Monday, October 22, 2018

UC Faculty Diversity CA Leg hearing Oct 23

Committee Hearings
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Higher Education
1:30 p.m. - State Capitol, Room 447
(note location change)
Committees: Higher Education

1:30 p.m.
State Capitol, Room 447
(note location change)
SUBJECT:Faculty Diversification at the University of California

(Chair Medina attended the Sept UC Regents meeting and made brief comments to them about this upcoming hearing, highlighted it to them. Original plan was to hold it at UC Davis , but now has been moved to the Capitol.)

Will add in coverage, archive here if available.

You can watch the archive of this hearing- it ran about three hours and had four separate panels including a first panel on recent reports, research detailing out dismal UC numbers -including the fact that only 33% of tenured faculty at UC are women; a second panel with UC systemwide Provost Brown and Asst Provost Carlson both from UCOP on the second panel; and the third panel including admininistrators from Davis, Riverside,and Irvine; the fourth panel included a UC undergraduate student representative and a UC Berkeley graduate student from the school of Education - and then a public comment section where a number of UC stakeholders spoke on their own experiences. You can watch here:

Or listen here:


CSU chancellor White on all the higher education funding Gov Brown put in place, here:



Books, journals purged, faculty and key librarians not consulted first...
A Cautionary Library Tale From UC-Santa Cruz

No coverage of 'it' during midterms?

just 24 hr cable news pundit spinning of 'the unreliable kids might not show up' as a suppress the vote tactic that makes media owners happy??!

Is that a Corp. Media effort at voter suppression tactic? Focus on one set of narratives and not others?
Like avoiding significant air time coverage of perhaps the most important issues for that age group - which is not a 'kid' age group- (the group they claim to be so concerned about not voting).

Wayy below the fold there's:

(And instead 24/7 coverage of a caravan narrative without any details on how that was organized- by whom or why at this particular time- just myths about Dems aired, but not the other possibilities- another tactic?)

Friday, October 19, 2018

Title IX at UCSF- Still ongoing, with more questions on process for UC systemwide, more.

BuzzFeed has this:

"The FDA Doesn’t Know What To Do About Scientists Who Are Sexual Harassers
Anti–Big Tobacco crusader Stanton Glantz settled a sexual harassment lawsuit from a former researcher. Then his center won a $20 million research grant."

A few days ago,

Daily Bruin- of all places- has a curiously timed update on this UCSF Title IX set of cases:

"UC Board of Regents reaches settlement following sexual harrassment claim" | Daily Bruin

How do you end up with reliable results with this being the case?:

"UCSF’s chancellor and vice provost decided Glantz must undergo training on sexual harassment and proper workplace conduct. The school also proposed to put a letter of censure in his file for five years, unless he completes additional sexual harassment training.

UCSF has had trouble with its Title IX office in the past. The campus fired the head of its sexual harassment prevention office in spring 2017 after determining that she ordered an employee to falsify dates on complaints to give the impression that they were handled efficiently, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Each UC campus has a Title IX office and its own investigators to handle sexual harassment and violence, however, policy is decided by the UC Regents and Office of the President."

Read claims from both sides about what they believe regarding the complaints,and motivations:

And, this series of posts on it includes:

..."In September, 2018, the Regents of the University of California and I executed a settlement agreement resolving Dr. Neeley’s lawsuit against the Regents and me personally.  You can read the settlement agreement here.
As stated in the settlement agreement, neither the Regents nor I admit liability regarding any of Dr. Neeley’s allegations.  The decision to settle this case was made by the Regents, with my concurrence, that settling the case was preferable to the continuing costs of years of litigation. The nuisance value amount of the settlement to Dr. Neeley is intended purely to avoid ongoing litigation fees and costs. 
As part of this settlement, I transferred ownership of this TES manuscript to Dr. Neeley.  My reason for doing so is that, as noted above, I had already decided to abandon efforts to publish the TES manuscript due to the issues raised by Tobacco Control’s peer reviewers.
After the settlement agreement was executed, I, on my own initiative, provided the reviews to Dr. Neeley to assist her in any future efforts she may make to publish the TES paper. "...

