 states and D.C. really thinks that all of us common folk really, really, need to know how to “traverse counterclockwise around the unit circle” or we won’t be able to think logically, as if mathematicians are known for their logical thinking. (Ted Kaczynski, Paul Erdos, Lord Bertrand Russell, John Nash, and Sir Isaac Newton come to mind — all of them brilliant, all of them mentally handicapped in various ways.)

During my career, I’ve written thousands of articles on subjects as varied as boxing and physics, I’ve designed software products that won two Editor’s Choice awards, but I’ve never had occasion to “traverse counterclockwise around the unit circle,” nor even to traverse it clockwise. Not once.

Nor did I ever have to understand “how the unit circle in the coordinate plane enables the extension of trigonometric functions to all real numbers.” In fact, I don’t even know what a unit circle or a coordinate plane is, or why anyone would want to traverse one. I’ve looked it up, and I still don’t know, other than the unit circle has something to do with a radius of a circle being equal to “one.” One what, no one says, at least not in English.

Of course, I’m sure that some people actually need to know all about the unit circle. I would include among them such truly and honest-to-gosh smart people as scientists, engineers, economists and artillery officers.

My brother, for example, needs to understand the unit circle. So does his wife. They’re both astrophysicists. They study the paths of comets and asteroids, and how to send space probes to meet them, what is known colloquially as “rocket science.”

Brainy folk like my brother — his face is familiar to the millions who like “history of the planets” shows — may account for 1 percent of the entire population. To that 1 percent, let’s add people whose work requires them to talk to scientists, engineers, economists and artillery officers, and we may have another 1 percent of the population. Let’s add another two percent for people who marry scientists, engineers, economists and artillery officers and those who know how to talk to them. Let’s also add another percentage point for math hobbyists who are actually interested in traversing the unit circle for its own sake – and we have a total of 5 percent, one out of 20.

And that’s being extremely generous.

The rest of us, 19 out of 20, are force fed higher math for up to four years. All college-bound students are required to pass three years of it. Vast numbers drop out in frustration, others manage to barely get by– and swear that they will never enter a classroom again.

And a day after our last finals, all of us who passed immediately forget absolutely everything. Meanwhile, very, very, few of us are taught how to use math to solve real-world problems, such as how to calculate the amount of wood needed to build a house, or how much concrete is required to pave a patio.

The average homeowner doesn’t have much use for the unit circle, but knowing how to buy just the right amount of materials, how to have it delivered on time and how much it will cost down the line, would save a lot of time and money.

But that’s not as important.

Blame History

There are those who believe that degrees are pointless scraps of paper. I disagree, but Peter Thiel and others have a point: We force young people to suffer obscure and useless subjects as a ritual — because it’s the way things are done, and the way things have always been done.

These obstacle courses — and that’s what they are, obstacles disguised as courses — exist because our grandparents and great-grandparents endured them, and if they learned to traverse the unit circle, well, by jiminy, today’s young whippersnappers had better learn to do it as well. We may no longer be expected to learn Latin and Classical Greek, thank Almighty Zeus, but the struggle with theoretical math still holds a mystical, untouchable holiness among well-meaning educators.

And yet very few young people study computer programming in high school, and those who do, don’t learn enough to obtain an entry level position. Think about it, 35 years into the PC age, and most kids put on their blue caps and gowns without ever learning Boolean logic, conditional loops, variables and arrays, terms that should actually mean something to the average, reasonably educated person.

Why? Because the starched-collared, monocle-wearing worthies who invented secondary education curricula for the unwashed masses, back in the olden days of bustles, shirtwaists, handlebar mustaches and buggy whips, didn’t think that practical subjects were as important as the skills they mastered at their exclusive private schools — such as translating Ovid or Caesar’s Gallic Wars.

Nevertheless, by 1900 times had changed. According to Professor Mark Ellis of Cal State Fullerton, a specialist in the history of math education, “The turn of the 20th century was the first era of large cities with diverse populations. Child labor was banned. Kids had time to go to school.”

The result was a vast increase in demand for secondary education, but the idea that students born of farmers or immigrant shopkeepers should study bookkeeping instead of Pericles’ Funeral Oration was difficult for academics from privileged backgrounds to understand.

Still, courses such as “shop” and “home economics” managed to infiltrate the system. Boys used to learn how to saw lumber, and girls learned how to cook. Perhaps, these days, boys and girls should study both subjects, or at least learn how to operate a microwave. Instead, they’re cramming math, yet falling even further behind international standards.

Latin and Classical Greek are now out of fashion, praise Jove and all the others. A few might want to study these languages so that they can name new species of slugs and jellyfish. (These days, dinosaurs are mostly given Chinese names.)

But California law still requires three years of higher math, including calculus from anyone who wants to go to the University of California or Cal State to study marketing, public administration or even history.

This doesn’t mean that that there are any monocled, pointy-bearded men and pince-nez wearing women out there eager to paddle the daylights out of nineteen out of twenty students with wooden rulers for failing to traverse the unit circle. Far from it. Their modern incarnations, such as Gerardo Loera, executive director of curriculum and instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District, mean well. They just don’t get it.

“It should be as embarrassing to say ‘I can’t do math’ as it is to say ‘I can’t read,’” Loera says, which would make sense in a perfect world. “I still believe that math skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving, will transfer to other areas and are important even for liberal arts. Even if students don’t take any more math.”

Yet Loera, a fine and decent man who proved remarkably open and generous with his time, couldn’t cite any facts or figures to back up that belief. I asked him if calculus and trigonometry are useful in, say, journalism.

