Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Health and Finance UC Regents committees meet

And some of the newly appointed UC Regents sat in or were already assigned to committees- the finance committee highlighted once again that UCOP has an unclear role -some Regents said UCOP is akin to corporate headquarters for UC and other Regents said UCOP is a service

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

More push back on how UC Regents are continually appointed in a process that does not follow existing policies. Also- More than 'fitness freebies' downplay spin?

"Former UC Berkeley employee told to lie on taxes, per lawsuit
The woman alleges she was asked to do personal chores for the chancellor’s family."

See coverage of this meeting in DC:
Dianne Feinstein defends Janet Napolitano, Berkeley during Senate hearing on campus free speech

This gets into
Accounting and Conflicts, and multiple failed decades long attempts to enforce existing rule on the UC Regents appointment process, see:

How to Improve Board of Regents Selection? Use the Existing Process

" Request that the Senate insist that the California Constitution be followed when nominating Regents to the University of California

Dear Pro Tem de León,

On June 10, 2017, the San Francisco Chronicle published a front page story, “Are governors ignoring law when appointing UC regents?”[1] reporting that Governor Jerry Brown recently nominated four people to the Board of Regents of the University of California without following the process specified by Article 9 Sections 9d and 9e, which requires consultation with a broad-based committee whose purpose is to ensure that the Regents are “broadly reflective of the economic, cultural, and social diversity of the State.” As the San Francisco Chronicle stated in its June 12 editorial “Follow the law, Gov. Brown,”[2] “California’s Constitution is not a list of suggestions for our elected leaders. In a society subject to the rule of law, its provisions must be followed.”

With the ongoing controversies about the Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President that the Regents oversee, having an effective Board of Regents committed to high quality, accessible, and affordable higher education in California is more important than ever.

We are particularly concerned that the majority of the Regents and of Governor Brown’s latest nominees continue to be dominated by an economic, cultural, and social elite that is not broadly representative of the diversity of the State. In addition, some Regents, including some now nominated, have been invested in privatized higher education and so could benefit financially by the failure of UC in particular and public higher education in general.

If the University of California, as a public institution, administered by the Regents as a public trust, is to further the aspirations of outstanding students from all populations in our state, then the Regents need to be more representative than they currently are of all Californians and the interests of the public.

A more representative Board of Regents would have likely done a better job of assuring accountability of the UC Office of the President and given a higher priority to vigorous efforts to restore high quality, accessible, and tuition-free higher education to the people of California as envisioned in the California Master Plan for Higher Education. A recent report that we and other organizations released through the Reclaim coalition, The $48 Fix,[3] shows that this goal is achievable in California yet there has been no discussion of restoring the Master Plan by the current Board of Regents. The fact that it is dominated by wealthy interests for whom the steadily increasing costs would not be a practical problem may help explain the lack of urgency in building the confidence of the public and policymakers needed to restore tuition-free education at UC.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Rules Committee enforce the California Constitution by immediately rejecting (without prejudice) the Governor’s nominees.[4] Regent terms begin as soon as the Governor nominates them, so these improperly nominated Regents can vote on issues at the upcoming Regent’s meeting unless the Senate Rules Committee acts quickly to reject them.

We also request that the Constitutionally-required advisory committee be more than a pro forma process and that the Senate state that it will only consider Regent nominees that have been vetted through an open public process. Meetings should be conducted in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Act, including proper public notices of meetings with opportunities for public comment. The rejection of the current slate should not preclude these candidates from being considered in the future via the proper advisory committee process.

Geographical diversity is important. On June 13, the Modesto Bee expressed concerns about the uneven geographic distribution of the current Regents, and that the current slate of nominees does not remedy this problem.[5] For this reason we urge the Senate to require that the advisory committee not simply meet in Sacramento, but hold meetings around the state to collect input and suggestions.

Such a discussion would also provide an opportunity to hear from California students, their families, and other interested parties on the future of UC and what needs to be done to reclaim the California Master Plan for Higher Education.

Thank you for your consideration.

Stanton Glantz
On behalf of the Board of the Council of UC Faculty Associations
And this reminder of UC Regents meetings taking place tomorrow:

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Deal on Middle Class Scholarship Program and assessments for UC PATH, more

New state budget deal punishes UC president’s office

"A rejection of Brown’s plan to phase out the Middle Class Scholarship program at the University of California and California State University. Instead, the scholarship program would be kept and Cal Grants would increase to cover rising fees at campuses.


"We have talked repeatedly about the need for oversight,” Rendon said. “We take our accountability role seriously.”
The main budget bill, AB97, sends $296.4 million for Napolitano’s office in the upcoming fiscal year that begins July 1 and another $52.4 million for UC Path, the university’s payroll and human resources system.
In the past, the state gave that money to campuses, which were then charged campus assessment fees by Napolitano’s office. That indirect state funding gave the president’s office exclusive control over how to spend that money. Under the deal, the state would instead directly send money to Napolitano’s office and require UC to eliminate the campus fees, so that lawmakers could oversee and control how that money is spent. UC opposed the change, which would be for one year. Lawmakers could decide during budget negotiations next year whether to continue the oversight of Napolitano’s budget.
Lawmakers moved to wrest control of spending by Napolitano’s office after a state audit found a litany of problems there, including hidden funds and misleading accounting practices. The budget bill also includes other strings on the president’s office, such as barring it from providing supplemental retirement payments for new senior administrators.
The state would withhold $50 million in funding if UC doesn’t fix financial problems the state auditor identified in the review.
“After the findings of the auditor, we decided to take action,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco. “We will be providing greater oversight.”"

"Now it turns out that even the process by which the regents themselves are chosen has a tremendous transparency problem."

SF Chronicle:"Follow the law, Gov. Brown"

"But it seems the governor isn’t following this provision of the state Constitution.

Six advisory committee members whom The Chronicle were able to reach said they haven’t been consulted in the selection of any of the governor’s regents.

Instead, they were told who the new regents would be shortly before the governor’s public announcement.

The governor’s office said he “welcomes input” from the committee before issuing the public announcements.

Brown may not be alone in ignoring this state constitutional provision.

According to our interviews with previous advisory committee members, previous governors also failed to consult with them on regent selections. Some previous members said the committee had failed to meet during their tenures and questioned whether it had ever met at all.

This oversight failure has had a negative outcome on the regents board. The 18 appointed regents fit a specific profile: wealthy executives, financiers or attorneys.

Considering this narrow milieu, some of their recent tone-deaf decisions, like charging the university thousands of dollars for pricey parties and dinners, make more sense. But it’s inappropriate behavior in a state with high poverty rates and a struggling middle class. These are precisely the kinds of reasons why voters want more public accountability — as they decided in 1974.

Most importantly, California’s Constitution is not a list of suggestions for our elected leaders.

In a society subject to the rule of law, its provisions must be followed. The state’s courts may have to correct this, and we urge them to look into it."


