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??

Thursday, May 11, 2017

"Gov. Brown on withholding some funds from UC: "I put the $50 million (hold) in there so we can hold their feet to the fire."

That's a tweet today from Sacramento LAT news

See:Gov. Jerry Brown's budget holds back $50 million from UC to 'hold their feet to the fire' on reform


"Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised budget holds back $50 million from the University of California until it adopts reforms recommended by a scathing state audit that found the system has tens of millions of dollars in undisclosed reserves and paid excessive salaries to administrators.

“I put the $50 million in there so we can hold their feet to the fire,” Brown told reporters in announcing the May revision to his annual budget. “That’s the way we will reinforce the audit. They have to make some reports and create some transparency, and we will keep the money until they perform to the auditor’s satisfaction.”

Brown stopped short of calling for the resignation of UC President Janet Napolitano when asked about it by a reporter.

“I’m not in the business of opining on my colleagues,” Brown said. “Most people think she’s doing a pretty good job. That’s certainly the view of the regents and I think a lot of others. I have my issues with the university. I think their salaries are way too high, especially the administrators.”"


And :"California Today: A Cloud Over the University of California
The New York Times

"But many faculty members have had another reaction: no big surprise.

“It would be nice if anyone were surprised — but nobody is,” said Eyal Amiran, a professor of comparative literature at the University of California, Irvine.

Faculty leaders say cynicism has crept into their ranks for years, a result of painful funding cuts by the state, profligate manager salaries, and a sense that their voices are being increasingly sidelined in university governance."
"Some faculty leaders have argued that campus administrators have been cowed by the president’s office, which oversees the system’s $31.5 billion budget.

In an essay on the recent turmoil, Christopher Newfield, a professor of American culture at the U.C. Santa Barbara, wrote in part, “Much if not most of U.C. has become a culture of silence, of conformity.”

Dianne Klein, a spokeswoman for Ms. Napolitano, rejected the characterization. “Under this president has there been more of a move to centralize? Yes, that’s true,” she said.

But, she added, chancellors have not been shy in offering opposing views to Ms. Napolitano.

“I really do not believe that there’s this clicking of the heels and saluting when Janet Napolitano walks in,” she said."

also see immediate last post for other updates, like the one on Rendon-- and the info on today's UC Regents meeting etc.


You can toggle to archive of today's meeting here:

Some coverage:

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

The Independence of the 'Independent Review'? UC Regents May 11- Special Meeting - Other things...

Some important updates, now Napolitano has this in SF Chronicle:
"UC president responds to critical audit
By Janet NapolitanoMay 10, 2017 "
" understand that all this might be lost in a blur of daily headlines. As too often happens, incomplete details obscure the facts. There is no secret pot of money that funds dubious priorities. The systemwide and presidential initiatives — such as those that benefit undocumented students, that help prevent sexual violence and sexual harassment, that further our and the state’s goals on climate change — have been widely publicized. The monies spent are budgeted and accounted for.

We can do better, and we will. The hallmark of institutional excellence is the eagerness, and resolve, to continually improve. "

And LA Times has this on Speaker Tendon:
"California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is 'frustrated' with UC President Janet Napolitano over scathing audit"
"I’m very frustrated with the lack of communication coming out of the office of the president,” Rendon said during a meeting with Times reporters Wednesday in Sacramento. “Personally, the higher ed chair and I went to great lengths to spend a lot of time with the president and members of our caucus who have been very critical. We went out on a limb and we feel that to an extent it was cut off.”

Rendon stopped short of saying Napolitano should resign, but said he has a lot of questions to be answered when the regents hold their regular meeting next week. The regents have also called a special closed-door meeting for Thursday to appoint an outside consultant to look at the auditor’s concerns that budget reserves have not been properly handled or disclosed.

“I’m very concerned right now,” Rendon said when asked if he thought Napolitano should step down. “I will ask my questions next Thursday. I think we have an oversight function that we need to perform as a Legislature. I am suspending judgment until I ask my questions and we continue with our process.”

Rendon said any review of the UC budget process needs to be "independent and trusted," adding there is a "need to dig deep in terms of how that has been done in the past and how it is done in the future.”

The Speaker said he is open to a recommendation of State Auditor Elaine Howle that the Legislature take a more direct role in approving the budget for the UC Office of the President.

“We don’t want to manage the UCs, but [the budget role] certainly tends to make a lot of sense,” he said."

