Thursday, January 25, 2018

Lingering Themes and No shortage of things...

On free speech at Cal- this latest:
- which highlighted this particular column:


Don't miss: "American Historical Association, Annual Meeting on topic of Free Speech"

With this panel:
Carla Hesse
University of California, Berkeley->History Department

Jonathan Scott Holloway
Northwestern University

Carol Quillen
Davidson College

Michael Roth
Wesleyan University

Sanford Ungar
Resident Scholar
Georgetown University->Institute for the Study of Diplomacy


And Cal alumni magazine has this latest article:

"Is Free Speech Smart? "| California Magazine - Cal Alumni Association
University of California, Berkeley › alumni :


On Christ's interest in having a ' year of FSM' etc, there's this related topic- with less than a dozen and a half views of each of the talks she hosted at Cal in the Fall -see the list of them there on sidebar in full, but here's hers and Brady's :

And recently,
THE highlighted the series: here

On the tuition hike vote this week at UC Regents, here's recap with details

From SJ Merc:

From SF Chronicle, SF Gate:

From LA Times:


Chancellor Christ's effort to make the case for tuition hike, which she described as very modest yet essential, at the UC Regents, even included a PR package:
She writes:..." I also addressed a lingering misunderstanding on campus and beyond, by explaining that low-income students will not be impacted by any increase in tuition, which would be covered in their financial aid packages. To be clear, we see tuition increases as "...

-the assertions she made at the regents meeting will likely be questioned at these upcoming talks, where the campus is quite aware of plans and budget items in more specific history than the UC regents might be able to easily recall, see this upcoming:

--old or 'less new' things still can be items, drains in the budget...Op ex, campus shared services, new capital projects, memorial stadium, playing title ix catch up,
and on that situation she highlighted to the regents: recruitment of a chem Prof but can't afford the lab claims: there's the op ex history of infringement on chem , those old headlines don't help either--And, where were the Berkeley foundation and that new board of visitors to get funding for a top notch lab for a claimed top notch recruitment that didn't happen cuz not enough tuition $$ rolling in, isn't that what those groups are around for, instances like it?


On Title IX there were multiple UCLA alumni as panelists in this archive, recently remembered, so
--let's recall: this from March 2017

Now several N California groups in this effort:
"Education Secretary Betsy DeVos Is Sued Over..."
New York Times


Jerry Brown in his State of the State on higher Ed:

"Despite what is widely believed by some of the most powerful people in Washington, the science of climate change is not in doubt. The national academies of science of every major country in the world -- including Russia and China -- have all endorsed the mainstream view that human caused greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the oceans and in the atmosphere and that action must be taken to avert catastrophic changes in our weather systems. All nations agree except one and that is solely because of one man: our current president.

Here in California, we follow a different path. Enlightened by top scientists at the University of California, Stanford and Caltech, among others, our state has led the way:"
With respect to higher education, it is clear just how much of our prosperity depends on the intellectual contributions of our institutions of higher learning. National leaders come from all over the world to visit California’s most innovative companies, companies that are filled with highly educated and creative men and women -- many of whom graduated from our public colleges and universities.

Although there is always a struggle for funds, I want to point out that since 2011, the state has increased its annual support of higher education by $5.8 billion, that is:

$1.2 billion for UC,

$1.6 billion for CSU,

$2.4 billion for the community colleges, and

$623 million in additional financial aid.

Even with so many of our students attending college, there are still 2.5 million Californians between 25 and 34 who are in the workforce but lack a postsecondary degree or certificate. These men and women often go out of state or pay high tuition at for-profit institutions to improve their skills and employability. For this group, I want to create the California Online College so these overlooked Californians can get the training they need -- conveniently and at very low cost.

( Add in here that he then said to the chamber'you can applaud that'- you can see it here)

-- there's some elegaic stuff on the president of the UC regents out there, like:

"For Jerry Brown, the Face of California’s Old Order, the Ranch Is Calling
The New York Times "

"From Moonbeam to mainstream: Jerry Brown in winter | TheHill"

"Gov. Jerry Brown looks back, pushes forward in his final State of the state LA Times"

"Gov. Jerry Brown is in danger of becoming remembered for his ...-LA Times"

--But he is setting up a big imprint on the UC Regents this year with no less than seven new appointments...

This write up was less elegaic, rang a clearer, truer profile of how he might see it:
And it includes:
"In addition to expanding funding for his initiative to focus public education funding on disadvantaged schools as a way to erase stubborn gaps in educational achievement, Brown is doubling down on his longstanding quest to expand online education.

It was called “distance learning” decades ago when Brown first championed the idea of using networked personal computers as the delivery mechanism for instruction.

College and university leaders have dragged their heels, of course, weighed down by an old paradigm of traditional in-person classroom instruction. Their attitudes would be much more persuasive if academic rank was more dependent on teaching than on specialty publishing.

As it is, Brown is now pushing for a statewide online community college, a true democratization of basic higher education. I’ve utilized quite a few online university courses to get up to speed and stay up to speed in several areas. Online learning works well, though it does require some self-starting. If more folks drop classes than in the traditional paradigm, that’s fine. It should be clear that there is no shame in that. If it’s not working for you, move on to something that does. If you need help, ask for it. It’s a different time. Greater access and lower cost means greater volume and increased success.

Sustaining education and knowledge in an increasingly dumbed-down society is a big part of the irreducible core that must be achieved if we are to survive our technological adolescence and move through the transition toward a first truly advanced civilization.

