Thursday, January 31, 2019

"I came to work at UC because I believed this system was a force for good to push society forward. But having experienced — firsthand — the UC’s disregard for the economic struggles it creates within its own community, I no longer believe this."

"Missing pay hurts workers, diminishes UC"

"As a graduate student researcher in the neuroscience PhD program at UCLA, I work hard to contribute to the University of California’s research mission. In addition to my studies, I support the efforts of my professors and contribute to published work. I strongly believe in the value of our research.

But ever since UC rolled out its new payroll system in September (UCPath), I’ve faced a new challenge: Each month, I have been paid only 48 percent of my wages. So far this has totaled an underpayment of gross wages of $8,669.67.

UC Associate Vice President of Operations Mark Cianca told the The Bee, “I do want to make it really clear: Everybody gets paid.” Yet, that hasn’t been true for me or many of my colleagues. Some have lost their health insurance and been forced to accumulate credit card debt. Some have even received eviction notices.

Administrators like Cianca fail to understand that many graduate student workers, and UC workers in general, live paycheck to paycheck. Missing even one paycheck is a crisis

When UCPath was proposed in 2011, administrators claimed it would cost $306 million and be finished by 2014. But the project has been so egregiously mismanaged that it necessitated a review by the California State Auditor, who concluded that it will cost an estimated $942 million over the course of its implementation.

the. UC acknowledges that these delays are costing them. According to documents from a 2018 meeting, a single nine-month delay alone increased costs of implementation by $43.4 million due to “labor, software, financing, UCPath Center technology and reimbursed campus costs.”

With every month of delay costing roughly another $5 million, the UC decided to roll out UCPath and worry about fixing it later. Yet, after the initial test at the first campuses last year, the results were undeniable: UCPath was causing workers to go unpaid. The UC continued the rollout at more campuses anyway, and they are scheduled to roll it out at even more campuses this year—including UC Berkeley, which has the most workers.

For most employers, not paying workers on time is a form of wage theft, but the UC is exempt from the state’s strict wage theft laws. And since many workers at UC, including graduate student researchers, do not have a union, there is no internal recourse to rectify this problem.

For most employers, not paying workers on time is a form of wage theft, but the UC is exempt from the state’s strict wage theft laws. And since many workers at UC, including graduate student researchers, do not have a union, there is no internal recourse to rectify this problem.

So, the UC has chosen to place the burden of their own mistakes on the backs of its workers, effectively using them as an interest-free bank while they sort out the payroll system’s kinks.

This callous attitude compounds the problems academic workers face.

Graduate students struggle with mental health issues at a significantly higher rate than the general population. Our nation’s graduate education system piles undue levels of stress on its students, ripping away their sense of efficacy. The UC pays its graduate students $2,700 less than other competitive universities each year after accounting for cost of living.

Given the financial struggles many UC student workers already experience, financial uncertainty can be a disproportionate burden—both monetarily and mentally.

Beyond the immediate human impact, this crisis perpetuates the perception that academia is the realm of the well-to-do and that graduate school is not feasible for working class people. In a time when widening economic inequalities are finally getting their due attention, it’s immoral for the UC to perpetuate such inequality.

I came to work at UC because I believed this system was a force for good to push society forward. But having experienced — firsthand — the UC’s disregard for the economic struggles it creates within its own community, I no longer believe this.

Until the UC acknowledges the damage they’ve done and makes whole all the losses their community members have accrued — the late fees, the payday loan interest, the loss of health insurance — I will instead view the institution as one that has fallen far short of its mission


With regard to the March 2019 UC PATH rollout affecting UC Berkeley and UC Davis, see:

And the discussion from the November 2018 UC Regents meeting still leaves the total costs of the project to date very hazy, opaque. Regent M mentioned a total cost of project number much higher than the number the UCOP staff list in the official meeting materials.

Regent Makarechian has repeatedly asked for a cost benefit analysis study of the project but it seems he keeps being put off by UCOP staff in charge of the project - when he raises the request they just say ' well, we certainly have those numbers' but then the topic is never scheduled as an agenda item for UC Regents meeting. Bells and whistles- like Recruitment and Performance Management etc- promised and included in the original specs, deliverables of the project may have fallen by the wayside, may not even be part of the final actualized end product. Regent M expressed concerns regularly that there needs to be a clear articulation of just what exactly are UC PATH capabilities, functionality etc. Regent M is Chair of the Finance Committee.

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

UC Berkeley Applications Decrease


"Year after year, for more than a decade, applications for admission to UC Berkeley’s freshman class reached record highs. Not this year.

Student demand for a seat at the university remains very high, just not high enough to be record-breaking again. The number of applicants dropped from 89,580 for fall 2018 to 87,353 for fall 2019.

The reason for the drop is not clear, but the decline is in line with a slight decrease in the total combined number of applications to the nine UC campuses with undergraduate programs. The University of California Office of the President released application data for all UC campuses today."...

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

Deep Space (for comments on) IX

"End of public comment approaches for proposed Title IX regulations"

Request for public comment on policy here:

An Update:
There were over 103,000+ comments submitted online (other comments mailed in as well) but only one- tenth of the comments were made public. The Dept of Education redacted the other 90,000 comments. And, there were problems with electronic submissions during
the final day and no clarification or extension on mailed in comments due to polar vortex and suspension of USPS service due to polar vortex and closures which will no doubt mean delays etc..

And see:

San Francisco Chronicle
"UC’s Napolitano: Proposal would make it easier for ..."

..."University of California President Janet Napolitano delivered an unequivocal message to the Trump administration this week about the sweeping changes being proposed for how campuses must respond ..."

