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:
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:
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- John A. Pérez
- Richard Sherman
- Charlene Zettel
- Maria Anguiano
- Lark Park
- Alumni, Ex Officio, Student UC Regents .And advisors, reps, designates
- Ellen Tauscher
- H. Peter Guber
- Cecilia Estolano
- Michael Cohen
- Laphonza Butler
- J. Sures appointed
- Richard Leib
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)