CSUS prof finds that less is less

I arrived at California State University, Sacramento, 24 years ago as a new faculty member eager to work at a public university for less income because the retirement and health benefits provided a single mother of twins with some level of stability.

When I arrived in 1985, I received a metal desk and chair, a gray metal filing cabinet and a matching bookcase. Now, I have a better chair. My turquoise Mac no longer turns on. I pay for 90 percent of my copying and don't ask for reimbursement for my mileage when I supervise student teachers four days a week. In recent years, I agreed to teach two classes and receive "salary credit" for one, and supervise nine student teachers for the traditional "credit" of six. All of this was voluntary.

Three years ago, the chancellor agreed to a mediated pay raise of 20 percent, to be paid over five years (to achieve parity with other universities). We received the first 4 percent and no more. Now the chancellor's office wants me to work full time and be paid 10 percent less.

Frankly, I've had it. Working full time for 10 percent less is slavery.

– Cid Gunston-Parks, Sacramento CSUS professor, Department of Teacher Education

At least somebody's getting more

Re "Amid huge campus cuts, some full-timers get raises" (Page A1, July 30): Guess what? I'm glad somebody's getting a step increase around here!

I am a full-time University of California, Davis, staff member (non-faculty), and we have not received a step increase in many years. But UC Davis faculty get merit increases, even now in this economic downtown in which student fees have skyrocketed and all staff must take salary reductions.

The fact that community colleges can pay their staff members and faculty well is not a secret among those in higher education. That's where many UC and California State University employees go when they get sick of the low wages offered them.

Yeah, it's probably not the best time for anyone to get a raise or a step increase, but it's satisfying in some weird way that my counterparts at Los Rios are getting theirs.

– Carole Griffin, Sacramento

'Financial albatross of Roseville'

Re "Trouble adds up in rate hike request" (Our Region, July 30): Cost overruns, natural gas hedges gone bad, not protecting ratepayers from currency exchange rates and so on – the once-darling of Roseville has quickly turned into the financial albatross of Roseville.

Coupled with a business model that is overly dependent on growth, Roseville Electric's proposed $98 million rate increase makes the case that perhaps the power plant should be sold to a company in the business of running a power plant instead of being operated by lessexperienced staff.

As with every other proposed rate increase in utilities, the Roseville Public Utilities Commission will probably approve the proposed increases and pass them on to the City Council for approval.

Consider selling the Roseville power plant.

– Steve Mawhinney, Roseville

State should've planned ahead

While it was a relief to hear that the state of California has a budget once again, I wonder how long the lawmakers in Sacramento will operate in a business-as-usual mode. Will we find ourselves in the same mess next year as we did this year?

Our elected officials have been asleep at the wheel for the past several years. This recession is not a new recession – it has been three years in the making! Revenue from property taxes, transfer taxes and all the various fees imposed by the state and counties is down; people are out of work, so revenue from the state income taxes is down. Wasn't anyone paying attention? Couldn't anyone see what was going on?

Private industry has been making cuts and implementing furloughs for nearly three years. This is not rocket science – this is basic fiscal accounting. Make the cuts, keep the furloughs in place and, if by some miracle we see the recession start to lift a little and revenues start to rise a little, let's try something different: Let's not spend every dime we have, and then some!

– Diana Rethford, Ione

In Curtis Park, a quest for details

Re "Curtis Park project needs to happen" (Editorial, July 29): Your condescending and ill-informed article and this subsequent editorial proves once and for all that The Bee is incapable of thorough reporting or critical thinking.

I, along with I think most of my neighbors, support infill development and would like to see the railyard become something more than the current blight. But here is the problem: The agreement to clean up the toxic dirt – and to remove it – on this site was made 14 years ago. Now, on the verge of the city approving the actual development plan, the developer has decided to renege on that agreement and proposes something new.

Sorry to let the details get in the way here, but all we're asking is that the developer, the city and state officials give us, the neighbors, a detailed plan as to how this Superfund site will be cleaned up – before the City Council gives the go-ahead to begin developing.

You would think the city's only newspaper would stand with its readers and demand full disclosure before the city signs off on a half-baked plan.

– Mark Martin, Sacramento