Listen to Two Regents Committee Meetings of April 22, 2019

In case you forgot, on Monday two Regents committees met: Public Engagement and Development and Basic Needs. As usual, yours truly has preserved the sessions since the Regents only "archive" them for one year.

Neither session was particularly eventful. Public comments occurred in Public Engagement and involved labor issues at UC-Davis (where the sessions were held), student lobbying for UC, and a program of "rapid rehousing" for students. The remainder of the sessions basically consisted of reports on various efforts. The Basic Needs session included a tour of a Davis facility (which was not broadcast).

You can hear the audio of the two sessions at the links below:

Public Engagement and Development at:


or direct to:
Public Engagement and Development:
https://archive.org/details/0RegentsPublicEngagementAndDevelopment42219/0-regents+public+engagement+and+development+4-22-19.wma

Basic Needs:
https://archive.org/details/0RegentsPublicEngagementAndDevelopment42219/0-regents+special+committee+on+basic+needs+4-22-19.wma

UC Among Most Expensive for Out-of-State Students

25. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Tuition and fees: $31,014 out-of-state / $13,230 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 27,193
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 27%
SAT Math: 590-690
SAT Reading: 590-670

24. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Tuition and fees: $31,194 out-of-state / $15,074 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 33,955
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 11%
SAT Math: 710-790
SAT Reading: 630-710

23. University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Tuition and fees: $31,390 out-of-state / $12,970 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 22,317
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 20%
SAT Math: 560-650
SAT Reading: 580-660

22. University of South Carolina-Columbia
Tuition and fees: $31,962 out-of-state / $11,862 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 26,362
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 50%
SAT Math: 580-670
SAT Reading: 590-660

21. University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Tuition and fees: $33,477 out-of-state / $15,411 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 23,388
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 18%
SAT Math: 590-690
SAT Reading: 590-670

20. University of Maryland-College Park
Tuition and fees: $33,606 out-of-state / $10,399 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 29,868
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 27%
SAT Math: 650-750
SAT Reading: 630-720

19. Virginia Commonwealth University
Tuition and fees: $33,656 out-of-state / $13,624 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 23,663
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 6%
SAT Math: 520-620
SAT Reading: 550-640

18. Penn State-Main Campus
Tuition and fees: $33,664 out-of-state / $18,436 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 40,835
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 37%
SAT Math: 580-680
SAT Reading: 580-660

17. George Mason University
Tuition and fees: $34,370 out-of-state / $11,924 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 25,010
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 18%
SAT Math: 540-640
SAT Reading: 560-650

16. University of Wisconsin-Madison
Tuition and fees: $34,783 out-of-state / $10,533 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 31,358
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 36%
SAT Math: 660-760
SAT Reading: 620-690

15. Indiana University-Bloomington
Tuition and fees: $34,845 out-of-state / $10,533 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 33,429
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 36%
SAT Math: 570-680
SAT Reading: 570-670

14. University of Arizona
Tuition and fees: $35,307 out-of-state / $11,877 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 34,101
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: not reported
SAT Math: not reported
SAT Reading: not reported

13. University of Washington-Seattle campus
Tuition and fees: $35,538 out-of-state / $10,974 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 31,331
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: not reported
SAT Math: 600-730
SAT Reading: 590-690

12. University of Colorado Boulder
Tuition and fees: $36,220 out-of-state / $12,086 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 29,056
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 43%
SAT Math: 570-680
SAT Reading: 580-660

11. Texas A&M University-College Station
Tuition and fees: $36,606 out-of-state / $11,234 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 53,065
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 4%
SAT Math: 570-690
SAT Reading: 570-670

10. University of Texas at Austin
Tuition and fees: $36,744 out-of-state / $10,398 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 40,492
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 8%
SAT Math: 600-740
SAT Reading: 620-720

9. Michigan State University
Tuition and fees: $39,406 out-of-state / $14,460 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 38,996
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 15%
SAT Math: 550-670
SAT Reading: 550-650

