Tuesday, April 25, 2017

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"

See: full report



Fact sheet:

Survey responses


"Specific concerns we discuss in the audit report include the following:
• The Office of the President has accumulated more than $175 million in undisclosed restricted and discretionary reserves;
as of fiscal year 2015–16, it had $83 million in its restricted reserve and $92 million in its discretionary reserve.
• More than one-third of its discretionary reserve, or $32 million, came from unspent funds from the campus assessment—
an annual charge that the Office of the President levies on campuses to fund the majority of its discretionary operations.
• In certain years, the Office of the President requested and received approval from the Board of Regents (regents) to
increase the campus assessment even though it had not spent all of the funds it received from campuses in prior years.
• The Office of the President did not disclose the reserves it had accumulated, nor did it inform the regents of the annual
undisclosed budget that it created to spend some of those funds. The undisclosed budget ranged from $77 million to
$114 million during the four years we reviewed.
• The Office of the President was unable to provide a complete listing of the systemwide initiatives, their costs, or an
assessment of their continued benefit to the university.
• While it appears that the Office of the President’s administrative spending increased by 28 percent, or $80 million,
from fiscal years 2012–13 through 2015–16, the Office of the President continues to lack consistent definitions of and
methods for tracking the university’s administrative expenses.
We found it particularly troublesome that the Office of the President intentionally interfered in our efforts to assess
the types and quality of services it provides to campuses. Correspondence between the Office of the President and the
campuses shows that the Office of the President inappropriately reviewed campuses’ survey responses, which resulted
in campuses making changes to those responses prior to submitting them to us—campus statements that were critical
of the Office of the President had been removed or substantially revised, and negative ratings had been changed to be
more positive.
Taken as a whole, these problems indicate that significant change is necessary to strengthen the public’s trust in the University
of California. To achieve this change, we believe the Legislature should increase its oversight of the Office of the President."

Here is some coverage:
LATimes with
"University of California administration is paying excessive salaries and mishandling funds, state audit says"

Don't miss
San Jose Mercury:


Auditor rips UC for keeping millions in secret fund
SFGate http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Auditor-rips-UC-for-keeping-millions-in-secret-11097470.php


"UC kept secret $175 million reserve as it raised tuition, state audit finds

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article146660529.html


Associated Press has this:

USA Today with:
And US News:



CHE, of course, with: Janet Napolitano Disputes Finding That Her Office Held $175 Million in Undisclosed Funds


And UCOP, which it seems can't confirnm its own headcount has this:

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-responds-state-audit-report-university-california-office-president -- is that more a matter of the upcoming June report of the audit of UCPATH?

Some UC Regents want to readdress the tuition hike vote they made in light of this new info in the audit, :

UC Office of the President Pays Excessive Salaries, Mishandles Funds: State Audit



There is also one on Cal State system:
California State University:
Report 2016-122—Stronger Oversight Is Needed for Hiring and Compensating Management Personnel and for Monitoring Campus Budgets

And, on some recent UCOP hiring, there's:
"UC Appointment of Title IX Coordinator Won’t Address Campus-Level Issues.."


No comments:

Post a Comment