The Pay and Benefits Man

From UCNet:

UC Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Rachael Nava made the following announcement:

Dear Colleagues, 

Following an extensive nationwide search, I am pleased to announce that Calvin W. Turner has been selected as the vice president of Systemwide Shared Services (VP SWSS), effective August 10. 

This is a critical role on my senior leadership team and an important next step in the evolution of UC Operations. It reflects our continued work to build a more integrated, strategic approach to serving UC employees and retirees. 

In September 2025, I announced the formation of SWSS, uniting UCPath and the UC Retirement Administration Services Center (RASC) under one leader.  This was an intentional step toward strengthening coordination across these critical functions, creating greater alignment in how we deliver services, and building a shared-services organization positioned to meet the evolving needs of the university. 

With approximately 600 dedicated UCOP employees supporting employees and retirees across the UC system, strong and sustained leadership for this organization is essential. I am very pleased that Calvin will lead this next phase of our work. 

Calvin brings deep expertise in shared services, operational leadership and organizational transformation to this role. He started his UC career in 2021 as the executive director of UCPath. Since October 2025, he has also served as the interim VP of SWSS.  

Before UC, he was the director of the National Finance Center (NFC), a leading federal shared-services provider supporting payroll, human resources, financial, insurance and administrative services. NFC provides payroll, HR, financial and administrative services to more than 650,000 employees in 170 agencies, and health insurance services on behalf of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to the entire federal civilian workforce and tribal organizations.  

As NFC Director, Calvin successfully ensured continuity of business operations through natural disasters and unprecedented government shutdowns, while simultaneously growing NFC’s customer base, implementing operational improvements and launching organizational transformation initiatives to improve transparency and customer service.  

Prior to joining NFC, Calvin had more than 20 years of banking leadership experience at Hancock Whitney Bank, Hibernia National Bank (now CapitalOne) and the Federal Reserve Bank, and he was also previously an associate instructor with the University of Phoenix at the New Orleans campus. Calvin has a master’s degree in public administration and an undergraduate degree in business management and communication. Calvin will continue to be based in Riverside, California, and will travel to Oakland and all UC locations periodically. 

Over the coming months, Calvin will continue engaging leaders and staff across UCPath, RASC, UCOP and the broader UC system to further develop a strategic roadmap for SWSS, advancing our vision for a more connected and effective service experience for UC employees and retirees across the full journey from “hire” through “retire.” This work will also focus on strengthening operational excellence, accountability and service across UC Operations. Calvin will also launch a search for the executive director of UCPath. 

I would like to thank the search advisory committee for their tremendous effort and helpful insights during this process: 

• Ahmet Palazoglu, Chair, Systemwide Academic Senate and Distinguished Professor, UC Davis
• Erin Gore, Senior Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration, UCSF
• Kurt Schnier, Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer, UC Merced
• Dianna Henderson, Vice President of Human Resources, UCOP
• Van Williams, Vice President of Digital Innovation and Technology, UCOP  
• Christine Lovely, Chief Human Resources Officer, UCLA
• Caín Díaz, Associate Vice President, Budget Analysis and Planning, UCOP
• Marisa McAuliffe, Chief Policy Advisor, President’s Executive Office

In addition, my thanks to several other colleagues who advised on this search: 

• Amy Block Joy, Professor Emerita and Chair-Elect, Council of UC Emeriti Associations
• Susan Abeles, Chair, Council of UC Retiree Associations
• Jenny Kao, Vice President and Chief of Staff to the President
• Nathan Brostrom, UC Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

I also want to share my gratitude for the executive search team from Isaacson, Miller, as well as Pamela Wu and Quincy Kinsey in Systemwide HR’s Executive Search and Recruitment Team, who provided support for this search. 

Please join me in congratulating Calvin on this well-deserved appointment. I look forward to working with him and all of you as we continue building a stronger, more integrated UC Operations organization that serves the university with excellence. 

Sincerely, 

Rachael Nava 

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 

University of California

===

Source: https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/employee-news/calvin-w-turner-appointed-vice-president-of-systemwide-shared-services/.

7.25 > 6.75

July 30, 2026

Nathan Brostrom

Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, UC Finance

Re: Recommendation to Increase the Actuarial Rate of Return for UCRP

Dear CFO Brostrom:

At the July 22, 2026 meeting, the Academic Council unanimously endorsed the recommendation of the University Committee on Faculty Welfare (UCFW) and its Task Force on Investments and Retirement (TFIR) to increase the assumed actuarial rate of return for the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) from 6.75% to 7.25%.

Council first reviewed the proposal at our June 2026 meeting, when TFIR presented its analysis of UCRP’s long-term investment performance, funding position, and cash flows. TFIR concluded that the current assumption is unnecessarily conservative and increasing it to 7.25% would better reflect expected long-term returns, reduce unnecessary contribution requirements, and preserve resources for the University’s core mission without reducing pension benefits.

Before taking action, Council asked the University Committee on Planning and Budget (UCPB) to review the proposal. UCPB subsequently endorsed the proposed increase, while emphasizing the importance of adhering to Regents Policy 5601. Council agreed that UC should follow the policy’s established mechanisms for adjusting contributions when investment performance differs from actuarial assumptions and that future funding shortfalls should not be addressed by shifting additional costs to University employees.

Council recognizes that the actuarial rate is a long-term planning assumption rather than a guarantee of future investment performance.

Nevertheless, Council concluded that the evidence presented by TFIR supports the proposed 7.25% rate and that maintaining an unnecessarily conservative assumption carries substantial opportunity costs for UC.

I am forwarding the attached UCFW-TFIR proposal and UCPB endorsement for your consideration as the University reviews the actuarial assumptions governing UCRP Sincerely,

Ahmet Palazoglu

Chair, Academic Council

cc: Academic Council, Chief Investment Officer Bachher, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Nava, Vice President Henderson, UCFW Chair Bales, TFIR Chair Hollenbach, UCPB Chair Brosnan, Senate Division Executive Directors, Senate Executive Director Lin

===

Comment:

The important thing to note is that changing assumptions about the future does not change the future. The actual rate of return that will occur in the future depends on the investment strategy (the mix of assets held by the plan) and future financial market conditions. From the TFIR report:

"Changing the assumed rate of return does not change the actual return on investments; actual returns to the UCRP investment portfolio follow from the asset allocation policy set by The Regents and the returns those assets produce."

Note that the same can be said about liabilities of the plan which depend on policies regarding eligibility that may be enacted by future Regents, changes in life expectancy, changes in hiring and retirement behavior at UC, etc. Making assumptions about such matters in the future does not, by itself, change the actual future course of events.

Basically, being more conservative about assumptions requires more funding to achieve a planned 100% pension funding ratio. Being less conservative requires less funding, but increases the risk of underfunding. Although it is not explicitly stated in the report, in a period in which the funding model for UC is under strain, the attraction of being less conservative - even if it entails more risk - increases.

Yesterday's COLA

If you are receiving a UC pension that began before July 1, you should have received a 2% COLA (cost of living adjustment) increase as of yesterday. Yes, inflation is running above 2%, but the COLA formula does not provide complete protection against inflation above 2%.

The University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) COLA formula matches the annual increase in the California Consumer Price Index (CPI) up to 2%, plus 75% of the CPI increase exceeding 4%, up to a maximum adjustment of 6%.

Pension Payments at Risk - Part 3

We have been cautioning UC pensioners about a security breach whereby pension payments are diverted from the bank to which they are supposed to go to some other account held by a scammer.

More cases of such diversion are being reported. If you get a UC pension, your February payment should have been sent to your chosen bank over the past weekend. You should verify that the transfer occurred.

If you did not get your payment, notify RASC. See our prior post on this matter for contact information.* We have been told that UC will reimburse diverted payments - but how long that process might take is unclear.

--

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/01/pension-payments-at-risk-part-2.html.

Pension Payments at Risk - Part 2

In a previous post, we noted that there has been a security breach of some type whereby pension payments were diverted from the bank account to which they were supposed to go to a scammer's bank account.* 

Exactly how this breach occurred, and why the victims' were not immediately notified, remains murky.

The UC Retirement Administration Service Center (RASC) has now posted a warning on its website:

https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/employee-news/staying-safe-in-a-digital-world/

It instructs pensioners immediately to contact RASC and gives this contact information:

Contact RASC

1-800-888-8267 (international callers: 1-510-987-0200)
Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (PT)

--

NOTE: Apparently, it is assumed that scammers don't work evenings, nights, or weekends.

---

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/01/pension-payments-at-risk.html.

Pension Payments at Risk

CUCEA, the systemwide group of campus emeriti associations, became aware of a particular theft of a pension payment earlier this month. It appears that the theft may have been accomplished by someone indicating that he/she had forgotten the password and being given authority to change the password, bank to which the pension was deposited, etc. That is, the theft seems to have occurred without any high-tech breach. (Exactly what occurred is not clear at this time, however.) 

What appeared to be a single case of theft now seems to have occurred more widely. Excerpt from a message by the chair of CUCEA:

...There have been further reports of pension checks not arriving because of a security failure at UCRAYS. As a precaution, we strongly encourage retirees who receive pension checks to verify that their monthly payments have been distributed as expected. If your pension check does not arrive as anticipated, please contact UCRAYS and your campus retirement center as soon as possible and let CUCEA Chair Joel Dimsdale know as well (jdimsdale@ucsd.edu).

