- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- John A. Pérez
- Richard Sherman
- 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)
- VACANT ( by Pattiz)
- VACANT (by Reiss)
"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)
Friday, January 29, 2016
Do Napolitano, Certain Regents, Senior UCOP Staff Want An Open Dialogue, Exchange with UC Chancellors To Occur During UC Regents Meetings?
Do UC Chancellors want to offer comments on agenda items in open session? Do they prefer to offer comments offline, or in closed session instead? If so, what does that say about the culture and governance?
Important questions raised circuitously during UC Regents Meeting, please see the comments section to this post for more:
Listen to the Regents meeting of of Jan. 21, 2016
On this section
"Questions were raised about why UC campus chancellors were not routinely in attendance at Regents meetings. (Chancellors tend to show up when they want something approved by the Regents – typically a building – for their campuses.)"
A clarification and more offered in the comments section there:
The Regents were complaining that the chancellors could not speak without being called upon ,and so when presentations are made on issues *about things happening on campuses especially* the chancellors cannot just enter into the discussion -they have to be called on by Regents in order to speak. Lansing and Blum asked Gould to take this issue up in the Governance committee and Gould said he definitely would have the committee begin work on the issue.
It may be true that attendance of chancellors at UC Regents meetings also needs to be looked at but that was not the issue the UC Regents were trying to raise during that section of the meeting.
In fact Lansing made comments about how Chancellors used to have a seat at the table-literally- now they are placed in a row on a right flank and left flank but not at the table with Regents. And that is true. They used to be seated at the table but on the far left and far right of the section where "presenters to the Regents" sit.
Certain Regents tend to mumble or use fragments so it can make their point of view sometimes unclear.
It was an important issue to raise.
It would have been very helpful to have chancellors respond on the admissions and diversity comments Regent Reiss made etc, and nursing programs and tuition issue during this particular meeting-- rather than to just hear OP staff respond.
Yes, It was an important moment in the UC Regents Meeting and want to highlight it here as well.
(Some typos in the original comment corrected here in this post.)