There's stuff like this on it:


Then see:
"Jerry Brown's terms as governor have been bad for CSU and UC funding. The doubling of tuition revenues has not actually made up for the state cuts followed by small annual increases. In the UC case, campuses also need to find another $700 million a year for pension costs they didn't have ten years ago, and additional money for buildings that the state doesn't build anymore. For the math behind our Lost Decade, see the last six paragraphs of "A Faculty Overview of the UC Budget--Tenth Anniversary Edition."

Last week, Brown gave CSU and UC even less than the inadequate 4% the systems thought they were getting, namely, 3%, which, subtracting one-time money comes to 2.1%, i.e. to the rate of consumer price inflation. The governor also does not propose a tuition increase. The two systems have 33 campuses between them, and Brown proposes that the structural problems and everyday squeezes at all 33 will remain in place.

Why does the governor and most of the Democratic establishment think UC and CSU can do more with less, and that state cuts don't hurt quality? Brown offered a kind of explanation"...


Btw, UC PATH has increased now by another $43 million, which put it in the $600+ million range, but whose counting- they mention it in the last five minutes of the fin committee...
The state audit estimated it will come in at $900+ million, the lt gov regent ballparked it potentially at $750 million, it was originally supposed to cost $225 million...

Friday, January 19, 2018

UC Regents January Meeting- Revised -Updated - Sessions Added

See again:

Some of the sessions that previously had  error message links now finally have the agenda information in them, and there are other new sessions for the full board and a new exec comp committee meeting

 Special Meeting of the Board (open session) (pdf)Location: Robertson Auditorium

Date: January 24, 2018
Time: Upon adjournment of the afternoon Committee meetings1
Location: Robertson Auditorium
UCSF–Mission Bay Conference Center
1675 Owens Street, San Francisco
Agenda – Open Session

B2 Action Approval of the University of California 2018-19 Budget for Current
Operations, Tuition, and Financial Aid, and Adjustment of the
Employer Contribution to the University of California Retirement Plan

Board (open session - includes public comment session) (pdf)Location: Robertson Auditorium
Thursday, January 25
Upon end of Board open

Agenda – Closed Session
Chair’s Report on Personnel Matters
Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting November 16, 2017
Committee Reports Including Approval of Recommendations from Committees:
Compliance and Audit Committee
Recommended Settlements for Board Action
Closed Session Statute Citations: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
Governance and Compensation Committee
Appointment of Principal Officer Delegation from the Office of the General 
Closed Session Statute Citations: Nomination of officers and members 
[Education Code §92032(e)]
Collective bargaining matters [Government Code §3596(d)]
Health Services Committee (meeting of December 13)
Closed Session Statute Citations: 
Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]

Officers’ and President’s Reports:
Report of Interim, Concurrence, and Committee Actions
Closed Session Statute Citations: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
Acquisition or disposition of property [Education Code §92032(b)(6)]
B3(X) Discussion Personnel Matters Relating to Review of University of California 
Office of the President Organization
Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
 1 All times indicated and the order of business are approximate and subject to change.


January 31, 2018

3:00 pmWorking Group on Executive Compensation (open session - includes public comment session)
Times indicated and order of business subject to change

Date: January 31, 2018
Time: 3:00 p.m.1
Location: Optimist Room, Luskin Conference Center, Los Angeles Campus
Suite 109, California State University East Bay, 1000 Broadway, Oakland
Alumni Hall, Mosher Alumni House, Santa Barbara Campus
Helen Hayes Room, Algonquin Hotel, 59 West 44th Street, New York, NY
Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2
(20 minutes)
1 Discussion Review and Discussion of Executive Compensation Practices

Working group membership: Regents Anguiano, Elliott, Lansing, Makarechian, Monge, 
Napolitano, Pérez, Sherman (Chair), and Tauscher

Thursday, January 18, 2018

More Title IX, DACA , tuition hikes, and Senior Management hires to fix problems made by senior management hires...


"WNBA All-Star guard Layshia Clarendon has filed a civil lawsuit against the regents of the University of California, alleging she was sexually assaulted by ... a longtime Cal-Berkeley athletic department employee.

The suit, filed Wednesday "...

And at SJ Merc:


(Likely a coincidence, but is there any relationship to uc regents chair Kieffer in this firm pick?):

Cal hires firm to assist in AD search

-Cal hires Witt/Kieffer to find our next athletic director

The campus coming to terms with? This:UC "Berkeley to pay $238M of Cal Athletics debt from stadium renovations"


The gov said tuition increase was not part of the deal, Chron says it was?:
"The tuition increase, roughly tied to the rate of inflation, is part an agreement between Napolitano and Brown, in which UC agreed to keep tuition flat between 2011 and 2016, in exchange for steady annual increases to UC’s state funding.
However, Napolitano ran afoul of the expectations of state lawmakers last year, when a state audit of her office revealed that she had kept $175 million socked away for pet UC projects and had not been disclosing the funding in her annual budget presentations to the regents.
Additionally, the auditor and an independent investigator found that Napolitano had improperly interfered in a portion of the state audit, rendering it useless, in hopes of making the president’s office appear to be doing a better job than it may have done. Ultimately, the regents admonished Napolitano and required her to apologize for the interference.
Last May, Brown withheld $50 million in state funding for UC until the university makes all the fiscal repairs the auditor recommended. It is going through that process now.
Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, was one of the state lawmakers who called for the original audit. On Wednesday, he criticized the tuition proposal.
“I understand UC needs a long-term fee strategy, but UC always seems to go to the students first rather than take a hard look at creating more efficiencies,” he told The Chronicle. “If the UC president’s office had not tampered with the state audit, perhaps we could have identified administrative efficiencies to help fund UC.”

