COLOMBIA IN 2 MIN:Riddle Me This, President Santos

COLOMBIA IN TWO MINUTES: EDITORIAL: Riddle Me This, President Santos

Two weeks ago in Bogotá, in the very same Plaza de Bolivar that turned into a melee yesterday, thousands of people squeezed into that very plaza to dance and enjoy free salsa concerts. They were completely open to the public…. and nothing bad happened.  

So here’s the question: “If you can secure the Plaza de Bolivar as a space for thousands of people to dance salsa, why can’t you secure it as a space for thousands of people to peacefully demonstrate?”

“Salsa Dancing is Different, and Dangerous”

Of course, two weeks ago  the situation was different because it was a musical event, not a social protest. So -- naturally -- to manage the risk of dancing, you closed off the plaza with security fences and created controlled entrances at which we had to be scanned and frisked to enter.

In order to dance.

And you did this because (one assumes) you perceive the threat of salsa dancing to be potentially more dangerous than the threat of social protesting?

I’m not sure if the concert’s headliner, Ruben Blades, would know whether take that as an insult or a complement.

“Sure, it will be fine.” As the History of Social Protest in Colombia Has Shown?

Somehow it didn't occur to you to use the same security measures under the pressure cooker of the current social unrest that you used for a salsa concert. Not even close.

I was there yesterday at the Plaza de Bolivar. Or should I say, I was two blocks away from the Plaza de Bolivar because the plaza was too dangerous to enter with your ESMAD (anti-riot) squads there.

Let’s be clear: what I and thousands of people around me were afraid of was not the punks with stones in their hands. We were afraid of the Colombian government.

And being that we were in the shadow of the Palace of Justice which, just on a side note, had to be rebuilt after the Colombian government burned it to the ground, with the kitchen staff and the Supreme Court, inside, I am sure you can understand why we felt that way.

Indiscriminate Use of Violence by the Colombian Police

And even though we stayed  -- what we thought was -- a safe distance away from the disturbances, we were nevertheless shot at by your hopped-up motorcycle police, who took the time to leave the plaza to make high speed drive-bys, tear gassing me and a thousand other people while we waited, peacefully, to re-enter the Plaza.

Let's set the record straight: your goons didn't just do it once. They sprayed us again when we had moved even further away from the plaza. They sprayed children, elderly people, people with their pets, and even merchants who had stepped out of their stores into the street.

To be clear, we were nowhere near the disturbances. Your police officers left the disturbances to ride up the streets on their motorcycles and gas people who were doing nothing. And who had no stones in their hands.

The “Dark Actors”

Yep, the “violentos” were there yesterday. I saw them, pulling up bricks from the sidewalks, hiding stones in their pockets. And yep, we all know that it was them to whom the ESMAD was responding.

But that doesn't give the police the right -- or the excuse -- to gas the rest of Bogotá.

It could not have been a surprise to you that the troublemakers showed up. You had the Army and the ESMAD waiting in the plaza, and I assume it was not so that they could take pictures with the tourists.

So since it wasn't a surprise to you that the troublemakers were there, then what on earth were you thinking?

-- That you would leave peaceful protestors to their own luck --both with the troublemakers and your police? And later you would check back to “see how it all came out in the wash”?

-- Or did you pretty much know it wasn't going to end good, but figured that might just be what would do the trick to "put an end to all this protest stuff”?

You have a lot of people wondering.

Labels Aren't Going to Work

I am not a “violenta,” nor am I a “guerrillera,” nor an “fellow traveler” of the FARC or the ELN. I am also not one of the “dark forces” that your spin doctors referred to in the media last night. I’m not even “a  Dupe of Telesur.”

Those labels didn't stick to the protesting farmers, and they aren't going to stick to peaceful deomonsrators either.

Let's Talk Security

Ok, so now you have announced that you are going to secure Bogotá.

But how about if you also secure your citizens' right to protest?

If you really wanted gurantee Colombians’ rights -- if you’re not just saying it because it “sounds good on the piano” -- you would secure the Plaza de Bolivar this weekend so that protesters can safely assemble and exercise those rights.

