Friday, December 6, 2019

University of California Still Can’t Get A Handle On Compensation Rules Enforcement, Moonlighting, Conflicts -APM-025 and APM 671 among others-still a problem...

"Medical Professors are Supposed to Share Their Outside Income With the University of California. But Many Don’t.
A comparison of University of California filings with federal data shows that moonlighting professors are shortchanging taxpayers."

"Federally Funded Health Researchers Disclose at Least $188 Million in Conflicts of Interest. Can You Trust Their Findings?
A National Institutes of Health database, which we’re making public for the first time, shows that researchers have reported more than 8,000 “significant” financial conflicts, potentially influencing their work."

"Dollars for Profs
The Lucrative Secret World of Academic Moonlighting"

"We Asked Public Universities for Their Professors’ Conflicts of Interest — and Got the Runaround
We assembled the first state-by-state database of professors’ outside income and employment. But it’s far from complete."

"UC professors fail to report outside income, shortchanging the university system"
there's also:

"UC Berkeley DisAvows Its Own Healthcare Marketing Campaign"
and this,

but cities are facing other pressures for other groups as well and that ties into healthcare as well, see:


Tuesday, December 3, 2019

The Float, The Reflection

Isnt it likely more 'side eye and long list' right now than anything else?...
"LSU President F. King Alexander being eyed for University of California job"
- and note how the CSU chancellor position isn't the aim of things but it was equally offered up in the article and CSU, is the system he has previously worked in, most familiar with....
that's part of the reason why floating specific, particular names at this point looks questionable to some.floating names becomes promoting names  games
but there are many ways names are being discussed .
There are still many more campus meetings of UC faculty yet to take place. Others, like foundation members, the new visitors groups, affinity alumni groups, the alumni assn, the alumni leadership, and then emeriti faculty, emeriti chancellors, emeriti regents and more will reach out with names --all who will be submittiing their own suggested names of candidates...
One or two faculty members saying a name at the beginning is not exactly , well....
Regents are hearing names , pols float names, students have their own criteria, staff have their own criteria...All of it hopefully makes its way to the selection committee and recruiting firm - no way a short list yet.
The short list could be a final four or a dozen
The final full pool likely in the hundreds..
 Also, the term 'it has to be a cultural fit' is going to be key
where the hope is that the new president will have all the best attributes of former UC presidents while also not having any of their worst habits, characteristics etc
Managing expectations and a difficult feat to accomplish.
and on this particular float-- LA is LA and LA is LA
- and then there are the other campuses and labs with their own distinct ways.. 
and then there are other reviews of top candidates that take time...
Those who float names early know that some will run with it- as in so and so is being 'eyed', 'shortlisted' -and so one has to ask if engaging in that right off  is a strategy?
(like many others, Alexander was invited to Cal during the Birgeneau admin to give a campus talk and plusses and minuses came up then)
(and certain regents do have a habit or 'reaching out' to the LAT)
Daily Bruin
this new- on rules for regents themselves:
"Student leaders call for revision of UC Board of Regents sexual misconduct policy"

"Budgets Are a Reflection of Values
Students at the University of Cincinnati question their institution's budget and find it wanting."

..." As Carol Christ, now chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, said in 2016, “Colleges and universities are fundamentally in the business of enrolling students for tuition dollars.”

Unfortunately, competition for tuition dollars is actually hugely expensive and inefficient and has institutions spending on symbols of prestige that have nothing to do with educational quality. The mission as Christ frames it is fundamentally at odds with education. The University of Cincinnati students are making some noise about this problem."...

Monday, December 2, 2019

CalChannel Demise-CA Leg and Student Advocacy Gave Up One of Their Greatest Resources: Without A Peep to the Public.

Question: Your cable provider does not want you to continue to enjoy the benefit of knowing what is going on in CA state government public proceedings?
Just catching up to this, but initial thoughts, reaction:
CalChannel must be revived- by all means pursue way of improving on it but not a shutdown.
Student journalists also used it as a way to view hearings without having to incur travel expenses etc.


Further confusing is the fact  that the archive now is stored here:
"The California Channel was a public service network television channel funded entirely by California’s cable television operators from 1993-2019. The network was a means to provide Californians with direct access to “gavel-to-gavel" proceedings of the California Legislature and other public policy forums, as well as a balanced presentation of viewpoints.   The online archive contains material from March 2012 to October 2019.  The State Archives houses the full extent of the California Channel’s holdings.   To view materials that are not currently on the Cal Channel website, please consult our online catalog, Minerva, to view the California Channel’s Inventory (PDF).

To request a copy of a recording, please contact the California State Archives reference desk at ...or email the Archives staff with the date and title of the hearing being requested. It is recommended to check the inventory as it will be continually updated during the accessioning process.  Some years have more information provided in the inventory than others, but requests should include the information as it appears in the inventory.  Archives staff will be able to retrieve the recordings and a viewing copy of a requested recording must be made before it is viewed.  The State Archives does not charge patrons if they want to view the material, however there is a $10.00 fee if the patron wishes to purchase the recording."

-- If there is space there for the extensive archives isn't there also space for storing new archives? or for the CA leg to place it all on Youtube etc?

Why wasn't a leadership of CA Leg contingency plan communicated well  in advance?

It looks like it was a story no one caught on to soon enough or paid attention to or expressed much interest in-...In prior years * on issues like tution hikes, Title IX compliance, admissions policiies across CA higher ed, especially at University of California, -and even more especially on issues like healthcare and climate change* the exchange of comments and policy conversations ultimately have to be resolved in Sacramento... There was a quick and easy way to catch up and share via Cal Channel either through video archive OR CREATING VID CLIPS  at their website
or via its vast, vast library of video archive that was at  fingertips, no CPRA request or charge for a copy necessary etc
and now there will be no audio visual record of these proceedings other than the very shabby unreliable audio recordings sometimes provided by only some CA Leg committees 
--now that Calchannel fuller audio and visual record will no longer exists...

All  that stands in the way is $1.2 million of funding

This along with  the loss of CPEC and very poor quality Gov substitutes in its place seems to indicate a falling into dark ages of transparency in CA.

It is disturbing that the Assembly Speaker (Rendon) the Senate Pro Tem (Atkins) and most especially Guv(in) - have apparently been pretty quiet on restoring it or better yet taking it over as a public service instead of having the cable companies control it.

Some important comments that come up in the coverage:

"the legislature needs to step in, provide gap funding until a longer term plan is established to ensure that the public has live televised access of the state officials making decisions in their name #goodgovernment #democracy #caleg #publicairwaves"

"Going to only web-based streaming would limit public access on basis of digital divide, discriminate on economic class & make it harder in general to tune in. W/our public airwaves, we must ensure that public can easily watch its legislators doing public's business in real time "

we add in here also: No, PPIC would not be a good replacement.

"Cal Channel to end broadcasting after three decades"

The California Channel, a decades-old public broadcaster that has historically provided on-demand video access to the Legislature, the state Supreme Court and the Capitol community, will cease operations in October.

Supported by the California Cable and Telecommunications Association since 1993, it’s one of the few services that offer one-on-one interviews with all candidates for the state’s elected offices. The Cal Channel has long been viewed as California’s version of C-SPAN, which covers Congress.

(Editor’s Note: The California Channel, a nonfiscal partner of Capitol Weekly,  also broadcasts Capitol Weekly’s Politics on Tap TV show and its  quarterly policy conferences.)

Cal Channel President John Hancock says the decision to end broadcasting was due in part to the passage of Proposition 54 in 2016, which requires the Legislature to make audio and visual recordings of its legislative proceedings public within 72 hours. The Legislature has its own television and radio services that cover politicians and send stories to their districts.

“The board felt this limited the need for Cal Channel,” Hancock said. The board’s vote occurred earlier this year

Since its beginnings, the Cal Channel has operated much like C-SPAN, offering nonpartisan, unedited coverage beamed directly into offices and homes throughout the state.

In 1989, the non-profit Cal Channel was created by the Center for Governmental Studies in cooperation with the USC Annenberg School of Communications in response to research suggesting the public was dissatisfied with news coverage of state government proceedings.

In 1991, Cal Channel began airing Assembly Floor committee hearings for nearly 2 million homes across the state, quickly growing to 4.6 million five years later.

Since 1998, seven years before Twitter and YouTube, Cal Channel first aired Legislative hearings online and since then, has offered a “front row seat” to state policy.

“The California Channel is a basic journalistic concept – the television camera serving as the eyes and ears of a private California citizen,” Cal Channel’s website says.

“The network’s most important task remains their original one – daily gavel-to-gavel coverage of California legislative debates in the hopes of educating a new generation of civic leaders and voting citizens.”

“When the California Channel presents a hearing, you don’t get the evening news anchor giving you the network’s spin. You get that quiet camera, focused, unrelenting, critically objective. That’s your eye. And the microphone, that is your ear,” the Cal Channel says.

In 1992, the channel began televising state Senate proceedings and the oral arguments heard before the California Supreme Court on the Master’s Reapportionment Plan. In partnership with C-SPAN in 1997, the Cal Channel transmitted the first ever live broadcast of an “en banc” hearing of a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals during the Rand v. Rowland and Bates v. Jones court heard arguments.

In 2001, the network received an Emmy Award for the educational video “Checks & Balances: The Three Branches of State Government.”

What’s the future of digital Legislative transparency in California?

Some critics have previously said Proposition 54 has a few loopholes, suggesting that a 72-hour requirement to initial first house votes is not necessary since the bill will not be in its final form.

Columnist Dan Walters, writing then for The Sacramento Bee, noted, “However, not all bills are amended. So under the procedural rules, it would be possible for leaders to write a bill in secret, zip it through the first house without 72 hours of exposure…”

Currently, many websites offer spaces for transparency, like OpenGov, a Silicon Valley-based company that offers cloud-based software to help governments deal with fiscal issues.  California State Lobbying Search, a fairly recent endeavor created by coder and former political operative  Dave Middleton, is a useful open- source public records tool to help find the connections between bills and lobbying efforts.

Digital Democracy, an online platform to provide greater transparency for the state government, was launched in 2015 in a partnership between then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Polytechnic State University.

“Technology has radically changed the way society interacts, but government is on the cutting edge of 1973,” Newsom was quoted saying in a State Scoop article.

The platform featured a searchable database of California legislative hearings, with capacity for website visitors to search by keyword, topic, speaker or date. But the project, eventually expanding to Florida, New York and Texas, was suspended in 2018.

Officials at the California Cable and Telecommunications Association were not available for comment.

Read on:
"The California Channel is shutting down. Where will you get ‘gavel to gavel’ Capitol coverage?"

"The California Channel, a broadcast service that provides “gavel to gavel coverage” of the state Legislature, will end operations this October.

California Channel President John Hancock announced that its board of the directors voted this spring to shut down, as first reported by Capitol Morning Report in late June.

The channel airs live broadcasts and maintains an archive of California Legislature and Supreme Court proceedings. It was modeled after C-SPAN and began broadcasting in 1991, according to its website.

The upcoming closure was confirmed in a report Thursday by Capitol Weekly, a nonprofit online publication and “nonfiscal partner” of the California Channel.

Hancock told Capitol Weekly that the board decided the 2016 passage of Proposition 54, which mandated that the state Legislature make video of proceedings available to the public within 72 hours, “limited the need” for the channel.

As a result, the Legislature broadcasts its hearings on its own websites.

Today, the California Channel website still carries an extensive video archive of state Senate and Assembly floor sessions, as well as public committee meetings.

In addition to live webcasting, the California Channel has been carried in Sacramento markets by Comcast.

The channel is funded by the California Cable and Telecommunications Association, which includes Comcast and dozens of other cable communications companies and networks such as BBC America and The History Channel. The California Channel receives no state funding, according to its website.

“The California Channel, like its model C-SPAN, is powerfully simple because of its unselfish display of completely unedited, unbiased legislative news,” the website’s “About” page continues. “So many people complain about the news media distorting reality to the right or the left, misusing sound bites and shaping quotes and content to their advantage. If you really want truth in government, then stop consuming the talk-show/tabloid television spin and settle in with the stoic California Channel.”