In the retelling of the above scandal they frequently leave out the part where UC Regents,even in the midst of all of it, increased UCOP funding, see: "UC Regents approved presidents budget, question constitutionality..."
"fees from each campus, giving it complete discretion on how those funds were spent. Now state lawmakers will have more control of those funds.

Increased legislative oversight was one of the recommendations that came out of a damning state audit of the office’s budget practices released in April. It found that the Office of the President had “amassed substantial reserve funds, used misleading budgeting practices, provided its employees with generous salaries and atypical benefits, and failed to satisfactorily justify its spending on systemwide initiatives.”

At Thursday’s meeting, board chair George Kieffer said he agreed with much of what State Auditor Elaine Howle found in her audit, but singled out the Legislature taking direct control of state funding as a “troubling incursion into the board’s authority.” He and other regents questioned the constitutionality of the move and warned that it could lead to further direct control of the university.

“This is an erosion of our autonomy,” Regent Hadi Makarechian said. “We need to preserve our rights. If we continue with this precedent, next time we may get into the chancellors’ budgets.”

Kieffer said the university has asked outside counsel to weigh in on the constitutionality of the move. The change is authorized only for one year, but Los Angeles state Sen. Ed Hernandez has introduced a constitutional amendment that would enshrine stricter legislative control over the UC system in the state’s constitution.

Kieffer said the university brought some of these issues on itself with its previous lax budget practices and that it must communicate better with state lawmakers to improve things.

“I hope by doing our jobs right, this will be a onetime occurrence,” Kieffer said. “Because if it’s not, we’ve got a problem.”





Former uc regent Ruiz writes this on a wish for a central cal pick for UC regent:

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Some UC Regents Have Serious Problems With This Month's UC Regents Agenda. And DACA latest developments.

UC Regents decided to post their meeting agenda with nine(9) days notice rather than the ten (10) day rule,
UC Regents has a mystery closed board meeting posted with a bad link as their very last agenda item on the 25th
Multiple governance of UC Regents issues are also up for discussion, along with several sensitive matters related to UC regents and UCOP governance rules amendments all to be discussed and possibly voted on...

And UC scheduled this month's UC Regents meeting on the same day the State of the State is delivered in Sacramento by the President of the UC Regents/Governor Brown, this means that a number of ex officio UC Regents will necessarily be in Sacramento for that event on that day--now see LA Times on the tuition hike vote issue :

"Some UC regents push to delay vote on possible tuition increase'

"State Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, an ex-officio regent, asked UC President Janet Napolitano over the weekend to delay a vote because he and some of the other regents won’t be able to attend the budget discussion scheduled for Jan. 25 at UC San Francisco. That’s because Gov. Jerry Brown’s State of the State address is scheduled for the same day.

At least two other ex-officio regents, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torklakson, also will attend Brown’s address and miss the regents meeting. Newsom opposes any tuition increase, his spokesman said.

“To start, it lets the Legislature off the hook of addressing the state’s underfunding of public higher ed,” Rhys Williams, Newsom’s spokesman, said in a text Tuesday.

Students also have asked Napolitano to delay any vote until the March meeting, to be held at UCLA. Student Regent Paul Monge said he and two other student leaders met with Napolitano on Friday and asked for a delay, saying more students would be able to voice their views at a meeting at UCLA than at UCSF, which has no undergraduate campus.

“We’re wanting to provide access to the meeting and make sure there’s robust input from students,” Monge said Tuesday.

Monge said UC officials told students that they wanted a decision on tuition in January to give families time to prepare for any increase. But students countered, he said, that admission decisions for freshmen and transfer students usually are not released until the spring anyway. Freshmen have until May 1 to commit to enroll and transfer students, until June 1.

Delaying a vote, Monge argued, also would give the UC community more time to lobby the Legislature and governor for more money. That, in turn, could eliminate the need for another tuition increase, he said.

Brown made it clear in the 2018-19 budget proposal he unveiled last week that he did not support another tuition increase at UC or Cal State.

“The Administration remains concerned about the impact of tuition increases on lower income students and families and believes more must be done to reduce the universities’ cost structure,” his budget proposal said. “Further reforms should be implemented before the segments consider charging students more.”

At the same time, Brown proposed a 3% increase in base funding for 2018-19, down from a 4% increase in each of the last few years. Leaders of UC and Cal State have expressed concern over the smaller funding increases.

Napolitano and UC Board of Regents Chairman George Kieffer could not be reached for comment on Tuesday. "

This on DACA latest at Daily Bruin:

And this statement from UC:

"The University of California looks forward to defending the federal district court injunction on appeal. U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s order rightly rests on the correct application of settled legal principles, which do not permit an agency such as the Department of Homeland Security to act based on a mistaken view of the law. Judge Alsup correctly recognized that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was a lawful exercise of enforcement discretion and rejected the government’s argument to the contrary.

We will oppose the government’s highly unusual attempt to take an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The administration’s disregard for ordinary appellate procedures echoes the irregular manner in which it tried to rescind DACA.

