Lay-offs continue here at Office of the President. The Office of General Counsel continues to hire very expensive consultant attorneys and is laying off support staff as if that would cut their spending. Now that many departments here have been slashed there are inefficiencies and swift responses to campuses no longer exist. UCOP has spent a large percentage of their S&E budget to move over 150 people to different office spaces in the same building. I’m still getting the figures. More high level management is being hired and no unrepresented staff have gotten raises – only furloughs.

We have a history of hiring consultants who provide recommendations to streamlining business practices and not using the data issued. Recently a retired Director had been taken out of retirement to help conduct a study to ensure that UCOP’s largest liability – the Capital Programs – continues to mitigate risk, streamlines their processes, and provides a good program for the campuses. Few of those recommendations were heeded. This is just a drop in the bucket. Years of OP knowledge are gone. The staff either were encouraged to retire early (Mr. Hume’s plan) or they were laid off. This bodes badly for the next ten years. I could give you more details about Mr. Yudof’s bad behaviors but that’s for another blog.

I can tell you that we are exhausted and frustrated. We believe in the University and want it to remain a viable public institution of higher learning. We want to provide support and service to the University’s programs by supporting the President. Unfortunately the President doesn’t appear to have the University’s best interests to heart so we are working at cross purposes. Finally, I have to say that the Board of Regents are responsible for hiring Dr. Dynes and Mr. Yudof. Blaming one regent, though he is terrible for the University, and his wife shows a lack of character. Dr. Montoya and the rest of the Board are to blame for both bad regimes and that would have been heartening to read as well.

why give Blum the voice of moral authority in the piece — when the piece also says: “Beginning in 2005, the Chronicle uncovered and made hay of a series of cushy, under-the-table executive-compensation deals—vacation perks, lavish housing allowances, soft retirement cushions, executive jobs for significant others—some of which even the Regents hadn’t known about”– if the Regents did not know about it — well, then, is Blum really that great?!

the piece also says “(Birgeneau says that the University of Toronto, which he headed before coming to UC Berkeley, was a far more cosmopolitan place with many foreign students.”– but fails to discuss how Birgeneau left U of Toronto, how the faculty and staff felt about him when he left – it fails to talk about Birgeneau’s cozy relationship with Dynes and Linda Morris Williams and their “scandals” —why mention Birgeneau only in this Toronto comment he makes in his piece?
the piece also talks about an advocacy campaign- yet many student groups have already made clear they will not be protesting WITH UC administration – but they will be protesting AGAINST UC administration as well. but that is not covered in the piece..

he describes state legislators: “Lois Wolk, one of the wisest members of that chamber and the wife of 
a retired UC Davis law professor (that’s unbiased journalism for you folks?!)

mr. schrag did not describe senator yee in the same glowing terms as he did Wolk – gee I wonder if there is an axe to grind or an agenda??..

“Loni Hancock, also a Democrat” that’s it no other descriptors for Loni– (in the UCOP district!!)

“The governor, at least, seems to be listening.” Oye Vey! (Arnold vetoed whistle blower rights for UC workers in OCT 2009!!)

the piece goes on to say “Yee’s fond recollections of his role in the demonstrations at Berkeley’s People’s Park in May 1969 seem like nothing so much as nostalgic association of those days with the sniping at UC now.”

Yet NO discussion of Yee’s attempts to give UC workers whistleblower rights as many of the CA Sup Crt Justices stated are needed. No in depth discussion of the Berkeley Foundation and auxiliaries billions of dollars.

and there is this about Yee and Jerry Brown…:
“he replies that “other things attract people,” that academic quality and reputation are equally important. That thought is eerily reminiscent of former governor Jerry Brown’s oft-quoted remark that university employees enjoy “psychic rewards” and should therefore be satisfied with modest pay.”
really?!
“modest pay”
and it is not just “psychic rewards” – it is access to silicon valley, to bio tech firms and a very liberal outside consulting policy that the faculty and senior admin take advantage of — really– do some research please!

no discussion of Yudof’s complaints of being paid more than Obama but not getting to have ” a white house or air force one”

“as some in state government [e.g., Yee] seek to throttle the 
one institution that
promises the solution to California’s economic woes.”

and then the piece ends with Yudof in a white cowboy hat and peter with pom poms in his hand cheering Yudof:

“If Yudof can keep the wolf packs from UC’s doors for another two or three years, if he can educate and energize his alumni and a lot of other Californians along with them, and if the UC commission’s imagination is equal to the large size-and-shape questions it’s supposed to address, then Yudof may yet have a chance to fulfill the expansive hopes of his friend at Notre Dame. And if he can get the federal government to provide broader support for higher education, then he will have accomplished something historic.”

I guess disgusted alumni, state senator and an AG seeking reforms and transparency, disgusted staff and students who see all the waste and abuse and have no whistle blower rights etc — they are all just part of the “wolf packs” in Schrag’s mind I guess… oye!!

the writer does not even challenge this statement or tried to provide some historical documentation of how cali residents have benefitted DIRECTLY or have benefited more than society in general has benefited from UC research etc?! This is a difficult bit of calculus – if the assertion is that the state has only benefited from UC then make that case – but also recognize some of the costs of UC for California residents too!

If Yudof wasn’t the cutter (which I doubt) I hope Ms. Montoya also enlightens the many UCOP employees who were furious at Yudof for either eliminating or moving their jobs and for killing the UC Center in Sacramento (probably a strategically unwise decision in my view). As to Yudof’s departure from Minnesota, most of the contemporary press accounts and comments I read (including Gov. Jesse Ventura’s, who was often Yudof’s nemesis ) were positive. I’m not sure resisting construction of a football stadium is necessarily a black mark against a university president.

As to her objection to “populist opportunists” — the full statement in my piece is as follows: “Residual distrust from this history (meaning mainly the surreptitious deals with UC executives by prior administrations) has generated an amalgam of sober attacks, paranoia, and populist opportunism that UC officials must spend an inordinate amount of time deflecting.” Maybe Ms. Montoya read my piece a bit hastily.

Finally, I’m not sure whether Ms. Montoya merely agrees with Yudof’s statements regarding corporate globalization and an aging population explaining declining support of higher education or whether she blames the statement itself for the decline. I assume it’s the former.

SB 650, which is a reintroduction of SB 219, would provide UC and CSU employees who report waste, fraud and abuse, with the same legal protections as other state employees. Specifically, the bill will ensure that UC and CSU employees can exercise their right to seek damages in court if the university has either reached or failed to reach a decision regarding a complaint within the time limits established by the Regents and Trustees respectively; or if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months.

For example:

“I write to you today as an advocate for the University of California and to encourage you to support full funding for UC in the 2010-11 fiscal year. UC is a powerful engine of economic growth and social advancement and will be essential in the knowledge economy of the future. Money spent on the University should not be viewed as a cost but as an investment in the future of California.

However, particularly at a time when people are looking for accountability from their public institutions, it is equally important that this short-term action goes hand in hand with a long-term investment in accountability and transparency on the part of the University of California. Therefore I also urge you to, at the same time, support a State audit of the financial priorities and practices of the UC administration.

The University is requesting that $913 million be restored to its budget in order to sustain its commitment to students and families and all the residents of California. It is vital that the State reinvest in the University of California! It is equally vital that the University of California be refashioned so that it can employ those funds to the maximum benefit of its students and to maintain its excellence in research and teaching.

In addition to addressing the University’s short-term budget shortfall, I urge you to engage in serious discussions around the Governor’s proposal to enact a constitutional amendment for public higher education that would guarantee UC and the California State University system at a minimum of 10 percent of the State’s General Fund budget, and to support a State audit of the financial priorities and practices of the UC administration.

I thank you for your time and attention and appreciate your consideration of my views.”

A budget should be priorities, accountability and some review of growth rates and inflation rates.

The UC system will not improve with more money or a guarantee. The university will improve with better educated kids coming in (where the real education problem resides) along with accounatbility of its cost structure versus revenues.
Good luck!