SF Chronicle now has this coverage:

Which points out that there have been multiple rounds of faculty committee of two and threes to take multiple turns at looking into the cases

Also points out that UC is paying for the costs to Glantz representation on this

And notes that a new Title IX officer *or at least not the one UCSF had to remove * was in place at the time of the second complaint-- but the Chron article can't say/confirm what the state of the case management was at that time - as to whether or not UCSF was able to clean up that mess or not going forward...


And given that , lets also include here non UC - but very high profile -the latest on that huge USC Title IX latest:
Los Angeles Times
USC reaches tentative $215-million settlement over gynecologist accused of sexually assaulting hundreds of students"

Some of the coverage points to a level of disgust with several high profile USC trustees and their silence on the issue:

This new batch,$215m-settlement-in-alleged-gynecologist-abuse/4517916/

"University of Southern California to Pay $215 Million in Gynecologist Sex-Abuse Case
Wall Street Journal"

Thursday, October 18, 2018

The 'State of CA Debate, Conversation Games' -as what kind of model to UC students...

Making voters scurry around to find the debate content- as it relates to higher education influence, here is some of it, see:

'Not a debate -supposed conversation'- but really just another embarrassment for process.

This position interacts with UC in many ways:

This format created by:

Some coverage:
..."When de León tried to make a point that Democrats in Washington (including Feinstein) let voters down by failing to .. when they controlled Congress in 2009, the senior senator did not take the bait.

“I don’t think we disagree on this,” she said. “I think we agree.”

“We can move on then, unless…?” said Baldassare, looking at Feinstein. She said nothing and they moved on."...

-- Weak moderating. And alot of Dem incumbents don't want to talk about all that they didn't do during 2009-2012, guess they think sufficient excuse is ' oh, well, we didn't wanna be a Mitch about it' Leon is right to highlight but DiFi doesn't address it, ducks it with 'we agree' when they don't agree on that point.

This position serves as ex officio UC Regent and works with UC on many K-12 and some Higher Ed initiatives:


No video just audio only with transcript provided of governor race debate - there was only one debate - this is the position that appoints UC Regents:


This position serves as ex officio UC Regent, this vid is from April before the primary but gives you a sense of who they are for the general:

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

UC Regent Blum-Di Fi-UC Investments Troubling Questions

See Capital and Main : "Richard Blum, a $100 Million UC Investment, Feinstein Campaign Donations: Business As Usual at UC?
Co-published by Splinter
In the fall of 2017, UC regents shifted $100 million worth of university endowment and pension resources into a fund founded by a business associate of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband, regent Richard Blum."

It is also available via Splinter:

Just wanna add in :

Blum has been radio silent in public sections of recent UC Regents meetings since after the CA primary- BTW he was at the Kavanaugh - Blasey Ford hearing instead of the September UC Regents meeting--- but when he is at the regents meetings he usually enjoys saying provocative headline grabbing, and occasionally bullying or insensitive things at the regents table ...
Like reminding his fellow UC regents of his wife's preferences on policy issues by calling her "your US Senator" in a certain manner here:
"Statement by CUCFA and AAUP on Regent Blum's Remarks – The Council of UC Faculty Associations"

“I should add that over the weekend my wife, your senior Senator, and I talked about this issue at length. She wants to stay out of the conversation publicly but if we do not do the right thing she will engage publicly and is prepared to be critical of this university if we don’t have

- Think of that as a general practice, -don't get caught up in the 'issue specific' position that one may be sympathetic to- think about any regent at the table stating that on another topic you may not support- would that be appropriate? is that a good governance practice?