8. University of California-Los Angeles
Tuition and fees: $41,275 out-of-state / $13,261 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 31,002
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 15%
SAT Math: 600-740
SAT Reading: 620-710

7. University of California-Irvine
Tuition and fees: $41,752 out-of-state / $13,738 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 29,307
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 2%
SAT Math: 590-700
SAT Reading: 580-650

6. University of California-Riverside
Tuition and fees: $41,931 out-of-state / $13,917 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 20,073
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 1%
SAT Math: 540-660
SAT Reading: 550-640

5. University of California-San Diego
Tuition and fees: $42,032 out-of-state / $14,018 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 28,587
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 6%
SAT Math: 610-730
SAT Reading: 600-680

4. University of California-Berkeley
Tuition and fees: $42,184 out-of-state / $14,170 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 30,574
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 18%
SAT Math: 630-760
SAT Reading: 630-720

3. University of California-Davis
Tuition and fees: $42,433 out-of-state / $14,419 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 30,066
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 5%
SAT Math: 570-700
SAT Reading: 560-660

2. University of California-Santa Barbara
Tuition and fees: $42,465 out-of-state / $14,451 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 22,186
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 6%
SAT Math: 590-720
SAT Reading: 600-680

1. University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Tuition and fees: $47,476 out-of-state / $14,826 in-state
Undergraduate enrollment: 29,821
Percentage of undergraduates from out-of-state: 44%
SAT Math: 670-770
SAT Reading: 660-730

Source: https://www.statesman.com/news/20190419/two-of-most-expensive-public-universities-for-out-of-state-residents-are-in-texas

License

Deans, Directors, Department Chairs, and Administrative Officers

Dear Colleagues:

Events & Transportation is pleased to announce the launch of paperless parking permits in May, allowing permit holders to do away with tags that hang from rearview mirrors and instead use their license plate as their permit.

The new Bruin ePermit system will use automated license plate recognition (ALPR) software to read and convert images of registration plates and the characters they contain into computer-readable data that is automatically referenced against the parking database to verify a valid permit for the lot location. Drivers who previously changed their hangtag from one car to another can instead register up to three cars on one parking permit via the new system, as well as buy and manage their parking permits entirely online.

In preparation for the roll out of the new system, Events & Transportation has removed gate arms to eliminate the need for gate access cards, further reducing waste. Approximately 1,500 pounds of paper and 30,000 plastic hangtags will be eliminated from the parking production process annually, in support of the campus’ sustainability goals and the University of California’s commitment to carbon neutrality by 2025.

Events & Transportation has developed a new administrative policy, UCLA Policy 134: Automated License Plate Recognition Systems and Information, which specifies the allowable uses of and requirements for ALPR systems and ALPR information at UCLA.

As part of the formal process for issuing a new administrative policy, the proposed policy is now available on the APPs Under Review website for a 30-day review and comment period. Please submit any comments via the website by May 20, 2019.*

Sincerely,

Renée A. Fortier

Executive Director

====

*Umm. The comments on the proposed policy are due 20 days after it is already implemented. Just saying.

The Livermore Case on Retiree Health Entitlements - Part 2

Livermore employee/plaintiff Joe Requa in 2011

Back in December 2018, we posted about the Requa case, an ongoing lawsuit (going back to 2010) in which some Lawrence Livermore employees are arguing that retiree health care under UC's program is an entitlement, not just a nice thing the Regents choose to do.* Here is an update (below).

Note that the trial date is listed as May 6, if no settlement is reached.

Retirees Say UC Could Have Contributed to Health Care with Cash Received from LLNS

April 18, 2019, The Independent

The University of California has pocketed millions of dollars in profits from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s corporate manager that could have been used to help LLNL retirees with healthcare costs, the retirees claim in a recent newsletter associated with their ongoing lawsuit.

The retirees reached that conclusion by analyzing the annual financial reports of UC and Lawrence Livermore National Security, or LLNS, the Laboratory’s corporate manager, as well as the joint venture agreement by which LLNS operates.

According to their analysis, the University received approximately $134 million in cash distributions from LLNS between 2008 and 2018.   

“While LLNS has been fighting our lawsuit in court for nearly 10 years, the Regents have received substantial profits from LLNS,” the retirees’ newsletter said.  

“Clearly, the (UC) Regents have funds available to resolve this case and provide the University-sponsored benefits that were promised.”

Historically, the University operated the laboratory on a not-for-profit basis. It was reimbursed for management costs, including healthcare benefits, while transferring any excess revenues to LLNL research programs.

UC healthcare was available to LLNL retirees from 1961, when the University’s Board of Regents authorized it for both active employees and retirees, until the for-profit consortium took over as manager near the end of 2007.

Responsibility for retiree health benefits was then transferred to LLNS, which was contractually obligated to provide benefits that were “substantially equivalent” to those that had been offered by UC.

After a year, however, the Laboratory's federal sponsor, the U.S. Department of Energy, modified the contract so that LLNS only had to provide benefits comparable to those that were offered by private industry, a lower and less expensive standard.

At the same time, LLNS began making cash contributions to UC, with $5.5 million transferred in the 2008-2009 year, and an average of more than $13 million per year thereafter.

The total for the 10 years summarized in LLNS financial reports is $134.2 million.

Whether and how this information might influence the lawsuit now underway is unclear, but it will be a particularly bitter pill for many retirees to swallow.

The change from nonprofit to for-profit status was mandated by Congressional representatives and bureaucrats who promised that the new arrangement would be much more efficient.

The opposite turned out to be true, however, as demonstrated by staff layoffs in 2008 forced by the shrinkage of an operating budget that was depleted by a sharply higher management fee and new taxes.

The retirees were not affected by the layoffs, but they had considered the loss of UC healthcare to be a violation of promises made during their careers at the Laboratory--promises on which some of them based career decisions.  

They formed an organization called UC Laboratory Retirees Group, or UCLRG, and raised funding to file a lawsuit in 2010.  The suit became a class action four years later.

In recent weeks, the two sides have participated in settlement discussions under the supervision of a retired judge, Maria-Elena James, but no settlement has been reported.

A trial is scheduled for May 6 in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland.

Source: http://www.independentnews.com/news/retirees-say-uc-could-have-contributed-to-health-care-with/article_af643850-6144-11e9-b172-0b20156fab97.html
===
*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-livermore-case-on-retiree-health.html

Slow Becomes No at UCSD

We previously noted the slowness of UCLA in responding to public records requests.* At San Diego, "slow" seems to have become "no." See below from The Triton (student newspaper):

The Triton’s Managing Editor Ethan Edward Coston filed a lawsuit on April 10 against the University of California (UC) Regents for allegedly failing to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) by denying requests for documents related to a Title IX sexual misconduct investigation.

Coston sent three requests for documents in his investigation of whether former UC San Diego (UCSD) Bookstore Operations Manager Alan Labotski violated campus sexual misconduct rules under Title IX.

The CPRA is state law that requires all government records to be made available to the public unless there is a specific reason to withhold such information, such as records protected by FERPA or HIPAA.

The UCSD Policy & Records Administration Office refused to confirm or deny the existence of requested records despite multiple requests. The office stated that releasing the information would be an invasion of privacy for non-high level public officials, even if the misconduct claim is substantiated.

“[D]isclosure of a respondent employee’s identity would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” said UCSD Policy & Records Director Paula Johnson.

The UC system has previously completed requests for Title IX records, resulting in sexual misconduct reports published by UC student news sources regarding cases at UCSD, UCLA, and UC Santa Cruz.

“[I]n my experience system-wide the University does not allocate sufficient resources to responding to CPRA requests,” said Abenicio Cisneros, Coston’s lawyer. “As a result responses to CPRA requests are unlawfully delayed, inadequate searches are conducted, and campuses overclaim exemptions, which results in records being wrongfully withheld.”

Coston replied to the request denial on November 13, 2018, informing UCSD that he had separately confirmed the existence of the investigation and would pursue legal action if UCSD continued to withhold the documents. The following day, UCSD responded to Coston’s request for emails related to the investigation, saying that in its search, they found no related records.

UCSD has not confirmed or denied whether the investigation records exist or whether they are being withheld under an exemption to disclosure.

“[UCSD] stated that no responsive records exist, meaning that it might be withholding existing records as exempt.” said Cisneros. “Although the University refuses to either confirm or deny that it is withholding responsive records, we are confident responsive records are being withheld and hope the University produces those records promptly in response to this lawsuit.”

Coston alleges the records he requested do exist and are public records that are not covered by any exemptions from the CPRA. Cisneros did not want to speculate why the university may be withholding the records but believes, regardless of the motives, UCSD is breaking the law.

“When an agency withholds records, it can be for a variety of reasons: a desire to keep something secret, an incorrect but sincerely held interpretation of what the law requires, or simple neglect,” said Cisneros. “But the result is the same: unlawful governmental secrecy.”

Source: http://triton.news/2019/04/tritons-managing-editor-sues-uc-alleging-violation-state-public-records-law/

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2019/04/slow.html

A Berkeley Problem That's Hard to Pass Over

[Click to enlarge]

Text of image:

To the Berkeley Campus Community

I have been made aware of what appear to have been disturbing expressions of bias at a public ASUC meeting held Wednesday, April 17th. Even as we seek to more fully understand what was said, I want to make clear that the University’s administration condemns bias, including racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice, on this campus and beyond.

I also understand that at the same meeting students of color provided passionate, moving comment about the extent to which they feel isolated and marginalized on this campus. This, too, is disturbing and demanding of our attention and concern.

The divisions of Student Affairs and Equity & Inclusion are determined to support all students in our community. We must have a truly inclusive culture where all can feel safe, respected, and welcome. We also must come together and determine how we can best deter and confront not only bias but all manifestations of intolerance and exclusion that violate our shared values and Principles of Community. [https://diversity.berkeley.edu/principles-community]

If you need support, the campus has several resources, including counseling services. For help navigating these resources, please contact: deanofstudents@berkeley.edu, or visit deanofstudents.berkeley.edu/well-being.

Sincerely,

Carol Christ

Chancellor

===

Message above responds to incident described below:

A dozen Jewish student groups at the University of California, Berkeley, said they were “appalled and deeply pained” by “antisemitic remarks” made during a Wednesday gathering of their student association, which conveyed “an attitude of hostility towards the Jewish people and a fundamental misunderstanding of who we are as a community.”...

Full story at http://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/19/twelve-uc-berkeley-groups-condemn-antisemitic-conspiracies-shared-during-student-government-meeting/

According to the article above, the remarks cited were in part a response to the disqualification of a Jewish candidate (among a slate of other candidates who had won election):

Newly elected Student Action candidates disqualified from 2019 ASUC elections

http://www.dailycal.org/2019/04/16/newly-elected-student-action-candidates-disqualified-from-asuc-elections/

The issue seems to be continuing:

9 ASUC officials resign, students protest in response to Student Action candidates’ disqualification from 2019 elections:

http://www.dailycal.org/2019/04/18/9-asuc-officials-resign-students-protest-in-response-to-student-action-candidates-disqualification-from-2019-elections/

===

Editorial comment: As long as student organizations, including government organizations, have "official" status, these types of incidents will continue to embarrass the university. So the administration has two choices: 1) move towards a less official status, or 2) regulate what goes on in the name of the university.

Slow

UCLA needs 103 days to turn over emails between soccer coaches and those indicted in college scandal

Matthew Ormseth, 4-18-19, LA Times
 
Turning over all of the emails exchanged between three UCLA coaches and five people indicted by federal prosecutors for conspiring to defraud top-ranked universities will take 103 days, UCLA record-keepers say.

A week after the U.S. attorney’s office in Massachusetts charged 50 people in an alleged conspiracy to tamper with college entrance exams and bypass admissions offices with an athletic recruiting scam, The Times made a public records request for any emails and text messages exchanged between three UCLA coaches and five people implicated in the scheme, along with an employee of Cal State Fullerton.

UCLA record-keepers said that compiling those emails and texts is a “lengthy, time-consuming process,” and the records won’t be turned over until June 30.

The three UCLA coaches whose correspondence The Times requested are Jorge Salcedo, the former men’s soccer coach; Amanda Cromwell, the women’s soccer coach; and Joshua Walters, the former associate head coach for women’s soccer.

Salcedo was indicted on a racketeering charge and has since resigned. He has pleaded not guilty.

As public employees, correspondence from the coaches’ university email accounts and phones can be requested under the California Public Records Act.

Salcedo is accused of accepting $200,000 in bribes from William “Rick” Singer, a Newport Beach college admissions consultant who has admitted to masterminding the schemes to rig entrance exams and pass off the children of his clients as recruited athletes. A couple paid Singer $250,000 to ensure their daughter was admitted to UCLA as a recruited soccer player, despite never having played the sport competitively, prosecutors allege. The daughter, Lauren Isackson, was on the UCLA women’s soccer team roster for the 2017 season.

Cromwell and Walters have not been accused of wrongdoing. An indictment unsealed last month said Salcedo forwarded an athletic profile for Isackson, replete with bogus accolades, to an unnamed UCLA women’s soccer coach.

In a public records request dated March 19, The Times asked for any emails and texts exchanged in the last six years by Salcedo, Cromwell and Walters and five people charged in the alleged conspiracy: Singer, the scheme’s admitted mastermind; Steven Masera, who allegedly paid off coaches as Singer’s bookkeeper; Laura Janke, a former USC soccer coach who allegedly crafted bogus athletic profiles for the children of Singer’s clients; Ali Khoroshahin, another former USC soccer coach accused of arranging payoffs to university coaches; and Mikaela Sanford, an employee of Singer’s who allegedly helped craft the fake profiles.

Singer has pleaded guilty to four felonies and will be sentenced in June. Salcedo, Masera, Janke, Khoroshahin and Sanford have all pleaded not guilty.

The Times also requested emails and texts exchanged between Salcedo, Cromwell, Walters and Demian Brown, the women’s soccer coach at Cal State Fullerton.

Brown was not accused of any wrongdoing. Singer’s foundation had donated to a business purportedly affiliated with Cal State Fullerton’s soccer program, but a university spokesman later clarified that the business had no relationship with the university, the soccer program or Brown.

Cal State Fullerton has filled a similar public records request for emails and texts between Brown and six people implicated in the recruiting scheme.

The Times also requested declarations of outside financial interests for Salcedo and Cromwell. Salcedo accepted the $200,000 bribe through a sports marketing company he controlled, prosecutors allege.

In explaining why the university needs more than three months to turn over the records, Ayse Donmez, an assistant manager within UCLA’s Information Practices office, said the school is tasked with “a great many” requests with limited staff to handle them, and that every email and text message must be vetted to be sure the university isn’t violating legal privileges in disclosing them.

Personal information in the emails and texts must be redacted as well, she added.

UCLA officials expressed shock and anger when Salcedo was arrested March 12, saying that if the allegations proved true, “they represent a grave departure from the ethical standards we set for ourselves and the people who work here.”

But a 2014 internal report, obtained by The Times, showed UCLA was aware of under-qualified athletes being admitted in exchange for donations.

William Cormier, who headed UCLA’s compliance office at the time, said an investigation into a young woman who, despite subpar times, was admitted as a recruited runner once her parents pledged $100,000 to the athletic department “removes any reasonable doubt that the contribution from the parents was obtained quid pro quo for the daughter’s admission.”

In a statement, the university said it quickly investigated the matter and, after deciding four coaches had violated school policy, adopted new safeguards to vet walk-ons and restricted donations from families of athletic prospects. It pointed out that, unlike Salcedo’s alleged criminal activity, the coaches found to have broken policy were not personally enriched by the donations.

“UCLA took this matter seriously and strengthened its policies in the wake of it,” the statement said.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-admissions-scandal-ucla-emails-20190418-story.html

No rush. Take your time: