Friday, January 29, 2016

Listen to the Regents meeting of of Jan. 21, 2016

As promised, below is a link to the audio of the Regents meeting of January 21. As we have noted, the Regents “archive” their meetings for one year. We keep them indefinitely but that requires real time recording, i.e., one hour of meeting requires one hour of recording time. So we cannot always provide immediate posting.

The Jan. 21 meeting began with public comments. Topics included a teacher shortage in K-12, fossil fuel divestment, student housing costs, the student advisor proposal, and the Tier 3 pension proposal. In the case of the last, nurse representatives were especially adamant in opposition.

Editor's Note: Given the time frame and state labor law, if the nurses' union doesn't agree to a Tier 3 pension, it is doubtful that a legally-defined "impasse" could be declared soon enough for UC to implement the pension anyway by July 1 for nurses (or any other union group that fails to agree). Under state law, UC must bargain in good faith before changing the pension for any union group. So would newly hired faculty on July 1 get a degraded pension while unionized new hires don't? If UC tried to implement a Tier 3 pension for a unionized group without a legally-impasse on July 1, PERB would declare it an unfair labor practice and order the implementation undone retroactively.

The Committee on Educational Policy meeting was delayed briefly by noise as public commenters exited. The noise did not appear to be a demonstration but the mike was turned off. After the noise ended, the Committee had a presentation about CERN research including the UC component.

There were generally favorable remarks about the additional student advisor proposal which was eventually approved by the Committee on Governance. Questions were raised about why UC campus chancellors were not routinely in attendance at Regents meetings. (Chancellors tend to show up when they want something approved by the Regents – typically a building – for their campuses.)

Grounds and Buildings heard a presentation by UC-San Francisco about a $336 million building to be financed by gifts and “debt.” The proposal was incomplete and will return in March. Compensation packages were approved for athletic coaches and executives. Finally, UC prez Napolitano reported on various faculty awards.

You can hear the audio at the link below:


cloudminder said...

The Regents were complaining that the chancellors could not speak without being called upon ,and so when presentations are made on issues *about things happening on campuses especially* the chancellors cannot just enter into the discussion -they have to be called on by Regents in order to speak. Lansing and Blum asked Gould to take this issue up in the Governance committee and Gould said he definitely would have the committee begin work on the issue.
It may be true that attendance of chancellors at UC Regents meetings also needs to be looked at but that was not the issue the UC Regents were trying to raise during that section of the meeting.
In fact Lansing made comments about how Chancellors used to have a seat at the table-literally- now they are placed in a row on a right flank and left flank but not at the table with Regents. And that is true. They used to be seated at the table but on the far left and far right of the section were "presenters to the Regents" sit.

Certain Regents tend to mumble or use fragments so it can make their point of view sometimes unclear.

It was an important issue to raise.
It would have been very helpful to have chancellors respond on the admissions and diversity comments Regent reiss made etc, and nursing programs and tuition issue during this particular meeting-- rather that to just hear OP staff respond.
Just want to offer this clarification, thanks for raising that section of the meeting- it was important.

cloudminder said...

Perhaps arranging a row in the shape of a parentheses on the right and left side of the Regents table and seat designates,and nonvoting powers Regents could there with mic stands available to them, and the chancellors could be at a certain section of the UC Regents table with table microphones available to them as well.
A rule could be made that they are allowed to comment at any point after raising their hand and being called upon by the committee chair etc
That would be a more accurate physical representation of actual powers each member has, and it would be informative to the audience and the public.
Surely, the Secretary to the Regents, who makes $250,000.00 a year plus perks can offer them more suggestions.