-Or, these troubles with his recent comments about the labs that came out prior to announcement of whether or not UC won the bid - during delicate high value for UC contract negotiations:
According to Texas Monthly:
"... During a September meeting of the Board of Regents, university regents placed much of the blame for Los Alamos’s problems over the past decade on Bechtel, and decided to move forward with a new bid with a different private partner. Bechtel, of course, did not like that. Shortly after the meeting, Bechtel president Barbara Rusinko sent a letter to UC president Janet Napolitano, responding to each point of criticism levied by the regents—and objecting to their harsh criticism of Rick Perry.

According to the letter, which has been obtained by Texas Monthly, UC regent Richard Blum was concerned about the outcome of the looming bidding war being affected by the political leanings of each bidding group, explaining that they decided to bring Bechtel into their 2006 bid because “they were a Republican group.” Blum also had some unflattering comments about Perry. “Now here we go again,” Blum said at the meeting, according to the letter sent by Bechtel. “We have the former governor of Texas who couldn’t remember that there was an Energy Department that he wanted to get rid of when he ran for president, so my guess is that his understanding of anything about this is probably beyond clueless.”...S
ee: -

-Once again one might agree with Blum's sentiments but were they appropriate sentiments to state in that manner, time , place in his capacity as a trustee for UC?

Things like that...

But back to the Capital and Main piece:

..."Blum argues that there is no conflict of interest.

“I’ve never heard of the RISE Fund,” he told Capital & Main. “We used to be partners with TPG. We’ve done investments together. But I have nothing to do with TPG or the RISE Fund… [The University of California investment office] never checks with me on anything.”

Blum conceded that, in addition to his business and personal relationships with Bonderman and TPG, he also knows another top TPG and RISE Fund executive, Jim Coulter, and added, “I occasionally get together with [UC Chief Investment Officer] Jagdeep [Singh Bachher] and we talk about philosophy.”

Singh Bachher is in charge of oversight and management of UC’s investment in the RISE Fund."

-And recall Baccher has a 'designed just for his position', new, very specific line of who he directly reports to --that the regents created, fashioned -he is not just like other staff at UCOP.

--And Regents Sherman and Makerrachian have the reins on the UC Regents investments committee which meets off cycle of full board UC regents meetings, so there's that to consider...

---One can find common ground with some or many of the policy positionss as stated on the record by many prominent figures in this group of influential, powerful people. At least in as far as their public statements might match up with their personal power moves- but the question here is: if they do match up or are hypocritical. And also we have to imagine if the key players involved were of a different political persuasion would these practices still be acceptable? And , if not, has UC now created a very bad set of precedent by using this model of interactions,communications between UC investments and these figures?

----Follow the underlined links in that Capital and Main article for pretty good overview of multiple other recent in depth articles where concerns raised on what appears to be -repeatedly-: UC failure in assuring good governance , transparency etc.


-Just to point out a couple other things here:in the section of the article where it mentions:
"Those donations came from Salesforce founder Marc Benioff and his wife, Lynne, as well as from Ariel Investments president Mellody Hobson. Marc Benioff and Hobson, who is married to George Lucas of Star Wars fame, sit on the RISE Fund’s Founders Board."..

-Benioff also has ties to UC through UCSF and other UC hospitals, which is well known, but just to give fuller picture.
Also, Benioff has ties to fellow UC Regent Newsom: "One of my closest friends, the godfather of my firstborn, Mark Benioff,"

--Just like Gov Brown is personal friends with Blum-Feinstein, so much so DiFi was the personally picked officiant at the Gov's wedding

---Many of the UC regents have ties to this circle, -which is not uncommon, or bad in and of itself, -but UC has to keep its offices distant in its operation, right?

- UC has to steer clear of these personal relations in its operations, right? Has UC done so?..Does UC take precautions to do so? And isn't it in the best interests of the executive of the state to make sure they do?
And shouldn't someone who wants to be US Senator representing CA explain what is going on with all the above? - instead of a 'no comment' from that office in the Capital and Main article??

There's this other item:

"viewing colleges and universities as media institutions focused on winning over audiences."

