Tuesday, December 24, 2019

In light of light 2020

In 2020 what trends in funding higher ed?...
Fiat Lux- ing it:
"GE Sued by UC Santa Barbara Over LED Light Bulb Patents"
--but its the UC Regents or University of California doing it - not just UCSB...

Light of Light

Monday, December 23, 2019

In light of 2020 part II Title IX

UCR's Chancellor Wilcox on Title IX :..."“This is another of these political middle spaces where it’s hard to define – there’s not a right answer,” he said."
An ASU event in New York that UK's THE  covered
 "Imminent new sexual assault rules divide US campuses
Universities concede societal push to handle delicate matters in more legalistic ways"

"US universities are divided over a pending Trump administration rule that would force campus sexual assault victims to endure questioning from representatives of their alleged attackers.

The idea has generated significant opposition from universities, including their main lobby group, largely over concerns that an openly confrontational process would discourage traumatised victims from reporting assaults.

But as the date of implementation draws near, some university leaders are acknowledging that opposition to the move is waning and that many campus officials are resigned to the fact that the more collegial processes within academia are likely growing outdated.

“In an era where everything is becoming more and more litigious,” Mark Becker, president of Georgia State University, told Times Higher Education, “I think we’re going to be moving more towards the legal standard. It just looks that way to me.”

Professor Becker was among several university presidents debating the issue at an event in New York hosted by Arizona State University, which came as the US Education Department nears completion of a year-long process of drafting changes to Title IX, the regulation covering sexual discrimination and assaults at institutions in receipt of federal money."

-note this section where UK THE basically includes a vouch for DeVos :
"The education secretary, Betsy DeVos, has made clear her intention to treat seriously and fairly not only sexual assault victims but also those whom they accuse.
--(btw, Is UK higher ed regressed on women in academia, higher ed? Even with its Queen and two female PMs- does it have that engrained attribute or is that just the way 'BBC shows that become PBS shows' storylines like to frame it? Think we know.)
---now we get to the UC tie in:
"Another participant in the round-table discussion, Kim Wilcox, chancellor of the University of California, Riverside, expressed general sympathy for that position. Professor Wilcox said Obama administration rule changes on the topic had also generated “a fair amount of consternation, about the fact that the rules had gone too far the other way”.

“This is another of these political middle spaces where it’s hard to define – there’s not a right answer,” he said."

--Did he ever say that to Napolitano?- he must have during a closed setting right?and what does that say about UC prog stance on IX coming out of UCOP?  Wilcox has never opined at UC Regents meetings in public session on this topic with these sorts of comments....- but he did at an  ASU event in New York?!

- Recall Wilcox from : 



May never fully know his role at MSU -
- Besides there is an opinion that it doesn't even matter:




"As Education Department Prepares to Release Highly Anticipated Title IX Rules, Dem Bill Offers Last-Ditch Effort to Shut Them Down"
btw, UCR is listed in that news coverage piece pointed to yesterday as being one of the least robust in its human subjects protocols- along with UCSD and one other UC campus listed specifically- one would think it would be a systemwide standard but apparently it is each campus with its own set up/approach.

Sunday, December 22, 2019

In light of 2020 and UC's Updates on....

First this flashback to an in depth piece from August that has not had any real followup sttatement from UC Systemwide:
" A UCSD Whistleblower Alleges Problems With University’s Human Research Protections Program"
..."The complaint alleges UCSD senior leadership pressures staff to approve studies that run contrary to federal, state and local regulations. It also says the research protections program withholds risk information from research subjects, ignores concerns about conflicts of interest and fails to alert authorities to serious problems that occur as required under federal guidelines.

Those are "just a glimpse of the noncompliance issues that senior leadership purposefully neglects or perpetuates,” the letter says.

Dr. Michael Carome, who has worked in the field of research ethics for decades, told inewsource the letter “suggests that there are serious, systemic problems” with UCSD’s oversight of human research.

Carome is a former associate director at the U.S. Office for Human Research Protections, a federal agency charged with protecting human research subjects. He is now a director of the health research group at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy nonprofit in Washington, D.C.