This situation is also a timely reminder to review and update your passwords. That updating process may be slower for UCRAYS in the near future as it tightens security.

The CUCEA board wrote UCOP January 13, 2026 advising them to:

1. Institute corrective training for RASC (retirement administration service center) personnel.

2. Disable telephone-based requests for password resets. We do understand that this will adversely affect RASC response times until security is enhanced, but it is necessary.

3. Perform a “lookback” on all password change requests since December 1 and communicate with those individuals.

4. Notify all retirees about the possible threats and advise them to take necessary actions.

We will be meeting with UCOP to review progress next week...

Exactly what is being done to reimburse the victims of these thefts is also unclear at this time.

No Retroactive Pension Payments for Delayed Filings

The Regents have won a court case (and won again on appeal of that case) in which two individuals eligible for a UC pension, but separated from UC, delayed applying after reaching age 60. When they finally did apply, they discovered that the UC pension plan takes the position that there is no retroactivity. You simply lose potential monthly benefits until you apply.

The court decision in favor of the Regents indicated that the Plan has no obligation to make retroactive payments in such cases. In one case, the individual received a letter indicating that after age 60, there was no obvious benefit in not applying. Apparently, it did not explicitly state that therefore the individual should apply to avoid forfeiting benefits. In the other case, it isn't clear that a letter was received. But either way, the court decision says there is no obligation of the plan to provide retroactive payments.

The details can be found at https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/crt-app-fir-dis-cal-div-fou/117878698.html.

It's hard to keep a good scandal down

Back last January, we noted that the Regents had for several years held closed-door meetings on the "Pension Administration Project," a mysterious topic title that appeared to involve a failed computer system project for pension administration.* Details were leaking out and appearing in popular news sources.

Now columnist Dan Walters seems to have stumbled on it:

From CalMatters: The University of California is one of the world’s most prestigious centers of higher education and cutting-edge medical, technological and social research. One assumes that its faculty and administrative cadre are saturated with extremely bright people. Nevertheless, UC has succumbed to a managerial disease that has afflicted other corners of state government — the chronic inability to successfully adopt information technology...

UC’s attempt to upgrade its pension system echoes that experience. As described in an article by Politico, a website devoted to politics: “In April 2019, the University of California unveiled a new computer program that school officials promised would overhaul its clunky, outdated system for disbursing pension payments to more than 150,000 former employees.

“Glitches and bad data, however, marred the launch, delaying payments and causing other problems. Now, six years later, the university is still embroiled in a bitter legal fight with the contractors it hired to build the system, claiming the companies repeatedly misled and defrauded the university.”

...Twelve years ago, UC officials awarded contracts to two companies, Sagitec Solutions and Linea Solutions, worth $28 million to upgrade the pension system’s outdated computer system. When the upgrade was tested a half-decade later, chaos erupted. Pension payments weren’t delivered on time, pension calculations were riddled with errors, UC retirees pelted the system’s administration with complaints, and the contractors and UC executives began pointing fingers of blame at each other.

...I once asked an acquaintance who sold computer software to state agencies why so many systems failed. He said bureaucrats often don’t know what they want and are rarely conversant about tech capability, leading to misunderstandings about what will be done...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/12/university-california-pensions-technology/.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/01/a-clue-to-ongoing-mystery.html.

Some UC Retirees Will Benefit

You might have seen the headlines about President Biden signing a bill liberalizing Social Security benefits for certain retirees.

Most UC employees will not benefit because back in the 1970s, the Regents "integrated" the UC pension system with Social Security. Anyone hired since integration is unaffected.

However, there are still retirees who were on the UC payroll at that time who elected not to integrate. At the time, given the structure of Social Security law back then, not integrating was the right decision for most of those employees. But when the windfall provisions that Biden just repealed came in, those retirees were subject to them and their Social Security benefits from non-UC employment (including self-employment) were cut.

Those employees/retirees that were subject to the now-repealed law will benefit.

Upcoming Retirement Benefit Changes

Because of changes in life expectancy, there will be changes for those retiring this coming July 1 and later in lump-sum cashouts and adjustments for contingent annuitants (typically spouses who receive benefits after the death of the retiree). If people live longer, the value of their stream of benefits increases. So the lump sum will go up. And the decrease in the monthly benefit of the retiree to pay for the contingent recipient will also go up, i.e., the monthly benefit of the retiree will go down.

