Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Notes not quotes, scribbles UC Regents May meeting

And once again you can view the *May *full board *UC Regents Meeting *held in Sacto * video archive * available for exactly one year only* via these links:

Buildings and grounds committee on the first day, and the governance committee on the last day were 'Don't Miss'


Also don't miss discussion of audit services to review hiring, compensation, and admissions practices-- it comes up toward the tail end of this section, you have to toggle to it.


May 10th
Afternoon video continued

Comments on audit report of clinical enterprise
Academic med school audits , trends etc.
00:05:00 item A5 on reducing violence, harassment efforts
Prohibitive conduct outlined
All employees mandatory reporter
Clery discussed, policy initiative
Campus camera initiative privacy concerns discussed
HR and VP Nava efforts on other non sex abusive conduct effort, - defining it, bullying, other harassment
International global engagement on risk management training needs will be discussed at July meeting
Efforts like live acting troupe events for training staff
Health science compliance arena discussed- as a specialization in auditing needed
00:15:00 A6 external audit plan
OP VP CFO Brostrom and Rivas present
Then at
00:23:00 Discussion of State Auditor report rebuttal by UC to UC
00:40:00 Chair Lozano makes claims about UC enrollment, state funding, finance committee decisions she made as chair of that committee during econ downturn 2009
00:46:00 Regent Sherman asks about correlation funding relationship to enrollment of CA residents
00:47:00 Regent Davis encourages a UC response that is less adversarial and more collaborative on issues of Californians enrollment at UC, try to improve relations which are “poor” right now with state; unique opportunity right now to respond to CA Leg highlighting UC commitment to welfare of the state and highlight buildout plan for UC Merced
00:53: Alumni Regent designate Schroeder
00:54:00 Regent Oved concerns of disparaging tone on out of state students on this issue. Concerns that UC and state have fiscalized their relationship to UC
00:55:30 Regent Perez UC also should not disparage the work of the state auditor, her team is talented. He believes that there was a failure of OP to include regents ( possibly in discussions parameters of audit during JLAC proposal of audit and during the audit) No opportunity for regents to engage. No board discussion, answers were already given to the state. agrees that relationship of out of state students have been discussed by UC as fiscal and overtones similar to how prop 209 began to label segments of student population . Tone similar to 209. He says he did not get comfort in how UC fit out of state students in enrollment decisions.
Out of state students representation on three UC campuses is very very high – so we are denying the benefit of their value with our other six UC campuses- we’ve fiscalized the conversation on admitting them.
And conversation is better than accusations back and forth.
01:00:45 More regents arrive to meeting so quorum and so some action approval votes happens. Regent Zettel closes compliance and Audit and Regent Sherman opens Buildings and Grounds because Chair Makarechian is not present to chair this committee meeting.
UCOP President’s student housing initiative
01:15:47 Perez affordability questions on housing costs for students- housing, dining compared with tuition percentiles. More questions on RFQ processes
01:23:00 conversions of doubles and triples into quads and consequences and other
Climate-mental health-housing density correlations discussed
01:25:00 Regent Zettel has questions on non housed on campus experience- she asks if UC has considered a “large tent city to house UC students” question.

01:27:00 Housing increase effect on dining commons
01:28:15 housing on campus inculcating student loyalty to UC studied by OP admin, they claim correlation
GB2 UCSFproject
GB3 01:46:00 Stiles Hall UC Berkeley
02:02:50 Questions on comparisons of density b/ween Stiles and Foothill housing and Clark Kerr housing indicates crowding at Stiles
Regent Sherman asks retail space, restaurant space questions
Meal card, swipes questions asked
02:05:30 Unit III housing experience for students discussed – question on whether their dining commons will be able to absorb Stiles add’l 800 students in to Unit III
02:07:30 Oved also has concerns asks why third party vendor rather than existing dining vendors? Oved discusses the financial losses students experience on meal plans and swipe cards.
Swipes for homeless program mentioned (is he talking about homeless UC students?)
02:11:00 Perez concerned about staff report focused on revenue motivation but light on environmental impact study
02:12:45 Berkeley staff ask approval without study Perez requests
Perez says he cannot vote for it without addressing his concerns, he asks for staff to come up with MOU in next 24 hours that will ensure study will be done, happen
Perez requests eval on Thurs for item and full ERI, Brostrom replies
UCSD GB4 02:15:00
Other agenda items close out meeting

