See new coverage with more detail etc:
California lawmakers move to take control of UC president’s budget
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-lawmakers-move-to-take-control-of-UC-11168563.php"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??
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Wm. De La Pena
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Monica Lozano (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- Norman Pattiz (AGAIN!)
- John A. Pérez
- Bonnie Reiss
- Richard Sherman
- Bruce Varner
- Charlene Zettel
- VACANT (M Anguiano?)
- VACANT (L Park?)
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- VACANT (E Tauscher?)
- VACANT (H Guber?)
- Paul Monge
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)