Note: Retirees should think long and hard before selecting the lump-sum cashout, a choice which, among other things, means they will not receive retiree health insurance. 

From UCnet: At the July 2023 meeting of the University of California Board of Regents, the Regents approved changes to actuarial assumptions that could impact the future UC Retirement Plan (UCRP) benefits of certain employees, depending on their retirement date and options selected. These changes will not impact the retirement benefits of current retirees. While the Regents approved maintaining the current investment return assumption (e.g., discount rate) at 6.75%, there were modifications to the mortality assumption based on the findings that UCRP members and beneficiaries are continuing to live longer. These changes, informed by an experience study conducted by UCRP’s actuary, will go into effect on July 1, 2024.

These changes will not impact the calculation of Basic Retirement Income. However, for retirements on or after July 1, 2024, changes will be implemented in the calculations of the UCRP lump sum cashout and UCRP monthly retirement income for members and contingent annuitants... Generally, there will be decreases at many common retirement ages for the member and contingent annuitant. This will lead to lower benefits payable under these options for retirements on or after July 1, 2024...

Full news release at https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2024/03/factors-used-to-calculate-ucrp-payment-options-will-change-on-july-1-2024.html.

Does this make you nervous?

As blog readers will know, we have been following UC's bailout of the Blackstone Real Estate Trust (BREIT). From the Financial Times: 

Blackstone owes the University of California twice as much as it did last quarter as part of a complex transaction to shore up its flagship real estate fund. The world’s largest alternative asset manager promised UC an 11.25 per cent annual return from the property fund, called Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust, or Breit, as part of a deal to draw $4.5bn in new investment. But as the fund lost value last year, Blackstone’s liability to UC has grown to $560mn.

It underscores the financial risk Blackstone assumed to draw UC’s investment by promising high returns on property investments hit by rising interest rates. In late December 2022 and January 2023, Blackstone received a $4.5bn investment from UC that helped Breit meet a spate of redemption requests from other investors and shore up its liquidity. The new cash helped Breit avert a fire sale to meet the requests. To entice UC, Blackstone made a promise that Breit would achieve 11.25 per cent annualised returns over six years. The US private capital group pledged $1.1bn in Breit shares it owned to guarantee some of those returns. Since the UC investment, Breit’s redemption requests have dropped by about 80 per cent.

But Blackstone has had to record a liability to UC based on how far Breit has fallen below its return promises. In the fourth quarter, Blackstone more than doubled its liability to UC, raising it from $260mn at the end of the third quarter to $560mn by the end of 2023, according to a securities filing. Breit recorded a 0.5 per cent loss in 2023, its first annual loss since its launch in 2017, putting Blackstone significantly behind on its promised return. Breit’s value fell as Blackstone marked down some property investments. In addition, some interest rate hedges that had gained substantially in value lost ground amid rising expectations of interest rate cuts from the US Federal Reserve.

The annual losses in turn caused Blackstone’s liability to UC to increase. Though it is an accounting entry and no cash or assets are changing hands, the liability reflects the increased risk Blackstone may eventually have to forfeit some Breit shares it owns to the California-based endowment. If Breit’s performance soars in coming years, the liability could reverse or even turn into an asset...

Full story at https://www.ft.com/content/c057a8ff-0a9b-418b-80b3-0e66055af95c.

Mystery Item Again on the Regents' Agenda

From time to time, a mystery item appears on agendas of Regents meetings: "Pension Administration Project." No one will say exactly what it is, but it appears and reappears in closed-door sessions. The meetings this week are no exception. Does it have something to do with RASC and its varied problems? Something else?

If you are a fly on the wall at the closed-door session of the Compliance and Audit Committee on January 24th, do let us know what you find out.*

===

*https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan24/audit.pdf.

Tears for UC's (Now) Multi-Tiered Pension

Not much more to say...

Watch the Second Day of the Regents: Nov. 16, 2023

We are catching up with the second day of last week's Regents meeting. The morning board meeting of the second day of the Regents' November meetings (Nov. 16) consisted of public comments. Topics included graduate student housing, staff pay and health insurance costs, disabled students, the use of PhD students as TAs, undocumented student employment, antisemitism, anti-military programs and labs, divestment from Starbucks, anti-Israel, college admissions, divestment from Blackrock, and lactation stations. The meeting ended with an anti-Israel protest leading to clearing of the room.

In later sessions, the Health Services Committee approved a bonus for former health VP Byington. It was stated that such bonuses would not apply to subsequent health executives. 

At the board's second session, the USAC president reported on funding for CARE centers, transfer student issues, undocumented student employment, and students as parents. The grad student representative indicated a desire to work with the UC president and chancellors on Israel-Gaza issues. He endorsed UC-San Diego's decision not to prosecute student union workers after a demonstration on that campus. He also endorsed undocumented student employment by UC, mentorships for grad students, aid for disabled students, and improved emergency evacuation procedures for disabled students. 

President Drake reported that the issue of UC hiring undocumented students would require further study. Regent Pérez asked that Regental policies regarding faculty discipline be on the agenda in January.

At the Investments Committee, it was reported that from July 1 through the meeting, there had been a roughly zero return on pension and endowment investments. Hernandez asked about the Blackstone-REIT investment which CIO Bachhar defended citing the 11.25% return.

====

As always, we preserve the Regents' meetings indefinitely because the Regents have no policy on duration of retention. You can see the Nov. 16th sessions at the links below:

Board-Morning:

https://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/items/16-health-services-committee-board-investments/16-Board.mp4.

Health Services, Board, Investments:

https://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/items/16-health-services-committee-board-investments/16-Health%20Services%20Committee%2C%20Board%2C%20Investments.mp4.

The general web address for the Nov. 16th meeting:

https://archive.org/details/16-health-services-committee-board-investments.

Watch the Regents Morning Meetings of July 19, 2023

The morning meetings of the Regents last Wednesday began with public comments. These comments touched on co-generation at UC-Berkeley, the current hotel strike and UC investment in hotels via Blackstone, hiring by UC of undocumented students, the UAW dispute related to arrests at UC-San Diego, acquisition of St. Mary's hospital by UC-San Francisco, voting rights of students at UC-Merced if the campus is annexed by the City of Merced, transfer student issues, the Hawaiian telescope, repatriation of human remains, delays in receiving medical licenses, and a minimum wage at UC. Members of the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco appeared at the public comment session.

President Drake then spoke about the various U.S. Supreme Court decisions, notably on affirmative action and student aid. On the former, he offered UC's expertise in operating under Prop 209's ban on affirmative action. The new student regent-designate was introduced: Josiah Beharry of UC-Merced. 

At Finance and Capital Strategies, there was discussion of plans for the City of Merced to annex the campus. The discussion with city officials focused on charges for city services.

As we noted when the Regents' agenda was first announced, there was discussion of new actuarial assumptions of the pension plan was announced. In fact, about an hour was spent on this matter, even  though the real action item is to occur in November when the discussion will turn to funding the pension and its estimated unfunded liability. As we previously noted, the big drivers of the estimate of the unfunded liability - projected inflation and assumed rate of return over the long run - were unchanged. There was a small increases - relative to the size of the fund - in the unfunded liability, due it seems to assumed behavioral changes in employee retirement, etc. On the other hand, the normal cost of the plan - the amount of liability attributed to each year's operation - declined. (It appears that the decline is occurring because there are more people in the less-generous new tiers and fewer in the older tiers.)

The discussion of the pension assumptions was disappointing, in part because the discussion was siloed from the larger issue of total compensation. Regent Pérez went on about it being unfair that the people under the old tier had a contribution holiday and the more recent folks don't. But economic analysis would suggest that other elements of compensation would tend to adjust for that effect. 

Regent Makarechian seemed to want a "fix" for the unfunded liability (100% funding?) by November. That isn't going to happen. Regent Matosantos wanted a sensitivity analysis with higher rates of inflation. When it was pointed out to her that if you vary the assumption of inflation, you presumbably would want to account for inflation's effects on the long run rate of return and on assumed nominal salary growth. She seemed to want just a higher assumption of inflation with no effect on other variables. And Regent Pérez wanted an undefined discussion of fairness in November. In short, I am not looking forward to the November session.

When the discussion turned to the state budget, everything was said to be great. Now you could say that UC got as much as could be expected during a period of budget tightening. But that is not the same as great.

Finally, there was discussionn of UCPath. Both Pérez and Makarechian were unhappy with the report. The staff representative to the Regents noted that while increased measures of "satisfaction" were cited, that measure seemed to refer to individual employees who, say, were requesting a W-2 form. Middle managers who have to work with the system are still reporting "frictions." There was no clear answer given to the question as to whether UCPath is saving the promised amounts of money that were originally projected. Makarechian suggested looking at commercial payroll firms such as ADP that do payrolls for large employers for benchmarks. But there was no promise to do so. There was some clarifying discussion that pension administration was handled in another unit separate from RASC and a hint that RASC had problems. But it went no further than that.

Academic and Student Affairs began with discussion of various research institutes at UC, such as the California Policy Lab at UCLA and Berkeley. Basically, it was a show-and-tell session. The discussion then turned to the need to get out offers of financial aid quickly to accepted students. Finally, there was discussion of transfer students. It was noted that the decline in enrollment in community colleges resulting from the pandemic has made it more challenging for UC to admit and enroll targeted numbers of transfer students. 

====

We continue to preserve recordings of the Regents since the Regents have no policy in place concerning length of preservation. The general web address for the morning of July 19 can be found at:

https://archive.org/details/board-finance-and-capital-strategies-committee-7-19-23-am.

The board and finance and capital strategies is at:

https://ia802709.us.archive.org/2/items/board-finance-and-capital-strategies-committee-7-19-23-am/Board%2C%20Finance%20and%20Capital%20Strategies%20Committee%207-19-23%20am.mp4.

Academic and Student Affairs is at:

https://ia802709.us.archive.org/2/items/board-finance-and-capital-strategies-committee-7-19-23-am/Academic%20and%20Student%20Affairs%20Committee%207-19-23%20AM.mp4.

Pre-Retirement Webinars for Faculty & Staff in June

The UC Retirement System offers monthly webinars to help you plan for your retirement and answer your questions. There are three webinar presentations offered: Preparing for Retirement Retiree Health Benefits The UC Retirement Process – Step-by-Step

The Preparing for Retirement presentation will provide you with a broad overview of the retirement benefits offered by UC and will lay the foundation for the Retiree Health Benefits and UC Retirement Process presentations. To maximize your retirement planning process, it is recommended, but not required, that you attend the webinars in the order listed. Information on dates and times of webinars at: https://uc-rasc.cmail20.com/t/r-e-ttjilro-nlywkrthi-r/.

 

Pre-Retirement Webinars for Faculty & Staff in May

Active faculty and staff who are contemplating retirement may be interested in the webinars below:

===

Preparing for Retirement

For UCRP members who are planning to retire within the next five years including active members and vested inactive members of UCRP. We will cover topics such as understanding UCRP pension benefits, retirement savings and retiree health coverage. 

Date:  Tuesday, May 2, 2023

Time: 10:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Register:

https://fmr.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_2PZsUIS7QRGnxIV-UF5juw#/registration

===

Retiree Health Benefits

This webinar is intended for those considering retirement from UC within the next 4-12 months. We will review in detail the eligibility rules for retiree health coverage, your health plan options including Medicare coordination, how to determine your premiums and commonly asked questions.

Date:  Wednesday, May 17, 2023

Time: 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Register:

https://fmr.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_dy5cD_-ORKm5mRiuNbj3VQ#/registration

===

The UC Retirement Process – Step by Step

For UCRP members who are planning to retire within the next 4-12 months. We will explain everything you need to know about the retirement process, including required forms, important deadlines and helpful resources. 

Date:  Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Time: 5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Register:

https://fmr.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_kh7jOKBGSlC1Rg7K3tkIDw#/registration

===

Date:  Thursday, May 25, 2023

Time: 10:00a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

Register:

https://fmr.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_kh7jOKBGSlC1Rg7K3tkIDw#/registration

===

Thinking About Retiring or Already Retired? Watch This

There have been complaints over several years regarding the processing of retirements and of survivor benefits by the UC Retirement Administration Service Center (RASC). Issues have arisen involving delayed receipt of pension payments upon retirement, cancelled health insurance, etc., and inability to reach RASC by telephone or other means to deal with problems or to obtain information. Also, over the years, there have been efforts by UC to fix these problems. Yesterday, the UCLA Emeriti/Retirees Relations Center (ERRC) sponsored a Zoom program in which Michelle Estes, Client Relationship Manager, and Bernadette Y. Green, Executive Director of RASC, presented data on these concerns and information on changes being made to improve service.

You can see the program at the link below:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k9jY5N_0U8.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia804704.us.archive.org/3/items/new-year-outlook/rasc%20fix.mp3

Watch the Regents Afternoon Meeting of Nov. 16, 2022

We are finally catching up with the one segment of the Regents' meetings of November 16 and 17 we haven't previously discussed: the afternoon of November 16.

At the Investments Committee, there was discussion of the degree to which pension and endowment funds could be used for such things as student housing or university office space. When this item was first put on the agenda, yours truly suggested that if someone was looking for subsidies for such purposes, they were going to be disappointed. And, indeed, the legal analysis was that while pension and investment funds could contain real estate holdings that might be used by a campus, commercial market rates would have to be charged and such facilities would have to be open to all renters, not just those associated with the campus.

At Academic and Student Affairs, there were some changes in residency policy designed to follow revised federal and state legal requirements. Pandemic effects on the faculty were discussed. Not surprisingly, the emphasis was on the added work caused by the switch to remote instruction. Faculty generally feel that in-person learning is better. It was noted that there were direct and indirect negative effects on research.

The committee then turned to what was supposed to be an evaluation of required DEI statements for promotions and new hires. But - again as yours truly predicted - the discussion was all on inputs, not results. That is, there was discussion of the history of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) statements at UC, how they evolved, etc. Regent Park picked up the point that there was no discussion of results. How do we know the statements are not "performative"? There was a following segment on diversity of students and faculty, but the presentation was not related to the statements. 

The Governance Committee endorsed the appointment of a new secretary to the Regents. There were some changes to the appointment process for new campus chancellors. It was unclear, however, how concerns about faculty participation in the process were dealt with in the new process.

At Finance and Capital Strategies, UCLA received approval for renovations of the mid-Wilshire hospital and office building it had acquired to treat mental health patients. During the discussion of the UC budget, President Drake made a reference to the ongoing student worker strike and indicated that the pay demands were very costly. Apart from this brief remark, there was no discussion of the strike (except for what was heard in public comments).

There was a review of what was happening under the pension tier that began to be offered to new hires as of July 2016. Of new hires since then, 36% directly elected the pension choice option. Another 27% made no election and were thus defaulted into pension choice. For the remaining 37% who elected a defined contribution-only option, there is an option after five years to opt into pension choice. Of those within the 37% who actually became eligible at five years, 15% made the switch to pension choice. In short, the current system ends up with something around two thirds in pension choice. There was no discussion of whether this outcome was a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

As blog readers will know, we preserve recording of Regents meetings since the Regents delete them after one year. You can find the links below.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/nov%2016%20pm.mp3

===

Links to the meetings:

All afternoon sessions: https://archive.org/details/investments-committee

Investments: https://ia801409.us.archive.org/11/items/investments-committee/Investments%20Committee.mp4 [Note: Official recording is incomplete and starts several minutes into the program.]

Academic and Student Affairs: https://ia601409.us.archive.org/11/items/investments-committee/Academic%20and%20Student%20Affairs%20Committee.mp4

Governance: https://ia601409.us.archive.org/11/items/investments-committee/Governance%20Committee.mp4

Finance and Capital Strategies: https://ia801409.us.archive.org/11/items/investments-committee/Finance%20and%20Capital%20Strategies%20Committee.mp4

The Regents Next Week: Big Ten & Other Topics

A preliminary agenda for the Regents meetings of next week is now available and can be found below. The mysterious Pension Administration Project - no one seems to know what it is - will yet again be discussed behind closed doors in a closed session of the Compliance and Audit Committee. The project appears again and again on Regents agendas, always in closed sessions. Actuarial valuations of the various UC retirement plans will be discussed at the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee.

Finance and Capital Strategies will also be taking up the proposed Neuropsychiatric Replacement Hospital at UCLA.

Finally, after all the speculation, the UCLA move to the Big Ten conference will be discussed at a closed session of the full board on November 17. There will then be some action taken - or at least scheduled to be taken - at a following open session. Note that the closed discussion is labeled "Potential Legal Issues and Financial Impacts." Presumably, although we won't know for sure, this discussion will include the UC general counsel telling the Regents that, yes, they can override the campus decision that was taken pursuant to existing Regents' delegations of authority, but such a decision would invite costly litigation. What is not clear is what will be said about this in the open session that follows. Will the Regents just take a vote without any public discussion of the implications? We will see. 

As noted in a post yesterday, UC is apparently going to spend big bucks to defend its proposed name change for UC-Hastings.* Given the vast dollar sums entailed in the Big Ten move, the Regents could end up spending substantially more on outside legal bills were they to void the UCLA decision. A revenue-sharing decision with Berkeley would be less controversial, but it's not clear why that option needs to be discussed behind closed doors with just the decision in public. 

Agenda: November 16-17, 2022

===

Wednesday, November 16

8:30 am Board (open session - includes public comment session)  

Public Comment Period (30 minutes)

Remarks of the Chair of the Board

Remarks from Nobel Prize Recipient and UC Berkeley Professor David Card

Remarks of the President of the University

Remarks of the Chair of the Academic Senate

---

Concurrent Meetings:

9:30 am Public Engagement and Development Committee (open session)

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

P1 Discussion: November 2022 Election: Outcomes and Insights for the Year Ahead

P2 Discussion: Safeguarding Democracy in the 21st Century

P3 Discussion: UC Systemwide 2022 Civic Engagement Efforts  

---

9:30 am Compliance and Audit Committee (open session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

C1 Discussion: Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services Annual Report 2021-22

C2 Discussion: Annual Report of External Auditors for the Year Ended June 30, 2022

C3 Discussion: Fostering a Fair and Accountable Culture to Promote High Reliability in Health Care

---

Upon end of open session:

Compliance and Audit Committee (closed session) 

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

C4(X) Discussion: Annual Consultation with Regents’ Auditors Concerning Performance of University Personnel

C5(X) Discussion: Compliance and Audit Personnel Matters

C6(X) Discussion: Update on the Pension Administration Project 

---

12:30 pm Investments Committee (open session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 20, 2022

I-1 Discussion: Real Estate Investment Strategy Update

---

Concurrent Meetings:

12:50 pm Academic and Student Affairs Committee (open session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

A1 Action: Amendment of Regents Policy 3105 – Regents Policy on Residency and Payment or Waiver of Tuition, Non-Resident Supplemental Tuition and Mandatory Systemwide Fees

A2 Discussion: Achieving the Academic Mission: Academic Senate Survey of UC Faculty and Instructors and the Continuing Impact of the Pandemic in the 2021–22 Academic Year

A3 Discussion: Statements Describing Faculty Contributions to Inclusive Excellence

A4 Discussion: Accountability Sub-Report on Diversity

A5 Discussion: How UC Research Informs Academic Planning

---

12:50 pm Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (closed session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

F1(X) Action: Business Terms for the Public-Private Partnership Development of the Science Research Park, San Diego Campus

---

Upon end of closed session:

Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (open session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

F2 Action: Consent Item: Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for Site and Make-Ready Portion of the Project, UC Merced Medical Education Building, Merced Campus

F3 Action: Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Viterbi Family Vision Research Center, San Diego Campus

F4 Action: Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Neuropsychiatric Replacement Hospital, UCLA Health, Los Angeles Campus

F5 Action: Amendment of the Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Kresge College Non-Academic, Santa Cruz Campus

F6 Action: University of California 2022-28 Capital Financial Plan

F7 Action: University of California Financial Reports, 2022

F8 Action: Approval of the University of California’s 2023-24 Budget for Current Operations and State Request for Capital Projects

F9 Discussion: Annual Actuarial Valuations for the University of California Retirement Plan and Its Segments and for the 1991 University of California-Public Employees’ Retirement System Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program

F10 Discussion: Annual Actuarial Valuation of the University of California Retiree Health Benefit Program

F11 Discussion: Report of Budget to Actual Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Office of the President and First Quarter Fiscal Year 2022-23 Results

---

3:30 pm Governance Committee (closed session) 

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

G1(X) Discussion: Appointment of and Compensation for Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents

G2(X) Discussion: Exception for Moving and Relocation Expenses for Associate Vice President – Systemwide Controller, Office of the President

G3(X) Discussion: Collective Bargaining Matters 

---

Upon end of closed session:

Governance Committee (open session) 

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

G1 Action: Approval of Appointment of and Compensation for Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents as Discussed in Closed Session

G2 Action: Approval of Exception for Moving and Relocation Expenses for Associate Vice President – Systemwide Controller, Office of the President as Discussed in Closed Session

G4 Action: Amendment of Regents Policy 7102: Policy on Appointment of Chancellors

G5 Action: Amendment of Regents Policy 7701: Senior Management Group Appointment and Compensation 

===

Thursday, November 17

8:30 am Board (open session - includes public comment session)  

Public Comment Period (30 minutes)

Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of September 21 and 22, 2022

Remarks from Student Associations

---

9:15 am Board (closed session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of August 17 and September 22, 2022

B1(X) Discussion: UCLA Big Ten Membership – Potential Legal Issues and Financial Impacts

---

Upon end of closed session:

Board (open session)  

B2 Action: UCLA Big Ten Membership

B3 Discussion: Update on Implementation Progress of UC Community Safety Plan

B4 Discussion: Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Prevention, Response, and Complaint Resolution Programs

Committee Reports Including Approvals of Recommendations from Committees:

- Academic and Student Affairs Committee

- Compliance and Audit Committee

- Finance and Capital Strategies Committee

- Governance Committee (meetings of October 18 and November 16, 2022)

- Health Services Committee (meeting of October 19, 2022)

- Investments Committee

Public Engagement and Development Committee

Resolution in Appreciation

---

12:15 pm Joint Meeting: Academic and Student Affairs Committee & Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (open session)  

J1 Discussion: Overview of the Multi-Year Compact Between the Governor and the University of California

J2 Discussion: Strategic Campus Overview, San Diego Campus

---

Upon end of Joint meeting:

Board (closed session)  

B5(X) Discussion: Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Litigation Overview

---

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/nov2022.html.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/11/boutrous-dhillon-and-hastings.html.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below: 

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/prelim%20agenda%20nov.mp3