.."Of course, Berkeley in the ’60s was the site of another equally important, student-led feat of redefinition, which made the campus an emblem of activism. The university's FSM 50 (Free Speech Movement at 50) website indicates the extent to which generations of protesters filling Sproul Plaza have helped Berkeley remain Berkeley. In the last two years, in fact, Chancellor Carol Christ has made Berkeley’s free speech legacy central to her efforts to get ahead of right-wing campaigns that frame higher ed as intolerant of dissent. She’s right to argue that without such an intervention and the media to disseminate it, neither Berkeley nor any other institution of higher learning is likely to get the students and support it wants and needs."...

Friday, October 12, 2018

Their view

A Koshland "rampage" (her word) against negative student basic living narratives?!- a view that its not as bad as they are making it sound, or something like that-And the ways these two faculty members back in the day either sought to clear pregnancies for approval to work at university, or didn't- all that comes up in this talk, among other things like undergraduate and graduate programs in the present day:



And one more to throw in:


"A Brown — father or son — has been California governor for 40% of the last six decades"
Los Angeles Times

Daily Bruin
"Editorial: Gov. Jerry Brown's terms of divesting are finally coming to an end"

"Downturn Looms as Leadership Test for California, World’s 5th Largest Economy"

"UC outsourcing aligns it with the presidency it publicly denounces"

Thursday, October 11, 2018

PPIC As Instrument in Quashing Debate and Promoting Cakewalks?

[This is part of the reason why the Dem side of the Judiciary committee performed so sluggishly during Kavanaugh: ..."Feinstein is the bookie’s favorite, the establishment incumbent with deep pockets. She has coasted to victory in her past several elections, and, in a somewhat imperious style, hasn’t publicly debated an election opponent in 18 years. This time around, she told local media that she would be willing to debate, but until this week, when it was announced that the two would debate next Wednesday in San Francisco, Feinstein’s team had made no moves to actually coordinate a meeting with de León. "...]


Here, frequently point to content regarding UC via PPIC on higher education trends and public policy proposals. Or, interviews that UC will only engage in with leadership from PPIC etc
Also, here, sometimes include content concerning the two main political figures who are now discussed in this deeply troubling development:
"Dianne Feinstein, Kevin de León will share a stage. But is it a debate?"

"Dianne Feinstein Finally Agrees to “Debate” Senate Challenger, While Ensuring Almost No One Watches It"

(Sac Bee tries to spin it as a debate here with this kind of headline:
"Feinstein, de León debate in US Senate race on Oct. 17"
- they also put out their endorsement of DiFi which also read like it had some dog whistle against her opponent in it.)

A very important reminder of the coverage of the 2016 Harris-Sanchez 1 debate format and performance debacle as well.

Then see:

It seems the political machines are willing to allow it to happen again. Regardless of who one supported in that 2016 race - it was an embarrassment of a race for CA in how that race was allowed to proceed to finish without any real serious in depth debate among the candidates on important issues in CA.

In this 2018 US Senate race CA deserves a serious debate with traditional debate format on issues of great concern to Californians- regardless of who you root for, or any one political persuasion.
The candidate's position has to be stated in debates not just polished articles
Why isn't that happening?

Want to add in here that PPIC views itself as the ' decider' of it : "A PPIC spokeswoman’s response: “We want to get the candidates on a stage talking about the issues; they can call it whatever they want."

Is that like a "gentlemen and woman's agreement"?

And now a question of PPIC's role in this and what that portends or conveys about their approach to their research, reports, interviews they put out on public policy -especially on higher education.
It's a sad development. Why are they agreeing to play this role in this ridiculous insulting format?

"c’mon is this really the best a state of 39 million people can do?"

See a Stanford grad report on young voters in SoCal and beyond:
" "Age gap may rescue Republicans: young voters remain on the sidelines""


A UCSB alum took a trip to UCLA to cover:

UC Regents and 'Committee of Two' Title IX practices

Recall this news I August:

Now this development on another case:

"two-member university committee which reviewed his case."


At UC Berkeley:

And this at Cal-
:This-only became known because of mandatory reporting

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

UC Regents Health Services meeting Oct 9

Note that the regents perhaps now aware that their fellow regents are dissatisfied and skeptical of the committee assignment procedures, have also now listed their December 11th health services meeting as well)

October 9, 2018

10:00 am

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of August 14, 2018
H1(X) Action Formation of a Joint Venture Limited Liability Company to
Operate and Manage a New Facility, Los Angeles Campus
Closed Session Statute Citation: Acquisition or disposition of property 
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]
H2(X) Discussion Incentive Compensation Using Health System 
Operating Revenues for Fiscal Year 2017-18 for Executive Vice
President – UC Health, Office of the President
Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
H3(X) Discussion Appointment of and Compensation for Interim Chief Executive 
Officer, UC Davis Medical Center, in Addition to His Existing 
Appointment as Chief Operating Officer, UC Davis Medical Center,
Davis Campus
Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
H4(X) Discussion UC Health Litigation Update
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation 
[Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
Committee membership: Regents Blum, Lansing (Chair), Makarechian, Sherman (Vice 
Chair), and Zettel; 
Ex officio members Brown, Kieffer, and 
Napolitano; Executive Vice President Stobo, Chancellors Block 
and Hawgood; Advisory members Hernández, Hetts, and Lipstein
Upon adjournment of closed session

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2 (20 minutes)
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of August 14, 2018
H5 Discussion Remarks of the Executive Vice President – UC Health
H6 Discussion University of California Cardiac Surgery Consortium

H7 Discussion Overview of Planning Efforts for Possible Future Expansion of 
the School of Medicine, San Francisco Campus
H8 Discussion University of California Office of the President Restructuring
Effort: UC Health Advisory Committee Update
H9 Discussion Clinical Quality Presentation: Working Together to Improve 
Quality and Reduce the Occurrence of Hospital-Acquired 
Pressure Ulcers
H10 Discussion Data-Driven Insights to Improve Patient Care
H11 Action Approval of the Ambulatory Care Center Expansion with Eye 
Center Project, Davis Campus
H12 Action Approval of Incentive Compensation Using Health System 
Operating Revenues for Fiscal Year 2017-18 for Executive Vice
President – UC Health, Office of the President as Discussed in 
Closed Session
H13 Action Approval of Appointment of and Compensation for Interim Chief 
Executive Officer, UC Davis Medical Center, in Addition to His 
Existing Appointment as Chief Operating Officer, UC Davis Medical 
Center, Davis Campus as Discussed in Closed Session

Here are the current committee assignments:

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

Monday, October 8, 2018

Regressive instead of Conservative?

There is a long history of Title IX being used as a tool of retaliation against complainants, now this article points to possible moves to make it a tool of retaliation against both complainants and respondents- depending on how the existing local power structure wants to use it:

"Could new Title IX rules invite retaliation?"

See also:


"Kavanaugh v. Academic Knowledge"


E. Boalt-UC Berkeley Law Dean wrote:

J.Yoo (yep that one) wrote this:

- highlighting the impression that the Kavanaugh appointment was more a Bush one than anything else...


Here are some titles showing up as headline for articles with spin on 'IX-Kavanaugh-Ivies':

"Tomorrow's Elite Lawyers Disavow Due Process"

"Harvard Students File Title IX Complaints To Keep Kavanaugh Off"

"Progressive Poison in the Ivy League"

"Harvard Students Filed Multiple Title IX Complaints Against Brett Kavanaugh To Get Him Fired"

Friday, October 5, 2018

Title IX and Kavanaugh- Will he have to recuse, recuse, recuse?

Seems the 24 hr cable network tv media somehow decided to drop ongoing coverage of this thread of it, the Title IX aspect that as a topic in general they have difficulty keeping up with (and they sometimes use anti or pro IX pundits and spin them as 'neutral arbiter' talking heads on it)- but it is still playing out at Yale. Fortunately, some outlets are continuing to write about it, good coverage:

"Can Yale Law Students Dismantle Their Own Privilege?
Yale Law students question the nature of their own institution. Will it lead to a reckoning?"