Just like you secured their constitutional right to dance salsa, which of course is really important too.

California: Doing Wall Street One Better

The UC Regent’s Credit Swap Scheme

And the Fleecing of California Public Education

In a scam that would make Bernie Madoff green with envy, a former UC Planning and Budget Commission member has revealed that UC Regents are playing private bond markets with public tuition money in order to fund pet projects. In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the Regents have pledged rising student tuition against private loans in order to finance elective construction projects -- projects which due to their private funding classification, require no legislative approval. Meanwhile, California’s public university students will pay for the unapproved projects through rising tuition and fees -- funds that are now being secretly diverted from decimated instructional budgets to private debt service. And in what is being called a "surreal credit swap scheme," California public university students will finance UC private bond ventures by borrowing in the student loan and home mortgage markets, assuming increased personal debt.

In his Open Letter to UC Students, Robert Meister, President of the Council of UC Faculty Associations, last week revealed that in July of 2003, UC Regents voted to begin using tuition as collateral to secure private construction bonds. Although this change freed the Regent’s from constraints of the state budget, it also freed the decision of whether to construct from any sort of public approval. This is because UC-issued bonds, unlike state-issued bonds, are authorized only by the Regents. Thus, as the UC continues to cut employee wages, eliminate jobs and raise tuition, it can build at will, arguing that it should be able to spend “its private money” as it sees fit.

But just how private is this money? “Since 2004,” Meister writes to students, “all of your tuition has been pledged in the sense that it will be paid into an account held by the bond trustee in the event of default.” But this tuition money is not only used as collateral: whereas state money cannot be used to pay interest or principal on private bonds, tuition -- which goes into the General Fund -- can be used for many types of payments. Pledging tuition is a great deal for bond holders and the Regents, Meister points out, because while students "can be legally obliged to pay it, ... UC is not legally restricted in how to use it."¹ In this sense the Regents are absolutely right: it is private money -- the private money of public university students.

Meister continues with more bad news: “The fact that UC can (and does) raise tuition during state economic crises means that a bad budget year can be a good bond year.”² This is because raising tuition increases the amount of unrestricted money that Regents can use to secure and pay for private loans. The end result says Meister, “is that state budget cuts are actually good for UC’ s bond rating, because they allow UC to raise tuition simultaneously.”³ In this sense, the Regents prefer to raise tuition rather than to secure money from the state. And as tuition increases, argues Meister, “UC’ s highest priorities [are] set by bond raters, and not by the State of California.”⁴

But if the UC is getting better interest rates, isn’t that good for everyone? Not when it fundamentally changes the priorities of a public university, Meister argues. “When UC chose to take on $1.35B in new construction debt for 70 projects in August 2009 -- one month after imposing employee furloughs that 'saved' $170M -- it committed to spending $70-80M in extra interest payments... Would the furloughs have been ‘unavoidable,”Meister asks, “if UC were not secretly planning to incur additional interest expenses for new bond-funded construction?”⁵ He further wonders the extent to which UC promised to manage its budget as to protect its bond rating. According to Meister, “due diligence” documents that UC would have had to file with the bond trustee (BoNYMellon) and the bond ratings companies (S&P and Moody’s) would have addressed this issue. Meister wonders if President Yudof said that he “had to cut pay (i.e. impose furloughs) and raise fees (especially tuition) as evidence that UC’ s bonds are still good, indeed better than ever?”⁶

Meister goes on to describe how the Regent’s plan has created a “credit swap” scheme in which borrowing students essentially fund a private expense account for the Regents:

UC has based its financial planning on the growing confidence of bond markets that your tuition will increase. (Why? Because you‘ve put up with it so far, and because UC has no other plan. Its capacity to raise tuition is advertised in every bond prospectus.) … A privatizing university will generate the higher tuition used to finance capital projects by requiring you (its median student) to barrow the same money from the home mortgage and student loan industries. It is, thus, requiring you to support UC’ s excellent bond rating by taking on personal debt backed by your own credit rating. This is a surreal form of credit swap in which UC funds new construction by getting your parents to risk foreclosure and you to risk insolvency for much of your adulthood.⁷

Although this works great for the Regents, Meister says, “as students, you are unlikely to go along with big increases to fund UC’ s list of construction projects. Cutting back on instructional budgets is how they get you to agree to higher tuition without telling you how much will go to fund construction:"⁸

Campus administrations can always say that no particular tuition increase is ever large enough to reverse whatever instructional cuts were imposed to persuade you that it was necessary. If you accept this claim, you’ll never question how much of your tuition is used to fund construction, and whether you would have found an increase justified had you known.”⁹

Meister points out that the problem, rather than legal, is political:

"UC leaders [can] now take an openly negative stand toward California tax payers, and especially the state legislature. Instead of expecting -- or trying to mobilize -- political support for public higher education, UC now blames public indifference for what it is not 'forced' to do, and implies that a legislature that won’t pay should have no say over how UC uses the money that it “raises” on its own, such as tuition."¹⁰

What to do

First, Meister advises students, don't despair: "Many will try to discourage you, ... saying that these problems are typical of those facing public universities" and that this is neither the time nor the place to address them. Don't be "bamboozled" he warns: "This is, in fact, a good place and time for us to confront a wider long-term problem. UC is a nationally prominent, and successful, public institution that has a deep reservoir of public support and a large body of students, faculty and staff who are ready to be educated and engaged in action."¹¹

“Before you go along with this year’s increase of 32%,” Meister advises, students should ask the Regents some questions: “Is UC simply raising your tuition because it can, and because doing so automatically increases the collateral available for its bonds?" Has "UC promised to manage its budget (your education) so as not to lower its bond rating?" How much of the tuition increase will be used to restore educational cuts?” Finally, Meister warns that the Regents are planning to announce another $2B bond issue (for projects they have already approved, but not announced) after the November tuition increase vote.¹² He encourages students to insist that UC disclose its plans to issue new tuition-backed bonds before students accept further tuition increases -- and to take this demand and these questions to the November 18 Regents Meeting at UCLA.

For a list of the August 2009 UC bond projects see Meister’s Open Letter to Students, pp. 11-12. To read further discussion of the issue, see Meister's Response to Faculty Questions: "They Pledged Your Tuition" II. To contact the Regents, you can email them at regentsoffice@ucop.edu, call them at (510) 987-9220, or fax them at (510) 987-9224. As a governing body of a California state institution, they would love to hear from the public.

notes

¹ Meister. Response to Faculty Questions: "They Pledged Your Tuition" II. p.1

² Meister, They Pledged Your Tuition: An Open Letter to Students, p. 3

³ Ibid., p. 5.

⁴ Ibid., p.6.

⁵ Ibid., p. 3.

⁶ Ibid., p. 4.

⁷ Ibid., p. 8.

⁸ Ibid., p. 5.

⁹ Ibid., p. 5.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 9.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 10.

¹² Meister. Response to Faculty Questions, p.2.

The Colombianization of California's Public Education

A few years ago a Colombian friend told me a story that took place in the 1970's in Buenaventura, a large port town on Colombia's Pacific Coast. What happened there was both violent and inspiring, and it makes me think about the crisis in public education we face in California today. As we embark on a statewide University of California strike on September 24, it is worthwhile to contemplate where we are going if we continue down the road we are on.

In my friend's story, as far back as anyone could remember, corruption had been the norm in Buenaventura. This was especially true among port officials, who routinely charged illegal "taxes" on, and confiscated items from, arriving merchandise. Everyone in town had become resigned to the abuses of a few privileged port workers, who did as they pleased and answered to none. That was just the way life was in Buenaventura. That is, until one day when a carton of cigarettes turned Buenaventura upside down.

A young boy inadvertently caused the upheaval. He was only ten or eleven years old at the time, and had taken to hanging around the port during the day. It was on one of these days, lingering at the port, that the boy was caught stealing the carton of cigarettes. The response of the port officials was swift and severe. Rather than reprimanding him and sending him on his way, they roughed him up and then called the police -- who in turn carted the boy off to jail.

Accounts of what had happened to the boy rippled through the town. After years of enduring the abuse of port managers, people in Buenaventura had had it. The very same scoundrels who were the epitome of thievery themselves had sicced the police on a young boy who had only done what they did every single day. Angry crowds gathered at the port gates and demanded that the boy be released, but to no avail. And then, from the depths of the crowd, calls rang out to march to the houses of the port officials. In a matter of minutes, Buenaventura erupted into chaos.

A boy himself at the time, my friend remembered being caught in his family's apartment during the uprising. Fearing stray bullets, his parents yelled at him to stay down on the floor. But as angry throngs streamed by the apartment windows, he could hear the cries for vengeance from the street below. The next day he learned of the justice meted out by the mobs.

Upon arriving at the port workers' homes, the crowds broke down the doors and dragged the men from their houses. But rather than kill them - which in Colombia would not have been unheard of - they tied the men to trees in front of their homes. And then the mobs chose an extraordinary and poetic course of action.

They entered the officials' houses again and this time took everything out - furniture, TV's, dishes, paintings - all of the ill gotten gains that the men had accumulated over the years. And then, with the contents of the houses - the sum total of these men's possessions - piled high in the middle of the street, they doused the plies with gasoline and set them on fire. In front of their eyes, the port officials were forced to watch all of their "stuff" burned to ashes.

Here in California, on August 6, it was revealed that on the same day that the Board of Regents approved $813 million in cuts from UC budgets, they also approved pay raises for more than two dozen executives (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/06/BASG194N2P.DTL). It was then revealed that on September 17, the same day that the Regents approved a 32% tuition increase, they once again approved more pay raises for UC employees who are already making a lot of money (http://www.upte.org/moreexecraises.pdf).

We cannot march to the Board of Regents' homes, break down their doors, tie them to trees and burn all their stuff. But some days I sure would like to. Vengeance has its virtues and in some cases, vigilante justice does too.

When public officials abuse their positions and the political and justice systems don't defend us, what do we do? When a select few consider "tough measures" appropriate for some while doling out goodies to others, how do we correct this injustice? When officials betray the public trust by acting on the behalf of only some, rather than in the interest of the whole, what is to be done? The people of Buenaventura were fed up, and the people of California should be too.

Earlier this year in Washington, D.C., when it was revealed that some of the same institutions that had received taxpayer bailouts were afterword giving out excessive bonuses, Americans cried foul. In response, the Obama administration pressured executives and in the end the practice was at least curtailed. Governor Schwarzenegger should follow president Obama's lead and reverse these unnecessary -- and given the circumstances, obscene -- pay raises. Some of these public employees make much more than $240,000 per year: a UC salary data publication shows many faculty and staff making upwards of $600,000 to $2 million per year. (UC salary list) Who is worth that much money? Answer: In this budget crisis, no one. The UC Regents should have started their cuts right there. And if they wont do it, then the Governor should.

Which brings us to back to Buenaventura. Neither the Governor nor our state legislators have the political will to insist on any of this. The people who are deciding the fate of public education in California have failed miserably and have betrayed the public trust. Therefore, the game for them should be up. Public education in California should be committed to a new system of management in which boards of educators AND non-academic employees AND parents AND students, decide how California's education money gets spent -- and who gets pay raises and cuts and who doesn't.

During the Bush administration, another Colombia friend had commented to me, "Man, you guys could really use a guerrilla here to keep your oligarchy under control." I admit that at the time of that Republican Reign of Terror, this idea did have a certain appeal. However, I am not sure that a Californian FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias Californianas) would accomplish much more than Colombian FARC has there. But more to the point, in California, we don't need to shoot bullets to fix things -- at least not yet.

Here in California, our Regents, legislators, and Governor still understand public outrage in the form of calls to their offices and most importantly, in the form of a statewide strike like the one called for on September 24. Now if only Californians will participate in and support these actions, California could retake its place as the leader in this country's social policy reform by transforming its public education into a truly publicly managed public good.

And this would certainly be a preferable to tying people to trees and burning their stuff. But it never hurts to hold on to options for the future.