 |
| Conflict on display |
At yesterday’s legislative hearing on the audit of UC (really of
UCOP), it seemed that the state auditor put a panoply of conflicts on display –
but, as I will indicate below – one conflict was missing. When the state
auditor testified, a significant thrust of her testimony was that the Office of
the UC prez had interfered with the audit by in a sense intercepting audit
surveys at the campus level and altering or influencing results. Was she really
shocked and appalled by what occurred? Not sure. She backed away when
legislators asked if UCOP’s conduct was criminal. But conflict #1 was, of course, the auditor vs. UCOP.
Obviously, campuses and chancellors generally like more
autonomy (and don’t like paying a de
facto tax to support UCOP). How did the auditor find out about the
interference? Undoubtedly, someone at the campus level made sure she did. So conflict #2 was UCOP vs. the campuses.
Conflict #3 was
legislative authority vs. UC constitutional autonomy. Legislators find
themselves in a different position regarding UC than with other state entities.
Other things equal, they want more control and resent the fact that the Regents
seem to supplant them. So any hint of wrongdoing by the autonomous UC reinforce
the idea that the legislature should have more control. The place where the
legislature does have control is the budget. So the auditor suggested that maybe
the legislature should separately allocate money to UCOP as opposed to the rest
of UC (essentially the campuses).
Conflict #4 was UCOP
vs. the Regents. The auditor indicated that since the Regents are supposed
to be the ultimate governors of UC, they shouldn’t allow UCOP to hide funds
from them. They should be more actively engaged in managing UC. (And if they
don’t/can’t, the auditor hinted, as per conflict #3, maybe the legislature
needs to step in.)
Conflict #5 is
internal to the legislature’s political make-up: supermajority Democrats vs.
minority Republicans. The latter look for something – anything! – that will
get them some attention. So they are the ones who want criminal investigations,
etc. In the polarized legislature, what Republicans see as an opportunity
causes Democrats to shrink back. Old timers will remember the (good old?) days
when Republicans, such as Gov. George Deukmejian, liked UC which they saw as
promoting economic development. But we’re not in Deukmejian-land anymore, Toto.
There is a sixth conflict that wasn’t much developed
(although a couple of legislators hinted that they understood it) and it is a
conflict internal to each legislator. Legislators want their constituents’ kids
to be able to get into UC and to do so cheaply (low tuition) at the
undergraduate level. But if you look at UC mainly as an undergraduate mill
turning out BAs, it is clearly more expensive per student than CSU. What was
not explored was WHY constituents want their kids to get into UC – as opposed
to CSU. The paradox is that what gives UC prestige as a place for
undergraduates to go is all the activity that goes on – research, graduate
level and professional programs – that are tangential to the undergraduate
program. For all its faults, and there are many, the UC setup (constitutional
autonomy, Regents, emphasis on things that are not undergraduate education) is
what makes legislators’ constituents want to get their kids into UC.
You can read about what happened at the hearing from various
news sources. Bottom line: UC prez Napolitano said she was sorry for the interference
(inadvertent, of course). UC Regents chair Lozano said the Regents would
investigate what happened:
 |
| Sorry about that |
Video of the entire four and a half hour hearing is at:
Bottom line: UC prez Napolitano apologized
for the interference (inadvertent, of course). UC Regents chair Lozano said the
Regents would investigate what happened. Both are sorry:
No comments:
Post a Comment