• Members Home
• Officer Updates
• Ask The President
• Member News
• Vote Results

The President Responds

On 12/21/09 Mary Lynn from Northridge asks:

Hello Mary:

It's great to be able to start the New Year with two very good questions like yours.

Your first question is a simple one: in 2009 APC contributed $0 to State and national election campaigns. APC did, however, contribute $10,000.00 to Californians for Health Care & Retirement at the recommendation of APC Council Member at Large John James and with the approval of the APC Statewide Council at its October Council meeting.

Your second question is not quite as easy to answer. My initial thoughts on this question are that it would be hard for me to imagine how an agreement entered into by APC and the CSU could become permanent of its own volition, and that APC would sit idly by and allow such to occur without vociferous challenge. What I mean by that is this, if APC and the CSU entered into a agreement to reduce salaries for a set period of time, at the end of the agreed upon time salaries would be bound by contractual agreement revert to previous levels. Any other outcome would certainly have to be negotiated between APC and the CSU.

After thinking about your second question for some time, I wondered if there was some "official" source that could be found to settle the question one way or the other. Not being a state budget expert (as very few people are), I wondered how I could find such information and where/how I would start such a search. After consulting a number of knowledgeable colleagues on the subject, the task seemed more daunting than ever. So I thought a good place to start a search for information on this subject would be a telephone call to the source the statement was attributed to: CSUN Provost Hellenbrand. In my conversation with Dr. Hellenbrand he candidly informed me that he knew of no way that salary cuts, in association with furloughs or not, would simply become permanent "without a brokered agreement at the negotiating table." Dr. Hellenbrand went on to explain that the problem he sees is that "the furlough salary reduction is a one time fix," to what he sees as "a permanent budget problem." And finally, Dr. Hellenbrand suggested that the "political accuracy" of the necessity for negotiating permanent salary cuts may well be unavoidable given California's and the CSU's current budget situation.

Whether anyone agrees with all that was stated above or not, what is clear is that California's elected leadership, from the Governor to the Legislature, and even Mac Taylor California's non-partisan legislative analyst, continue to report and respond to what they see as ongoing and systemic budget deficits. And whether or not APC as an organization or individual members agree with or believe in the validity of those budget deficits, we all live in the "reality" that people making the decisions on California's budget in general, and the CSU's budget in particular, have been and will continue to make budget decisions based on their belief in the size of budget deficits they continue to confront. As a union president and a Californian, I can think of no other time of more importance for every Californian and CSU employee to be fully and actively engaged in California's budget process. Furloughs and salary reductions are immediately and personally difficult and painful for each and every one of us, but it appears to me that they are a symptom rather than the cause of the problem.

On 1/6/10 Carmen Diaz Misa from Sonoma asks:

Hello Carmen:

Thank you for submitting your comments. Since you didn't actually pose a question in your statement, I will respond to why I believe members have asked questions about the possibility of continuing furloughs in 2010-11.

Before commenting on that topic, however, I want to assure you that I know exactly how difficult it can be to provide for a family on one income. For a period of about ten years, I was a single, custodial parent of young children, so I know well the difficulty of making every dollar stretch even on a "good" salary, which I did not have for most of those years. And even though I am currently happily married and in a two-income household, a 10% reduction of income for my household is no easy thing. Indeed, I think it fair to say that the reduction in salary that came along with furloughs has not been easy for anyone.

Regarding the question about why members would like to talk about furloughs now, I can only say that I take those members at their word for their reasons for wanting to discuss furloughs now rather than under duress, or an extremely short time period for consideration/voting, or at the last minute. In the most recent question posted by a member on the issue of furlough, your colleague from Pomona stated:

I think the above statement is pretty clear and makes pretty good sense. When I happened to be on the Pomona campus recently I took the opportunity to meet personally with the above member. She shared with me that she would have liked to share her question with her campus colleagues for their thoughts and input, but she did not have email addresses for her APC/Unit 4 colleagues on her campus and didn't know if there was another means by which she and her campus could engage in discussions and an exchange of ideas apart from campus meetings. I was pleased to be able to inform this member that APC has been working very hard to address this very communication difficulty. But in order for APC to successfully address and respond to the communication needs of our members, we need the assistance of each and every APC/Unit 4 member on every single campus. If anyone reading this post has not already done so, please to go "Member Email Registration" under "News And Updates" on APC's home page to register your email with the statewide office, and encourage your colleagues to do the same. With the full assistance and participation of the membership with this simple request alone, many of APC's communication difficulties, both with and among the membership, will be resolved. The bottom line for me here is that it's far better to have more discussion, input, and time than less.

Finally, in your statement you say that, as a union member, you will not be voting for furloughs if such an option were offered again. I both appreciate and respect your opinion and position, and I will defend your right to hold any opinion you wish and to vote in any manner you wish. From the tone and direction of your comments I think it safe to assume that you'd rather not be talking about furloughs either, which I also respect. But it's worth remembering and mentioning right here that nearly 72% of your voting colleagues voted in favor of furloughs, and their rights and wishes must be respected and responded to as well. As the president of the entire membership of APC, it is my duty to work for the interests of the membership as a whole, which can be really hard to do when members have strongly held opposing views, opinions, and needs. APC is a democratic organization, which means that no matter what my or any single member's opinion or viewpoint might be, it is my duty to respond to the will of the majority of the membership. From my count there have been three questions submitted to me here specifically on the question/possibility of furloughs in 2010-11, two favorable to furloughs, one not, which is exactly the same favorable to non-favorable ratio of the most recent furlough vote. That makes sense to me.

Questions posted prior to 11/6/09

Questions posted prior to 12/4/09

Questions posted prior to 12/21/09