He compared the problems alleged in the letter to those uncovered 20 years ago at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center and Duke University Medical Center, as well as at Johns Hopkins University in 2001. Those cases resulted in “severe compliance actions” by the federal government, he said, which halted nearly all research at the institutions because of the violations.

Carome said the UCSD chancellor "needs to take the complaint seriously and fully investigate it, and assuming that the concerns raised are confirmed, take major action to remove and hold accountable individuals that have encouraged noncompliance here.”"..."“We work hard,” the whistleblower’s letter says. “We are a great asset to the institution and UC as a whole. In our small capacity we have tried to be the check and balance to our leadership’s tendencies to ill-advised policy actions.”

However, the whistleblower says, “Our moral compass is consistently challenged.”"...

-- can't find any coverage of UC updates in months since in addressing it, yet.
An update, 
more here:
October 16, 2019
"VA leaders questioned at congressional hearing about ‘egregious’ San Diego human research"

"KPBS: Dangerous San Diego Research Prompts Congress to Hold Hearing on VA"

...“The corruption is almost unrestrained,” he added.
..."...who for years have alleged research misconduct at the San Diego VA, say they have faced serious consequences. ... lost her research positions at the San Diego VA and UC San Diego since coming forward, and she said the special counsel’s office is currently investigating her claims of retaliation.

...., who is married to ....and continues to work at the VA, said the medical inspector’s office has “shamelessly abused and denigrated” them “in a clear attempt to minimize the number and the severity of the human research and patient care violations that obviously occurred” in San Diego.

.... said the congressional hearing is “an interesting idea in theory,” but she doubts it will lead to change."...

you can watch that hearing it begins at the 52:00 timemark via: 

In 2018 there was this when the Rs were not doing much about it either:

-Also consider it now in light of that ProPublica series mentioned earlier ... https://www.propublica.org/article/medical-professors-are-supposed-to-share-their-outside-income-with-the-university-of-california-but-many-dont
in light of Berkeley changing demolished Tolman Hall , the psychology and education depts area into a data sciences instruction space and  warehouse space for research (akin to Cambridge centre?):

Tolman Hall, recently demolished because of seismic risks, is the ideal site for a new data sciences building, Christ said.

At the same time, Berkeley is exploring options to construct a building that will include space for general assignment classrooms and offices for academic departments displaced by the decant of Evans Hall. That, in turn, would allow for the demolition of Evans Hall, she said.
In light of the human subjects whistleblower case above which extends beyond UCSD with its implicatoins about UC Systemwide UCOP failures in monitoring it all --consider now this news  where sometimes one's data will be treated as human subjects and perhaps sometimes not- particularly for those on campus with campus ids....

and recall UC Berkeley ties to what happened in 2016, in pieces like:


Such issues seem to be of little importance to Dem spelunceans:

"Yes, It Is Plainly Wrong To Meet Donors In A Billionaire’s Crystal Wine Cave
The superrich enjoy corrupt influence over politics — and some Democrats are just fine with that."
- yes, on every single word of that piece.
The content above--its why the wine cave is important.
And , --UC role in it-as also mentioned earlier, it has ties to UC's relationship with labor, 
As does this update on the Requa series : "Requa case settlement - Part 2" http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2019/12/requa-case-settlement-part-2.html

And if -so far- you're disappointed in the private box sommeliere season of UC regents
supported version of GSW-Mission Bay, then see:
-something for everyone.

Thursday, December 19, 2019

President of the University of California Regents on that 'Wine Cave' And- 'They" just couldn't do it for UC?

Something hinky - or they just couldn't do it for University of California, specifically UCLA where the presidential debate was originally to be held?
"As Democrats, we know the fight for fair wages is about more than just dollars; it’s about dignity. It’s not about sound bites; it’s about real solutions,” DNC Chair Tom Perez said in a statement. “That’s what we were able to achieve today ― a real solution for hardworking Americans. We are the party that lifts up working families and defends the right to organize, and we’re excited to showcase that commitment at our debate on Thursday at Loyola Marymount University.”"..."Democratic Debate Expected To Go On After Tentative Deal Reached In Labor Dispute
The presidential candidates promised to honor a picket line if a local union went forward with it.
"Perez was actively involved in bringing an end to the dispute so that the debate could go on, holding phone calls with the key stakeholders over the past few days to figure out an agreement. He was President Barack Obama’s labor secretary and worked on several labor disputes during his time in the administration. On Sunday, he brought LMU and Unite Here Local 11 together for a meeting, and on Monday, the union and Sodexo met."
--No one really asking or explaining  why they couldn't do the same with UCLA-- where the debate was originally scheduled to take place.
How is , or, is LMU different-why? Did they even try? And what does that say for that party's support of public higher education? They could only do it for LMU...?
 but UCLA did not get that- UC didn't get that?
And now this update
one final post script filled with ironies:
The President of the UC Regents Gov Newsom was working the "spin room" of last night's debate at LMU- instead of working on that UCLA labor issue that caused the debate to be moved away from UCLA, see:
"The Shady History of Mayor Pete's Wine Cave Ant The Ultra Rich Couple That Owns It"
-the winery is in Napa but the billionaire couple are Dallas based. ..."“That cave’s been used by Democrats all across the country for fundraising,” Newsom told reporters in the spin room following Thursday night’s debate. “Probably a hundred congressional representatives have benefited from the use of that.”"..."Asked if he himself had attended a fundraiser at the wine cave—which, as the Associated Press first reported, features a “Chandelier Room” drowning in crystals—Newsom was straightforward. “Are you kidding?” Newsom, himself a former vintner, said. “I’m in the business, so I know that place well.”"...
__ "Labor union strikes deal to rescue Democratic presidential debate. Here’s how to watch" Read more here:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article238472028.html "Thursday's Democratic debate is back on after a labor dispute at Loyola Marymount University was tentatively resolved" https://www.businessinsider.com/loyola-marymount-workers-reach-deal-allowing-democratic-debate-to-proceed-2019-12 "Thursday’s Presidential Debate at LMU to Proceed as Union Reaches Deal" https://ktla.com/2019/12/17/thursdays-presidential-debate-at-lmu-back-on-track-as-union-reaches-tentative-agreement/ "The DNC Won’t Have to Cancel Thursday’s Debate" http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/the-strikewave-is-interfering-with-the-dncs-debate-plans.html -Its a debate that is perhaps the most unrepresentatiive (in its participant demographics) of all that that platform proclaims itself to stand for- so, it is fitting that it is held in CA where the prog ideal is not realized in many ways once quantified and there is an apathy about it from many at the top--that is de rigeur.
There are US Pres election policy/platform considerations on higher ed taken up in this piece:
"Higher Ed on Autopilot"
By Christopher Newfield

Friday, December 13, 2019

Universities and Pol Debates. And, Special Committee to Consider the Selection of UC President

some of it is  open like this and some of it  isn't...


December 13, 2019

11:30 am  Special Committee to Consider the Selection of a President (closed session)

1:00-3:00 pm  Special Committee to Consider the Selection of a President (open session- includes public comment session)    Location: Vanderhoef Studio Theatre, UC Davis Mondavi Center

See also:
Universities may no longer be spaces where US Presidential Debates can be held because of all the long unaddressed labor issues at Universities?

"Democratic Candidates May Skip Presidential Debate Over Labor Dispute
Unite Here Local 11 is asking presidential candidates not to cross the picket line at Loyola Marymount University, which is the site for the December debate."

"A labor dispute is threatening to disrupt next week’s presidential debate at Loyola Marymount University in California.
All seven of the Democratic presidential candidates have said they will not attend if the issue is not resolved in time."...
"The Democratic National Committee moved the December debate to LMU because there was also a union dispute at the original venue, the University of California, Los Angeles."

--maybe just hold it in a Bloomberg studio on a Bloomberg channel or...??

This other story there:
and there are some UC senior management folks with the same kind of ties to *it*
 - and supposedly progressive UC Chancellors who appointed them to their cabinets - and they know it...:
Its the same university labor issues....
Recall Cal's Op Ex...
The Bainness of it- was Deval there then?
Corp dems w/ help of corp media wanna spin Corbyn failures as predictive of Bernie, other US progs etc -- not quite, but cute...
one more 

or via:

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

No shortage of higher ed major news stories today...

Sec. Ed Betsy Devos to participate in US Congressional hearing Thursday December 12 2019 where some of this may come up

this update coverage:
"Betsy DeVos Overruled Education Dept. Findings On Defrauded Student Borrowers"
"Betsy DeVos Is In Trouble, Again"
"'Scratching the surface': Education Department uncovers $1.3B in foreign university funding"
"the universities under review are Georgetown, Texas A&M, Cornell, Rutgers, the University of Maryland, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "


Tuesday, December 10, 2019

all over the place...

"Lawsuit Claims SAT And ACT Are Illegal In California Admissions""

"University of California Is Sued Over Use of SAT and ACT in Admissions
A group of students and advocacy groups says the standardized testing requirement is biased and unconstitutional."

..."Carol Christ, the chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, one of the system’s most competitive universities, and Michael Brown, the system’s chief academic officer, have recently criticized the tests. Chancellor Christ said last month at an education symposium that she was “very much in favor of doing away with the SAT or ACT as a requirement for application,” because it contributed to the inequities of the system."...


"UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ: “We know California high schools really well. I’m not sure we do need a substitute test.”"
in this Cal Matters article on:
What could replace those tests?

there is this at UCSC,
At Regents meetings this other issue has come up with alumni groups squaring off against each other - with pro and con views on various capital building projects on various types of housing up for regents approval votes- and Regent M trying to mediate during Fin Cap committee meetings- and much of the regents discussion centered around graduate students with children and their needs  -- but now the crisis at UCSC seems to have hit the fan
" UCSC grad students strike, saying they will withhold grades until given a raise to afford housing
Action comes without union authorization; participation, impacts remain unclear"

more here:
it reads as follows:
"UC Davis solidarity with UCSC striking grad students
We UC Davis graduate students, undergraduate students, campus workers, and alumni fully support the striking graduate students at UC Santa Cruz and their demands for a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) in one of the most expensive areas to live in the world(1). Graduate students perform essential labor for the university, teaching classes, grading assignments, and helping students in office hours. The University administration knows exactly how much we get paid and how much housing costs, and yet for countless years now they have refused to do anything to alleviate the crisis at Santa Cruz, at Davis, and beyond. 

At UC Davis in 2014 the administration emptied out Orchard Park, one of only two affordable housing complexes on campus, and the lot on Russell Boulevard has since sat vacant. Meanwhile, 7% of UC Davis students, 2,400 in total, faced homelessness at some point last year, with hundreds having to sleep in their cars(2). The UC administration has also tried to vacate the last remaining affordable housing complex, Solano Park, and they have only been stopped by student protests. During this time they have convened committee after committee to investigate the housing issue, but they keep getting an answer they don’t want to hear: that affordability is the number one issue concerning us and that they can’t charge us more for rent than they pay graduate student workers in a year. In response, they just scrap the findings and form a new committee the next year. 

In 2010 the UC Office of the President itself released a report saying that for the first time in UC history the majority of accepted graduate students have chosen a competitor school over the UC, and the #1 reason was pay and cost of living(3). UC graduate programs are becoming less competitive, and the UC’s only response has been to fight graduate student workers at the bargaining table to keep our pay down, first in 2013-14 and again in 2018.

So after nearly a decade of the UC administration knowing the nature and extent of the problem and opposing every opportunity to do something about it, it seems that the situation has reached a tipping point at UCSC, and graduate students there have bravely and fiercely stated “No COLA, No Grades!” We, the below signed graduate students, undergraduate students, campus workers, and alumni fully support the grade strike of the UCSC graduate students, and we hope their action can lead to a prompt response from the administration to truly solve the housing crisis across the UC.

