UCSD CAMPUS NOTICE University of California, San Diego |
|
March 23, 1994 MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY AND STAFF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LABORATORIES Dear Colleagues: Over the past week, there have been several articles in local newspapers reporting on a meeting of our Council of Chancellors. These articles have created a distorted image of that particular meeting and of the process through which issues are debated and decisions are made at the University. Nevertheless, distorted or not, these articles can be damaging to morale and can make it difficult for all of us to concentrate on the severe problems with which we must deal: budget reductions, enrollment pres- sures, maintaining quality. For these reasons, I want you to hear directly from me on these matters. First, there is the characterization of the meeting as "secret." This is a false characterization. As many of you know, I hold these meetings on a monthly basis to discuss a wide range of issues affecting the University. In this case, more than 20 items, over a period of 6 hours, were discussed. The meetings are certainly not "secret." They are private only in the sense that most meetings of this type in any organization are confined to those with a need to attend. There were actually three meetings that are the subject of these articles. One was a meeting of the Executive Program Committee, a group consisting of three Vice Presidents and four Chancellors, whose charge is to review certain personnel matters, including salary requests from the campuses, and to make recommendations to me. There was also a Chancellors Only meeting, which includes me, Provost Massey and the Chancellors, and a regular meeting of the Council of Chancel- lors, which includes, for most of the meeting, Vice Presidents and other senior officers. The second issue has to do with the impression that most of the meeting was spent discussing compensation matters. This is simply not true. This type of issue was discussed only in the Executive Program Committee, which met for about 45 minutes prior to the 5 hour Council of Chancellors meeting. It is true that the Executive Program Committee discussed a number of specific proposed salary actions from the campuses and vigorously debated about the proper course of action to take. There is genuine concern about the need to keep executive pay down, while trying to attract and retain the very best people to do difficult jobs. In the case discussed in the newspaper articles, involving the recruitment of a person currently employed at one campus to a more senior position at another campus, the Committee recommended a salary lower than that requested by the campus. The third issue in the newspaper articles concerned proposed changes in the leave practice for senior administrators. The discussion has been characterized as proposing "a new round of paid leaves of absence for top administrators." In fact, what was discussed was just the opposite: a modification of the existing administrative leave practice. I told the Chancellors of my plans to take to the Regents a new policy that would effectively eliminate all administrative leaves except the normal sabbatical leave accrued by those who hold faculty appointments and who plan to return to a faculty position. It would reduce the rate of pay for such sabbaticals. We also discussed the issue of how to handle the situation of currently serving Chan- cellors. The last matter is the report of some remarks concerning certain legislators and the process for confirmation of Regents. These remarks were taken out of context and do not reflect the nature or ambiance of the setting. While not on the agenda, the immedi- acy of the state Senate Rules Committee's apparent decision not to confirm the appointment of a University Regent for the first time in over 100 years evoked a spontaneous conversation. They were "off-the-cuff" remarks made between discussions of other items, and reflected a sense of frustration that I am sure everyone feels at times. The remarks were unfortunate, and I have spoken with those whose names were mentioned. It is clear that the nomination and confirmation of Regents is not a matter in which the University administration should be involved; rather it is an issue for the Governor, the State Senate, and the Regents themselves. Finally, on a personal note, when I accepted the offer of the Regents to become the President of the University of California, I did so out of a deep sense of commitment to this great institu- tion, where I have spent 13 years. The University is facing difficult times, and we are all working to ensure that we not simply survive, but emerge from this period as still the finest public university in the world. It is important that you know that those of us entrusted with the leadership of this institu- tion are dealing with the serious issues confronting the Univer- sity. I know that things have been rough lately, and I empathize with your frustrations. I would like to add my personal gratitude for all of your hard work. This affair, precipitated by what appears to have been an illegal interception of a candid staff meeting discussion, unfortunate as it is, will not undermine my resolve or that of my colleagues to continue to work as hard as we can for the benefit of the Univer- sity of California. Cordially, J. W. Peltason |