On Dec 29, 2010, the [*SFChronicle* made public the petition](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/28/MNDC1GUSCT.DTL%20) by 36 UC execs that their contracts be honored to the fullest. “To the fullest” meant that the exemption routinely (?) granted by the federal government to allow salaries of execs paid above 245K/annum to be used as a basis for pension calcs should be in effect at UC. Example: If you are paid 400K/annum and have worked for 30 years at UC, a ceiling of 245K for pension calculation means you’ll get about 183K per yr in retirement (75%), vs 300K if the cap is lifted by UC. I would like to see those contracts made public, and not reserved to lawyers.

UCSC faculty received a letter from [SCFA](http://ucscfa.org/) reporting the [comments](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2010%2F12%2F30%2FBA861H22EA.DTL) of one of the signatories (UCB Law School Dean Edley) and encouraging UC employees to sign a [petition to President Yudof](http://www.gopetition.com/petition/41718.html) telling him to hop on his white horse and resist the demands. It also recommends reading the [analysis](http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2010/12/just-trying-to-say-that-we-dont-care.html) of the matter by Professor Newfield, of UCSB.

Since the salaries mentioned above are way out of my league, I’ll keep my moral powder dry, except to suggest that this snafu will make an excellent example for the next edition of [mandatory Compliance Briefing: UC Ethical Values and Conduct](http://news.ucsc.edu/2010/02/3561.html). I might consider doing this briefing then.