Judge Alsup’s injunction requiring DHS to accept DACA renewals remains in place, and we urge all DACA recipients to submit renewal applications as soon as possible. This does not, however, negate the urgent need for a legislative solution that will allow DACA recipients to permanently remain in the United States."
And this press conference:

Cal Chancellor Christ is dealing with some negative feedback on her handling of related DACA issues

And her free speech year:


Napolitano has been on CNN and other outlets talking about DACA
And there is this other coverage of her also:

"Ex-Obama Officials as College Presidents
A significant number of former Obama administration officials have become college presidents, and many are women -- revealing truths about hiring nontraditional presidents." also the comments there as well...
it included:
"The search leading to Napolitano becoming UC system president hit on some of the same themes. Napolitano’s success was less about her being a cabinet member in the Obama administration than it was about her experience running a large, complex public enterprise with a diverse staff and many different constituencies, according to a UC spokeswoman. Her background at the Department of Homeland Security played a part, but Napolitano’s time as the governor of Arizona was perhaps more important, because she was well regarded for her work with education.
Of course, both Blank and Napolitano have had to deal with controversies during their tenures at their respective institutions. UW Madison’s business school dean in December announced her resignation after just one semester, because her vision for the school was not aligned with Blank’s. Blank has also had to navigate struggles over budgets and tenure in Wisconsin. In California, Napolitano ran into a rocky time of late, taking flak from regents in November following accusations her office sought to tamper with a state audit in an incident that led to the resignation of two of her top aides."


"UC President Napolitano Talks About Moral Leadership During School of Medicine Retreat"
"During the talk, held on Jan. 11, she implored leadership to stand up for researchers to ensure that their voices are heard, criticisms are addressed and academic freedom is embraced – and that it was imperative to educate the public about what real science is. “We have to continue to put forward the fight that real science means something,” she said.

Napolitano elaborated upon how institutional leaders go about addressing systemic problems such as sexual harassment, discrimination and inequalites through setting specific intentions and requiring accountability for changes.

“We marry the knowledge and the expertise that comes out of the university with the public issues of today,” she said, noting three examples of current UC-wide challenges as the 4,000 undocumented UC students, how to minimize the UC system’s carbon footprint and sexual harassment issues. “We should not only not be shy, but should be speaking up and speaking out and uniting what we are talking about with what actions we are taking.”"

Monday, January 15, 2018

UC Regents Meeting Agenda January 24-25


Wednesday, January 24
8:30 am
Board (open session - includes public comment session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2
(20 minutes)
Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 15, 2017
Remarks of the Chair of the Board
Remarks of the President of the University
Remarks of the Chair of the Academic Senate

Concurrent Meetings
9:30 am
Agenda – Open Session

Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 15, 2017
P1 Discussion Federal Issues Update

P2 Discussion Update on University of California-Sponsored State Legislation for 

P3 Discussion Community Outreach and Impacts, Division of Agriculture and Natural 

P4 Discussion Annual Report on Sustainable Practices 2017

Committee Membership: Regents Blum, Lansing (Vice Chair), Mancia, Monge, Ortiz 
Oakley, Park, Pattiz, and Reiss; Ex officio members Brown, 
Kieffer, and Napolitano; Chancellors Block, Christ, Hawgood, 
Leland, May, and Wilcox; Advisory members May and Morimoto; 
Staff Advisor Main; Student Advisor Sands

9:30 am
Compliance and Audit Committee (open session) (pdf)Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 15, 2017

C1 Discussion Internal Audit Activities Report

Committee membership: Regents Anguiano, De La Peña, Elliott (Vice Chair), Lemus,
Makarechian, Newsom, Pérez, Tauscher, Varner, and Zettel
(Chair); Ex officio members Brown and Kieffer; Chancellors
Blumenthal, Gillman, Khosla, and Yang; Advisory members
Anderson, Graves, and White; Staff Advisor Valdry

Compliance and Audit Committee (closed session) (pdf)Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 15, 2017
C2(X) Discussion Compliance and Audit Personnel Matters
Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]

C3(X) Discussion Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Litigation Overview
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

C4(X) Discussion Update on Investigation by the Department of Insurance

C5(X) Action Recommended Settlements for Board Action

-2 items posted -

Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

C6(X) Discussion Appellate, Trial Court Developments and Updates

-19 items listed-

C7(X) Information Settlements and Separation Agreements Under Delegated
Authority Reported from October 7, 2017 to December 4, 2017
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)

11:30 am
Governance and Compensation Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of September 13, 2017 and
November 15, 2017

G1 Action Governance, Policy, and Compliance Reforms: Adoption of Regents
Policy on Compliance with State Audits, Regents Policy on
Independent Reporting to the Board of Regents by Officers with
Dual Reporting Obligations to the Board and to the President of the
University, and Regents Policy on Appointment and Compensation
of Officers of the Regents with Dual Reporting Obligations to the
Board of Regents and to the President of the University;
Amendment of Bylaw 23, Amendment of the Compliance and Audit
Committee Charter; and Amendment of Regents Policy 7702 -
Senior Management Group Performance Management Review

G2 Action Approval of New Benchmarking Framework Resulting in Revisions
to the Market Reference Zones for UC Health Positions in the Senior
Management Group, as Proposed by the UC Health Executive
Compensation Working Group

G3 Action Establishment of New Position in the Senior Management Group of
Associate Vice President – Chief Transformation Officer, UC
Health, and the Market Reference Zone for the Position, Office of
the President

G4 Discussion Semi-Annual Report on Outside Professional Activities Approved in

Committee membership: Regents Blum, Elliott, Lansing, Ortiz Oakley (Vice Chair), Pattiz,
Pérez, Reiss, Sherman (Chair), and Varner; Ex officio members
Brown, Kieffer, and Napolitano

Governance and Compensation Committee (closed session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium
Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 15, 2017

G5(X) Action Appointment of Regent as Chair of the National Laboratories

G6(X) Action Appointment of Principal Officer Delegation from the Office of the
General Counsel

G7(X) Discussion Collective Bargaining Matters

Concurrent Meetings
1:00 pmAcademic and Student Affairs Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Fisher West Banquet Room

