Notes-not-quotes-scribbles-from CA Senate Rules Committee on UC Regent Appointees Confirmation
Ca State Senator Holly Mitchell started off by noting some figures indicating the UC Regents are a body lacking in diversity in age, income, class, gender, etc. She had tables and figures to cite. (She mentioned that there aren’t any serving UC Regents from even the 30’s years of age group or 40’s years of age group, much less in their 20’s- other than the one student regent and designate – she also highlighted voting rights and lack of voting rights for those at the UC Regents table) - Later she also mentioned that the Governor currently has three additional UC Regents vacancies to fill and if he is reelected he will have six to fill in his next term.
Interestingly, she also said UCR admissions of Black students could be used as a model for the rest of UC – (but that comment shows a lack of a fuller understanding of how UC admissions work-- and maybe the CA Senate and assembly higher ed committees should work with the rules committee in advance to discuss such questions.)
State Senator Knight asks about UC Riverside medical school and Blum mentions Di Fi and that he toured it w/ her and that it could be a major job creator for that region but more state funds need to be secured for its growth.
Knight then mentions CIS courses as important
Steinberg also mentions CIS courses as important in A-G – he says only a handful of them as compared to thousands of other non CIS, tech courses approved for A-G. 12,000 CTE courses but only 42 CIS courses.
Academic rigor questioned.
State Sen. Fuller asks that the UC Regents commit to expanding online instruction and they agree it is high priority and agree on expanding.
Fuller also mentions that UC timing and PR need to be looked at and worked on - that was odd.
“Emphasis and focus of UC is out of whack”
“Culture and governance of UC” raised again
Blum says first twelve years as a regent he learned that academia is a different culture
UC Regent Sherman responds to question on length of UC Regent terms-- that he might be in support of shortening the second term of UC Regents who are reappointed
There is some acknowledgment that two twelve year terms back to back might be problematic or seen as undemocratic etc.
There were some key comments from Steinberg
He tells UC Regents that “getting sued not the worst thing if you are standing on priniciples” regarding making bold moves on diversity and admission decision and how the CA Legislature had to do similar in K-12 costs legislation last year (they routed more funding for schools with certain types of students based on a policy decision they made- he is telling UC to perhaps do something similar.)
He said that the UC Regents maybe need to “take a look at your culture and governance”
He tells them that the CA Leg can’t accept UC is “big, bulky, behemoth” as an excuse for UC not resolving the problems created for them by 209 and other key issues. UC should develop work arounds, policy changes when faced with such issues.
Funny? moment- He encourages Regent Pattiz to elaborate on his thoughts about Governor Brown attending UC Regent meetings – Pattiz doesn’t , Lozano steps in…
Steinberg attempted at times to serve as a support for UC Regents at other times he raised questions about UC power, governance and structure and mused about whether it was necessary to have the UC President make a presentation or engage in a hearing with the Senate Rules committee on these issues.
Steinberg asks if there is anyone insisting on “organizing these issues and agendizing them for the UC Regents”
Steinberg at another point in discussion says UC is not reflective of the state
UC Regent Blum mentions that former UCSF Chancellor Sue Hellman and former UC Irvine Chancellor Drake left for more money at Gates Foundation and Ohio State. He says state needs to give more money to UC in order to pay more money in salaries. He says that every month UC Berkeley is dealing with the potential loss of faculty who receive more lucrative offers. Then he throws in UCR's White while acknowledging that he is now heading up CSU.
Blum said UC Regents do not directly control UC admissions. Pattiz also tried to answer, Lozano jumped in to say UC Regents only see the admissions data once a year.
Lozano says UC policy hasn’t ever been set on admission targets/ranges/quotas/caps – that that is something they are now going to take up.
Pattiz mentions that some of this can put pressures on flagships and raises excitement that possibly show true value or what folks are willing to pay for UC education.
State Senator Lara made comments toward the close of the meeting he said that “we have failed on all three: Access, Affordability, and Quality” regarding UC.
Lara says he believes UC attorneys have a pattern of conservatively interpreting 209 for UC Regents policy decisions.
Lara says lack of diversity of transfer students data also a bad indicator.
Lara says a case of 70% rejection rate of Black African Americans on some campuses disturbing.
