Sunday, December 30, 2018

Will the Guv become the next UC Regent?

Could he appointment himself on the way out? Or, could the new Guv appoint him?
This morning's interview, once again he expressed he has concerns that line up with areas of ongoing UC research:

See, as mentioned here before, there's a vacancy- even check out:

"To be appointed by Gov. Brown or future Gov. Newsom:

While we're at it...
- yes there is a slot open and that page goes on to list the others BUT, just like the regents site, the lists do not explain the reason, origins of the abbreviated (shorter than) 12 yr terms for some of the regents- which the regents should explain clearly but don't. For example, Lieb's term expires 2026 because he is taking a term that was an appointment from 2014 and the current vacancy, one can deduce, is also an appointment from 2014 (both Lozano and Pattiz were reappointed in that year along with Blum- but both Lozano and Blum have left the board before their terms expired, they are not listed as regents emeriti btw).

"Current members

Originally appointed by Gov. Gray Davis:

Sherry L. Lansing (appointed 1999; reappointed 2010; term expires March 1, 2022)[11]

Richard C. Blum (appointed 2002; reappointed in 2014 by Jerry Brown, reappointment confirmed on Aug. 22, 2014, term expires March 1, 2026)[12]

Originally appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Hadi Makarechian (appointed 2008; term expires March 1, 2020)

Charlene Zettel (appointed 2009; term expires March 1, 2021)

George David Kieffer (Chairman) (appointed 2009; term expires March 1, 2021)

Originally appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown:

Richard Sherman (appointed 2014, appointment confirmed on Aug. 22, 2014; term expires March 1, 2025)[12]

Eloy Ortiz Oakley (appointed 2014; term expires March 1, 2024)

John Pérez (Vice Chair) (appointed 2014; term expires March 1, 2024)

Gareth Elliott (appointed 2015; 2025 term expires March 1, 2025)

Ellen Tauscher (appointed 2017; term expires 2028)

Howard "Peter" Guber (appointed 2017; term expires 2029)

Lark Park (appointed 2017; term expires 2029)

Maria Anguiano (appointed 2017; term expires 2028)

Laphonza Butler (appointed 2018; term expires 2030)

Michael Cohen (appointed 2018; term expires 2030)

Cecilia Estolano (appointed 2018; term expires 2022)

Richard Leib (appointed 2018; term expires 2026)

Student Regent:

Devon Graves (term expires June 30, 2019) ..."


It would be his opportunity to counter some of the UC narrative on him or correct the record on committee of two, other things etc

Just recently:

"Outgoing Gov. Jerry Brown “was a hard ‘no’” on that, said Caroline Siegel-Singh, a junior at UC San Diego and president of the statewide UC Student Association."...

-- earlier:

Friday, December 28, 2018

UC Regents 2019 - And-Questions Around UC Regent Emeritus Status


There are a number of UC Regents who have left the board during the same time period as some of the other former regents now listed on that page.

Here's who is listed:

Regents Emeriti

De La Peña, William M.D. Appointed August 18, 2006 to a term expiring March 1, 2018 (by Schwarzenegger)
Lemus, J. Alberto Alumni Regent, July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018, and Vice Chair, Alumni Associations of the University of California
Mancia, Francesco Alumni Regent, July 1, 2017- June 30, 2018 and President, Alumni Associations of the University of California
Monge, Paul Student Regent, July 1, 2017- June 30, 2018
Ramirez, Marcela Student Regent, July 1, 2016- June 30, 2017
Reiss, Bonnie Appointed March 27, 2008 to a term expiring March 1, 2020 (by Schwarzenegger)
Varner, Bruce D. Appointed August 18, 2006 to a term expiring March 1, 2018 (by Schwarzenegger)

One might justifiably ask what is the purpose of that web page? ; Why isn't the status of UC Regent Emeriti explained along with explanation of blatant omissions?; Are omissions a means of punishing former board members not listed? What benefits come along with UC Regents Emeriti status, if any? No explanation of that page on that page...And yet UC Regents have put this effort into creating it.
(E. Island was in the same regent cohort as Reiss de la Pena, and Island completed his full term as well etc.. then there's Pattiz and Lozano who left the board during in the same time frame of those who are listed as Emeriti etc)


While we're at it
Once again listed here *because the regents do not provide a one stop page listing this information on Committee Assignments and they only piecemeal list this information on the bio page for each regent in the side bar* here are the current UC Regents committee assignments that extend into the New Year 2019:

Here are the current committee assignments-- note disparities as you may:

Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Finance and Capital Strategies
-Compliance and Audit (Vice Chair)
-Investments (Vice Chair)


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Finance and Capital Strategies
-Governance and Compensation
-Health Services
-Public Engagement


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs
-Public Engagement and Development


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Finance and Capital Strategies
-Compliance and Audit


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs
-Compliance and Audit (Chair)
-Governance and Compensation


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs
-Compliance and Audit
-National Laboratories


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs
-Public Engagement and Development (Vice Chair)


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Public Engagement and Development


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

As Chair of the Board, Regent Kieffer is ex officio member of all committees except the National Laboratories Subcommittee and Investments Subcommittee.


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs
-Governance and Compensation
-Health Services (Chair)
-Public Engagement and Development


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Finance and Capital Strategies
-Public Engagement and Development


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Compliance and Audit
-Finance and Capital Strategies (Chair)
-Governance and Compensation
-Health Services
-Investments (ex officio)


Ortiz Oakley
Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs
-Governance and Compensation (Vice Chair)
-National Laboratories
-Public Engagement and Development (Chair)


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Finance and Capital Strategies (Vice Chair)
-Compliance and Audit


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs (Chair)
-Compliance and Audit
-Governance and Compensation


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Finance and Capital Strategies
-Governance and Compensation (Chair)
-Health Services (Vice Chair)
-Investments (Chair)
-Public Engagement and Development


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs (Vice Chair)
-Compliance and Audit
-National Laboratories (Chair)


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs
-Compliance & Audit
-Governance and Compensation
-Health Services
-National Laboratories (Vice Chair)


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Finance and Capital Strategies
-Public Engagement and Development


Committee Membership (2018-2019)

-Academic and Student Affairs
-Compliance and Audit
-National Laboratories


And here are the scheduled meetings-

Note 1: that the Health Committee meetings are held at UCLA (long term committee chair regent Lansing based in LA) but that info is not included, listed on the schedule for some reason.

Note 2: that the Investments Committee, which also meets off cycle from full board Regents meetings, is not included in the regents calendar of meetings listing for some unknown reason, why not? The Investments Committee meetings are held at UCLA because the chair of that committee, Sherman, is located there.

Note 3: also that the regents over the last decade have attempted to institute a habit of each year holding one special meeting at a campus other than at UCSF ( a medical complex that does not include undergraduates etc) -- the thinking was UC Berkeley or UCLA are perceived as campuses that already dominate discussion, the thinking was to at least have one meeting at UCD or UCSC or UCM or UCR or UCI or UCSB or UCSD - so that the campus could see the full board regents and vice versa- as well as the benefit of the full board presence to highlight these campuses -- that was some of the expressed thinking then-- now, this coming year 2019 the regents opted once again to hold that special meeting at UCLA- just as they did last year- UC Regents chair Kieffer is based in LA...

Note 4: also that the full board UC Regents almost always extend over a three day period and the first day is frequently not included on the listed schedule and only pops up as listed ten days before the UC Regents meeting because the regents are required to provide that info ten days prior to their meetings at the very latest-- so keep that in mind as you view this:


January 16-17 - Regents Meeting (UCSF Mission Bay)

February 11 - Health Services Committee (UCLA)

March 13-14 - Regents Meeting (UCLA)

April 9 - Health Services Committee (UCLA)

May 15-16 - Regents Meeting (UCSF Mission Bay)

June 11 - Health Services Committee (UCLA)

July 17-18 - Regents Meeting (UCSF Mission Bay)

August 13 - Health Services Committee (UCLA)

September 18-19 - Regents Meeting (UCLA)

October 10 - Health Services Committee (UCLA)

November 13-14 - Regents Meeting (UCSF Mission Bay)

December 10 - Health Services Committee (UCLA)

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

Some big topics


The Mercury News gives a good overview of the issue and an update on a new deadline for negotiation:
University of California leads fight over access to research


San Francisco Chronicle - a sports reporter offers this coverage::
"Cal chancellor Carol Christ looks to unify academia and sports in 2019"

Update, here's more:

Interesting good long read- this Bakke vs Brown ; affirmative action vs reparations; preferring lit reading rather than joining in on fixing insurmountable problems etc.:


And for other reads,see:
The series of tweets about the management of resort type services and other serious questions , experiences of natl parks located in CA and otherwise --here:


A post about long term litigation battle by UC natl labs employees who want to protect their retirement benefits: here.

They don't mention that here:,19.htm

Funny enough, the Bain of UC Berkeley's OpEx existence is listed as number one there...has the consultant class and management put their fingers on the glass doors scales ranking??

To herald it here?:’s-‘best-places-work’-ranked-top-lab-employer

And other things:

Monday, December 24, 2018

UC PATH bookends it

"California legislators demand that UC address payroll system malfunctions"

..."After UC employees reported hundreds of malfunctions with recently implemented payroll system UCPath, Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, and state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, voiced their concerns in letters to UC chancellors, demanding that the issue be addressed.

