Unusual Off-Cycle Regents Meeting - Part 3

We have been posting about the unusual off-cycle meeting of the Regents coming up later this week which seems primarily aimed at dealing with the controversy over the relationship with Dignity Health. Dignity is a Catholic hospital chain which, for religious reasons, will not perform certain procedures such as abortion. 

It appears, based on the recommendations from President Drake, that the motion before the Regents will be to approve continuing the relationship (and others like it) with various safeguards. Below are some excerpts from the document sent to the Regents:

...President Drake’s recommendation also reflects his optimism that carefully regulated engagement with covered organizations will improve health care access and avoid recurrence of the administrative deficiencies that resulted in the problematic contractual arrangements discussed in the attached Appendix, and his acknowledgement of the fact that a ban on such affiliations would not enhance access to restricted services for a single Californian... [p. 2]

...The University recognizes that such restrictions limit services for women, LBGTQ+ people, and those facing death, and therefore are not aligned with UC values. However, affiliations with organizations that have adopted such policies (collectively “covered organizations” ...) also provide thousands of patients with access to UCH providers they would not otherwise encounter, thus expanding clinical access, and make available opportunities for critical educational rotations that the University is unable to offer on its own... [p. 3]

...There is near universal agreement among consulted stakeholders that covered organizations must not be granted responsibility or authority to operate or manage University facilities on behalf of the University. While the University may purchase services from such organizations, such purchased services must be subject exclusively to University policies... [p. 4]

...Many stakeholders opposed to affiliations with covered organizations (or at least those organizations subject to religious directives) suggest that University personnel and trainees – as well as affiliate personnel working with them at affiliate sites – must be affirmatively exempted from any restrictions on care that are based in religion. Because such organizations are not permitted by their sponsors to accept such conditions, that position would amount to an actual ban on those affiliations and would not serve to effectively advance the University’s values... [p. 5]

Full document at https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/june21/b1.pdf.

It would be unusual for the Regents to reject the recommendation of the UC president (the president they recently hired). There could be amendments to the recommendation, however. Public comments are likely to be extensive. And there could be dissenting votes.