Monday, March 18, 2019

UC PATH Senior Management Scapegoat Lower Level UC Employees for UC PATH Payroll Problems.

The UC Regents Finance Committee had a ten minute section where they discussed UC PATH - it seemed a pretty blatant blaming tactic was used...

Beginning at time mark : 1:54:00

Regents asked about some of the problems raised in various negative public comments about UC PATH (at their meeting, at campuses, in addional news accounts).

Regent Cohen started by asking how UCPATH could continue to maintain a project bench mark "green light" notification on their program when they were in the midst of serious delays on UC Davis and UC ANR rollout of UC PATH.

Regent Lieb made an observation of the failure of communications, expression of empathy, by UC to those who "have been screwed " when IT projects become problematic, fail in some way as in the switch to UC PATH and those employees negatively impacted-by it. UC Management did not comment back to his suggestion for better communication from UC .
Lieb also said he was not sure UC had the resources or was putting the resources to the problems and the UC PATH senior leadership did not provide UC Regent Lieb with any assurance, info on the questions or comments he raised.

Then UC Regent Designate Simmons asked some precise good questions but got the run around from UC PATH project sponsors and from the project director who were there to respond.

Simmons asked:

1- if there has been any assessment or a financial projection made for the costs of additional training that will be necessary now that the program leadership has discovered the training thus far on UC PATH was not adequate, needs refinement. She did not receive a direct answer on the cost.

2- Simmons asked a basic question requesting to know the total number of still unresolved occurences - counting each individual employee experiencing problems with getting a paycheck, accurate pay from UC via UC PATH. How many - number total- of issues with paychecks as result if UC PATH? The project director said he 'did not have that number and would have to get back on that later'.

It was kind of disturbing to watch how they tried to reframe her questions or narrow the scope of her questions even after she clearly reiterated them.

That doesn't sound like a question that UC or UCOP staff should have been unprepared for, -- they really should have expected that more than one Regent would ask and want to know the answer to that question.

Why doesn't the UC PATH Center or their project leadership have that number of total problems they are aware of at this time?

This raises again a concern UC Regent Designate Um brought up at the November UC Regents meeting, he asked if any UC internal audits were being conducted to find the problems with UC PATH, locating each error occurrence instead of just relying on those who experience payroll errors to notice and report the problems with their pay back to multiple parts of UC and also to UC PATH. Some general assurances were made to him on his question in November, but it looks like it is still an important question that Regents et al still need to ask...

There was one key thing the UC PATH senior leadership said about the UC Nurses payroll problems : the leadership said the problems were identified and known because the NURSES were keeping a catalog of the incidents and reported them to UC and only received acknowledgement of the incidents/ issues once they also notified their union who in turn notified UC Labor Relations and then Labor Relations went to UC PATH staff and then the issues/ incidents with payroll problems were acknowledged by UC kinda, sorta. The problems were not found by any internal audit of the system as part of UC management of UC PATH. The nurses found and catalogue at least 22 instances and informed UC.

With regard to the public comments at March 2019 UC Regents meeting:
In the morning session of the opening of the UC Regents Board: timemark 40:15 here
A representative from UC nurses said they have multiple cases of payroll problems resulting from switch to UC PATH. They gave one example of a nurse who lost $7000+ of wages because UC PATH restarted old spousal support deductions - those deductions ended in 2014 but UC PATH restarted them in 2019 in error- that resulted in the nurses' ex-spouse receiving those funds and the nurses representative said that UC' response was for the nurse to go ask the ex spouse for the pay and UC offered no other solutions for the UC error.

The final day of the UC Regents Meeting on Thursday included multiple public comments from UC PATH lower level staff , and some of those employees are represented UC Clerical employees -- their comments centered around concerns over being made scapegoat by UC PATH senior managers , and their concerns over understaffing, , they said 33% of their staff left UC just before UCLA and UCSB switched over to UC PATH and the 33% of staff were never replaced with new hires, they said UC PATH staff find themselves distraught, crying over intake of calls where they can't fix the problems UC employees are experiencing because the problems are happening in the programming of the system,, they said upper UC management use tactics of deny, minimize, ignore, blame lower level employees, or blame the employees whose payroll has been negatively impacted-, , they also said the system itself is floundering, and there were additional claims of mistreatment of UC PATH workers at the UC PATH Center. The staff representatives also said UC claims it doesn't have to play by the same rules as other employers with regard to how it addresses problems with processing UC payroll accurately, or addressing any damages UC employees suffer as a result of things like UC PATH etc.
You can watch their comments beginning at : the 26:30 time mark on the final session of the UC Regents board.

It now is a long list of excuses from UC management for why UC PATH is so over budget, delayed and faulty, some of them:

-Didn't appreciate biz transformation aspect to project

-Taken advantage of by vendor UC first contracted with

-Training of transaction processors was bad training

-User error by employees on their own data

- 100 earn codes and UC PATH staff don't understand them

- aligning timing of reports to Regents meetings is something UC staff persistenly can't/ won't / don't don't know how to do it

- campuses were/are resistant to the project since inception

-Bad original project leadership

-Misleading news reports

-CSA audit of UC PATH misunderstands the project so their audit recommendations are flawed or not applicable

-Staff expertise is on the old PPS system and doesn't convert translate over easily to UC PATH

-Wrong timing, bad month for launches picked

-Didn't take into account intricacies of grad students and professional student attributes

-Didn't consider how start of school dates might not be good go live date for launch.