He sighed, and admitted that “I can’t cite any research that higher math helps journalists.”

Precisely my point.

 The Asian Solution

One reason why Asian countries seem to be eating our lunch appears to be an understanding of a basic fact of the human brain: Only so much stuff can be forced inside.

So they teach math from staple-bound booklets less than a hundred pages long. Only the most important topics are covered, but students are given time to actually understand them. Contrast those books to the dangerously heavy bricks California students are forced to lug home every day, and skim through because there’s no time to really understand what’s in them.

Everyone involved in teaching mathematics admits that the situation is ridiculous and self-defeating. According to a famous paper by Prof. William H. Schmidt of Michigan State University, the math curriculum in the United States is “a mile wide and an inch deep.”

Everyone involved in math education that I’ve talked to, including Cathy Seeley, a past president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, agree with Schmidt: High schools are trying to cram too much into kids’ heads.

Courses cover too many topics in too little time, the teachers have to move on before the kids have time to absorb anything, the lessons are so abstract that they mean absolutely nothing, and in the end, the students will forget absolutely everything.

Some people claim that the problem isn’t topics — Singapore students, we are told, study more math topics than American students and do better on standardized tests.

But Singapore is an island city state. It has a small, rigorously conformist and highly disciplined population that accepts a single-party dictatorship without complaint. Singapore also famously produces university graduates who haven’t the slightest idea where babies come from. Even worse, chewing gum is illegal there.

It is also one of the countries whose students are expected to brutally cram for admissions tests. Once admitted, Asian students find that university studies are less rigorous than they are in North America, hence the vast numbers that come here for post-secondary education.

There are those who still believe that narrowing math standards in high school — and adding flexibility to the system — will cause California and the rest of the country to go to hell in the proverbial hand-basket. These should remember that American high schoolers have been doing poorly, by international standards, for decades, yet our universities are still the envy of the world.

An American Solution

I would never say that higher math is only for nerds, or that it is unnecessary for those interested in fields that build on its foundations, nor would I ever say that students shouldn’t know what trigonometry is, and why Newton invented calculus.

But instead of frying their brains trying to traverse the unit circle counterclockwise, perhaps students should be given a year of natural history. Instead of trying to solve useless, abstract puzzles, they should try to plot the orbit of a Mars probe, or how much energy would be required to send an asteroid hurtling to Earth to wipe out the dinosaurs. Or how scientists were able to use math to analyze regular mutations in DNA, proving that we are all descended from a single woman who lived some 200,000 years ago.

Or how King George III used calculus and astronomy to test the first practical longitudinal chronometer. (Yes, King George was the villain of the American revolution, but ancestors of most Americans arrived on this continent in reasonable safety, and at a much lower cost, because that very odd King was able to prove that the longitudinal chronometer actually worked — and convince others that it did.)

Students would find these examples more interesting than anything in the Core Curriculum. They might not be able to traverse that unit circle counterclockwise when they were finished, but they would know a few more things that they might remember past prom night.

———————————-

* Note: Doctors and nurses don’t need higher math. Perhaps some doctor might like to throw a quarrelsome hypochondriac from a window and calculate the time it takes him to land — that would be higher math. But in the real world, they mainly need to know the metric system and be able to keep its infernal decimal points in the right place. They have too much to learn about the infinite frailties of human anatomy to be bothered with traversing the unit circle. Try asking your surgeon a trig question, and you might as well be speaking Latin or Classical Greek, but he or she is still required to learn higher math as a way of demonstrating an intelligence sufficient to remove an appendix.

By John Hrabe

After fourteen years as head of the nation’s largest higher education system, Cal State University Chancellor Charles Reed is calling it quits. Reed’s tenure has been praised by the insular higher education community. He’s been one of the most vocal protectors of the status quo, which enriches the bureaucratic elite at the expense of students and faculty.

“In my four years in California, the Chancellor has been an effective and reliable ally in the fight to keep alive for future generations of Californians the promise of an affordable, top quality education,” said Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, according to “Testaments to Chancellor Charles B. Reed’s Service,” a glowing piece of bureaucratic propaganda produced by the Chancellor’s office. “We have worked as partners in Sacramento, attempting to persuade the state’s political leadership to reverse its chronic disinvestment in public higher education.”

To his critics, Reed is to blame for reckless spending, endless tuition increases, a contentious relationship with faculty and an embarrassing executive compensation scandal. “Chancellor Reed has presided over an era of unprecedented turmoil in the California State University system,” read a statement from the California Faculty Association upon Reed’s retirement announcement. “The CSU has seen devastating budget cuts, and students have borne much of the burden – student fees have more than quadrupled since 2002.”

Prop Zero blogger Joe Mathews recently suggested that Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim first baseman Albert Pujos take over the job. “Maybe he could be convinced to work days at Cal State headquarters in Long Beach for free, before making the short drive to Anaheim for night games,” he wrote. That got us to speculating about other scenarios, some just as unlikely, for filling the job of Cal State Chancellor.

The Favorites

Scenario #1: The Cal State Insider

Candidates: Cal State Vice-Chancellors: Benjamin Quillian, Ephraim Smith & Gail Brooks

Rationale: If you thought the Augusta National Golf Club was exclusive, you’ve never reviewed the resumes on file in Cal State’s HR department. Or, for any academics out there, Cal State is susceptible to in-group–out-group bias. “Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exists in its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders,” observed sociologist William Sumner, according to Wikipedia.