The board of directors for the California Channel includes representatives of Cox Communications, Comcast, Charter Communications, Inc. and the California Cable Television Association’s president, Carolyn McIntyre.


"California’s version of C-SPAN is shutting down. It’s a loss for the Capitol — and the public "

(George Skelton  and Michael McGough the two few who bothered to write about it)


California soon will be pushed back a huge step when cable TV stops telecasting sausage-making in the state Capitol.

You recall the old bromide about laws and sausages first voiced by 19th century German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. To paraphrase: If you’re squeamish, don’t watch either being made.

Cable TV — specifically its California Channel — has been the public’s eyes and ears on Capitol sausage-making for more than two decades.

But now the cable industry, which is the Cal Channel’s sole financier, is pulling the plug on this cheap, mini-version of national C-SPAN.

Cable and satellite affiliates bankroll C-SPAN’s nonprofit operation, which costs around $70 million annually. The Cal Channel’s tab is a measly $1.2 million, costing each cable subscriber just 2 cents a month.

C-SPAN features gavel-to-gavel coverage of Congress, plus a whole lot of other stuff that’s the public’s business, including White House press briefings and presidential campaigning.

The Cal Channel, which is received by every cable subscriber statewide, is a dwarfed replica of C-SPAN. It, too, carries unbiased gavel-to-gavel coverage of legislative floor sessions — alternating between the Senate and Assembly — and some major committee hearings.

It telecasts gubernatorial news conferences if the governor uses the Capitol’s main Q&A room, which Gov. Gavin Newsom rarely does. He prefers his own office or a campaign-style photo-op somewhere. So he has failed to take advantage of the Cal Channel while it existed.

The Cal Channel also televises a few issues conferences and sometimes a talking-heads show. For example, John Howard, editor of the online Capitol Weekly, occasionally gathers other reporters at a popular legislative watering hole to chat on camera about politics.

“I have no idea what the viewership is,” Howard says. “Whether there are any people who pay attention, I don’t know. I could be talking into a dead mic.”

He hates to see the Cal Channel clicked off for good.

“It’s about government transparency,” Howard says. “It’s democracy, for God’s sake.”

Cal Channel has announced it will go black on Oct. 16. That will make it even more difficult for interested citizens to keep tabs on what their elected representatives are doing in Sacramento — how they’re spending tax dollars and making decisions about all sorts of issues including welfare, water, higher education and homelessness.

It’s coming at a time of declining news media coverage of the state Capitol. There hasn’t been a full-time TV reporter here in years. Newspaper staffs have dramatically declined.

The Cal Channel’s board of directors, made up of cable company heads, offered a lame excuse for shutting off the cameras. It pointed to a 2016 ballot proposition approved by voters.

Proposition 54’s main provision required that all bills be placed on the internet for public viewing 72 hours before the Legislature votes on final passage. That didn’t provide the board a hook. But a secondary provision did. It required the Legislature to record all its public hearings and post complete videos on the internet within 24 hours.

“With everything going on the internet, it made our efforts duplicative,” Cal Channel President John Hancock says.

Baloney. Not everyone goes on the internet to watch government coverage. If it were available on TV, many would rather watch there. But don’t blame Hancock. He’s just repeating his bosses’ cop-out.

The cable board long has wanted to dump the little-watched Cal Channel, considered a non-revenue producing nuisance. Anyway, board members generally are ideologically conservative and don’t particularly like broadcasting the liberal Legislature’s politics, I’m told. And all cable has been losing viewers to other platforms — Dish, Netflix, the Internet — and the Cal Channel doesn’t help.

“The California Legislature is never going to draw a bigger audience than ‘American Idol’ or Major League Baseball,” says Dan Schnur, a former political operative who teaches at USC and UC Berkeley.

“But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a viewing option for people who feel strongly about abortion or gun ownership or vaccines or homelessness. They aren’t going to watch the Cal Channel every night, but it ought to be there for them when they need it.”

Can anything be done?

“The governor is very supportive of the Cal Channel,” spokesman Nathan Click says. “He’s exploring options.”

Secretary of State Alex Padilla intends to store all the channel’s footage in the state archives for posterity.

Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco), who presides over house floor sessions, is the only legislator who seems concerned. He’s trying to figure out a way to “retain at least a modicum of programming.”

Moreover, he says, “I think this is an opportunity to do something better than the Cal Channel. It has a lot of regurgitated programming, lots of rehash. Maybe we can do something more robust.

“It’s just a bad moment for democracy in California to have fewer eyeballs on state government. It needs to have more attention.”

But, he adds, “I don’t have a solution. I’m going to work on it this fall.”

By that time, Cal Channel will be kaput. And the Legislature knocks off for the year in two weeks.

Two possible solutions:

One, lean on cable to rethink. After all, the Legislature can write laws regulating the industry.

Two, $1.2 million isn’t even budget dust in a $215-billion state spending plan. Grab enough money to establish a new, improved, independently run Cal Channel — one a tad closer to C-SPAN.

Keep a light on the sausage-making.

for history of Cal Channel, which used to be posted on its website, see also:

----Consider again this reasoning in the coverage:
..."Hancock told Capitol Weekly that the board decided the 2016 passage of Proposition 54, which mandated that the state Legislature make video of proceedings available to the public within 72 hours, “limited the need” for the channel.

As a result, the Legislature broadcasts its hearings on its own websites."...

So with that thinking, as an example of the dire state of things i.e. finding out an announcement of a hearing and then finding the video archive for it 
take a look at the CA Higher Education Committee website:

say you wanna find that meeting on : "Oversight Hearing Agendas 2019-20
Monday, November 4, 2019;"

or this meeting:
Monday, October 21, 2019; State Capitol, Room 437

-- only PDF available, no vid etc 

and the archives section on the right hand column contains no links to the video archive...either.

and appointed but not yet confirmed UC Regents go through confirmation hearing at the CA Senate Rules Committee. Now, take a look at that website and tell me where the video arrchive exists under the 2016 passage of Proposition 54  --WTF is it? w/ W="where"

--even if you look under each of its messed up tabs you can't find it.

