Hostile Takeover

by

A Very Concerned UM Employee

 

 

By the time you read this, the game will likely be over. 

 

No, not the Missouri-Kansas football game.  Rather, the game that the Republican Right’s been running on the University of Missouri for the past 20-plus years. 

 

It's a game called "Hostile Takeover." 

 

Why do I hear Governor Blunt and his wealthy cronies chuckling with glee—chortling at the poor suckers who trusted them to protect the public welfare, rather than sell it off to the richest bidder?  

 

Because Blunt's appointment of Gary Forsee, his handpicked candidate, to be the University of Missouri’s President, culminates the GOP’s long campaign to seize control of––to corporatize and “Republicanize”—an institution which the Right distrusts, denigrates, and despises.

 

After two decades of financial starvation and political bludgeoning, Republicans judge that UM is ready for their final solution.  Forsee is the Blunt instrument chosen to subvert and transform the University into something that its godfather, Thomas Jefferson, would have found repugnant.

 

Who is Gary Forsee, anyway?  Does he have any qualifications for this post?

 

Well, he’s rich.  Very, very rich.  Rich enough to buy his own university (and maybe that’s what’s going on).  According to the Forbes website, Forsee made nearly $16 million last year as CEO of Sprint Nextel, the nation’s third largest telecommunications company, and that sum doesn’t include multi-million dollar “bonuses” and perks. 

 

Also, Forsee’s allegedly a “successful business leader.”  The Republican Right’s always argued that UM needs corporate-style leadership by a guy like Forsee, who will run UM on a “business model,” ensure its resources are used "wisely and efficiently," and thus win "public trust."

 

Wisely and efficiently?  Judging from recent experience, the Republicans’ “business model” is “crony capitalism”—think Enron, Halliburton, Jack Abramoff, today’s house-mortgage fiasco—rotten with corruption, scandal, incompetence, and total contempt for the public welfare. 

 

Public trust?  Last time I looked, polls showed the American people’s trust in corporate leadership was deservedly rock-bottom, just slightly above their respect for the Saudi Arabian royal family.

 

Sure, Republicans love to apply business terminology to UM.  In their jargon, top administrators are the University’s CEOs, the public are its shareholders, the students are its consumers, and the faculty and staff are (or should be) just employees to hire and fire at the CEO’s discretion. 

 

OK, let’s try that jargon out.  How does Forsee’s record as CEO predict his performance as UM President?

 

A few months ago, Sprint Nextel fired Forsee as its CEO.  Why?  Because under his brilliant stewardship, Sprint’s profits and share values tanked.  Stockholders and Wall Street alike screamed for his head on a platter.  Of course, Forsee got a $54 million severance package (yes, you read that right—$54 million), but he left Sprint belly-up and gasping for air.  So much for shareholder satisfaction! 

 

What about Sprint’s consumers?  During Forsee’s management they were in full-blown rebellion, deserting Sprint for its competitors by the hundreds of thousands, because of what they called overcharging and lousy service.

 

And Sprint’s ordinary employees?  Well, during Forsee’s tenure they got wage freezes, shrinking benefits, and vanishing pensions.  Yet despite their “sacrifices” for the “good of the company” (not to mention for Forsee’s outlandish salary), their jobs were out-sourced en masse to India.  Five thousand layoffs in just one day!  Heck of a job, Gary!  

 

Is this the “business model” in UM’s future?     

 

Probably.  Blunt's Republicans never saw a public institution they didn't want to "re-structure" or "privatize" out of recognition or existence, while milking all its assets for their and their corporate cronies' profit.

 

Think FEMA and about what happened to post-Katrina New Orleans's public schools, public hospitals, libraries, housing, etc.    

 

But, hey, it gets even worse!  Forsee's not only part of the GOP corporate kleptocracy.  He also helped the Bush Administration break the law and trash the Constitution.  

 

Sprint Nextel—and BellSouth (also formerly under Forsee’s benign guidance), along with other telecom giants—shredded both the legal code and the Bill of Rights by secretly giving millions of ordinary Americans’ phone records and other private data to the Bush’s now infamous warrant-less spying program. 

 

Scores of lawsuits by outraged citizens are now pending against Sprint and its CEOs.  Will UM's presidential mansion be big enough for Forsee to hide in?  Will his Right-wing political connections and contributions—including $1,000 to something called the “Texas Freedom Foundation” (I couldn’t make that up)—protect him from justice?    

 

Look, Forsee’s probably not a bad guy, at least by today’s standards of bloated plutocracy.  The fundamental problem here is not Forsee, personally.  It’s not even the Robber Baron culture of private greed and public theft that reigns in Washington and Jefferson City. 

 

The big but unspoken issue is that there are (and damn well should be) fundamental differences between public institutions, especially higher education institutions, and private corporations. 

 

UM’s job is to educate Missouri's public and enlighten its citizens.  Neither UM nor any other university can do that job unless its faculty can carry out their appointed mission.  Naïve though it may sound in this prostituted world, that mission is to study, teach, and publish what they discover and believe to be true—whether about science or business or social studies—and do so without fear of retribution from the powerful, who often depend on blatant untruths (Remember Saddam’s WMD?  Global warming denials?) to promote their interests.

 

Sprint Nextel and other corporations have a different job, and their CEOs have a different mission:  to make the biggest profits and the biggest executive salaries possible, by virtually any methods this side of jail.  If that means screwing consumers, employees, even shareholders (not to mention the environment or the long-term public good), so be it.  If that means disregarding the truth or outright lying—or conspiring with the government to break the law—so be it.    

 

As far as Blunt and many Republicans are concerned, however, these fundamental  differences don’t exist.  To them, higher education’s mission is meaningless or downright dangerous.  For them, considerations of power and profit are all-consuming. 

 

Fortunately, higher education, like the internet (source of the data for this article), remains one of the few American institutions not yet under complete GOP and corporate control.  Fortunately, Missouri still has a real university—not as good as it could be, more expensive for students than it should be, both thanks to GOP cuts in taxes for the rich and in funding for public services—but still reasonably true to its mission.

 

The economic hit-men have not yet won the game.  

 

I suspect that’s why the Republican Right still hates and attacks the University of Missouri.  And, unless we can stop their Hostile Takeover, I bet that’s what Gary Forsee will be appointed to change at UM forever. 

Blunt Not Quite Truthful On State's Education Facts

Springfield News-Leader Editorial

Gov. Matt Blunt has been traveling the state in the past week patting himself on the back for all he's done for education funding in the state of Missouri. Indeed, Blunt is right when he says he's increased funding for higher education in the past couple of years. He's right when he tries to earn political points by pointing out that the previous governor, Bob Holden, withheld money from schools during a recession and budget crunch.

He's right when he points out that his plan to sell Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority assets pumped millions of dollars into university construction projects, including $29 million at Missouri State University.

He's right that he did all of this without a tax increase.

 

All true.

 

Here's another fact that's equally true. Even with the increases, in fiscal year 2007, the state spent more money on prescription drugs - $884.5 million

- than it did on higher education - $883.3 million.

 

So pardon us if we don't quite buy into the governor's campaign rhetoric when he tells college students, as he did last week:

 

"Education is my highest priority, and I am committed to ensuring that our children receive a world-class education."

 

World class?

 

For those college students who understand a little bit of math, here's how world-class Missouri's funding for higher education is:

 

- The state ranks a pitiful 47th in the nation in higher education funding per capita, spending less per state resident than every state except for Colorado, Vermont and New Hampshire.

 

- Missouri ranks dead last in terms of the percentage increase in higher education funding between fiscal years 2005 and 2007, the very two years the governor is bragging about.

 

- Missouri only spends 1.2 percent of its total state revenues on higher education.

 

- Regionally, Missouri's spending on higher education fails in comparison to every border state. The race isn't even close. Missouri's 2.7 percent increase in the last two fiscal years is minuscule compared to 3.9 percent in Illinois, 8.2 percent in Iowa, 10.2 percent in Kansas, 10.6 percent in Tennessee, 11.9 percent in Kentucky, 13.4 percent in Nebraska and 14.6 percent in Arkansas.

 

So Blunt is right when he says his budget is inching in the right direction.

But he misses the point if he really wants to make education a priority.

Higher education in this state hasn't been a priority in at least a decade, not under Republican or Democratic governors, not under Republican or Democratic legislative control.

 

If Blunt truly wants to be the education governor, then we challenge him to tell college students and their parents the truth: This state's performance in terms of higher education funding over the past decade is nothing short of tragic. And the result is that fewer people short of the very poor or very rich can afford to go to college. Indeed, between 1979 and 2004, according to the Center for the Study of Education Policy, Missouri's access-cost ratio, the statistical measure of affordability, skyrocketed.

Tuition during that time has nearly tripled, while need-based aid per student has fallen dramatically. And state funding hasn't come close to keeping up.

 

That means that students don't have access to state colleges and universities.

 

It means Missouri is falling miserably behind its competitors.

 

This is not a political issue in which our elected officials should go around patting themselves on the back for incremental progress or pointing out failures of the past. The failure is all of ours. It's the governor's, the previous governor's, legislators for more than a decade and university presidents more caught up in fighting for their piece of the pie than standing up and demanding that the state put students first. While our state lawmakers are in Jefferson City this week giving tax credits away to special interests and calling it economic development, the real economic development opportunity - investing in our colleges and universities - is being ignored.

 

 

When it comes to the increases Blunt is telling college students about, we're not first. We're not world class.

 

Missouri is dead last. Worst in the nation.

 

It's time that our politicians, elected officials, university presidents, parents and students focus on that sobering statistic. Maybe a tax increase is what we need - that's what Republican lawmakers are mulling to bring our roads up to higher standards. Maybe we need to do a better job of holding on to the revenue we bring in, and not hand it out to business interests whose economic effect on the state pales in comparison to universities. Maybe we need to re-examine our regionalized system of two-and four-year colleges and universities and consider bringing them all under one umbrella so we can do more with what we've got.

 

What we must do, however, and there are no maybes about it, is start telling the truth about Missouri's state of higher education funding. Our students and parents can't afford school. Our colleges and universities have buildings that are falling apart. Our state has turned its back on the biggest and best economic development tool they have. We have become, hands down, one of the worst states in the nation over the past decade when it comes to spending taxpayers dollars on our schools.

 

If Blunt truly wants to be the education governor, these are the facts he should be talking about as he travels the state speaking to students.

 

Missouri is failing its students. What are we going to do about it?

 

Copyright, August 2007,

 

Springfield News-Leader

MU budget plan could draw faculty to join MNEA

COLUMBIA MISSOURIAN

By CARL FRANZEN

July 23, 2007 | 10:05 p.m. CST

COLUMBIA — For members of the Missouri National Education Association, MU’s new financial plan, Compete Missouri, could turn out to be one of the organization’s primary recruiting tools.

“At this point, the university is actually helping us because they don’t give faculty and staff realistic opportunities to provide input,” MNEA organizing director Steve McLuckie said. “They are making decisions from a top-down, command style.”

The MNEA is a branch of the nation’s largest professional employee organization, the National Education Association.

The MNEA is hosting a four-day seminar in Columbia this week to help local members build stronger support for collective bargaining, a method of labor negotiation in which representatives for employees and employers come together to draft agreements about working conditions, wages and other employment issues.

IF YOU GO

What: The MNEA’s 35th Annual State Summer Academy
When: Tuesday, July 24 - Friday, July 27
Where: Holiday Inn Executive Center, 2200 I-70 Drive S.W.
Cost: $170
For more information: Call 888-968-4820 or visit www.mnea.org/info/Summer
Academy/07/GeneralInfo.htm

Collective bargaining means that the experts in education — the faculty, the staff, the people who work with students every day — can get to the table and talk about what the priorities in education should be,” McLuckie said.

Paul K. Rainsberger, director of labor education at MU, has done extensive research and writing about collective bargaining in the United States. He said workers look to collective bargaining as a way to gain a voice in determining terms and conditions of employment.

“Whether any group of workers has the interest, power or will to engage in collective bargaining is a question that will change as the law changes,” he said.

The Missouri Constitution grants employees the right to collective bargaining, but it wasn’t until May 29 that the Missouri Supreme Court definitively extended collective bargaining rights to law enforcement officers, public school teachers and university employees.

The right to collective bargaining requires that a majority of employees in a workplace elect or decide who will be the exclusive representative of their rights. Currently, with only 18 members at MU, the MNEA is a long way from gaining the support it needs to negotiate with administrators on behalf of faculty and staff.

“The court ruling fundamentally changes our opportunities on campus and statewide,” McLuckie said. “It changes everything because now we have the legal right, if we get enough people, to come to the table and begin to bargain.”