Very Borgish

If we're gonna do 1st amendment, gotta do some MTP (and more NBC 'different rules for different talent' observation, interesting topic- and maybe even the possibility a certain UC Regent might represent the talent involved occasionally)::
"NBC's Tom Brokaw apologizes for statements widely criticized as troubling stereotypes of Latinos
His remarks reflected assumptions about Latinos, language and assimilation that are not borne out by the facts."


..."Jack Citrin, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, found that contrary to that claim, native-born Hispanics were not only proud of their country, but had a profound attachment to their national identity as Americans.

Hispanics, he said, “had significantly higher scores on this measure of patriotism ...” He also found that Hispanics rapidly lose Spanish beginning with the second generation, and are no more or less religious or committed to the work ethic"...

UC and the question of Junk Science again, on this topic

UC announcement on :
"UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement taps leading scholars to help drive vision, development"

But one of the picks to be an academic board member generated these headlines on students and First amendment:
"Experts question validity of survey on students and the First Amendment" - Inside Higher Ed

'Junk science': experts cast doubt on widely cited college free speech survey
The Guardian

Academic advisory board members

Ahmad Atif Ahmad - UC Santa Barbara, Professor, Religious Studies; Chair of the Council on Faculty Welfare, Academic Freedom, and Awards

Gerardo Aldana - UC Santa Barbara, Professor, Anthropology and Chicana/o Studies; Chair of the Department of Chicana/o Studies

Amy Binder - UC San Diego, Professor, Sociology

Simone E. Chambers - UC Irvine, Professor, Political Science

Michael Mark Cohen - UC Berkeley, Associate Teaching Professor, African American Studies & African Diaspora Studies

Lee G. Cooper - UCLA Professor Emeritus, Marketing

John Ganim - UC Riverside, Distinguished Professor, English

Jody Greene - UC Santa Cruz, Associate Vice Provost for Teaching and Learning; Director of the Center for Innovations in Teaching and Learning; Professor of Literature

David Kaye - UC Irvine, Clinical Professor, Law

Suneil K. Koliwad - UC San Francisco, Associate Professor, Medicine, Diabetes Center; Gerold Grodsky, PhD/JAB Chair in Diabetes Research

Dana Nelkin - UC San Diego, Professor, Philosophy

Tung Nguyen - UC San Francisco

Stephen J. McPhee, MD Endowed Chair in General Internal Medicine; Professor of Medicine

Constance Penley - UC Santa Barbara, Professor, Film and Media Studies

Mary Beth Pudup - UC Santa Cruz, Director and Associate Professor, Community Studies Program

Randolph M. Siverson - UC Davis, Professor Emeritus, Political Science

Nella Van Dyke - UC Merced, Professor, Sociology

John Villasenor - UCLA, Professor, Public Policy, Electrical Engineering & Management,

Eugene Volokh - UCLA School of Law, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law

Keith David Watenpaugh - UC Davis, Professor and Director, Human Rights Studies

Saturday, January 26, 2019

"the students are middle-class and able to take out loans to finance their tuition."



"Rick Mintrop, the director of Leadership for Educational Equity Program at UC Berkeley, said the program has lacked resources in the past, and must increase tuition in order to remain sustainable. LEEP is a professional program for people with backgrounds in leading education organizations. LEEP students graduate with a doctorate of education.
Regent Eloy Ortiz Oakley said he does not want to place more financial burden on LEEP students, who are already working while attending the LEEP program. He added he does not support charging the supplemental tuition. Mintrop insisted the students are middle-class and able to take out loans to finance their tuition.
The committee tabled the motion to increase tuition through PDST for LEEP for further discussion in March."

Encourage you to watch from the 1:29:00-2:16:09 here

The presentation was odd for a number of reasons:

- this was a proposal for PDST increase to an EdD program that reaches cohort about ten students.
- the UCB Chancellor who sits on this Committee did not make clear her support at the outset, and the regents openly discussed their lack of assurances from her that she supported the proposal. Until at the very end of deliberations when she made some generic comments.
- the presentation did not appear to have UCB administration support in the prep of their presentation- Charts to show comparisons between UCLA's and UCD's programs were not provided by the UC Systemwide Provost's office yet he was sitting at the presentation table presenting the item alongside them.
*Consider that visual and recall at Finance committee how UCOP staff work in presentation for other items like Capital Projects, with those building plans UCOP has the materials , including creating the materials and assisting campuses with their creation in order to give the Regents a fuller picture, but not so in this case, why?

-Regents Perez told the presenter that statement about 'the need to close the program if increased funding was not made available ' were not the type of comments regents take well or look favorably on etc.

-Discussion of a Research Professor Model of EdD program at UCB as compared to an Adjunct teacher model of EdD program at UCLA came up - which the regents wanted to hear about along with size of program comparisons- but it seemed that UCOP dissuades presentations from making such comparisons.
And Davis' EdD was hardly mentioned.

-Also a discussion of PhD vs EdD came up. With slant that PhD more worthwhile than EdD .

- The regents- NOT the UCB provost - NOT the UCB Chancellor and NOT the Systemwide Provost- were the ones *Regents* who made the effort to save the proposal for reconsideration/ re- presentation do over for March. Where was the Academic support from academic leadership, UCB leadership?

-As a side note the next program that came up for regents approval was PDST for a program at UCSC , a program that is serving only maybe 25% CA Residents and the majority 75% of students in the program are international students. And the Regents approved that item.
Pretty odd, just all of it.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says unpaid federal workers should take out loans

Prof. R. Reich talking about how the federal shutdown exposed realities of middle class economic woes on CNN with A. Cabrera today..
Also this piece :

Friday, January 25, 2019

'Tippy top' - to explain what 0.1% means...

See :

"Warren’s plan, developed by the Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, is projected to"...

See also- related to the above - once again:

"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?"

Meanwhile, Chancellor Christ in this 'higher education at Davos' stuff:

Times Higher Education (THE)
"Video: seven ways to redefine talent according to university and industry leaders"

Regents botched edited, cut, pasted and missing archive of their January meeting

The UC Regents have botched their archives of the January UC Regents meeting in multiple ways. Now, they are attempting to mitigate by editing and cutting and pasting and creating new YouTube links for video, but no explanation has been provided to the public. The regents have also not confirmed whether or not the public will ever have access to the part of the open sessions of the Committee meetings that were abruptly cut off: as an example, in at least two instances the Faculty representative's and Faculty representative designate's comments on policy were cut off in mid sentence at separate Committee meetings, no explanation provided by Regents for why or if that content is recovered.

You can try to follow the 'ins and outs' of it here

In any case,
The changes and new time stamp have been updated for these posts:

Shutdown and Higher Ed


"The shutdown and Berkeley: Q&A with Vice Chancellor Randy Katz"

On this- there's agreement:
"Former DHS secretaries ... Janet Napolitano, ... signed the letter.

UC 's Unequal Title IX Caste System

Comes up as a last minute topic at around the
45:00, here:

Tuesday, January 22, 2019

UC Regents ask why : "Both UC Berkeley and UCLA do not have a goal to close the achievement gap"

Several Regents raised concerns along with Regent Anguiano that both UC Berkeley and UCLA "do not have a goal to close the achievement gap by 2030" while other UC campuses submitted their goals to the regents. The UC Regents asked why and either Chancellor Block or Chancellor Christ quietly stated a brief response off of the microphone from a distance and when the regents asked them to come to the mic so that the response could be heard they did not come to the microphone to give a response. Unclear what this means, reasons why. If the goal has a target date of 2030 it would seem like significant amount of prep work to do, yet no plan? The Chancellors at UCB and UCLA did not seem too eager to clarify to the public the reasons why they did not submit these goals to the regents. You can watch the exchange between them at the
2:30:00 timemark : here

Wanna add in here now this additional new info at UCLA:

"Employees leave UCLA Extension amid administrative turmoil and loss of deans"

..."UCLA Extension employees who spoke to the Daily Bruin asked to remain anonymous because they were concerned for their job security.

Employee A said in an email statement that they think the massive upheaval in administration was reminiscent of a sinking ship with no captain willing to go down with it.

“It was very clear that they did not want to be left holding the bag, and it was not very inspiring at all,” employee A said.

Employee A added they believe Smutz was asked to retire.

Last year, UCLA Extension employees alleged Smutz unethically hired colleagues he worked with at his previous job and mismanaged large amounts of money.

Employee A said Smutz lambasted a new employee when she criticized a failing project that she inherited from a former employee and one of Smutz’s former colleagues.

“Smutz went up to the person and charged and berated her – yelling at her till he was red in the face, saying he was disappointed in her performance and that everything was fine until she got involved,” employee A said.

Employee B said many employees were concerned for their job security after UCLA Extension’s administrative structure was destabilized.

“There’s that tiny worry in the back of your head,” employee B said. “Will this fall apart and be dissolved one day?”

Employee B added even though they worked with a good group of coworkers, they eventually left UCLA Extension because of the organizational instability.

Many employees quit when Waugh’s office stepped in and identified UCLA Extension’s operational issues, employee B said.

“Of course that writing was on the wall,” employee B said. “Whoever was there who was contributing to the chaos, including the dean at the time, all exited at that time.”

Employee B said they believe UCLA Extension remains a positive influence in the community and for the adult learners that it helps educate, despite its many administrative problems.

“I have seen so many testimonials and letters that come in that thank the instructors on what a big impact it had on their life,” employee B said. “It’s a big part of the story.”

Employee B said they hope new leadership will help UCLA Extension refocus and return to its priorities, despite the previous shortcomings.

“I think with the right team and determination that there’s no question that it can turn back around,” employee B said. “It would be nice to see Extension get back on its feet and get back to its core mission of helping the community.”

Please recall along with that new DB article this earlier coverage of the new guv's plan with relation to:

..."And, he's proposing adding more than $1 billion to University of California and California State University systems, a bump he said should keep tuition flat for students. Included in that money is $15 million for a one-time boost to UC extension centers that help people finish a college degree.

“At the UC, since 2000, 60,000 people have ... dropped out, and never got their bachelor degrees,” he said. “I want to go after them.”

..."He wants to track down 60,000 former UC students who never completed their degrees — “near completes” he called them — and convince them to attend extension classes at various UC campuses to earn their elusive degrees. "...

Monday, January 21, 2019

Why Are UCOP Senior Staff Allowed To Ignore UC Regents Policy Directives Repeatedly?