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 15, 2017

A1 Action Endorsement of Recommendations of the Academic Verification
Task Force

A2 Action Approval of Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition for a
Graduate Professional Degree Program at the Merced Campus

A3 Action Revised Agreement Between the University of California and the
California Institute of Technology for the California Association for
Research in Astronomy

A4 Discussion Benefits of the University of California Undergraduate Research

A5 Discussion Update on UC Center in Sacramento

A6 Discussion Update on Implementation of Recommendations of the Total Cost of
Attendance Working Group

A7 Discussion Discussion of Future Items for the Committee and Board

Committee membership: Regents De La Peña, Elliott, Lansing, Mancia, Monge, Newsom,
Ortiz Oakley, Pattiz, Pérez (Chair), Reiss, Rendon, and Tauscher
(Vice Chair); Ex officio members Brown, Kieffer, Napolitano, and
Torlakson; Chancellors Block, Christ, Leland, Wilcox, and Yang;
Advisory members Graves and White; Staff Advisor Main

National Laboratories Subcommittee (open session) (pdf) Location: Fisher West Banquet Room
Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 15, 2017

N1 Discussion Presentation on the State of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

N2 Discussion Annual Report on Fiscal Year 2017 National Laboratory Performance

N3 Discussion Update on Los Alamos National Laboratory Contract Competition and
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Contract Reform

Committee Membership: Regents De La Peña (Vice Chair), Mancia, Napolitano, Newsom,
Ortiz Oakley, Pattiz (Chair), and Tauscher; Ex officio member
Pérez; Chancellors Block, Christ, and Yang; Advisory member White

1:00 pmFinance and Capital Strategies Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 15, 2017

F1 Action Approval of Amendment #6 to the UCLA 2002 Long Range
Development Plan for Additional On-Campus Student Housing
Following Action Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Los Angeles Campus

F2 Action Approval of Budget, External Financing, and Design Following
Action Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act, Lot 15
Residence Hall, Los Angeles Campus

F3 Action Approval of Budget, External Financing, and Design Following
Action Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act,
10995 Le Conte Apartments, Los Angeles Campus

F4 Action Approval of Budget, External Financing, and Design Following
Action Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act,
Southwest Campus Apartments, Los Angeles Campus

F5 Action Approval of the University of California 2018-19 Budget for
Current Operations, Tuition, and Financial Aid, and Adjustment of
the Employer Contribution to the University of California
Retirement Plan

F6 Action Adoption of Regents Policy on a Central Operating Reserve for the
University of California Office of the President and Discussion of
Guidelines Governing the Central Operating Reserve

F7 Discussion University of California Office of the President Fiscal Year
2018-19 Budget Process

F8 Discussion Development of Dundee Residence Hall and Glasgow Dining,
Riverside Campus

F9 Discussion Amendment of the Budget, Joan and Sanford I. Weill
Neurosciences Building, San Francisco Campus

F10 Discussion Regents Policies on Capital, External Financing, and Employee
Housing Assistance Program Matters

F11 Discussion Fiat Lux – The University of California’s Captive Insurance
Company: A Five-Year Update

F12 Discussion UCPath Update

Committee membership: Regents Anguiano, Blum, Lemus, Makarechian (Chair), Park,
Rendon, Sherman (Vice Chair), Varner, and Zettel; Ex officio
members Brown, Kieffer, and Napolitano; Chancellors
Blumenthal, Gillman, Hawgood, Khosla, and May; Advisory
members Anderson, May, and Morimoto; Staff Advisor Valdry;
Student Advisor Sands

Thursday, January 25
8:30 am
Board (open session - includes public comment session) (pdf)Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment2
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 16, 2017 and the Meeting of
November 16, 2017
Committee Reports Including Approval of Recommendations from Committees:
Academic and Student Affairs Committee
Endorsement of Recommendations of the Academic Verification Task Force
Approval of Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition for a Graduate Professional
Degree Program at the Merced Campus
Revised Agreement Between the University of California and the California
Institute of Technology for the California Association for Research in Astronomy
Compliance and Audit Committee

Public Engagement and Development Committee
National Laboratories Subcommittee
Notable Honors and Achievements
Resolutions in Appreciation
B1 Action Adoption of Resolution on the 150th Anniversary of the University of
B2 Action Approval of the University of California 2018-19 Budget for Current
Operations, Tuition, and Financial Aid, and Adjustment of the Employer
Contribution to the University of California Retirement Plan
Officers’ and President’s Reports:
Report of Interim, Concurrence, and Committee Actions
Report of Materials Mailed Between Meetings

Upon end of Board open
Board (closed session) (pdf) Location: Robertson Auditoriums
If you click on the board closed session link it currently displays this:

"File not found

Sorry, the page you requested was not found. We have recently redesigned the Board of Regents website, so the file may have been moved. Please use navigation or search to find what you need."

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Online community college and UC Regents, initiatives to get the ball rolling

Boosting the numbers of certificates and degrees awarded in focus-- See:
There is this coverage of Regents Oakley and Brown on the new online community college initiative:
In USA Today affiliated Ventura Star:

At Sac Bee:

And at THE:



This on DACA:

There was this news on a UCSD student on DACA - but nothing similar on Cal DACA students etc.