Monday, June 12, 2017

UC Regents Committees Meet June 21

June 21 - Finance and Capital Strategies Committee
Agenda – Open Session
F1 Discussion Review of Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget for Office of the President

June 21 - Health Services Committee
Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2 (20 minutes)
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of April 13, 2017
H1 Discussion Remarks of the Executive Vice President – UC Health
H2 Discussion UCSF Health Budget Overview, San Francisco Campus
H3 Discussion Student Health and Counseling Update


Will those four appointed but unconfirmed regents begin sitting in on and participating in UC Regents Committees meetings , or at the July full board meeting ? Those appointed UC Regents are allowed to participate in UC Regents meetings even before/until/or even if they are not confirmed by the CA Senate rules committee for a full year, so...

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

"unvarnished opinions of campus leaders"??

"Consensus is near on the University of California, but a clash over middle-class scholarships looms

The most volatile item to watch in higher education funding is just how much budget impact there will be from an April state audit of UC President Janet Napolitano’s spending — including charges of hidden surplus cash in her office’s budget and an effort to keep the unvarnished opinions of campus leaders out of the hands of state audit investigators.

Brown proposed in his May revised budget that $50 million in UC funds be tied to a series of reforms. Legislators want to go further, with the Senate demanding new transparency in Napolitano’s office funds and the Assembly proposing to divvy up some of the UC president’s extra cash.

Less talked about, but just as politically contentious, may be the governor’s effort to phase out the program offering UC and Cal State University scholarships to students from families with incomes and assets of up to $156,000. The program is expected to cost $53 million in the coming fiscal year. The Assembly rejected Brown’s plan last month."

Owning the Transition

Seems like Cal grudgingly is now putting out joint statement on the latest filling of positions - that maybe everyone has caught on to 'the prior admin appointed, so' excuses etc
Some coverage treated it as solely Dirks appointments in his last weeks as Chancellor..
See latest Dirks and C.Christ joint statements-they both start off with "UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks and Carol Christ, interim executive vice chancellor and provost and chancellor-designate, have made this announcement:"

"Eight UC audits in four years"- is that inaccurate?

LA Times
"All of this stems from a state audit — the eighth related to UC in four years "

And then repeated: like this...

Based, it would seem, on this:
"Eight audits in four years? UC is getting strong-armed - Sacramento Bee"

BUT take a look at UC Regents May Meeting roughly two minutes of comment from the CSA refuting that claim, includes quotes from CSA Howle to question from Regent Makarechian about that 'eight audits in four years' assertion:

'You talk about eight audits of the UC when we saw that we went back to the newspaper. We have not done eight audits of the UC in the last four or even five years. We have done
1- this audit
2- a year ago we did the audit on non resident enrollment etc
3- we, every three years do an audit of the Clery...
Because we are responsible for reporting on 6 campuses every three years
We also did the Title IX audit the Title IX audit was not exclusive of UC -it was UC and CSU, where we were asked to look at how well the campuses were doing on and .. is IX being implemented to protect students...
I would dispute the eight audits and we certainly can provide evidence we did not conduct 8 audits over the last four years. and I most certainly did not do 8 audits exclusively of the UC system.'

See the exchange here 1:19:43 - 1:21:00 time mark:

-Even if you include the one additional audit on 'UC PATH -UC contracting' to be released by CSA in August, you still don't get to eight...

Op Ed should include a list of the 8 audits and the corresponding year -or folks are left to wonder what is true...
They said they 'went back to the newspaper'- but were there follow up clarifications/correct /updates on the 'eight audits in four years' claim?

Monday, June 5, 2017

University of California Board of Regents Chair Monica Lozano today (June 5) issued the following statement pertaining to an independent review of the state auditor’s allegation that the UC Office of the President interfered with campus surveys connected to the recent state audit.


UC Regents Hire Law Firm to Investigate it central office handling of state audit:

Regents retain consultants to investigate alleged UCOP survey interference

Statement from University of California Board of Regents Chair Monica Lozano

University of California Board of Regents Chair Monica Lozano today (June 5) issued the following statement pertaining to an independent review of the state auditor’s allegation that the UC Office of the President interfered with campus surveys connected to the recent state audit.

The University of California Board of Regents has retained former California Supreme Court Justice Carlos R. Moreno and the law firm of Hueston Hennigan LLP, to conduct a fact-finding review of actions undertaken by the Office of the President with respect to surveys the California state auditor sent to UC campuses as part of the recent audit of the Office of the President.

Justice Moreno will provide expertise in the areas of fact-finding and neutral evaluation, while Brian Hennigan will be the firm’s partner in charge of providing legal services.

On May 11, 2017, the Board of Regents authorized the chair of the board, in consultation with a regents’ working group, to retain an independent external law firm or other consultant to assist the regents in reviewing these alleged actions. The members of the working group are Regents George Kieffer, Bonnie Reiss, John Pérez, Charlene Zettel and Lozano, who also serves as chair.

The fact-finding review is expected to conclude in a timely manner and the results will be presented to the Board of Regents as soon as they are available.

What's it all about, 403B?

"possible significant losses resulting from the offering of high-cost retail funds as investment options to employees and retirees, in violation of state fiduciary duty laws. We are currently investigating the following plans:

University of California’s Defined Contribution Plan, Tax-Deferred 403(b) Plan, and 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan
California State’s Tax Sheltered Annuity 403(b) Program"

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Four UC Regent Appointments-Some cynical UC Regents appointments?

Updates below: this reaction: " UC Faculty Assoc. @uc_faculty"
"Governor Brown just named more political and financial elites to be UC Regents, contrary to article 9 section 9d"


"SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced the following appointments:

Maria Anguiano, 38, of Riverside, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents. Anguiano has been chief financial officer at Minerva Project Inc. since 2017. She served as a vice chancellor of planning and budget for the University of California, Riverside from 2014 to 2017 and as chief of staff and director of strategic initiatives at the University of California, Office of the President from 2009 to 2014. Anguiano was an assistant vice president at Barclays Capital from 2006 to 2009 and a senior accountant at Deloitte from 2001 to 2004. Anguiano is treasurer of the Impact Fund Board of Directors and a member of the James Irvine Foundation Board of Directors. She earned a Master of Business Administration degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Anguiano is a Democrat.

Howard “Peter” Guber, 75, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents. Guber has been chairman and chief executive officer at Mandalay Entertainment Group since 1995. He was chairman and chief executive officer at Sony Pictures Entertainment from 1989 to 1995, co-owner at Guber Peters Entertainment Company Incorporated from 1979 to 1983 and co-founder at Casablanca Records and Filmworks from 1975 to 1979. Guber was studio chief at Columbia Pictures from 1968 to 1975. He is a member of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Guber earned Master of Laws and Juris Doctor degrees from the New York University School of Law. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Guber is registered without party preference.

