From sunnyo@u.washington.edu Thu Mar 2 14:14:06 PST 1995 >From sunnyo@u.washington.edu Thu Mar 2 14:14:05 1995 Return-Path: Received: from homer21.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA28370; Thu, 2 Mar 95 14:14:05 -0800 Received: by homer21.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA48800; Thu, 2 Mar 95 14:14:02 -0800 X-Sender: sunnyo@homer21.u.washington.edu Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:14:02 -0800 (PST) From: Sunny Otake To: slavic-uw@u.washington.edu Subject: ch'ia vina Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Once and for all, I would like to make it clear that Initiative 601 is not the reason we are in this mess. If you already knew this, please disregard the rest of the message. If you still aren't convinced that 601 is not to blame, read on. I got up to speak yesterday because Weston Borden laid the blame for our possible elimination on 601 and that is simply not the case. President Gerberding, when he addressed the GPSS, readily admitted that within the provisions of 601, the legislature can grant the UW a budget which is 9.4% higher than last biennium. He added, however, that even if the UW receives a budget which is significantly higher than they are expecting to receive, they may still cut programs. To my mind, this makes it more than clear that the cuts are purely arbitrary. The responses to my letters and phone calls to Nita Rinehart point this out. She notes that while a 2.4% cut was mandated by the 1994 legislature (which both administration and legislature want to blame on 601, an argument which doesn't pan out when compared with Gerberding's statement), the UW administration chose to go beyond that and make still deeper cuts to the tune of a total of $12 million. All this while telling the Faculty Senate that they wanted the money for a reserve fund. When November rolled around and the cuts were announced, we heard that the money was needed to cover overspending, while only a tiny bit of it was to be used as a reserve fund. We also heard that the administration has no overall plan for the university. When he addressed the GPSS, Gerberding still had no plan for the university, pleading off since he will be retiring. He joked that a rumor was spreading that he wants to turn the university into a technical institute. A few people laughed. Most didn't. I sure didn't. Let's be sure that we're keeping our eyes on the real target, folks. Neither the legislature, nor the people who voted for 601 are to blame. (I didn't, in case you were wondering.) The administration alone is to blame for overspending, lying to the Faculty Senate and lying to the university community as a whole by witholding its plans for the university's future. Since I am repeatedly told that the university must be run like a business in order to succeed, I cannot help but be amazed at the level of incompetence and buffoonery that passes for appropriate behavior among the administration at this university. In a true business operation, such behavior would be more difficult to get away with because even the president has shareholders to answer to. Yet in this instance, the shareholders are obviously the taxpayers of Washington state, and I think James Nason made very clear how little the university administration is in touch with their shareholders when he expressed his opinion that Washington taxpayers don't care if a program is unique to their region. I propose we find out. What if SB 5109, should it fail to pass, were brought up again as an initiative? That might have the administration squirming in their oh-so-comfortable seats! Galya noted, as have many others, that the university will save practically nothing by eliminating us. This is true no matter how you slice it (i.e.-no matter how the people involved are reshuffled) because we cost so little in the first place. Does anyone reading this list really believe that the UW administration will take this lesson to heart and learn better spending habits? That these will be the last of the cuts? This isn't about money at all, it's about ideology, just like the cuts which are happening at the national level. Sunny Otake sunnyo@u.washington.edu .