This on the labs bid:

And highlighted historical :in this new 60 minutes story


You might recall during this meeting session below that regent Ortiz Oakley comments and chair Kieffer comments and regent Perez comments about their concerns around staff removing agenda items from the UC regents agenda without regental approval as an ongoing pattern, problem... In their comments they did not make clear if it was regents staff or UCOP staff who did it -and that is and was important b/c that 'problem' occurred once again even at that November UC regents meeting where a special session was held to hear a sort of UCOP presidential apology from UCOP about other similar behavior on the surveys....You can hear the regents concerns about this ongoing issue expressed at this committee session at the 2:30 time mark, but it is a 13 minute long meeting, encourage viewing it in it's entirety:

(Reiss normally chairs this committee. During this meeting there was also indirect reference to regent Reiss's absence - now for several months- and there are other regents who have also been absent from regents meetings for several months now, likely health related? "recovery" now mentioned..but the UC regents at their board sessions have not explained them previously or as these long term absences come up.)

With the above in mind, two things:

Maybe someone forgot to tell this Daily Bruin Op Ed :

that the regents already currently operate in political pressure, they are political appointees; that there are other recent reviews of UC regents actions besides just the Pattiz matter that are of concern over how process worked, fairness, thoroughness, and there are regents who've recently said they are kidding themselves if they think they know what they are doing etc- it would seem some additional oversight needed and pushing this initiative on the discussion of regent fitness for office process of reviewing might at least get that ball rolling for the UC regents to display how they self assess internally etc..

And, currently, the UC Regents still do not have their 10 days beforehand agenda posted for their Jan 24-25 scheduled meeting: here.

Friday, January 12, 2018

'S*** holes for all', more on Piketty

"Congress Changed 529 College Savings Plans, And Now States Are Nervous" includes:

" to cover tuition not only at colleges and universities, but also at private elementary and high schools. That's a big, sudden expansion, and it has some experts worried."
..."The real benefit, according to the state experts and independent economists NPR interviewed for this story, is for affluent families — many of whom already have kids in private K-12 schools"...
Remaking the University's cnewf tweeted out this link:

..."moral here is pretty obvious: being born into wealth is a far better choice than working hard at some stupid series of jobs.

This is especially true in contemporary America.

Median wage in constant 2017 dollars:

1990: $27,468

2016: $30,533

Total increase in median wage, 1990-2016: 11.16%

Total increase in S&P 500 average, adjusted for inflation, January 1990 – present: 305.6%"

It is related to this new assessment of Piketty research on income inequality, see:
..."After compiling this first-of-its-kind data set, Jordà's team makes a startling conclusion: If anything, Piketty's book underestimates the historical rate of return on wealth. “The same fact reported [by Piketty] holds true for more countries and more years, and more dramatically,” the researchers conclude."...

One more thing : this alternative view:

The guv received services at UCSF, friends with certain regents tied to interests there, and his health sec is partner of a retired former UCOP exec:

A faculty take on his legacy:


the students and staff likely more concerned with this topic
that is the issue for them, right now

Ironic that the latest chatter on counter celebrity pol opposition in a far off pres election comes from one of the most expensive towns in CA now hit by climate change related disasters...

-- what about the CA gubernatorial race?

One -INO can be the same as the other side's -INO

Born into wealth or not, celebrities or not, state or national - the successful candidate is gonna have to tackle the above, and that's some pretty heavy lifting...

That famous quote:
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

Is it even about words anymore -or deeds now?

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Some IX, some DACA, some other things...


Based on this WSJ article that requires subscription: based around allegations in something called "
“Sexual Harassment In the Academy: A Crowdsource Survey.”
Some other coverage out there from unfamiliar outlets questions whether or not this Cal student has DACA status or not and whether or not UC knew during enrollment, which also plays into other FERPA concerns related to the campus response and statements on it:

And then there's:

..."In particular, the complaint alleges that the early morning demonstration was “organized” by the university. That can’t be correct, can it?

An attorney friend explained it to me. Sullivan’s theory, he said, “is that the resident advisers encouraged students to protest Trump’s election, and therefore the university ‘organized’ the protests by acting through its employees.”

To make that case, Sullivan would have to prove that the resident advisers actually did this, that they were acting within the scope of their employment at the time"....

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

"a message that the Governor expects UC tuition to remain flat"

And a statement from the Governor that he informed UC of the terms a year ago so they could plan appropriately...
See the last two minutes here:
"California's 2018-19 Governor's Budget"

And also on CSU and UC at the 15:30 mark there as well.

Governor Brown:
"It is enough. Your getting three percent more and that's it. They're not gonna get anymore. And they've got to manage. I think they need a little more scrutiny over how they are spending things. It's just because the University is a good they say 'we've got to have more good' -but if you have too much good it -in certain circumstances - -it becomes a bad. So they're gonna have to live within their means. And what will happen here is when the next recession they'll have to put everything in reverse and lay people off and raise tuition and that's not a good thing. So, they've got to lower the cost structure and there are tools to do that and they need to step up and more creatively engage in the process of making education more affordable."

Can't view on chrome FYI:

Statement from UC Board of Regents Chair George Kieffer and UC President Janet Napolitano on Gov. Brown’s budget plan
UC Office of the President
Wednesday, January 10, 2018

"UC Board of Regents Chair George Kieffer and UC President Janet Napolitano today (Jan. 10) issued the following statement on Gov. Brown’s budget plan:

The University of California is pleased that the governor’s budget announced today provides for a funding increase to our core educational budget. This 3 percent increase, however, is less than we anticipated under the framework we established with the governor. That agreement acknowledged the need for ongoing, predictable state funding to maintain UC quality and access while requiring the university to lower its cost structure.

The university will continue to work toward fulfilling its commitments under the framework by spring 2018 and has an ambitious strategy in place to achieve the final component, which is related to transfer student enrollment.

