Administrators',
CFA's financial bills shelved
CFA:
The California Faculty Association sponsored
AB 491, a bill which focuses on Cal State
University spending practices.
By
May Ahmad
On-line Forty-Niner
Conflict
arises as California State University administrators
clash with faculty members after two controversial
bills regarding the spending practices of
CSU systems are shelved, said Alice Sunshine,
communications director of the California
Faculty Association.
"We
believe the current California State University
system administration has undermined public
confidence and the trust of the legislature
by their lack of transparency and their
wasteful use of resources," said Professor
Mike Hassul, CFA Cal State Long Beach chapter
president.
The
first of the two bills, AB 491, was written
by assembly member Manny Diaz, and sponsored
by CFA, which Hassul said is a "union
that represents 24,000 professional employees
of the California State University system."
This
bill contained many requirements concerning
the spending practices of the CSU system.
The bill was later amended to include the
UC system. In an analysis of the bill as
of Sep. 8, the following points were among
those made:
•
Any CSU or UC information technology project
that "exceeds $3 million in costs,
(is required to) be overseen, by an auditor."
•
Any system-wide information technology project
that is "approved on or before June
30, 2009, and exceeds $20 million in costs,
(is required) to be submitted to the governor
for consideration."
•
CSU and UC systems are required to "take
measures to analyze and justify" information
technology project costs.
"The
CSU position on AB 491 was 'oppose unless
amended,'" said Jeff Vaca, associate
director of the Office of Governmental Affairs
for the CSU system.
The
concerns of the administration were made
clear in a letter by Karen Zamarripa, assistant
vice chancellor of the Office of Governmental
Affairs for CSU.
The
letter, addressed to Dede Alpert, chair
of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
included the points opposed by the administration
and estimates of increases in spending in
order to meet the requirements of the bill.
"To
marshal these projects through the legislative
process, we estimate direct annual costs
to the California State Universities of
$282,000 (staff, supplies, travel, etc.)
and overall costs to the state of nearly
$700,000," Zamarripa said in the letter.
However,
the CSU administration managed to link the
passage of this bill to the passage of another
bill they sponsored, which is the AB 971
bill, written by Sen. John Burton.
This
bill was first brought up after it was discovered
that one of the administrative members who
was signing major contracts worth millions
of dollars, was also an employee in the
company he was signing contracts with, Sunshine
said.
This
event encouraged the drafting of a bill
that would prevent such conflicts of interest;
however, the administration expanded the
bill to include faculty members.
In
an analysis of the bill as of Sep. 9, the
following provisions were among those included:
•
CSU employees are prohibited from acting
"as a consultant or employee of a for-profit
business providing services to the CSU,
if the employee's responsibilities for the
business and the CSU are in the same area."
•
Executive, managerial, supervisory and full-time
faculty unit employees, who hold other jobs
while working at CSU, are required to "report
that employment to the CSU by April 1, 2004,
and then annually or upon any appointment
to an outside position."
The
CFA reacted to this bill with opposition
to being included in it. Sunshine said that
the members of CFA feel it is unfair to
be included when they do not sign the contracts
for major projects.
"If
their bill, AB 971, passed, it would place
punitive administration requirements on
faculty, which would take time away from
their teaching and academic duties,"
Hassul said.
The
main project that led to the drafting of
these two bills is the Central Management
System developed for all 23 CSU campuses.
Hassul said that faculty members welcomed
many of the services brought about by CMS,
however, a report by the California State
Auditor, in March of this year, revealed
serious problems within the planning of
the project.
According
to a summary of the report of this audit,
the "Common Management System has higher
than reported costs, less than optimal functionality,
and questionable procurement and conflict-of-interest
practices."
Janet
Foster, director of CMS, said that the project
(which according to the audit has estimated
costs of about $662 million to $393 million
"for one time costs and $269 million
for maintenance and operations for the nine-year
development" period), is "operating
well within" the budget set for it.
"The
audit required campuses to report ongoing
operational costs such as costs for existing
IT staff, whose salaries would have been
borne by campuses regardless of the CMS
project," Foster said.
Although
the CMS project may have triggered the AB
491 and AB 971 bills, if passed these bills
would not prevent the continuing development
of the project. However, Foster said that
"CSU would be required to provide twice-yearly
progress reports on its implementation."
"We
expect that with greater oversight, there
would be less diversion funds away from
the instructional mission of the university,"
Hassul said. "It (AB 491) would only
insure that any future expenditures are
necessary and effective."
For
now, Hassul said the bills have both been
shelved for this legislative session.
"The
fate of these bills is still uncertain,"
he said.
"We
believe the current California State University
system administration has undermined public
confidence and the trust of the legislature
by their lack of transparency and their
wasteful use of resources,"
--
Mike Hassul,
CFA Cal State Long Beach chapter president
|