That's just some of them.

Friday, March 15, 2019

UCOP wants to continue to battle with CSA, as Regents not so tacitly ...

So UCSB The Bottomline has a great article with news coverage of much of the history:
"State Auditor Calls For UCOP Financial Transparency"
The Bottom Line

But almost all student articles omit two add'l pieces of the history:
1: UCOP at the time the audit was being conducted COULD NOT provide to CSA the names or list of UC programs in that 'excess revenue funds/'slush' account. CSA identified the programs and informed UCOP of them - that is how UCOP was later able to describe them at all post audit.

2- There was also a set of expenditures by UCOP totalling about $32+ million on what is known as 'travel and entertainment' -expenditures that includes international travel, domestic travel and dining type of expenditures- that UCOP could not find the receipts for - UCOP could only find, provide nothing, or just Excel sheets of general limited info for those expenditures during the CSA audit.
UCOP literally -not just colloquially - did not have the receipts.
At the campus level, historically, if an academic department did not have the receipts (also known by staff as the term ' the backup') -- if a Dept did not provide that to the campus or University internal Auditors it would result in some ' write up, ' management corrective action.
Campus and University auditors would not regard Excel sheets as acceptable receipts, back up. So UCOP practices in that instance were far below the standards expected, at least historically, at the campus academic department level.
* Also there is an overall failure in coverage to acknowledge that the CA Joint Legislative Audit Committee sought and approved the CSA services for audits of UC on these matters because they were hearing a need for them from constituent groups and from other stakeholders.

With the above background in mind, now let us consider how UC audits conducted by CSA with regard to UCOP budgeting and dubiously named ' salary narrowing' efforts were discussed at the UC Regents meeting this week. Just view these section timemarks for now or watch the 45 minute meeting in full. (With more to add in later)

See the Compliance and Audit committee ITEMS C3 and C4 at time mark:

Regents Agenda Item "C3" at timemark : 10:09 -- presentation made by Kurt Sjoberg and Marianne Evashenk, who repeatedly try to drop as often as possible into their assessment remarks their distant in the past service as former auditors of CSA (and we might note perhaps that was back to a time when CA residents demanded less transparency, so...) - they give a rather sleepy delivery throughout much of it but stick with it.

Regents Agenda Item "C4" at timemark : 32:00 -above vid- this is the hilarious part to watch because this is where some of UCOP staff who could not provide CSA with accurate information at the time of the audit try to play like they knew the info from the audit findings all along, omnisciently...they present along with the new chief compliance and audit officer (the new one who came on board as a result of the questionable behavior by his predecessors during the CSA audit)

At the 37:00 time mark -above vid- Regent Lieb asks about this recent news article:

State auditor says UC's Napolitano has not implemented transparency reforms"

-UCOP staff and the chair of the regents try to frame that news reporting as misleading. UCOP staff try to frame CSA as adding numbers to get a large sum then misconstruing the numbers and intentions.

And more back story here:

And here:

The UC Regents chair Kieffer nakes self admitted 'snarky' comments about CSA audit of UC
This occurs in the UC Regents Board final session on Thursday when they received a UCOP presentation on agenda item ' B4 "Discussion MidYear Report of UCOP Budget to Actual Expenditures and Second Quarter Forecast for FY 2018-19"
then Kieffer sort of halfway backtracks to acknowledge that UC at the time of the audit findings was grateful to CSA for identifying the budgeting and transparency problems at UCOP which was precisely the reason UC adopted ALL of the CSA 30+ recommendations immediately according to the UC Regent Chair Lozano aalong with president Napolitano when they appeared at a JLAC hearing on the findings. UC Regents also expressed gratitude to the CSA when CSA appeared and presented to the UCRegents last year-- it was a very different UC tone then...

Now, UCOP staff discount CSA position - claims that CSA just lumped together large sums without good reason, and without context , but as stated earlier UCOP could not identify the UC programs much less provide context at the time of the CSA audit, so... and UCOP staff also discount the news reporting on that SF Chronicle news story and Chair Kieffer says this news report is misleading see p beginning at the 4:44 00 timemark beginning here below:

Additionally, UCOP staff refuse to acknowledge the funds reallocated to UC campuses was the result of CSA recommendations and political pressure from CA Leg -- not because of any planned before the audit UCOP planned initiatives.

Are things going to continue at an impasse?


Adding in here the Governance Committee which had two highly scripted presentations on workforce planning, and UCOP ,the CSA interactions come up but the wording is far less adversarial than what transpired in the above:

Is it counted as 'resident' or 'non-resident' aid at UC? 'What is the aggregate?' questions persist for each category... Again and again.

And what is UC's clear mission statement relative to each stakeholder group?
( E.g. why doesn't UC provide the same services to Title IX complainant, respondants when their cases are upheld? How are decisions made about which UC litigants population to support with such services? Etc)


"Amid Trump's border showdown, UC immigration lawyer comforts and fights"

..."She’s one of 10 attorneys employed by the University of California’s Immigrant Legal Services Center, and as the Trump administration seeks to further curb immigration, her office in a quiet corner of a UC Riverside administration building has become one of many fronts in the ongoing national debate over who should have access to the American dream.

With federal courts weighing the fate of DACA and pitched partisan battles in Congress over border enforcement, California is spending $4 million over three years to fund free immigration legal assistance for UC students and their families. More than a quarter of the country’s 700,000 DACA recipients live in California.

In a redder state, taxpayers might object to a public university providing state-funded legal aid for clients that include unauthorized immigrants, not all of whom are students. But polls show more than eight Californians in 10 favor a path to legal status for undocumented residents.

UC President Janet Napolitano—a former Homeland Security Secretary—supports the program, and Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed spending an additional $17 million next year to provide similar legal services on California State University and community college campuses. "...

As we consider ' return to aid' pools...
Then see this type of coverage:
"UC regents revolt against $762 tuition hike for non-Californians"

And this

UC regents hold off on raising nonresident tuition after some protest
Los Angeles Times

You can watch that item - it is called F5 for this UC Reg session- in open session during UC Regents Finance committee on Wednesday and the Board open session on Thursday.

Do UCSF Faculty, Staff Understand Health Disparities?

Its a provocative question , but a real one.
It is a question Bay Area residents would normally think they don't have to ask. Yet, if you watch the:
Presentation by UCSF on item A1 from UC Regents meeting certain troubling methodology comes up in assessment of physical therapy student applications-people who want to be physical therapists not those seeking PT as patients to be extra clear-- It is a topic that directly affects health care disparities e.g. if patients have access to healthcare providers who can relate to their background, or conduct research that is applicable to their background reflects their background etc.

If nothing else, watch the Academic and Student Affairs Committee open session on item A1. The issues that come up -because the committee Action items discussion sounds like there are:

Failures on proper methodology on applicants at UCSF Physical Therapy program, which makes one wonder if the same problems exist for other programs. UCSF item comes up at 2:10:00 timemark.

It - the health disparities question- also raised with a UCI nursing program during the same agenda item. That comes up at 1:17:00 timemark.

Failure to maintain proper residents to non residents numbers - many graduate degree and professional degree programs maintain cohorts of 'Non-resident majority' students, many programs have inconsistent tuition and fees policies within similar schools in UC and result mostly in disparities for CA residents ( so , shortcut: with regard to admissions, and with regard to tuition and fees) that are then not reported to regents nor CA Leg timely. This comes up through out the meeting.

Failure to track the LEEP program at Berkeley, which may have resulted in URM EdD candidates incurring unnecessary and huge student loan debt which in turn their public education employer may also have paid for -so it may have been passed on to CA- that scenario comes up. This program comes up at the 25:00 timemark. And wrote more about it here earlier.

(Some 'students stayed in the program for several extra semesters, up to twelve semesters waiting for courses' example was given by the Dean of the Ed school.)

Failure to report these multiple problems in comprehensive reports to Regents with regularity.

On the sorta good side there was some attempt to gather the UC B Schools into a consistent group
And the four UC Law schools -- but it was done by giving two year extension and is hurriedly done in the last twenty minutes of the meeting. ( Unclear if the fourth UC law school was Hastings?? Hastings has UC identity issues going way back. The fourth law school did not send a representative to the UC Regents meeting . NONE of the UC B-schools sent any representatives at all for this item presentations to the UC Regents, so there's that optic for your consideration... And A2 on STEM Prep and A3 Value of UC Degree agenda items were pulled from the agenda as Discussion items because A1 needed the time)

Mostly things were passed with 'we promise to look at it' commitments -- but the problem is that this routinely falls off the UC Regents radar and the problems persist.

But there are regents ' working groups' looking into all this and the session openly raised these issues which is a sign of transparency at least.

And why do Chancellor's receive yearly healthy raises when these issues in terms of lack of accurate data , lack of reporting these problems to regents exists - and take place on their campuses?

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Other angles to consider in college admissions cheating, bribing scandal...

UC Berkeley affected in (at least) one admission case in the 'college admissions cheating bribing scandal' as it is being called:

"Father of UC Berkeley alumnus charged in college admissions scandal"

Some colleges and universities have more exposure than others -precisely because of their 'culture':

We have to keep in mind the trustees and the Regents roles in all of this as well.

More directly we have to look critically at the UC Regents connections to USC and consider if there are any negative business practices cultural exchanges occurring.

There is the strong view in many spaces that their entire board of trustees need to be replaced due to scandal after scandal...yet, we continue to hear UC Regents reference their interactions with USC repeatedly.
Read in full:
"This is disgusting’: College cheating scandal shows ugly side of admissions game"

"The College Admissions Process Is Already A Scam
One college counseling company charges up to $1.5 million for its perfectly legal services"

Some Regents and Trustees are framing their universities and colleges as solely victims in this- the UC Regents' chair Kieffer did that framing this week in his opening comments at this week's board meeting- - but there have been corrupting influence patterns from the hobnobbing games they play...

Consider scenarios such as this:

..."starting to feel the social hurt of the scandal. On Tuesday, TMZ reported that Loughlin’s influencer daughter, Olivia Jade, had spent the night before her mother’s arrest on a yacht in the Bahamas owned by the chairman of USC's board of trustees, Rick Caruso. On Wednesday afternoon, just as Loughlin prepared to leave federal court on bail, she had “decided it would be in her best interests to return home” and left Caruso’s yacht, he told TMZ."...

Appreciate UCOP's message that they will look into all of it rather than just hurriedly framing the university as victim and leaving it at that:

And glad to see students and applicants asserting their rights in this mess:

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

UC Regents March 12-14 Meeting at UCLA

LIVESTREAM of the meeting at :


Public engagement and govt affairs committee and the natl labs Committee will meeting late March and
April 22 respectively. Will post those when they occur.

Clickk links for agenda and info on each committee meeting below.

March 12-14, 2019

Tuesday, March 12
12:30 pm

Agenda – Open Session

Public Comment Period2
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 15, 2019

S1 Discussion University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey
(UCUES) Data and Dashboard Information about Basic Needs

S2 Discussion Basic Needs Programs and Services Funding Priorities

S3 Discussion Governor’s 2019-20 Budget Proposal: Student Hunger and 
Housing Initiatives

Committee membership: Regents Anguiano, Butler, Cohen, Graves (Chair), Morimoto, 
Ortiz Oakley, and Pérez; Ex officio members Newsom, Kieffer, 
and Napolitano; Chancellor May; Advisory members Bhavnani, 
Simmons, and Weddle

2:00 pm
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons C & D

Agenda – Open Session

Action Approval of the Minutes of the Subcommittee Meeting of
January 15, 2019

I-1 Discussion Overview of the Markets and Performance 

I-2 Discussion Update on Asset Classes and Investment Products

Investments Committee Membership: Regents Anderson, Anguiano (Vice Chair), Cohen, Leib, 
Makarechian, Morimoto, Park, Sherman (Chair), and Zettel; Ex officio members Newsom, 
Kieffer, and Napolitano; Chancellors Hawgood, Khosla; and Yang; Advisory members
Bhavnani, Simmons, Um, and Zager; Staff Advisor Main; Student Advisor Huang

Wednesday, March 13
8:30 am

Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2
Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 16, 2019
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
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons C & D
Agenda – Open Session

Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 16, 2019

A1 Action Approval of Multi-year Plans for Professional Degree Supplemental 

A2 Discussion Update on STEM Preparation through Community Partnerships: 
LAUNCH Academy Summer STEM Program

A3 Discussion Evidence of the Public Value of a University of California Degree

Committee membership: Regents Butler, Elliott, Estolano, Graves, Lansing, Morimoto,
Ortiz Oakley, Pérez (Chair), Rendon, Tauscher (Vice Chair), and 
Zettel; Ex officio members Newsom, Kieffer, Napolitano, and 
Thurmond; Chancellors Block, Christ, Leland, Wilcox, and Yang; 
Advisory members May and Weddle; Staff Advisor Klimow

9:30 am
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B
Agenda – Open Session

Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 16, 2019

F1 Action Approval of Long Range Development Plan Amendment #2 and 
Design Following Action Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, Student Housing West Project, Santa Cruz Campus

F2 Action Approval of the Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design
Following Action Pursuant to the California Environmental 
Quality Act, Kresge College Academic, Santa Cruz Campus

F3 Action Approval of the Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design 
Following Action Pursuant to the California Environmental 
Quality Act, Kresge College Non-Academic, Santa Cruz Campus

F4 Action Consent Agenda: Approval of Preliminary Plans Funding, 
Pepper Canyon West Upper Division Undergraduate Student 
Housing Project, San Diego Campus

F5 Action Approval of Increase to Undergraduate Nonresident Supplemental 
Tuition for 2019-20

F6 Discussion Replacement of the University House and Event Center, 
Santa Cruz Campus

F7 Discussion Upper Hearst Development for the Goldman School of Public 

Policy and Housing Project, Berkeley Campus
F8 Discussion Overview of Parnassus Heights Planning and Renovation of UC
Hall, San Francisco Campus

F9 Information Review of the Guiding Principles for the Establishment and 
Management of UC Office of the President Reserves

F10 Information Significant Information Technology Projects Report for the Period 
September 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018

Committee membership: Regents Anderson, Anguiano, Blum, Cohen, Leib, Makarechian 
(Chair), Park (Vice Chair), Rendon, and Sherman; Ex officio 
members Newsom, Kieffer, and Napolitano; Chancellors 
Blumenthal, Gillman, Hawgood, Khosla, and May; Advisory 
members Bhavnani, Simmons, and Um; Staff Advisor Main; 
Student Advisor Huang

Upon end of Finance open
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

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

F11(X) Action Consent Agenda: Approval of Business Terms of Retail Space
Lease with Target Corporaton at Price Center, San Diego Campus
Closed Session Statute Citation: Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]

F12(X) Action Approval of Ground Lease and Lease Back Business Terms, 
Budgets, and Financings of the Three Phases of the Student 
Housing West Project, Santa Cruz Campus
Closed Session Statute Citation: Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]

Committee membership: Regents Anderson, Anguiano, Blum, Cohen, Leib, Makarechian 
(Chair), Park (Vice Chair), Rendon, and Sherman; Ex officio 
members Newsom, Kieffer, and Napolitano; Chancellors 
Blumenthal, Gillman, Hawgood, Khosla, and May; Advisory 
members Bhavnani, Simmons, and Um

1:30 pm
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 16, 2019

C1 Action Approval of External Audit Plan for the Year Ending June 30, 

C2 Action Appointment of Expert Advisor to the Compliance and Audit 

C3 Discussion Report on Independent Assessment of Audit Implementation Status

C4 Discussion Update on Implementation of Recommendations from State Audit 
of University of California Office of the President Administrative 

C5 Information Internal Audit Activities Report

Committee membership: Regents Anguiano (Vice Chair), Cohen, Elliott (Chair), Estolano, 
Makarechian, Morimoto, Park, Pérez, Tauscher, and Zettel; 
Ex officio members Newsom and Kieffer; Chancellors Block, 
Gillman, Khosla, Leland, and Yang; Advisory members May and 
Weddle; Staff Advisor Main

Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 16, 2019

C6(X) Discussion Foreign Influence Overview
Closed Session Statute Citation: Security matters [Government Code §11126(c)(18) and 
Education Code §92032(b)(1)]

C7(X) Discussion Cybersecurity Audit Activities Update
Closed Session Statute Citation: Security matters [Government Code §11126(c)(18) 
Education Code §92032(b)(1)]

C8(X) Discussion Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Litigation Overview
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

C9(X)2 Discussion Sexual Misconduct in Clinical Settings: Improving Prevention and
and Response
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

C10(X) Action Recommended Settlement for Board Action
Goodman v. Regents – Proposed Settlement – Retaliation, 
Harassment – UCLA Health
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

Multiple items listed in:

C11(X) Discussion Appellate, Trial Court Developments and Updates

C12 settlement agreements

Committee membership: Regents Anguiano (Vice Chair), Cohen, Elliott (Chair), Estolano, 
Makarechian, Morimoto, Park, Pérez, Tauscher, and Zettel;
Ex officio members Newsom and Kieffer; Chancellors Block, 
Gillman, Khosla, Leland, and Yang; Advisory members May and 

3:30 pm
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

Agenda – Open Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 17, 2019

G1 Action Amendment of Bylaws and Committee Charters, Establishment of 
a National Laboratories Committee, and Adoption of National 

Laboratories Committee Charter
G2 Action Amendment of Bylaw 27.5 – Interim Actions and Bylaw 23.3 –
Officers of the Corporation

G3 Action Resolution to Exclude Access to Federal Classified Information

G4 Action Rescission of Veterinary Medical School Strict Full-Time Salary 
Plan, Davis Campus

G5 Discussion Impact of Narrowing University of California Office of the 
President Non-Represented Staff Salary Ranges

G6 Discussion Update on Workstream #2, Implementation of Phase 2 of UC
Office of the President’s Workforce Plan: Gather and Analyze 
Workforce Data

Committee membership: Regents Elliott, Kieffer (Chair), Lansing, Makarechian, 

Napolitano, Newsom, Ortiz Oakley, Pérez (Vice Chair), and 

Upon end of Gov. open
Governance Committee (closed session) (pdf)
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 16, 2019

G7(X) Discussion Collective Bargaining Matters 
Closed Session Statute Citation: Collective bargaining matters 
[Government Code §3596(d)]

Committee membership: Regents Elliott, Kieffer (Chair), Lansing, Makarechian, 
Napolitano, Newsom, Ortiz Oakley, Pérez (Vice Chair), and 

4:45 pm
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

Agenda – Closed Session

S4(X) Action Appointment of Two Regents to Standing Committees and 

Thursday, March 14
8:30 am
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 17, 2019
Committee Reports Including Approval of Recommendations from Committees:
Compliance and Audit Committee
Closed Session Statute Citations: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
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 Committee
Closed Session Statute Citation: Collective bargaining matters 
[Government Code §3596(d)]
Health Services Committee (meeting of February 11, 2019)
Closed Session Statute Citations: Acquisition or disposition of property
[Education Code §92032(b)(6)]
Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
Officers’ and President’s Reports:
Report of Interim, Concurrence, and Committee Actions
Report of Materials Mailed Between Meetings
Personnel Matters
Closed Session Statute Citations: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]
Acquisition or disposition of property [Education Code §92032(b)(6)]
Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
 1 All times indicated and the order of business are approximate and subject to change.

Upon end of Board   closed
Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment2
Roll Call
Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 17, 2019
Notable Honors and Achievements
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 February 11, 2019)
Investments Committee
Basic Needs Special Committee
B1 Discussion Multi-Year Plan for the University
B2 Discussion Proposed Multi-Year Budget Plan 
B3 Discussion The Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources
B4 Discussion Mid-Year Report of the UC Office of the President’s Budget to Actual 
Expenditures and Second Quarter Forecast for Fiscal Year 2018-19
Officers’ and President’s Reports:
Report of Materials Mailed Between Meetings
Report of Interim, Concurrence, and Committee Actions

Times indicated and order of business subject to change



Governance Committee Special Session:

Closed Session

Agenda – Closed Session
G8(X) Discussion Personnel Matters Including Management Review of Certain
Members of the Senior Management Group as Required by Policy
Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel matters
[Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
*Only members of the Governance Committee are expected to attend*
Committee membership: Regents Elliott, Kieffer (Chair), Lansing, Makarechian,
Napolitano, Newsom, Ortiz Oakley, Pérez (Vice Chair), and Sherman

Admissions Decisions, Athletics Decisions, Liberal Arts Decisions,. And some patent moves

There is a great deal of headlines play on the 'desperate housewife' role Feliicty Huffman played in the latest admissions decisions scandal -that includes UCLA:

FBI: Stars Bribed Their Kids’ Way Into Top Schools
Dozens of people—including ‘Desperate Housewives’ and ‘Full House’ actresses—have been charged for allegedly paying bribes to help their kids win a spot at elite universities."

Not so much play on her husband's 'Shameless' role in the headlines game. Her husband is academy award winner William H. Macy, but - the reason to bring him up here is a recent interview he did on on a talkshow called 'The Talk' -- he made extensive remarks about the Public performance arts highschool his daughter just graduated from and - he repeatedly emphasized 'the public ' how it was a school available for all in the area to enroll in , how he wished folks would take advantage of a public benefit like it if they just knew about it, and commented what a great thing it was...

CBS has the content -March 4 season 9 episode 113- behind a subscription wall but it seems important to the new allegations in this admissions scandal.

Was/is the highschool - or something like it-truly something all LA parents can access?
As a pipeline for higher education?

For more details on the admissions scandal:
"Liar Education 1% College Scam Bust"

That is something that stays in mind while reading pieces on higher education and liberal arts college closures, such as:


(And , in a different way, also think about separate efforts that come to mind such as things like : 'the great courses'type efforts, are they attempts to substitute for a liberal arts education? Or convince folks that it is equivalent?)


And admissions decisions ties to other athletics current events, also when reading other athketics corrupting influence stories, BTW:

"US District Court judge rules that NCAA violated federal antitrust law"

(The UC Regents Meetings begin today, ...- and if the interview with Macy becomes available to link to will add it in above)


That additional CRISPR Patent now official:

On the subject of other patent practices -this piece at Daily Bruin:

"Muddled patent dispute sheds light on UCLA's questionable ties to Big Pharma"


And more Higher Ed 2020:

Sunday, March 10, 2019

Higher Ed CA Leg. March 2019 Discussions

In advance of the upcoming March UC Regents Meeting -- See:

The first 1.5 hrs includes CA Community Colleges, CSU, and UC presentations
With budget requests for increased funding



Measure Subject Author Status
AB-30 Community colleges: College and Career Access Pathways partnerships. Holden Assembly - Second Reading
AB-140 California Kickstart My Future Loan Forgiveness Program. Cervantes Assembly - Appropriations
AB-239 Community colleges: registered nursing programs. Salas Assembly - Appropriations
ACR-14 Dual Enrollment Week.

AB 140 discussion happens in the last half hour with some important questions, exchange.

Thursday, March 7, 2019

UC PATH launch dates at UC Berkeley, UC Davis? And $504 Million or $750 Million or??


"California’s failed tech projects come in late and over budget. Can Gavin Newsom fix them?"


"Struggles adapting business processes have contributed to delays implementing UCPath, a University of California system project to unify and upgrade payroll systems across its 10 campuses, five medical centers and the office of the president.

“It has been far more complex and complicated than we had ever envisioned,” UC Chief Financial Officer Nathan Brostrom told The Bee in 2015.
The project’s cost has reached at least $504 million, surpassing an initial estimate of $170 million. The system awarded a contract to develop the system to Oracle in 2011 but took over the project itself in 2013 after becoming dissatisfied with the corporation.

Last week, UC President Janet Napolitano approved delaying the program’s implementation at UC Davis, marking at least the fifth delay for the program. A new launch date has not been determined."

-recall the UCLA problems with their launch was blamed on the days of the launch being timed in September, which their deep post analysis revealed to them that September may not have been the best month for UCLA to pick (start of the academic calendar for that quarter system campus- that was the reason given for also pushing back the planned September 2019 launches to December 2019 for other campuses.)

- the date for launch of UC Path at Berkeley and Davis was originally scheduled as a March date, and in this article from just last week : April 1 was mentioned by UC Berkeley spokespeople. Now it appears Davis has pushed back the date, has Berkeley?

-And $504 million sounds like an old number, but is it $750 million or ?

UC holding tuition steady, but not


"The University of California will hold in-state undergraduate tuition steady for the 2019-20 academic year, UC President Janet Napolitano announced today (March 6) at a Sacramento hearing on education finance. This marks the seventh time in eight years that the university has kept tuition flat for California residents, despite rising costs and growing enrollment across all UC campuses.

“We are optimistic about our strong partnership with the governor and the legislature and will work collectively to identify additional resources, in lieu of tuition revenues, to ensure that UC students can succeed,” said Napolitano.

“Accessibility and affordability represent UC’s core values as a public institution, and we need to provide this generation of students with the quality of education they deserve,” said UC Board of Regents Chair George Kieffer. “So this year, rather than raise tuition, we will once again join our students in advocating for additional resources from the state.”

In January, Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a budget plan that represents a welcome step and a solid down payment in addressing priorities of the university’s 2019-20 budget plan, including funding to improve degree attainment and student success, expand student mental health services, and address student housing and food insecurity issues.

UC’s tuition announcement comes as the university crystallizes its ambitious multiyear plan to reach, through long-term UC and state investment, several bold goals by 2030: help 200,000 additional students earn a degree, on top of the 1 million for which the university is already on track; improve rates of timely graduation and degree attainment; close graduation gaps for low-income, first-generation and underrepresented students; increase graduate degrees to advance economic mobility and support industries critical to California; and recruit and grow more diverse, accomplished faculty.

In addition to holding tuition flat, UC’s commitment to affordability includes one of the nation’s strongest financial aid programs, which covers all systemwide tuition and fees for California students with family incomes of $80,000 or less. As a result, 57 percent of current California undergraduates pay no tuition and an additional 20 percent have part of their costs covered by financial aid.

Said UC Board of Regents Vice Chair John A. Pérez, “Part of UC’s mission is to do everything possible to help students reach their college dreams. We continue to do so in a number of ways, including addressing the total cost of attendance, such as food and housing needs, and working to develop a multiyear strategic plan that not only supports students’ financial needs but also expands access to UC for more Californians.”

As the world’s leading public research institution, UC has worked aggressively to contain costs while maintaining its academic excellence. Since 2015, the university has added more than 14,500 California undergraduates, far exceeding its initial enrollment target of 10,000 by 2018, and has simultaneously expanded affordable student housing and programs to reduce food insecurity."

"UC says higher tuition for out-of-staters will help Californians
Tuition frozen for state residents at $12,570, not including housing, food."

"University of California undergrads won’t face a tuition hike in the fall, UC announces"

Tuesday, March 5, 2019

Napolitano's UCOP speaks out on Trump's comments on free speech - fed funding as " misguided, unnecessary" ; yet, Napolitano's UCOP silent on freedom of the press

UCOP late with a statement but this is it:

"The University of California has a longstanding history of fighting for and protecting free speech for all. Our university was the home of the free speech movement in the 1960s, and our steadfast commitment to upholding the values of free expression and the robust exchange of ideas has not wavered since. President Trump’s announcement of a possible executive order mandating that colleges allow free speech on their campuses or lose critical federal research funding is misguided and unnecessary; UC already has clear policies and procedures in place that protect anyone’s right to peacefully protest or speak on our campuses.

“Free speech is a fundamental value of the University of California and we already have strong policies in place that protect the free expression of ideas, regardless of political persuasion,” said UC President Janet Napolitano. “Protecting free expression has been part of the University of California’s DNA for decades. We do not need the federal government to mandate free speech on college campuses — that tradition is alive and thriving.”


Recall now:

In particular, This joint press conference UCOP Napolitano participated in : here

Recall also that upon Napolitano's hire as UC president she sought and became a UC Berkeley active faculty member while at the same time actively serving as UC president concurrently.

Now reflect on-
Napolitano has been silent on:
UCOP has been silent on:
UC office of general counsel has been silent on:

This: Issue of freedom of the press at UC Berkeley now : in this new article at Columbia Journalism Review

More on that :here

Earlier coverage here.
( It's a topic that is supposed to be in her wheelhouse)

Sunday, March 3, 2019

The Higher Ed Talk for 2020

Since we're being encouraged to reflect on the 'who and how' various kinds of speech occurs at UC Berkeley
And keeping in mind there's free speech in one area
And academic freedom in another...

Do you remember when:

BFA, for some unexplained reason, did NOT post a high profile conversation with Carol Christ and a Prof whose research area of study C.Christ deemed included 'a dangerous idea' - she actually said that about an area of research. Then she claimed there were those who were stating that 'there are no costs for college', which was not a factual statement, remember... Was it all just part of a 'tryout' performance necessary for her ascent to Chancellor if she placated certain movers and shakers enough during this particular talk? Only a few weeks later in March 2017 she was named new Chancellor. Wondering about that in retrospect. BFA only recorded the section of presentation by the Prof -- and then BFA also covered in video another entirely separate talk the Prof also participated in -- BUT it seems BFA clearly avoided capturing or memorializing the dialogue conversation with C.Christ on the topic -were BFA and the audience and other participants constrained from doing so? Maybe it was all highly collegial and a great exchange of differing viewpoints and yet alot of agreement, but who knows? That is precisely the problem.- What went down in the conversation portion , for those not in attendance at Sibley, that can only be found in this article: according to Daily Cal with the only coverage-limited coverage of that February 2017 event. (Reminded today of that time b/c it was also a time of an earlier Trump-UCB skirmish and other on campus UCB 'high profile attempts at notoriety' type events that received the bulk of press then - just as it is presently...)

Anyway, there's this- what looks like updated slides and discussion of the 'higher education decline cycle'
And, a proposed 'higher education reconstruction cycle' also part of this new talk:

"Christopher Newfield: What Do Universities Do? Bringing College and Society Back Together"

where some discussion of it - the higher education idea C.Christ deemed "dangerous" but has since gained popular political traction comes up.

Along with other thoughts around:

Is US now 'post-middle class'? Or not.

If neoliberalisn isn't working what replaces it?

Higher Education contribution to:
Public non pecuniary creative capabilities as common wealth
Not just wages tied to value of degree as value of higher ed
Keep this in mind in light of upcoming UC Regents meeting and their agenda item A3 "Discussion item: Evidence of the Public Value of a University of California Degree"- UCOP has mostly focused the topic on projections of future wages.

And 'intra-faculty conversations' that are needed (and, we add here, rarely happen)

[And / but not sure if this is the same content that addresses: “What the Humanities are for: Two Responses to Vulnerability” - but you can check that out.]

-- the slides accompany the talk so you can toggle between them using the upper right hand buttons and thumb nail of frames etc. which is all very helpful in display of presentation.

The talk and discussion runs about 1hr 25 min and hits on many of the issues that will no doubt come up in 2020 election cycle discussion of higher education policy and funding etc.

(It is a wonderful thing when the faculty ensure that a talk and discussion they highlighted to campus are accurately and clearly covered in toto or explain why not or just make clear they've decided it is a closed session and a reasoning why. It was too bad, in retrospect, BFA decided not to do so with that important 'conversation' portion they hosted in Feb 2017, esp since there was some error and spin in the limited coverage of it and it involved someone who would weeks later be named as new
Chancellor and a few short months later become Chancellor -all in an odd recruitment process when Dirks was replaced. Now we've seen instances where she, as Senior administration and Chancellor, says certain research has or is entertaining a 'dangerous idea'; she is effusive about other research in contentious litigation; yet she maintains deafening silence about other research that is facing challenges.) so...


Newfield shares some additional info on his talks : here. Tx.

Concocted antagonisms, Solutions in search of problems?

And non affiliates once again given the stage of upper Sproul?

Take a look at: "Statement reaffirming campus’s commitment to free speech" from UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof:
[Mogulof paints one picture of campus but it omits this: story that began the current academic year and apparently is still being litigated, and the campus never received updates, resolutions to this :story either. Those stories, along with the Title IX issues around UC Berkeley can leave an impression that some things are not handled well. Also, when Title IX complainants have told media of their experiences and then the faculty advisor to the Chancellor on Title IX characterizes those problems as 'media presuppositions' in robotic and long tome wordy and not directly responsive opinion pieces - that repeatedly refuses to directly acknowledge complainants' experiences, that refuses to acknowledge in detail the facts that led to UC Berkeley being under DOEd review for years and then found by DOEd to be out of compliance-and instead plays rewording games in attempts to gloss over- that approach highlights the problems further.
And when "campus conversations"- a venue where C.Christ's non diverse cabinet members answer questions posed solely by Mogulof sometimes in front of an audience- and are lacking in full representation of all staff members, where staff questions are submitted and promises from Moguloff are made that "answers will be posted on the campus conversations website "--and yet several months later those answers to those questions still remain not posted, unresponded to -that can also look like a problem.
So, the view of what campus looks like should be comprehensive and not just through the lens of the rose colored glasses of high salary PR admin can look like a less than honest assessment, response.

If things are going wrong in multiple areas, or critically important areas and administratively mismanaged, or there is a repeated lack of promised transparency or failure of safeguards --it can make it difficult to make the argument that everything - or 'most things'- are handled well when non affiliates arrive at campus and a problem ensues.]

-if what Mogulof writes is as it transpired, -- the 'bad actor' non affiliate should be the focus of any criticism in any legitimate commentary..Those who are peacefully tabling should not be subjected to that- and pedestrians and cross traffic should also not be bothered by those tabling...
That seems general consensus...

Now also recall:
- large major events weren't the only things to be addressed, it also was to deal with behavior and planning for all types of traffic on upper Sproul as well.

Thought there was to be greater oversight on Upper Sproul so those tabling could inform campus quickly of issues, disturbances they were encountering...and that those tabling were required to be affiliates and that those tabling go through some campus process prior to tabling etc. And/or that non-
affiliates who want to stage or table were to use west crescent/west circle?

Why are 'non-affiliates' allowed to table at all?

Thought changes were made to reduce the nonsense behavior that non-affiliates might bring to areas where UC affiliates are trying to do University work in areas like Upper Sproul etc.

And - thought that was part of the new planned mitigation??

Here's some of the coverage:

Trump suggests man assaulted at UC Berkeley sue the campus, California

UC Berkeley says it is not biased against conservative students and the right is distorting its actions

President Trump vows to issue executive order barring research funds to colleges that don't support free speech
Inside Higher Ed

Trump Says He'll Sign Order Requiring Colleges to Protect Free Speech
The Chronicle of Higher Education

Earlier in the week there was:

Michael Cohen testifies that Trump threatened colleges over any release of his grades - Michael Cohen releases letter sent to university the president attended and notes that Trump earlier had called on Obama to release his grades. President's grades have never come out, but those of past candidates have. - Inside Higher Ed