And here is some Op-Ed:
Editorial: Transparency needed for UC to regain trust

And this Daviscentric one:
UC Regents phone it in:

Notice of Special Regents Meeting, May 11, 2017

** Revised - Location Changes**

A Special Meeting of The Regents of the University of California will be held by teleconference on Thursday, May 11, 2017

Agenda – Closed Session
B1(X) Discussion Review of Certain Issues Related to the State Audit Report on the
University of California Office of the President Administrative Budget
Closed Session Statute Citation:
Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]

Agenda – Open Session
Public comment period2
(20 minutes)
B2 Action Authorization to Retain an Independent Consultant to Investigate Certain
Issues Related to the State Audit Report on the University of California
Office of the President Administrative Budget

See 3 UC campuses change responses in state auditor's survey
San Francisco Chronicle -

"In one survey, UC Santa Cruz rated the technology help it received from the president’s office as “poor.” But after Napolitano’s office intervened, UC Santa Cruz administrators changed the “poor” rating to “good.” They also changed ratings for three services previously judged “fair” to “good.” And they changed their ratings of three other services, including help in identifying top-performing high school students, from “good” to “exceptional.”

In a letter accompanying the survey, Howle told the campuses to keep the surveys confidential and not to share them “outside of your campus.”

But emails show Napolitano’s staffers learned about the surveys in October when a UCSF administrator informed them she had received one. Subsequently, Napolitano’s office contacted all the campuses and began directing administrators on how to respond to the surveys.

On Nov. 22, Napolitano’s Deputy Chief of Staff Bernie Jones wrote UC Santa Cruz:

“Our expectation is that we review an updated version of the survey responses before it is resubmitted to” the California State Auditor.

Jones’ email was among a flurry of correspondence between Napolitano’s office and UC Santa Cruz from Nov. 21 to 23 showing that the president’s office monitored the survey submissions.

On Nov. 23, an email from UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal to his staff revealed that Napolitano’s office had a problem with even their revised survey.

“The feedback I received from (the president’s office) is that they are happy with the entire submittal except for the long paragraph at the bottom of page 39,” Blumenthal wrote. “I suggest you remove the paragraph and submit it.”

The paragraph contained complaints about Napolitano’s office’s division of Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services.

The final version replaced that criticism with a statement that the ethics division provided “high-quality” services that UC Santa Cruz could not otherwise afford, and was “a critical partner” for the campus."

"On Tuesday, regents Chair Monica Lozano expressed confidence in Napolitano, calling her a “capable and effective leader.”

At the same time, she said the regents will oversee an independent review of how Napolitano’s office handled “certain aspects” of the audit. On Thursday, the regents will livestream a meeting to appoint an outside consultant to monitor UC’s compliance with 33 recommendations from the state auditor to improve financial accountability."
To see all Chronicle stories on the UC audit, visit:

Coverage mentions the UCOP Deputy Chief of staff by name, (coincidentally/apparently he is said to have previously worked at the firm that did the recruitment of Napolitano to UC...attended Haverford and Harvard -did they express the import of survey responses in research?)-- but names of other UCOP people higher up were included in hearing on topic of changing survey responses, but that is not getting much coverage. As mentioned earlier CSA named the Chief financial Officer by name at the hearing in relation to an incident she learned of on UCLA responses to her survey and his name was brought up in relation to his preference on certain answers...

At the 3:53:30 time mark she reads the exchange directly to the legislative committee, here:

Seems it can't just all be blamed on Bernie??
And it isn't just about the actual changes but also the outreach phone calls from UCOP to discuss changes etc
Why is a CFO involved at all in audit feedback from campuses?
"Janet Napolitano, the ‘Political Heavyweight,’ Now Finds Herself Under Fire"

"Professors React

Chris Newfield, a professor of literature and American studies at the Santa Barbara campus, said that state audits can have real power if there is a response from the Legislature, and that the recently concluded one represented a setback for public transparency.

When Ms. Napolitano was hired, many people thought having a former U.S. secretary of homeland security and former governor of Arizona leading the system would signal political power for keeping up relationships with the statehouse in Sacramento. "Basically, she was hired because she was a political heavyweight," Mr. Newfield said.

"I didn’t agree with it, but I saw the logic of hiring someone like her. If you think your problem is Sacramento, then you hire a politician to deal with the pols of Sacramento," he said. "I don’t think that’s worked out."

To regain the trust of the State Legislature, faculty members, and students, Mr. Newfield said it will take full disclosure from the president’s office of what happened with the audit, and a reform process that doesn’t hire outside consultants.