The governor’s budget plan does not include funding for UC enrollment growth. The university is committed to adding an additional 2,000 California undergraduates in fall 2018, including 1,500 that it will fund from its own resources. We have also requested support to add 500 more graduate students, who are critical to the university’s research mission and to meeting the state’s workforce needs. The state budget process has just begun and we hope to continue conversations with the governor and the Legislature to ensure expanded access for fall 2018 and to restore the university to the funding envisioned in the framework."

'bout time

--and students, many others are also pushing for this change- not just :
AFSCME proposes amendment to expel UC Regents by two-thirds vote

-they have until Feb 16th to get a CA leg sponsor:

"...UC Student Regent Paul Monge said he thinks the amendment is necessary because the California Constitution lacks a formal process to remove UC Regents.

“Even a regent with proven misconduct could continue to serve on the board with impunity,” he said.

De los Angeles said the union received feedback from student leaders in November stating they were concerned about Pattiz remaining on the Board of Regents.

“Seeing the public outrage at Pattiz alongside everything going on in the nation, it seemed to us the path forward was to create a way to make this removal easier, ” he said.

AFSCME plans to sponsor the amendment and campaign for legislative support, de los Angeles said. Two-thirds of each house of the state legislature must propose that the amendment be included on a statewide ballot in order for California residents to vote on it.

“At the beginning of each (legislative session), assemblymen and senators pick their legislative packages,” de los Angeles said. “We are pushing our (legislative package) as one measure that legislators should consider.”

De los Angeles said that while ASFCME does not currently have a legislative author sponsoring this measure, they have until Feb. 16 to get a sponsor.

Monge said he thinks requiring two-thirds of both houses of the state legislature to approve removing a regent will ensure they are not removed for frivolous or unjustifiable reasons.

“It is in the public’s interest to ensure a legally recognized process for removing a regent,” he said."...

Napolitano wins first round on DACA

"Trump must keep DACA protections for now judge says"

Napolitano interviews Biden

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Tuition hikes in it?-and other things.

"Repair the Trust, Decrease the Tuition"


..."The recession in 2008 saw another significant round of state divestment, and the UC system responded with a whopping 32 percent increase in tuition. Resulting pushback by students in 2014 led to a two-year tuition freeze — which expired in January of last year. With enrollment increasing and state funds nowhere to be found, the UC Board of Regents looked to students to foot the bill. Since the state repeatedly requests that each campus increase enrollment, why doesn’t funding increase accordingly?
It’s a combination of distrust, politics, mismanagement, and complicity. The relationship between the UC Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President Janet Napolitano is utterly dismal, especially after the state uncovered millions in hidden funds in its budget last year, as well as manipulation of state review surveys on the part of the UCOP. You just don’t give someone billions of dollars if you know it will be blown on executive parties and administrative pensions.
Instead of trying to fix the relationship, the Regents bill the students. This toxic relationship has shifted UC funding towards the High Fee-High Aid model. The state is required to pay Cal Grants for all eligible students. Cal Grant covers tuition and fees. If the Regents increase tuition, the state has to pay more in Cal Grants. In a fantasy world, the High-fee High-aid model would collect more funding from higher-income students and funnel one-third of tuition paid to lower income students. Instead, sticker shock discourages low-income students from even applying, and costs the state more money in financial aid. This false model isn’t unique to University of California. Other state schools, like Pennsylvania State University are observing the same phenomenon: The high-fee high-aid model means everyone pays more.
In 2006 the UC academic senate released a statement that it would not move toward this model because of its effect on diversity. However, in times of financial need the UC system chose to do just that.
This absurd, unsustainable model of funding needs to stop. Tuition increases are on the voting bloc for the Board of Regents January 2018 meeting. On Jan. 10, the State of California will release its proposed budget for the year. The University of California has requested an increase of four percent in state appropriations. However, Gov. Jerry Brown is slated to propose an increase of only 3.1 percent. Guess where that 0.9 percent will come from? Students."...


No mention of those UC protests -that took place a few years ago- as being focused on tuition hikes-instead remembered very differently-- see in this new article:
"4 Questions with Mark Yudof" -- how do you remember it?
- and his new effort has a framing of UC in DC free speech Constitution center and other UC regents policies

UCLA Fac blog has this posted: but it should be fairly easy to show that a title ix claim was made via a submitted teaching evaluation ,right?

The different dates in that article does remind one of what happened at UCSF recently...


There's also:

And they have this feature on housing insecurity for ucla students :

And on the SoCal disasters , mudslides and Higher Ed, see: this new Remaking the University post

At CSU there's this happening:
"California State University maxes out, turns away more students than ever"

See what UCOP did, the name Berkeley almost fully scrubbed in :
and this

While at Cal this:

And the fundraising who knows where...

But did you see how Yudof and Napolitano played it for themselves? They named themselves UC Berkeley professors-- not UCOP professors or systemwide UC professors...

Monday, January 8, 2018

UC Regents Working Group on Executive Compensation Jan 8

Here are the handouts materials for this meeting:

32 pages mostly comp chart comparisons in higher ed nationally.

Add in here that it was sad to see Regents talking to each other during public comment and then to see their chief of staff/Secretary (who makes a salary at the same pay rate of some in the general counsels office) disallow a final speaker in public comment because he did not sign up prior... At that point only ten of the twenty minutes of public comment had been used up, so it was a bad look esp given the subject matter...
And this came up in public comment:

Which is another academic irony in light of:
..."Critics are pointing to a University of Washington study, released last June, about what happened after Seattle embarked on a similar course, comparing it to other larger cities in Washington.

