As we do on slow news days, hear are photos of the new Anderson building going up as of this past week.
Maybe a lot of progress has been made since the last photos.* My untrained eye didn't see much, nor did I spot a lot of folks working on the structure during the business day. Anyone monitoring the progress?
===
*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2018/08/a-slow-day.html
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Another Slow Day
Friday, August 10, 2018
Halloween Comes Early
In today's email:
Dear Faculty:
Dear Faculty:
In anticipation of UCLA’s transition to UCPath, At Your Service Online (AYSO) will become ‘read-only’ starting August 30, 2018.
AYSO will be unavailable for self-service transactions due to the conversion to the UCPath Portal that will take place in early September. When logging into AYSO after August 30, you will only have access to view and download pay statements and W2’s, download employment verification, and view retirement information. You will also have the ability to update your beneficiary information, however all other functions, such as making changes or updates to your personal or payroll information, will be disabled.
Beginning September 23, 2018, all UCLA employees will have access to the UCPath Portal. Once you have access, you will use the UCPath Portal to change or update your personal information, access your pay statements, and view your benefits. Instructions for accessing the UCPath Portal will be provided in the coming weeks.
Please note that you will continue to access AYSO for historical and retirement information after UCPath goes live. Pay statements (previous 18 months) and W2’s for earnings before the UCPath Portal launch will remain available in AYSO.
If you need to make changes to your personal or payroll information between August 30 – September 23, 2018 you must contact the UCPath Center by calling (855) 982-7284 (Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.) to speak with an associate. Additionally, employment verification will also remain available on AYSO, however, if the information you see is not up-to-date, you should contact the UCPath Center.
Retirees are not impacted by the transition to UCPath. Retirees will continue to have access to AYSO as they do today and will be able to update their address, withholdings, direct deposit, etc. without interruption.
There are a couple of things active employees can do to prepare for these changes:
1.
|
If you haven’t already done so, log into AYSO and verify that your personal information is correct. The information in AYSO will be converted directly to UCPath.
| ||
2.
|
Ensure that you have a Single Sign-On (SSO). You will use your SSO to log into the UCPath Portal. The UCLA Logon ID is the SSO for all UCLA employees. If you are a Health Systems employee, you can also log in with your Mednet ID after you have created your UCLA Logon ID. To create a UCLA Logon ID, visit the UCLA Identity and Accounts Manager.
| ||
•
|
SSO requires Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). If you haven’t done so already, be sure to enroll in MFA. Visit the IT Security Office MFA at UCLA website for more information.
| ||
For more information about UCPath and what you can do to prepare, please visit the UCLA UCPath website.
We regret any inconvenience and appreciate your understanding of the changes that are necessary to support a smooth transition to UCPath.
Thank you,
UCLA UCPath Team
Another Cautionary Tale: This One from a Private University
A few days ago, we posted a cautionary tale from the University of Michigan - a public university - about providing due process in sexual harassment/assault complaint cases.* Here is one closer to home from a private university:
Court Revives Claremont McKenna Student's Appeal Over Sexual Misconduct Suspension
The Second District Court of Appeal held that in a case that turned on believing the accuser's version of conflicting accounts, the process should have included opportunities to hear from the accuser in person or by video conference and to ask her appropriate questions.
By Ross Todd | August 9, 2018 | Law.com
A California appellate court has revived the appeal of a Claremont McKenna College student who was suspended for a year for violating the school’s sexual misconduct policy.
The Second District Court of Appeal on Wednesday found that in cases “where the accused student faces a severe penalty and the school’s determination turns on the complaining witness’s credibility,” the fact-finding body should hear directly from the accuser. The court also determined that the accused should have the opportunity to question the accuser, even if only indirectly—an opportunity, wrote Justice Helen Bendix in Wednesday’s 29-page opinion, that “not exist here.”
The decision is the latest California appellate decision to shed light on the difficult task universities face in balancing accused students’ due process rights with concerns about protecting victims and campuses safety. The Second District previously held in 2016 that a University of Southern California football player hadn’t been given sufficient notice of the allegations against him or a fair hearing by the school before being suspended.
Alexander Cote of Scheper Kim & Harris in Los Angeles, who represents the John Doe Claremont McKenna student in the case, said that he was “grateful” that the court accepted his client’s arguments about how finders of fact should handle cases “where credibility is the key issue.”
“I think this opinion gives a lot of guidance to schools going forward so they’re fair to everybody, both for the accused and the accuser,” Cote said.
The events that led to Wednesday’s decision involving a male student who was a freshman at Claremont McKenna in the fall of 2014, referred to in the case as John Doe, and female student who was a freshman at neighboring Scripps College, referred to as Jane Roe. According to the final report from the school’s investigator, the two went back to John’s room one night in October of that year when both were drunk, began kissing and undressed each other. John left at some point to get condoms from outside his resident advisor’s room, but struggled to keep one on. From there, John and Jane’s accounts of the encounter diverge.