UCPath, which has been implemented UC Santa Barbara, UC Riverside, UC Merced and UCLA, was created to unify the UC payroll system, according to the UCPath project website. Since the system’s implementation, hundreds of UC employees, including undergraduate and graduate students, have reported miscalculated or missing paychecks. Gonzalez said in her letter that student workers are especially affected by the malfunctions."..

Daily Californian
'Students should have a voice': UC Board of Regents to terminate student adviser position

..."UC Board of Regents intends to eliminate the student adviser role, a position that provides the board with student input on university issues including sexual assault policy, tuition and basic needs, at its next meeting in January.

The student adviser position was established in January 2016 as a two-year pilot program "..."Huang added that if the board follows through on Regent Richard Sherman’s recommendation to remove the student adviser position at the end of Huang’s term, there will be no undergraduate representation on the board for the 2019-2020 term, given that Student Regent Devon Graves and Student Regent-designate Hayley Weddle, who will assume the role of student regent at the end of Graves’ term, are both graduate students"

- some brief background etc: chair of the regents Kieffer has, for years, been opposed to any expansion of students Regents slots e.g. one slot for under grad, grad, post doc professuonal, Sherman is just advancing the interest in shrinking the voices on the board it seems.
Now former but then-student regent Oved ( who now is on the advisory board for this UC effort) at that time advanced the compromise when it became clear they would refuse more student regent slots expansion : the compromise was the creation of the pilot student adviser position (based on another pilot program that became permanent: the staff adviser position). The regents don't display a significant interaction with staff adviser during meetings and the advisers have sometimes been very meek in the open proceedings of board meetings, even on agenda items directly impacting staff. True to form, the regents don't display, show any real interactions with those types of positions- e.g. they don't even bother to ask the head UCSA student leader any questions at all when UCSA make a speech as part of the formal proceedings of the UC regents full board meetings, for years and years they have not engaged in any q and a after those presentations from UCSA, unless it is the sole question of whether or not UCSA will join UC lobbying efforts for more funding. The interactions the regents respect are with fellow regent voting members. So, it is now right back to the same point --there needs to be a student regent position for each level of student: one for undergraduate population, one for graduate population, one for professional level, period.

"Update: UC attempts to delay bargaining"

..."Dear Colleague,

We’re writing to share some important updates about forming our union, Academic Researchers United.

UC administration files objections to forming our union
In mid-November, California’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) announced that a majority of Academic Researchers signed authorization cards in support of forming a union, Academic Researchers United / UAW. This paves the way for us to become the largest ever group of Academic Researchers in the US to form their own union. However, last week UC administration chose to deny recognition of our union, saying that “The University reasonably doubts the appropriateness of the proposed unit.”

We find UC’s position unacceptable. Majorities of Academic Researchers in every job title support forming a union and are currently participating in preparation for bargaining. Project Scientists, Specialists, Researchers, and CPPs all perform research or research-adjacent work, have fixed length appointments, share identical benefits, and have a similar promotion process – which is more than enough to constitute an appropriate unit. In fact, PERB—the State agency with the authority to make such decisions— has previously ruled that these employees are part of an appropriate unit. Rather than recognizing our union and meeting us at the bargaining table, UC administration has chosen instead to spend enormous amounts of time and money attempting to divide us and delay bargaining.

What happens now?
Thankfully, UC administration cannot unilaterally decide whether or not ARs have a union nor what the composition of our union is. We are hoping to meet soon with UC administrators and PERB, California’s state labor board, in hopes that this can be resolved amicably and our union can be certified. Ultimately, PERB can order a hearing if UC does not drop their objections voluntarily.


The San Francisco Examiner
"The willful ignorance and elitism of UC regents"

..." research has suggested that these practices are contributing to widening income, racial and gender disparities at UC—and eroding what were once middle class careers for people of color.

For the last two years, AFSCME Local 3299 has made no secret of the fact that rectifying this problem, and rebuilding the career ladders that have been destroyed by UC’s growing reliance on outsourcing was our number one priority.

In 2018 alone, both of our major bargaining units—UC service and patient care technical workers—waged multi-day, statewide strikes over the issue and the inequality it produces. We were joined by unions representing as many as 53,000 of our colleagues. We’ve written letters, called legislators and spoken out at Regents meetings. Students have stood with us in solidarity.

UC’s response has been to bypass collective bargaining and unilaterally impose contract terms on both units—flattening wages, raising health premiums, and refusing to even acknowledge outsourcing.

Through it all, the Regents have turned a blind eye, while rubber stamping a new round of raises for UC’s highest paid administrators. This group of workers already saw their pay rise by 64% between 2005 and 2015.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of frontline UC workers—custodians, groundskeepers, patient care assistants, Operating Room Techs and others—are struggling to support their families on wages that pay more than 90% less, and in jobs that might well be outsourced tomorrow.

With this as context, the principals of privilege serving on the UC Board of Regents shouldn’t have been surprised to see us on the morning of December 1st. But frankly, we have been surprised by their willful ignorance about a problem that can hardly be considered secret at this point"

And then they pile on the problems by serving employees more UC PATH alphabet soup regarding their 'benefits', see:



January 16-17 - Regents Meeting (UCSF Mission Bay)
February 11 - Health Services Committee
March 13-14 - Regents Meeting (UCLA)
April 9 - Health Services Committee
May 15-16 - Regents Meeting (UCSF Mission Bay)
June 11 - Health Services Committee
July 17-18 - Regents Meeting (UCSF Mission Bay)
August 13 - Health Services Committee
September 18-19 - Regents Meeting (UCLA)
October 10 - Health Services Committee
November 13-14 - Regents Meeting (UCSF Mission Bay)
December 10 - Health Services Committee

Thursday, December 20, 2018

"The renowned UC flagship in Berkeley, on the other hand, has struggled to enroll a student body that reflects the state population. More than half of public schoolchildren in California are Latino, but the share at UC-Berkeley in 2016-2017 was 14 percent. That was 8 points lower than the share at rival UCLA and lower than the other seven undergraduate campuses in the UC system."


Washington Post
"Historic Latino student wave reshapes many colleges. But access is uneven."

"Berkeley is really an outlier in a way that concerns me,” ­UC-Berkeley Chancellor Carol T. Christ said. "...

"Berkeley’s a fabulous university,” Christ said. “But not everybody experiences it that way. If you are a first-generation student, this is a hard place to navigate"

- Just a brief reference to the lack of faculty diversity at the heart of the ongoing UC diversity problems:
"Aguilar, a native of Mexico City and a naturalized U.S. citizen, is one of relatively few Latino professors here. A major obstacle to diversifying the faculty is the scarcity of Latino students in doctoral programs.

By the time they get a bachelor’s degree, Aguilar said, many Latinos face economic pressures that drive them away from graduate school. “They need the money now,” he said, adding that parents will often ask them: “So when are you finally going to get a real job?”

In a way, that question shows progress. Census data shows Latino adults are much less likely than others to have any college degree. Schools like UC-Riverside aim to close that gap.

Late one afternoon, thousands of new students gathered on a sun-splashed lawn for fall convocation. Dylan Rodríguez, a media and cultural studies professor, told them that in their diversity, they embodied the university’s public mission.

“You must allow who you are, and where you are from, to form an integral part of why you are here,” he said. When the university opened decades ago, Rodríguez told them, few if any of the faculty or students “looked anything like me or many of you.”...

- historically, has Cal been discriminatory against Latino, Hispanic both during affirmative action allowed periods and during bans on affirmative action?, both periods alike?


Some faculty take on directly the problems as they relate to UC academic senate proceedings and interactions with UCOP , administration.

"In, Of and Out of the UC"

..."We felt out of time and place in the almost entirely white space of senior UC Academic Senate leadership, "...
"The feelings of nonbelonging lingered through the evening’s panel and those of the next day. To be clear, we also belonged at the symposium because we are UC faculty and, at the suggestion of one of our senior faculty mentors at UC Merced, were invited to present a talk for the 150th anniversary of the UC Academic Senate based on our perspectives as junior faculty at UC Merced. However, we also felt that we were token faculty of color in the exclusive space of senior Academic Senate leaders. We were not sure if our visible phenotypical presentation of “difference” as faculty from UC Merced was conflated with or would even erase our substantive, intellectual contributions about our experiences of UC Merced as a neoliberal university. Were we there as objects to represent diversity or were we there to speak as subjects of history about the UC system?"...

For instance, we are concerned about the market-driven instrumentality of educational priorities that result in the divestment of critical humanities education, critical race and ethnic studies, and globally-informed coursework, including language courses, that speak to the realities of student life stories and non-Western forms of knowledge. We wanted to stimulate serious conversations about how the dilemma of neoliberal development and governance at UCM is shaping the direction of the UC. Indeed, public discourse about UC Merced touts it as the “future of the University of California" based upon the high percentage, 53%, of Latinx students. (UC Berkeley and UCLA have 13% and 21% Latinx student populations respectively.) This is what we mean by "neoliberal diversity" logic" UCM’s development and expansion depends on the visible appearance of Brown and Black bodies on our campus, while its diversity discourses and ideologies undermine more substantive financial investment for the hiring of under-representative Latinx faculty and faculty who specialize in course-work relevant to Latinx students.