Lark Park, 47, of Sacramento, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents. Park has been senior advisor to the Governor for policy in the Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. since 2015, where she served as a deputy legislative affairs secretary from 2011 to 2015. She was a consultant to the California State Senate’s Committee on Human Services from 2009 to 2011 and to the Committee on Health from 2005 to 2009. Park served as a legislative aide and consultant to State Senator Gloria Romero in 2005 and as legislative aide and press secretary to State Assemblymember Joe Simitian from 2002 to 2005. She was a staff writer at the Industry Standard from 2000 to 2001, editor of equity research at W.R. Hambrecht and Co. in 2000 and a staff reporter at Technologic Partners from 1998 to 2000. Park was a consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton from 1995 to 1997 and served as a writer at the White House from 1994 to 1995. She earned a Master of Arts degree in English and American literature from Georgetown University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Park is a Democrat.

Ellen Tauscher, 65, of San Francisco, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents. Tauscher has been a strategic advisor at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell and Berkowitz, PC since 2012. She served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 2009 to 2012 and as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1997 to 2009. She is chair of the Governor's Military Council and the eHealth, Inc. Board of Directors. She is also a member of the Edison International Board of Directors and SeaWorld Board of Directors. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Tauscher is a Democrat.


Then see coverage: Jerry Brown appoints 4 new members to UC Board of Regents

Ties to Minerva project, --not a UC model?

The fin and consulting firms that pop up in existing UCOP senior management bios pop up once again
...And it has to be noted that some of those folks in recent years left in the middle of state audit (when it was their role to get UC through such audit processes) or in the middle of hundreds million or multi million projects that were coming in over budget and behind schedule... So that is something to remember of those folks, as we consider background, --Is being an undergrad Bear or Bruin now alum enough to brush away concerns?

Keep in mind the 'if we think we know what we are doing we're kidding ourselves' message from Blum on UC Regents recently too, so...

Anyway, back to this appointment, From archive

"Anguiano is currently Interim Deputy Chief of Staff – Strategic Planning and Analysis at the University of California Office of the President. Prior to that, she served for four years as Chief of Staff and Director of Strategic Initiatives in the office of UC’s Chief Financial Officer, Peter Taylor. "-- the same section of UCOP initiatives that gave UC campuses rollout of projects like UC PATH and other project launch origins...

From a bio blurb for another appointment to a position in 2015
Lark Park, 45, of Sacramento, has been appointed Senior Advisor for Policy in the Office of the Governor, where she has served as deputy legislative affairs secretary since 2011. Park was a consultant to the California State Senate Committee on Human Services from 2009 to 2011 and to the Committee on Health from 2005 to 2009. She served as a legislative aide and consultant to State Senator Gloria Romero in 2005 and as legislative aide and press secretary to State Assemblymember Joe Simitian from 2002 to 2005. Park was a staff writer at the Industry Standard from 2000 to 2001, editor of equity research at W.R. Hambrecht and Co. in 2000 and a staff reporter at Technologic Partners from 1998 to 2000. She was a consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton from 1995 to 1997 and served as a writer at the White House from 1994 to 1995. Park earned a Master of Arts degree in English and American literature from Georgetown University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley. ... Park is a Democrat.


Is that a full professor being appointed UC Regent?: "He is a professor at the UCLA School of Theater Film and Television and the UCLA Anderson School of Management and an Entertainment and Media Analyst for Fox Business News."

-Apparently not a prof:

And on the fourth of the four,
Some might see it as a familiar face, typical appointment
Others may view it through the lens of
A pol that revolves to k st. Lobby? Then a regent?

-- Are these inspired picks? Could it've been , say, Oprah and Steyer, or others ? Or, all just power grabs from the usual UC segments?

Should the rules committee delay on confirming? Or is this the best that can be done under circumstances? Remember we are being told by UC Regents not many folks even wannabe or can be UC pres..
- but they don't tell us the real number on qualified applicants in the applicant pool when recruiting for those positions...

Then"University of California Board of Regents Chair Monica Lozano and UC President Janet Napolitano today (June 2) welcomed Gov. Brown's four .. ."

And, pivot to/still a 'beyond CA' profile fixation attached to the important cause:

Napolitano: UC won’t back off on climate change efforts

Another version of Cal Title IX problems...

Comes up in:4 lawsuits, including 2 Title IX investigation petitions, filed against regents

Also see, a Dirk's appointment- should it be a Christ appointment?:

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

"UC Berkeley would not comment because the investigation was done by the Office of the President, not Cal. So they referred all of our questions to the Office of the President."

That and more in UC 'covfefe':

Outsourced UCSF Workers Sue UC Regents


University of California's Board of Regents Partied Hard, Billed the State, Then Raised Tuition
Daily Beast

"And even though the costs were negligible compared to the university’s operating costs, Sartee disagreed with Blum’s description of the controversy over a $257 dinner as “kind of silly.”
“I’d say that’s completely ridiculous,” Sartee told The Daily Beast in response to Blum’s remarks. “I really don’t think that just because the UC has a large budget, that it gives the Regents permission to live this aristocratic kind of lifestyle.”
Recent UC tuition hikes make the pricey dinners even less palatable.
“UC has gone from being more affordable compared to other public research universities, to being similar to or slightly higher than other public research universities when it comes to tuition,” Hans Johnson, director of the Public Policy Institute of California’s Higher Education Center, told The Daily Beast. “What happened during the recession was that other areas of government are more protected than higher education, so higher education bore the brunt of the cuts in state spending. UC responded to those cuts with increases in tuition to help make up for the loss in state funding.”

Maternity leave disability-Partially Cut at UC? See:


Pricey Investigation Finds Former UC Berkeley Chancellor Misused Funds
CBS San Francisco Bay Area
"We reached out to the UC Office of the President via email and telephone requesting an interview Tuesday morning, but never got a response.

UC Berkeley would not comment because the investigation was done by the Office of the President, not Cal. So they referred all of our questions to the Office of the President."


Outsourced UCSF Workers Sue UC Regents

This on :
" “In turn, the work, which will adhere to the highest standards, will carry the imprimatur of the university, helping to ensure the public of its reliability.”"

Monday, May 29, 2017

UC Reverses A Policy on their lavish dinners with UCOP senior staff...