Sunday, December 1, 2019

'Fissured Workplace'- "Fissured Admissions', too?- University of California labor like Amazon, Google, Walmart? -- and if that is not enough: UC pension-climate change coverage, too

LA Times headline earlier : "UC is at war with its biggest union"
..."Should a public institution be held to stricter standards than for-profit companies?

Under pressure from elected officials, and from a union-led speaker boycott that caused the Democratic National Committee to yank its scheduled Dec. 19 presidential debate away from UCLA, the UC Board of Regents adopted new outsourcing guidelines last month. "..."But AFSCME’s gripes mirror a 2017 report by the California state auditor, which found UC’s decentralized management meant it was unable to track “even the most basic contract information.” UC failed to justify displacing university employees with contract workers and repeatedly avoided competitive bidding on contracts, the audit found"..."“Now the university has finally acknowledged it has a problem. But the devil is in the details. What UC says is different from what it does. The way to enforce it is through collective bargaining.”"

-- and the article covers some of the work being done to pass constitutional amendments regarding University of California.
.."This year, lawmakers seemed to have run out of patience. A proposed constitutional amendment, ACA 14, passed the Assembly in June, 57 to 12, guaranteeing UC temp workers pay and benefits equal to that of employees performing similar work and limiting contracted labor to a few exceptional circumstances."...
"In September, Gonzalez’s bill earned a majority of Senate votes — 23 to 12 — but failed to get the necessary two-thirds for a constitutional amendment.

She plans to pursue its passage next year, believing voters would approve it. “It will be so much more protective to codify,” she said. “UC must finally be required to do right by all their workers.”"

the administration officials seek,process, approve the outsourcing  transactions
but the regents have set a policy against it 
and many UC researchers have detailed out the effects of outsourcing

the war is between UC adhering to its own claimed principles and the actions ot those in campus administration

- then they opt for a new headline title entirely:
"UC outsources thousands of jobs to private contractors. Is that a good idea? "


The regents likely want the focus just on this to perhaps force more online instruction,  to use as pressure on CA for more funding and give UC other leverage, but it also distances Californians from UC at the same time:

"Just how selective have UC schools become? Top students feel the pressure"

"California college capacities can’t accommodate rising application rates, study finds"

 -( the former UC Regent who, after serving as UC Chair, left her 2nd term early recall her particpation in this- where she stated even during her confirmation hearing that she was committed to work as a UC Regent to resolve serious problems that require intensive effort-:
-she left shortly after...) 
Monica Lozano,* CEO of the College Futures Foundation, said the issue is a capacity crisis and needs to be addressed quickly...
(former UC Regent Gould is also part of CFF)
Full story at

pointed to it previously but here again:
Report :

-- but, another view is that UC has to deal with what it has right now, to show that it can currently meet the mark with its current capacity etc.

Don't miss this post on UC billions of $ pension pressures and climate change and the Guv's new policies- and questions around what meetings are taking place and is UC a part of - (is it Committee of Two again)?
see Sac Bee:


--and we remind here again that UC Regent Cohen heads up CalPERS


--Its a shame that the Dem presidential debate was moved away from UCLA to a yet TBD date and place. now relocated to: at the private Catholic affiliated Loyola Marymount University on December 19th...The issues in the party are the issues at campus, It might do well to actually talk about it...Perhaps all of the above as general trends in higher education  could have been highlighted and discussed at a presidential debate?

--and this is the kind of stuff the new UC pres will need to be able to address, handle.

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Presidential Aspirations and Solely through the lens of displaced Rs?

why is the framing tilted toward Displaced Rs views, experiences?
With this feeling in mind...
Much of the media these days appears to give generous amounts of time to those in their 'talent' pool who are displaced Rs and their musings about what Rs and Ds should be...--at the expense of not being able to hear in equal time from those perceived to be Ds, or otherwise-- happening with media hosts, journalists, policymakers vying for who gets the mic and for how long and so it controls the vantage points, posture, framing on 2020.. Most media, both legacy and new, is not just corporate but conglomerate. Not difficult to see that in election years and at crucial moments they want certain candidates positioned a particular way. LAT did a piece recently citing a number of 2,000 protestors at UC Berkeley for a recent talk. (The piece did not state who at UC Berkeley or locally in attendance was stating a count of 2,000. or how they arrived at that number estimate.) Local coverage review- meaning outlets located in the SF Bay Area did not show any photos of the protest that looked as if it could support that number (and with local outlets it was not viewed from a distance in LA with solely info provided by perhaps a Cal spokesperson who stated it, whle at the same time using it as a vehicle to tout progress on handling such issues in order to replace content covering past administrative failings)

Adding in here:
this is the crazy numbers treatment we're talking about,icymi

LA Times Higher Ed Reporting states 2,000 but does not cite source for the much higher number, this headline:
"UC Berkeley Keeps A  Lid On 2,000 Protestors Allowing... Commentator... To Speak"

LAT  says hundreds:
"as hundreds protest ... speech at UC ...

KTLA also says hundreds

USA today says hundreds:

Local East Bay Times says
"Hundreds protest UC Berkeley, ... "

Local SF Chrons
"Hundreds protest Ann Coulter speech at UC Berkeley, arrests ..." › bayarea › article 

Local Berkeleyside   said hundreds and don't see a correction to say thousands
"reported, around 9:15 p.m. that there were “hundreds” of protesters"

***and why is it they can give and get estimates on crowd size but not on expenditures /cost of the event in terms of security or health and safety costs increased #$ etc. -- the expenditures in past years have added up to millions of dollars for Cal budget with each event creating costs in the $500,000+ range at times- thus a moneymaker for some, but...

the UK's Guardian jumped to 1,000:
..."after more than a thousand protest "
-- but that is still not near the LAT 2,000 number
-- and none of the local articles that state "hundreds" have issued corrections...

