Dear Colleagues:

We are in the midst of the most painful and divisive faculty collective bargaining process I have seen in my 19 years in the CSU. I hope that in my time as president I have been able to demonstrate my concern for the welfare of our faculty, and that you recognize that Provost Gemello and I have done everything we could, given limited campus resources, to increase salaries, reduce class loads, and provide support for teaching and scholarship. Our motivation, to be sure, is not altogether altruistic, reflecting, as it does, a very practical concern that we be able to recruit AND retain the very best faculty. We are acutely aware of the impact that the cost of housing, child care, elder care, and education loans has on the ability of faculty, particularly newer tenure-track hires and lecturers, to support their families and enjoy the cultural and social life of this great city. We are dismayed that the current bargaining stalemate threatens to undo much of the progress that has been made.

In my September 18, 2006 e-mail on collective bargaining, I sought to make three points: (1) the Board of Trustees is sincere in its desire to increase faculty salaries and close the gap; (2) the chancellor does not have unencumbered funds in the CSU budget sufficient to increase salaries even by another one percent; and, (3) this campus, with over a $5 million deficit, does not have any surplus dollars it could contribute to the chancellor to increase the offer without doing significant damage to our academic program.

With regard to the last point, Vice President Morishita and I are scheduling a special public meeting of the University Budget Committee on March 15, at 2:00 p.m. at Seven Hills to review the entire campus budget in exhaustive detail. We encourage you to attend.

At the great risk of oversimplification, the CFA is concerned that the 24.87 percent figure (27 percent when compounded through the life of the contract) is dependent upon the Governor and Legislature approving increases in the budget, and wants the Board to commit, regardless of whether additional state funding is forthcoming. The Board believes it to be fiscally irresponsible to sign a contract that commits the CSU to expend dollars that are not guaranteed to come from an increase in the budget, fearing that if it did so, the decision could have a disastrous impact on the academic program. Although the chancellor is continuing to press the issue of compensation increases with the legislature and has put in a request for an additional 1percent beyond the compact to add to the salary pool for the new fiscal year, the CFA disputes his sincerity.

Thus I am making, what is for me, an unprecedented request: that you trust what I have said about the lack of funds and the commitment of the Board of Trustees to closing the salary gap and urge your union leadership not only to agree to the compensation package that is on the table, but to join in an effort to secure the money needed to provide the full 27 percent increase. I pledge that I will work as diligently as I can to see that your trust is not misplaced.

Having said this, I now need to bring something else to your attention, and I do so with some trepidation, recalling as I write the advice, given me many years ago by a distinguished member of our faculty, that I refrain from criticizing either the Senate or the union: "For better or for worse, Corrigan, it is our union and our Senate, so mind your own business!" It remains good advice, but recent actions taken on your behalf by a few of your colleagues from other campuses and statewide CFA leadership are so troublesome that they should not go unnoted. I suspect that few of you are fully aware of what is being done in your name and with your money.

The vituperative - and, I would say, wrong-headed - nature of CFA's approach comes through clearly on the union's Web site, which touts the creation of a "crack team of CFA members and students" that is "shadowing" the chancellor at his public speaking appearances in order to "spread the message of how this man has damaged the academic integrity and financial stability of the CSU." Audiences in Texas and North Carolina, as well as up and down the state, have seen their events disrupted, even brought to a halt, by CFA activities. Attacking and embarrassing the chancellor may be a gratifying exercise for some, but it does nothing for CSU faculty and students.

Activities such as these may gain news media attention, as conflict always will, but they do not increase our chances of winning the legislative support that is absolutely vital to our future. The reality is that we - presidents, faculty, trustees, alumni, and, yes, Chancellor Reed - will need to work in concert to secure the future for our faculty and students. It is time to bring an end to self-indulgent attacks, to stop undercutting our fine system, and to deal realistically - not wishfully - with the situation at hand. A president can opine, but only you, the faculty, can speak forcefully and effectively to Union leadership. I hope you will do so.

- Robert A. Corrigan, President

Dear Readers:

In response to President Corrigan’s chastising letter to the SF State faculty, the [X]press Magazine staff has taken a position supportive of the California Faculty Association and the contract terms they’re demanding. It is unfortunate that in his position, Corrigan has refused to defend the students and professors of SF State – the life force that keeps this school running. While presidential salaries rise higher, faculty wages remain stagnant and students’ tuitions continue to increase.

Corrigan claims SF State bears a $5 million deficit, that there is no money for even a 1 percent faculty raise. Yet there is plenty of money for Chancellor Charles Reed and the Board of Trustees to approve a 4 percent raise for themselves and 23 other CSU presidents, who are all making substantially more than the Governor of California (the governor’s annual salary is $206,500…President William B. Eisenhardt of the California Maritime Academy holds the lowest CSU administrative salary, a measly $228,921).

Apparently these deliriously exorbitant salaries aren’t enough to pay for housing and transportation costs, so they also receive a $1000 car allowance per month and up to $5000 per month for housing. Yes, because college execs need to drive around in Ferraris and live in palatial mansions.

Chancellor Reed has tried to justify these perks and pay raises, stating, “We are way behind the compensation paid in the rest of the county…It’s very difficult to attract people to California…the CSU is a great institution that serves the majority of students in higher education. We have to compete for the very best people we can to serve these institutions.”

Yeah, California sure does suck, with its lovely weather and terrain, diverse population, and bustling cities. Being the sixth largest economy in the world really discourages people from wanting to live here. Well, Chancellor Reed, if it’s really that difficult to entice people to California, perhaps you should take the $377,000 you’re making this year (as well as the $30,000 annual retirement supplement) and invest in higher salaries for faculty members, because they’re the ones providing the higher education.

President Corrigan – salary: $271,590 – of course supports Chancellor Reed. And why not? It’s only natural to kiss the ass of a man who offers you more money. Corrigan stated that while the “Board of Trustees is sincere in its desire to increase faculty salaries and close the gap,” there is no money to do so, and SF State can’t contribute any funds “without doing significant damage to our academic program.”

Higher tuitions are hurting our academic program. Underpaying professors is hurting our academic program. Allotting salaries a quarter-million-plus to fatten up the already gluttonous wallets of CSU presidents is hurting our academic program.

The administration argues these funds aren’t nearly enough to increase the faculty salaries, and that is true. But perhaps if they stopped spending on themselves and began lobbying for increased funds from the state legislature, the financial problems would be assuaged.

So, to President Corrigan’s claim of non-existent funding for the faculty, we cry bullshit. Big…stinky…piles…of steaming bullshit. When SF State professors and students resort to such “vituperative” and “wrong-headed” actions against Chancellor Reed and the CSU administration, remember that it’s because we have no one else to fight for us, since the president of our university is in cahoots with the Chancellor and his cronies.

- The [X]press Magazine Staff