(1)Business Insider reports Santa Cruz in the 7th most expensive city to live in in the world, in 2018. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-expensive-cities-to-live-in-around-the-world-in-2018-2018-1
(2)Davis Vanguard reporting on UC Davis Student Housing Affordability and Insecurity Report for 2017-18. https://www.davisvanguard.org/2019/06/study-shows-18-of-uc-davis-students-face-housing-insecurity-or-homelessness/
(3)Daily Cal reporting on the UC Office of the President report and the UAW 2865 response. https://www.dailycal.org/2013/11/05/student-workers-union-report-claims-quality-uc-education-decline/

also don't miss:
"The massive triumph of the rich, illustrated by stunning new data"
..."the subject of “The Triumph of Injustice,” a great new book by Zucman and fellow Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez. "

Sunday, December 8, 2019

UC Regents Meeting December 10th- Health Committee- Where is that Title IX Report University of California said it made public last Thursday?

Daily Bruin also says the report was made public as well , but Daily Bruin does not provide a link to the public report or point to where it is:
"Title IX report finds former UCLA doctor James Heaps engaged in sexual assault"

this also references the report being released to the public on last Thursday but does not point to it in any way:

But this interview with thrree of the complainants did happen on last Thursday along with a proceeding:

"behavior of a prominent UCLA Health gynecologist during an exam with a married mother of four amounted to sexual assault and harassment, according to an investigative report by the university made public Thursday. "
"Former UCLA Health gynecologist’s behavior with patient constituted sexual assault, report finds"
..."“They say one thing and do another,” Kavinoky said. “UCLA makes promises and assurances to the Los Angeles community that they’re doing the right thing, and in fact what this evidence shows is they attempted to sweep this under the rug and put women in harm’s way while they were doing it.”
"Such investigative reports typically take universities no more than a year to complete, a Title IX expert told The Times.
In a statement, UCLA said there were several complicating factors for why the investigation took almost two years to complete — including that this was the first time since Title IX’s inception in 1972 that UCLA conducted such an investigation involving a physician and patient in a clinical setting. “Second, since Dr. Heaps claimed that his actions were medically appropriate, we had to consult an expert outside medical review team to provide an independent analysis and judgment,” the university’s statement reads."

- that takes two years?!

it goes on: ..."The patient whose complaint started the investigation — and later led to Heaps’ arrest — said in an interview with The Times that UCLA’s handling of the investigation made her feel like they wanted to protect Heaps, not her. 
She was surprised a few weeks ago to find the 16-page Title IX investigative review in her mailbox after not hearing from the university after her initial interview in early 2018. 
“I respected UCLA — I respected them,” she said. “That’s why I had all my kids there. I wanted to send my kids to UCLA. I wanted to go to UCLA .... I’ve always just loved the Bruins.”"...

that report released last Thurs made public where?
"And the link is where?"
as others- even those at UCLA familiar with their content- also continue to ask..

--all this part of CA openness that gets mentioned, touted routinely but many times incurs more hurdles than reported -or a tranparency that never materializes- and frequently does not occur for complainants, particularly Title IX complainants, seeking the information...

(This article is copublished with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power.)
"Many Public Universities Refuse to Reveal Professors’ Conflicts of Interest"
see how it is touted even in this section  here:
"Several of the largest and most prestigious state higher-education systems have some of the most stringent rules and best public access to records.

California has multiple layers of conflict-of-interest and outside-employment reporting, and all disclosures are considered public records. We received nearly 2,600 forms from all 10 of the University of California’s campuses, documenting the payments that faculty received from the private and public sponsors of their research."

--but then if so much transparency then why is UC behavior coming as such a shock  to CA as part of the revelations on that ProPublica new report series?! 
other news:
"Union petitions UC to support Iranian students"
and, on this-just generalities:

If you want some specifics see:
it appears that the student is over the age of 15-16, so not exactly a tween or younger...
Back to the top item, all UC regents are supposedly allowed to sit in n this committee if they so desire- it will be interesting to see who attends and participates in the UC Regents Health Committee meets on December 10th ...

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

See: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/dec19.html


oh, and: "Can California save higher education?"

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 http://www.calchannel.com/tag/california-assembly/
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?"

Read: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article234052862.html
"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 http://dailybruin.com/2019/11/25/california-college-capacities-cant-accommodate-rising-application-rates-study-finds/

pointed to it previously but here again:
Report : https://collegefutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Making-Room-for-Success_2019Oct.pdf

-- 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.