Thus, as public funds for higher education dwindle, we wonder, are UCM's struggles indeed the future of the University of California system? How would the Academic Senate address our concerns, and how could we work to re-invigorate the Senate with a new sense of urgency and creativity, working towards collective goals of securing public investment, defending the public mission of the UC system, and committing to hiring faculty of color to help educate the next generation of students of color in the UC system?

We presented our talk on the final panel of the day, and at that point, many important guests at the symposium, including UC system President Janet Napolitano and Provost Michael T. Brown, had already left. We had not pre-circulated our talk, and so the discussants on the panel provided commentary that was independent of the talk. Unfortunately, there was no additional time for a question and answer period, which limited intellectual engagement with the talk's ideas, beyond several questions that came from audience members after the symposium was over for the day.

Our overall sense was that we both visibly represented the abstract notion of “diversity” of the UC system, and also provided “raw material” or “data” about the day-to-day experiences of junior faculty and students of color at UCM. Thus the content of our talk, particularly its critical analysis of neoliberal diversity, was relegated to the margins of the intellectual conversations at the symposium, rather than helping to formulate the constitutive core of conversations by and about the Academic Senate.

In the end, it wasn’t that those in attendance did not understand the concerns we raised. It seemed that they valued our perspective of critical disruption and understood it to be a part of the historical tradition of the UC. Yet the critical substance of our talk was still co-opted into a celebratory narrative about the UC as an institution that values diversity and the public good. The logic of this narrative prioritized the ways in which the UC had successfully fulfilled its mission of administrative and managerial"...
We don’t discount the opportunities that UCM has afforded us as tenure-track faculty in a highly precarious job market, or the important ways it has provided and expanded access to higher education for undergraduate students from California. However, we continue to worry about the quality of that educational access. We are worried about high lecturer to tenure-track faculty ratios. For example, in Fall 2018, the proportion of contingent to ladder-rank UCM faculty was 143 to 249, meaning that over 1/3rd of the UCM faculty are off the tenure track.

We are worried too about over-worked faculty and staff, and the lack of additional tutoring and mentoring services for first-generation, poor and working students. We are worried about insufficient numbers of critical humanities course offerings, and of faculty of color who can serve as mentors for the students who take them. "Trickle-down economics” had revealed to us the ways in which ideological and increasingly fictive notions of the universalized public university and its liberal-humanistic imperatives mask late liberal capitalist university development and its negative ramifications for its racialized and gendered subjects.

In the end, we left the conference reeling from the burdensome weight of the universalist, liberal-humanist tradition of the University of California

Some of the origin/perpetuation of the problems creating this came up in September UC regents' meeting as a question from regent Elliott and in other committee board conversation during that week of meetings e.g. regent Perez, others see one of the last items mentioned here.:

-- the issue of Chancellor Leland's understanding of what UCM's role in resident CA admissions practices on behalf of UC, to assuage or buffer the higher nombers of non resident admissions at UC Berkeley, UCLA , UCD, Etc also is something to think about in tandem with the above issues raised.

And what are the numbers at UCSF, other non UC undergrad populations-even if it isn't undergrad- why avoid discussion of it if it's ok, acceptable as UC planning objectives?

Then, on this other set of issues:

The untenable inconsistent practices UC wants to employ?:

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Just UCSB? - Admissions Decisions Creating ? And other things.


"Faculty fret about cheating and low English skills as UC Santa Barbara enrolls more students from China"

..."the blame on the university for failing to fully prepare for what has been a rapid influx of Chinese students. He and other faculty said they have pressed in recent years for international students to be better screened for English-language skills, offered more remedial help and instructed in American university norms, including the importance of academic integrity and respectful classroom behavior."...

"A few years ago, UC Santa Barbara faculty were told at a meeting that Chinese students made up 6% of the student body but accounted for one-third of plagiarism cases, according to Paul Spickard, a history professor on the faculty admissions committee."...


There's this on :

Remember earlier:


And on Title IX:

Monday, December 10, 2018

The political moves of UC Regents in relation to Title IX hypocrisy or pension reforms etc; UC Regents Special Meeting added tomorrow; Cal's new words on diversity and undergrad admissions; more UC PATH problems

"UCPath representatives respond to unresolved payroll complications at town hall"
..."Viorato added she thinks UCLA failed to support students who are most vulnerable to extreme financial instability.

“The university needs to determine how it will offer reparations to students who have faced eviction, had to take out high-interest loan offers and build their credit card debt,” she said.

The town hall included a Q&A session that allowed students to directly ask UCPath representatives questions. Claire Fieldman, USAC president, and Jamie Kennerk, USAC’s external vice president, were among the undergraduate and graduate students who voiced concerns.

The representatives at the town hall said there was no policy in place that would close unresolved cases in four days. However, Kennerk said this conflicted with information she had received from program directors and the UCLA UCPath team.

“So now that I’m hearing that that’s not how it works, I’m confused, and I think that we all need more light spread on what the actual case system looks like,” Kennerk said.

Kennerk added that solving the current payroll problems has been challenging because the new system is decentralized.

“UCPath doesn’t directly control everything,” she said in a separate interview. “It’s been hard to hold people directly accountable, which has complicated both student advocacy as well as UCPath’s ability to triage issues.”

Several of those in attendance asked what UCPath will do to help student workers who have explored all available resources but still cannot resolve their payroll and financial issues.

A UCPath representative said UCPath did not anticipate the issues student workers are experiencing and will adjust by providing better customer service.

The representatives’ presentation said students can receive loans from University Credit Union, Student Loan Services and Collections, and UCLA Graduate Division.

However, David Tuyo, a University Credit Union representative, said there is a cap on the amount students can receive if they opt for a short-term loan. UCU increased the maximum loan amount from $350 to $500 in light of student workers reporting payroll issues, but Tuyo said he thinks this is still not enough for many students.

“We don’t have a giant pot of money,” Tuyo said. “My heart goes out to those who need more than the $500 cap on short-term loans.”

Yunyi Li, the UCLA campus chair for UAW Local 2864 union, said UC Riverside and UC Merced, which implemented UCPath in January, experienced similar issues with the new system.

Li said the town hall provided useful but redundant information and added she thought UCLA acted in negligence by failing to resolve issues with UCPath before implementing the system at UCLA and treating the problems as an issue of customer service.

Anais Lopez, a third-year political science student, said she skipped a class to attend the town hall.

“Thursday of 10th week is very inconvenient for most students. It’s almost asking students not to go in a way,” Lopez said. “Although we want our money, we also need to get our grades, and we need to go to office hours and talk to our TAs and go to classes.”

Li and Lopez both said they were concerned about the number of students who work two jobs but have only received paychecks for one since the implementation of UCPath.

Lopez added students who work two jobs did not experience pay issues with the previous payroll system.

UCPath and CRU representatives said they were interested in hosting future information sessions, but stated they have yet to schedule another one. The UC Office of the President said in an email statement that additional staff and resources for troubleshooting UCPath issues will remain available at UCLA until the end of the academic year."

And :

"UC employees report paycheck errors with implementation of new payroll system"

-- but neither article tackles the $750 million dollar project costs thus far and its effect on future campus budgets, tuition and fees...
See also:


This new UC Regent making this move:

Los Angeles Times
"Labor leader Laphonza Butler jumps to political consulting — and just maybe a Kamala Harris presidential campaign"
..."Butler will be a partner in the newly rechristened firm SCRB Strategies, along with veteran strategists Ace Smith, Sean Clegg and Juan Rodriguez. Their clients include Newsom, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a frequent subject of speculation in her own right about 2020 presidential ambitions."..."“Can you imagine if we have a President Kamala Harris, what that would mean for Laphonza Butler?” Mitchell asked."...

--can we imagine what that means: potential worries, pitfalls for UC regents practices, policies, interactions?

Can we recall Harris' approach on Title IX in CA and specifically UC - the committee of two MOU moves, remember?

Or, its policy relationship to these recent widely covered troubling developments that extends over several years:

At minimum, Kamala "Harris should’ve known key staff member was accused of harassment
Fresno Bee"

Sac Bee broke it - then everyone else covered it:

- forcing non-disclosure agreement NDA and a "no rehire" clause included in the details of the settlement agreement

The case, as an internal HR case, extended over year+ before her departure mid-term to go to US Senate, yet:
"‘Nope.’ Kamala Harris denies knowing of allegations, settlement involving longtime aide"
..."she introduced a bill in June to ban forced nondisclosure agreements in harassment settlements."...

And no coverage of new UC regent Cohen's position on high stakes CA rule, CA supreme court case on pensions, anywhere... - even though his job makes him a major figure in all of it- and the president of the UC regents, who appointed him regent, also has a detailed view on the subject.

At Cal

Talk is cheap model again?:

..."On December 12 at noon in the Pauley Ballroom, I will be joined by Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Paul Alivisatos for the last of this semester’s “Campus Conversations.” While we will, as always, be ready to field a broad range of questions, we hope to focus this particular conversation on our quest for a diverse campus community and culture that will help safeguard and sustain our excellence in teaching, research and public service for many years to come. This event is just the first in a series of opportunities to pose hard questions about our values, plans and commitments, to share innovative ideas and to challenge the status quo — to do, in short, what Berkeley does best.