..." I have to say, I admire the Yale law students and their willingness to question whether or not their institution is living up to its values. It’s an approach a lot of us in less august spaces would benefit from as well.

But at the same time, I can’t help but believe they will never succeed in achieving their goals because without the access to power, power which is primarily projected through the kind of tribal loyalty we’ve seen demonstrated by Chua towards Kavanaugh and J.D. Vance toward Chua, going to Yale does not pay nearly so many dividends.

In essence, the students are asking Yale to be something other than Yale. I’m not sure that can be done. No1] Rubenfeld is also currently under investigation by the law school for alleged misconduct, possibly regarding behavior towards female students.

[2] Brett Kavanaugh clerked for Judge Kozinski and claims he was not aware of any of Kozinski’s harassing behavior, a claim which strains credulity given the scope of Kozinski’s misconduct."

- Hunch, maybe it is not a 'dismantling' they are trying to do-- maybe, more likely, they are trying to put in place some check and balance...

--And, here, let's keep in mind some of the major figures who pop up in that article have strong ties back to UC Berkeley and UCLA.

That look-
Bemoaning the 'tribal', while being 'tribal'--:
"Investigation at Yale Law School
An inquiry into the actions of a prominent professor reveals why it’s so hard to report inappropriate behavior at the top law school in the country."


The president of the UC Regents tended toward romanticized comments
of his Yale alma mater

But he also recently put out this on that fellow alum:

"Kavanaugh’s lies ‘relatively well-proved,’ Jerry Brown says"

And the Gov's other alma mater- Berkeley- it seems as though he has always felt more realistic, critical about Cal.

That Berkeley blue comes from ...Yale.

Cal with a couple more Nobels...

Thursday, October 4, 2018

Upheld or Did not find...


"Professor sues UC Berkeley following his suspension for sexual harassment"

"The faculty panel — a secretive body that conducted its closed-door hearing in late 2017 — found no evidence that AlSayyad abused his position or his power over the student “to coerce her judgment ... for personal reasons,” according to court documents."


"...five-month campus investigation brought to light by The Chronicle upheld nearly all of Hagberg Fisher’s allegations and found that the professor spent months ingratiating himself with her before placing his hand on her upper thigh, proposing they become “close friends” and suggesting they go to Las Vegas. The investigator concluded that AlSayyad’s behavior became increasingly"

Daily Cal last week included the docs:

And in this,

"...lawsuit includes a previously confidential report from the Committee on Privilege and Tenure outlining its findings from Nov. 2017 hearings. The report did not find conclusive evidence that AlSayyad used his position of power to “coerce (Hagberg Fisher’s) judgement,” though Christ concluded that AlSayyad had misused his “power for personal gain” in her decision to extend his suspension."

a quote from Hagberg-Fisher, see:

..." I haven’t read the lawsuit, so I have no direct knowledge of what’s in it,” Hagberg Fisher said. “I’m very glad that my part in this process is fully finished.”

- it's too bad Daily Cal put it out in bits and pieces, and SF Chron took a week to catch up but without the docs-- but there it is.

The president of the UC Regents on:

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

With what results?

"UC’s leaders get same 3 percent raises as workers — adds up to a lot more"

..."For example, a 3 percent boost for UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ means her salary bumps up to $547,897 — a nearly $16,000-a-year raise.

UC San Francisco Chancellor Sam Hawgood’s salary rose to $844,131, or nearly a $25,000 annual hike.

UC Executive VP for Health John Stobo is now making $652,975 — a $21,765 bump up.

And UC General Counsel Charles Robinson gets a $15,607 raise to $468,211.

The salaries are even much higher for those who are not paid from the state’s annual allocation of taxpayer money, most notably, UCSF Chief Executive Officer Mark Laret, who is now making $1,104,965."