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.

Friday, November 16, 2018

Title IX- UCSC Chancellor Search- UC Regents Special Meeting Today...


Posted today but dated the 13th:
November 13, 2018
Because the membership of the Committee to Advise the President on the Selection of a Chancellor of the Santa Cruz campus includes this notice
On Friday, November 16, 2018, there will be a Closed Session, Special Meeting of Regents’
The meeting will convene at 8:00 a.m. in the University Center on the Santa Cruz campus and
adjourn at approximately 6:00 p.m.
Anne L. Shaw
(Advisory Committee members: Regents Anderson, Graves, Leib, Park, and Zettel; ex officio
members Kieffer and Napolitano)"

And, see also:

Maybe some of those regents might want to take a closer look at the disturbing processes at campus level and deflection runaround games at UCOP detailed out in this coverage of a trickled out UCSC Title IX case:

"The Mercury News
UC Santa Cruz alum tells story behind investigation into professor’s conduct"

"UC Santa Cruz Professor Gopal Balakrishnan Violated The School's Harassment Policy
The university also determined that Balakrishnan did not break the rules by hiring his own private investigator to interrogate complainants."

Read the above article and then try to reconcile it with this policy position from UC:
"University of California troubled by proposed changes to sexual harassment rules"

"Investigation finds UC Santa Cruz professor violated sexual harassment policy - KSBW"

The headlines on this high profile Ivy case yesterday included details of events in SF, and some similarities:

Betsy DeVos releases sexual assault rules she hails as balancing rights of victims, accused
Washington Post"

The ironic or coincidental timing of this report:


- don't hear much from UC female academics claiming their own individual Title IX rights, they more often take the stance that they have protections based on the APM, but only 33% female make up the tenured professor class at UC, with that in mind take a look at this coverage on UC Davis and faculty recruitment:
"As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now,” Jeffrey Flier, Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor and Higginson Professor of Physiology and Medicine, tweeted Saturday. “Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it.”

Another item:

Why do 'concerned academics' almost always fail to include the word 'staff' at launch? A failure of outreach or appeal messaging to middle and lower ranked staff as an act of inclusivity - this part of the original broad support problem they have and seem to want to address now- but it just looks like another attempt of faculty 'to court partnership with administration and get student buy in', which is nothing new. See guest post here:

Thursday, November 15, 2018

UC 'Admissions Practices'-as anticipated- getting wrapped up in Harvard 'admissions practices' case; and now adding in highly contentious 'resident vs non-resident' admissions decisions!

"New York Times

"With Echoes of Harvard Case, University of California Faces Admissions Scrutiny"

"Los Angeles Times

"UCLA professor wants to see data on whether UC illegally uses race in admissions decisions"

"UC Admissions - Why Being An Out-Of-State Student Might Just Work In Your Favor"

Where the blue bars represent CA residents and gold bars represent non-residents:



Yes, an interest in properly funding higher education (but not in funding waste and UCOP pet projects, interests or executive bloat)
PPIC, higher education reporting assists on a one note narrative (UC executive class solely want focus on- in order to increase their ranks of exec compensation and new exec positions to delegate rtheir responsibilities away, cover over bad management decisions):
"Californians want more funding for public higher education, survey shows"

- and in turn some UC campuses reward CA with high non-resident admissions percentages...

Also there's:

(And a related FYI from UC


And the position on DACA Admissions:

Saturday, November 3, 2018

Agenda UC Regents Meeting November 13-15 At UCSF



The UC regents full board meeting agenda for November is now posted.- but it is currently not available through an active link at their "upcoming meetings" page , which is the normal, common route regular audience employs.

Currently it can only be  accessed by going through the home page ( an old pic of regent M standing by students on that page) and then scroll down to a button mentioning the meeting, FYI.

Only once you do that step do you gain access to the link for this specific meeting, that link is:

- then you have to click on each individual committee link to find the individual committee agenda and/or any possible background docs  which may or may not be available at any time...To which you might say, 'could they give any more of a round around?!'

Here's what the agenda looks like, but they make changes to it on an ongoing basis even up to and thru the actual meeting, so...

November 13-15, 2018

Tuesday, November 13
2:00 pm

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 25, 2018

I-1 Discussion Review of Asset Classes, Risk, and Operations 

I-2 Action Adoption of Investment Policy Statement and Asset and Risk 
Allocation Policy for the Blue and Gold Endowment

Wednesday, November 14
8:30 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium
Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2
Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018
Remarks of the Chair of the Board
Remarks of the President of the University
Remarks of the Chair of the Academic Senate

B-1 Discussion Update on the President’s Student Housing Initiative

Concurrent Meetings
10:00 am

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018

P1 Discussion 2018 Midterm Election Review 

P2 Discussion Federal Update 

P3 Discussion Review of California Budget Allocation: Hunger Free Campus Funding 

P4 Discussion Community Outreach and Impacts, Santa Barbara Campus

P5 Discussion Regents Engagement Plan

10:00 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium
Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018

C1 Discussion Annual Report on Internal Audit Activities, 2017-18

C2 Discussion Report on Independent Assessment of Audit Implementation

C3 Discussion Annual Report of External Auditors for the Year Ended 
June 30, 2018

Upon end of Audit open
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018

C4(X) Discussion Annual Consultation with Regents’ Auditors Concerning
Performance of University Personnel
Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel matters 
[Education Code §92032(b)(7)]

C5(X) Discussion Overview of Compliance and Audit Personnel Matters
Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel matters 
[Education Code §92032(b)(7)]

C6(X) Discussion Cybersecurity Audit Activities Update
Closed Session Statute Citation: Security matters [Government Code §11126(c)(18) and
Education Code §92032(b)(1)]

C7(X) Action Recommended Settlement for Board Action
Flores v. Regents – Proposed Settlement – Medical Malpractice –
Los Angeles
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

C8(X) Discussion Appellate, Trial Court Developments and Updates

--21 items listed there--

C9(X) Information Settlements and Separation Agreements Under Delegated 
Authority Reported from August 14, 2018 to October 2, 2018
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

Concurrent Meetings
12:30 pm
Location: Fisher Banquet Room
Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018

A1 Discussion Assessing and Ensuring Academic Quality on Campus and 

A2 Discussion Update on Implementation of the Recommendations of the Regents 
Total Cost of Attendance Working Group

A3 Discussion Serving Those Who Serve: The Student Veteran Experience at the 
University of California

Location: Fisher Banquet Room

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018

N1 Action Amendment of Regents Policy 7104 – Selection of Laboratory 
Directors, Regents Policy 7105 – Appointments of Individuals to the 
Executive Committees of the Boards of Governors of Los Alamos 
National Security, LLC and Lawrence Livermore National Security, 
LLC, and Bylaw 22.2 – Specific Reservations

N2 Discussion Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory – UC Berkeley Collaboration 
on Climate, Energy, and the Environment

12:30 pm
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018

F1(X) Discussion Retail Space Lease with Target Corporation at Price Center, 
San Diego Campus
Closed Session Statute Citation: Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]

F2(X) Action Amendment of Approval of Ground Lease Business Terms and 
Financing for the West Village Transfer Student and Continuing
Undergraduate Student Housing Project, Davis Campus
Closed Session Statute Citation: Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]

F3(X) Action Approval of Business Terms of Ground Lease and Space 
Leaseback, Bakar BioEnginuity Hub at Woo Hon Fai Hall, 
Berkeley Campus
Closed Session Statute Citation: Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]

Upon end of Finance closed
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018

F4 Action Approval of Design Following Action Pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act, Bakar BioEnginuity Hub at Woo Hon
Fai Hall, Berkeley Campus

F5 Action Approval of the 2018-28 Capital Financial Plan

F6 Action University of California Financial Reports, 2018

F7 Action Approval of Budget and Scope, Approval of External Financing 
and External Financing Supported by State General Funds, and 
Approval of Design Following Action Pursuant to the California 
Environmental Quality Act, Teaching and Learning Complex, 
Davis Campus

F8 Action Consent Agenda:

A. Approval of the University of California 2019-20 Budget
for State Capital Improvements

B. Approval of Preliminary Plans Funding, Classroom
Building, Santa Barbara Campus

C. Amendment of Preliminary Plans Funding, UCSF Research
Building at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, 
San Francisco Campus

D. Approval of Preliminary Plans Funding, Scope, and 
Working Drawings Funding, Roadway and Site 
Improvements at Zuckerberg San Francisco General 
Hospital, San Francisco Campus

E. Approval of Preliminary Plans Funding, Hillcrest Campus 
Outpatient Pavilion and Parking, San Diego Campus

F9 Discussion UC San Diego 2019 Long Range Development Plan, 
Hillcrest Campus, San Diego Campus 

F10 Discussion Ambulatory Care Center Expansion with Eye Center, 
Davis Health Campus

F11 Discussion Report of Budget to Actual Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2017-18
for the Office of the President; and First Quarter Fiscal Year 
2018-19 Results

F12 Discussion UCPath Update

F13 Discussion Annual Actuarial Valuations for the University of California
Retirement Plan and Its Segments and for the 1991 University of
California-Public Employees’ Retirement System Voluntary Early 
Retirement Incentive Program

F14 Discussion Annual Actuarial Valuation of the University of California Retiree
Health Benefit Program

F15 Action Approval of the University of California 2019-20 Budget for
Current Operations

4:00 pm
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26, 2018

G1(X) Action Appointment of Advisory Member to the Health Services
Closed Session Statute Citation: Nomination of officers and members 
[Education Code §92032(e)]

G2(X) Discussion Collective Bargaining Matters 
Closed Session Statute Citation: Collective bargaining matters 
[Government Code §3596(d)]

Upon end of Governance closed
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 26-27, 2018

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

G4 Action Amendment of Bylaws and Committee Charters, Establishment of
an Investments Committee and Adoption of Investments 
Committee Charter, and Establishment of a Special Committee on

G5 Action Establishment of Regents’ Special Committee on Basic Needs

G6 Action Amendment of Regents Policy 1202 – Appointment of Student
Regent and Adoption of Student Regent Nomination Procedures

G7 Discussion Overview of Executive Compensation Policies

Thursday, November 15 
8:30 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of September 26 and 27, 
Committee Reports Including Approval of Recommendations from Committees:
Compliance and Audit Committee
Closed Session Statute Citations: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
Security matters [Government Code §11126(c)(18) and Education Code §92032(b)(1)]
Finance and Capital Strategies Committee
Closed Session Statute Citation: Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]
Governance and Compensation Committee
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 October 9)
Closed Session Statute Citations: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
Acquisition or disposition of property [Education Code §92032(b)(6)]
 1 All times indicated and the order of business are approximate and subject to change.
Officers’ and President’s Reports:
Report of Interim, Concurrence, and Committee Actions
Personnel Matters
Acquisition or disposition of property [Education Code §92032(b)(6)]
Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]

Upon end of Board   closed
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment2
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 27, 2018 
Committee Reports Including Approval of Recommendations from Committees:
Academic and Student Affairs Committee
Compliance and Audit Committee
Finance and Capital Strategies Committee
Governance and Compensation Committee
Health Services Committee (meeting of October 9, 2018)
Public Engagement and Development Committee
Investments Subcommittee
National Laboratories Subcommittee
Resolutions in Appreciation
Notable Honors and Achievements
B2 Discussion Preliminary Planning for a Multi-Year Framework
B3 Action Approval of the University of California 2019-20 Budget for Current 
B4 Action Approval of UC San Diego 2018 Long Range Development Plan 
Following Action Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act, La 
Jolla Campus, San Diego Campus 
B5 Discussion Health Services Committee Delegated Authorities and Oversight 
Officers’ and President’s Reports:
Report of Materials Mailed Between Meetings
Report of Interim, Concurrence, and Committee Actions