(Have not completed full review of all the UC Regents proceedings of last week, in part because the Regents records are incomplete at this time on some of the committee video where it cuts off etc.)
But, in reviewing the video of the full board on Thursday *which includes the open session of the Governance Committee (which was originally scheduled for Wednesday)* there were at least two very serious instances where
At the 1:07:00 timemark : here
1- it became clear that, by Fiat, Chair Kieffer and Napolitano gave cover to UCOP staff disregarding UC Regents policy directives on implementation of submission of outside compensation or outside time reports that as policy are required to be filed. Kieffer and Napolitano did not notify the board in any communication between Regents meetings apparently-- the Regents learned of their actions at the full board final session right along with the regular viewers of the proceedings. Regent Elliott said he was very deeply displeased, Regent Ortiz Oakley, Regent Perez also expressed concern and Regent Cohen made a plain and simple point that the administration needed to take responsibility for the very poor quality of the forms the UCOP created and approved for sending it to campuses and also notify the Regents of the issue with compliance with the forms UCOP created beforehand and instead of Kieffer and Napolitano just deciding on their own to ditch the forms while in progress with no notice to the board until the next regents meeting when they could fast track rush a push for policy change

And at the 3:17:00 timemark here (you can also start at the 3:14:00 for a fuller intro to the topic)
2- Toward the very end of the full board open session on Thursday, student Regent Graves and student regent designate Waddle asked why there was no submission to the state of a line in the budget for $4 million in student basic needs. Graves was not satisfied with the answer he received from UCOP's Brostrom and Alcocer. Brostrom attempted to claim that his understanding was that UC would easily fund the $4 mil from it's own funds - that approach and view might be perceived as exactly counter to the narrative the regents wanted advanced forward to the CA leg.. Graves , as others also observed, understood the regents vote to include it specifically to the state, and the reasoning was discussed at length at prior regents meetings in Fall 2017. Basically, the regents wanted the basic needs highlighted to the CA Leg. Unclear why UCOP staff claim either to not recall the reasoning and decided to side step disregard the regents directives on this.
And Graves raised serious concerns about the fact that the Regents twice voted to have the budget line sent to the CA leg as a specific line item and even then UCOP refused to comply or implement the regents policy directives, Graves
said he remains concerned about this issue of the failure to comply with Regents policy directives.

---both issues above are about the failure of the Regents leadership supervisor role of Napolitano and her staff.
Yet, the chair of the regents continues to buttress many policy decisions based on the wonderful delegation of supervisor controls - but if the example that is coming from the chair of the regents himself, well, if that example is looking alot like 'when things go wrong, (when UCOP fails on something) cover it over and then just make a move by fiat with no communication to those who are lateral to you (fellow Regents)'. Is that the example he wants to send down the supervisory line at UC to emulate?

UCSD Chancellor Under Review Part II

See: "UC San Diego Chancellor Pradeep Khosla: Blunt-spoken visionary or belittling bully?"

"UC San Diego said that it is cooperating with UCOP in the investigation that was highlighted in that story. UCOP would not discuss the matter, which appears to have started with a whistleblower report. Nor would Khosla, who has been UC San Diego’s chancellor since 2012, when he arrived from Carnegie Mellon University, where he was dean of engineering.

Since the story appeared, another former administrator has gone on the record, telling the Union-Tribune that he contacted UCOP in 2014 to report alleged bullying behavior by Khosla.

Thomas Leet, a former assistant vice chancellor for human resources, told the paper that he was acting on behalf of 11 UC San Diego employees when he made the complaint.

UCOP declined to discuss Leet’s claim. Nor would UC San Diego, saying it was not aware of a 2014 investigation. A spokesman for the university said Khosla would not be made available for an interview.
"The Union-Tribune communicated with more than 50 current and former faculty, staff and administrators, from all areas of the university, and received starkly differing viewpoints."


"But his detractors say that Khosla can be confrontational, insulting and demeaning. They claim he has a habit of combining insults and compliments, leaving people unsure about what he actually means.

They describe him more like the brusque CEO of a private company than the chancellor of a large public university that prizes collegiality.

The topic of bullying has been addressed by UC President Janet Napolitano. In 2016, she sent a letter to system chancellors and executives that said, in part, that the UC “does not tolerate abusive conduct or bullying.”

The letter said "...

UCOP told the Union-Tribune that whistleblower reports that include allegations against a chancellor are handled by a senior official in the Office of the President. “Disciplinary action warranted in a particular case depends on the careful consideration of often complex, nuanced circumstances and interests,” UCOP said.

The consequences could include the firing of a chancellor.

Some of Khosla’s detractors also say that the chancellor, who turns 62 in March, does not welcome dissent, putting people on edge.

“There is an atmosphere of fear on this campus,” said Andrew Scull, a sociology professor. “People are afraid to speak out either because voicing their views may bring retaliation on their department or unit.”

“There’s a sense that information flows down, not up, which is never healthy. We have a Chancellor who has isolated himself from the faculty, and created a toxic culture rather than a welcoming one.”

Scull’s claim brought sharp disagreement from the eight UC San Diego professors who sat down with the Union-Tribune after learning that the paper was preparing a story on Khosla’s management style."...


Leet says he began hearing complaints about Khosla in 2013, the year after he became chancellor. Employees turned to Leet because he was assistant vice chancellor of human resources. Dealing with such complaints was part of his job.

The complaints involved “bullying, intimidating, and threatening behavior that had reduced some staff members to tears and/or seeking psychological therapy,” Leet told the Union-Tribune.

"The persons who complained did not want their identities revealed to the Office of the President. They were highly skeptical [UCOP] would take appropriate action … and [they felt] they would be subjected to retaliation on campus given that they were certain they'd be identified due to the nature of their complaints."

Leet says that in the summer of 2014 he contacted UCOP investigators and reported that at least 11 UC San Diego employees, including administrators, had allegedly been bullied by Khosla or members of his senior staff. Leet claims that he witnessed three of the incidents.

He also said that UCOP sent the system’s former auditor, Patrick Reed, to campus to investigate. Leet claims the system’s staff “acknowledged that there was a problem at San Diego, but [UC President Janet] Napolitano had bigger problems with chancellors at two other campuses.” He said he was never formally provided with the findings of the inquiry.

UCOP will not discuss Leet’s claims. Reed could not be reached for comment.

Leet further says that he was so troubled about the way Khosla talked to people that he privately told the chancellor in 2013, “I know a great executive coach who could assist you with strengthening your leadership skills.”

He said he doesn’t know whether Khosla followed up on his suggestion.

Leet retired from UC San Diego in December 2014. The university publicly praised his 24 years of service and said, “Tom has been an ardent supporter of diversity and civility.”

The bullying issue resurfaced in 2018 for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.

A UCOP investigator began asking current and former UC San Diego employees about Khosla’s management style. Specifically, UCOP wanted to know whether the chancellor and some of his current and former senior staff had engaged in bullying, which can involve such acts as offensive language and insults, and making someone the victim of a prank.

The Union-Tribune has spoken with nine people who have been interviewed by the UCOP investigator, including former UC San Diego administrators Judy Lane, Kristina Larsen and Stephanie Barry.

Larsen is an attorney who represents the other two women.

She said, “The Chancellor and his staff insulted, berated, humiliated, and isolated my clients, among other things. One described feeling as if she were suffering from PTSD after leaving UCSD.”

The university described Barry as a “visionary” when she became its alumni affairs officer in early 2016. The campus fired her the following year for reasons it won’t discuss. Barry says the university told her it “wanted to go in a different direction.”

Leet said he reached out to the current UCOP investigator in December to discuss his concerns about Khosla after he read the Union-Tribune story.

Boone Hellman, UC San Diego’s former campus architect and associate vice chancellor for facilities design and construction, also spoke to the investigator.

"I repeatedly saw [Khosla] use this tactic of making a very cutting comment in a joking manner then close with a compliment," said Hellman, who retired from the campus in in 2013.

“You were always left wondering which part of the comment he intended. I believe he used this to intimidate or hurt the other person, and that is a partial definition of bullying.”

Khosla’s style is open to interpretation.' ...
See full article.

Here is the earlier coverage:

-Khosla made presentation at last week's Regents meeting.

-In prior Regents meetings he has come across as brusque, arrogant, but also joking and collegial at different times.
The same could be said of those who are the leadership of the regents meetings as well, so...

This remains unclear because it is unknown what the full WB complaint includes, alleges.

The issue of UC Chancellors creating huge PR problems for UC also came up during the Governance Committee open session last week. Regent Ortiz Oakley reminded the board that it was Regent Reiss who drafted the 2016 policy changes to outside compensation rules that the regents discussed and acted on by voting to adopt those new rules. Ortiz Oakley reminded the board of the serious nature of the problems at that time that led to the public relations crisis. He said Reiss would be jumping out of her chair to remind the regents of this before adopting these 2019 new rules on outside compensation, or non UC board activity etc -- more on this later.

Friday, January 18, 2019

UC Regents relax pay rules for outside jobs for Executive level; UC Regents working group determine some UCOP employees underpaid

First a question: Did Pres Napolitano's forthcoming book to be released in March cause a review  of the policy below- were there questions raised about why some book writing would fall under review while other book writing would not?
Is it possible such activity could take (percent) time (reporting) away from conducting  completing admin work  (for those who hold both admin titles and academic tittles concurrently) and become a conflict -? A 'conflict of time' or a 'conflict of interest' are both things UC  normally reviews or is supposed to review. Napolitano received regent approval for working on the book in the same way Chancellor's did?

"UC regents relax rules restricting paid outside jobs for chancellors and top managers"
Los Angeles Times
The article includes a 13 page link to this UCOP outside compensation report for SMG in 2017.

"University of California regents voted Thursday to weaken the rules for allowing chancellors and other senior managers to engage in outside professional activities, two years after cracking down on former UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi for moonlighting.
UC rules had required pre-approval for all paid and unpaid activities. But before wrapping up a two-day meeting in San Francisco, regents agreed to drop requirements for pre-approval for any outside activity — such as a position on a corporate board — that pays less than $2,500 from a single source in a year, unless required by a higher-up.

But senior managers, a group that includes about 290 people, still will be required to report all outside professional activities, both paid and unpaid.

After Katehi was ousted in 2016 over revelations that she had accepted paid positions with a for-profit education company and a textbook publisher, regents voted to decrease from three to two the number of paid for-profit board seats senior managers can accept. They also created an extra layer of approval for outside activities, as well as an independent review committee to assess any real or perceived conflicts of interest and potential damage to the reputation of a campus or UC.

But chancellors soon complained that the approval process had turned into a bureaucratic nightmare.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ said it often took two months to get pre-approvals for her unpaid speeches to the Rotary Club, for instance, or royalties for work editing an anthology of British literature. Another chancellor who wrote an acclaimed book on free speech was told he should have received pre-approval for the project, Christ said.
“I'm sure the policy wasn't intended to create these incredibly burdensome and bureaucratic reporting requirements,” she said in interview. “Nobody has any problem whatsoever with there being strict scrutiny of service on for-profit boards or for-profit activities.”
Scholarly work will no longer be subject to the UC policy.
Christ called the changes that were approved Thursday “common-sense reforms.”
Other rules, including the limit of holding two paid positions on for-profit boards, remain in place. Exceptions must be approved by regents.
In 2017, four of 10 chancellors reported payments for outside professional activities: Pradeep Khosla at UC San Diego was paid $52,500, Christ at Berkeley received $1,500 and Samuel Hawgood at UC San Francisco got $1,000. UC Davis Chancellor Gary May reported $255,420 in cash and stocks from one corporation and one nonprofit, but much of it was earned in a previous job before joining UC in August 2017.
Board of Regents Chairman George Kieffer said UC’s moonlighting rules remain among the strictest in the nation.
The policy encourages its senior managers to serve on scientific boards, foundations and corporations as a way to share their expertise and learn about other administrative and educational operations.
But regents passed the stricter rules in 2016, after disclosures by the Sacramento Bee that Katehi had taken paid board positions with the DeVry Education Group, which was under federal investigation at the time for fraud, and John Wiley & Sons, a college textbook publisher. The revelations prompted both a state legislative hearing on UC moonlighting and a directive in the state budget to review and adjust policies on outside activities at UC."


See also the UC Regents Working Group meeting from Thursday, about a fifteen minute meeting with well rehearsed script. They claim about 64 UCOP employees were discovered to be underpaid based on their market reference zone analysis- at the same time though the reasoning included that Facebook serves as the market driver reason for a need to increase pay even for non IT " coding" jobs, you can view the meeting session: here

We still don't know the state of UC Path's 'Performance Management' components and if it has even been included in the costs tallied thus far??...The Performance Management components were described to the regents when the project was first seeking approval funding- now, not much said about it, or it's development.

Thursday, January 17, 2019

UC Regent on UC Path: "if I were a student at UC Davis or UC Berkeley I would be a little concerned frankly about what's coming down the pike...Should you delay the March deployment...?"

Recommend to you the Finance Committee meeting open session item F5 Discussion UCPath Update

Where UC Regent Park made the above statement -2:11:20 time mark-  regarding the March deployment of UC Path at Cal and UC Davis.

Chair Makarechian and Regent Park asked a series of necessary, very important questions about the UC Path rollout and the lack of assurances that students will not be negatively impacted by it.

The full discussion of it runs from 1:50:00- 2:39:39 ( the end of the meeting)

UC: "The State Auditor has been somewhat inconsistent on this point"

Those were Gen counsel Robinson's remarks, in part , at the 5:00 minute mark at the beginning of the compliance and audit meeting on Wednesday.
Recommend to you viewing of item C1 of open agenda Compliance and Audit Committee:
See also Regent Perez's questions around it ,Chair Elliott's comments as well.

C1  Discussion and Update on Implementation of Recommendations from State Audit of University of California Office of the President Administrative Expenditures

Watch from the 2:00 minute mark to. the 6:30 time mark : HERE, so about four + minutes viewing of this sort of surreal administrative non-discussion of this agenda item that was up for discussion.

A UC Regents agenda item listed for a couple of weeks then at the regents' meeting the discussion begins by saying there will be no discussion, without any clear explanation or notice.

General Counsel Robinson goes on to say: "My office has had conversations with her office  in which they've indicated that  the distinction does not matter and it does not matter whether it is open or closed ( UC Regents session). So, I agree with you  (to regent Perez) as a policy matter  but I do think this is something we may want to take up again with the State Auditor. I would also note that I believe there is a distinction between sharing information about an ongoing audit on the one hand  and sharing information about the implementation of  recommendations after the audit has concluded .I am not aware  of any legal prohibition or any basis for taking the position that information about the implementation of recommendations  cannot be discussed or shared with this board."

--Then Committee Chair Regent Elliott makes some generalized statement about trying to have better relations even though disagreement.- but he does not explain why the agenda item was placed on the agenda in these circumstances.
Is CSA not allowing the discussion??
And blaming the non-discussion on the CSA State Auditor office by UC.
But it is UC's agenda item.
Why would UCOP senior staff NOT ask the CSA about whether it would be allowable in either  closed and/ or open sessions - and to ask CSA about both , each ?! Yet, fail to ask about both -- Didn't come to the meeting with a plan for how to address the item in keeping with CSA protocols. It makes folks wonder what is really going on?

This is strange.
To handle an agenda item , especially a sensitive agenda item that stems from negative audit findings that made headlines and continues to serve as content for  other related major headlines for UC.
Slush funds,audit tampering , etc etc remember?
One would think that sort of agenda item would be handled with care not just raise public concern, questions about the 'discussion item that lacked discussion at the UC Regents meeting'.

UC $9 Billion loss, other UC Regents meeting coverage

In the Governance committee meeting materials there is a strike through of an item on compensation increase for the chief investments office, and then later some action on the item ( it seems the compensation increase, bonus was approved by Regents) now see:

"University of California Assets Fell $9 Billion in Market Rout
Endowment, pension, other assets were $114 billion on Dec. 31
Equities are half of portfolio; rest in alternatives, bonds"

- the loss was described by UC Regent Sherman to the full UC Regents board, as 'a single digit loss' in his synopsis of the proceedings of the investments committee. Do you think everyone at the regents table just automatically understood that the term 'single digit' was in terms of billions of dollars?! Naw.

Some other recap at Daily Bruin:

And Daily Cal has more details on the UC students Adviser position rift:


On Thursday during a Governance committee meeting* that , with what appears to be  NO notice to the public, was moved to Thursday morning and could only be found via the LIVESTREAM of the video for the Regents FULL "Board" session*
the regents voted to eliminate the student adviser position pilot program. Several issues with whether or not  the procedural rules were adhered to and an open debate among the regents about whether or not it was proper and whether or not it was misleading to the public. Even the debate discussion among regents was tilted and procedurally a less than  stellar example of good governance. And it was pretty bad optics watching a young undergrad try to make his points to, and be recognized by, a cluster of regents  who had already baked the cake, whipped the votes and other hijinks behind the scenes in the handling of Regents agendizing actions. Doubt very much that the rest of the voting regents knew the play by play or understood the full history - or other possible politics that are at play- or monitored the agenda items as they appeared to the public with all the revisions and constantly changing memorandum.

