Sunday, January 22, 2017

No idea..

Napolitano’s cancer treatment took UC regents by surprise

"“It was even more surprising to hear that she had been undergoing treatment for months,” said one regent, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The call came from Monica Lozano, chairwoman of the board, who had been kept informed about Napolitano’s cancer treatment since she was diagnosed in August. Regents got the call Tuesday, shortly before UC went public with the news.

Lozano went out of her way to say Napolitano was doing well and would be quickly back to work, our source said.

Napolitano was treated for breast cancer in 2000 and underwent a mastectomy, but UC has not disclosed the nature of her current cancer. In its public statement, the university said Napolitano was expected to be released from the hospital in the next day or two.

Sure enough, on Friday, the 59-year-old former Arizona governor and Homeland Security chief was back in the office.

Still, if everything was going so well — and there was no cause for alarm — why the call?

“That’s what some of us were wondering as well,” the regent said."

One might recall this old AP article where Napolitano's health was covered:

-That was press coverage of elected officials archive- seems perhaps to be in stark contrast to how the msm have covered pols during 2016 election etc

There are new personnel being hired, but it remains unclear if they are replacing folks or what the status of the review launched over 2016 summer is, but SJ Merc has:

"It’s official: Cal athletics bleeding cash at astounding rate"

"Cal released official financial documents Friday that confirm a massive budget deficit and dire outlook for the Bears’ 30-sport athletic model.
The athletic department lost $21.7 million in the 2016 fiscal year, according to a statement of revenues and expenses submitted to the NCAA.

The deficit matches projections outlined months ago by this newspaper and was covered by central campus, which itself is running a $110 million budget shortfall.

The athletic department’s fiscal woes are rooted in the debt service payment on the Memorial Stadium and Simpson Training Center projects, which cost approximately $460 million (combined).

The Bears generated $86.3 million in revenue from continuing operations against $88.1 million in expenses. But the interest payment on the debt service was $18.5 million. (There were minor additional costs for capital projects.)

That interest payment will remain steady until 2032, when the principal kicks in and annual payments soar — first to $30 million and eventually to almost $40 million.

Cal chancellor Nicholas Dirks has formed a task force to recommend a sustainable athletic model. The group is likely months away from issuing its conclusions, but the elimination of sports teams is a potential, if not likely, outcome.

The projections for the 2017 fiscal year are nearly as dire: An $18.8 million loss."

-But the story does not include a link to the report mentioned in the first sentence...
Daily Cal has this editorial board piece:
"UC tuition hike only option amid state divestment
UNIVERSITY ISSUES: Freeze in tuition for the past six years was never viable solution for University"

While the faculty at CSU write:
"Not only did the editorial fail to justify raising tuition in the California State University system, it failed to detail differences between the two systems in relation to state funding and students."

It gets into Napolitano's moves at UC and differences between the two systems...

"UC and CSU tuition increases make sense” (Jan. 13), echoed UC President Janet Napolitano’s excuses to raise tuition. Red pen time.

Not only did the editorial fail to justify raising tuition in the California State University system, it failed to detail differences between the two systems in relation to state funding and students.

The CSU educates some 478,638 students on its 23 campuses. That’s over 208,000 more students than the UC. Yet if you break down state funding per student, the CSU receives nearly $5,000 less per student than the UC."

Read more here:

There is: a UC Regents meeting this week

No comments:

Post a Comment