Morning Session 05/11/16


05/11 Morning session
00:09:00 Meeting begins
Public comment ends 00:34:00
00:34:00 comments of Chair
00:38:00 comments of UC pres
00:52:00 Faculty Representative comments – his mic cuts out at various points but he has critical comments about state audit/or
01:00:00 Committee on Finance
01:41:20 Supplemental fee tuition discussion, procedural questions concerns raised by Regent Davis
Criteria for tuition increase discussed , Davis remains dismayed by why the item is being put before the regents at this time.
01:48:45 UCSA president addresses regents
01:50:00 Committee on Education Policy
Student Athlete policy
02:30:50 Undergraduate Financial Aid
02:51:00 Oved says this agenda item was requested by him as a discussion item but he is disappointed by the discussion- he hoped that there would be a clear discussion on the middle class in depth
Oved says representation of middle class income students in serious decline at UC and UC has no policy or rules of what middle class is- brackets like $80,000-$125,000 at one UC campus and another UC campus says $80,000-$150,000 and then other UC campuses don’t make clear what their bracket for middle class is.
Are these discrepencies? Has UC decided there is a system wide definition or not? Has the UC decided there are regional differentials as a written policy?
03:28:00 Diversity of Faculty Hires and Student Body composition discussed
They have numbers on staff but they are not including it in the meeting discussion intentionally
03:58:00 numbers on positions filled by Underrepresented minority staff in leadership positions are bad/low, mentioned by staff advisor Acker
But issue not included for presentation
Other regents say accountability, infrastructure, resources approach on issue
04:01:00 Regent Oved discusses lack of trustee/regents access to disagreggated data – denied to regents when they request it

Regent Reiss also mentions her discussions with UC admissions and how GPA and SAT are still the anchor high weight criteria -even in claims of holistic review so neither model is resulting in numbers on composition of student or faculty body that are satisfying to Regents.

04:05:00 Regent Oakley says no accountability in UC accountability report
Chair of Education committee Regent Island agrees with him
04:14:00 Regent Elliott says he was denied materials he requested as well- Elliott mentions he requested UCSD materials on admissions enrollments efforts, claims and never received them.


Morning Session 05/12/16


Goverance Committee
Chair Gould says Lozano, Napolitano and Secretary and Chief of Staff to UC Regents Anne Shaw ( the person with the egg timer during public comment) and General Counsel Charlie Robinson have been working on a template to reshape how the UC Regents operate
1- Finance and Capital strategies
Would absorb the current Grounds and Building committee and Finance committee and Investments committee
It would become the ‘1 % elite’ committee
2- Compliance and Audit
Give visibility, "currently has been meeting ‘off cycle’"
3- Health Services – recently changed
4- Academic Student Affairs
Labs committee would become a sub committee (ROFLMAO
Unfortunately the current labs committee has gotten into the habit of doing presentations on research for a general audience in open session rather than discussing pleasant and unpleasant aspects of UC and Labs relationships or other areas of concern about the labs that the general public reads in newspapers or at POGO or GAP unfortunately. UC misses an opportunity to engage UC, public on Labs.)
5- Public Engagement Development
Described as fundraising, philanthropy,PR, lobbying
6- Governance and Compensation
Would be comprised of only the chair of board and five chairs of the above 1-5 committees
It would be super committee
Grounds and Buildings eliminated – currently chaired by Makarechian
Long range planning and governance committees eliminated – both currently chaired by Gould
Chancellors would become active, non voting committee members
Gould reassures “We’ll keep public comment- that’s fine”
Committees would be with intentional time conflicts for audiences – they would meet concurrently
Gould says committee report need to be descriptive at time of vote, chairs would give 10-20 minute report to full board
Currently just ‘moving documents without disclosure’
All of this was last reviewed in 1969, needs freshening up
Committee assignments decided by Governance committee
01:15:48 Regent Davis makes important comments encouraging this body to “take a deep breath and consider being more deliberative” on proposal
He says two areas UC regents should be thoughtful about “we currently have a pending charge for adjudication for conflict of interest of one of our colleagues’
Davis also says new proposal makes a significant change to how such a charge is handled vests plenary absolute authority in governing committee—that’s a pretty dramatic step.
Curtails bringing charge before full board
Confusion on where authority is for dismissal of a UC Chancellor
This proposal clarifies it is the board – very, very significant issues and there needs to be a very robust discussion on this
Details of document itself has conflicting language in it
01:07:00 mark Perez asks for a ‘red line markup’ version of template