The agenda first listed the item as an eliminate action

Inconsistent memorandum from the chair of the regents, and  committee chair of governance preceded that agenda item stating their position and then as the semantics wording of the agenda item changed so too did their public statements on their policy positions on it.

Then later, the item morphed into an action to extend the pilot.

Then, the chair of the regents, the committee chair and others sent out communications once again altering their memorandum.

There was switching all over the place on the agenda item.

Multiple Regents acknowledged how this could be not just confusing but misleading  to the public (complete agreement here with) former long term  Audit and Compliance  Committee Chair Regent Zettle on her comments of concern over this - which led her along with several other regents to abstain from the vote entirely.

Highly recommend this article from the Triton along with it's links to understand the moves etc:

Includes with important links, see article:
On Dec. 21, Graves released a letter from Regent Richard Sherman on Facebook stating that the Board of Regents planned to sunset, or terminate, the Student Advisor position. After outcry from students, another letter was released on Jan. 4 stating that the proposal was changed to be a one-year extension of the Student Advisor program.
On Saturday, Jan. 12, at the monthly UCSA board meeting, UCSA held a closed session meeting with Student Regent Graves and Student Regent-designate Hayley Weddle. UCSA is the largest official student advocacy group within the UC system. Caroline Siegel-Singh, ASUCSD Vice President of External Affairs, was elected President of UCSA last summer.
According to Student Advisor Edward Huang, “UCSA held a closed door session which I was not included in, during which they decided that they would support sunsetting the student advisor position in exchange for additional UCSA controlled positions.”
During Sunday’s UCSA meeting, according to notes taken by The Triton, Caroline Siegel-Singh, UCSA President and ASUCSD Vice President of External Affairs, announced that the board decided to release a statement promoting the sunsetting of the student advisor position and led a discussion about the wording of the statement.
The meeting was captured on live feed through Facebook Live, as all UCSA meetings are, but the video disappeared from Facebook shortly after it ended. There were no official meeting minutes released.
When asked if the live feed was deleted and why it disappeared, Siegel-Singh told The Triton, “Our staff would not have deleted the feed. I have no idea why that would have happened. However, the live feed is not a guarantee. It is often unavailable due to connectivity issues. We’ll do our best to have it up when we can.”
Following the session, UCSA released a letter on Sunday calling for an end to the position, citing that the position does not actually represent students but rather only serves a figurehead role.
Despite the proposal to continue the Student Advisor program, the Board of Regents instead discussed and voted on a proposal to end the program and to replace it with more UCSA programs, like Student Advocate to the Regents (StAR) and Student Observer. StARs are students that have direct access to the Regents at meetings, instead of sitting in the public section. Student Observers serve one-year terms. They attend a specific committee and are allowed to address the board.
Huang spoke in opposition to the proposal, saying, “The lack of transparency in this meeting and the refusal to properly consult student constituents shows that there are elected and appointed student leaders who would prefer to eliminate other student leadership roles that compete with their own, rather than to do what they know is truly in the interest of students.“
He later asked why the board had to choose between the UCSA programs or the Student Advisor, stating that they could have both.
Student Regent Devon Graves, appointed by UCSA, supported the claims in the letter"...

And :


In the same vein of problems with UC Regents meeting transparency: at multiple points in time during this week of UC Regents' meetings- there have been issues with accessing the livestream of the meeting for multiple committees and some viewers are complaining of the meetings video cutting off  prior to the meeting end of live stream or the official end of the public open sessions. We witnessed this happen with the working group committee meeting on Thursday as well, and:

E.g: ..."We'll get to yesterday's session later. But I might note that two of the three morning official recordings provided by the Regents cut off before the sessions ended. One session in the afternoon either wasn't held or wasn't available, not clear which.

I will delay uploading the afternoon sessions until the situation with the missing session clears up, if it does."...

Other notes on disabled links to their meetings and 'view only on YouTube ' settings the regents put in place on the basic needs Committee vid and the public engagement committee etc.  in notes in previous immedite last post.
Additionally there is a very bizarrely harried exchange between the chair and the secretary to the regents for virtually every vote tally process during committee and board sections of the meeting.

The Governance committee further confused things by adjourning for the day during their closed session without any notice to the public that they would meet for their open session instead of Wednesday on Thursday , as noted above.

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

UC Regents Meeting January 15-17 Agenda items


To view the meetings:

Click links to see agenda for each committee listed below

--Unknown if the new Lt Gov or even the new Gov will attend this upcoming meeting.

--The item regarding the student adviser position -to discontinue it or extend it -discussion or action - was  briefly   is listed in the agenda  for this meeting *during Governance Committee* . It is item G10 in open session (listed on a badly formatted, unnecessary page 2).  Recall the chair of Governance Committee sent out letters in advance of taking up the item  resulting in a lot of negative feedback. Now unclear what is happening with that item but the item is titled "Extension of the student adviser", it is listed as an action item so there will be a vote...

