Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The JLAC Process in Sacto Comes Up At UC Regents Meeting - and a flashback

another flashback: UC Davis Students Protest Proposed Tuition Hike On Anniversary of Pepper Spraying

and another flashback- cuz Birgeneau has this Daily Cal Op Ed out too: "Who pays more? Who pays less?"- the gist goes something like --on behalf of low wage minority staff and low wage minority students he thinks UC Regents should vote for the tuition hikes-his op ed also comes just in time for the --the Anniversary of the...'crunchy' that preceded the peppa:

and there's a recent peppa series talk also:
“STEM, Immigration, and Controversy: Does the U.S. Have Enough STEM Workers?”
Michael S. Teitelbaum, Senior Research Associate, Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard Law School

From Thursday, October 9, 2014, Lecture

Original Post (before the other flashbacks)
Dropped into a portion of livefeed of the UC Regent meeting earlier... one particular section sounded initially 'unseemly' when some regents (while also mentioning the likelihood that the governor would raise UC efficiency questions tomorrow) encouraged the student regents to complain about what sounded like Sacramento's CA Joint Legislative Audit Committee approved state audits of UC-- that happened today during the UC audit and compliance committee meeting. (They, at another point, also mentioned some concerns about UC travel and entertainment as a subject- and how things like that can cause high value PR problems in another section of the discussion.)They cited an example where only $2500 was found to be a problem but it cost countless UC hours etc to work on the issue - and they felt it was a non issue, unnecessary- but have to go back and listen to that entire committee meeting and try to figure out which one they were talking about to get a full context. Maybe there is a constructive criticism point to be made about the JLAC process, or not.

The way it sounded- as the UC Regents bantered, winked about it- just, well it was a reminder of a UC Regent discussion where then-UC Student Regent Stein,during UC Regents meeting March 2013, made comments about feeling it was "unseemly" for UC to impose what was called "the Kashmiri Fee" as a specific line item on tuition . To extend that point out--if UC operations are opaque, need to be looked at, tended to-- why blame the folks who note it or ask for clarification,fixes? And, why attach such issues to (a line in) tuition (statements) but not have e.g. a line item on tuition statements for "the UCOP approved 20 year pension contribution holiday" as that impacts tuition rates etc.?

You can watch the archived video from today's UC Regent's meeting for yourself here:
(the section on Compliance and Audit noted above comes up at around the 02:50:00 mark)

From today's headlines...
Here's Yahoo Headline on UC tactic: University of California wants tuition hike or $100 million funding increase

and Reuters with the same story but decided to leave the dollar figure out of the headline here: : University of California wants tuition hike or more funding

CBS Local SacramentoUC Davis Students Protest Planned UC Tuition Hike

and San Diego 6 UCSD students also protest tuition hike
and at UT San Diego and at KPBS and at 10News

UCLA, UCI Students Protest Proposed Tuition Hikes

and Reason Magazine with this: At UC-Davis, Students Can't Register Until They Concede It's Wrong to Say 'I'd Hit That'

Guess that is a campus response to that JLAC approved audit of UC that found a few Clery Act type of concerns earlier this year...
-- and the business reasons behind it.

No comments:

Post a Comment