Cal State loves to promote from within. New Cal State Northridge president Dianne Harrison previously served as president of Monterey Bay. San Jose State President Mohammad Qayoumi’s used to hold the same position at East Bay. We could go on and on. That’s why the safe bet is that after a long and expensive executive search firm completes their review, Cal State will promote one of the system’s vice-chancellors. Moreover, we aren’t exactly sure that any out-of-state education administrator could be persuaded to take the job.

Downside: Status Quo. Cal State could expect more of the same dysfunction and fiscal mismanagement if it promoted from within the organization. In 1990, after CSU Chancellor Ann Reynolds resigned in disgrace following her own executive pay scandal, an executive vice chancellor took over the job on an interim basis. The chief deputy, Herbert Carter, would go on to serve as Chairman of the Board of Trustees, until the State Senate blocked his reconfirmation earlier this year.

Odds: 4 to 1

Scenario #2: Out-of-State Higher Education Administrator

Candidates: William E. Kirwan, Chancellor of the University System of Maryland; Frank T. Brogan, Chancellor of the State University System of Florida

Rationale: Cal State’s out-of-state farm system has training camps in Maryland and Florida. From 1985 to 1998, Reed served as chancellor of the State University System of Florida. Cal State plucked Elliot Hirschman from the University of Maryland last year to fill the void at San Diego State. As further evidence of Cal State’s Maryland connections, the universities worked out a 2008 memorandum of understanding for assisting servicemembers with completing their degrees.

Downside: An out-of-state administrator wouldn’t be much better than a Cal State insider. They’d look at Cal State’s budget problems as a forced choice between tuition increases and enrollment cuts.  These individuals wouldn’t necessarily replicate Cal State’s reckless spending practices, but they could be expected to appease the institution.

Odds: 25 to 1. We doubt either one of these administrators would want the job. Why join the Cal State University system as it prepares for catastrophic budget cuts in the fall? Moreover, Cal State would likely disapprove of Brogan’s political affiliation; he served as Jeb Bush’s Lt. Governor.

A Stretch, But Still Plausible

Scenario #3: A Rotating Position

Candidates: Cal State Presidents

Rationale: In response to Reed’s retirement, the California Faculty Association suggested, “This ‘changing of the guard’ provides a unique opportunity to reflect on the direction of the CSU, and to improve the quality of education at the nation’s largest university system.” So, what’s unique and out-of-the-box, according to one of those high-priced consulting firms that would likely be paid to conduct an executive search? One idea might be to rotate the Chancellor position among the Cal State presidents.

College presidents are essentially mini-me’s of the system-wide chancellor. The job responsibilities are the same: to raise money, to negotiate with faculty and to act as the public face of the college. By rotating the position, Cal State presidents would begin to think more collectively about the system’s problems, instead of focusing exclusively on what’s best for each individual campus. That might produce more cost-saving partnerships among Cal State universities. For example, Dominguez Hills could merge a few course sections with Long Beach State. You’d also save money by eliminating the salary of one of the highest-paid state employees, thereby blunting further executive compensation criticism.

Downside: Cal State presidents would probably tell you that they’ve already got enough on their plate. Instead of using the position to think collectively about the good of the system, presidents might use the Cal State Chancellor’s office to funnel money back to their individual campus.

Odds: 6,839 to 1

When Pigs Fly and Hell Freezes Over

Scenario #4: The Cal State Critic

Candidates: Asm. Anthony Portantino; Sen. Leland Yee

Rationale: In one move, the Cal State Board of Trustees could effectively end all criticism of its executive compensation policies. What better way to silence your critics than to hire one of them to run the place? Yee and Portantino have impeccable legislative records defending Cal State from budget cuts. They’re well-respected by the faculty association, which has been unhappy with the current administration. Plus, this choice could unify Cal State Trustees in their push for the November tax increases. (Not that CalWatchdog supports tax hikes.) Their message about dire budget cuts wouldn’t be muddled by wasteful spending by the Chancellor’s office.

Sen. Yee is the ideal candidate to serve as the new Chancellor of the Cal State University. He meets all the requirements: he spent eight years on the San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education, has a doctorate in child psychology and showed his fundraising prowess in the San Francisco mayor’s race. He’s about the only outsider who has the qualifications to immediately fill a higher education leadership position. There’s also a precedent of a legislator serving as chancellor. Former State Senator Jack Scott most recently served as chancellor of the California Community College system.

Downside: It’s easier to criticize than govern. Although Portantino and Yee are highly effective legislators, some administrators would argue that they lack the necessary administrative experience.

Odds: 44,000 to 1. This scenario is pretty far-fetched, but only because of personality conflicts. The Cal State Trustees and bureaucrats despise these government watchdogs. Earlier this year, the pair sent a letter to the Chancellor’s office demanding the truth about Cal State’s executive pay. An Assistant Vice Chancellor replied, “Not sure we felt it was necessary to respond to the ongoing and never ending critical communications.” Yet, this scenario is still more likely than the final option.

Scenario #5: Higher Education Revolutionary 

Candidates: Salman Khan, Peter Thiel, Sebastian Thrun

Rationale: Entrepreneur and businessman Mark Cuban predicts that higher education will experience a collapse in the next decade far worse than the housing market debacle. “Like the real estate industry, prices will rise until the market revolts,” he wrote on his blog. Khan, Thiel and Thrun are education revolutionaries. They understand how to effectively use technology to enhance the learning experience and bring down costs. These visionaries provide something for nothing. They give knowledge and learning away free of charge. At a time of budget cuts and doing more with less, they’d be the perfect choice to lead the Cal State system through the coming higher education revolution.

