This week there is this in Sacto:
Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2 on Education Finance: Close out Higher Education Issues May 24, 2016 - 09:00 AM
The UC section of the meeting begins about twenty minutes in to the archive, and runs for about a half hour.
Remaking the U has this new post:
North Carolina Republicans Take Aim at State's Historically Black and Native American Colleges
And, this a retweet of this: "UC Faculty Assoc. @uc_faculty
CA spends $2,000 less per higher education student than the average US state. Only NV, MT, LO and FL spend less."
But that tweet does not reconcile itself with this earlier May 10 CA Leg discussion of UC
"I- UC Enrollment issues starts at 30:00 mark
II- Gov's Proposals
III- UC Pension Actions at 01:07:51 time mark
IV- Student outreach efforts reviewed 01:34:22
V- Other UC Spending"
You can watch all of that go down in this archive of May 10 : Assembly Budget Subcommittee #2 on Education Finance
Watch the video: http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=3682
And don't miss there the discussion of
$45 million could be funded by other sources per OP VP
And discussion of 18 programs and $337 million
And the claims of possible add'l funding that could have been found for 4500 CA residents to have open slots to attend UC in recent years
And then a new proposal for adding 30,000 spots in UC System for CA residents
And proposal for creating an inspector general of UC position that reports to CA Gov and Leg to monitor these matters on an ongoing basis -- rather than try to continue to catch these persistent UC problems via JLAC voting or not voting for ad hoc special efforts to 'look into',
or just continue hoping uc regents will end their ongoing culture and governance crisis, or the faculty leadership will stop claiming to uc Regents that the audit concerns are misrepresentations on uc admissions, enrollment, hiring while faculty Deans and directors and other senior managers have enrollment and hiring info and the UC SMG group continue to deny access to the disaggregated data on admissions, enrollments, faculty hiring data to UC Regents even when multiple UC Regents state in open forum they at various times request the information and are repeatedly denied it
(Want to note here that the regent claims of being denied access to information are similar to other (UCOP?) actions from over the past two years in particular - multiple instances where other UC Regents claims of being denied access to information on what is being prepared to be placed on the UC Regents agenda in advance of a UC Regents meeting-
e.g. on UC regents
Newsom complained about how student athlete items were being or not being placed on agenda
that happened midway thru his efforts on that issue..
At this month's meeting alone the following incidents occurred:
Perez complained similarly that he requested other items to be placed on agenda and they never were
Multiple Regents complained they were denied access to the UC chancellors letter to the Regents regarding actions the UC Regents Governance committee is currently engaged in, even chair Gould of the governance committee claimed he did not receive the communications from the chancellors to the Regents, but the letter was in the hands of staff who are not Regents.
Student regent Oved and Perez also claimed they did not receive materials on UCB Stiles Hall when it came before them for a vote to approve funding, construction etc -but they never received info on student meal swipe cards arrangements info, outside food/restaurant vendor agreements info,etc these Regents requested- on the last day of their meeting Perez said he received an unacceptable "backwards engineered answers" to his questions and some presentation slides -- but Oved then responded to that and said Oved did not even receive those items...
Also in prior meetings there seemed to be a pattern where
De La Pena And Makarechian complained they were denied planning info for items in health committee at the time when De La Pena chaired that committee , and in buildings and grounds when Makarechian chairs/ed that committee-- both chairs claimed some agenda items had overlapping jurisdiction in both, and they sometimes wanted a joint committee meeting for those specific items but their wishes were not honored in the Regents agenda and they were surprised in the middle of the meeting with the agenda items -that happened on at least two pricey projects, including big projects at UCSD and SF-Now consider the events that have occurred in the Heath committee and it's reorganization,
and now also new moves to reorganize buildings and grounds committee away from Makarechian as chair ...
It can make one wonder what is really going on..
so if UC is having these problems like this, of long duration, it seems clear something like an outside IG is indeed needed.
JLAC requests, even if approved- and it is important to remember that it was the JLAC chair reguested JLAC audit that found many areas of concern - that was only eventually approved by vote but it went on to suffer months long delay before launching it etc- That approach might not be able to catch all uc issues and connect governance issues with funding, enrollment, capital projects issues etc re: UC decisions-- perhaps an IG could
Now today they decided against an IG and instead to give the state auditor $1+ million for the continued review of items from the audit of UC
Or download it as mp4 from the archive list
And, there has been discussion in Sacto on this next issue as well, now the Regents committee will discuss it in this just posted committee meeting: see this :
"Regents meeting calendar now lists a May 31 special session of the Committee on Compensation to discuss "Regents Policy 7707, Senior Management Group Outside Professional Activities." [http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may16/comp31.pdf] This item seems to be the result of the corporate board memberships of Katehi that formed part of the Davis Drama."
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'
Afternoon Session 05/10/16
Afternoon Session 05/10/16 continued
Morning Session 05/11/16
Morning Session 05/12/16
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- John A. Pérez
- Richard Sherman
- Charlene Zettel
- Anguiano, Maria
- Park, Lark
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- Tauscher, Ellen
- Guber, H. Peter
- 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)