01:08:30 Regent Reiss comments says will result in deeper dives on issues
She mentions Berkeley cost structure issues and that during this meeting in closed session Berkeley says revenue from online will improve their situation
She also mentions fundraising disinvestment of state funding
Govt affairs - our engaging politicians more directly
Reiss sees these as good for UC.
01:11:46 Regent Lansing describes what is currently happening at UC Regents meetings as she sees it
New approach “will require our trusting other regents”
She says “we can pick up the phone with each other” to address concerns on agenda items
She says thrilling opportunities delegating authority to committees
01:14:05 Regent Oved asks Gould How many committee members on each committee?
Gould seems puzzled at first then says 10-12 members on each committee.
Oved says he is overall supportive
Regent Davis adds in more comment he says he has become aware UC Chancellors have looked at this template to reorganize the UC regents and that the chancellors have written a response to the uc regents but Davis has not been provided with an opportunity to see their response. Davis says it is the feedback he is most interested in receiving, hearing. Other regents also state they have not seen it either.
Gould says he has not been aware of it or seen it.
Lozano interjects that the chancellors comments can be added to other comments received – as though it is not important to include it in a public meeting open session dialogue- it seems like she was trying to tap the chancellor feedback down imo
01:20:40 Regent Pattiz has some problems with proposed template
Concerned about concentration of power
Influence of governance committee
Says he is a regent other places too and they ask about uc regents and he likes things discussed as full board
He is concerned about conflicting scheduling of committee meetings
He says press, public attendance, viewing important
At 01:23:50 Pattiz makes some comments about “UC Scandals and Intrigue and the Dynes Years”
He says I was here during the Dynes presidency there was a lot of scandal intrigue by comparison
He says scandal intrigue came out of board not wanting to engage what was happening at campus level
Pushed more delegated power to UCOP so regents become more out of touch with issues like Berkeley and including its $150 million shortfall budget deficit
Whole board heard yesterday that it could affect all campuses
Whole board important
No concentration of power
We got out of Dynes situation by regents digging deep going to CA legislature cleared up situation
I mean someone committed suicide over that whole thing, by God ( he is likely referencing UCSC chancellor jumping off SF skyscraper, but there were news stories of staff suicides at that same time too—and it should be remembered that some current Title IX cases where suicidal ideation on the part of the victims has been chronicled, so we are not so far removed from those days…)
He says Labs should not be ‘subcommittee’ – DOE NSA affiliations – yet, although Pattiz has asked for a UC Regent no one willing to become permanent member of LLC because it takes time.
01:28:00 Gould responds to Pattiz comments
Pattiz responds to Gould responding
Gould tells Pattiz be brief
Pattiz says improper to be responding to comments made as request for comment on discussion item- it is solely a time for feedback
Pattiz raises example of regent
01:30:20 Chancellor Leland comes to a table microphone to say their responses were given to general counsel Robinson
01:30:50 Keiffer say that at UC Regents Retreat there was near uniform agreement that this change needs to be done Pattiz interjects to say some regents were not present at the retreat
(want to note here that Keiffer has been resistant to adding student regents or expanding board and has previously made comments that seem to place open sessions in neg light. He also has routinely been supportive of compensation actions and characterizing them, and has in the past addressed his comments directly to a member of the press -L Gordon- from the regents table on suggestion for how to characterized their compensation votes)
01:32:40 Oakley asks are regents going to get involved with donors directly?
He has two recommendations
1- Opportunity for each member to pull agenda items if they did not receive materials in advance
2- Survey tool for regents to provide periodic comments on regent governance, procedures needs to be implemented , created and used on an ongoing basis
(staff and student orgs have already used these sorts of tools for years, surprising UC Regents haven’t been using one)
01:34:30 staff advisor says staff advisor role not included in template or delineated. She btw mentions staff advisors still not included in closed sessions.

01:36:35 Perez agrees with comments from Davis, Pattiz. He comments on culture of board. Questions comment by Lansing on her comment on level of trust among regents and also a need to talk about public trust in the by laws. University is a public trust. Current proposal sounds overly corporate. Trust is an issue b/c of this possible move to concentrated power – yet experiences of regents not getting info they request
Perez says he was denied info that has already been provided by OP to Press, others
Perez relies on student and regional papers because he was not getting info from OP
Issue of chancellors response letter not being provided to all regents is troubling
Chancellors feel that they cannot talk directly to regents is troubling
OP making presentations to regents and OP answer questions on behalf of campuses to the regents is also troubling, raises concern
Missives can’t just be sent to the Regents chief of staff and no discussion among all regents.
01:43:00 Governor Brown speaks
Says smaller groups better b/c otherwise ‘big debate society’
Mentions his time as regent in 1970’s
Says this new approach is a ‘clubby way of doing things’ , more practical
He likes ‘committee of one’
‘all power to committees’ – he did not like it in ‘70’s but sees it now as more effective
01:44:45 Regent Island not satisfied with current template – agrees with Pattiz, Perez
Worries about concentration of power of supercommittee
The draft template misunderstands, misapprehends the Labs - they should not be just a sub committee
He references actions when Parsky was chair of regents- many issues like affordability, access should be full board discussions etc
Ability to make them agenda items for all board
Island says Regents oath requires full active engagement in all issues
Silo issues authority - results in exclusion of some regents
01:50:00 Gorman on culture and governance comment
01:51:20 student regent designate raises concerns over how regents with abbreviated terms shorter cycled terms are addressed or not addressed in template
Governance committee ends
01:53:05 Committee on Buildings and Grounds reconvenes
01:53:50 Perez says he has now received a “backwards engineered answer” from OP UCB staff on concerns he raised about UCB Stile hall project- not satisfied with response or respondents approach
The issue of student meal swipes concerns not fully addressed – lack of student input assessment
But measure passes by voice vote anyway
Oved says he did not receive even a copy of the backwards engineered answer that Perez received
Sherman who is filling in as chair for Regent M of this comittee tries to address
01:57:00 Committee on Compensation rubber stamping ensues
01:59:00 state funded or non state funded positions question from Island and exchange with Napolitano
02:00:00 they close the meeting briefly to handle another action item
02:09:00 Regent Davis objects to supplemental fee tuition action because he says it is a premature action given the reorganization of the board and other unknowns.
They adjourn the usual way.

No comments:

Post a Comment