Every higher education institution wants to be like the Ivy League schools.  Harvard and MIT both offer courses online for free, why not Cal State? Colleges and universities claim to be interested in educating all, regardless of wealth or economic status. The easiest way to fulfill that mission would to require all course materials, notes and lectures be posted online for free. After all, taxpayers pay the bill. That’s the kind of approach a tech-savvy education innovator might bring to Cal State.

Downside: Short term pain. These brilliant minds would run headlong into an obstinate and entitled Cal State administration.  When the trustees recently handed out pay raises to two new presidents, CSU Trustee Roberta Achtenberg said, “I’m just sorry we can’t pay them more because of the policy we adopted.” Tone-deaf is an understatement.

Odds: 427,000 to 1. Let’s face it nothing is more terrifying to the Ivory Towers than Udacity, Khan Academy and the Thiel Fellowships. These innovative programs aren’t reforms. They are fundamental revolts against the higher education complex. Cal State could shake up the world of higher education with a bold choice like Thrun, Thiel or Khan.

By John Hrabe

Following public outcry over six-figure pay raises handed out to top executives, the California State University Board of Trustees approved a plan last week to shift future pay hikes from taxpayer funds to nonprofit auxiliary foundations. The decision effectively freezes the amount of tax dollars spent on the college’s executive compensation, and Cal State officials hoped that would be enough to bring closure to the issue.

“Hoping we can put this issue 2 rest at CSU Trustees meeting. Prez Salary Freeze w/ taxpayer $ is right move,” newly confirmed Cal State Trustee Steve Glazer posted on Twitter. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, an ex-officio member of the board, praised the action as “a significant step in the right direction.”

But, the new policy that was intended to quell public criticism of Cal State’s spending practices has some ethics experts questioning whether it creates a conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof, for the college foundations. That’s because Cal State presidents commonly maintain a powerful influence over the foundation boards, according to a CalWatchDog.com analysis of the governing documents for more than a dozen auxiliary groups.

The Cal State University chancellor and the presidents of nine campuses all serve as voting members of their respective foundations, which now have the authority to supplement presidential salaries and benefits. The campuses are Bakersfield, Channel Islands, East Bay, Humboldt, Long Beach, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose and Sonoma State.

“It is my belief that the foundations have always operated as a slush-fund for presidents,” Kevin Wehr, president of the Sacramento State University chapter of the California Faculty Association, told CalWatchDog.com. “When foundation money is used to remodel presidents’ homes and kitchens, one really has to wonder how this benefits the direct instruction of students–especially when the amounts of money are the equivalent of 100 course sections or more.”

College presidents not only serve as ex-officio members of the foundation board of directors. In many cases they serve as an executive officer of the foundation, have unrestricted authority to control board appointments and veto any changes to the foundation bylaws. And one Cal State president even has the power to remove a foundation board member at any time—for any reason.

“The CSU Board of Trustees’ decision to use funds from college foundations to pay for raises for campus presidents does raise some questions,” said Loyola Law School Professor Jessica Levinson. “If college presidents are in control of these college foundations, then it raises at least a question of the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

State Law Bans Self-Dealing by Foundation Board Members

State conflict of interest laws prevent auxiliary organizations from self-dealing. California Education Code Section 89906 stipulates: “No member of the governing board of an auxiliary organization shall be financially interested in any contract or other transaction entered into by the board of which he is a member, and any contract or transaction entered into in violation of this section is void.”

Michael Houston, a partner at the Newport Beach firm Cummins & White, LLP and expert on government ethics, says this provision is likely a problem for Cal State’s new pay policy.

“This seems not only to be a conflict, then, but a likely problem under 89906,” he said. “That would particularly be the case if the president could be said to have the ability to influence the other board members despite the president being unable to vote.”

Cal State presidents have numerous ways of influencing other foundation board members. Five foundations — one for the statewide CSU and the foundations for four campuses, Bakersfield, East Bay, Long Beach and Sonoma — grant the college’s top executive a leadership position as president, chair, secretary or CEO of the foundation. In turn, the executive position occasionally vests the president with the power to choose the organization’s executive director and other key personnel.

But, paid employees are far from the only foundation members with a favor to return.

Boards Hand Picked by President

“All Directors must be approved by the University President,” mandates Article II Section 1 of the San Jose State Foundation’s bylaws. In other words, the foundation board members owe their appointment directly to the president. Eight other Cal State presidents — at Channel Islands, East Bay, Humboldt, Long Beach, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco and Sonoma State — have similar appointment powers.

If an unfriendly board member were able to sneak through this presidential approval process, he or she might be able to convince the board to curb the president’s authority. But such renegade board members at Channel Islands, East Bay, Humboldt, San Diego and San Francisco would be stymied, again. These five Cal State presidents must sign off on any amendments to the foundation’s bylaws.

“These Bylaws may be amended or repealed, subject to the provisions of the Law, only by the approval of the Board and with the written consent of the President of SDSU,” states Section 6.4 of the Campanile Foundation, San Diego State University’s nonprofit auxiliary. SDSU also goes one step further, requiring “the written consent of the President of SDSU” for any changes to the organization’s articles of incorporation.

Sonoma State Foundation’s Past Self-Dealing

But the most sweeping presidential power lies with Sonoma State’s foundation. Of the dozen college auxiliary groups reviewed by CalWatchDog.com, only Sonoma’s bylaws grant the president unrestricted power to remove a board member. Under Article II, Section 4, “A member of the Board may also be removed from office by decision of the President of Sonoma State University.”

