From haneyjav@u.washington.edu Thu Mar 2 15:53:31 PST 1995 >From haneyjav@u.washington.edu Thu Mar 2 15:53:30 1995 Return-Path: Received: from carson-oms1.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA02414; Thu, 2 Mar 95 15:53:30 -0800 Received: from carson.u.washington.edu by carson-oms1.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW95.02/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA26636; Thu, 2 Mar 95 15:53:30 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 15:53:29 -0800 (PST) From: Jack Haney To: slavic-uw@u.washington.edu Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: ch'ia vina In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII I agree that 601 is not the problem, but Professor Borden unwittingly put his finger on that problem when he suggested that the Chemistry Dept might gain added faculty. I suspect Sunny is right that Gerberding and his henchmen are once again going to use the smokescreen of budgetary duress to shift resources from the humanities and "soft-er" social sciences to the science departments. Ne sluchaino, John Simpson mentioned Molecular Biotechnology... J Haney On Thu, 2 Mar 1995, Sunny Otake wrote: > > 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 > .