After Jane reported John to her school’s Title IX office four months after the encounter, the committee reviewing the case at Claremont accepted her contention that she didn’t consent to have unprotected sex. Committee members also found the fact that Jane sustained injuries during the encounter and sought medical treatment afterward corroborated her testimony that John became rough during sex, and that she had struggled to break free. The committee also found that John’s own words—that Jane didn’t seem “super into it” and that he couldn’t remember her verbally giving consent—weighed against him.
At the court of appeals, John’s lawyers argued that he was denied a fair hearing since neither he nor the Committee asked any Jane questions, and there was no basis for the committee to evaluate her credibility.
“We agree that Jane’s not appearing at the hearing either in person or via videoconference or other means deprived John of a fair hearing where John faced potentially serious consequences and the case against him turned on the Committee’s finding Jane credible,” wrote Bendix, who was joined in her decision by Second District colleagues Victoria Gerrard Chaney and Laurie Zelon.
Apalla Chopra of O’Melveny & Myers, who represents the school in the case, directed a request for comment to a Claremont McKenna spokesman. Peter Hong, associate VP for public affairs and communications at the school, said in an email that the college is currently reviewing the opinion to determine next steps, including a potential appeal to the California Supreme Court.
“Claremont McKenna College is committed to protecting the civil rights of all members of our community, which includes responding appropriately to all complaints of sexual misconduct, and providing all parties involved in such complaints with access to a grievance process that is fair, prompt, and equitable,” Hong said. “The College firmly believes that the grievance process followed in this case met or exceeded relevant legal requirements for expectations under federal and state law.”
Source: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/08/09/court-revives-claremont-mckenna-students-appeal-over-sexual-misconduct-suspension/
===
*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2018/08/cautionary-tale-from-another-public.html
Court Revives Claremont McKenna Student's Appeal Over Sexual Misconduct Suspension
The Second District Court of Appeal held that in a case that turned on believing the accuser's version of conflicting accounts, the process should have included opportunities to hear from the accuser in person or by video conference and to ask her appropriate questions.
By Ross Todd | August 9, 2018 | Law.com
A California appellate court has revived the appeal of a Claremont McKenna College student who was suspended for a year for violating the school’s sexual misconduct policy.
The Second District Court of Appeal on Wednesday found that in cases “where the accused student faces a severe penalty and the school’s determination turns on the complaining witness’s credibility,” the fact-finding body should hear directly from the accuser. The court also determined that the accused should have the opportunity to question the accuser, even if only indirectly—an opportunity, wrote Justice Helen Bendix in Wednesday’s 29-page opinion, that “not exist here.”
The decision is the latest California appellate decision to shed light on the difficult task universities face in balancing accused students’ due process rights with concerns about protecting victims and campuses safety. The Second District previously held in 2016 that a University of Southern California football player hadn’t been given sufficient notice of the allegations against him or a fair hearing by the school before being suspended.
Alexander Cote of Scheper Kim & Harris in Los Angeles, who represents the John Doe Claremont McKenna student in the case, said that he was “grateful” that the court accepted his client’s arguments about how finders of fact should handle cases “where credibility is the key issue.”
“I think this opinion gives a lot of guidance to schools going forward so they’re fair to everybody, both for the accused and the accuser,” Cote said.
The events that led to Wednesday’s decision involving a male student who was a freshman at Claremont McKenna in the fall of 2014, referred to in the case as John Doe, and female student who was a freshman at neighboring Scripps College, referred to as Jane Roe. According to the final report from the school’s investigator, the two went back to John’s room one night in October of that year when both were drunk, began kissing and undressed each other. John left at some point to get condoms from outside his resident advisor’s room, but struggled to keep one on. From there, John and Jane’s accounts of the encounter diverge.
After Jane reported John to her school’s Title IX office four months after the encounter, the committee reviewing the case at Claremont accepted her contention that she didn’t consent to have unprotected sex. Committee members also found the fact that Jane sustained injuries during the encounter and sought medical treatment afterward corroborated her testimony that John became rough during sex, and that she had struggled to break free. The committee also found that John’s own words—that Jane didn’t seem “super into it” and that he couldn’t remember her verbally giving consent—weighed against him.
At the court of appeals, John’s lawyers argued that he was denied a fair hearing since neither he nor the Committee asked any Jane questions, and there was no basis for the committee to evaluate her credibility.
“We agree that Jane’s not appearing at the hearing either in person or via videoconference or other means deprived John of a fair hearing where John faced potentially serious consequences and the case against him turned on the Committee’s finding Jane credible,” wrote Bendix, who was joined in her decision by Second District colleagues Victoria Gerrard Chaney and Laurie Zelon.
Apalla Chopra of O’Melveny & Myers, who represents the school in the case, directed a request for comment to a Claremont McKenna spokesman. Peter Hong, associate VP for public affairs and communications at the school, said in an email that the college is currently reviewing the opinion to determine next steps, including a potential appeal to the California Supreme Court.
“Claremont McKenna College is committed to protecting the civil rights of all members of our community, which includes responding appropriately to all complaints of sexual misconduct, and providing all parties involved in such complaints with access to a grievance process that is fair, prompt, and equitable,” Hong said. “The College firmly believes that the grievance process followed in this case met or exceeded relevant legal requirements for expectations under federal and state law.”
Source: https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/08/09/court-revives-claremont-mckenna-students-appeal-over-sexual-misconduct-suspension/
===
*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2018/08/cautionary-tale-from-another-public.html
Labels:
Claremont McKenna,
diversity,
U of Michigan
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Higher Ed Goal in California?
From Inside Higher Ed: A coalition of colleges, nonprofit organizations and education foundations are calling for the next governor of California to set a degree-attainment goal for the state.
The groups, led by the Campaign for College Opportunity, are encouraging the next governor to set a 60 percent college attainment goal and to close racial equity gaps in college opportunity by 2030.
Californians will select their next governor in November. The state's lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, is running against Republican John Cox.
"California's candidates for governor are rightfully concerned about the economic future of the state," Michele Siqueiros, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, said in a news release...
Full story at:
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/08/08/california-groups-call-2030-attainment-goal
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/08/08/california-groups-call-2030-attainment-goal
Note: The organization behind the campaign says it was founded by MALDEF, a Latino group, the California Business Roundtable, and the Community College League of California, in part out of concern for the fate of the 1960 Master Plan. It is funded by various foundations. Website: http://collegecampaign.org/
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Union Regents
![]() |
| Henning |
More recently, Governor Brown appointed Henning's grandson, Patrick W. Henning Jr, as head of the Employment Development Department (EDD) in 2014.**
===
*Henning's obituary is at: http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-jack-henning6-2009jun06-story.html.
**http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/21/business/la-fi-edd-new-director-20140322. Patrick Henning's father headed EDD under Gov. Schwarzenegger. Another grandson, namesake John F. Henning III, has had a more checkered career:
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Long-strange-journey-of-hate-crime-case-3326067.php, http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/188416.
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
Four New Regents
![]() |
| Butler |
Laphonza Butler, 39, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents. Butler has been president of SEIU United Long Term Care Workers Union since 2010. She was a national division director and campaign director for SEIU in Washington, D.C. from 2006 to 2009. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Butler is a Democrat.
![]() |
| Cohen |
![]() |
| Estolano |
![]() |
| Leib |
Source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2018/08/06/governor-brown-announces-appointments-61/
===
*Brown referred to him as "the other Michael Cohen" at a recent news conference.
**This is California's Gary Hart, not to be confused with the Colorado Gary Hart of "Monkey Business" fame. If you don't know what that was, Google it.
Monday, August 6, 2018
Cautionary Tale from Another Public University
From Inside Higher Ed: In July, a federal judge instructed the University of Michigan to break from its policies for investigating sexual assault and instead to hold a live hearing so that a student accused of rape could question his accuser. The decision could have national implications as it is part of an emerging pattern of case law: establishing that those accused of campus sexual violence have the right to question the evidence against them.
With the U.S. Department of Education on the cusp of releasing new draft regulations on the federal gender discrimination law, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, campus leaders are waiting to see how prescriptive Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will be with a few of these processes.
The anonymous male student sued Michigan in June, alleging that its sexual assault policies deprived him of due process rights. The student was accused of rape in April stemming from a sexual encounter last November that he said was consensual. Officials hadn't determined yet whether he committed the assault.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow ordered the institution to arrange the live hearing, writing in his ruling: "[The university] essentially asks the court to sit back and wait for the investigator to issue findings against plaintiff before intervening in this action. But at this very moment, the university may be denying plaintiff due process protections to which he is entitled. The court cannot, and will not, simply stand by as the fruit continues to rot on the tree. This case is ripe for adjudication."
This ruling doesn't mean that the accused student would be directly asking his accuser questions, merely that he be given the opportunity to challenge her narrative...
Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/06/court-ruling-suggests-cross-examination-will-be-hot-topic-colleges
With the U.S. Department of Education on the cusp of releasing new draft regulations on the federal gender discrimination law, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, campus leaders are waiting to see how prescriptive Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will be with a few of these processes.
The anonymous male student sued Michigan in June, alleging that its sexual assault policies deprived him of due process rights. The student was accused of rape in April stemming from a sexual encounter last November that he said was consensual. Officials hadn't determined yet whether he committed the assault.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow ordered the institution to arrange the live hearing, writing in his ruling: "[The university] essentially asks the court to sit back and wait for the investigator to issue findings against plaintiff before intervening in this action. But at this very moment, the university may be denying plaintiff due process protections to which he is entitled. The court cannot, and will not, simply stand by as the fruit continues to rot on the tree. This case is ripe for adjudication."
This ruling doesn't mean that the accused student would be directly asking his accuser questions, merely that he be given the opportunity to challenge her narrative...
Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/08/06/court-ruling-suggests-cross-examination-will-be-hot-topic-colleges
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