The UW researchers concluded that “employment losses associated with Seattle’s mandated wage increases are in fact large enough to have resulted in net reductions in payroll expenses – and total employee earnings – in the city’s low-wage job market.”

The study drew sharp rebukes from liberal economists, such as those at the University of California.

A few months later, UC’s Labor Center issued its own study, declaring that “California’s $15 minimum wage law will substantially increase lifetime earnings among low-income workers (and) by boosting the earnings of low-income workers, the $15 minimum wage policy will enable them to save for retirement (and) will result in a significant increase in Social Security benefits for young low-income workers, and a modest increase for mid-career low-income workers.”

Oddly, both may be correct.

Boosting minimum wages will"...




January 8, 2018

3:00 pm Working Group on Executive Compensation (open session - includes public comment session)

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Transfer admissions coverage...

Here is an earlier story on transfer admissions at some UC campuses':

"Rise in transfer application a 'sigh of relief' for UC Santa Cruz"

"Both UCSC and UC Riverside were unable to meet the mandated ratio with their fall class, possibly jeopardizing the funding, according to state officials. UC Merced also had fewer than one transfer enrollee for every two freshmen, but the campus was exempted from the requirement.

Demonstrating a good-faith effort to make up for the shortfall has been a priority for the campus, Hughey said, and seeing the applications rise is a sign its efforts are proving effective.

“Having this gives me more clear data backing up my confidence that we had a good plan for getting to two to one,” Hughey said.

But Hughey cautioned that a large pool of applicants makes hitting the transfer ratio possible, not guaranteed."

LAT this week with this take on it icymi:
"UC Santa Cruz has offerings far beyond hippies and banana slugs. So why can't it draw more transfer students?"

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

Can UC Berkeley Afford to Pass on that 150th year anniversary fundraising campaign?

There is a fundraising campaign on UC Berkeley's 150th anniversary of charter day.
The UC regents discussed it as an agenda item in November.
The question that is in mind *and that UCLA chancellor Block raised* was around the confusion of the entire system fundraising off of one particular campus' charter day and whether or not it is confusing-- and we question here whether or not it is appropriate...

Regent Lansing was all enthusiastic about it but she has a very limited interaction with Berkeley, and Chancellor Christ just gave comments akin to 'it's fine' during committee ,
But it does raise questions for the Berkeley campus when current events are also considered:
-a campus with the memorial stadium retrofit costs,
-the deficit that made the campus beholden to UCOP,
-the expenses of free speech that Napolitano's individual initiative megaphone out of UCOP adds to and -that the Berkeley campus incurs in a singular way that the other UC campuses are not grappling with to the same degree,

-the assessments fees of UC PATH that the campus must send UCOP annually

- and then there's the Berkeley distinctive history, profile etc, that is not a system wide one but specific and singularly Berkeley's

so --

Is it appropriate for UC Regents-UCOP to fundraise off of UC Berkeley charter day anniversary?

How will those donations be apportioned or split etc?

You can watch how the topic was discussed at the Regents public engagement committee meeting in November- begins at the 47:00 minute mark here:

Funny enough, in that discussion the staff member presenting is a former senior vp avc at Berkeley - then at Davis med- she is now an interim at UCOP. A few years ago she also, ironically, took a local SF journalist to task for daring to ask a UCSB faculty member questions about his expert view of a systemwide initiative being piloted out of Berkeley, her public relations view at that time seemed to revolve around 'asking Berkeley about Berkeley' rules or etiquette --apparently that rule of etiquette does not extend to fundraising off of Berkeley for other UC campuses now...

--additional questions that come up revolve around UCLA's upcoming 100th anniversary for their own charter day-perhaps that concern is also why chancellor Block raised the question in committee-- will UCLA also be part of systemwide fundraising in their anniversary celebration when it rolls around?

And UCSF is listed on the regents slides as having their own 150th anniversary a few years ago- did their 150th anniversary fundraised donations go to their campus or to a UC systemwide fundraise?

And there are logos and paper products being created and disseminated for a marketing campaign--'whose' and 'how much' $ getting and goin' to that ? Has to be asked in light of the fiat -lush systemwide UC logo exorbitant expenses that came out of UCOP in recent years, also a bit of a scandal..

They- UC Regents- UCOP- are calling it '150 days to mark 150 years'...

The designate faculty representative to the regents - whose home campus is Davis- chimed in during committee to claim that 'the UC faculty were what was really turning 150 not just Berkeley's' so it was okay for UC systemwide to horn in on Berkeley's anniversary fundraising--but if that is the logic then: what about the UC faculty and UCSF's 150th anniversary from a few years ago? Or, do UCSF get to play 'partially seceded' where fundraise $$ is concerned but Berkeley does not get to do the same? Or, do the UC faculty just want to lie about their age? Or?!


Meanwhile, the campus has text like "Berkeley 150 is the overarching name and theme of our sesquicentennial year, celebrating the charter that established the University of California on March 23, 1868 "- but that's not something easy to see or point to...
- and the home page etc at Berkeley does not make it an easy one stop shop to see how to celebrate/donate or explain what fundraising goes directly to Berkeley campus and what does not-- these are concerns certainly important to alumni, community etc.

So the 150 day celebration is starting off non-existent, sluggish...

The UC marketing staff are paid big bucks but this is currently looking like a ho hum rollout fundraising campaign ...imo

From 2015 there was at least this

One would think Berkeley would have the celebration fundraising off the sesquicentennial noted in a nifty box on each of it's pages given the state of things, but...

Just this dull save the date placeholder thing- is this the way the 150 days will mark what went before at Berkeley?