UPDATE: July 24, 2009
FACULTY VOTE TO ACCEPT FURLOUGH PROPOSAL
A message to CSU faculty from CFA Results
Results
As most of you know, voting on the Chancellor’s furlough proposal closed on Wednesday, July 22nd. 68% of those eligible to vote cast a ballot. Of the 8,800 CFA members voting, 54% voted YES and 46% voted NO.
The Vote
This result is significant in several ways.
One thing was certainly clear in all the conversations and communications on this issue over the last several weeks leading up to the vote: everyone who voted found the choice an agonizing one. As many people pointed out repeatedly, there were principled positions on all sides of this thorny question.
This complexity was reflected in the conflicting feelings—and even indecision—about how to vote that many individual faculty members expressed over the last few weeks.
Many wanted to vote “yes” because they wanted to save classes for their students and jobs for their colleagues—even if they had to make a significant monetary sacrifice to do so.
But they also wanted to vote “no” because they were angry at the Chancellor’s handling of the furlough issue – including his blanket refusal to guarantee that the furlough would save a single class or a single job. In the end, the majority of those voting chose to cast a “yes” ballot.
Confidence in Chancellor Reed
Of those voting, only 4% said they had confidence in the Chancellor’s leadership. 79% said they voted “no confidence” and 17% responded “don’t know.”
Next Steps
On a conference call with the CFA Board of Directors and Chapter Presidents on Thursday night, the Board passed a motion directing the CFA furlough team to contact the CSU administration about developing a side letter on implementation of a 2-day per month furlough for faculty for the 2009-2010 academic year.
The Board directed the team to report back as early as possible next week on their progress.
Moving Forward
The furlough vote has been a very difficult challenge. The issue itself and the technological challenges getting ballots to everyone who wanted one have frustrated many. In the end, however, faculty members on all sides of the issue have taken positions which, they feel, are in the best interest of our students, our colleagues and our system. It is now time for all of us, on each side of this issue, to move forward together.
The California budget crisis will not disappear immediately, and we will be facing more challenges in the coming year—on our campuses and in Sacramento. We have a great deal of important work ahead of us that will require all of us to stand together.
We MUST make sure that the impact of these budget cuts on our ability to deliver accessible, affordable, and quality education to the people of California does not go unnoticed. We must not scream silently on our campuses. The consequences of the cuts must be made visible to everyone in this state. If we do not fight for our students, our colleagues (staff AND faculty), and our university system—who will?
|
Background on Chancellor's Proposal to Furlough Faculty
In early June, the Chancellor’s Office informed CFA that its working number for budget cuts to the CSU for the 2009/10 fiscal year is $583.816 million.
According to them, because of the severe state budget crisis, the cuts in the coming year will be deep.
The Chancellor proposed that all employees – including executives and MPPs but excluding campus safety personnel – agree to a 2-day per month furlough for the 2009/2010 academic year as a means of dealing with $583 million in projected budget cuts to the CSU for the coming year.
CFA leaders met with the CSU Administration several times to get further details on the Chancellor’s proposal for faculty furloughs in the face of huge funding cuts expected in the 2009/10 CSU budget.
Because of the far-reaching implications of furloughs or reductions in workforce on individual faculty members, the CFA Board of Directors passed a motion that this issue would be determined by a comprehensive vote of the CFA membership.
NOTE: The CFA Board did not take a position on how members should vote.
|