January 15-17, 2019

Tuesday, January 15 
12:30 pm
Investments Subcommittee (open session - includes public comment session) (pdf) Location: Fisher Banquet Room

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 13, 2018

I-1 Discussion 2019 Economic Forecast

I-2 Discussion Update on Investment Products

I-3 Discussion Review of Asset Classes

3:30 pm
Special Committee on Basic Needs (open session) (pdf)Location: Fisher Banquet Room

Agenda – Open Session

S1 Discussion Review of University of California Basic Needs Efforts

S2 Discussion Consultation with Campus and Systemwide Basic Needs
Committee Leaders

S3 Discussion Special Committee Future Items and Prioritie


Wednesday, January 16
8:30 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium


THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE DID NOT MEET IN OPEN SESSION ON WEDNESDAY THEY INSTEAD MET IN OPEN SESSION ON THURSDAY - AT THIS TIME AND DURING LIVESTREAM THEIR PROCEEDINGS CAN BE FOUND IN VIDEO OF THE THURSDAY'S FULL BOARD. On Jan 25 the the regents altered and edited their vid archive for both their Governance and full Board committee meetings, the regents have still not provided the video of the cut off sections of various of their open sessions and they have also NOT provided the public with any explanation for why these Committee meetings archive materials abruptly cut off.

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2
Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14, 2018
Remarks of the Chair of the Board
Remarks of the President of the University
Remarks of the Chair of the Academic Senate
Concurrent Meetings
9:30 am
Public Engagement and Development Committee (open session) (pdf) Location: Fisher Banquet Roo
Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14, 2018

P1 Discussion Annual Report on Sustainable Practices

P2 Discussion Annual Report on University Private Support 2017-18

P3 Discussion Community Outreach and Impacts, Davis Campus

P4 Discussion Regents Engagement Plan

P5 Discussion Student Advocacy Efforts

9:30 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14, 2018

C1 Discussion Update on Implementation of Recommendations from State Audit
of University of California Office of the President Administrative

C2 Discussion Update on Implementation of Recommendations from State Audit
of Sexual Harassment Cases

Upon end of Audit open
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Over  25 items listed- #5 and #17 involve multiple faculty, students fyi

Concurrent Meetings
1:00 pm
Location: Fisher Banquet Room

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14, 2018

A1 Action Approval of Professional Degree Supplemental Tuition for Two
Graduate Professional Degree Programs, Berkeley and Santa Cruz

A2 Discussion Student Athletes at the University of California

A3 Discussion Update on UC Center Sacramento

Location: Fisher Banquet Room

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14, 2018

N1 Discussion Annual Report on Fiscal Year 2018 National Laboratory Performance

N2 Discussion Presentation on the State of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

1:00 pm
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14, 2018

F1 Action Consent Agenda: Approval of Preliminary Plans Funding,
Ambulatory Care Center Expansion with Eye Center,
Davis Health Campus

F2 Action Approval of Budget and External Financing, Franklin Antonio
Hall, San Diego Campus

F3 Discussion Pepper Canyon West Upper Division Undergraduate Student
Housing Project, San Diego Campus

F4 Discussion Long Range Development Plan Amendment and Design, Student
Housing West Project, Santa Cruz Campus

F5 Discussion UCPath Update

Upon end of Finance open
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14, 2018

F6(X) Discussion Ground Lease Business Terms and Financing of First Phase of
Student Housing West Project, Santa Cruz Campus

Closed Session Statute Citation: Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]

4:00 pm
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14, 2018

G1(X) Discussion Incentive Compensation Using Non-State Funds for Fiscal Year
2017-18 for Chief Investment Officer and Vice President –
Investments, Office of the President
Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel matters
[Education Code §92032(b)(7)]

G2(X) Action Appointment of Regents to the Health Services Committee
Closed Session Statute Citation: Nomination of officers and members
[Education Code §92032(e)]

G3(X) Action Appointment of Regents to the Investments Committee
Closed Session Statute Citation: Nomination of officers and members
[Education Code §92032(e)]

G4(X) Discussion Collective Bargaining Matters
Closed Session Statute Citation: Collective bargaining matters

Upon end of Governance closed
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of November 14-15, 2018

G1 Action Approval of Incentive Compensation Using Non-State Funds for
Fiscal Year 2017-18 for Chief Investment Officer and Vice
President – Investments, Office of the President as Discussed in
Closed Session

G5 Discussion Review in Connection with the University of California 10
Campus Study

G6 Action Amendment of Regents Policy 7707 – Senior Management
Group Outside Professional Activities

G7 Action Establishment of a New Position in the Senior Management Group
of Chief Executive Officer, UC Riverside Health and the Market
Reference Zone for the Position, Riverside Campus

G8 Action Approval of Market Reference Zones for Senior Management Group
Positions in the Office of the Chief Investment Officer, Office of the

G9 Action Establishment of a New Position in the Senior Management Group of
Vice Chancellor for Community and Governmental Relations and the
Market Reference Zone for the Position, San Francisco Campus

G10 Action Extension of Student Advisor Pilot Program

Thursday, January 17
8:30 am
Location: Robertson Auditorium

Multiple rubber stamping see link above
Upon end of Board   closed
Location: Robertson Auditorium
More rubber stamping but also include these agenda items:

B1 Discussion Planning for a Multi-Year Framework

B2 Discussion Review of the Governor’s January Budget Proposal for 2019-20


Times indicated and order of business subject to change

And this meeting added in :


January 17 - Working Group on UC Office of the President Salary Ranges

January 17, 2019

Upon adjournment of the Board meetingWorking Group on UC Office of the President Salary Ranges (open session - includes public comment session)
Times indicated and order of business subject to change

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2 (20 minutes)
1 Discussion Discussion of Plan for Narrowing University of California Office of 
the President Non-Represented Staff Salary Ranges

Also see: