Today one of our core values is at stake—something that should concern all of us who are committed to the future of our college, UW–Madison and Wisconsin. I am talking about declining state support for postsecondary education and its devastating effect on our young people and their opportunities.

Undergraduate education at UW–Madison is paid for by a combination of general program revenue (GPR)—derived from state taxes—and tuition, paid by students and families. In 2001, GPR funding for UW-Madison was $370 million and tuition revenue was $277 million. Ten years later, GPR has fallen to just $279 million, while tuition revenue increased to $400 million (all figures adjusted to 2010 dollars). As a result, tuition increased from $5044 per year in 2001 (2010 dollars) to $8987 in 2010. (These numbers do not include the $47.5 million cut imposed in the 2011 budget.) The state also gives UW money for special purposes, but these funds cannot be used directly in providing undergraduate education.

When the state fails to support the university, the university gets the needed revenue by charging students and their families more. This is a pretty straightforward relationship, but I am not sure that the implications are always clear. When the state cuts the budget and tuition increases, fewer students from middle-class and financially pressed families can afford to attend UW–Madison.

Here at CALS, we are especially aware of the effects on Wisconsin’s rural families. Rural per capita income is 20 percent less than in metropolitan areas, and 40 percent of CALS students demonstrate significant financial need. What is the future for CALS if a greater proportion of kids interested in careers in agriculture and natural resources cannot afford to come to Madison? Indeed, what is the future of Wisconsin’s rural communities?

We also can’t pretend that the quality of undergraduate education won’t suffer. Less revenue means fewer degree programs, especially in production agriculture, and fewer courses dedicated to agriculture. The time it takes to finish a degree will lengthen. And it will be harder for people with moderate incomes to afford to come here.

Supporting our agricultural communities means supporting public higher education in Wisconsin. The UW System is the provider of affordable, accessible opportunities to earn bachelor’s degrees, and we at CALS are the provider of the specialized knowledge needed to excel in careers in agriculture, natural resources and the life sciences. When state cuts make it harder for rural kids to attend CALS, the economic vitality of our rural communities is diminished.

How we fund a college education at UW is up to the people of Wisconsin—and in any policy debate it’s important to have all facts on the table. My hope is that, as we move forward, undergraduate education gets the attention and resources that our young people and our state deserve.

Thanks to all of you for your support of our college.

On Wisconsin.

William F. Tracy
Interim Dean
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences

Reprinted with permission from WALSAA Express December 2011

In brief, a defined contribution (DC) plan is one in which the benefit is directly determined by the amount of principle and interest contributed by the annuitant. 401-K’s are the most common forms of DC plan instruments. They are typically managed by private investment firms.

A defined benefit (DB) plan is based on a formula of salary as a multiple of years of service and other constant factors. Our DB plan is managed by a state agency, Employee Trust Funds.

In the past twenty years, there has been a massive shift in the private sector from DB plans to DC plans. At the same time there is a movement spearheaded by American Legislative Exchange Committee to remove public employees from DB plans and shift them to DC plans. Given the fact that the WRS now holds $80 billion in assets this would be a huge windfall to “money managers” who would oversee the individual accounts.

This proposal now being “studied” by the Secretaries of the Departments of Administration, Employee Trust Funds and Employment Relations is to report to the Governor and the Joint Committee on Finance by June 30, 2012. This is significant because it bypasses the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement and Pensions. By law, the legislature cannot consider a bill in regard to pensions that is not authored by the Joint Survey Committee and accompanied by an actuarial report. But, of course, the law can be changed.

The Wisconsin Retirement System is considered to be one of the best in the nation with obligations funded at over 99%. Nonetheless, it would not take many changes to begin set the wheels of a crisis in motion. There are many potential scenarios:

• One scenario already underway is the sharp increase in retirements prior to July 2011. State employees (non-University) retirements tripled from 2010 to 2011. School district and UW retirements doubled in the same period. Given budget cutbacks many of these employees were not replaced and those that were are commonly paid at half the salary of the prior position incumbent. This is a huge unanticipated outflow of pension funds that will not be replaced with a comparable receipt of new contributions for many years.
• Wages and salaries continue to be frozen or decline among public employees providing less revenue into the fund. With investment income flat or at best highly unstable, the capacity of the WRS to meet obligations continues to decline.
• As we approach summer, Walker (presuming he continues to be Governor) announces another budget shortfall. As he did in the last budget, he proposes to “borrow” hundreds of millions (last time it was $70 million) from the pension fund. It will, of course, be for a good cause such as paying for employees’ health insurance premiums (as it was the last time). Thus, in the face of swelling retiree rolls, reduced contributions due to lower salaries and fewer employees and a stagnant market for investments, the fund capacity to meet near-term obligations is sharply diminished.

The Governor and the leaders of Joint Finance, particularly Rep. Vos are ready to meet this crisis head on. And the solution will address two problems: 1) the inability of the public agency, ETF, to meet the state’s obligation to retirees and 2) the unfair inequity between public employees who enjoy a lavish and wealthy retirement (insert here a factoid about married, masters prepared high school teachers with 30 years of service and have a combined pension of $65,000/year) compared to those in the private sector (insert here numerous facts on the plight of most in the private sector, e.g. one-third live solely on their social security payment, the remainder have an average value of $50,000 in savings + pension, etc.).

The barrage of policy attacks is being ramped up. The Wall St Journal published one of many attacks on public employee pensions on 1/4/2012 and offered the alternative of defined contribution plans. A general review of the model of the attack by the author of the article can be found here. If the “money management” industry was unable to get its hands on the social security trust funds, the next biggest treasure are public employee pensions.

Some organizing in response to this attack is underway. A few meetings of retirees and current public employees have been held around the state. Though there has been little discussion of the issue on campus, there is no doubt that there will be substantial concern when this information is disseminated and the study report is released.

To receive more information on the effort, contact powrs2012@gmail.com or wiununion@gmail.com.

Rise in Sticker Price at Public Colleges Outpaces That at Private Colleges for 5th Year in a Row, by Beckie Supiano, October 26, 2011

The average price for tuition and fees at public four-year colleges was $8,244 for in-state students in 2011-12, up from $7,613 in 2010-11, an 8.3-percent increase. That percentage change drops to 7.0 percent if California—which had a 21-percent increase in tuition in that one-year period—is excluded.

Here in Wisconsin, in-state tuition and fees for the University of Wisconsin-Madison for the fall 2011 semester totaled $4,832.50, compared with $4,491.60 for the fall 2010 semester; in-state tuition and fees for UW-Milwaukee for the fall 2011 semester totaled $4,337.70, compared with $4,075.63 for the fall 2010 semester.   In percentage terms, the increases are 7.6% and 6.4%, respectively.

The basic message in this is that UW-Madison’s in-state tuition is still well below the national average, but the percentage increase is comparable to that experienced elsewhere.  In short, like elsewhere, the investment by the state of Wisconsin in making higher education affordable for all of its citizens is being dialed back.

We already knew this, of course.  But the latest massive hits to the UW-System budget, not reflected in the above figures,  are virtually certain to sharply accelerate the cost increases.    In fact,  if current trends continue, we can expect to see the distinction between private and public institutions become almost meaningless.

Is this really what the citizens of Wisconsin want?

To recap, news accounts in all major media initially stated that the UW-System would be subject to about $65 million in cuts over the biennium as a part of an overall state budget reduction of $174 million. (UW-Madison’s share of the reduction would be $24.6 million.) The Dept of Administration, which apportions the cuts, did not explain why UW would shoulder 37% of the reduction despite the fact that it constitutes only 7% of the state budget.

Today, the other shoe dropped. The other shoe in this instance is the probable loss of $111 million over the biennium; our share of an overall budget reduction of $300 million. Madison’s loss would be $42.6 million. This loss alone could not be “made up” if tuition for every student was increased $1000/ year. This is, of course, in addition to the $250 million loss to the System (and Madison) in the budget passed last summer. In contrast, aid to local government ($1.9 billion) is only nicked ($3 million) as is aid to K-12 education, the biggest item in the budget. Under the “$300 million scenario”, the UWS would still lose a disproportionate share of its state funding at a ratio of 5:1.

While the budget reduction of $300 million has not been ordered, agencies have been told to prepare for the loss. The reduction will be ordered if tax revenues do not increase in the next few months.

Under the $300 million reduction scenario, the Dept of Corrections would reduce its budget by $23 million or 1.4%. This would result in the UW receiving 6.7% of the state budget and the Dept of Corrections receiving 6.8%. The trend lines have crossed.

DMA

With the announcement of the new round of budget cuts ($65 million for the System, $13 million for Corrections), I reviewed LFB publications to see if indeed the UW is still #1 in the purse, if not the hearts, of Wisconsin.

I found (see table below) that although UWS funding will be $48M greater than that of Corrections (after the cuts), they are not only in the same ballpark, they are almost on the same base. UWS receives 7% of the total share of state funding while Corrections receives 6.8%. The budgetary trend lines of the two agencies have nearly merged because the budget reduction of UW is four times greater (as a percent of their budget) than that imposed on Corrections.

With additional inequitable budget reductions probable due to inflated revenue estimates, will Badger fans yell, “We’re Number Two! We’re Number Two!”

DMA

Save the date!

Saturday, Sept 24 — 10 AM- 3 PM

Building an Effective Organization for Faculty and Staff

If you read Sifting and Winnowing then you recognize that the events of last semester underscore the need for a viable organization of University staff and faculty. The Wisconsin University Union (WUU) invites you to a planning discussion about what that might look like. We’d like to hear from campus employees what they’d like that organization to focus on and do.

What issues should this organization prioritize?

• Improve compensation?
• Protect academic freedoms?
• Secure employee protections on layoffs, promotion, etc?
• Re-gain right to collectively bargain?
• Retain rights of self-governing institutions?
• Other?

What function/activity should this organization prioritize?

• Provide accurate and timely information on issues affecting employees?
• Advocate for individual employees in workplace disputes?
• Conduit information to decision-makers at state and campus level?
• Develop political capacity to advocate for campus interests such as lobbying or organizing a PAC?
• Work with similar grassroots groups on other UW campuses?
• Other?

We intend this to be a wide-open/no-preconceptions meeting — a frank (and fun) discussion of what’s really needed and how best to organize getting it. Please join other individual and organizational activists to discuss and plan an effective organization designed to meet our real challenges.

• On-campus location
• Ample food and drink available throughout!
• (More precise agenda to follow shortly)
• RSVP: dmahrens@wisc.edu / 334-1156

In the past week, I have attempted to make a list of the immediate and long-term implications of this new law for the employees of UW-Madison.  We need to keep track of all the effects of this law so that we can literally show the members of the legislature who supported this bill exactly WHY we were screaming back in February “This bill does not repair the budget!  And this bill does not help the people of Wisconsin!”

As a TA at UW-Madison, I am concerned about what this means for me when I return to work in August — I have no idea how this law will affect my life in the near or distant future.  But I do know that my union no longer has the right to bargain with the State of Wisconsin about anything other than my salary (which by law can now only be raised to match the rate of inflation, meaning that although we haven’t been bargaining for a pay raise in years, now we legally can’t even ask for one).  Other questions I have about the implications of this law for me as a UW employee include:

1. What does this mean for my healthcare coverage?
2. What does this mean for the grievance procedures, workload limits, sick leave, and emergency family leave policies that were granted to me in my contract?  Do I even have a “contract” now?
3. How can we as graduate student workers make our needs and desires known and recognized?  And who should we be trying to make our needs and desires known to (i.e. the administration, politicians, lobbyists, etc.)?
4. What does it mean now that the TAA can no longer charge non-members for the cost of representation (i.e. the TAA can no longer collect dues from non-members even though they will be representing them in salary negotiations) — this surely means that the TAA will struggle in raising funds, which makes me wonder how the staff and volunteers for the TAA  will be able to work towards protecting things like my salary, healthcare, workload limits, etc. when there is no money – but who will they be “bargaining” with now that they won’t be “bargaining” with the state?
5. What does this mean for my tuition waiver?

I am also concerned that people may not realize how MANY people working for the UW are affected by this law – in addition to graduate student workers, this law will affect the lives of classified staff, academic staff, non-reps, and the faculty.

Additionally, I am concerned that the effects will not all be felt at the same time (unlike in February, when we all felt attacked at the same time with the introduction of the bill).  Many things will change as a result of Wisconsin Act 10, and these changes will not all happen at once, making it difficult to keep count of all the impacts of this new law, and difficult to support each other when we’re all being attacked from different sides at different times. Two already-observable implications of this law include the revoking of academic staff and faculty members’ right to unionize (which they just won) and the decision by UW system to prohibit all UW employee organizations (unionized or otherwise) from collecting dues as of August (as discussed in the S&W article).  But it’s only July.  Who knows what changes in working conditions will occur for UW employees between now and the start of fall semester.

Wisconsin has not lost, however.  Wisconsin is still very much in this battle, and we need to do more than just look back to the protests of February and remember the feelings of solidarity — we need to vote, we need to stay united, we need to ask questions, and we need to keep turning to each other for support and help — Please share the ways in which this law impacts you, your friends and family, and please continue to speak out and up and QUESTION those who make decisions with inconceivable ramifications so that we can combat these attacks on our rights and livelihoods with empirical purpose and unrelenting solidarity.

- Alyson S.
Graduate student teaching assistant

In that vein, we’d like to look back and regard the events of last semester as an aberration and not indicative of the life we live now or how we will live in the future. We’d rather not consider all of the facts and face the new reality: that we no longer know what life will be like in the future other than that it will probably be worse in some distinct but as of yet, unknown, ways. But “the facts get in the way” of our attempts to ignore our new and discomforting reality.

The fact is that as of August when the new health and WRS deductions go into effect, we will have a cumulative 20% loss in real income over the last 10 years (21% increase in cost-of-living and a 1% increase in compensation). And except for a small fraction of the faculty that might receive a retention award, no increase is in sight for the next two years regardless of inflation.

Or that Walker’s attempted putsch to control UW-Madison will not deter him from his goal of controlling the University. If the Democrats do not win control in the Senate as a result of the recalls, it is likely that Walker will attempt to change (through statute) the terms of the Regents to give him immediate control of a majority of the Board. A deeply conservative ideological Board will then appoint the new Chancellor for our campus.

Whether a “public authority” was or was not created may make little difference in the balance of power between the State and University. (As UW Regent Walsh mused, “What’s a public authority? It’s anything you want it to be.”) The UW Hospital is a “public authority” but unlike the University, it receives no funding from the state. Nonetheless, new law inserted into the budget prohibits Gyn-Ob residents from performing abortions despite the fact that the training is conducted off-premises of the Hospital with no public funds. (See Wisconsin State Journal: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_803d71f6-9c51-11e0-b739-001cc4c002e0.html) The Governor declined to veto this budget item explaining disingenuously that he believed the state should “not fund abortions.”

Abortion politics aside, the political power at the other end of State St. feels empowered to decide what is taught and probably not far off, the content of our research. Clearly, that’s the motive behind their attacks against the Havens Center, the Extension’s School for Workers and most recently, the Center on Wisconsin Strategy.

The political leadership has sought to implement policies to control the university with as little opposition as possible. The administration’s move to defund (and in the process “de-fang”) all of the campus employee organizations by terminating automatic dues deduction is an unabashed tactic to quash organized opposition. While the administration previously argued that it would not deduct dues for organizations that engage in collective bargaining, it has now extended the same prohibition against any employee association or advocacy.