“I suspect that it will raise larger questions about President Napolitano and about the organization of the Office of the President.”
Michael Meranze, professor of history at the Los Angeles campus, said the audit certainly has increased skepticism in the Legislature. "I suspect that it will raise larger questions about President Napolitano and about the organization of the Office of the President."

Shane White, vice chair of the systemwide Academic Senate, said any controversy is demoralizing, especially if it carries the potential to damage the university. But this audit, said Mr. White, who sits on the Board of Regents as a faculty representative, seems like a distraction from addressing the issues facing the university’s long-term funding plans.

"It appears to me there’s no intent here to hide any money," Mr. White said. "It appears to me that the audit is a criticism of some of these central programs rather than a question of dollars and cents.""

- the spin to try to say it is all just a criticism of the initiatives themselves -to try to play off the politics of them- isn't a tactic that will work at this point...The optics have long since moved beyond, so have the facts

BTW a resigning or fired UC President once again is not going to solve the systemic problems...

Nonresident Admissions Policy At UC Proposed, more

They don't include info on how it works for the grad, prof schools specifically, (UCSF , Hastings not mentioned eg), but see:

UC revises its plan to limit the share of spots going to out-of-state students
"Chalfant said the Senate was happy that the cap was dropped. But he said faculty members considered the debate an exercise in “haggling over arbitrary percentages” rather than a serious conversation about how to support UC with enough dollars to maintain its vaunted excellence.

“A conversation about a funding strategy that preserves both access and excellence is long overdue and should start the moment this policy is adopted,” he said in an email."

After State Audit, UC President Napolitano Discusses Budget Practices and Tuition Hike

"For instance, UC’s Chief Financial Officer makes an annual $412,000, while CSU’s Chief Financial Officer makes $341,000.

According to Napolitano, comparing UC employees to other California employees and university employees nationwide is “like comparing apples to oranges.” UC employees have responsibilities that similar employees do not, including managing medical centers, an internal retirement program and “different markets, the size, scope and scale of which is not comparable,” she said, noting that UC’s CFO manages $31 billion, while CSU’s manages $6 billion."

-A sign there will be 'scandal, what scandal?' performances at UC Regents meeting next week?


"Napolitano is not worthy of the public’s trust’: Lawmaker calls on UC president to resign"

Read more here:


And SJ Merc on proposed legislation. As result of UC Audit:

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

To 33 or not to 33? And the UC Regents part in UCOP Extravagances, updates

See :

"UC audit reveals president’s office has extravagant taste"


"Financial records obtained by The Chronicle through the state auditor’s office Monday give some insight into spending habits in the UC president’s office, but the auditor’s office warned that the records it received from the university are incomplete. Auditors who examined the finances of Napolitano’s office said they were blocked from accessing many documents they say would have shed light on how some of the $175 million was spent.

The itemized records that were produced show that Napolitano’s office spent generously on employee retirement parties — including more than $4,200 on a retirement party in 2015 for Laine Farley, who was then the director of the UC’s California Digital Library. The Chronicle identified 20 parties for departing employees that cost more than $500 between 2014 and 2016. Ten of those were more than $1,000.

Also included in the itemized spending was a dinner tab worth more than a year of tuition. The president’s office paid $13,000 for dinner and security at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco for 86 people in January 2016 to honor two departing members of the Board of Regents, Fred Ruiz and Paul Wachter. Dianne Klein, a spokeswoman for Napolitano, said the regents dinners are paid for through a private endowment, not state funds.

The January 2016 dinner was one of many the president’s office hosted for governing board members and guests, which were usually tied to regents meetings, Klein said. From November 2015 to May 2016, for example, the president’s office paid $36,400 to host the regents dinners, as they are called in the itemized records.

Other spending highlighted in the audit was $862,000 spent on Napolitano’s Oakland apartment over the past four years. That cost includes the $11,500 monthly rent for the 3,400-square-foot apartment, which is also paid through endowment funds. Klein said Napolitano, as part of her employment, is required to live in a university-owned or -leased home, and that the apartment is used for official university business.

Among the documents the auditor says UC never fully produced were those detailing foreign and out-of-state travel, catering, airfare and entertainment expenses. UC said auditors failed to ask for the right budget codes in making their request. The records that were turned over to auditors show that the president’s office paid for employees to attend meetings and conferences in Bermuda, Iceland, Germany, China, India, Australia, France, Italy, Mexico and many other destinations.