MU's cost-cutting plan lacked faculty input, group says

Columbia Missourian

---

By CARL FRANZEN

July 23, 2007

When MU Chancellor Brady Deaton announced July 9 that the university’s new financial plan, Compete Missouri, would require an administrative “hold” on new teaching hires, he said the support of faculty would be important to the plan’s chances for success.
“It will involve a great deal of discussion,” Deaton said. “It’s not a top-down planning process.”
But a new campus organization looking to unionize faculty and staff at MU says that the plan was initiated with little or no faculty input.
The organization, the Missouri National Education Association, says the details of Compete Missouri were decided upon well before faculty were asked to contribute their ideas about how to cut costs to fund salary increases.
“I think that this bad plan — and imposition by the Board of Curators — has illustrated the faculty’s lack of power and lack of voice,” said MNEA member Robert Smale, a professor of history. “There is no real independent body representing faculty.”
The impetus for Compete Missouri was a motion passed by the University of Missouri System Board of Curators in April to reduce the general operating budgets of UM’s four campuses by 1 percent. MU’s share of the cuts under the 1 percent plan would be about $4.2 million for fiscal year 2009, which begins next July.
In the wake of the curators’ action, Deaton and MU Provost Brian Foster created three committees to figure out how and where to make the cuts. On April 30, MU professor of rural sociology Rex Campbell, who chaired one of the committees, sent out an e-mail to all faculty members asking for cost-cutting ideas.
Among its many criticisms of the process, the MNEA says that faculty were given less than two weeks to respond to Campbell’s request. Indeed, among the responses Campbell received, which were obtained by the Missourian under the state’s open records law, were several comments about the lack of detailed financial information needed to guide faculty input.
One response stated that, “In the absence of data about the budget, the costs of instruction, faculty load, credit-hour generation, etc., etc., one could easily dismiss your request for budget trimming suggestions as a charade designed to make faculty believe they have some input into MU’s always secretive budget process.”
Campbell said no budget data were included along with his committee’s request’s because “we didn’t have it at that time.”
Campbell’s e-mail prompted the MNEA, which has 18 members among MU faculty and staff, to draft an open letter opposing the plan to university administrators. The letter accused curators of not fighting hard enough to secure state funding and questioned the logic of funding salary increases through budget cutting.
Compete Missouri aims to secure $7 million by next July to make faculty salaries competitive with MU’s institutional peers. About $4 million is expected to come from salaries currently allotted to unfilled faculty positions. Another $2 million is projected to come from the reorganization and consolidation of academic programs and centers. New revenue sources, such as new distance-learning courses and expanded summer school, would account for $1 million, according to the plan.
MNEA member Michael Ugarte, a Spanish professor, said many faculty were surprised and angered by the portion of the plan that requires all open faculty positions be reviewed at the “provost/chancellor level” before being filled. He said this will force MU to hire more lower-paid, nontenure track instructors, which he believes will lower the quality of education.
“What the hiring freeze is going to do,” Ugarte said, “is place a greater load on service departments, those that teach a lot of students — like English and math.”
Campbell agreed that, under Compete Missouri, more adjunct and nonranked faculty instructors would likely be hired. But, he said, they are “absolutely not of a lower quality.”
Other MNEA members are concerned about the proposed consolidation and closing of some campus centers, libraries and non-essential departments. Phebe Lauffer, an administrative associate in the theatre department, said that part of the plan could amount to “pitting departments against one another for allocation of dollars and for survival.”
Lauffer, who has worked at the university since 1978, said that MU has considered consolidation in the past, but that the efforts have failed because the decision on what to cut is left to department chairs.
“Quite frankly, generally chairs don’t have the finance or business experience to charge them with this important function,” Lauffer said. “It’s not a good business policy.”
Campbell doesn’t agree that consolidation would “turn departments against each other. I don’t know where that’s coming from,” he said.
Campbell continued: “You can’t support everything. Someone must decide on certain high quality programs to give more resources to. We’ll be continuously evaluating programs to see which should be trimmed, which will be enhanced. That’s just good management. The provost’s office should be doing that anyway.”
However, Smale said that too much consolidation could ultimately make MU less attractive to potential new hires and perhaps drive away the qualified teachers that are employed here.
“What if we are sacrificing libraries?” Smale said. “What if there’s no staff support? What if there are overcrowded classrooms?
“Professors look for more than just salary. If you have a nice salary, but everything else is falling apart around because the university is being cannibalized, then you will still lose people.”

 

MU group decries pay hike from cuts

By JACOB LUECKE of the Tribune’s staff

Published Sunday, July 22, 2007

Members of a fledgling faculty and staff union at the University of Missouri-Columbia have come out against a plan to fund pay increases through cutbacks.

Earlier this month, MU officials announced a plan to free up about $7 million to bump professors’ salaries. Comparisons show faculty pay is no longer competitive. The university has not finalized how it will get the money, but it has several ideas, including adopting a faculty hiring freeze on 30 to 35 positions, combining administrative functions and consolidating services.

Robert Smale, an MU assistant professor of history, agrees professors need a pay increase. But he said the university’s plan would end up "cannibalizing" the school.

"They have correctly diagnosed the problem, but they are incapable of coming up with a viable solution," said Smale, who is the organizing committee chairman for the National Education Association branch at MU.

Smale and other campus NEA members are particularly critical of a possible hiring freeze. They say it would likely ratchet up class size and burden professors with more work - hurting the quality of instruction.

"The hiring freeze, I don’t think, is the way to go," said Michael Ugarte, a Spanish professor at MU.

Phebe Lauffer, an administrative associate at the university, had a similar concern. "We’re burdened with picking up slack from people who leave and they don’t replace," she said.

Lauffer and Ugarte also are members of the campus NEA.

Vice Provost Brian Foster, who helped formulate the pay increase plan, said university leaders are looking for ways to minimize extra work. For example, the university might opt to have small classes taught less often. Another idea is to combine classes if two departments happen to be teaching similar classes.

"There will probably be some of that in the mix," Foster said of larger class sizes. "But if a class increases from 20 to 23, is that going to affect the quality of instruction or the faculty workload in any significant way? My guess is no."

Smale said the plan had upset many people who work at the university. However, he said most won’t speak up for fear of "drastic fiscal retaliation."

"There are many professors, there are many staff on this campus that are afraid that if they speak up against this plan that is immediately going to put their program under the gun sights of the administration," Smale said.

The MU union is about two years old and has 18 members, Smale said. Statewide the Missouri National Education Association touts 33,000 members.

Smale and others said rather than make cuts, the school should work at increasing state funding through the General Assembly.

"What we need to do as an institution of higher learning is, first of all, try to elect people who are going to be more favorable to the university," said Ugarte. "But also to have a better relationship with the legislature."

Ugarte said it would benefit MU if the administration would get more faculty involved in lobbying legislators.

Foster stressed that the process of making cutbacks to balance the budget is something the university goes through each year. This time, the university is simply looking for extra money to shift toward faculty salaries.

He said he didn’t disagree with the position that the school should get more money from the legislature.

"But the fact is the level of state funding has just not been enough to keep us competitive," Foster said. "That, together with the tuition cap, has left us with little choice but to find some other ways to make ourselves competitive."

 

Staff might consider joining MNEA.

To the MU Community,

The University can be a marvelous place to work. We have benefits to rival
most corporations; a readily available teaching hospital with superb
resources in many areas of medicine, and some departments allow flexibility
in work schedules. There are upward mobility opportunities for those willing
to learn and work within the political structure.

Notwithstanding the above positive elements, there are also many reasons to
join a union. The first is, of course, the solidarity it brings to the
workforce, and the strength in numbers mentality. Another reason is the
relative Œvoiceless¹ nature of staff in an academic environment. Although we
have the Staff Advisory Committee, with all due respect, they are powerless
against an administration that clearly define their goals with little
consideration for the staff in their decision-making processes. We have seen
medical insurance premiums and incidental expenses rise while staff continue
to be paid at increasingly sub-standard hourly salaries. Our already
monumental job descriptions increase with ³other duties as assigned² each
year. We are rarely given input to accepting, nor monetary reward for these
³other duties². As faculty increase in various departments, staff numbers
oftentimes remain the same, thus further increasing responsibilities and
workload.

Furthermore, although it is an anecdotal observation, it seems increasingly
more difficult for staff to be ³reclassified². I believe this a Human
Resource attempt to curtail ³administrative² titles. However, the staff of
the University are truly ³skilled, professional workers² and increasingly do
not fit into the ³clerical² category. Please consider joining as well. We
would welcome your input, and applaud your courage in changing the climate
of MU to a more equitable and even better place to work.

Phebe Lauffer

More Cuts Announced Without Faculty or Staff Input

Columbia Missourian

MU faculty hiring restricted for ’07-’08

By CARL FRANZEN

July 10, 2007

If MU faculty want higher salaries, the university will have to forgo filling 20 to 30 faculty positions for the 2007-08 school year, and possibly beyond, under a three-year financial plan announced Monday.
Chancellor Brady Deaton said the plan, called Compete Missouri, aims to secure $7 million by next July to make faculty salaries competitive with MU’s institutional peers.
“It has become increasingly difficult to acquire high-quality faculty,” Deaton said. “You can always hire somebody, but we want to hire the best.”
Each year, MU has about 60 to 70 teaching positions to fill. Under the new plan, all current faculty openings are on “hold” and cannot be filled without being reviewed at “the Provost/Vice Chancellor level.” Deaton said about half of the current openings could be filled within the next year, but new hires would be limited to “critical positions.”
Michael O’Brien, dean of the College of Arts and Science, said hiring faculty has become “an arms race,” with American universities having to offer higher and higher salaries to attract qualified instructors. Current faculty could bear some of the burden, he said.
“We know what the market is,” O’Brien said. “We pay incoming faculty market value (now). The problem is, you’ll have incoming faculty making more here than associate professors.”
According to the Association of American Universities, the salaries paid to MU faculty are among the lowest offered at public research universities. MU ranks 33 on the AAU’s list of salaries at 34 public universities, above only the University of Oregon.
Deaton said his goal is to move MU closer to the middle of the AAU listings to become more competitive.
“That’s why we emphasize ‘compete’ in the title,” he said.
About $4 million of the $7 million needed to balance MU’s operating budget by July 2008 is expected to come from the salaries currently allotted to the unfilled positions.
Another $2 million is projected to come from the reorganization and consolidation of academic programs and centers, which Deaton
adamantly stressed would not lead to layoffs.
“There will be no jobs lost in this process,” he said. “Current faculty and staff will not lose their jobs. We are looking at some reassignment of responsibilities in order to save resources that will then be reallocated to increasing current faculty salaries.”
The final $1 million of the $7 million is supposed to come from new revenue sources, including new summer school, evening and distance learning courses.
Deaton said current faculty will “not necessarily” have to teach larger classes. Many classes, such as statistics, he said, are interdisciplinary in their scope and content and could potentially be taught across several departments.
John Curtis, director of research and public policy for the American Association of University Professors, said that MU’s hiring hold is part of a larger, nationwide trend by public universities to deal with budget crises.
“There are similar programs in other states,” Curtis said. “Just last week, Florida just announced a hiring freeze. Maryland just announced a cut or freeze. In any case, I’m pretty sure this is not unique.”
Deaton said he expected Compete Missouri to be a “very challenging” initiative. He acknowledged that not everyone would agree with it. “It will involve a great deal of discussion,” he said. “The faculty here have to support this plan. It’s not a top-down planning process.”

 

 

Open Letter on the 1% Solution

Today the letter below was sent to Board of Curators Chairman Don Walsworth, interim President of the MU System Gordon Lamb, MU Chancellor Brady Deaton and MU Faculty Council President Rex Campbell. For background, see the previous post.

May 11, 2007

The home page for the University of Missouri system heralds this institution as "one of the nation's largest and most prestigious public research universities." Given the university's long history of service to the state of Missouri, Workers in Education at the University of Missouri (WE-MU), a coalition of faculty and staff affiliated with the Missouri National Education Association, applaud the Board of Curators' recognition that a great university must offer competitive salaries to faculty and staff in order to continue this record. At the same time, we object strongly to the plan to finance future salary increases through internal reallocation of funds.

We suspect that very few faculty and administrators endorse the Board of Curators' plan, even if they have not openly questioned it. We suspect, further, that we are not the only ones who believe that the Board of Curators' Plan is an abdication of the State of Missouri's basic responsibility to provide quality, affordable higher education to its citizens. We are not the only ones who would like to see a tradition begun in 1839, with the establishment of "the first publicly supported institution of higher education established in the Louisiana Territory,"well maintained.

And yet, the state's flagship university system is being asked to fund salary increases through a $4.2 million reduction in the General Operating budget each year, beginning with the next fiscal year. What may not be clear is that the university has already suffered a 7% cut in state funding over the past six years, as the inflation rate rose 15%.Missouri ranks 46th in the nation for state funding to higher education. It is difficult to see how the University of Missouri can continue to be one of the nation's most prestigious public research universities if public funding continues to decline at such a sharp rate.

The logic behind the Curators' plan to fund salaries through further budget cutting, therefore, is difficult to see. Although the Curators recognize that the university is behind its peers in faculty salaries (with averages far below the flagship institutions of neighboring states Kansas and Illinois), their mandate to fund salary increases solely by essentially stealing money from the university budget itself will only ensure that the university will slide quickly from its historical reputation as one of the nation's finest institutions. The university's cannibalization will in turn cripple its mission to provide high-quality education and marketable degrees to Missouri citizens.

Moreover, the plan's proposed implementation is fatally flawed.Responding to the Curators' directive, university administrators ask that proposals for "cost savings" (i.e., internal reallocations to fund salary increases) be submitted within one month! Under the best of circumstances, a real study to identify supposed "inefficiencies" (i.e., cost-cutting targets) at a large and complex institution such as the University of Missouri would require much more time and careful consideration. Without this planning, possible candidates for elimination or reduction will almost surely be evaluated largely according to their political and economic clout, rather than their comparative value to the university's educational mission. Well-funded units, programs, and individuals linked to powerful constituencies within or outside the university will be spared, whereas others will be targeted for cuts simply because of their vulnerability.

Thus, the most likely targets will be small departments, particularly in the academically central but chronically under-funded Arts & Science College, as well as the already financially-starved library system, and among adjunct or non-tenure track faculty and among staff members, generally. Thus, the university's most poorly-funded units and poorly-remunerated employees are the most likely victims of the cannibalization process. Moreover, we see no evidence that staff members--the worst paid of all university employees--or adjunct, non-tenured faculty are guaranteed any salary increases in the Curators' plan.

The Missouri public's demand for quality and affordable higher education, of course, deserves a better response from its politicians and their appointees on the Board of Curators. We therefore protest this plan and call for our fellow University of Missouri administrators, faculty, and staff to join with us. Protest the Board of Curators'ill-judged directive, collectively and individually, publicly and privately. Don't let Missouri's politicians and public assume, by your silence, that you approve this plan.


Sincerely,

Workers in Education-University of Missouri (WE-MU)

Background on the 1% Solution (AKA The Cannibalization Plan)

Here is the text of the email that the MU faculty received April 30 from the Faculty Council. It announced the Board of Curators plan to pay for salary increases by ordering the university to cannibalize itself and asked faculty members to help out by suggesting cuts. Since MU is a public institution and its workings should be public information, I trust there will no objection to posting the text here to give readers some context for our open letter above.

