As we all know, the furlough represented a significant sacrifice by the faculty. The SDSU CFA chapter has sought to obtain information in regard to how the money saved through the 2009-10 furlough program was spent at San Diego State.
In the first paragraph of the furlough Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the CSU and CFA stated that they were agreeing to the MOU, "To preserve . . . as many faculty unit jobs as possible and at the same time to serve as many students as possible without unreasonably increasing workload . . ."
In late 2009, several faculty members from the College of Education contacted CFA to express their concern that the college might not be applying the furlough savings in a manner consistent with the furlough agreement. As a result, CFA has attempted to obtain information over the past year on what the furlough savings were for each college and how those savings were spent, especially in regard to preserving and/or restoring course sections and the support services needed for them. CFA submitted six separate information requests with the SDSU administration, filing the requests pursuant to the California Public Records Act, the California Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act, and the CFA-CSU collective bargaining agreement.
While we have obtained information on how much the total furlough savings were for each college, we have not been provided with information by the administration on how most of those funds were spent.
Our most recent information request asked for a line-by-line breakdown of how furlough savings were spent, and if there were unspent funds, a breakdown of how those remaining funds would be spent. The response we received stated that the administration was "unable to provide the requested documents," further stating that, "We do not have documents that reflect the information in that way." In a similar vein, several faculty members have reported to us that they have attempted to obtain this information from their respective deans, also without success.
It is troubling if the administration is unable to account for how these funds were spent. As one faculty member stated, the faculty did not agree to the furlough to establish a "rainy day fund." The furlough savings were meant for specific purposes, as outlined in the furlough agreement. Without an accounting, it is not possible to know whether the funds were spent in a manner consistent with the furlough agreement.
There are indications in the documents provided by the administration that at least some colleges may have information on how the furlough savings were spent. Using the College of Education as an example, it is possible to see that some specific information may be available. For instance, the College of Education outlined the specifics of how $105,787 in furlough savings had been budgeted, in a January 20, 2010, document entitled, "Furlough Savings to Preserve/Restore Course Sections."
Continuing the example of the College of Education, in documents from Academic Affairs dated April 7, 2010, and August 5, 2010, it is indicated that Education used $255,870 in furlough savings for "2009/10 Faculty Expenditures" with $350,063 in furlough funds "for Use in 2010/11." These are very specific dollar amounts, suggesting specific budgeting for specific purposes. Further, an August 13, 2010, document from Faculty Affairs indicates that Education would spend "carry-forward furlough savings" in 2010-11 to "[s]upport 67 units of assigned time for college initiatives" and "[s]upport approximately 93 units or 31 course sections." These descriptions did not include dollar figures, so it is not possible to know whether this constitutes all of the College's remaining furlough funds, but it is a further indication that specific information may exist on how furlough savings were spent or are being spent.
The example of the College of Education also brings to light another troubling issue: the fact that several campus units have carried over significant furlough funds to 2010-11. Education carried over more than half of its furlough savings to 2010-11; PSFA carried over more than a quarter of its furlough savings.
Every year seems to be a bad budget year in California, but 2009-10 -- the year of the furlough -- was particularly bad. All of us know of students who could not get the classes they needed to graduate on time, Lecturers who lost some or all of their work, and colleagues whose workload increased because fewer faculty members were teaching more students in the remaining courses. The furlough funds -- if spent in 2009-10 and in accord with the furlough agreement -- could have helped students and faculty in these colleges by reducing the impact of the 2009-10 budget cuts.
We have compiled many of the relevant documents that CFA received
from the administration, including the documents referenced in
this e-mail, and you may view these documents at this link:
http://www.calfac.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/furlough_expenditures.pdf
Please feel free to contact the California Faculty Association office if we can provide help or information. Our office is located in Communication 227 and we can be reached at cfa@mail.sdsu.edu or x42775.