Cal State faculty members like Wehr see this arrangement of supplemental foundation payments as a potential conflict of interest. “If campus presidents were to receive additional compensation from private donors, one would have to ask: ‘Who do they work for, and to whom will they owe their allegiance?’”

Wehr’s fears of potential conflicts aren’t entirely theoretical. In 2011, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reported that more than $9 million in foundation loans were funneled to Clem Carinalli, a former foundation board member. The Sonoma real estate developer convinced the board to loan him money just two days after resigning his position on the nonprofit’s board. “Two of Carinalli’s loans from the foundation are still outstanding — one for $1.25 million and another for $232,500, according to McNeill and the foundation’s most recent annual financial filing,” the paper originally reported.

Conflict of Interest Exception Doesn’t Apply

Sonoma State foundation’s loans to a bankrupt developer might appear to be a blatant conflict, but state law grants some exceptions to the conflict of interest policy. Section 89907(b) allows auxiliary organization to engage in a transaction if the board believes the contract “is just and reasonable as to the auxiliary organization at the time it is authorized or approved.”

Could the same exception be applied to the new presidential pay policy?

Houston doesn’t think that the 89907(b) exception would apply to college presidential bonuses “because it is basically giving money to a director/president where there is nothing of value given to the auxiliary in return.”

He added, “It would appear that a director/president could NEVER take advantage of Section 89907” because state law prohibits the exception from being applied when “the contract or transaction is between an auxiliary organization and a member of the governing board of that auxiliary organization.”

Senator Leland Yee: Cal State is Beyond Tone Deaf

State Senator Leland Yee, D- San Francisco, who has been one of the most vocal critics of Cal State’s executive compensation policies, isn’t about to let up. “The trustees are beyond tone deaf; they are either completely oblivious or simply don’t care what students, lawmakers, and taxpayers think,” he said. “As I said last week when the Chancellor proposed this new policy, it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors disguised as reform.”

“All efforts — including the campus foundations — should be focused on ways to ensure tuition is affordable and quality courses are available, not finding new ways to line the pockets of top administrators and giving corporations another means to cozy up to campus presidents for their own financial gain,” he wrote in a statement following last week’s policy change.

One Republican Senator echoed Yee’s criticism of Cal State.

“CSU’s leaders are proving over and over again that they’re incapable of being good stewards with taxpayers’ money: the $400,000 executive salaries, the tapping of Foundation money to cover-up these outrageous salaries,” State Senator Joel Anderson, R- Santee, told CalWatchDog.com. “How can the Governor keep a straight face while asking Californians to approve higher taxes while CSU bureaucrats continue to demonstrate their disdain for taxpayers?”

Four Cal State executives currently receive thousands of dollars in annual supplemental payments from college foundations, including $50,000 for San Diego State’s Elliot Hirshman, $25,000 for San Jose State’s Mohammad H. Qayoumi and $30,000 for CSU Chancellor Charles Reed and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s Jeffrey Armstrong.

These foundation payments are in addition to a state-funded compensation package that includes housing and car allowances, retirement benefits, health care and other miscellaneous employment-related benefits. In 2009-10, Cal State Los Angeles president James Rosser reported $515,612 in government compensation to the IRS.

The U.S. Supreme Court did Cal State Christian students a favor by turning down their lawsuit to get school money. This was sparked by Cal State’s “refusal to provide funding and other campus  benefits to student groups that exclude members of other religions,” according to the Chronicle, which continued:

“CSU denies official recognition and funding to student organizations that  discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin and sexual  orientation.

“The Christian groups at San Diego State argued that the policy itself was  discriminatory for two reasons: The ban on gender-based admissions doesn’t apply  to sororities and fraternities, and secular organizations are allowed to make  viewpoint-based distinctions – an immigrants’-rights group, for example, can  exclude opponents of immigrants’ rights and still receive funding.

“‘The university did not tell the Democratic club it must be led by a  Republican, or the vegetarian club it must be led by a meat-eater, but it did  tell Christian groups that they must allow themselves to be led by atheists,’  David Cortman of the Alliance Defense Fund, a lawyer for the religious groups,  said Monday.

“As a result of the court ruling, he said, ‘the supposed marketplace of ideas  at San Diego State University will remain a stronghold for censorship.'”

Book of Acts

I suggest that these young Christians re-read the Book of Acts. The Apostles and their followers never applied to Caesar for a grant of the Roman taxpayers’ money.

By losing this case, two good things have happened: First, the kids are going to learn how to organize on their own and raise money voluntarily, not grabbing it from taxpayers.

Second, the Christian youngsters have gotten a good lesson on the way Church-State relations are going to be for them the rest of their lives. Ever since the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire 1,700 years ago, Christians have debated whether they should work to control governments, which resulted in what was called Christendom — or disdain governments, including those in majority Christian countries.

It’s an old debate with reasonable arguments to both sides. It’s also not pertinent to today’s politics. Likely for the lives of anyone reading this, including the college kids, the U.S. and most other governments are going to be hostile to Christianity. Better get used to it.

The Catholic bishops in America long have received tax money for their hospitals and other charities. But they recently were shocked to learn that President Obama was forcing them, under his ObamaCare scheme, to offer medical insurance that included coverage of contraception and abortions. Did Obama promise he wouldn’t do it? Caesar lied. What about the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion? Caesar isn’t James Madison.

Then there’s Jesus saying, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Let Caesar have Cal State and the rest of the anti-Christian college systems, and K-12 school systems as well. Start your own clubs, your own colleges, your own K-12 schools.

Kids, you’re going to have to. So you might as well start now. It will be the only way to survive Caesar’s persecutions.

March 20, 2012

By JOHN HRABE

The Senate Republican Caucus scored a major victory for taxpayers Monday by blocking the confirmation of the embattled chairman of the California State University Board of Trustees, Herbert Carter. Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told the Los Angeles Times that he couldn’t secure the two Republican votes that would have allowed Herbert Carter to serve a second term on the board.

“Today the Senate sent a clear message to the students, parents, and taxpayers that we deserve better from higher education than skyrocketing tuition, poor planning, and little oversight.,” said Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Santee, the first senator publicly to oppose Carter’s confirmation. “It doesn’t take a PhD to recognize when career bureaucrats are taking advantage of the CSU system. Since 1984, Herbert Carter has been near the center of every CSU pay hike scandal.”

Over the past several weeks, CalWatchdog has reported extensively on the Cal State confirmation battle. The Senate Rules Committee quietly voted Feb. 15 to reconfirm Gov. Jerry Brown’s nomination of Carter. Originally appointed to the board by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carter has come under fire for approving high salaries for university presidents while raising student fees. Under Carter’s tenure, Cal State University has provided university presidents with an average base salary of more than $300,000 per year. Every Cal State president also receives up to $60,000 per year in a housing allowance and $12,000 per year for a car. According to data from the Cal State University chancellor’s office, the average total compensation package for college presidents is $372,000 per year.

Compensation Cap

In January, the Trustees responded to public criticism of these high salaries by approving a new compensation cap. CSU spokesman Erik Fallis recently told the Daily 49er, Cal State Long Beach’s student newspaper, “Carter is the one who recommended the change in policy.” The carefully worded cap allows the board to continue its controversial policy of supplementing executive pay through university foundations. CSU Chancellor Charles Reed, San Jose State’s Mohammad H. Qayoum, San Diego State’s Elliot Hirshman and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s Jeffrey Armstrong currently receive foundation bonuses ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 per year.

More than two decades ago, the California State University system was involved in a similar executive compensation scandal. Then and now, Herbert Carter played a central role in the controversy. In 1989-90, the Cal State University system quietly approved outrageous executive salaries during lean budget years, blamed the Legislature for its tuition increases, temporarily appeased angry legislators with phony solutions, then tricked the public with clever public relations gimmicks.

In March 1990, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Greg Lucas reported that Chancellor Ann Reynolds was grilled by legislators “over hefty salary increases she gave herself and 26 other top executives in the California State University system.”  When State Senator Nicholas Petris, D-Oakland, tried to ask Reynolds about the salary hikes, “Reynolds stood up, took a seat in the audience and directed her second-in-command, Herbert Carter, to answer the questions.”

Bob Linscheid, the board’s vice chairman, will take over as Chairman.

By JOHN HRABE

Under Herbert Carter’s tenure, the Cal State University system has approved “hefty salary increases” for its top executives “without public input” during the state’s “most dire funding predicament.”

Those aren’t quotes from recent news stories about the Cal State’s administrative pay scandal. CalWatchdog has rummaged through the archives and unearthed the news stories from the Cal State’s first executive compensation scandal.

The two scandals at the Cal State University system are eerily similar. In 1989-90, the Cal State University system quietly approved outrageous executive salaries during lean budget years, blamed the Legislature for its tuition increases, temporarily appeased angry legislators with phony solutions, then tricked the public with clever public relations gimmicks.

Twenty-two years later, about the only thing that’s changed is Carter’s title. Then, Carter served as the Cal State’s Executive Vice Chancellor, the system’s second-in-command who took over when CSU Chancellor Ann Reynolds resigned in disgrace. Now, he’s the chairman of the Cal State Board of Trustees.

In the words of Shirley Bassey and the Propellerheads,

“It’s all just a little bit of history repeating.”

This week, as the California Senate contemplates Carter’s reconfirmation to another eight-year term on the Cal State Board of Trustees, Senators can avoid repeating history if they heed the advice of Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada-Flintridge. He warned in 2007, “We simply cannot trust the CSU Board of Trustees to reform itself.”

Salary Increases: Then and Now

In March 1990, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Greg Lucas reported that CSU Chancellor Reynolds was grilled by legislators “over hefty salary increases she gave herself and 26 other top executives in the California State University system.”  When State Senator Nicholas Petris, D-Oakland, tried to ask Reynolds about the salary hikes, “Reynolds stood up, took a seat in the audience and directed her second-in-command, Herbert Carter, to answer the questions.”

Carter was well-qualified to discuss the salary increases because he was one of the lucky recipients of the taxpayer-funded pay hike. He received a $31,026 raise, taking his annual salary from $118,974 to $150,000. According to the Los Angeles Times, Carter’s 26 percent salary increase was the highest of the six vice chancellors.

Carter and other system-wide administrators weren’t the only public employees to profit. The system’s 20 campus presidents received an average pay raise of 17 percent, bringing annual salaries up to $150,000. The raises “were implemented without public hearings or a vote of the CSU board of trustees.”

The 1990 pay raise story mirrors Cal State’s current executive compensation scandal. Last July, at the same meeting in which Trustees approved a 12 percent tuition increase, the board authorized a $400,000 annual salary for incoming San Diego State President Elliot Hirschman. The new job gave Hirschman’s a $133,000 increase compared to his previous salary. As the provost and senior vice president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, he made $267,000 per year. Currently, Cal State presidents receive a compensation package worth an average of $372,000 per year.

Luxurious Perks for Government Employees

Back in 1990, it wasn’t just outrageous salaries that infuriated the public. “Besides the raises, [CSU Chancellor] Reynolds has been attacked for using CSU funds to renovate her Bel Air home and to purchase new cars for senior administrators,” the Orange County Register reported on April 21, 1990.

The Chancellor’s office spent $99,998.70 on new vehicles for six vice-chancellors. Carter was among this exclusive group of administrators that received a taxpayer-funded car, according to the Chronicle. The amount, just $1.30 short of six-figures, was cleverly kept under $100,000 in order to avoid “an automatic review by the state Department of Finance.”

Today, Cal State University is back to using taxpayer funds to provide special perks and bonuses to its top administrators. Each Cal State president receives up to $60,000 per year in a housing allowance and $12,000 per year for a car allowance. Cal State presidents earn more in housing and car allowances than the average Californian earns in his annual salary. But, don’t accuse Carter of being out of touch.

“I need to remember what it’s like to be poor, hungry and without a decent place to live,” Carter told the Los Angeles Business Journal for a January 1990 profile. “I avoid the freeway and drive on the surface streets through downtown L.A. on purpose.”

The Bureaucrat Who Cried Budget Cuts

Cal State’s top brass have enjoyed these lavish benefits, while blaming the Legislature for budget cuts to higher education. Cal State’s press office didn’t mince words last summer with its press release announcing the 12 percent fee hike. It blamed Gov. Brown by the release’s second word.

“Following Governor Brown’s signing of a final budget that cuts state funding for the California State University by $650 million for 2011-12, the CSU Board of Trustees took action today to increase tuition by an additional 12 percent — or $294 per semester for full-time undergraduates — effective in the fall,” according to the July 12 press release.

In the same release, CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed explained, “The enormous reduction to our state funding has left us with no other choice if we are to maintain quality and access to the CSU.”

This blame game continued a few months later. “In two of the last four fiscal years, state funding to the CSU has been dramatically reduced, forcing the board to approve sizable tuition fee increases,” read a Dec. 13 CSU press release.

Twenty years ago, Cal State was using the same “Chicken Little” excuses of unprecedented budget cuts. The CSU Chancellor’s office described the 1990’s budget period as “the most dire funding predicament we have faced.”

Same Excuses for High Administrative Salaries

After budget cuts, the Cal State system’s response protocol dictates an emphasis on the importance of being competitive with other institutions. Carter even recycled the same talking points from the previous executive compensation scandal.

“Carter said the increases are necessary to keep CSU executive salaries competitive with those of other learning institutions,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle on March 20, 1990.

Compare that to today.

“The new compensation limits and more relevant tiered list of comparator institutions will give stakeholders a good benchmark of where presidential compensation will be set as we move forward,” Carter said in a January 2012 press release. “Our continued goal is to recruit and compete for the best leadership possible, but also within articulated budget guidelines.”

Pressure Continues? Appoint a Special Committee

Press releases only go so far in assuaging outraged politicians. When Gov. Jerry Brown objected to the salary abuses, Carter responded by forming a special committee to study the issue.

“Carter, who was reappointed by the governor earlier this year, addressed it, saying he would create a committee to study the selection and compensation of CSU presidents and have the committee report back to the board at its September meeting. He did not suggest altering Hirshman’s pay package,” the San Diego Union Tribune wrote in July 2011.

Carter was using the same playbook from the 1990 scandal. The New York Times reported in April 1990:

“On Thursday, a subcommittee of the trustees recommended rolling back the salaries of 26 executives to previous levels. The recommendation, presented to a special meeting of the board today, was approved just after Ms. Reynolds resigned, effective Dec. 31…. The subcommittee made the recommendation after taking testimony on the raises, which included a 43 percent increase for Ms. Reynolds, and an average 17 percent raise for 20 campus presidents.”

Behind Closed Doors

When the public doesn’t buy this spin, Cal State’s tactic is to retreat to secretive meetings. During the first scandal, the pay raises were approved without a public vote by the Cal State Board of Trustees, in violation of a 1984 pledge by the chancellor’s office. In April 1990, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Cal State Chancellor’s office apologized for breaking that earlier pledge and that “future actions on executive pay would be in public.”

Carter defended the secrecy, telling the Chronicle in 1990, “The process is fair and legal but the perception is not that.” His commitment to secrecy in government hasn’t changed in two decades. In November 2011, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom charged the Cal State Board of Trustees, under Carter’s chairmanship, with violating the spirit of the Brown Act when it hid from the public.

“While I understand the CSU leadership’s concerns regarding public safety, the spirit of open deliberations has been marred by the events of November 16, 2011,” Newsom wrote. “This issue is simply too important to not allow for a full and thorough discussion. Otherwise, we contribute to the perception that this process is anything less than open and transparent.”

Carter affirmed his fear of the public by canceling the Trustees’ Dec. 5 meeting. “We made this decision based upon our experience at the last board meeting where a large number of protestors attended, which is difficult to manage under the best of circumstances,” Carter said in the Nov. 30 press release.

California Faculty Association’s Tough Talk

All these years, students and faculty haven’t been without a strong voice for accountability. The California Faculty Association, then and now, has been quick to criticize the CSU administration for its irresponsible spending practices.