Lara mentions use of term Hispanic historically problematic for certain groups (ironic given Lozano uses that term professionally) -and the lumping into one group of API as disturbing in that same vein.
Student groups mention their “out of touch, out of reach”campaign
Steinberg says that students in public comment are an example of the “young against the establishment and sometimes the establishment is wrong”
CA state senator Mitchell says UC’s product is its students
During Public Comment there were several speakers in opposition to the appointees – many of the speakers were representatives of the student body and faculty.
The faculty association representative starts off and makes public comment and notes a lack of a letter from the Governor regarding shared governance notification requirements.
There were no - ZERO -speakers in support of the appointments.
One UCSA representative noted that there is only one student regent to represent all UC students.
There were repeated references to short notice of this CA Senate Rules Committee meeting and vote provided to the UC and CA community.
Hopefully something in the above peaks your interest to watch the meeting for yourself and come to your own conclusions - you can view the video below.
Original Post below
Daily Cal: State Senate committee greenlights new UC Board of Regents appointees for Senate approval
Changing Universities "Educating for Workplace Democracy"
While half of the UC employees are unionized, the administration is not, and many workers fail to exercise the rights and privileges they already have. Recent decisions about a new payroll system and online education appear to come out of nowhere because most employees do not exercise their right to have their voices heard. In order to counter this lack of workplace democracy
When is Cal going to catch on to the the fact that undergrads aren't solely made up of 18 - 22 yr olds? They've had high number of non traditional students for years and years but it is a constant surprise to them...where they repeatedly can't seem to provide comprehensive services geared to that group.
"a single mom in her 40s when, as a Berkeley undergrad, she founded the Bear Pantry to help non-traditional students like herself stretch their food dollars. She heads up the pantry, now, as a campus staffer"
As UC Regents they have been at the UC Regent helm for some of the worst years of UC administration and some of them directly blamed state politicians for UC failures on critical issues-- over and over... Now, how are they suddenly going to miraculously usher in the never to be seen great years of UC administrative efficiency?? By their continued presence and leadership? In Sacto, they talk about their prior twelve years of service as UC Regents - they talk about it very differently from how they talk about it at the UC Regent meetings. Watch for yourself- You can watch here at this link - it begins at the 01:09:10 mark
or, click play below:
They tried, see:
Dear Senate Pro Tem Steinberg,
The Council of UC Faculty Associations requests that the Rules Committee reject the slate of four nominees proposed by the Governor to serve as Regents of the University of California.
You will recall that the Council of UC Faculty Association has previously communicated to your office our concern about the failure of Governors to respect the Constitution of the State of California in the process of nominating individuals to serve as Regents of the University of California. Unfortunately the process by which the Governor selected the current four nominees is no improvement on the flawed approach that has been followed by recent Governors.
Based on the information available to us, we have concluded that the present list of proposed nominees was publicly announced by the Governor prior to notification, much less consultation, with the advisory committee specified in Article 9 Sec. 9e of the Constitution. We have attempted to uncover evidence of subsequent consultation with the advisory committee but have been unable to do so. Any notification of the Governor's already publicly announced proposed nominees sent to the advisory committee does not constitute consultation.
The purpose of the advisory committee is to further the goal stated in Article 9 Sec 9d that the Regents shall be "broadly reflective of the economic, cultural, and social diversity of the State, including ethnic minorities and women." We are particularly concerned that the majority of the Regents and of this slate of proposed Regents are overly representative of an economic, cultural, and social elite. If the University of California, as a public institution, administered by the Regents as a public trust, is to further the aspirations of outstanding students from all populations in our state, then the Regents should, indeed, be more representative than they currently are of all Californians.
We conclude that it is the duty of the legislative branch in general and the Senate Rules Committee in particular to insist that the Governor respect the Constitution in its specifications of both process and goal.
We request that the Rules committee do so by rejecting this slate of proposed nominees.
Vice President for External Relations, Council of UC Faculty Associations and
Professor of Physics Emeritus, UC Davis
cc: Senator Jean Fuller (Vice Chair)
Senator Holly Mitchell
Senator Steve Knight
Senator Ricardo Lara
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Wm. De La Pena
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (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
- Vacant (by Lozano)
"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)