Friday, July 7, 2017

The UC Regents Pull That Controversial Agenda. Item

UCOP Neglects Shared Governance and Seeks Authority to Lower Retiree Health Benefits (UPDATED)
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2017/07/ucop-neglects-shared-governance-and.html

...
"whatever one's perspective and judgement about the State's Audit of UCOP, one clear lesson that I would have thought had been learned was the need for greater transparency about decision making, more open debate about important university issues, and the increased importance of providing reasons. In pushing this proposal at the July Regents meeting (and it is an action item not a discussion item) UCOP instead is suggesting that the Regents approve an ill defined, inadequately justified rush item whose real implications for the University have not been seriously debated. If UCOP insists on moving forward with this proposal it cannot be surprised if its already damaged legitimacy among faculty and staff shrinks even further.

UPDATE: THE ITEM HAS BEEN DELAYED UNTIL THE FALL"
- the question of healthcare being viewed by UC regents as gifts or as benefits -and also how staff view it - comes up in the comments section there.
____
Also,
Update: Stealth Item Pulled from Regents Agenda
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2017/07/update-stealth-item-pulled-from-regents.html

____


See the posts above-- some of the faculty seem to view the agenda item as UCOP's- but the Secretary and chief of staff to the UC regents -an executive type of position and paid $250,000 per year with reporting line to the UC Regents not to UCOP-submits and publishes the agenda items ... presumably carefully doing it with the advance consent of the UC regents...


So the agenda items for UC Regents meetings come from the UC Regents. Why would faculty think it comes from solely UCOP?
See also:
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-stealth-agenda-item-kieffers-choice.html

Kind of important for UCOP leadership to make clear how the item came to be placed on the agenda as an action item- completely bypassing status as a discussion item first -which is the normal path/practice.

Important also because these recent headlines make the move a bad one for OP, e.g.:
"Is Janet Napolitano deepening economic inequality at the University of California ..."

- Or, perhaps, by inserting that agenda item in that manner, did the regents -or a certain section of regents-intend to give more life to that kind of Op Ed on OP?


No comments:

Post a Comment