“These things [should] be voted on in public session so people know where [the trustees] stand on spending public money,” Robert Gurian, the lobbyist for the California Faculty Association, told the Chronicle. ”The state’s in dire financial consequences and yet you open up the newspaper and see this enormous pay raise.”

Can you tell the difference between then and now?

“It is complete arrogance and tone deafness to be doing something like this while students are being knocked sideways by pretty staggering fee increases year after year,” said the California Faculty Association’s president, Lillian Taiz. “For those of us who have been struggling and working on helping the public understand the value of higher education and investment in higher education … it doesn’t send the right message.”

Taiz is from today; Gurian from 20 years ago.

Let’s try again:

“There’s no proof I know of whatsoever that we pay our administrators inadequately,” said Gurian. ”The No. 1 priority of the CSU administration is the administration.”

“Working for the university is about performing public service, not becoming a CEO in private industry. Commitment to public service must be a key criteria in assessing potential CSU campus presidents.”

No, that last part isn’t an extension of Gurian’s quote. It’s from an August 2011 press release from the current CFA President Taiz.

In 1990, Edward R. Purcell, then the general manager of the faculty union, gave the harshest critique of the Cal State administration. He called it “a hidebound bureaucracy which basically thinks it’s above the law and . . . would like to be running a private institution.”

Carter: ‘Master of Working Within the System’

With such consistent tough talk from the California Faculty Association, why have Cal State faculty members been so quick to give in to the administration’s demands for pay cuts and furloughs? In 2009, the California Faculty Association agreed to take two furlough days a month, the equivalent of a 9.5 percent of their salary, in order to stave off greater budget cuts.

A 1990 Los Angeles Business Journal profile of Carter has one possible explanation. Harvey Lehman Jr., then a vice president at Columbia Pictures Entertainment Inc., offered insight into Carter’s leadership style. “Herb is a master of working within the system,” Lehman said. “He knows how to make everyone feel good, from people at the high corporate level to the worker at the community organization.”

Under Carter’s tenure as Cal State chair, the faculty at the bottom have been made to “feel good” with cheap perks. For example, San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew wrote about a recent example of one way that CSU administrators have placated faculty:

“California State University East Bay professors who played hooky to protest state budget cuts — but then put in for a full day’s pay — are getting a pass from the system’s chancellor. The chancellor said, CSU didn’t have the money for a full investigation into who had actually worked — and it would be unfair to dock the pay only of those who owned up to going out on strike. Hence, everyone will get a pass.”

Cal State’s Record of Phony Solutions

The final step in Carter’s pay-hike response procedure is to adopt a temporary and phony pay cap. This past January, the board approved a new compensation policy after public outcry following the trustees’ approval of the $400,000 annual salary for San Diego State University President Hirshman. CSU spokesman Erik Fallis recently told the Daily 49er, Cal State Long Beach’s student newspaper, “Carter is the one who recommended the change in policy.”

However, CalWatchDog.com has reported on the numerous loopholes in the Cal State’s new executive compensation policy. The carefully worded cap allows the board to continue its controversial policy of supplementing executive pay through university foundations. CSU Chancellor Charles Reed, San Jose State’s Mohammad H. Qayoum, San Diego State’s Hirshman and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo’s Jeffrey Armstrong currently receive foundation bonuses ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 per year.

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, has seen through the Cal State’s phony pay cap from the start. “While I am pleased to see CSU Board of Trustees finally recognize that their past executive compensation practices were completely unacceptable, their new policy just doesn’t go far enough,” Yee said.  “Those making hundreds of thousands of dollars should not receive double-digit pay increases during bad budget times or when students are forced to foot the bill.”

In 1990, the trustees adopted a temporary reduction in administrative pay. The Los Angeles Times reported in April 1990, “The trustees voted unanimously Friday to rescind the Jan. 1 raises, which had boosted Reynolds’ salary 43 percent from $136,248 last year to $195,000 and those of the six vice chancellors and 20 campus presidents 21 percent to 28 percent, to totals ranging from $130,000 to $150,000.  Now their salaries will go up 4.18 percent from last year’s, reflecting the average raise for faculty and other staff.”

Twenty years later, Hirshman’s salary is back up to $400,000 per year. And that ranks him second to CSU Chancellor Charles Reed, who receives $451,500 in base pay.

Sen. Lieu: Ignorant or Naïve?

As of this writing, the Senate Republican Caucus appeared to be unwavering in its opposition to Carter’s reconfirmation. Meanwhile, Gov. Brown, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, have steadfastly defended Carter’s confirmation.

“He is the kind of trustee that you want — someone who will respond to what students, faculty and legislators say to him — and it would be a shame if he is not reconfirmed,” Lieu recently told the Los Angeles Times.

Again, it’s almost indistinguishable from the Democratic leaders in 1990. The Los Angeles Times reported in 1990 that Democratic Lt. Governor Leo McCarthy and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown helped the then-CSU chancellor, Reynolds, beat back her initial challenge following the pay scandal.

Reynolds eventually resigned. Carter now appears on his way out, too. In April 1990, the Orange County Register editorial board cautioned that one bureaucrat’s removal should be the starting point, not the end of legislative vigilance. “Ms. Reynolds is leaving, but the Legislature shouldn’t use her exit as an excuse to allow business as usual at CSU,” the paper editorialized.

What’s the rest of that Propellerheads’ song?

“and I’ve seen it before
“and I’ll see it again
“yes I’ve seen it before
“just little bits of history repeating.”

 
————————————————————–