They are willing to address the part about how their Palace dinners are paid for, apparently Blum is willing to pick up the tab to avoid 'aggravation' on the media fixation on the 'salacious'- or something like that, see:

"UC reverses policy, won’t pick up tab for regents’ parties"

"After reading the Chronicle story Sunday, Blum said he called Napolitano and suggested the policy change.
“I said, ‘Janet, it’s not worth the aggravation. Let’s have the regents pay for their own dinners,’” Blum told The Chronicle. “I just called Janet and said, ‘Look, for the amount of what it costs to have a dinner, let's have everyone pay for their own dinner. And if they can’t pay, I’m happy to pick it up.’”
The change in policy came hours after The Chronicle reported that the UC governing board billed the university for nearly a quarter of a million dollars since 2012 for dinners every two to three months.
Some of the banquets were poorly timed: the $270-a-head Jan. 25 banquet was held the night before the regents voted to raise student tuition. And the similarly priced May 17 party happened a few hours after student protesters shut down the regents meeting, objecting to both the tuition hike and a $175 million secret fund uncovered by a state audit earlier this year.
The dinners were thrown at luxury destinations, such as San Francisco’s InterContinental Hotel and Palace Hotel. Attendees included the regents, their spouses, UC executives and campus chancellors.
“Up to now, board dinners have been paid for with monies from the Searles Fund, a private endowment that the donor designated for university business costs not covered by state or tuition funds,” read the statement from Lozano and Napolitano. “However, to avoid any question over use of university or university-associated funds, regents will absorb their costs for board dinners from this point forward.”
Revelations of the extravagant dinners came as the UC weathered blowback from the scathing audit — including calls by legislators to strip the university system of its independence from state government and Gov. Jerry Brown’s threat to withhold $50 million in funding if the university system didn’t fix financial problems identified by the review.
Considering that the UC — with its 10 campuses, five hospitals and three national laboratories — has a budget around $30 billion, “it’s kind of silly” to be concerned with the price of dinners, Blum said. “But having said that, there’s the perception problem.”
Blum said he wasn’t sure whether the new plan would include the Wednesday night dinners the regents have when they gather every other month for the Board of Regents meetings, or whether it would only cover their celebratory dinners.
A university spokeswoman did not return requests for comment Monday.
Those who criticized the spending said they were pleased with the new policy, but questioned why it took a newspaper report to make the change.
“It’s appropriate, if for no other reason than the symbolism,” said Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a regent who did not attend the two most recent parties. “Spending tens of thousands of dollars on dinners is absurd. It rubs people, understandably, the wrong way.”
Some observers, including Jamie Court, president of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, and Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, said the regents should reimburse the UC for their past expenditures.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor and government ethics expert at Loyola Law School, said invoicing the dinners to the UC was “distasteful” and “tone deaf,” but at least university officials were swiftly responsive to public pressure.
“We’re talking about money that could be used to educate kids,” Levinson said. “If they wanted to have reasonable business dinners, maybe that’s a different story, but that doesn’t appear to be what happened.”

- read the statement from Lozano and Napolitano, somewhere...
Do they address the issue of UCOP executives socializing with UC Regents and potential conflicts at such events?

... “that the university did not know what was going on with the strawberry breeding program … and did not communicate well with the professors or with the Department at UC Davis about its intentions.”
"The University of California wins a jury verdict in strawberry case, then gets blasted '...
"It’s obvious from the evidence,” he said, “that the university did not know what was going on with the strawberry breeding program … and did not communicate well with the professors or with the Department at UC Davis about its intentions.”

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Lavish Partying of UC Regents,

And such Partying as a means for UCOP staff to curry favor, network with, and develop personal ties with indivividual UC Regents
-at UC Students Expense ultimately

Detailed here:
Regents throw parties at UC’s expense

And CBS and AP local and Natl coverage:

reen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen src="

Friday, May 26, 2017

Why not centralize it like UC PATH?

How much $?:

"University of California, San Diego (UCSD) has partnered with Interfolio, provider of faculty-first higher education technology, to establish a digital solution for faculty review, tenure, promotion, and activity reporting.

UCSD, a leading public research institution in the University of California system, chose Interfolio as a solution to its challenges around transparency and equity in shared governance processes for faculty review. Stakeholders involved in the decision found Interfolio’s focus on the faculty-user in processes like review, promotion, and tenure aligned with UCSD’s vision for how faculty should engage with and benefit from campus technology.

“Interfolio’s Promotion & Tenure and FACULTY180 modules provide a robust faculty-focused platform that will ease the academic personnel process with its forward-looking technology for university settings. This system will increase transparency, provide our academics with invaluable tools for activity sharing and analytics, and overall, it will ease the burden for faculty being reviewed, for reviewers making these important decisions, and for staff preparing academic review materials,” said Cindy Palmer, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Personnel. “We are excited to embark on this partnership with a company that actively collaborates and gathers feedback with its partner institutions and faculty user groups to tackle the highly complex issues in higher education.”

A second consideration when partnering with Interfolio was the flexibility available in its workflow technology; homegrown and competitor systems did not accommodate the varied, nuanced, and complex processes around appointment, review, and tenure across departments and colleges at the university.

“UCSD is a model for forward-thinking, agile technology adoption,” said Andrew Rosen, CEO, Interfolio. “From our perspective, the opportunity to partner with an institution so rich in complexity, focused on effectiveness, and oriented to faculty value is exceptional.”

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Games UC Play

Right, wrong they just can't stop it:

Recall from May 2016 UC regents compliance and audit committee:
"Advising on Significant Transactions
■ We will provide input to management on the potential accounting impact and reporting
treatment for significant transactions such as ... UCLA’s sale of its royalty
interest connected with a leading prostate cancer medication, Xtandi to Royalty Pharma.
This will help management make informed decisions and eliminate surprises."

And, a headline "UCLA will get hundreds of millions for rights to prostate cancer drug - LA Times "

And, UC Regents Win Prostate Cancer Drug Rulings - Inside Higher Ed


"Battle over a pricey drug now engulfs the University of California - STAT News

Has this abstract:

"Dozens of advocacy groups are urging one of the largest American universities not to pursue a patent for a pricey cancer drug in India, opening another front in an ongoing battle over access to the medicine.

At issue is the Xtandi prostate cancer treatment, which was originally invented at the University of California, Los Angeles, and has become a flashpoint in a wider debate in the United States over the extent to which Americans should pay high prices for medicines that were developed, at least in part, with taxpayer dollars."
the full article requires subscription

Btw, UCOP and UC transparency in question, so
Cue a Leonhard article in NYT with the usual quotes from in house pro UC at UC Berkeley higher education researcher
...Sunday Review: The Assault on Colleges -- and the American Dream

-Then have UC staff promote said article,, rinse, repeat...
It is funny the UC Regents home page has this displayed:

California State Auditor's report
In late April, the California State Auditor's Office released its report entitled "University of California Office of the President - Administrative Expenditures

But that was not the title of the report.

The title of the report is:State Audit Report on UCOP: "The University of California Office of the President: Report 2016-130—It Failed to Disclose Tens of Millions in Surplus Funds, and Its Budget Practices Are Misleading"


"Never mind that feeding students with one hand and then slapping them with a fee increase with the other is "...

"Too many UC administrators make more than the governor"

..."Over the past five years, the number of UC administrators earning salaries in excess of $174,000 a year has nearly doubled — from 5,931 employees to 9,640. Today, there are 712 UC administrators, excluding faculty and physicians, who earn more than $190,103 — the salary we pay the governor.

This salary ballooning is even happening in the middle ranks, where a “director” of one department is suddenly named “executive director.” The inflated title comes with a substantial pay raise and the help of an “assistant director” making his or her own inflated salary.

During the great recession, after tuition was raised by 32 percent, low-wage workers were furloughed or fired and student admissions cut. But UC officials quietly handed out $100,000 pay raises to select administrators.

Unfortunately, UC is at it again, this time with a fall tuition increase that will raise another $143 million from students.

It seems UC President Janet Napolitano has forgotten her own words. In one of her first speeches as president, she told the Commonwealth Club of California in 2013 that she would “stay constantly on the prowl” for savings.

Now we learn from a state audit that the UC Office of the President has managed to secretly squirrel away $175 million in funds, much of it collected from fees assessed each of the 10 campuses. Only when pressed by The Chronicle did the office inform the public that the money is divided into separate pots — even one for food pantries to feed hungry students.

Never mind that feeding students with one hand and then slapping them with a fee increase with the other is "...
"To rein in the excessive spending and administrative inflation, I am authoring State Constitutional Amendment 13, a bill that will amend the state Constitution and force a recalcitrant UC to stick to a new budgetary constraint: No tuition increases can be implemented if the number of administrators making a salary above that paid to the governor exceeds 600. Right now, UC has 112 well-paid administrators beyond that ceiling."


The lack of serious questions from UC Regents to UCOP in open session on the 'whys,and how ' (like why did UCoP only offer that list of UC initiatives at the Sacramento hearing in April 2017 when the audit was approved last Spring 2016 and UCOP had from March- correction actual approval occurred in August 2016 to September 2016 before the launch of audit started to put it together, and UCOP had even all thru the active audit period to offer it, and UCOP also had even after the audit when response period from UC to CSA could have occurred prior to the audit being made public???) Why is the list only offered in a rush in Sacramento in late April 2017?! And why were the regents and UCOP self congratulating over their having spent from March5-15, 2017 finally working on those numbers?! why was that?)

seem to be exacting a toll of as yet unknown proportion:

An Editorial Board writes:
"Subpoena needed on UC financial deception"


Also see this new report out:

Full report:

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Fraises 'n Fresas UCD style...

See on the $2Bil strawberries/Aggies:
"In strawberry lawsuit, jury sides with UC Davis over former professor"

And Sac Bee

AP coverage:

Years later, and still incomplete


UC Berkeley Professor Fired After Sexual Harassment Investigation
"In May of 2016, a third complain was filed by a former undergraduate student who charged that Wentworth “immediately began using his position to pursue a personal relationship with her” after becoming her thesis adviser in October 2014.

Details of the fourth student harassment case involving Wentworth were not available."


Former campus professor dismissed after violating sexual harassment policy


UC Berkeley fires South Asian studies professor...



UC Berkeley professor fired nearly two years after sexual harassment claims substantiated
The Guardian

Latest on UC Middle Class Scholarship, more

See IHE on :

"In California, for instance, Governor Jerry Brown has proposed phasing out the state’s relatively new Middle Class Scholarship program, which is based on students’ family income levels.
That program, which first went into effect for the 2014-15 academic year, goes to students at the University of California and California State University systems. It was intended for students whose families make too much for them to qualify for other need-based financial aid programs but do not make enough to allow them to easily pay for college in a state with many regions where the cost of living is high.
The program was to be phased in over time, offering various amounts to students based in large part on their family income. Award amounts also varied based on the number of students eligible and amount of funding set aside in the state budget, but the awards could cover up to 40 percent of a student’s tuition and fees after being combined with other publicly funded financial aid awards. Currently, California students from families with annual income of up to $156,000 are eligible. An asset cap has also been added, preventing those with household assets of more than $156,000, not including primary homes and retirement accounts, to be eligible.
Brown, a Democrat, continued to call for phasing out the Middle Class Scholarship when he released a revised budget proposal this month. Doing so would save an estimated $115 million once the phaseout is complete. Some have objected, however. State Senator Janet Nguyen, who authored a bill to preserve the scholarship, issued a statement arguing that the Middle Class Scholarship program is a “financial lifeline” that is often the only state financial assistance available to students.
The program has provided aid to an average of 50,000 students annually over the last three years. Maximum award amounts have been climbing as the program was scaled up. In theory, the maximum possible award for a Cal State student this year was $1,644, and the maximum award for a UC student was $3,690. Average award amounts have been much lower in practice, however. Cal State students averaged an $800 award this year versus $1,107 for UC students, according to data posted in February.
More than 80 percent of the program’s 46,306 recipients go to the lower-cost Cal State institutions, which also tend to attract students from lower-income backgrounds than do UC institutions. In total, the program paid about $31.2 million to Cal State students and $8 million to UC students.
That’s a relatively small amount in comparison to the total financial aid Cal State students receive, said Dean Kulju, director of student financial aid services and programs at the system.
“Those numbers sound big taken for themselves, but keep in mind that overall total financial assistance from all sources for us is $4.1 billion -- with a ‘b,’” he said.
The number of Cal State students receiving money through the Middle Class Scholarship program is also dwarfed by the number receiving money from the state’s Cal Grant program, which covers students from lower-income families. The Cal Grant income limit for a family of four was $90,500 in the most recent year -- which may seem like a solidly middle-class income if not for the fact that it can be extremely expensive to house a family in California. About 121,000 Cal State students received Cal Grants last year.
Kulju hopes to see the Middle Class Scholarship continued, but with some changes. Right now, students are not told until the summer if they are receiving an award. But students make enrollment deposits months before that. If they learned about their awards earlier, students would be able to factor them into their college choices, he said.
Still, it is too soon to judge the program’s overall effectiveness, Kulju said.
“So far, there’s not enough of a track record to see if it’s truly impactful and the most effective way to go about this for families,” Kulju said. “The budget hawks would argue that it’s still a however-many-hundred-million-dollar drain on the state general funds. Those funds could be used elsewhere.”
Recipients of the Middle Class Scholarship have tended to skew toward its upper income limits. The program makes a small amount of awards to low-income families -- 13 percent of its recipients came from families with household incomes of $50,000 or less. But the bulk of its recipients are from families earning more than six figures. Slightly more than half, 51 percent, fell into the household income brackets between $100,000 and $156,000 this year. Only 36 percent earned between $50,000 and $100,000.
Many would rather see the state use the money dedicated to the Middle Class Scholarship to shore up California’s other student aid programs. The Middle Class Scholarship was not designed to benefit the students who need the most help, said Debbie Cochrane, vice president of the Institute for College Access and Success, a nonprofit that wants to make higher education available for students from more backgrounds.
When Brown proposed eliminating the Middle Class Scholarship, the idea was that doing so would protect the Cal Grant program, Cochrane said.
“If you’re going to choose between those two things, that’s the right priority,” Cochrane said of choosing the Cal Grant program.
Brown is also proposing to stop a scheduled reduction in Cal Grant money going to private colleges. But it’s too early to tell whether that is a net positive for students, Cochrane said.
Preparing for the Next Downturn
The discussions in California fit into a national landscape"

See the article here
Difficult to forget that 'U C hypocrites, I See hypocrites' chant, yelled, on signs etc all around the UC Regents meeting this month, with that in mind, consider the UCOP pivot away from the discussion of UCOP itself-as you read here:

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

UC Regents' Responsibility For the Results, updated

See new coverage with more detail etc:

California lawmakers move to take control of UC president’s budget
"a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would, if passed by the Legislature, ask voters whether Napolitano’s office should keep its full budget autonomy."
..."The Assembly, meanwhile, is pushing a budget measure that adopts Howle’s oversight recommendation — by requiring the Legislature to directly fund the UC president’s office. The funding would give lawmakers oversight and control over how the UC president’s office spends those funds. The office would no longer collect campus fees, which give it exclusive control over how to spend that money.
Specifically, the Assembly budget proposal would set aside $296.4 million in the state budget for Napolitano’s office in the upcoming fiscal year that begins July 1 and another $52.4 million for UC Path, the university’s over-budget and behind-schedule payroll and human resources system. In addition, lawmakers want to examine existing programs in Napolitano’s office to identify $59 million that could instead be used to increase enrollment by 5,000 California undergraduates and 900 graduate students between 2018 and 2020.
The Assembly’s budget proposal unanimously passed its first committee Tuesday. It’s expected to be taken up Thursday by the Assembly’s full Budget Committee"...


How Gov. Jerry Brown can force change fastest at UC
The San Diego Union-Tribune


See the full piece:

"Instead of simply trying to get to the truth of the way UCOP has been acting, most of the regents spent a great deal of time praising President Napolitano and each other. What they failed to examine was why and how UCOP interfered with the audit, and if UCOP was hiding money and actions from the regents themselves. Moreover, no one asked why the campuses changed their reviews of UCOP: were the campus leaders afraid or were they coerced? We still do not know the direct role of Napolitano in any of this, and it is likely that the state will continue to investigate the situation, and the truth will eventually emerge.

As I have been arguing for years, the main problem with the leaders of the university system is that they are not focused on the central mission of discovering and communicating truth through modern methods of education and science. Their main concern is to keep the system running and to maintain its reputational excellence. Instead of trying to discover the truth of its own operations, the regents and UCOP decided to blame the media for focusing on salacious details of the auditor’s report. Some regents also tried attacking the state auditor and the legislature, and this strategy should remind us of another president – the one who is currently running the country."...

And this expert opinion:
UC regents must take responsibility for independent audits of UC
"The regents, through their Audit and Compliance Committee chaired by Regent Charlene Zettel, must ensure that the audit staff they appoint is focused on auditing UC management. As a public institution, the university should require GAO’s Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards — standards followed by the state auditor and by city auditors in San Jose, Palo Alto, Berkeley, Sacramento, Oakland, Long Beach and San Francisco. This would ensure the credibility of the audits and the independence of the auditors. It would also reduce “non-audit services” performed by auditors following standards from the Institute of Internal Auditors, the current practice."

State senator to introduce a constitutional amendment to limit UC's 138-year-old autonomy

"To broaden representation on the UC Board of Regents, the bill would expand membership and voting rights to the California Community Colleges chancellor, three more students, two faculty members and a staff member. Regents’ terms would be reduced from 12 years to four — although reappointment to as many as three terms would be possible. The UC president would lose voting rights and become a non-voting regent."

And see this archive, 'the $59 billion budget is more than twice as large as the university's':

But where were the UC Regents to make sure that acumen was used to resolve the problems at UCOP that were clearly detailed out for them over a decade ago? Or??

Monday, May 22, 2017

Brown Supports Schwarzenegger Dominant Imprint on the UC Regents?

Those closely following UC Regents ask this all the time...(and in the context of Arnold relationship with USC)

Why does Brown leave multiple UC Regents vacancies open for years while Arnold appointees take leadership positions (chair control of the most powerful finance, compliance, governance, committees on the future of UC type committees etc) on the UC Regents year after year?- in this July a Schwarzenegger appointee will chair the UC Regents, keep that in mind as you read:
Gov "Brown could overhaul the UC Regents"
But unanswered in that article:
How does the Gov feel about his UC Regents reappointmens,ya know- the ones who served as chair of the UC Regents after those painful Dynes years when UCOP promised reforms and U C Regents said they would do things differently but now we find the ops situation at UCOP in the present day virtually the same bad state-- Napolitano briefly referenced 2007 events in her opening remarks to the board last Wednesday... Is that a sign she now is willing to look at that history and look at operations through that lens and why didn't she do so from the beginning? The previous UC Regents chairs apparently were not willing to tackle it, or didn't know how...

Also to consider gubernatorially: Will he/can he make himself a 12 year UC Regent on his way out of his last term? He enjoys his alumni status to Yale, Does he still want a connection to UC (other than that seemingly fraught alum relationship with UC Berkeley) to continue on- or is Yale his arnoldversion of USC?

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Roil 'n Rollback

The political fallout will likely play out well into the next academic year and 2018..
because the UC PATH and UC practices on contracted employees audit results will be made public in August,

UC PATH being a main driver of increases of the campuses 'assessment' they have to pay UCOP,
-along with how the audit process with UCOP went in this other instance
-just as students return to campuses...

So see :

"The Latest on a UC Regents meeting to cap nonresident enrollment and discuss critical audit (all times local):

2:30 p.m.

A top California legislator is disappointed the UC Board of Regents did not talk of repealing a planned tuition increase in the wake of a critical state audit of UC President Janet Napolitano's office.

House Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, who sits on the board, has called for the board to reverse a hike approved in January."...

CapRadio picked up on the political (some of it indeed savvy, and some of it many might also call deeply disingenuous) moves of the UC Regents, see:,-state-auditor-thursday-over-controversial-audit/

"Update 3:45 p.m.: Call it a master class in political choreography, orchestrated by the University of California’s embattled president and Board of Regents chairwoman in the wake of last month’s audit that blasted UC’s budgeting practices."

Also see and hear more on the UC Regents meeting:

- but it may be that the "Master Class" on this is ultimately taught by those who deal with Tuition and Fees...


Then see "Tensions high as UC regents meet to discuss audit response"

"But some UC students at the meeting thought the regents were blaming the messenger. “I’d rather they focus on their own accountability,” said Danielle Bermudez, a graduate student at UC Merced, who, along with others, said the regents seemed out of touch with the students they are supposed to serve.

The audit, released in late April, found that the UC Office of the President hid $175 million and suggested alterations to campus survey responses that were intended to be confidential, a move that sparked outrage from lawmakers and the auditor’s office, which threw out the responses as tainted.

The revelation has sparked an outcry among both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento, and Gov. Jerry Brown said he would withhold $50 million from the university until they implemented the auditor’s recommendations as a way to hold their “feet to the fire.” When Napolitano took the job in 2013, she was heralded as someone who could build bridges with lawmakers, but the audit has complicated that task.

“The frustration is with the dismissiveness and the lack of candor, and I think we saw that from the UC Office of the President during the audit and during the hearing and even today,” said Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-Dublin, who has called for more transparency, during a phone interview after the meeting.

Regent Eloy Oakley, who leads California’s community college system, acknowledged that tension during the meeting. “There seems to be a disconnect between the … conversation happening in Sacramento and the response that’s coming out of Oakland,” he said."...

And "Parshan Khosravi, a UCLA graduate student chosen as a student advocate by UC’s student association to attend the meeting, didn’t like all of what he heard. The central office should do more to be accessible to students, he said, and the regents should do more to oversee the system. “I think the regents have to be more involved in that,” he said. “They are often very removed from our campuses.”

“As much as they talk about deep dives, I don’t feel like they’re reflecting on the public’s reaction,” said Bermudez, the UC Merced student. Her classmate, Violet Barton, agreed. She came from Merced with lots of questions about how regents interact with students and choose which initiatives to support. “They’re not satisfactorily answered,” she said."

Regionally some campuses seem to be catching up to the fact that UCSC survey responses were altered, but there appear to be other facts besides the survey responses and that infamous conference call to come out, the CSA alluded to behind the scenes phone calls and SMG preferred responses write up that CSA was made aware of too, so that part will be reported on at the July UC Regents meeting...


And there is this :

"California Assemblywoman Catharine Baker (R-Dublin) is calling for a subpoena of budget documents from the University of California Office of the President, as well as a freeze on tuition hikes and salary increases at the 10 UC campuses. "


And also recall all that transpired at that Sacramento meeting on UC Audit
You have to toggle thru

- it routinely seems Cal Channel doesn't make it user friendly to access, share the content on UC, is that a political posture too?

Friday, May 19, 2017

Oversee and Don't Know...

Some coverage of second day of the 'nothing to see here- move along, dog and pony show koolaid drinkers':
"Kudos on this tremendous improvement,” Regent Bonnie Rees congratulated the staff, then peppered Napolitano’s chief operating officer, Rachel Nava, with questions about the document that revealed just how confusing it was.

Nava promised the budgets would be easier to understand as more changes were made.

But the regents realized that if they approved the president’s new budget, they would be rubber-stamping it in the dark — just as they’d done in the past.

In the end, the regents approved the budget on a contingent basis. They directed the finance committee to study every line of it and said they would take it up again in July.

Regent Dick Blum, a financier, voted against that plan. He said: “We think we know what we’re doing, but we’re simply kidding ourselves.”"

NBC local:



Earlier, this interview with Napolitano:


UCOP seems to have hired all the Cal Berkeley admin failings- and they are paying them $200,000 and $400,000 and up ...
Folks who in the CSA report could not answer basic questions even after being in their jobs for two + years..

Folks who rolled out campus shared services debacle that in large part took down Dirks (whom they glaringly did not give a standing O at his recognition goodbye moment in open session) and the creators of Op Ex and offensive PR moves now at the helm of UCOP budget and largest expenditures...

It would be comical but:

Current UC Chair Lozano in her community message on the UC Audit:
"I and my colleagues on the board oversee all the exemplary work that you do"...

Then also tell us after sitting for fifteen years on the UC Regents board:

"We think we know what we’re doing, but we’re simply kidding ourselves.”"

-Btw, they've elected Kieffer to become UC Regent chair in July...


Also see:

Thursday, May 18, 2017

UC Regents Meet May 18


To view:

Thursday, May 18
8:30 am

Board (closed session) (pdf)
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Board (open session - includes public comment session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium
Times indicated and order of business subject to change

9:00 am - 3:00 pm

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

UCOP's Inflated? Or Increased Budget and Increased Campus 'Assessments'..

See SF Gate:

"Napolitano’s office will also offer its 2017-18 budget to the regents for approval, and one difference from last year’s budget is already obvious.

Last year’s budget was seven pages long. The new one is 30 pages, packed with details about spending and expected fund balances that were previously absent.

Another difference: The new budget, $813.5 million, is 19 percent higher than this year’s $686 million.

The president’s two-part budget document for programs and administration says the budget grew because of the rising cost of the university’s education abroad system, patent management and other programs. In addition, the president’s office has been gradually taking over payroll functions for the university system.

The president’s office raises money in part by charging a fee to campuses. In her audit, Howle criticized the president’s office for repeatedly increasing the fee even as it squirreled away millions of dollars in reserves it didn’t report to the regents. Many of Howle’s recommendations call for the president’s office to consider returning money to campuses.

In her new budget, Napolitano offers for the first time a chart showing details of the campus assessment.

It shows that her office raised the campus fee by 7 percent last year and 3 percent the year before, but that it had reduced it by nearly 1 percent the year before that. In the new budget, the campus fee remains at $312 million from all campuses. That’s an average of $31.2 million for each campus, although the amount varies depending on the number of students, employees and expenditures.

But another campus charge for the payroll service had not been previously included in the budget. The new presentation shows that the fee will rise by 16 percent to $52 million per campus, up from $20 million last year."

- in Sacto there was talk of a deficit in OP's gen counsel section
And of course the driver of UC PATH history and currently in this...

Other coverage:




And LA T had some USC vouching for higher education expenditures:
“I'm troubled that the UC is a punching bag for fiscal extravagance when in the grand scheme of things this is not what the audit found,” said Tierney, co-director of the USC Pullias Center here:

And then some coverage of today's meeting,

but no mention of Regent Perez taking issue with opening comments from Lozano, chalfant, Napolitano as the sole representation of UC Regents position on audit findings- he wanted it clear that there was no uniform UC Regents position other than to adopt the 33 recommendations...


And then check out what's being peddled to the Cal alumni here:

“The legislators who are complaining about this reserve fund are the same ones who have been starving UC, CSU, and the community colleges for a very long time,” he said. “I understand that there’s only a limited amount of money to go around. And maybe K-12 education, Medicaid, and low-income housing are more important than higher education. But our universities have been hurt a great deal over the past few decades by a lack of state appropriations. That’s the real issue.”
"The University of Alabama pays their football coach [more than $11 million a year],” he said. “Is it worth it? Apparently it is to Alabama: they make a lot of money on football, and being number one in college football is important to people in a state with significant poverty and other problems. Alabamans are proud of the University of Alabama. And we’re proud of Berkeley, but for reasons of research and academics. But if we don’t stay competitive, the best and the brightest grad students and undergrads will go to Harvard or Stanford or MIT.”

“The optics are not the greatest here, and the president is now vulnerable.”

Returning to his main thesis, Sugarman noted UCOP ultimately isn’t responsible for ensuring the university is adequately funded: That’s the job of the state legislature. He does believe, however, that Napolitano didn’t handle the survey issue well and that she was not forthcoming in providing information to the state auditor on specific discretionary spending programs. And this legitimate criticism, he said, has hobbled UCOP."

UC Regents Meet May 17


And to view:

Wednesday, May 17

8:30 am

Board (open session - includes public comment session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium

Concurrent Meetings
9:30 am

Academic and Student Affairs Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Fisher Banquet Room

National Laboratories Subcommittee (open session) (pdf) Location: Fisher Banquet Room

9:30 am

Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (closed session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium
Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium

12:30 pm

Concurrent Meetings
1:00 pm Public Engagement & Development Committee (closed session) (pdf) Location: Fisher Banquet Room
Public Engagement & Development Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Fisher Banquet Room

1:00 pm Compliance and Audit Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium

Compliance and Audit Committee (closed session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium

3:30 pm Governance and Compensation Committee (closed session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium
Governance and Compensation Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

UC Regents May 16 meeting

Tuesday, May 16

2:00 pm

Investments Subcommittee (open session - includes public comment session) (pdf)
Location: Fisher Banquet Room
Investments Subcommittee (closed session) (pdf)
Location: Fisher Banquet Room

CA Speaker Rendon writes this
Opinion: UC Regents need to better supervise Napolitano
The Mercury News

UC Regents preview – May 16-18
Daily Bruin


Sunday, May 14, 2017

Some UC Regent Belligerence, and ''Why not those UCOP answers earlier??' and 'How much'' all over the place...

Is this the tone for the UC Regents meeting this week?
"It’s total nonsense,” Regent Richard Blum, a major financial contributor to UC, said of the Board of Regents-ordered audit. “But if I were still (the board’s) chairman, I might feel the need to do it as well.”

Blum said there was nothing improper about keeping millions in reserves and that a portion of the money was mandated to be doled out over time.

As for the state investigation’s finding that Napolitano’s staff reviewed UC campuses’ responses to the auditor’s surveys before they were sent to Sacramento, Blum says he buys Napolitano’s argument that the campuses asked for the help....

“I’m not easily snowed over, and in my opinion Janet Napolitano is an excellent UC president and I support her,” Blum said.

Blum is hardly alone on the board in his view of Napolitano. Even Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sits on the board and who criticized Napolitano for holding back the money while raising tuition, said, “I continue to believe in her ability and capacity to turn it around.”

Not that Blum exactly embraces Newsom as an ally. In fact, he said the lieutenant governor’s criticism of Napolitano’s money handling was “chicken s—.”

“And you can print that.”"
SF Chronicle now has some UCOP comments, explanation they are floating in advance of this week's meeting, one wonders why they did not give such answers earlier -in the report they(budget and operations directors VP etc.) are asked about the same things but the answers were...

See now:

"Emails obtained by The Chronicle show that auditors had to repeatedly ask Napolitano’s office to show what the reserves were going to be used for.

“This is a very complex budget,” Nava said Friday. “Some of these things are difficult to explain — not because we don’t know what’s going on, but because of the complexity.”"
"Uncommitted funds ($38 million). This money represents savings from unfilled vacancies in the president’s office, interest income from the university’s endowment, and annual fees from campuses that finance most of the budget for the president’s office, according to Nava, Goode and Thera Kalmijn, executive director of operations at the president’s office.

Howle said that $32 million of the unspent $175 million came from the fees paid by campuses, and she recommended that this money go back to them.

Discretionary commitments ($54 million). These are projects Napolitano specializes in, her staff said. She has set aside funds for practical purposes, like broken heating systems in UC buildings ($2.5 million); improving cybersecurity ($7.2 million); and fixing the homes of campus chancellors ($250,000).


But she has also started large projects — “multiyear commitments” — of a kind her predecessor, Mark Yudof, never did, said Napolitano’s spokeswoman, Dianne Klein. Napolitano became president in July 2013."
"budget for the Global Food Initiative shows that Napolitano started it in 2014. But the budget hasn’t been updated since December and shows no expenditures from the $3.3 million touted by her office last summer in a news release.

It does show, however, that past expenditures ranged from $606,000 on food research; about $430,000 on food projects for kindergartners through 12th-graders, and nearly $1 million on communication about food, obesity and agriculture.

Napolitano’s staff will present a new budget for her office to the regents on Thursday for their approval.

Unlike in past years, Nava said, “there will be a very detailed, lengthy budget presentation.”"
-But the Regents said they didn't want "granular", details right?, And they also want the meetings to end earliest possible cuz they have to get back to wherever, whatever...

Then there is at LA Times:

"$350 hotel nights, limo rides in Europe: UC audit finds more questionable travel expenses"

This at Daily Cal:

Includes:" external vice president of Berkeley College Republicans, critiqued Napolitano, saying in an email that it would be “immoral” for Napolitano to continue as UC President. Tahmas also alleged in an email that Napolitano “lavishly” spent California tax dollars that could have been reinvested into the UC system.

The board of Cal Berkeley Democrats also supports Janet Napolitano’s resignation, according to Cal Berkeley Democrats President Caiden Nason.

“We’re happy that an elected official said it,” Nason said. “The UCOP has put profit over students … Janet Napolitano has time and time again shown she is more concerned with other aspects of the UC, not the students.”

UC Student Association President Ralph Washington Jr. said that he’s not surprised that members of the assembly no longer have confidence in Napolitano.

Washington added that when one is critical of leadership, one should also be critical of the institution as well.

“The students have been making the case for a long time that the stakes are different between students and those who are making the decisions,” Washington said. “When the costs become too high, students are the ones who cannot eat and have nowhere to sleep. The decisions need to be based on an understanding of students.”


Also see:
"Therefore the campus, according to Hermalin, has to “match the competition or … be within striking distance of it.”

He also cited Bay Area’s higher cost of living as another factor behind higher salaries.

“Average professor salary at the University of Michigan is 93% of Berkeley’s, but Ann Arbor is a 51% cheaper place to live than Berkeley,” Hermalin said in an email. “If Berkeley matched Michigan on a cost-of-living basis, the $162,846 average salary at U of M would need to be $329,553 at Berkeley.”

Campus spokesperson Michael Dirda said UC Berkeley professors are “accomplished” but its place on the list reflects a combination of factors including campus prestige, quality and geographical location.

In response to a question about high professor salaries in light of the current campus budget deficit, Hermalin said all costs have to be considered."

"Hermalin added that maintaining UC Berkeley’s excellence is a priority, a goal achievable by remaining competitive in the job market, which makes professor salaries one of many priorities. Dirda said equal consideration is also given to student welfare and campus safety.

The Daily Californian created a database of professor pay-checkers in 2016 that shows the variation in inter-departmental salaries for the 2015 year. For example, average professor salary was $326,230 for the economics department, $202,711 for the electrical engineering department and $163,035 for the English department. The database also highlighted salary variations between professors within these departments.

Hermalin said salaries vary because different academic fields have different markets. Differences are also based on past work, research load and seniority, with longer serving professors getting paid more than those with lesser service, according to Dirda."


In Sacramento, Napolitano cited the spending justification : press releases, hundred+ press releases out of OP ..

Dirk's and Christ decide to announce this on graduation day, slipped in:

Just left with the question:
-How Much?


And is UCOP changing content on their site in advance of this week's meeting, or??