Carol T. Christ

-- She is already having great difficulty in exhibiting good optics on the issue within her cabinet- a non existent diverse Chancellor's cabinet comprised of the most senior administration positions. So, how can she show results, fixes to long term admissions problems with diversity of undergrad student admissions? The students will not see similar faces in the most senior positions in administration at California that the experience Cal wants to give those students? Or, does the Chancellor and her ilk think the students will not notice?


There are now additional "special meeting " agenda items added to the UC Regents Health Committee meeting tomorrow, mostly centered around actions increasing the compensation for senior management:

December 11, 2018

You can watch it here:

See also:

And, yes Elsevier:

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

UC Regents Meeting December 11th , UC PATH coverage,, more

"Faulty payroll system leaves hundreds of University of California employees without checks"

--strangely, the piece claims UC could not provide accurate total numbers for those employees affected at UC Riverside nor UC Merced - which is very strange since northern UC is supposed to be supported on UC PATH by UC Merced and southern UC is supposed to be supported on UC PATH by UC Riverside- yet the support centers can't provide accurate numbers about their own home campuses where they are?! The assoc vp operations and project manager said he could not provide the info...

"He said he didn’t have numbers for Merced or Riverside."

"About 77,000 UC system employees — including both staff and student positions — are covered by UCPath, according to UC Associate Vice President of Operations Mark Cianca.

That’s about one third of the system’s 230,000 employees. The remainder are expected to be covered by UC Path by the end of 2019."

-and in the presentation to UC Regents in November it was made clear that some UC labs are now added in and UC is using UC Path as "a selling point" to them and others in contracts,grants etc. So there's that...


UC Regents Health Services December 11th meeting:

Public Comment Period
Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of October 9, 2018

H2: Discussion Remarks of the Executive Vice President – UC Health

H3: Action Approval of Appointment of and Compensation for Chief Operating Officer, UC Irvine Health System, Irvine Campus as Discussed in Closed Session

H4: Discussion Working Together: Conduct Expectations in Healthcare Settings and Initiatives to Prevent and Address Disruptive Behavior

H5: Discussion UC San Diego Health Affiliation with El Centro Regional Medical Center: Impact on Quality and Branding, San Diego Campus

H6: Discussion Perspectives on the Role of Network Expansion in Supporting the University’s Academic Mission and Affiliation Principles

H7: Action Amendment of Regents Policy 3401 – Policy on Student Health and Counseling Centers

H8: Action UC Health Capital Financial Plan

Could H4 item have anything to do with this that came out yesterday?:
"UC Irvine Employee Files Lawsuit Alleging University Disregarded Sexual Harassment Claims"

It is the latest to follow on the heels of , from Sept:

"Former UC Irvine vice chancellor committed sex discrimination by paying women less than men, review finds"

Another round of revolving door between UC and CSU:
"A former UC Irvine vice chancellor touted for promoting equity and diversity committed sex discrimination by paying three women less than men who did the same or similar work, a campus review has found.

Thomas A. Parham left his post as vice chancellor of student affairs in June to become president of Cal State Dominguez Hills. The review, which was obtained by The Times, found that Parham violated university nondiscrimination policies by refusing to pay an assistant vice chancellor and the directors of two campus centers as much as male counterparts."

And then there was this:

Add in here- this which appears as an opinion piece at WaPo rather than a statement from UCOP:
Washington Post
Janet Napolitano: Don’t let the Trump administration undermine Title IX"

The Washington Post
Janet Napolitano: Don’t let the Trump administration undermine Title IX

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaks at a student town hall in Philadelphia on Sept. 17. (Matt Rourke/AP)

By Janet Napolitano
December 4 at 4:54 PM
Janet Napolitano, secretary of homeland security from 2009 to 2013, is president of the University of California.

The Education Department, in issuing its proposed Title IX regulations, appears to believe our nation’s colleges and universities have gone too far in responding to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual violence.

The department is mistaken.

Twenty-seven years ago, I was part of the legal team that supported Anita Hill as she testified before members of a Senate panel, most of whom had never grappled with the concept of sexual harassment before. Today, we understand better how sexual harassment can devastate the educations, careers and lives of those subjected to it. In higher education, this awakening, in large part, is because of students who courageously and publicly shared their own experiences, drawing the attention of not only their college administrators but also the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — then under the Obama administration — and the nation at large. This, in turn, has led to critical improvements in how schools respond to complaints.

As a university president, I know all too well how crucial it is — and how complex it can be — to quickly and appropriately respond to sexual harassment and sexual violence. Since I came to lead the University of California in 2014, the UC system has dedicated significant time, tangible resources and its best thinking to develop processes that are fair to those accused and to those bringing complaints. Many other schools did the same, and as these processes continue to evolve on campuses and in the courts, we remain steadfast in our commitment to ensure fair and equitable outcomes for all parties. We have made important progress and, as a result, have seen a significant increase in reporting. This is important because it means people feel more confident about coming forward and are able to access the resources and recourse available to them.

The Education Department’s proposed rules threaten to reverse this hard-won progress by unraveling critical protections for individuals who are sexually harassed and undermining the very procedures designed to ensure fairness and justice. For example, these new rules would require that schools allow representatives of the accused — often lawyers — to cross-examine complainants at live hearings. This is an intimidating prospect, especially to students wrestling with the already difficult decision to come forward. This will discourage reporting, and it is unnecessary. While this requirement is supposedly intended to protect the accused, many universities, including UC, already permit the accused to question the complainant and witnesses through a neutral intermediary in a manner that does not cause further harm.

The Education Department would also narrow the definition of sexual harassment. The department currently recognizes that there is a spectrum of misconduct and requires schools to stop and remedy only behavior sufficiently serious to limit the target’s educational opportunities. This standard has worked well both for schools and for the Education Department through several administrations and does not need to be fixed. The new, narrower definition risks leaving serious conduct unaddressed — especially at schools that adopt a higher evidentiary standard, which the proposed rules also allow.

Additionally, the proposed rules would significantly diminish schools’ responsibilities to respond to complaints. Schools would be required to investigate only formal complaints that are made to someone with specific authority to institute corrective measures and that allege misconduct within a university program or activity. Worse, schools need only respond in a manner that is not “deliberately indifferent.” I believe our responsibilities as administrators and educators extend beyond these woefully minimal standards, and UC will not reduce protections for its own community members. I am concerned, however, about the safety and well-being of individuals at institutions that take a different approach.

These changes also would weaken the authority of the Office for Civil Rights, meaning the federal government would play little role in ensuring students received important Title IX protections. Schools look to the Education Department for leadership on critical issues affecting our nation’s students. Yet these proposed rules suggest that the Trump administration has deprioritized combating sexual harassment and sexual violence. Under the guise of providing due process, they represent yet another effort to erode important civil rights protections.

The problems of sexual harassment and sexual violence won’t go away until we work together to make them go away and change the culture of what is acceptable behavior. In the face of efforts to set this important work back, colleges and universities cannot waver in their commitment to do what is right. For too long, our culture has blamed and stigmatized survivors and allowed sexual misconduct without accountability. Together, we can build on progress we have already made to change that. We can, and we must."


Then this latest at Cal:

Then check out headline spin on it...


On students basic needs and separately the topic of IX there's:

Friday, November 30, 2018

Does UC Support Cal Grant Expansion or Not?

"California Student Aid Commission backs expansion of Cal Grant program
Legislature could overhaul Cal Grants next year"

"University of California System President Janet Napolitano and California State University System Chancellor Timothy White were cool on the proposed overhaul, however. In a letter to the 15-member commission, Napolitano and White supported increasing the size of the Cal Grant that helps students pay for living expenses, but said further changes need more analysis."

And UC in a quick read 2 page letter-says this on Cal grant program for students:

- it is interesting that only two segments joined on that letter: UC's Napolitano joined by former UC Riverside Chancellor and now CSU Chancellor White... But UC Regent Ortiz Oakley did not join the letter and he is Chancellor of the CA community college system...

(BTW chancellor White comes up in some bad memories in :this latest Remaking the University guest post:

"There is a punchline to this story that takes place in a former UCR Chancellor’s living room…

During this period, Chancellor Tim White periodically invited groups of department chairs to his residence for friendly dinners, during which he engaged us in conversation about things we felt were important to the campus. During the dinner i attended, a fellow departmental chair and i raised concerns ove"...)


Gov elect Newsom's views on Cal grant also come up in the EdSource article.

And Daily Bruin had this -which was mostly statements of hope and expectations and light on in depth analysis:
"Daily Bruin
UCLA experts speculate on fiscal feasibility of Newsom's campaign pledges"

Other coverage offers this:
..."give Newsom his only real chance to pursue and deliver on the promises he repeatedly pushed during the campaign.

Consider that wish list: universal health care, universal preschool, universal prenatal care, free community college tuition for two years, more funding for higher education, cradle-to-career education, building hundreds of thousands of housing units by 2025 to ease the homeless and housing crisis. And that’s just for starters."...see:

And they also had this
"The Mercury News
Get ready, California: Gavin Newsom is not Jerry Brown, from governing styles to Trump taunts to hairdos"

No answer to them this week...

