Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Stealing, Food Stamps, Whistleblower, Retaliation at University of California?! WTF!

MANY very serious questions raised-- rather than answered-- about the whistle blower process at the University of California in the following news articles-- you will once again see the same ingredients: the all too familiar "settlements" and "reassignments" and " new processes so that it does not happen again" and yet it does - over and over...

UC Davis pays settlement to whistleblower over retaliation
By Denny Walsh
dwalsh@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Jun. 16, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 7B

also see:

UC Davis Whistleblower Gains Settlement After Retaliation in Theft Case
Written by David Greenwald

Friday, 25 June 2010

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/01/05/daily23.html
">Former UC Davis employee sentenced for theft

Sacramento Business Journal - by Celia Lamb Staff writer

Monday, June 28, 2010

Time to Speak Up for U.C. Whistleblowers Is NOW!!

If you want University of California faculty and other employees to have the same protections from retaliation as their counterparts at the California State University in reporting waste, fraud, abuse, gross negligence or dangerous practices, contact the Governor by close of business Wednesday and urge him to sign SB 650.

On a 21-14 vote, the State Senate today sent that bill to Governor Schwarzenegger. Authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), it would ensure that UC employees can exercise their right to seek damages in court if the university has either reached or failed to reach a decision regarding a retaliation complaint within the time limit established by the Regents— or if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months.

In July 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled (Miklosy v. the Regents of the University of California (S139133, July 31, 2008) that UC employees who are retaliated against because they report wrongdoing cannot sue for damages under the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act, so long as the University itself reviews the complaints in a timely fashion. The ruling uncovered an oversight made by the Legislature when the Act was amended in 2001, which provided legal standing for all other state employees to seek damages.

“This is the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house,” said Yee. “UC executives should not be judge and jury on whether or not they are liable for monetary claims. This was not the intent of California’s whistleblower law.” In the Miklosy decision, three of the seven judges urged the Legislature to consider changes to the law, as the current statute undermines the purpose of the Act.

“The court’s reading of the Act, making the University the judge of its own civil liability and leaving its employees vulnerable to retaliation for reporting abuses, thwarts the demonstrated legislative intent to protect those employees and thereby encourage candid reporting,” wrote Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined by Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Carlos Moreno. “If the same government organization that has tried to silence the reporting employee also sits in final judgment of the employee’s retaliation claim, the law’s protection against retaliation is illusory.”

The Miklosy decision deals with the plight of two former scientists at UC’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who repeatedly told their supervisors about equipment problems and poorly trained operators of a project designed to determine the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. One of the scientists, Leo Miklosy, was fired in February 2003 and the other, Luciana Messina, resigned a few days later after overhearing a supervisor say she would also be fired.

“SB 650 will resolve the ambiguity in statute referenced by the Supreme Court and will ensure that all UC employees are given the same real – and not illusory – whistleblower protections as other state employees,” said Terry Francke, General Counsel for Californians Aware. “Fraud, waste and corruption in government cannot succeed if public employees are well-protected against punishment for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing.”

“SB 650 would protect UC employees who continue to face reprisal for reporting bad behavior and, without protection, will likely no longer be willing to provide journalists, the Legislature and the public with essential information about the operations of these high profile institutions in an era where available financial resources are increasingly scarce,” said Jim Ewert, Legal Counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

Once received, the Governor will have twelve days to sign or veto SB 650.

source: http://calaware.typepad.com/calaware_today/2010/06/time-to-speak-up-for-uc-whistleblowers-is-now.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalawareToday+%28CalAware+Today%29

SEE ALSO:

UC Whistleblower Protection Bill Heads to Governor
Monday, June 28, 2010

Yee’s legislation would protect UC faculty and workers from unfair retaliation

SACRAMENTO – On a 21-14 vote, the State Senate today sent Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Los Angeles) legislation to protect University of California faculty and workers who report waste, fraud, and abuse.

SB 650, authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), would provide UC employees with the same legal protections as other state employees, including those at California State University and California’s community colleges.

Specifically, the bill will ensure that UC employees can exercise their right to seek damages in court if the university has either reached or failed to reach a decision regarding a retaliation complaint within the time limit established by the Regents or if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months.

In July 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled (Miklosy v. the Regents of the University of California (S139133, July 31, 2008) that UC employees who are retaliated against because they report wrongdoing cannot sue for damages under the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act, so long as the University itself reviews the complaints in a timely fashion. The ruling uncovered an oversight made by the Legislature when the Act was amended in 2001, which provided legal standing for all other state employees to seek damages.

“This is the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house,” said Yee. “UC executives should not be judge and jury on whether or not they are liable for monetary claims. This was not the intent of California’s whistleblower law.”

In the Miklosy decision, three of the seven judges urged the Legislature to consider changes to the law, as the current statute undermines the purpose of the Act.

“The court’s reading of the Act, making the University the judge of its own civil liability and leaving its employees vulnerable to retaliation for reporting abuses, thwarts the demonstrated legislative intent to protect those employees and thereby encourage candid reporting,” wrote Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined by Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Carlos Moreno. “If the same government organization that has tried to silence the reporting employee also sits in final judgment of the employee’s retaliation claim, the law’s protection against retaliation is illusory.”

The Miklosy decision deals with the plight of two former scientists at UC’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who repeatedly told their supervisors about equipment problems and poorly trained operators of a project designed to determine the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. One of the scientists, Leo Miklosy, was fired in February 2003 and the other, Luciana Messina, resigned a few days later after overhearing a supervisor say she would also be fired.

“SB 650 will resolve the ambiguity in statute referenced by the Supreme Court and will ensure that all UC employees are given the same real – and not illusory – whistleblower protections as other state employees,” said Terry Francke, General Counsel for Californians Aware. “Fraud, waste and corruption in government cannot succeed if public employees are well-protected against punishment for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing.”

“SB 650 would protect UC employees who continue to face reprisal for reporting bad behavior and, without protection, will likely no longer be willing to provide journalists, the Legislature and the public with essential information about the operations of these high profile institutions in an era where available financial resources are increasingly scarce,” said Jim Ewert, Legal Counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

Once received, the Governor will have twelve days to sign or veto SB 650

SOURCE: http://dist08.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={EFA496BC-EDC8-4E38-9CC7-68D37AC03DFF}&DE={094EBE97-BAFE-4212-95E6-3E2B01476FDA}

Friday, June 25, 2010

But Will Schwarzenegger Sign It --Or Veto It AGAIN?!

Note: SB 650 must receive a procedural concurrence vote in the Senate before consideration by the Governor. Once received, the Governor will have twelve days to sign or veto the bill. Please also note this bill was vetoed by the Governor last year when it was known as SB 219.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
SACRAMENTO – On a 49-26 vote, the State Assembly today approved legislation authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) to protect University of California faculty and workers who report waste, fraud, and abuse.

SB 650 would provide UC employees with the same legal protections as other state employees, including those at California State University.

Specifically, the bill will ensure that UC employees can exercise their right to seek damages in court if the university has either reached or failed to reach a decision regarding a retaliation complaint within the time limit established by the Regents or if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months.

In July 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled (Miklosy v. the Regents of the University of California (S139133, July 31, 2008) that UC employees who are retaliated against because they report wrongdoing cannot sue for damages under the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act, so long as the University itself reviews the complaints in a timely fashion. The ruling uncovered an oversight made by the Legislature when the Act was amended in 2001, which provided legal standing for all other state employees to seek damages.

“This is the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house,” said Yee. “UC executives should not be judge and jury on whether or not they are liable for monetary claims. This was not the intent of California’s whistleblower law.”

In the Miklosy decision, three of the seven judges urged the Legislature to consider changes to the law, as the current statute undermines the purpose of the Act.

“The court’s reading of the Act, making the University the judge of its own civil liability and leaving its employees vulnerable to retaliation for reporting abuses, thwarts the demonstrated legislative intent to protect those employees and thereby encourage candid reporting,” wrote Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined by Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Carlos Moreno. “If the same government organization that has tried to silence the reporting employee also sits in final judgment of the employee’s retaliation claim, the law’s protection against retaliation is illusory.”

The Miklosy decision deals with the plight of two former scientists at UC’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who repeatedly told their supervisors about equipment problems and poorly trained operators of a project designed to determine the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. One of the scientists, Leo Miklosy, was fired in February 2003 and the other, Luciana Messina, resigned a few days later after overhearing a supervisor say she would also be fired.

“SB 650 will resolve the ambiguity in statute referenced by the Supreme Court and will ensure that all UC employees are given the same real – and not illusory – whistleblower protections as other state employees,” said Terry Francke, General Counsel for Californians Aware. “Fraud, waste and corruption in government cannot succeed if public employees are well-protected against punishment for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing.”

“SB 650 would protect UC employees who continue to face reprisal for reporting bad behavior and, without protection, will likely no longer be willing to provide journalists, the Legislature and the public with essential information about the operations of these high profile institutions in an era where available financial resources are increasingly scarce,” said Jim Ewert, Legal Counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.

SB 650 must receive a procedural concurrence vote in the Senate before consideration by the Governor. Once received, the Governor will have twelve days to sign or veto the bill. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed this same bill last year when it was known as SB 219...

Friday, June 4, 2010

University of California 2009 Salary Database -Searchable & Updated

http://ucpay.globl.org/

but when is this page BELOW going to be updated?

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/diversity/staff/comp_workforce.html

WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS FOR 2008 AND 2009????? When does UCOP post numbers for those years?

Composition of the Career Staff Workforce by Race and Sex
Workforce Profile

* 2004
* 2003
* 1990 to 2000 Comparison

Composition of the Career Staff Workforce by Race and Sex

* 2006
* 2005
* 2004
* 2003
* 2002
* 2001
* 2000
* 1999

Career Staff Workforce Representation

* 2007
* 2006
* 2005
* 2004
* 2003


WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS FOR 2008 AND 2009?????