Sunday, May 7, 2017

'Thinking that the storm clouds had passed'?

They've moved the release date on this from June 2017 to August 2017- not clear if that is because UC is causing delay again or they just need more time or..
New release date:
2016-125 - University of California—Contracted Employees and Contracting Practices
Est. Release Date: August 2017


See article: "Hiring at UC Merced too much of a family affair"
Includes other UC audits coverage:
The audits revealed sham recruitments in which a hiring process was undertaken when someone known by the hiring manager had already been selected. These so-called “target hires” are a common tell-tale of nepotism and cronyism.

The audits found another troubling telltale: Departments would sometimes interview unqualified candidates while qualified candidates were never contacted.

For any qualified applicant who has ever sent a resume in good faith to UC Merced’s human resources department, the casual comment from another manager will be maddening: “Human Resources involvement in hiring takes more time and we end up with employees who aren’t a ‘good fit.’”

Signs of a problem at UC Merced first came to light in the University of California’s most recent Annual Report on Ethics and Compliance. The report is usually a dry affair, unless you find details about federal billing codes titillating. The report for fiscal year 2015-16, released in September, was no different – with the exception of a couple of sentences nested in a paragraph filled with compliance-speak about an internal audit at UC Merced concerning hiring practices.

Two months after the release of that report, the webinar and accompanying report by three UC Merced administrators popped up on the University of California’s Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services Web site. Buried in that material were the audits’ findings of widespread nepotism at the campus.

Amid the collegiality, insider banter and free-flow of acronym-laced HR-speak were some of the gritty details. Besides revelations of nepotism and sham recruitments, the sampling found:

▪ As many as 75 to 100 candidates would sometimes apply for a position.

▪ Some candidates did not meet the minimum requirements but were interviewed and sometimes hired.

▪ Hiring managers were found to be marking a large portion of candidates as “Not Qualified” after certain number of candidates applied.

▪ A hiring manager had hired a relative and was now supervising the relative.

▪ Human Resources had very little involvement in most recruitments.

▪ Managers never received hiring candidate information from recruiting firms."

Read more here:

"Making a difference in 4 years at UC Berkeley" | Nicholas Dirk's in The Daily Californian

"Thinking that the storm clouds of financial difficulty had passed along with California Proposition 30 — which boosted funding for the state’s public services — I began to consider the ways in which I could make a positive difference in Berkeley, further building on its core strengths while expanding them at the same time."

-Recall in his interview with CHE his parting comment on Jerry and Pat Brown relationship... He seems to blame his early departure on Sacto or...??

See together these stories:


"Political Road Map: So why can the UC regents thumb their noses at the Legislature?"


And don't miss this new post by M. Meranze:
The UCOP Audit and University Governance

A couple more to add in,
This Op Ed at Sac Bee:

"Watching the Capitol go Benghazi on Napolitano"

This new article at SF Chronicle:

"UC secret salary fund sparks bill to curb autonomy"

No comments:

Post a Comment