Thursday, July 6, 2017

Less is more?

UC on track to enroll 2,500 more Californians this fall, but admission offers decline from last year's near-historic gains


New chair of the UC Board of Regents elected

- it seems his tendency toward less substantive talk in public sessions- more verbal, more enthusiasm at off record 'UC Regents retreats' (are those as pricey as their sf 'palace dinners and galas'?), and closed sessions

-as chair of finance committee recall his comments conveyed he thought less granular detail needed to flow from UCOP to UC regents- with that recall awful jlac audit findings this year, did it play a part?

-and recall he has made comments during discussion about the governance restructuring of UC Regents committees and the votes on expanding who sits at the UC regents table
(Including the committee redesign- which resulted in the changes that took effect last year with concurrent/time conflicting UC regents committee meetings by design of sec of uc regents, chief of staff and OP gen counsel-voted for by rubberstamp regents- enacted by chair Lozano)

- that, even years ago, he seemed to view the UC regent board table already was overfilled and possibly far too public in deliberations on certain subjects...for instance, he reluctantly agreed to vote for the new student advisor to UC regents position
He has views on these things.
Reminder: "He is the author of The Strategy of Meetings and a contributing author of Governing Public Colleges and Universities."
He had Dirks do a general public presentation to the regents on undergrad Ed - but, he said he was in a deep dive into the subject, yet his (kieffer's) thoughts on how specifically he sees it taking place at UC was not part of the larger conversation in public q and a-- maybe that manner will change as he assumes role as chair, or not...
[Seems aside from his attendance at UCSF for the meetings he seems largely focused on S. Cal, and not much at all on N. Cal...which could be said of UC regents overall now
An N Cal chair of UC regents--when was the last time that happened?
Perhaps the thinking is that there needs to be a counterweight to UCOP in N Cal- and the power of a certain N Cal- based alpharegent -which perhaps gives that alpharegent great sway for himself but what about the local campuses? And does that thinking hold when several UC regents committees hold solely/ predominantly S Cal meetings by their entirely S Cal based committee chairs? Does/did any of this play a part in current Berkeley budget woes? The once a year non UCSF regents meeting location site is almost always in S Cal - this year UCSD- does that just push UCD, UCSC, UCM interests further to the margin? Is it now to be that N Cal is solely represented by that alpharegent, OP and individual and less powerful Chancellors --and not by fully appointed ( non ex-officio, non short term student slotted) regents?]

Recall he also is involved in music composing etc

Regent Perez (also S Cal based, focused) is now the vice chair,
While many other committee chairs maintain the same committee chair positions they've had for several years- all of the committees are headed exlusively by S Cal based regents as committee chairs..

With this UC regent "election" in mind also think about: this

And, keep in mind what is currently going on with that controversial UC Regents finance committee agenda item on UC retirement benefits being slashed set for next week, see :

This latest raises more questions:
-- shouldn't the letter be to "George", as in the new uc regents chair, as well? And Chalfant incorrectly states it is scheduled for discussion, but it is Not just a "discussion item" , it is an "action item"-action items get voted on- two very different things.
Re: Regents Item on Retiree Health

Dear Janet:

At its June 28, 2017 meeting, the Academic Council unanimously endorsed the attached letter from the University Committee on Faculty Welfare (UCFW) opposing a proposed Regents item scheduled for discussion in July that would remove the 70% floor for aggregate expenditures on retiree health, and allow placement of a cap on the rate of growth of the maximum UC employer contribution to an individual retiree’s health coverage at 3%.*

The only consultation with the Senate that has occurred about this proposal has been a limited discussion concerning how a 3% cap on per capita growth in the University’s contribution affects the liability calculated under new GASB** rules. UCFW notes that UCOP has not vetted the 70% proposal with the full UCFW membership, its Health Care Task Force, the Task Force on Investments and Retirement (TFIR), or any stakeholder group, and has not responded to UCFW’s request for additional modeling that would allow the Senate to evaluate the effect of the proposed changes on costs for current and future retirees. Likewise, TFIR has been not been able to evaluate the fiscal impact of the proposal on the University.

It is impossible to evaluate the effects of any proposed change in benefits without the requested modeling...

(B)y letting Finance get ahead of Human Resources, both shared governance and the thoughtful management of benefits have been disregarded. The alternative is to engage in a thorough consultative process assessing all options and including all stakeholders: retirees, active employees, the Senate and its Health Care Task Force (which contains some of the nation’s preeminent experts), before making any changes to retiree health benefits.

Thank you for considering the Senate’s views on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.

Jim Chalfant, Chair
Academic Council


Paul Alivisatos named next executive vice chancellor, provost ...
Town-Gown and Dirks being blamed for Cal's bad , abruptly changing student housing planning?


--Part of the push from UCOP on student housing also involves their hedge that they can get more out of alumni/ more in $ donations they call euphemistically "alumni engagements"- which they've studied deeply and now, from policy standpoint management believes those alumni donors only happens if students (forced to?) live on campus, to effect a loyalty to the campus- this has been discussed in these terms at uc regents meeting over the last several years under the subject heading of fundraising, outreach, alumni relation, cost of attendance etc. Did that help drive the creation of circumstances in the present day- where students need to, must resort to on campus living?

Then read
Commentary: The Moral Imperative of Student Housing

--The issue needs to be addressed as a real concern not just linked to the possibility of future alumni donations to a given campus...

- blaming Dirks for all that is wrong isn't gonna work for very long...
See also ed board op ed:

..."unfortunately, we’ve been duped before.

We were hopeful when Janet Napolitano was tapped for UC president. Now she’s fumbling through allegations from the most recent state audit while keeping students at arm’s length.

We were hopeful when Dirks was tapped for chancellor, and we made a request for him to be more accessible. Then he put a fence up around his mansion and flubbed on serious sexual misconduct allegations. Time and again, our leaders have disappointed.

Don’t do us dirty, Christ. We understand that you have a very good reputation. But we’re not going to have the wool pulled over our eyes again. When it comes to your chops, we’ll believe it when we see it"

No comments:

Post a Comment