Auditors said that even when they did receive financial records, vague information on other spending left them unable to determine the appropriateness, such as at least $2 million spent on cell phones and iPads over four years.

The number of cell phones and other devices issued by the president’s office increased 29 percent from 2012 to 2016 . During the same period, under orders from Gov. Jerry Brown — who was working to decrease state costs — the state was drastically cutting the number of cell phones issued to state workers by an estimated 30 percent.

“This is really a punch in the gut,” Assemblyman Dante Acosta, R-Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), said on Monday. “We need to ensure money is being managed correctly.”

Acosta and other GOP lawmakers sent a letter to legislative leaders urging them to subpoena financial records from Napolitano’s office. Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount (Los Angeles County), declined their first request. On Monday night, the Republican lawmakers sent a second letter asking Rendon to reconsider in light of The Chronicle’s story that raised questions about the accuracy of Napolitano’s testimony to state lawmakers.

State Auditor Elaine Howle charged that the president’s office interfered with the audit and tampered with surveys intended to provide independent opinions from the 10 campuses.

“In my 17 years as state auditor, we have never had a situation like this,” Howle told lawmakers during a 4½-hour hearing last week in the state Legislature to go over the findings.

Napolitano said campuses asked her office for help with the survey and apologized that the actions were seen as obstruction. However, emails released by the auditor’s office, including a new batch of emails released Friday to The Chronicle, show that Napolitano’s office went far beyond offering guidance, instead editing surveys and emailing campuses that they expected to see the final draft before surveys were sent to auditors.

“The only way we will get candor is if there is a legal order in terms of subpoena,” said Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-San Ramon, who sent the first request to Rendon. “That’s the most thoughtful and disciplined way to get to the bottom of this.”

Monica Lozano, chairwoman of the Board of Regents, said a third party will review the possible tampering.

Ting and Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance (Los Angeles County), plan to introduce a bill that would make it a crime to intentionally interfere with an audit in California.

“There appears to be a culture of arrogance and the need for frugality in spending state dollars,” Muratsuchi said.

The audit’s findings come as UC will raise annual student charges beginning this summer by $336, or nearly 3 percent, to $12,630. That includes tuition and a student services fee, which are expected to generate $143 million next year for the UC system.

Critics of the UC administration say it’s tone-deaf to ask students and their parents to pay more when spending in the president’s office has been steadily rising in recent years. Auditors said administrative spending in the president’s office increased by 28 percent, or $80 million, from fiscal years 2012-13 to 2015-16.

“Tone-deaf is a good way of describing it,” said Assemblyman Jose Medina, D-Riverside.

Napolitano’s office has 60 days to provide written documentation to the auditor’s office on how it is implementing recommendations from the audit. Napolitano said her office will accept all 33 recommendations from the state auditor on improved accountability and efficiency."

See the full article here.

--some thoughts, at first thought maybe the retirement party was for the chief compliance and audit officer at UCOP, ya know the one who announced she was leaving apparently in the middle of the same time frame of the audit survey and survey recall was going on and CSA was fighting with gen counsel and OP over those mangmnt directives access, but -no it was for a party for someone else - the November UC Regents said the chief compliance and audit officer was leaving at the end of December 2016, but the page is still up, yet she has provided no comment on the findings or come up in the coverage or even mention of her or her replacement accompanying Lozano and Napolitano to that Sacramento hearing etc.etc..??!!... But both she and CFO come up in the report itself and the CFO came up in the hearing regarding instances of changes to UCLA audit responses (that happened in q and a -Howle said something about it in response to question)

-- coverage continues to say that UC accepts all 33 recommendations -but other various coverage states Napolitano as 1-pushing back on the salary range narrowing,

And -2they still do not accept UCOP being funded by leg separately:
that part: "Yet when Howle included 33 recommendations in her audit for how UC should reform the troubled financial practices of its president’s office — including “adjusting” the range of executive salaries and benefits — Napolitano said in her written response that most were “reasonable” but that she expected to analyze the impact of “narrowing our salary ranges before committing to doing so.”

Lozano, the regents chair, gave a slightly different answer when faced with state lawmakers in person last week. She said the president’s office “will be adopting all of the state recommendations.”

The state Constitution says it’s the regents’ choice."


"stating that her office will be accepting all of the recommendations in the audit, with the exception of one.

“The exception is the recommendation that the legislature directly appropriate the budget of the Office of the President,” Napolitano said. “The Regents have filed a separate response contesting that recommendation on the grounds that it interferes with the constitutional autonomy of the University, and that they as Regents are better positioned to ensure that we are implementing the audit’s recommendations.”


