Add'l sections of note from January UC Regents meeting:
on the ongoing saga of
'They don't have the cost breakdown per type of student.'
That sounds so bad...
So pivot to -'Course we do have costs per type of student.
It's just complicated apples and oranges' response.
See Napolitano tried to address the AB 94 compliance questions student leaders raised at the UC Regents meeting here: at the 01:14:00 mark - she said (after the student commentary was made in response to the finance presentation) it is just a complicated effort to "marry up" items to comply with AB 94 -- but UC stakeholders, from multiple sides, have requested that marrying up of figures and terms since long before AB 94, FOR YEARS-- she did not address the UC reasons for the years long foot dragging on it.
Napolitano said there will be a full report to the CA leg on it in the next several weeks- does "several weeks" mean months?
That agenda item/section of the UC Regents meeting continues to come up in multiple news articles, op ed:
See Daily Cal where: UCOP tries to do a couple short paragraphs of damage control on the lack of UCOP 'marrying up' -in an op ed titled "UCSA Board Chair Misrepresented UC Fiscal Practices"
Also on the current UCSA - UCOP relations:
UCLA Faculty Association has audio of the UC Regents Jan 21 meeting now available
- and that post ends by noting the UCSA leadership address to UC Regents toward the end of the audio. The audio is a 'nice to have' in light of how UCOP fails to offer complete and permanent archive of UC Regents meetings- but the audio clip can't capture certain things that happened in the room at the time -see toward the very end, like the last 6 minutes of video of the UC Regents meeting: here, for instance:
There were some UC Regents who walked out of the room at the moment when UCSA began to speak etc.
None of the UC Regents or UCOP staff asked UCSA leadership about their understanding of UC fiscal practices at that time --when UCSA was presenting to them directly in front of the regents table.
None of the UC Regents asked UCSA about their vote of 'no confidence' in UC Regents and Napolitano- that vote passed by the UCSA earlier in the same month.
It is common for there to be silence from the UC Regents to UCSA presentations to them- no questions, no comments...
This time as the UC regent chair moved, as usual, to quickly adjourn right after the UCSA presentation-- there was a rushed regent question for UCSA - it came from Vice Chair Ruiz and it was only to ask about UCSA lobbying efforts for UC and if they could confirm -what was explicitly stated in their presentation- that their lobbying would indeed be separate from UC Regents and UCOP.
(It's a stark contrast with an earlier time when then-UC Regent Chair Lansing gave positive statements on aligning with UCSA on lobbying efforts for Prop 30 etc.- UCSA is systemwide-- i.e. large numbers)
See other video of UC Regents meeting where Napolitano also said that UCOP has never had a Chief Operating Officer: at the 02:02:30 mark here- as justification for the critical importance of the new UCOP COO hire, -- but UCOP VP Brostrom was hired from UC Berkeley into UCOP with a "full-time role as UC’s executive vice president for business operations" and the duties sound strikingly familiar, similar - then and now... Does the alphabet soup change - COO and VP Bus Ops- really give any support to Napolitano's claim about some new critical importance or unaddressed sphere that is suddenly addressed with a COO title- other than it just being another high $$$$$ position?
Also UC Regent Newsom said at the 03:22:23 mark: here that the UC Regents told the UCOP administrators that they - "at least six UC Regents" he said- wanted to participate in the policy review, drafting, planning of the UC athlete standards policy but he said that it was developed and advanced --Without Them. His comments raise some serious governance questions on how agenda items are handled regardless of what the specific UC Regent topic/agenda item might concern. In fact, similar comments have been heard in other UC regent committee meetings e.g. buildings and grounds...
OK so, those were some notable sections still floating around to ponder.
and if you missed it UC Curtailment (i.e Holiday Campus Closure) Compensation Practices Get Slammed - in this Daily Cal Op Ed
"HBO History Makers Series with Janet Napolitano and Council on Foreign Relations"
17:30 mark she discusses her views on US congressional oversight
[Bracketing this off cuz we're off on an 'oversight' tangent for a moment--
Her push back comments sound strikingly similar to Regent M's push back comments on oversight of UC during the November UC Regents meeting, see here: 03:00:00 mark his comments about a "page 274" of a Compliance and Audit committee report and how Regent M would like the Governor to see the waste from duplicative or unnecessary, various 'fill-in-the-blank-agency-here' oversight etc. UC Regents did not display that page for the audience during the meeting though and it looks like it still is not listed as an available document in the agenda items,etc. You might recall Regent M also asked the student regent to raise the duplicative/waste point of view with the Gov in the next meeting and he also reiterated his same comments on the waste of time and effort in other sessions as well. During this same compliance and audit committee meeting the Vice Chair asked the UC chief compliance officer
1-to think of an important question the UC regents should be asking and
2- to then tell the UC Regents what that question is
3- and then answer it for them.
Also there were other regents during that same session who said they struggled to understand the concepts and terms in the report and were not quite certain how to approach the subject matter or question it or study it. So, you might want to watch that whole compliance and audit meeting in full in light of the comments on oversight being made by the UC Pres and Regent M. lately.
-- At that same UC Regent meeting there was a very, very good public comment section with multi-faceted student comments, those comments came from undergrad leadership, grad leadership and professional level -- they spoke in detail on their plight -see that at the 6:00 mark, too.]
Other highlights of Napolitano's CFR talk in video below:
24:15 mark she mentions Sony latest challenges and also brings up UC med
32:00 she comments on Snowden again
34:00 - 38:00 mark she discusses UC admissions and the high cost of outreach for diversity
52:40 she comments on UC, higher ed and nat'l sec. and greatest unmet needs of higher education
she mentions a 'broken down formula'
57:15 she gets that same ol' leadership philosophy question --and it's mostly 'I'll make mistakes; folks who work for me will make mistakes; have a sense of humor, dealing with natural disasters and student protestors'...and she once again references a practice of delegating authority away (juxtapose statements she makes at UC Regents where UCOP positions are "responsible for the entire enterprise" when justifying compensation actions- but then delegation to the campus level.)
(An interesting factoid--the presenter asking Napolitano the questions is married to David Boies (yep, of the 'Palm Beach- Gore' --and, yep again, that SCOTUS prop 8 issue recently) and she is listed as a "publisher of educational software" -among other roles: here.)
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Wm. De La Pena
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- Norman Pattiz (AGAIN!)
- John A. Pérez
- Bonnie Reiss
- Richard Sherman
- Bruce Varner
- Charlene Zettel
- VACANT (M Anguiano?)
- VACANT (L Park?)
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- VACANT (E Tauscher?)
- VACANT (H Guber?)
- Paul Monge
- Vacant (by Lozano)
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)