Yet despite these concerted attacks, tumultuous protests and likely challenges in the future, the vast majority of faculty and staff remain unorganized and thus, relatively incapable of responding to on-going challenges. With the exception of the TAA, no organization was capable of mounting a response to the loss of state funding or collective bargaining rights. Though a petition was circulated among faculty in support of collective bargaining, a concerted campaign in conjunction with other campuses could not be conducted. (In fact, the major organization for academic staff, ASPRO, remained opposed to collective bargaining.)

I raise these issues as means of setting the discussion of some fundamental questions:

• How can we respond to these formidable current and future challenges?
• Is the current mix of organizations appropriate to the tasks ahead?
• Should the traditional divide of faculty/academic staff/ classified staff continue or does the new reality (classified staff will be unrepresented) require new forms of organization?
• What would an organization(s) do that is different from what is happening now?
• What should be the relationship of these organizations with the existing shared governance institutions? Should they be part of, aligned with or separate from them?
• What should our relationship be with organizations of faculty/staff on other UW campuses? Should these relationships be a primary goal of a “Madison” organization?

While it had been anticipated that the state would end the deduction for the unions, the end of the deduction for organizations that do not engage in collective bargaining comes as a surprise. In Walker’s initial budget, the prohibiting language was limited to “labor organizations” which are defined as “an organization that engages in collective bargaining.”  However, when the bill was amended in Joint Finance a more expansive amendment was added that prohibited dues deduction for any employee organization other than those representing public safety employees.

The unions have been preparing for the end of their dues deduction for some time. Their response has been to ask their members for monthly bank or credit card deductions. (Bank deductions are preferable because of fewer problems of changes in credit card numbers.) It is too early to tell their level of success but predictably, many members are not enthusiastic about signing an authorization for a 1% reduction in pay at the same time they are suffering a 10% reduction in pay.

In contrast, the voluntary organizations such as PROFS, WUU , ASPRO charge only nominal fees of one-tenth of 1% or in some cases only $5. Additionally, their memberships, as a whole, have significantly higher incomes.

The real issue here, however, is organization. We need it, and our employer, the State of Wisconsin, is doing everything possible to prevent organization or even effective participation of an opponent. Whether it requires photo ID of voters, defunding potentially oppositional non-profits or stripping the rights of employee organizations- the tactics change but the strategy is consistent.

If it hasn’t been clear yet to faculty and academic staff that we are in the same boat as our campus colleagues with blue and pink collars, this should be the final piece of evidence. The end of the dues deduction for non-bargaining employee organization is another message that from the perspective of the new rulers at the other end of State St. we are a single indistinguishable mass. We are the enemy that must be disenfranchised by whatever means are at hand.

Is it obvious that our response to this attack must be to join every available organization and pay the dues? What are less clear are the strategies of campus organizations. How shall we organize? What shall we do?

I would argue that the administration’s campaign for the NBP was premised on the notion that state support was declining and would continue to decline in the future and thus that the “new flexibilities” were necessary to stay afloat. One would guess that if she was saying that to the campus audience she must have been saying that and more to Walker, et. al.  There was no discuss of alternatives including (dare we say it!) higher taxes.

Looking at the budget process this year, we can see a number of cases where protests from those who were going to be on the short end of funding forced Joint Finance to change Walker’s proposed budget: the recyling program was restored (outcry from cities) ban on phosphorus repealed (from environmentalists), $100 million restored to K-12, etc.

Compare these responses to the almost-welcoming reaction to our loss of $100 million. (Note this was the same passive response from Reilly in the last budget). Clearly, the legislators know that if a constituency will sit still for this one time they will come back and cut and cut and cut.

If anything, the passivity of the administration and the entire higher education community (and that includes US) to this and prior reductions will have laid the groundwork for continued disinvestment in higher education even if the economy begins to grow.