- 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)
Friday, May 27, 2016
"This new proposal not only reduces savings but could potentially hurt the current pension system and (asks) taxpayers to subsidize the enrichment of UC’s growing executive class,”
The Daily Cal piece has some important corrections - UCI New U also now covers it:
State Assembly Votes to Withhold UC Funding as Result of Costly Regents Retirement Plan
Update see also: http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2016/05/ill-defined-contribution.html
"Since 2004, the number of UC Employees receiving salaries in excess of $265,000 per year has grown by more than 500% and an annual cost of more than $1 billion. In 2004, 629 employees earned these salaries at an annual cost of $222 million, and in 2014, 3,343 received these high-end salaries at an annual cost of $1.3 billion"
When factoring in the total cost of the new Retirement Benefits—including the 401K “opt out” approved by the Regents in March--UC is slated to save only $9 million per year. According to the actuarial analysis, if UC were to eliminate the Opt-Out program and keep all of its employees in the same defined benefit pool, the savings would jump to $49 million per year, or another $580 million over fifteen years.
“The Legislature is deeply troubled by not only the cost of UC’s new 401K plan, but by what appears to be an effort to circumvent the terms of the 2015 Budget Act,” said Assembly Budget Education Subcommittee Chair Kevin McCarty. “State taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize the destruction of UC’s defined benefit plan, nor the enrichment of UC’s growing executive class.”"
See : State Assembly withholds funding to UC because of new retirement plan
"They are devaluing the pension fund and giving priority to faculty with higher salaries,” Stenhouse said. “It is clearly a plan to benefit UC’s richest employees and carries additional costs by virtue of offering a choice.”
Fence around chancellor’s residence completed at 2.5 times original budget
"formally known as University House "