... So, it is with that recent bit of questioning on LAT coverage of UC  Berkeley events that we now
 read this and wonder about the content- i.e. the candidates not just  mentioned but highlighted, along with other framing, read it in full for yourself:

"California higher education hangs in the balance as UC, Cal State search for new leaders "

..."“They probably are two of the most important institutions on the planet in terms of their role and mission,” said Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University who is viewed as one of the nation’s most innovative higher education leaders and is often mentioned as a potential candidate for the UC job. "...
"The native Californian said he was too busy “doing my job as hard as I can” to even think about either position.

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, summed up the ideal skills as “walking on water with a thick skin.” "...
The UC job is “probably the most complex and challenging job in higher education,” said Mary Sue Coleman, president of the Assn. of American Universities, which represents North America’s top 65 research universities. “It could also be a very exciting job because the platform the UC system has is enormous and enormously important.”...

-- At best Napolitano has headlines of a very mixed record“, as they term it- meaning both good and bad reivews- on her efforts on Title IX at UC and immigration/immigrant students- yet, the piece says: 
"Napolitano has been credited with using that platform to support immigrant students and sexual assault survivors. "

and then a pivot away from such issues:
"But some higher education leaders say the next UC president must step up to champion an even broader task: marshaling public support for the value of a university education amid mounting skepticism about rising costs and perceived political biases"...
-- In itself a political bias?
"At both sessions, faculty members complained about the “secrecy” of past search processes. Regents, however, have announced that they would hold open public forums at UC Davis on Dec. 13 and at UCLA on Jan. 14.

Cal State has held four public forums, with two more planned at its campuses in San Marcos on Dec. 3 and in Fresno on Dec. 5."

..."Potential candidates named at the faculty meetings included Crow and F. King Alexander, president of Lousiana State University who previously headed Cal State Long Beach"

--The article in additon to  including paragraphs of content on interviews with Crow and King, then mentions Drake who left UC for a million dollar salary elsewhere.

And a framing on compensation that leaves much unmentioned:
"For outside candidates, one potential sticking point could be pay."...

--There is no mention of UC practice of allowing for compensated board service for those in senior management group where one can sometimes double their salaries, -some being compensated in millions of dollars. 
There is also no mention of the fact that Napolitano goes on sabbatical after August 2020 and will receive the same rate of pay as if an active UC president during that sabbatical period. Also, no mention of the release time she enjoyed while in her position as UC president which allowed her to have time to write and promote her new book. All that might be called the "psychic rewards" that Jerry Brown used to talk about-  but in truth it is  "psychic rewards" and much more.

The article feels like a strange read for who and what is highlighted... and how.
Crow, Alexander,, Drake, ACE, ACTA ...
BTW, the article also conveniently points to this UCOP PDF on : "CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY" The University of California, the nation’s preeminent public research university, seeks an exceptional and visionary leader with a commitment to public higher education to be its 21st President. The President will provide leadership for the University’s ten campuses, five medical centers, three affiliated national laboratories, and statewide agriculture and natural resources program. The UC system comprises 280,000 students, 227,000 faculty and staff, and an operating budget of $36.5 billion. The following criteria for the role of the President of the University have been established based upon broad consultation with advisory groups of faculty, students, staff, and alumni. While a candidate may not be able to demonstrate excellence in all of these areas, a successful applicant is likely to meet many of these attributes. Although a terminal degree and exceptional academic administrative experience are preferred, the Board of Regents also welcomes and encourages candidates who have achieved noteworthy success in their respective fields outside higher education. Leadership Knowledge of the academic enterprise. Possesses understanding of and appreciation for the University, its distinctive culture of shared governance, its teaching, research and public service mission, and the context of the student body. Demonstrated track record of advocacy for diversity, equity and inclusion and a commitment to building a University that serves the diverse population of the state of California. An inspirational leader with passion and the ability to effectively communicate the value of the University to the State and inspiring stakeholders to be committed to sustaining the University’s excellence. A proven record of success in leading and managing change in a complex and dynamic environment where success is achieved in partnership and collaboration rather than solely through direct authority. An innovator who can articulate a strategic vision for the University’s future and whose credibility with university constituents facilitates strategic planning and sound decision making. Deep understanding of the social, political, economic and legal context of the state of California (or other state with a competitive higher education environment), and the political acumen and experience to be an effective advocate and spokesperson for the University with the Governor, the legislature, and the public. Experience serving as the chief advocate for excellence and innovation within their organization and a track record of success in elevating its profile and national and international standing. A proven history of developing high-performing teams and cultivating environments with a shared sense of mission and culture that encourage entrepreneurism, innovation, and collaboration. Ability to successfully advocate for public funding and secure the financial resources from both private and public sources necessary to sustain and grow the University and ensure that an accessible and affordable education is available to qualified California students. Experience leading large, complex institutions, in either academia, industry, government or the public non-profit sector. Experience working with large Boards as a thought partner and innovator, while respecting the fiduciary responsibility of the Board for the institution. Management Broad management and executive experience, understanding of complex budgets, and the skills to manage and allocate resources effectively. Experience leading institutions through economic challenges under conditions of fiscal constraint. Experience with the strategic investment of resources in emerging fields where the University of California may demonstrate and leverage its intellectual dynamism for the benefit of the State, the nation, and the world. Experience in adversity leadership. Able to proactively identify and/or manage crises and controversies effectively. Ability to lead systemwide innovation and problem-solving, leveraging the size of the University, while appreciating and respecting the unique histories, challenges and opportunities of each campus and UC location. A commitment to the recruitment and retention of exceptional faculty, as well as senior management personnel committed to professional development, employee engagement, equitable compensation and making the University an employer of choice. Experience working with organized labor, history of positive labor-management relations, and commitment to successful collective bargaining. Demonstrated track record of consulting with multiple constituencies in developing plans and proposals and commitment to shared governance. Capacity to engage with health system leaders to mitigate risk, lead innovation and take advantage of opportunities in the rapidly changing health enterprise environment. Ability to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, policy and ethical principles and serve as guardian of the public trust. Personal Characteristics A skilled communicator with exceptional interpersonal, listening and negotiation skills applied across a broad spectrum of constituents and stakeholders including students, faculty, staff, unions, alumni, state and federal government officials and legislators, business leaders, and other higher education leaders, both in California and nationally. Inspiring, visionary and collaborative leader who can influence others to achieve common goals by engaging and developing robust relationships with stakeholders and maintaining a visible and active presence on campuses and throughout California. Commitment to the public service mission of the University. Commitment to fostering a positive workplace and campus climate that reflects the values of the University. Commitment to integrity and transparency in all University affairs and to developing and enhancing public trust in the University. A genuine passion and recognition of students and their centrality to the University’s mission and a dedication to the University of California’s commitment to educational access and student success. The capacity to enhance the University of California’s current organizational structure in a manner that creates a cohesive and well-integrated System that prominently champions the contributions and strengths of each individual component institution; leveraging their collective resources to heighten the System’s reputation and impact and promote a compelling vision for the future. The capacity to assume a position of significant stature within the State of California, nationally, and globally as a thought leader in higher education and in addressing the grand challenges impacting society and humankind. A collaborative leadership style that reflects humility and the ability work well as part of a team. ____ and since we're talkin presidents and coverage they receive after holding office... Does Clinton have this sort of convo elsewhere? (in his home state or even CA?) -- is he just living out his legacy with his adoptive Bushes? or is that the only NATL coverage he can get -- his policy reviews must be paired with Bush family in order to have them, covered by any media? The same ? w/ Obama coverage - when only his comments on supposedly moving center-right get play in the news cycle and put on repeat... that does not seem to be coincidence.

Tuesday, November 26, 2019

could they possibly confuse things more?

"How Betsy DeVos plans to change the rules for handling sexual misconduct on campus"

DeVos is preparing to finalize rules on Title IX
..."it’s possible that timeline will slip"...

University of California Title IX cases come up in this 20 minute short documentary which includes an interview with the UC Systemwide Title IX coordinator:

The Presidential Candidates in coverage on Title IX :

From Ed Source-
Edsource notes the chatter as the academic senate is working on the topic:
"As faculty deliberate, UC Berkeley chancellor calls for ending the use of SAT and ACT
Faculty task force expected to issue its report early next year, possibly in February or March."

it has been retitled:
"University of California under pressure from within to abandon SAT and ACT for admission
Faculty task force expected to issue its report early next year, possibly in February or March."

UC seems to want a continued ongoing conversation about it as the faculty deliberate it internally:

this quick take includes:
"Their opinions, while important, may not dictate whether UC drops the SAT and the ACT. A faculty committee is currently studying the issue."

they join the Chair and Vice Chair of the UC Regents along with some other regents who have all made they views clear on the issue:
"Drop the SAT and ACT as a requirement for admission, top UC officials say "
"The chancellors of UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz, along with the University of California’s chief academic officer, said they support dropping the SAT and ACT as an admission requirement — stances certain to fuel the growing national movement against the tests as an unfair barrier to college entry for underserved students.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol T. Christ and UC Provost Michael Brown said at a forum on college admissions Friday that research has convinced them that performance on the SAT and ACT is so strongly influenced by family income, parents’ education and race that using them for high-stakes admissions decisions is simply wrong.

“They really contribute to the inequities of our system,” Christ said at the Berkeley forum, sponsored by the Policy Analysis for California Education research center and the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education.

Brown said he was not opposed to all standardized tests but objects to tests like the SAT and ACT because their results compare students against one another in a way designed to produce high and low scores. He prefers standardized tests that measure students by how much they’ve mastered prescribed academic content. One such test is Smarter Balanced, which is used in California to assess 11th-graders on the state’s Common Core curriculum, but Brown said he would prefer a test more closely linked to the content of courses required for UC admission. "...
"Separately, UC Santa Cruz Chancellor Cynthia K. Larive also said Friday that she supported dropping the testing requirement. “At Santa Cruz, we use holistic admissions to try to evaluate the student within a broader context, which cannot be simply reduced to a number,” she told The Times."

..."At the Berkeley forum, Jessica Howell, vice president of research with the College Board, which owns the SAT, pushed back at criticism of standardized tests, saying they merely reflect underlying social and educational inequities. The testing organization has developed a tool to help colleges understand the socioeconomic characteristics of high schools and neighborhoods where test-takers come from, helping them place the scores in proper context.

“We shouldn’t stop using them because we don’t like what we see,” Howell said of the tests.

She added that a greater reliance on high school grades in the name of equity was “misguided” because research has shown that grade inflation occurs more often at affluent schools."...
"became president of Smith College in 2002, she eliminated the SAT requirement. As a result, she said, the applicant pool grew both in size and diversity with no decline in quality of students. In fact, she said, the college’s average SAT score rose because those who did well submitted scores while others did not.

She said Smith was able to make quality admissions decisions using high school records alone. “That is a much better predictor of success than are test scores,” she told The Times after her remarks.

Other UC chancellors could not be reached Friday for comment about standardized testing, but UCLA issued a statement saying officials there would wait for the Academic Senate’s analysis before weighing in on the question.

Some of the UC system‘s 26 voting regents have expressed deep skepticism or outright opposition to the continued use of the SAT and ACT, including Chairman John A. Pérez, Vice Chairwoman Cecilia Estolano and Regent Eloy Ortiz Oakley.

“The initial information that I’ve seen shows that the highest predictive value of an SAT isn’t in how well a student will do in school, but how well they were able to avail themselves of prep material,” Pérez recently told The Times. “And access to that prep material is still disproportionately tied to family income. So if you have material available but no pathway to avail yourself of it, that’s not particularly meaningful.”"...
see full article:

[talk not available at Cal yet:

nor via: ]

CSHE at Berkeley give an ablstract  and paperr from 2017--but not any vid of the talk on Friday that C.Christ and UC Systemwide Provost Brown participated in- here is the abstract and paper:
"NORM-REFERENCED TESTS AND RACE-BLIND ADMISSIONS: The Case for Eliminating the SAT and ACT at the University of California by Saul Geiser, UC Berkeley CSHE 15.17 (December 2017)"
--btw, the paper is also confusing some readers who wrongly mistake/believe that that CSHE piece is the report of the UC academic senate taskforce, (whose report will be out in early 2020)... could UC possibly confuse things more?

PPIC also mentioned but the talk not available there:

but PPIC does have this:

Also want to point to
"UC contracts with Catholic hospitals allow religious limits on medical staff, students

By Michael Hiltzik, Nov. 21, 2019,  LA Times"

-As mentioned previously,  appointed but apparently not yet confirmed UC Regent Reilly has ties to some of the entitiies mentioned in the article above, in addition to UC- it may come up if and when the CA Senate Rules committee meets and votes confirmation on her appointment --although Atkins seems to have rubberstamped / fast tracked the Gov 's other UC Regents appointments over the last year...
and the UC Regents Health Committee meets on December 10th where it also may come up...

Date: December 10, 2019
Time: Upon adjournment of the closed session meeting
Locations: Centennial Ballroom, Luskin Conference Center, Los Angeles Campus
Lote H-4, Carretera Federal 200 Km. 19.5, Punta Mita, Mexico
Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of October 10, 2019
H1(X) Discussion Extension of Appointment of and Compensation for Interim Chief Executive Officer, UC Davis Medical Center, Davis Campus, in Addition to his Existing Appointment as Chief Operating Officer, UC Davis Medical Center, Davis Campus

Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period (20 minutes)
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of October 10, 2019
H2 Discussion Introductory Comments of the Executive Vice President – UC Health: Background, Perspectives, and Next Steps
H3 Action Approval of Extension of Appointment of and Compensation for Interim Chief Executive Officer, UC Davis Medical Center, Davis Campus, in Addition to his Existing Appointment as Chief Operating Officer, UC Davis Medical Center, Davis Campus, as Discussed in Closed Session
H4 Action Proposed Request for the New Hospital at UCSF Helen Diller Medical Center at Parnassus Heights Program, San Francisco Campus
H5 Action Proposed Request for the UCSF Mission Bay Block 34 Clinical Building, San Francisco Campus
H6 Discussion Clinical Quality Working Group Update
H7 Discussion Speaker Series – How UC San Diego Saved a Faculty Member and Launched the First Dedicated Phage Therapy Center in North America
H8 Discussion Collaborating with California Counties to Enhance Student and Community Mental Health
H9 Discussion Behavioral Health Collaboration, San Diego Campus

Agenda – Closed Session
H10(X) Discussion Interim Report of the Special Committee Investigating UCLA’s Response to Sexual Misconduct in Clinical Settings


Thursday, November 21, 2019

University of California Regents’ Title IX Case Handling- The Criticism Continues- And the Search for Next UC President Goes On...

"Graduate Student Accuses UC Regent Kieffer of Sexual Misconduct, Calls for Systemwide Policy Change"
..."Ora’s testimony also shines a light on the difference between the University of California and the UC Regents when it comes to handling sexual misconduct allegations — all decisions regarding Regent misconduct are handled by the Regents themselves, according to Regents Policy 1112 .

Ora told the Nexus that she has experienced instances of sexual misconduct before but said the power differential between herself and Kieffer limited her voice in the reporting process.

“I was in a train station and somebody put his hand on my behind and squeezed, and I turned around and punched him in the stomach. That is who I am. But when you’re sitting next to somebody who’s talking about being best friends with [former California Governor] Jerry Brown, and you’re in a public space, you can’t punch him in the stomach,” Ora said.

“The difference in power among people determines the type of response they’re capable of having in that moment. And I know it’s opening up a huge amount of complexity, but when a power differential was so steep that you literally cannot stand up for yourself, that makes whatever is occurring so much worse.”

Ora said that she is the first person to go through the Regents misconduct investigation process, described in Regents Policy 1112, which outlines the specific policy for allegations of misconduct against a Regent.

“Apparently the UC Regents have a policy all their own, written by the Regents, which states that all complaints against a Regent will be handled by the Regents … with a clear focus on ensuring the utmost delicacy toward the powerful Regent reported, rather than the individual reporting,” Ora said during public forum.

“In the words of a Title IX employee, ‘In the Regents policy, I, the complainant, do not even exist.’”

In response to Ora’s allegations, UC Student Association, the UC Graduate and Professional Council and the UC Council of Student Body Presidents published a joint statement on Nov. 20, supporting Ora and condemning the process for reviewing misconduct cases against the Regents.

“We believe Rebecca, and we agree that the process for reviewing her case is deeply flawed. Regents Policy 1112 essentially requires Regents to hold themselves accountable by tasking a three-member panel of Regents to oversee an investigation. This is not survivor-centered, trauma-informed, impartial, or just, and it clearly prioritizes the powerful over those who may have been harmed,” the statement reads.

The leaders further called on the Regents to adhere to the same Title IX policies as students, staff and faculty, calling for further accountability by state elected officials.

Ora first spoke during a June 2018 Regents meeting about her general experiences navigating Title IX as a graduate student — not relating to Kieffer — and was approached by someone following her comments.

Ora said she had told the person about what had reportedly happened with Kieffer in 2014, when he let her know that he was a “responsible employee,” also known as a mandated reporter, which means he is required by UC Title IX Policy to report Ora’s story as an instance of “sexual violence, sexual harassment or other conduct prohibited by the policy to the Title IX officer or designee.”

Ora was given a few options by the case’s mediator: pursue a case against Kieffer, or let it go. If she pursued a case, she would have to decide whether to go directly into an investigation against Kieffer or attempt to settle through the internal alternative resolution process, where a mediator would handle the case directly with the appointed Regents.

“Even though I’ve been a student leader for so many years, it took me this horrendous conversation to realize like, ‘Oh, wow, I do need to follow this through,’ because it’s not a matter of whether I’m okay or not and how many meetings I have to step out of and avoid. It’s a matter of somebody with such lax judgment is determining the consequences of all of the perpetrators in the system,” Ora said.

During public forum last week, Ora said she was encouraged at the time of reporting to “informally resolve the matter so as to avoid an investigation” and said in the interview that she felt pressured then by the case’s mediator to first handle the case internally.

“I was given no direction and I had no idea what to choose, so I just chose the one that seemed the safer one.”

But Ora said that earlier this year, the alternative resolution to handle the case internally failed. She described the Regents’ response to her allegation as “deeply disappointing.”

“They were so invisible on any item that was clear to me that there was no use bothering to continue negotiation,” she said.

Ora’s case will now move on to the outside investigation process.

Ora told the Nexus she chose to speak during public forum due to frustration not only with the Regents’ system, but the entire University of California process for investigating sexual misconduct, which takes years and often re-traumatizes the person reporting sexual misconduct in the process.

“We should have a system that doesn’t discourage and exhaust people who stand up for themselves and what’s right. And in order to protect other people, we should have a system that encourages them. This is not that system,” Ora said.

At public forum, Ora discussed how the years-long investigation process has personally affected her, specifically her mental health and relationships.

“I’ve been told not to bother trying to fix the world and told to let it go. I’ve been excluded from committees because of Kieffer’s presence, I experience regular panic attacks and have fallen behind in my academic progress. I’m afraid of being hacked and of being harassed and followed, as I’m aware other [people who reported sexual misconduct] have been. I had to move, I’ve lost friends and relationships,” she said.

“Until now, I’ve tried to follow the appropriate process, but it has failed because it is fatally flawed,” Ora said during public forum.

“I know that all the headlines have been about someone accuses someone of something. And I do think that is a problem, like yes, somebody did something to me … it did harm me. What I think is the larger and more long-term problem to fix is UC Regents wrote a policy for themselves that is unjust and inappropriate,” Ora said.

“This all happening at this very moment that we have impeachment hearings going on in the government, we have to beg the question of what is oversight of power,” Ora said.

“If the standards for them are lower than those for the rest of us, then we’re doing something horribly wrong.”"

"UC regents’ neglect toward misconduct claims shows inaction stems from the top"

..."But what the UC provides in preemptive rigor continues to be desperately lacking in the aftermath of these cases.

Jin Kim, a third-year psychobiology student who works for the Student Wellness Commission, said misconduct from high-profile leaders within the University can feel like a betrayal.

“I think one big thing is that there’s a violation of trust because these are people that we have put our faith in to lead the UC system to a better place,” Kim said.

The power dynamics intuitively associated with the position of regents can prompt all the training and seminars in the world, but misconduct on the part of those trusted to lead can only be effectively mitigated through punitive actions taken in response.

And when it comes to walking the walk, the UC doesn’t have a great track record."..."But when the regents themselves review the investigative decisions, the University’s policies quickly become stained with bias.

The investigative process largely revolves around the decisions of a panel of UC regents – that is, the same board filled with close colleagues of the accused. Conflicts of interest riddle the system, and a general lack of transparency regarding the investigative process obscures it further.

Anjali Singhal, a second-year global studies student, said she is angry the UC regents don’t seem to be holding themselves to the same standards they set for others.

“If Kieffer were to be held responsible for his actions, it could inspire others to come forward,” Singhal said. “It really matters, because this could be such an influential case, and the fact that nothing is happening is pretty disgusting.”

When Ora spoke last week, it highlighted an uncomfortable truth. The further the regents stray from the same standards they set for the rest of the campus community, the more unwelcoming those spaces become – especially to those students and faculty who have experienced unwanted sexual behaviors in their past.

“It’s very disheartening for a lot of survivors,” Kim said. “Because it seems like they have all of these programs and we talk about Title IX, but you finally get that courage and you speak up and it goes unheard – and you just feel like ‘Why did I bother?’”

The UC regents hold a historically integral role within the UC. But they’re doing a disservice to themselves – and the UC community – with a deeply flawed approach. The combination of internal investigation processes, delayed response times and overtly lowered standards for their members serves no one but the perpetrators of harassment. "...
recently IHE has had:

"Interview Practices for Title IX Investigators"

"Professor says she was fired for refusing to discloseTitle IX complainant name"

and CHE has paywalled this content:
"Students Say They Don’t Trust Campus Title IX Processes. And They Doubt Their Own Reports Would Be Taken Seriously. "

"Hundreds of Colleges May Be Out of Title IX Compliance..."
this new article:
"NSF unwittingly hired a professor guilty of bullying, highlighting the ‘pass the harasser’ problem"

pointed to this earlier but for reference, since it comes up in the article above:

this update:

 UC Office of the President Thursday, November 21, 2019
Storbeck/Pimentel & Associates, a woman and minority-owned executive search firm, has been selected to help identify candidates and facilitate a global search for a new president of the University of California.

In accordance with Regents Policy 7101, the special committee to consider the selection of a president met with advisory committees in early November to consult on the criteria for the position of university president. The advisory groups included faculty, students, staff, alumni, campus chancellors, laboratory directors and vice presidents. The special committee considered this feedback and other written comments received to draft new criteria. On November 14, the Board of Regents approved criteria, which can be found on the presidential search website.

College Futures Foundation, in conjunction with the University of California, is sponsoring two forums with the special committee to gather input from higher education associations and other organizations in the field of postsecondary education, workforce and economic development, and student success. College Futures Foundation works to ensure equity of opportunity and access to higher education in California. The forums will be held at UC Davis on December 13, 2019, and at UCLA on January 14, 2020. These will be open to the public and there will be an opportunity for public comment at each forum. Additional information can be found on the presidential search website.

The special committee will hold additional town halls on UC campuses in early 2020, and is planning to schedule other opportunities to meet with constituent groups of the university.

“The special committee looks forward to hearing the observations and advice of members of the university community to inform the search process for the next president of the University of California,” said committee Chair Gareth Elliott.

For more information see: Additional information will be posted on this website as it becomes available. Input from the public regarding the search is welcome and can be submitted by mail to Anne Shaw, Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents, 1111 Franklin Street, 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607 or by email to   

The members of the special committee to consider the selection of a president are Regents Michael Cohen, Gareth Elliott, Cecilia Estolano, Sherry Lansing, Lark Park and Richard Sherman; Student Regent Hayley Weddle; Alumni Regent William Um; and Gov. Newsom and Board of Regents Chair John A. Pérez as ex officio members. Regent Elliott is the chair of the special committee and Regent Lansing is vice chair.

University of California Office of the President

Media Relations