Hi:

As the saying goes, there is good news and bad news concerning future salary increases. The good news is that the Board of Curators recognizes that the average academic salaries at UM are lower than most of our peer institutions and the Board wants to increase our average. The bad news is that we on the campuses have to come up with the money for the needed raises.

The funds starting with the 2009 fiscal year must come from cost reductions, not from increased revenues. Both the Board and state legislature are limiting any student fee increases to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). And as is usual in Missouri, any future increases in state appropriations for higher education are highly uncertain.

The Board of Curators at their April 6 meeting at UMR (now Missouri University of Science and Technology) passed the following motion:

“…that the President create an Efficiencies Account equivalent to 1% of the University of Missouri’s operating budget, to be funded by program review; prioritization; program elimination, reduction and/or consolidation; and operating efficiencies, as identified and recommended by the President and Chancellors for contribution to and funding of the University's compensation package in the coming fiscal year.”

This will require a $4.2M reduction in the General Operating budget each year beginning with the next fiscal year. Please note there is no “sunset” provision in the motion. It will be up to the Board to decide when to stop the 1% reductions.

Chancellor Deaton and Provost Foster have asked three committees to start work immediately on this large and important task. These are a 1% Academic Planning Committee that I chair, an Administrative Committee that Provost Foster chairs and the Strategic Planning and Resources Advisory Committee (SPRAC) that John David chairs. There is overlapping membership between the three committees to insure coordination.

The Chancellor and Provost have asked that we use two time horizons in our planning. The first is for the 2009 fiscal year ($4.2M reductions) and the second is a five year plan ($25M reductions).

Obviously, this is going to be a very difficult and very important task. We need your ideas as to how to make significant cost savings at MU. One rule to keep in mind is that tenure must be honored. Tenured professors cannot be fired unless there is fiscal exigency and this does not qualify as such. A couple of additional rules are: you cannot eliminate a campus, and you cannot eliminate the system administration.

We are working on a very short timeline. We must have our first year recommendation (2009 fiscal year) to the Chancellor by late May or the first part of June and our five year plan by January 1, 2008.

PLEASE SEND ME YOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR COST REDUCTIONS AT MU TO (facultycouncil@missouri.edu) BY MAY 10, 2007.

Your suggestions may be for the first year, five years or both. All suggestions will be referred to the 1% Academic Committee for consideration.

The 1% Academic Committee members are: Robert Almony, Rachel Anderson (MSA president), Pam Benoit, Bill Bondeson, Mike Devaney, John David, Carolyn Herrington, Bill Lamberson, Mike Nolan, Jenice Prather-Kinsey, Frank Schmidt, Laura Schopp, Rebekah Hart (staff) and Rex Campbell, Chair.

Please reply today.

Thanks,

Rex Campbell

Professor of Rural Sociology

Chair of MU Faculty Council

Chair of 1% Academic Planning Committee

This should teach our children a valuable lesson in democracy.

Well, at least Representative Jane Cunningham isn't only targeting higher education faculty with her schemes to stifle free speech and prevent the open exchange of ideas. The sponsor of the "Intellectual Diversity" bill has struck again! A post on the "Fired Up! Missouri" blog begins:

Queen Jane and GOP Reps Look to Strip Speech Rights from Teachers

Over the legislative spring break, Queen of Bad Ideas Jane Cunningham and GOP friends Steve Hunter and Marilyn Ruestman spun the squeaky gerbil-wheels of their minds as rapidly as they could and came up with a gem of a bill. Their idea: stop public school teachers in the state of Missouri from participating in their democracy by visiting the state capitol to lobby legislators. Cunningham, Hunter, and Ruestman apparently believe that some real restrictions on participatory democracy for the people who educate our youngsters are just what Missourians are hungry for.

Their bill, HB 1222, reads simply:

"no public school teacher shall lobby the general assembly unless such teacher makes arrangements to pay the salary of the substitute teacher for the teacher's class."

You think this is an April Fools joke, don't you? Go to the Missouri House of Representatives web page to see for yourself at: http://www.house.mo.gov/bills071/bills/hb1222.htm.

Check out the entire post at: www.firedupmissouri.com.

Vacation in Beautiful Jeff City and Strike a Blow for Liberty!

Calling anyone who can take the time to be in the Capitol for a few hours on Wednesday, April 18! Our car pool will leave Columbia at 8:30 am. At 10:00 am we have a briefing in the Capitol from Otto Fajen, MNEA lobbyist. We will then talk with key legislators about HB 213 (the so-called Intellectual Diversity bill or more accurately the Witch Hunt bill) and other higher education legislation. Hopefully we will also have some time to watch the show in the House or Senate. Those of us who have time for lunch will eat at a nearby restaurant, then head back to Columbia.

Please email Steve McLuckie, MNEA Organizing Director at steve.mcluckie@mnea.org to RSVP.

Contact your legislator now!

Get the latest on the nationwide effort to enforce "Intellectual Diversity" at http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org.

Our legislators need to hear from us on this issue. Go to http://www.mogo.mo.gov/. If you click on "Legislator Lookup" and enter your nine digit zip code, you will be given a hot link to your elected representatives.

Forum rescheduled for March 22 -- here's the flyer

Academic Freedom and Tenure on the Chopping Block in Jeff City?

Otto Fajen - MNEA Legislative Director

HOUSE BILL NO. 213
The coordinating board for higher education shall require each public institution to report annually to the general assembly detailing the steps the institution is taking to ensure intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas.
(1) The report required in this subsection shall address the specific measures taken by the institution to ensure and promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom.

HOUSE BILL NO. 813
Notwithstanding any other law, beginning January 1, 2008, any faculty member of an institution of higher education in this state who receives two negative peer reviews may have his or her tenure revoked and be discharged from employment by the institution. Individual determinations as to tenure revocation or employment termination shall be made by the chancellor at each campus of the University of Missouri, the president at each state-supported four-year college or university, the president of Linn State Technical College, or the president or chancellor at each public community college.

Anheuser-Busch Building, Room 307

Thursday, March 22

5:30 pm

Forum postponed -- blame the Nazis

The March 8 forum has been postponed a week, until March 15. (Partly this has happened because of the difficulty of getting anyone to focus politically on anything here in Columbia this week but the visit our city and campus are receiving from the National Socialist Movement.) Here is a message from our local MNEA Organizing Director, Steve McLuckie, who is setting up the forum:

We are setting up a meeting with our lobbyist and Missouri legislators on legislation being debated in Jefferson City, including the attack on tenure and the so-called “Intellectual Diversity Act.” We plan to decide on a strategy for action concerning these bills. We are hoping to schedule it for Thursday, March 15, which is right before the legislators go on their spring break. Once we can confirm speakers and reserve a room, we will share the details with you.

"Card Check" Union Elections and the Myth of Union "Harassment"

Congress is presently debating a bill that would allow a different type of union recognition election than currently prescribed in federal law. We are not sure whether this will be relevant at MU, but Washington Monthly and TPM Cafe have recently carried some helpful discussions of the issue. What is particularly good about these comments is the way they dispel a lot of myths about the way unions operate that people have picked up from old movies or The Sopranos. There is also some reference in these posts to the fact that most of what we hear and read about the economic harm of unions are also dead wrong.

The End of Tenure in Missouri Higher Education?

How many faculty members at Missouri public colleges and universities are aware that the Missouri legislature is considering a bill that would virtually end tenure as we know it? Here is the official summary:
<

HB 813 -- Tenure at State Higher Education Institutions

Sponsor: Baker (123)

Beginning January 1, 2008, this bill allows the president orchancellor, as appropriate, of each state higher education institution to revoke the tenure and discharge a faculty member who receives two negative peer reviews.

"Negative" and "peer review" are not defined. Such a vague system would make faculty members fireable almost at the whim of their campus administration. If they think there is a lack of "intellectual diversity" now, wait until something like this goes through.

Forum on the "Intellectual Diversity Act" Scheduled

We have scheduled a campus forum on the so-called "Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act" (and other terrible ideas for higher education currently under consideration by the Missouri legislature) for next Thursday, March 8, at 5:30PM, in Brady Commons, Room 232. Watch this space for more details soon.

Letter to the Columbia Daily Tribune

To the Editor,

We ask you to look at an uncommon event to reflect on something all too common at MU.

On December 1, 2006, classes at MU were cancelled for the first time in approximately ten years. The Columbia Tribune reported that the 13.9 inches of “snowfall has essentially shut down the city.” Moreover, the very same radio and television announcers that reported the canceling of classes urged residents to stay home, based on emergency officials’ statements.

University staff members, however, were required to come to work.

The staff of the University of Missouri, in short, are met with a double standard. When classes are suspended, the faculty and students are given leave to be absent from their respective jobs and classes. Staff, however, are required to use personal leave, vacation or sick hours for any time missed. This double standard puts the staff at risk for injury and property when traveling to work requires traveling on treacherous roads. The pressure for a staff person with limited leave, such as a single parent, to attempt travel would be very great.

This university policy on weather-related closings is unacceptable. Although the weather that we have experienced recently is rare, the policy points to a troubling double standard that is not rare.


Sincerely,

Members of the Workers in Education at the University of Missouri-Columbia, WE-UMC

Missouri National Education Association

Columbia, MO