Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Health and Finance UC Regents committees meet

And some of the newly appointed UC Regents sat in or were already assigned to committees- the finance committee highlighted once again that UCOP has an unclear role -some Regents said UCOP is akin to corporate headquarters for UC and other Regents said UCOP is a service

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

More push back on how UC Regents are continually appointed in a process that does not follow existing policies. Also- More than 'fitness freebies' downplay spin?

"Former UC Berkeley employee told to lie on taxes, per lawsuit
The woman alleges she was asked to do personal chores for the chancellor’s family."

See coverage of this meeting in DC:
Dianne Feinstein defends Janet Napolitano, Berkeley during Senate hearing on campus free speech

This gets into
Accounting and Conflicts, and multiple failed decades long attempts to enforce existing rule on the UC Regents appointment process, see:

How to Improve Board of Regents Selection? Use the Existing Process

" Request that the Senate insist that the California Constitution be followed when nominating Regents to the University of California

Dear Pro Tem de León,

On June 10, 2017, the San Francisco Chronicle published a front page story, “Are governors ignoring law when appointing UC regents?”[1] reporting that Governor Jerry Brown recently nominated four people to the Board of Regents of the University of California without following the process specified by Article 9 Sections 9d and 9e, which requires consultation with a broad-based committee whose purpose is to ensure that the Regents are “broadly reflective of the economic, cultural, and social diversity of the State.” As the San Francisco Chronicle stated in its June 12 editorial “Follow the law, Gov. Brown,”[2] “California’s Constitution is not a list of suggestions for our elected leaders. In a society subject to the rule of law, its provisions must be followed.”

With the ongoing controversies about the Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President that the Regents oversee, having an effective Board of Regents committed to high quality, accessible, and affordable higher education in California is more important than ever.

We are particularly concerned that the majority of the Regents and of Governor Brown’s latest nominees continue to be dominated by an economic, cultural, and social elite that is not broadly representative of the diversity of the State. In addition, some Regents, including some now nominated, have been invested in privatized higher education and so could benefit financially by the failure of UC in particular and public higher education in general.

If the University of California, as a public institution, administered by the Regents as a public trust, is to further the aspirations of outstanding students from all populations in our state, then the Regents need to be more representative than they currently are of all Californians and the interests of the public.

A more representative Board of Regents would have likely done a better job of assuring accountability of the UC Office of the President and given a higher priority to vigorous efforts to restore high quality, accessible, and tuition-free higher education to the people of California as envisioned in the California Master Plan for Higher Education. A recent report that we and other organizations released through the Reclaim coalition, The $48 Fix,[3] shows that this goal is achievable in California yet there has been no discussion of restoring the Master Plan by the current Board of Regents. The fact that it is dominated by wealthy interests for whom the steadily increasing costs would not be a practical problem may help explain the lack of urgency in building the confidence of the public and policymakers needed to restore tuition-free education at UC.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the Rules Committee enforce the California Constitution by immediately rejecting (without prejudice) the Governor’s nominees.[4] Regent terms begin as soon as the Governor nominates them, so these improperly nominated Regents can vote on issues at the upcoming Regent’s meeting unless the Senate Rules Committee acts quickly to reject them.

We also request that the Constitutionally-required advisory committee be more than a pro forma process and that the Senate state that it will only consider Regent nominees that have been vetted through an open public process. Meetings should be conducted in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Act, including proper public notices of meetings with opportunities for public comment. The rejection of the current slate should not preclude these candidates from being considered in the future via the proper advisory committee process.

Geographical diversity is important. On June 13, the Modesto Bee expressed concerns about the uneven geographic distribution of the current Regents, and that the current slate of nominees does not remedy this problem.[5] For this reason we urge the Senate to require that the advisory committee not simply meet in Sacramento, but hold meetings around the state to collect input and suggestions.

Such a discussion would also provide an opportunity to hear from California students, their families, and other interested parties on the future of UC and what needs to be done to reclaim the California Master Plan for Higher Education.

Thank you for your consideration.

Stanton Glantz
On behalf of the Board of the Council of UC Faculty Associations
And this reminder of UC Regents meetings taking place tomorrow:

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Deal on Middle Class Scholarship Program and assessments for UC PATH, more

New state budget deal punishes UC president’s office

"A rejection of Brown’s plan to phase out the Middle Class Scholarship program at the University of California and California State University. Instead, the scholarship program would be kept and Cal Grants would increase to cover rising fees at campuses.


"We have talked repeatedly about the need for oversight,” Rendon said. “We take our accountability role seriously.”
The main budget bill, AB97, sends $296.4 million for Napolitano’s office in the upcoming fiscal year that begins July 1 and another $52.4 million for UC Path, the university’s payroll and human resources system.
In the past, the state gave that money to campuses, which were then charged campus assessment fees by Napolitano’s office. That indirect state funding gave the president’s office exclusive control over how to spend that money. Under the deal, the state would instead directly send money to Napolitano’s office and require UC to eliminate the campus fees, so that lawmakers could oversee and control how that money is spent. UC opposed the change, which would be for one year. Lawmakers could decide during budget negotiations next year whether to continue the oversight of Napolitano’s budget.
Lawmakers moved to wrest control of spending by Napolitano’s office after a state audit found a litany of problems there, including hidden funds and misleading accounting practices. The budget bill also includes other strings on the president’s office, such as barring it from providing supplemental retirement payments for new senior administrators.
The state would withhold $50 million in funding if UC doesn’t fix financial problems the state auditor identified in the review.
“After the findings of the auditor, we decided to take action,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco. “We will be providing greater oversight.”"

"Now it turns out that even the process by which the regents themselves are chosen has a tremendous transparency problem."

SF Chronicle:"Follow the law, Gov. Brown"

"But it seems the governor isn’t following this provision of the state Constitution.

Six advisory committee members whom The Chronicle were able to reach said they haven’t been consulted in the selection of any of the governor’s regents.

Instead, they were told who the new regents would be shortly before the governor’s public announcement.

The governor’s office said he “welcomes input” from the committee before issuing the public announcements.

Brown may not be alone in ignoring this state constitutional provision.

According to our interviews with previous advisory committee members, previous governors also failed to consult with them on regent selections. Some previous members said the committee had failed to meet during their tenures and questioned whether it had ever met at all.

This oversight failure has had a negative outcome on the regents board. The 18 appointed regents fit a specific profile: wealthy executives, financiers or attorneys.

Considering this narrow milieu, some of their recent tone-deaf decisions, like charging the university thousands of dollars for pricey parties and dinners, make more sense. But it’s inappropriate behavior in a state with high poverty rates and a struggling middle class. These are precisely the kinds of reasons why voters want more public accountability — as they decided in 1974.

Most importantly, California’s Constitution is not a list of suggestions for our elected leaders.

In a society subject to the rule of law, its provisions must be followed. The state’s courts may have to correct this, and we urge them to look into it."


Monday, June 12, 2017

UC Regents Committees Meet June 21

June 21 - Finance and Capital Strategies Committee
Agenda – Open Session
F1 Discussion Review of Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget for Office of the President

June 21 - Health Services Committee
Agenda – Open Session
Public Comment Period2 (20 minutes)
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of April 13, 2017
H1 Discussion Remarks of the Executive Vice President – UC Health
H2 Discussion UCSF Health Budget Overview, San Francisco Campus
H3 Discussion Student Health and Counseling Update


Will those four appointed but unconfirmed regents begin sitting in on and participating in UC Regents Committees meetings , or at the July full board meeting ? Those appointed UC Regents are allowed to participate in UC Regents meetings even before/until/or even if they are not confirmed by the CA Senate rules committee for a full year, so...