In news articles all last week--Many comments from campus community wondering about why Cal administration relied upon an AQI meter located on the bay at Aquatic Park near bay breezes and away from hillside ridge area that is center of, close to campus -- but no answers from admin on it this week when folks returned...last week just excuses that it was difficult to assess.

But there is this Op Ed still asking important questions:
..."Anybody who was on campus could feel how bad the air quality was. It hurt to breathe, and the website Purple Air listed the air quality index as well above 200 on campus. Almost all universities in the Bay Area had canceled classes that day. But according to UC Berkeley’s metrics — a morning read of a meter 2 miles from campus — the smoky air did not warrant a shutdown that day."...
"Of course we need the courage to carry on. But we also need the courage to take bold action. And that courage won’t just bubble up from nowhere. It will grow out of our connection to each other in community and our sense of collective struggle. And that is an ethic that we won’t learn in the classroom.

If, at the behest of revenue-minded campus administrators, I found myself standing in front of a smoky room of dedicated students with face masks, my message might be something like this: Carpe diem. No more business as usual. Let’s help each other by organizing and creating the future that we want and need — together."

And, thankfully for this reporting, coverage of experts at Davis looking into effects based on readings from Berkeley- Oakland hills (where smoke nestled) during that time:

And here is one more related article:

See NYT:

..."It’s a godawful mess; there is just such a long list of hazardous materials that are partially burned and scattered about in the debris after a fire,” said Dr. Gina Solomon, a professor at University of California, San Francisco, who studies the effect of chemicals on health."...

"Professor Webster stood on the blackened banks of Butte Creek, scooping up sample jugs of water. He is part of a project with a consortium of universities studying the contaminants that wildfires release into the watershed. Of particular concern, he said, was the site of this fire: Paradise sits in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, where cities as far away as Los Angeles get their water.

“That landscape is the landscape that provides high-quality drinking water for the rest of the state,” Professor Webster said.

Crews are currently installing wattles — bundles of straw — along water bodies in an attempt to block the seepage of contaminants. But with recent rains, many chemicals are still flowing and the cleanup work has become even more challenging.

“The firefighters are doing heroes’ work,” Dr. Solomon said, “but these hazardous materials workers are doing heroes’ work for sure too — it’s just less visible.”

Cal on Harvard's admissions, and then Cal autograder issues update


At Harvard:
UC Berkeley Sociologist Talks History of Harvard Admissions | Harvard Crimson

There is a running series of those updates as well, the latest here:


Now IHE covering "Autograding System Goes Awry, Students Fume
Computer science students at the University of California, Berkeley, are frustrated with a malfunctioning autograding system."

More background here- in the last section of this post:

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Cal first annual Title IX -related SVSH report released, Update on latest CRISPR-Cas9 move, An FSM update, and more

First see this latest on:
Someone at Cal had a heads up in that CRISPR-Cas9 latest controversy:

"UC Berkeley expert warned China scientist against gene-editing in 2017"


At IHE there's this FSM related article on Cal:


Daily Cal made as their headline an article about an important UC Berkeley Chancellor commissioned report - but failed to provide a link to the Report itself--

--But that's understandable because it looks like at this time the Chancellor didn't put anything out to the gen public to explain the report, the findings, or ways to view it, links etc Why not? Maybe she just sent an email to students?? Her communications team is very well funded and the concerns on the issue extend across the community, so a message to all stakeholders would seem most appropriate, but...
That link to the 70 page report -(title pages are included in the page count) apparently this is the direct link to the actual report itself:

And then that report refers back to this content:

The administration seem to enjoy making the content piecemeal and located at different spots here there, labyrinthian...

Just another round of their bizarre handling of the subject at Cal...


Reading again, revisiting about the 'Downton Abbey-ization of higher education':

"Applying 'Winners Take All' To Higher Ed
Grappling with some uncomfortable ideas from a provocative book."

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

Taking form?



Just CA?:

"California must improve conditions for workers who help prevent fires"


"J-School Leaders Say It's Time to Speak Out"


"CRISPR co-inventor responds to claim of first genetically edited babies"

Hospital raises doubts:

Higher education questionable alliances create new alliances?

Title. IX

The New York Times
"Devos’s New Harassment Rules Protect Schools, Not Students"

That SCOTUS Title IX unresolved case still playing out:

The lines being drawn?

"Committee leaders say they’re eager to look at her treatment of for-profit colleges, student loan forgiveness and" Title IX

Remember back in Summer: "An Update of the Federal Law Governing Higher Ed Appears Dead. Now There's a Fight Over Who Killed It. -
The Chronicle of Higher Education

Recall this course that received popular coverage when it rolled out, now a couple articles detailing out some students' experiences and faculty frustrations:


"Tuesday night, I laughed for 10 minutes after seeing that my program for the Computer Science 61B project passed all 16 unit tests. But last night, I instead found myself crying for an hour after realizing that my program only passed three of the 10 originally hidden, more complex tests that were just released online. The project is due tonight at 11:59 p.m."

Also: ..."the truth is, unlike inner drive, external pressures can rarely provide enduring incentive and motivation. For those who truly like CS, coding provides lasting satisfaction and only temporary frustration. These individuals are always challenging themselves with higher-level concepts and personal projects. They always look forward to the next CS project and think of it as an opportunity to improve.

On the other hand, for CS students like me — those who don’t really like CS — coding leads to lasting self-doubt and only temporary satisfaction. I often feel a high level of anxiety and frustration after hours of debugging — work that may not even yield any useful results. I am scared to look at the next project that is released. I constantly compare myself to other CS students. I become skeptical and critical of myself.

More importantly, for all the time I spent coding, I gave up more than I realized. I am passionate about writing and storytelling. I also enjoy painting, photography and filmmaking — all of which serve as important artistic platforms for self-expression. After committing myself to these coding assignments, however, I can barely find enough time to pursue my own passions. The last time I updated my blogs was a month ago, and I had to force myself to be satisfied with an unfinished painting for my art class project.

At UC Berkeley, career development is undeniably skewed toward "...

The hype before the probs:


And a former UC Regent gives $25 million in dedicated liberal arts funds to ...SF State, his Alma mater:

"San Francisco State University... announced a $25 million gift from alumni George and Judy Marcus — the George and Judy Marcus Funds for Excellence in the Liberal Arts. This gift, combined with a recent $1.8 million Athletics scholarship fund gift from the couple, represents the largest donation — $26.8 million — in the history of San Francisco State."

Thursday, November 22, 2018

Nov 27th at UCSB: "Budget, Enrollment and Facilities Issues at UC Santa Barbara"

See: ""Student Debt is a Continous Drain on College Students"

- which gets into misguided billionaire philanthropy in higher education toward the end of that new post.

This cropped up in October:
..."Medical residents at UCLA said they received only a fraction of a $5,000 housing stipend that the David Geffen School of Medicine promised them."...

It comes up here in this latest article on UC Path: ..." And UCLA medical residents reported being shortchanged up to $1,200 by the University on promised stipends. UCLA appeared to blame UCPath for its slow response to residents’ concerns."...

-- Bloomberg gave a billion+ to Johns Hopkins for student aid-- so presumably they, too, could spend the necessary billion dollars of other university funds on HRIS enterprise system, ha
- So, there's Geffen ... UC PATH-- what about it regent Sherman?


Committee Hearings

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

SUBJECT:Budget, Enrollment and Facilities Issues at UC Santa Barbara
Budget Subcommittee No. 2 On
Education Finance
1:30 p.m. - UC Santa Barbara
Engineering Science Building - Room 1001
Santa Barbara
Committees: Budget, Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance

As holiday usual , this year's UC D Provost forums highlighted here - for this post - this topic:

"Colleges and Intergenerational Income Mobility in America"
Forum Summary
In his lecture, Professor Saez will focus on a topic of great interest in both higher education and society at large: the potential of a college degree to raise one’s income level. To illuminate this topic, he will present his research data, compiled for each four-year college and university in America, on graduates’ earnings in their early thirties and their parents’ incomes. Professor Saez will address the following critical questions, among others: Do colleges in America alleviate or worsen income inequalities? Which colleges contribute the most to helping children climb the income ladder? And how can we increase access to such colleges for children from low-income families?"

UCOP and UC Berkeley Request for Comment on Title IX SVSH policy revisions *from students during, closure-holiday break*

UC Berkeley sent out a request for comment on 35 pages of new proposed changes UCOP intends to make to SVSH Title IX policy- they sent the message out on Monday evening when the campus was suddenly closed due to the conditions and they have given a deadline over this holiday weekend to read it and comment by a due date of Tuesday November 27th ,you can read about it: here.
This approach begs the question : Do they really want student feedback?

"Complaint: Diversity Work, Feminism and Institutions"
Forum Summary
The lecture will draw on interviews with students and staff who have made (or have considered making) complaints about abuses of power within universities. It will show how feminist complaint can be a form of diversity work: as the work you would have to do before some populations can be included within institutions. We learn about the institutional “as usual” from those who are trying to transform institutions. Finally, the lecture will discuss how identifying and challenging abuses of power teaches us about the mechanics of power."

Saturday, November 17, 2018

Have a care...


In N. Cal:

On campus this thinking:

Troubled UC PATH hits $750 Million and counting- some UC Regents want an objective, independent cost benefit analysis of the project.

This is something of a dump of items about UCOP spending with UC exec and UC PATH intersections.
With some notes not quotes scribbles, observation, recollection thrown in ...
because the lack of in depth coverage (higher education reportage) and lack of UC regents' and UC SMG responsible oversight of the project issues
well, it all strains credulity, on so many fronts...

Regent M chaired the finance and cap strategies committee on Wednesday when a presentation was made, a slick presentation from Brostrom, Nava and Cianca- staff from UCOP responsible for the UCPATH project -Brostrom responsible since inception, beginning of project-, you can watch that presentation in vid located here at the 1:16:00 time mark:

On Thursday Regent M gave a sunnier,happier briefing to the UC regents full board about this item, but on Wednesday it was a different mood, handling of it. In public comments some of the employees/students made serious claims that UC was low balling the numbers of the total employees payroll negatively impacted- even after the presentation - the next day on Thursday more public comment asserted the same claims. And Regent Anderson confirmed he had heard a significant number were having problems.

Regent M with a pregnant pause deep breath introduction of it as 'an interesting item'

Regent M called for an objective, independent "Cost Benefit Analysis Report on UC PATH" and a presentation of that to the regents soon.

Regent M also made comments on the materials provided to regents that the total figure for the project at this point is $550 million + $200 million = $750 million as of this point...he then divided it out per UC employee head count, per cap. To illustrate for the other regents... He also highlighted that thus far the project is costing about $3000 per employee on startup go live, and then about $500 per employee annually for system maintenance in coming years, and that's *if* everything goes
*right*, $80 million per year in systemwide maintenance in each future year of the life of UC PATH...

Remember that this project was originally budgeted for $170 million - then budgeted for $220 million then the project costs came with a shocking sudden update presentation to the regents that it would be $504 million * with promises and assurances that there would not be significant additional increases all along the way...
Now, on Wednesday a confirmation they've hit $750 million.
It has to be asked...
How much power and influence can one garner for one's self when the UC Regents give the project sponsor 1 Billion dollars in 'spend it around' money -With not much oversight?!
UC pushed back on the CSA estimate of the total project cost estimate at around $942 million with little chance of savings...

Recall that Lt Gov ex officio UC regent now Gov-elect Newsom ballparked guessed that the project was on the way to becoming a three quarters of a Billion dollar project- his statement was not widely reported on, downplayed by many at the time -but not here:

-- he estimated right, at least for the number hit at this juncture. It likely may continue to grow beyond that: the Recruitment component and Performance Management component have apparently not even begun. Have the Recruitment and Performance Management been costed out and added to this budget yet, or not?
Remember, this was a project that was budgeted as a $220 million project in circa 2012 and with almost no oversight it became a $550 million project in circa 2016 and now this week in late 2018 a confirmation from the regents committee chair that the project is now at $750 million and continuing to cost more daily...

-- the project sponsors sat quietly in background as the project manager took on the bulk of the presentation to the regents-a project he came in on in the middle of the mess- he started off by making what sounded like ill-considered framing about "underselling" and "overselling" language about the project 'milestones' to date as public relations opportunity ; and then threw in weird old TV Dallas show pop culture reference; it just came across oddly...

Later, the discussion of 'hold harmless' or'make whole' stances regarding the impact on victims whose payroll was harmed, those who are UC employees-- UC's official position was that there is a question of even *IF* UC subscribes to such thinking...and it was predominantly framed as only hurting young students who don't have any real bills to pay other than to UC itself, and then grudging acknowledgment that it impacted graduate students and the spinsor of the project laid blame on the overly complex attributes of graduate students as employees as though that could not have possibly been anticipated and which was sort of a disgusting tactic used in this presentation to the UC Regents...

--One alumni regent (Anderson) has somehow it seems, though vaguely detailed , stepped directly into operations management decisions at UC Riverside in order to try to help resolve the problems impacting students and employees there??- he has his own biz -so that can give some pause...

--And another alumni UC Regent (Morimoto?) asked a key important question and raised an important point: Have the problems identified only been a result of employee self-reporting or are the problems also being identified by any UC intitiated internal self-audit UC conducts timely on UCPATH?

-- Importantly, also in this presentation to regents and keeping in mind the: coverage that parrots the UC focus on their talking points about future funding request without discussing UC PATH effects on campus budgets- Brostrom raised his own negative criticism of the CA Legislature decision recently to step in and now fund part of the UC PATH project directly (recall the Berkeley Law tuition episode and Brostrom proponent stance on naming increase in tuition fees as the "Kashmiri fee" - and an opposing view in response to that action that the naming action was done to create a 'chilling effect' to discourage students from disputing miscalculation of their tuition and fees- hundreds of millions involved in that round as well) He spun it as taking away from their giving direct funds to UCOP to manage and parcel out to campuses, and as a taking away from instruction funding . But, perhaps the CA Legislature funded part of UC PATH because there was a sense, concern that UCOP was diverting funds away from individual UC campuses in its placing 'assessments' on each UC campus that then had to be paid to UCOP by each UC campus-the legislature witnessed that over the years of the life of the project to that point and how it was used as a UCOP influence tactic on campuses and concerns were raised--- these appear to be leverage games - all sides are playing them. There's no doubt though that the CA Legislature will want to know how UCPATH ballooned into a $750 million project just as the CSA audit hinted at along with a CSA estimate total cost of around $900+ million in their analysis.
Here, see esp the last three pages 41-43): "The University of California Office of the President: Increasing Costs and Scheduling Delays Have Hampered the UCPath Project an - ... › bsa › reports › 2016-125.2.pdf

And earlier warnings:
And here,

other prognosticators and observers directly warned about even earlier.


Last week there was this seemingly out of the blue item:

"UC President Napolitano retools office after criticism over state audit"

"UC President Janet Napolitano is spending more than a $1 million to retool her office staff after stinging criticism last year from Sacramento lawmakers over their handling of a state audit.

The first step was to bring in Huron Consulting Group on a $735,000 contract to give the office a once-over.

Based on recommendations from Huron, Napolitano has just hired a veteran communications and public relations expert — Claire Holmes — to a revived post as the $360,000-a-year senior vice president of external relations and communications.

It’s a nice salary but less than the $374,625 that Dan Dooley (husband of Gov. Jerry Brown’s chief of staff, Dianna Dooley) made before the position was eliminated in 2014.

Napolitano has faced some rough going since an independent investigation found her office interfered with a state audit of its spending habits, findings that contributed to the departure of two of her trusted aides.

That prompted Napolitano to hire Huron to re-evaluate her operation. Now, based on firm’s recommendation, the heads of the communications and external affairs units will report to Holmes, who in turn will report to Napolitano."

See Matier and Ross

- The Matier and Ross article only focuses on this one new hire but in response to the UC audit survey tampering fallout - there have been UC purchasing actions; multiple commissioned reports like the Huron report, the Moreno report; and iterative ongoing reports to the UC regents' compliance and audit committee made by Sjoberg-Evashenk efforts (sometimes leaving the impression to some observers that maybe they were hired by regents to serve as foil to CSA analysis and audit findings, which can look like a very questionable tactic): At UCOP, in response to these consultant services generated reports, there have been some structural reorganizing changes, revised reporting policies, and new hires in particular offices where there are any 'dual direct report role' positions that report both solid line and dotted lines to the UC regents and the UC president as supervisory oversight: such as the office of UC chief compliance and audit officer. And, in fact, some of the most troubling facts that came out of the Moreno report centered around supervisor control of the UC office of general counsel and that policy has also been amended, emphasized and/or revised. So, it is interesting that Matier and Ross focus solely on this one new UCOP communications hire rather than creating something like an SF Chron in depth piece on UC cumulative actions, new hires, consultant salaries and other hiring numbers, significant high dollar budgeting software purchasing etc in the UC actions and response to those CSA findings to date -- but at least SF Chron isn't playing LA Times "close the book" headline games etc

Sadly, the article raises the specter that perhaps Napolitano has been rewarded rather than admonished by the regents for the audit interference...which would be a wild message for UC to send out.
Or, maybe, its a move to reward other questionable UC leadership moves that predated her arrival.
-Recall it like this, that Holmes started off her Cal time of her UC career hitting the comments section of this business journal article to go after a reporter and a UCSB faculty member because they raised concerns, early warning signs about a pilot program at UC Berkeley that was the lead up to the high cost budget overrun-- Bllion dollar UC PATH systemwide project -Here was the comment from that time, since it looks like the article no longer displays the reader comments section- the reporter's name was Steven, here:
"Dear Steven, it's unfortunate that you didn't take any time to contact the people at UC Berkeley - not UC Santa Barbara - who are actually working on this effort. We are all curious what prompted you to take on face value this blog posting v. doing some reporting to uncover the facts about why UC Berkeley must pursue a comprehensive effort to contain administrative costs on our campus, so we can direct the largest number of financial resources to focus on teaching and learning? Are we not living in the same state, where we presently have no budget, are in a fiscal crisis, and have seen dramatic decreases over the last decade in state investment in public higher education. We are an academic institution and not a corporation - and no one here is trying to erase the blackboards. We are just trying to save the taxpayers and students money and be more efficient. What's wrong with that?"

-- yes, even now 'we are all curious' indeed!

--Framing those expensive executive actions, decisions as solely an effort at 'money saving for students'...

... Also,seem to recall she was also part of the high compensated UC Berkeley Chancellor's cabinet staff who were either not present- all 'out sick'- when they were on call because Birgeneau was out of the country, and/ or they handled events abysmally during that 2011 major headlines making protest at Berkeley-- the events that precipitated the follow-up unfortunate events a few weeks later at UCD in 2011 (and resulted in another expensive UC commissioned report called the Kroll Reynoso report if you're wondering)-see then-chancellor Birgeneau comments- Birgeneau at that time could be heard: here at the 1:10 timemark listing off his staff who weren't around 'out sick'- during on campus strife, he included Holmes -it was pretty shocking at the time because even then the salaries for all those folks were pretty lucrative but it seems they were not around to handle at a time of well known crisis on campus..- Then, in response to that bad press for UCB she collaborated on a 'watching paint dry' type of documentary about Cal that got her a bit film credit for herself and a couple other senior administrators but not much image improvement for Berkeley at that key moment when Cal needed it...She then went to UCD med for awhile and then she hung around at UCOP under an 'interim' title for a good long while before Napolitano could apparently make this move under a justification that's based on Huron report...

At recent UC Regents meetings Holmes has made presentations to the regents public engagement and govt relations committee in mostly a tactful diplomatic manner, seeking feedback from them and from some stakeholders- somewhat low key-so, maybe there's been a shift. Or not.

To be clear, UC PATH problems and the 2011 protest events are of course not the fault of Holmes -but her interactions in those important prior events are notable history since Napolitano has opted now to place her in this new high profile, influence position. She and her staff will now be responsible for spin on UC PATH and CA Leg interactions with UC on funding.
And, that action is now paired with the unfortunate optic:
That Napolitano couldn't control or keep track of what her direct reports UCOP staff did with the audit interference in 2017 - claims of 'I didn't know what my chief of staff' or 'deputy chief of staff was doing' interchangeable mantra at the time- so now regents reward and give Napolitano more UCOP direct report high salary staff brand control in 2018
-that makes sense?, and this is the kind of thinking the UC Regents subscribe to?! - that seems to be what that article is raising as a key area of concern.

Other history on the position-Dooley, mentioned in that M&R piece, might best be remembered here as that 'cat food bowl' presenter to the Li'l Hoover Commission - that comment was about altering UC faculty performance behavior - behavior modification-in order to get UC faculty to adopt online instruction at UC more rapidly...
For full detail it is located at this link at the 57:30 mark- if you want to watch the full thing in context: He also worked on the UCOP logo project and he sometimes served as UC counsel, and served as a locally designated official on whistleblower cases involving UC executives in prior years.

So these communications positions and UCOP president's immediate staff can leap frog all over the organization- which can be a good or bad thing highly dependent on specific presidential management decisions. Whether or not a president understands when to tell staff to stay in their lane or not etc.

-- A side observation: at various junctures in the not too distant past there's been the strong feeling, impression, that 'UC senior administration commissioned, funded reports' tended to find whatever findings UC power wanted it to find -and only now are regular folks outside of higher education recognizing the strong likelihood that those administration practices seeped/ flowed as practices both to and from Title IX and whistleblower higher education case practices- corrosive influence toward game playing with intentionally 'narrow the scope to limit findings' tactics, staff just remain non-responsive to inquiries as public relations approach, perhaps try to 'bake the search results on UC' pr games, and concern that other such tactics regularly employed...

Attempts to make things murky...

In this case, let's remember the findings and coverage of the CSA report itself:

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 ...

And even though somewhat imperfect -but in some ways hopefully more reliable than some UC admin reports- see also the Moreno-Hueston-Hennigan report - a $220,000 and 22 page effort findings to discern the real problems at UCOP:

The “Moreno Report”, which summarizes the major findings of an independent fact-finding review, undertaken for the Board of Regents, regarding allegations that the University of California Office of the President interfered with campus responses to surveys distributed by the State Auditor in connection with Audit 2016-130. But the main problems with the Moreno report, in retrospect, revolves around the investigation into how UC PATH was bundled in the coded language term 'campus services' in the negative feedback UC campuses were detailing in their campus survey responses to CSA that were tampered with and *the sponsor of UC PATH was involved in some of the controversial 'outreach' to UC campuses about their survey responses to CSA* yet,in Moreno this was not tied directly as the catalyst reason for the audit survey interference in the first place, Moreno just seemed to drop that thread for no clear reason and some CA assembly and senate members picked up on that when a hearing was held in Sacramento on the CSA findings and they asked about it but received no clear understanding, reason in the answer ( oddly, Moreno, at that hearing - which you can watch in full: here, seemed to just claim a very minimalist view/understanding of the UC CFO role in it but the paper report mentioned it).

Also summary here:

And this still ongoing:

The actions of leadership at UC (some who predated Napolitano and she inherited as staff) over a long term caused many of these problems, or allowed these problems to linger unaddressed. Now,apparently UC sees a key finding of Huron -noted by M&R article -is to give UCOP more executive salary staff as a key resolution...?!

The research arm of UC is not helped by this - the doubts raised by UC admin hijinks- and no amount of PR exec hiring and no amount of UCOP "speed dating" schmooze fest in Sacramento or with individuals with ties to old and new media will cloud , cover over, remove the concerns folks continue to have based on facts inevitably raised.

Trying to control narratives where UC appears in it's best light is what this communications position, the M&R article highlighted, is about -focused on. It is not a position that is concerned with what is true and what is false about UC- that is supposed to be the work of journalism- getting to the facts. Nor is it a position that is centered on resolving the problems CSA discovered at UC- that is supposed to be the role of members of the UC president's immediate office, not the art of spin.... Instead, with these latest developments, what we are left with is the chilling effect of what was modeled by UCOP in the most awful way to UC campuses with the audit survey interference,tampering, work culture problems, lack of transparency related problems, the 'way the books are kept' problems at UC-- most of which still has not been fully directly addressed, resolved- but that's the more important, most important content.

And those UC PATH numbers and its history as a project management case study.

One hopes that UC has learned that the bad old ways are now ineffective and create division within. The areas of common concern suffer for it. There are better ways.


"UCSA Releases Demands to UC Regarding UCPath Implementation"

"The UC Student Association released a list of demands to the University of California regarding UCPath on Wednesday, calling for the system to provide reparations for students who have not been paid and for halting rollout of the system until problems have been addressed.

UC Santa Barbara began transitioning to UCPath at the beginning of this quarter, hoping to create a more streamlined approach to paying its workers, according to the UCPath website.

The UC Student Association (UCSA), an organization dedicated to advocating “on behalf of current and future students for the accessibility, affordability, and quality” of the UC system, said UC “has not been paying its student workers” since the implementation of UCPath earlier this year.

“Checks that are received often are for the wrong amount,” the UCSA letter read. “With the number of students who rely on being paid on time to pay rent, buy groceries, or pay student fees to enroll in their classes this is unacceptable.”

A copy of the UCSA demands to UC are listed :"...


Earlier Daily Bruin had:

"Problems with UCPath system cause financial disruptions for UC workers | Daily Bruin
Daily Bruin › 2018/11/09"

"Hundreds of UCLA student workers have not been paid for over a month due to problems with a new payroll system.

The new system, University of California Payroll, Academic Personnel, Timekeeping and Human Resources, aims to centralize payroll across the University of California. Since UCPath was implemented at UCLA in September, many student workers said they have been paid incorrectly or not at all.

Yunyi Li, the UCLA campus chair for United Auto Workers Local 2865 union, said over 100 tutors at UCLA have gone more than six weeks without pay. The tutors are supposed to be paid every second week. Local 2865 is the union that represents over 17,000 academic student employees, including graduate student instructors, graders and tutors at the UC.

Li added that hundreds of teaching assistants, who are paid on a monthly basis, did not receive what would have been their first paycheck of the quarter Nov. 1.

Li said some workers who received payment were underpaid and others were overpaid. Li added there have been instances where workers who hold multiple positions are only receiving paychecks for one of those positions.

“There’s just a really big diversity of ways that people’s pay is wrong,” Li said.

Local 2865 has filed a grievance at each of the campuses where UCPath has been implemented: UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, UC Merced and UC Riverside.

Li said some workers do not have access to their contract-given benefits, such as health insurance, transit passes and the full payment of their tuition, because they are not appearing in the new payroll system. As a result, these workers are having to pay out-of-pocket for these expenses, Li said.

“I know of one worker who had to put her tuition on a credit card,” Li said. “Some people were just unable to pay it and were dropped from their classes and are still trying to get that fixed.”

Daniel Schoorl, vice president of University Council-AFT Los Angeles, Local 1990, said lecturers have self-reported pay issues, including a lack of payment or payment shortages. UC-AFT is a union that represents UC librarians and non-Senate faculty.

Lecturers reported to UC-AFT saying they have been unable to pay their rent, mortgage payments, child care and insurance premiums, Schoorl said.

“A lot of Americans, and in this case people in LA with the cost of living, live check-to-check, so missing that payment on the first (of the month) is a very stressful thing, something we don’t want our members to go through,” Schoorl said.

Li and Schoorl said their unions do not know the full scope of UCPath-related issues because they are relying on members to self-report, and UCLA Employee & Labor Relations has not provided them with further information.

UCLA spokesperson Ricardo Vasquez said UCLA is working with the UCPath Center to resolve related pay issues as quickly as possible.

“We apologize for any inconvenience this transition has caused as we make resolving these pay issues a top priority for the campus,” he said.

Representatives did not acknowledge the issue affected individuals beyond UCLA’s campus, despite reports from union leaders claiming the issue had reached the other campuses where UCPath was launched this year.

Schoorl said he hopes the university will work with unions to ensure these issues do not occur at other campuses and do not reoccur with new hires in the winter.

“My concern is the UC still has five more campuses to transition the system to, and the fact they’re not working with unions (for the transition) is just showing a lack of good faith,” Schoorl said.

Jamie Kennerk, the Undergraduate Students Association Council external vice president, said she thinks UCPath has failed across the UC.

“It is unacceptable for UC to force employees to work without knowing when they will be paid,” Kennerk said. “It is horrifying that the issue is so widespread and still hasn’t been resolved.”

Eduardo Solis, USAC general representative 3, said he has not been paid for his job as a peer learning facilitator. He added many students depend on payments from the university to meet their basic necessities.

He also added administrators have not faced serious consequences whereas students are punished when they are unable to meet monetary deadlines.

“This system doesn’t really care about poor students being forced to pay out of pocket,” Solis said. “Whenever they can’t meet deadlines, (administrators) have severe consequences for the students.”

Solis added he has not received any explanation or apology from any administrators.

Vasquez said the majority of UCLA’s approximately 50,000 employees have successfully transitioned to UCPath without any issues. However, Vasquez added UCLA is offering emergency pay advances and can waive late fees for students where appropriate.

Alli Carlisle, recording secretary for UAW Local 2865, said the union wants the university to pay everyone immediately and reimburse all losses.

“Any disruption in normally scheduled pay or tuition remission is a violation of the contract,” Carlisle said. “Any losses incurred because of the delayed pay or delayed tuition remission need to be reimbursed or fixed by the university.”

Carlisle said workers who incurred fees due to not being able to pay their rent or credit card bills on time should be reimbursed by the university.

“Moving forward, the goal is for this kind of disruption in people’s paychecks to never happen again,” Carlisle said. “We just need the university to fix their system.”"


And earlier than that Daily Bruin had this:

" UCPath payroll system ineffective, a bureaucratic disaster | Daily Bruin
Daily Bruin › 2018/10/08 ›"

"UCPath handling UCLA’s payroll? Say hello to a world of nuisances.

The University of California Payroll, Academic Personnel, Timekeeping and Human Resources project, a central payroll management system for the UC campuses, was launched by Associated Students UCLA at the beginning of this year and implemented in September. The new system is meant to streamline and standardize the employee payroll process.

But it was a terrible idea for the most part. The change involved taking the payroll system from individual UC campuses and consolidating all payroll into just two locations: UC Merced for Northern California and UC Riverside for Southern California – a recipe for nightmare.

The new system restricts our local payroll departments from viewing or adding in our payroll information, thereby rendering them unable to answer any questions or to resolve our concerns. All they can do is offer a phone number for UCPath that keeps you on hold for about 15 minutes.

So we may ask, “Why doesn’t UCLA just cut me a check that I can walk over and pick up?” And the answer is the same: UCLA has lost the ability to write a check for an employee who may be in need of his hard-earned money in order to make payments, buy groceries or even put gas in his car just to be able to get to work.

And it’s especially bad when you’re one of the employees who does not receive a paycheck because of the system and has to contact the UCPath hotline. The people on the other end of the phone do not have answers and cannot tell you when your check will be sent out.

The process is even more inane when you have to resolve errors in configuring the deposit system. Through multiple attempts at fixing my direct deposit setup, the UCPath employees ended up entering the wrong account numbers, inadvertently locking me out of my account section where I should be making those changes.

And when I sought help, I was only given the standard answer that UCPath would get back to me but to not expect a phone call even though I requested the operator call to keep me updated. The reply I received in a standard email was that I could not make any changes to the bank account information of my UCPath profile, since I had attempted to make too many changes in a single day. I hadn’t personally made a single change to my account.

So much for making the process easier for employees.

After my two calls, I was told I should fix the account numbers myself, and that it would take two weeks to see if the problem was fixed. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if UCPath could use my banking information that UCLA used just last month?

I had been receiving direct deposits for 11 years without a problem via UCLA’s previous payroll system. Employees were told it would be an easy transition to UCPath: If we didn’t have any changes and our direct deposit was not changed, we wouldn’t have to do anything and our direct deposit would be uninterrupted.

That was wishful thinking. If you try to call the local personal payroll department, employees tend to inform you that your information can only be viewed by those working for UCPath. Do yourself a favor and log onto UCPath to see if your personal information and emergency contact information were ever transferred over. Many of my coworkers and I have found those vital details to all be missing now.

Some of my colleagues even have money going to different bank accounts. Instead of the direct deposit going to their checking accounts, it now ends up in their savings, making them default on loans because of automatic billing systems they had hooked up to dedicated accounts months before.

These problems are ridiculous. The UC needs to give some access back to universities’ local payroll personnel to better direct us and help with our problems. And in this day and age, it is absurd that it takes more than a few keystrokes to get your direct deposit fixed in a day or two.

UCPath’s streamlining has resulted in employees like myself waiting a week and a half for checks we don’t even know if the University is going to send because they have to be mailed out of UC Riverside and cannot be written at UCLA.

Calling UCPath a mess is an understatement. The process has been botched from the beginning, and the least employees deserve is to be paid for their hard work.

--At the UC Regents meeting they tried to spin the problems as solely problems incurred by young carefree students rather than to discuss them as problems incurred by grown adult staff with responsibilities for dependents etc.


Just the other day, Daily Cal took up this on the Matier Ross article:

"UC Office of the President spends $735K on report, begins structural overhaul"

"The UC Office of the President, or UCOP, is continuing to make several changes to its structure after reading a report conducted by Huron Consulting Group — the report, completed in January, cost $735,000, according to UCOP spokesperson Dianne Klein.

On Jan. 17, 2018, Huron released a report that outlined potential strategies to make UCOP more efficient. Now, some of those suggestions are being acted upon. Klein said in an email that it is unclear what the structural overhaul will cost in total as they do not have a final invoice. On Nov. 14, the Compliance and Audit Committee will meet at the UC Board of Regents meeting in San Francisco to discuss how much will be spent on these changes, according to Student Regent Devon Graves.

Graves said the Huron report was originally commissioned in response to a California state audit that was conducted on UCOP to check the office’s efficiency.

“(UCOP is) taking great strides in accepting recommendations from the auditor and making sure that they are implemented,” Graves said. “The university is on track with meeting all of the recommendations in the time outlined by the state auditor.”

There are six operating models outlined in the Huron report and two enterprise-level options that “offer different framings for how UCOP could be organized in the future.” Graves said he does not believe that a decision has been made about what options or models to follow. The overhaul would not affect any one of the campuses unless some of UCOP’s functions are moved to a specific campus, Klein said in an email.

The restructuring of UCOP has begun, but changes will not be happening all at once, said Klein in the email. She added that it is up to UC President Janet Napolitano whether or not it will follow the report’s recommendations.

“The creation of the division of External Relations and Communications was among the first changes made after the Huron report was completed,” Klein said in an email. “Claire Holmes, the senior vice president, was selected to lead the new division, which now includes state government relations and federal government relations – thus eliminating a vacant position of senior vice president, government relations.”

This specific consolidation, Klein added, along with the termination of the other senior vice president role, has already reduced part of the office’s budget by $2.6 million.

“If the Office of the President is operating more efficiently, it benefits the campuses, which benefit the students,” Graves said."

-- at the UC regents meeting Graves was asked if he would stay on after his term expires to finish out the two year report on UC students basic needs that was approved this week and Graves, in response, joked and asked in turn if the regents would be granting consultant fees to him to do so. He, Graves, seems to understand the spending decisions UC is making right now and how that impacts fees students have to pay. The $750 million + and counting will have to come from someone and UC wants to carefully control how the payment for the splurge spending on it is characterized, that likely is the reasoni why UCOP is so angry the CA Legislature stepped in to pay for part of UC PATH-- because now the CA Legislature can question how UC is managing funding decisions on UC PATH...

That Daily Cal article though does not convey a Daily Cal full understanding of all the different forms of consultants, reports, software and other spending UCOP has been engaged in under a banner/excuse of doing so in response to the state audit that slammed UCOP for engaging in this very behavior...the aggregate impact, on the UC budget decisions etc , going forward - it is complex stuff but all interrelated.

(BTW, UCOP attempts in that DC article to spin the Dooley position as cost saving measure is dubious- Dooley seved UC as at times a form of legal counsel, a public relations executive who created expensive UCOP logo: also served at various points as a locally designated official on whistleblower blower cases involving UC executives. So, that is not really comparable to Holmes, it would seem. No doubt though that Holmes will try to craft a pro UCOP if not a pro UC narrative about UC PATH problems, and cost overrun and a UC framing of the CA Legislature in their funding of UCPATH...)

- If you read the articles linked to above you are more likely to get to discern the truth for yourself rather than just relying on the UCOP spin.