We are again catching up with the Regents, this time for their second-day meeting of May 6. The meeting began with public comments covering disabled students, complaints about ERs being well-above capacity, support for the AFSCME negotiations,* lack of budget information for student government, revisiting the issue of hiring undocumented students by UC, student affordability and basic needs including housing costs and childcare, revisiting the issue of departmental political statements, two thank-yous to Regent Sures for statements on antisemitism, and divestment. There was a brief AFSCME protest at the end of the public comment session.
Grad student Valadez spoke about federal cutbacks, advocacy for a second student regent, and made a veiled criticism of an unnamed Regent. (This may have been Sures for the same reason he received praise in public comments.) Undergrad student rep Hariharan spoke about federal cutbacks, disabled student funding, Native American students, a need for ICE warnings on campus, and support for union workers.
There was then a presentation about the research "landscape" which included reference to federal cutbacks and support for the proposed state bond for research. There was an emphasis on medical research, scientific patents, and commercialization of such research and patents. Following that presentation was one on campus energy systems referencing emissions reductions, decarbonization over twenty years, and UC-Santa Barbara's purchases of renewable electricity and a new heating and cooling system. Regent Makarechian wondered whether new developments in small nuclear power plants should be considered.
In the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, some items were pulled off the consent calendar for more detailed discussion. These items included expenditure rates from the General Endowment Pool for UC usage and administrative purposes. Modified version of these items were approved although Milliken voted "no." Exactly what his concerns were was unclear. This episode seemed unusual. First, apparently controversial items were initially put on the consent calendar. Second, approval over opposition by the UC president - one newly appointed - would seem to be significant.
New student housing for UC-Santa Cruz sparked some controversy. Regent Makarechian, who has more knowledge of real estate development than many other regents, noted that with land costs for campus housing being zero, the proposed housing seemed expensive compared with the private sector (which has to deal with land costs). He also noted that the housing proposed was bare bones, with 3 in a room sharing a bathroom, unlike the private sector. Ultimately, he abstained from voting. UC-Santa Cruz spokespersons said the "geology" of the campus was more difficult than in the City of Santa Cruz. In contrast, a building for UC-San Francisco for hearing disorders was quickly approved.
Item F4 - suspension of STIP loans to the pension for a year - was approved without much discussion. Regent Cohen said that UC needed to have liquidity given the current budgetary pressures. The consultant/actuary noted that this suspension was not the first to occur and that going forward estimates of the calendar of pension funding would be made without assuming further STIP usage. This was another issue that seemed to merit more discussion than it got.
The final item was the UCOP budget. Makarechian asked about legal costs, given the current conflict with the feds. Were lawsuits aimed at particular campuses being handled at the systemwide or campus level? The answer he got was fuzzy. It was said that campus lawsuits that had systemwide implications would be handled at the systemwide level. But it was never clear which those were.
Regent Hernandez asked whether there was still funding for the Hawaiian Thirty-Meter Telescope (TMT). It was said by Nathan Brostrom that there was no cost at this time (although some funding had been set aside in the past), and that planning had shifted to the Canary Islands location. It was unclear if this shift was now a definite decision or just an option - but it sounded more like the former than the latter. If that is so, it is a Big Deal for the project. But this was again a matter than seemed to float by with little attention.
Academic and Student Affairs featured a review of UC's student programs in Washington, DC and Sacramento.
Public Engagement and Development had a report on state government relations. Note that this session occurred before the governor's May Revise budget proposal. There was discussion of the proposed research bond and repeated notes that the campaign in the legislature to put the bond on the ballot was being undertaken in cooperation with UAW. There is also support for a housing bond that might provide some student housing support. It was noted that UC can advocate for bills to put things on the ballot. But if they actually make it to the ballot, UC as an institution cannot provide support.
The May 6 meeting ended with full board approval of the various committee reports and tributes to various outgoing regents and representatives.
==
As always, we preserve recording of Regents meetings since the Regents have no policy on retention and their YouTube recordings are unlisted. You can find the May 6 meeting at:
==
*In a prior post last Tuesday, we noted that an AFSCME spokesperson indicated that UC wanted to push AFSCME-covered staff out of Kaiser and into UC providers.
No comments:
Post a Comment