could have also titled the post--"I Don't See You. Seen and unseen, 'apart'heid..."
There are several things to note in this Remaking the University post:
Surprising Office Politics At UCSF Mission Bay
-- but, only gonna comment on a couple of them here now:
First, to just point out:
"In sum, a brand new office building is planned for years and receives final regental approval, only to be overwhelming opposed by the affected faculty. Why did this happen?"
--and highlight the fact that the UC Regents meetings happen at UCSF Mission Bay. I watch the buildings and grounds and compliance and audit 'first day sessions' of UC Regents meetings pretty routinely. They begin midday, so, not very well attended. Until the latest UC Regents meeting- where Napolitano came up--that section never really had extensive or engaged public comment. Likely, med personnel don't have free time to go to a UC Regents meeting to comment, but they could have sent a colleague to speak on their behalf-- unless, of course, the employees felt too intimidated- but that would sound too much like the accounts reported during November 20.
It is ironic...the other campuses resent UCSF Mission Bay constantly being used as the UC Regents meeting event space, yet, the UCSF Mission Bay folks don't go before the UC Regents on this critically important office space issue to have their voices heard.
What's going on? Regent M should want to find out, right?
Second the Remaking post on office space directly reminds me of something else I wanted to mention: the UC Regents agenda items on compliance and audit that happened at this month's UC Regents meeting and wanna relate it to an item IHE had on shared services (h/t Meranze pointed to the IHE article in his daily links section also at Remaking the University).
"At Berkeley, officials are still in the midst of changes and don’t forecast savings until the beginning of the 2016 budget year. By 2020, the university is looking to save nearly $14 million a year, according to Andrew Szeri, the dean of Berkeley’s graduate division, who relayed his comments through a spokeswoman in an email."
see: Shared Services Backlash IHE
this section- re U Mich: wrote a Nov. 1 letter to senior administrators protesting an “air of secrecy” around the effort and raising concerns that longtime staffers, particularly lower-income women, would be hurt by the changes, either because of layoffs or pay cuts...In response, senior Michigan officials wrote a Nov. 14 letter acknowledging they were “not sensitive or consultative enough in the planning and communication of this initiative.”
Ok, so there's that sitting out there, and--
At the UC Regents meeting this month - the first day (closed and open agenda items here) included the compliance and audit portion, where UCOP officials briefly mentioned that shared services were now creating the need to re-review and create new controls, processes- business flow apparently not thought through in advance of the move to shared services
...that means new business analysis to replace the already expensive op ex business analysis, that, in turn, means money, more money, space changes (away from open plan?) perhaps, and "issues" until the fix is in place.
Also during that portion of the meeting.. the current staff advisor to the regents asked a question on the 30% rise in whistleblower program numbers cited in a recent UCOP report and received a rather bizarre UCOP response. It was a verbal answer devoid of CA leg history on UC whistleblower policy, no mention of the recent union moves to use the program in their advocacy efforts and how that might also impact on the numbers etc. Instead, a discussion of the UC whistleblower program as though it is akin to a tip line, or a complaint or suggestion box. You can see that happens here at the 1:46:30
Repeat warning letters to Irvine, San Diego, Los Angeles etc. mentioned also in that section of the meeting.
If you go to the section on public comment (Ground/Buildings and Compliance/Audit share the same public comment section) -no talk about office space at UCSF Mission Bay.
Still bugged by Napolitano's statement that she hasn't seen the viral 5 minute video put together by underrepresented Black Bruins -UC students at UCLA
Not great for the new UC President to message-- I don't see you.
Governor Brown recently raked in several million dollars from movie industry folks in Los Angeles, don't know if Regent Lansing attended.
Reflecting a UC-wide trend, UC Berkeley students are also paying 17 percent more in dorm and dining hall fees. And that's after inflation.UC Berkeley estimates that other student expenses have increased far faster than inflation as well.
So with more hidden fees than your checking account, UC Berkeley estimates that it will
cost $133,280 for an undergraduate student to earn a degree in four years.
At UC Berkeley, the campus reported that it met just 79.4 percent of new students' official financial need in 2012-13. That's down from 94 percent in 2001-02. UC-wide data shows that after dipping to $16,798 in 2006-07, the inflation-adjusted average debt of UC's student borrowers upon graduating has increased to $19,751.
-EastCoast might think that's a great number -but there are other California costs happening concurrently and after grad those costs increase, so...
There is that Sebastian Thrun re-do MOOC talk on his Fast Company interview. (Thrun happens to live in this same community where these things are happening, he has some 'skin in the game' so to speak- but the area is gated in multiple ways-mentally,physically,- so, maybe he 'does not see them', either. But, one of them involves Napolitano's alma mater,so...) I do think eventually he is going to pivot and give an interview venting his frustrations with the current higher education framework... it would not be fun to be cast forever as treating poor students at San Jose State the way this guy treated Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon.
Silicon Valley does not have complete, easy answers for hard Higher Ed/World challenges... leaned in feminism, (office) space planning, instruction, curriculum dev.
'I didn't see it'- but... it will be seen:
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Wm. De La Pena
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Monica Lozano (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- Norman Pattiz (AGAIN!)
- John A. Pérez
- Bonnie Reiss
- Richard Sherman
- Bruce Varner
- Charlene Zettel
- VACANT (M Anguiano?)
- VACANT (L Park?)
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- VACANT (E Tauscher?)
- VACANT (H Guber?)
- Paul Monge
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)