--and then the complicated ways UCOP transacts for UC regents expenses to consider ...

The regents books mixed in with UCOP books...

--and how is that "third party" to assess UCOP and going to contract with UC as the client but provide full findings to the CSA or CA Leg ?? Or anyone else?...

PS and according to other unrelated coverage to audit-a kind of tabloids type story not pointing to here- there may even be a third(?)home for the UC president...(of course remember Blake House is number 1, and Oakland number 2.

A final thing: the audit said that there are statements from UC that full audits of individual components of UC would be cost prohibitive in several instances --but no one gave an estimated number and guess no one asked for those estimates...

Rendon said the hearing went "two plus hours" in this interview, maybe he didn't catch the second half?

Update, now it seems that Dem Leadership is placing slot of weight, onus, stakes on a getting answers from UC through a closed session of the UC Regents meeting next week ,see:
California AG punts on probe over allegations against UC President Napolitano

Includes reference to UC Regents closed session agenda on the matter and :

"source within the Republican caucus of the California Legislature told Fox News that while they’d like to say Becerra’s decision was a “cop out,” the proper channel for further investigation is through Speaker Rendon.

On Monday, Republican members of the Assembly sent a letter to Rendon calling for a subpoena of documents relating to the audit.

“We believe this is not a partisan or political issue, but an issue of trust in our institutions,” the letter reads.

“We should not fear the truth, in fact I believe it is one of our key roles on behalf of our constituents to seek it out zealously," Republican Assemblyman Dante Acosta told Fox News. "The legislature has the power to issue a subpoena, and my Republican colleagues and I are urging the Speaker to take this necessary step to bring transparency to the UC Office of the President. California’s students, parents, and taxpayers deserve answers.”

Rendon's office pushed back, however, making clear they will not grant the request at this stage.

"The legislature does have the power to subpoena various agencies but that’s only done in cases where there is criminal malfeasance. But in this case, the speaker hasn’t seen that. At this point, he will not be asking for a subpoena,” a Rendon spokesperson told Fox News"

And now see from Republican leadership in CA Leg writes:

UC president’s budget scandal should not be swept under the rug

Read more here:

"Some people may characterize recent actions by the University of California Office of the President as a “misimpression,” but in reality, the only appropriate word Republicans and Democrats agree on is “scandalous” (“Watching the Capitol go Benghazi on UC’s Napolitano”; Insight, Shawn Hubler, May 4).

To sum things up, the UC Office of the President used misleading budgeting to amass an undisclosed $175 million slush fund that it spent on things such as administrator bonuses and renovating the homes of campus chancellors. When people started asking questions, UC President Janet Napolitano’s staff worked overtime to interfere with the audit. These are not my words, this is how the state auditor portrayed their behavior. Were this a criminal investigation, Napolitano’s staff wouldn’t be able to just apologize for interfering; they would be charged with obstruction of justice.

At the request of Napolitano’s staff, UC chancellors sent auditor surveys to her office for review and censorship instead of directly to the auditor, despite specific instructions not to do so. This broke the chain of custody required to keep whistleblowers protected. The edited surveys made it impossible for the auditor to find out what chancellors actually thought.

Even after the cover-up had been exposed, the apparent lying continued. At an oversight hearing, Napolitano claimed her office attempted to edit surveys at the request of individual campuses. Newly published emails prove that to be false.

This pattern of deception is why we need a subpoena and forensic audit of UC Office of the President’s records. We simply cannot trust the word of Napolitano or her staff. Calls for the UC regents to review the situation are woefully inadequate. This scandal happened and it is the duty of the Legislature to determine the truth.

California students were hit with a tuition increase shortly before the slush fund was made public. They deserve to know their money is being well spent. Calls to give the UC benefit of the doubt do students and parents a disservice. Napolitano’s office violated their trust, and as a result we’ve seen bloated administrator salaries, budget trickery and resistance to oversight. If the Legislature won’t look out for students and demand accountability, who will?"
There's also:

Napolitano’s Emails Complicate State Audit Investigation

Students Demand to Rollback, Redistribute and Restructure the UC After Audit

At Cal there is what reads like finals exhaustion, a distance from direct grappling with all the facts , mixed with deep disillusionment, see: on the UC audit.. 'grandstanding' etc

After UC probe, interfering with state auditor could soon be a crime

Read more here: