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.
Pages
- Home
- FAQs
- 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."
Monday, March 18, 2019
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:
on:
"State Auditor Calls For UCOP Financial Transparency"
The Bottom Line
https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2019/03/state-auditor-calls-for-ucop-financial-transparency
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"
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/State-auditor-says-UC-s-Napolitano-has-not-13595656.php
-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:
https://cloudminder.blogspot.com/2019/02/csa-says-ucop-still-delayed-on.html
And here:
https://cloudminder.blogspot.com/2019/02/report-released-on-status-of-compliance.html
Then,
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:
on:
"State Auditor Calls For UCOP Financial Transparency"
The Bottom Line
https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2019/03/state-auditor-calls-for-ucop-financial-transparency
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"
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/State-auditor-says-UC-s-Napolitano-has-not-13595656.php
-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:
https://cloudminder.blogspot.com/2019/02/csa-says-ucop-still-delayed-on.html
And here:
https://cloudminder.blogspot.com/2019/02/report-released-on-status-of-compliance.html
Then,
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)
See:
"Amid Trump's border showdown, UC immigration lawyer comforts and fights"
CALmatters
https://calmatters.org/articles/california-uc-undocumented-lawyer-immigration-campus-daca-program/
Includes:
..."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:
"EdSource
"UC regents revolt against $762 tuition hike for non-Californians"
https://edsource.org/2019/uc-regents-revolt-against-762-tuition-hike-for-non-californians/609839
And this
UC regents hold off on raising nonresident tuition after some protest
Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-uc-regents-nonresident-tuition-20190314-story.html
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.
( 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)
See:
"Amid Trump's border showdown, UC immigration lawyer comforts and fights"
CALmatters
https://calmatters.org/articles/california-uc-undocumented-lawyer-immigration-campus-daca-program/
Includes:
..."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:
"EdSource
"UC regents revolt against $762 tuition hike for non-Californians"
https://edsource.org/2019/uc-regents-revolt-against-762-tuition-hike-for-non-californians/609839
And this
UC regents hold off on raising nonresident tuition after some protest
Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-uc-regents-nonresident-tuition-20190314-story.html
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?
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"
http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/13/father-of-uc-berkeley-alumnus-charged-in-college-admission-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"
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-edu-cheating-university-admissions-culture-20190313-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter
"The College Admissions Process Is Already A Scam
One college counseling company charges up to $1.5 million for its perfectly legal services"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-scam_n_5c87dbe7e4b0fbd7661e30b9?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003
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:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/college-cheating-scandal-judge-shushes-aunt-becky-actress-lori-loughlin-in-court-sets-bail-at-dollar1m?ref=home
..."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:
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/statement-uc-college-admissions-investigation
And glad to see students and applicants asserting their rights in this mess:
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2019/03/athletic-scandal-touches-ucla-part-6.html
"Father of UC Berkeley alumnus charged in college admissions scandal"
http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/13/father-of-uc-berkeley-alumnus-charged-in-college-admission-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"
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-edu-cheating-university-admissions-culture-20190313-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter
"The College Admissions Process Is Already A Scam
One college counseling company charges up to $1.5 million for its perfectly legal services"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/college-scam_n_5c87dbe7e4b0fbd7661e30b9?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003
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:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/college-cheating-scandal-judge-shushes-aunt-becky-actress-lori-loughlin-in-court-sets-bail-at-dollar1m?ref=home
..."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:
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/statement-uc-college-admissions-investigation
And glad to see students and applicants asserting their rights in this mess:
http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2019/03/athletic-scandal-touches-ucla-part-6.html
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
UC Regents March 12-14 Meeting at UCLA
LIVESTREAM of the meeting at :
https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/videos/mar2019/mar2019.html
___________________________
"""ADDED: SPECIAL SESSION***
Governance Committee Special Session:
Closed Session
https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar19/govx_special_meeting.pdf
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
https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/videos/mar2019/mar2019.html
See:
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.
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 | Special Committee on Basic Needs (open session - includes public comment session) (pdf) Location: Centennial Hall, Salons C & D 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 Tuition 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, 2019 C2 Action Appointment of Expert Advisor to the Compliance and Audit Committee 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 Expenditures 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) and 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 Weddle | |
| 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, Sherman |
| 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 Sherman |
| 4:45 pm | Location: Centennial Hall, Salons A & B Agenda – Closed Session S4(X) Action Appointment of Two Regents to Standing Committees and Subcommittee |
| 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
___________________________
"""ADDED: SPECIAL SESSION***
Governance Committee Special Session:
Closed Session
https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar19/govx_special_meeting.pdf
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:
"DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES FOR REAL?
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."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-among-stars-who-paid-bribes-to-get-kid-athletes-into-elite-colleges
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"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-charged-college-admission-scheme_n_5c87c516e4b08d5b7865d04d
That is something that stays in mind while reading pieces on higher education and liberal arts college closures, such as:
"THE CASE OF HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE; OR WHY BAD THINGS DON'T HAVE TO HAPPEN TO LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES"
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-case-of-hampshire-college-or-why.html
(And , in a different way, also think about separate efforts that come to mind such as things like : 'the great courses plus.com'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"
http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/11/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:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/03/12/uc-awarded-third-crispr-patent-expanding-its-gene-editing-portfolio/
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"
https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/10/muddled-patent-dispute-sheds-light-on-uclas-questionable-ties-to-big-pharma/
____
And more Higher Ed 2020:
http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/11/sen-kamala-harris-helps-reintroduce-debt-free-college-act-in-senate/
"DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES FOR REAL?
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."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-among-stars-who-paid-bribes-to-get-kid-athletes-into-elite-colleges
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"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/felicity-huffman-lori-loughlin-charged-college-admission-scheme_n_5c87c516e4b08d5b7865d04d
That is something that stays in mind while reading pieces on higher education and liberal arts college closures, such as:
"THE CASE OF HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE; OR WHY BAD THINGS DON'T HAVE TO HAPPEN TO LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES"
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-case-of-hampshire-college-or-why.html
(And , in a different way, also think about separate efforts that come to mind such as things like : 'the great courses plus.com'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"
http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/11/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:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/03/12/uc-awarded-third-crispr-patent-expanding-its-gene-editing-portfolio/
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"
https://dailybruin.com/2019/03/10/muddled-patent-dispute-sheds-light-on-uclas-questionable-ties-to-big-pharma/
____
And more Higher Ed 2020:
http://www.dailycal.org/2019/03/11/sen-kamala-harris-helps-reintroduce-debt-free-college-act-in-senate/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)