It has been about six weeks since UC President Janet Napolitano put Linda Katehi on administrative leave, pending an investigation into the chancellor’s conduct. Since that time, many of the chancellor’s supporters have not given up on the idea that the chancellor was largely innocent of the charges that the president laid out in her April 27 letter.
For my part, I initially considered the pushback to be ill-conceived and somewhat futile. To me there were some clear judgment errors on the part of the chancellor that rendered much of the good work that had occurred under her watch as moot. From my standpoint, her decision to serve as a board member on the DeVry board or the publishing company were flawed, but should not have been fatal to her career.
Indeed, my initial comments were that unless another shoe falls, the chancellor will survive. However, several additional shoes fell and ultimately, to the surprise of many, the chancellor did not survive.
More concerning to me than the initial allegations were the allegations of nepotism – the employment of relatives and the rather large compensation they earned – and, especially, the contract to scrub the internet of reference to the Pepper Spray incident – which no matter how many times it was explained, reading the contract and knowing the involvement of the chancellor in that contract, the worse it looked.
However, there are those who believe that Ms. Katehi has been treated differently, in part because of her gender. That somehow the president, who stood by her for a long time publicly, has a vendetta against her.
I was skeptical of these claims, but after talking with attorney Melinda Guzman representing Ms. Katehi and corresponding with Dianne Klein, spokesperson for the UC Office of the President (UCOP), I am beginning to side with Ms. Katehi in this.
For starters, there seems to be some gamesmanship by the UCOP. I will highlight two small, but I think significant, points in this.
Last week, Linda Katehi’s team called a press conference. I was surprised to learn that Dianne Klein rather pointedly made the accusation that Linda Katehi was not cooperating with the investigation.
Melinda Guzman told the Vanguard that claims of the lack of cooperation on their part “is absolutely incorrect.” She explained their attempts to communicate with UC. She noted they identified two dates for Linda Katehi to be interviewed. “There’s no issue there,” she stated.
Ms. Guzman was able to point to specific places where it was UC that was the party delaying matters. For instance, it took them three weeks to get Ms. Guzman access to Chancellor Katehi’s personnel file.
Moreover, Ms. Guzman pointed out that she had sent UC a number of requests and many of them were either delayed or not responded to.
Dianne Klein responded, “What I said previously is correct. We are disappointed that Chancellor Katehi and her counsel have repeatedly said they were unable to meet with investigators.”
Ms. Klein continued, “Yesterday I learned that there is now an appointment scheduled between an investigator and the chancellor for the end of the month.”
Contrary to the claims of Ms. Guzman, Ms. Klein stated that Ms. Guzman “has sent several letters on a variety of topics, and all issues have been responded to in writing or by phone.”
What is interesting is that the last statement by Ms. Klein is technically true. She sent me that response just before 6 pm on Thursday. Melinda Guzman sent me a screen shot of the email that arrived with a response at 5:06 pm. So an hour before Ms. Klein responded to me, and the same day as Ms. Guzman made the accusation on the record and was published in the Vanguard, UC just happened to send the response to Ms. Guzman’s request – what are the chances?
Then there is also the matter of the personnel records.
Ms. Guzman expressed to the Vanguard that the letter dated April 27 from President Janet Napolitano to Chancellor Katehi was “unprecedented” and breached her right to confidentiality. “In California, there are rights of privacy,” she stated.
Ms. Klein argues, “The release of the letter, which was in response to media requests, did not violate personnel confidentiality policies.” She explained, “As a general matter, when media request University documents that could affect the privacy rights of individuals, California law requires us to balance the public’s interest in the disclosure of records relating to public business against an individual’s interest in non-disclosure.”
She added, “One factor that influences this balance is the nature of an individual’s position. The higher the level of one’s position, the greater likelihood that the balance tips in favor of the public interest in disclosure. In light of the many weeks of media attention arising from Chancellor Katehi’s leadership, UCOP determined that, in this case, the balance favored disclosure when the letter was requested.”
This is an institution that is notorious for withholding legitimate public records and has been accused recently of sitting on documents that have been requested by the media. But suddenly, when it suits their purpose, they turn over sensitive personnel matters to the press the same day they were sent?
Contrary to the claims of Ms. Klein, this kind of release is highly unusual. We have seen a rash of shake ups in academic institutions across the country – but I’m not sure we can find a single example of this type of letter being disseminated to the press.
There is also a charge that the deck is stacked against Ms. Katehi because of the conflict of interest with the Orrick firm and Melinda Haag, who are supposed to be independent investigators.
I get the point that Orrick and Ms. Haag had served the Department of Homeland Security. I also get the response of Ms. Klein that the relationship between Janet Napolitano and Melissa Haag was thin, at best.
This whole thing looks sloppy and as though Ms. Napolitano is attempting to stack the deck against the chancellor. The connection between Ms. Haag and Ms. Napolitano, thin as it may be, plays into that a bit.
The bottom line is that, unless a third-party entity hired the independent investigator, the investigator would not look unbiased. Ms. Napolitano probably could have fired Ms. Katehi on the spot for cause and avoided this whole conflagration, but for some reason chose not to.
Now she has a battle on her hands, and has handed Ms. Katehi some explosive ammunition to use against her.
In the end, it is hard to imagine Ms. Katehi getting her job back, but, as Ms. Guzman pointed out to the Vanguard, her goal was perhaps more basic. Ms. Guzman told the Vanguard, “The most important thing for Linda Katehi is her integrity.”
She explained, “I think everyone would agree, including the folks in Davis, that she brought many good things to the campus. Her reputation in the STEM sciences and in science and engineering, she raised the billion dollars or more two years in advance, (and) she’s a very reputable researcher with the 19 patents that she’s been involved in.”
“More so than anything else, she will tell you, ‘I can be poor,’ as she was in Greece, ‘but if I don’t have my integrity, I have nothing,’” she said. “Number one, our goal is to be sure that this investigation gets conducted in a fair and impartial manner. I strongly believe that all of these investigations are baseless and that they should be resolved so that she can then determine what is in store for her in the future.”
Until the investigation is resolved, there can be no determination as to the future. Ms. Guzman noted, “She loves UC Davis, it is her home. She has many friends there.” She added, “It is not our first choice to threaten a lawsuit and to in fact sue the university. But she does have to protect her rights.”
I don’t agree with Ms. Guzman that the allegations are baseless. There is a clear basis for them, there were clear missteps by the chancellor – the question really is how much of this the chancellor could have and should have avoided, and whether they rise to the level of the need for a new chancellor.
Again, at this point, it is still hard to imagine that the chancellor gets her job back. But now the Office of the President looks just as sloppy as the chancellor, in their handling of this mess.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The bottom line is that unless a third-party entity hired the independent investigator, the investigator would not look unbiased. Ms. Napolitano probably could have fired Ms. Katehi on the spot for cause and avoided this whole conflagration, but for some reason chose not to.”
Point well taken. Since Ms. Katehi is an at-will employee and serves at the pleasure of Napolitano and the Bd of Regents, why not just fire the Chancellor rather than drag her name through the mud unnecessarily? I see no reason why the Chancellor had to be publicly humiliated.
I just want to point out that the question of whether or not Katehi is an “at-will employee” is one of the issues in dispute. Katehi is a member of the Academic Senate. No member of the academic senate is an at-will employee. Katehi’s spokespeople have alleged that Napolitano demanded Katehi resign all connections with UC, not just the chancellorship. If this is allegation is true, it is an unprecedented challenge to the co-governance of UC. I suspect the question of whether or not the allegation is true will be a focus of intense interest by the Academic Senate.
Both ends and means must be just. It’s no victory to oust Katehi if it gives UCOP unprecedented power to continue privatization of UC.
Melinda Guzman told me that as Chancellor she is an at-will employee. However, she is also a tenured faculty member. She said that Napolitano asked her to resign from the university -which implied both as Chancellor and faculty. Technically she could be removed as Chancellor but stay on as professor.
Regents Policy 7102: Policy on Appointment of Chancellors and to dismiss or demote chancellor is recommendation of the Academic Senate , regents vote and the Regents Standing Order .
At- will policy is a lot better than with dismissal with cause which is nightmare for employees in UC system .
A “member” of the Academic Senate? Or is it like the Vice President of the US being a “member” of the US Senate? I honestly don’t know…
A perfectly reasonable question, and sorry for using the jargon without explanation. In general terms, an academic senate is governing body of the academic side of a university. The term is often used to refer to all the professors in the institutions. At UC, it is formalized as part of the co-governance system of the university.
The key point here is that academic personnel policy is generally different from policies for non-academic personnel, and is particularly so for tenured faculty. When a tenured faculty member takes on administrative office, they do not lose their tenured position and protection. Otherwise, no academic would ever accept an administrative position.
When an academic administrator is hired, it is nearly always done under the condition that their academic position is retained. If their administrative appointment is resigned or terminated, they may — and often do — resume their academic post.
The document dump by the UCD Academic Senate confirmed that Katehi has an academic appointment as well as an administrative one.
For understanding, Tiger… was Katehi ever an instructor/member of the Academic Senate before she became chancellor, or in effect was she appointed to both the Chancellor and faculty roles?
What you posted makes sense for someone “in the ranks”, but so so much for a “newbie”…
Katehi’s original tenured professorship was probably at the University of Michigan, then continued through her appointments at the University of Illinois and UCD. Her employment package at UCD included both administrative and academic appointments (and the academic appointment of her spouse). The academic appointments had to be confirmed under Academic Senate procedures; the Regents don’t get to directly offer faculty positions. A lot of the detail of this was in the UCD Academic Senate’s big data dump.
tiger
Good feedback , thanks
At you opinion what is the significance of Academic Senate ‘s opinion , protests or petitions or the involvement in the the ongoing ” Napolitano’s indepnedent investigation” to decide Chancelor’s Katehi fate. I have feeling that for the regents and for Napolitano the Acadamic Senate has as so much power as the British Monarchs with the Quin of the United Kingdom in Canada .
Would you please elaborate a little about if you get chance .
Regards
Jerry
Thank you for the clarification, Tiger… appreciate it…
There has never been any dispute regarding Katehi ‘s faculty employment. She is a tenured faculty member at UCD. Her position as a faculty member is governed by the academic senate and protected by law.
Why does Napolitano threaten to fire Katehi entirely from the university? Quite simple. Because she doesn’t understand what a tenured faculty position is and thought she could fire anyone at will because she is the president. Such a pathetic “leader”, but that’s the price you pay for hiring a life politician as the the president of a academic institution.
Because Napolitano asked Katehi to resign and Katehi refused. So she retaliated by bring on investigations on her and her family members, carried out by her minions in UCOP. She then released the letter to the press to “public ally humiliate” Katehi. Is Napolitano ‘s intention to humiliate the Chancellor? No, it is her way to bully the Chancellor into buckling, the mafia style.
Probably to Katehi getting a very big payday.
The Napolitano does NOT make the decisions…she has been trying to against the wishes of those with the power…see earlier posts…
thank you David for some real investigative work here…
if anyone has not listened to the press conference yet, a link was already posted on the various sites where the Chancellor was discussed in recent days.
The Academic Senate has the power at UCD> and they exonerated the Chancellor very early on.
Janet Napolitano did many illegal “missteps” since her arrival to help her buddy, the Governor…
Janet’s were of much greater significance and much deadlier effects on the constituents of UC and UCD.
Those things are still being suppressed or ignored by the media and others who have a vested interest in various aspects of this “case”.
Besides upholding Katehi’s tenured faculty position, the Academic senate has no power at all because whatever it does is ignored by Napolitano. She made the decision without consulting AS and the AS folks were shocked. There was no need for the shock. Napolitano did not understand what AS was and naturally it never occurred to her to consult.
Wonder if some folk might dispute what Napolitano understands or thinks… what do you understand/think? would hate to presume… as you have…
I would again point out that there are two separate although related issues here.
There is the question of wrong doing on the part of Chancellor Katehi. She has herself admitted to what she calls “missteps” and I call lack of judgement sufficient to warrant resignation.
Theses the question of wrong doing on the part of Ms. Napolitano and the regents. I think that there is enough evidence that these issues also warrant investigation.
However, one set of wrong doing does not exonerate the other. There should be full investigation of any allegations associated with this whole mess.
Napolitano is the one dragging this thing out. My guess is that Napolitano hoped to strong arm Katehi into resigning. Napolitano wasn’t successful, so decided to wreak revenge by tarnishing Katehi for standing up to her. Napolitano has the power to fire Katehi, always did have that power, and should have exercised it quietly and expeditiously. Instead, Napolitano looks petty and vindictive, and quite frankly forces Katehi to defend her honor.
Note that Napolitano is doing this using public money, i.e. your money and mine, whereas Chancellor Katehi is using her own personal money. Go figure
DavidSmith
“whereas Chancellor Katehi is using her own personal money. Go figure”
I do not see this as quite so simple. We need to remember where Chancellor Katehi’s “personal money” has come from over the past few years. It has been her compensation through the university which is at least partially taxpayer funded and her extracurricular funding through her questionable board activities only part of which has been surrendered to a student fund. I sincerely doubt that she would have done this only after criticism of her role on these boards became public knowledge if her “integrity” was really what she was protecting.
However, if indeed Ms. Napolitano comes under investigation for wrongdoing, would we not expect her also to use her own funds for her defense ?
I’m still not clear on the money, let me follow up on that.
Tia
Give me a break. It is her salary! She worked hard to earn her salary. What’s the problem with that? Are you saying that anyone who has ever held public positions cannot use their salary for their own defense because it all eventually came from taxpayers money????!!!!
Whether it’s questionable or not is what the investigation is supposed to tell us, if it is indeed impartial. What we know so far is that she has not received compensation for her DeVry board position. She did receive compensation for being on Wiley’s board. However, serving on Wiley’s board complies with UC policy and was approved by the UCOP, i.e. Napolitano. Many other UC Chancellors do the same. Katehi has no obligation to return any of that money and you have no moral high ground to accuse her on that.
Careful, Tia…
Kaiser receives a lot for insurance funds from public sector folk, and thus, from taxpayers…
Anon
“quite frankly forces Katehi to defend her honor.”
I in no way defend the actions of Janet Napolitano which are inexplicable to me. But I completely disagree with your statement. No one is forced to do something by the actions of another unless they are literally holding a gun to their head. Chancellor Katehi could also have taken the high road, realized long before these accusations were made public by Ms. Napolitano that she was no longer the best individual to serve and Chancellor and acted with “integrity” by resigning as Chancellor and keeping her faculty position if she so desired.
There is no hero here, just a very ugly battle that continues to distract from the mission of the university by taking up time and money over what has rapidly become a mud fight from both sides.
Ms. Tia
“Chancellor Katehi could also have taken the high road, realized long before these accusations were made public by Ms. Napolitano that she was no longer the best individual to serve and Chancellor and acted with “integrity” by resigning as Chancellor and keeping her faculty position if she so desired.”
I like your statement and I would agree with with you if the Chancellor’s achievements (like $1000, 000, 000 example) ) would not be more important than what you calling or alleging as a missteps and wrongdoing . Looking at the regents and their silence than I am not sure on which side they are. Looks like regents at this point are sitting on the fence and watching the mud fight as you described . Also I believe that regents who are business oriented , they hired such chancellor which is bringing money to the system and they don’t care about Chancellor’s DeVre board and other minor stuff in comparison to financial benefits Chancellor brought to university. I don’t know if you are aware that campuses are struggling with billions of dollars back-logs . I was dealing with back -logs in UCDMC . This a more and unresolved serious financial problem for UC . I am sure if regents if no punish Napolitano for this action. Some regents are very concern about dollars if they decided to obtain contract with SMUD and to illegally sell electric power and it happened in 2012 and Napolitano stopped it after she got hired. Wait and watch . She is causing serious financial loses for the UC Davis . If power sale not stop , the UC Davis would be richer probably 50 million dollars . We don’t know probably 10 % what is really going on with this attack on Chancellor. I thought that regents would make some decision about Chancellor on May 31 , 2016 meeting .
I don’t understand your point. Suppose your boss calls you into his/her office and tells you that you are fired because you stole money and other stuff from the company. What would you do?? Would you just resign? Would you not take legal actions? What if other male workers also steal and the boss knows it all but only fires you? Would you not take legal actions??
Tia
I work for UCD and I have witnessed the significant positive changes that the Chancellor has brought to this campus. She is a true visionary who knows how to bring UCD to the next level and I truly believe that if she could continue to lead UCD for the next 10 years, UCD will rise to the top of the UC and the top 10 of the nation.
There is no denying that UCD had many excellent programs before Katehi arrived. I don’t think anyone is trying to argue that she created these programs. However, UCD is a vast institution and there are many many colleges/departments where being mediocre was the standard. This is a direct consequence of Vanderhoef’s leadership; under him, some programs received preferential resources whereas others, many of which are very important programs for a comprehensive research university, basically stalled. While UCD was a great school, we all know that it’s not the top. I don’t think you can deny that.
I have repeatedly said that she brought the leadership we need and created the momentum for UCD to go beyond what it was and become a truly top-notch university. Now if you are going to say that UCD should stay where it is, then there is no need for us to engage in this discussion any more.
I don’t blame you for your ignorance of the inner workings of UCD. After all, you don’t seem to be working for UCD and you don’t have the first-hand knowledge like many of the posters here do. But I’m truly truly saddened that you let your ideology take over critical thinking. You kept saying that the Chancellor admitted to “missteps” and therefore she did do something wrong and should resign. In my opinion, and many many other faculty members opinion, such “missteps” are so trivial, to the extent of being laughable, when compared to the great things that she has accomplished in a short period of time. A reasonable conclusion cannot be made without considering both the pros and cons. This is such common sense, yet you never seem to get it.
You, and many others, fail to see what is really going on here and you never tried to investigate even a little deeper, even when many of us (MK, Jerry, etc) have pointed you in the right direction. It has become increasingly clear to me that you are an outsider of the university and you don’t have UCD, its faculty members and staff, and its wonderful but often times naive students, at heart.
I thought I would stop rambling like this, but no I will not, not until the Chancellor is back.
I feel no need for doing things to achieve “bragging rights”… perhaps if I was a member of UCD faculty/staff that would be important to increase my compensation… I am proud to say that I got accepted @ UCD, and graduated from it … but that was in the ’70’s’… I see no need to do things to make UCD #1. It already is, in some fields… it is honored in many others… that is sufficient for me…
Not sufficient for faculty and students who are in colleges and departments that have been suffocating during Vanderhoelf’s rule.
I hear what you are saying, but I do think that Katehi is more of a mixed bag. I think you have a lot of positives that you are pointing out, but a lot of missteps as well. In the end, I still don’t see a path to her coming back but I think this has been badly mishandled by Napolitano.
David
Napolitano apparently forgot what missteps she made at the national scale and that for her missteps she was dumped by Obama. At the mercy of Dianne Feinstein’s and Nancy Pelosi’s she got the UC President job and now Napolitano plays Duce Benito Mussolini or Generalissimos Joseph Stalin terrorizing UC Davis Chancellor and her family . Is she has nothing better to in the University of California than destroying of the other people lives and careers as she was doing it as U.S Homeland Security Chief .
DavidSmith
“ But I’m truly truly saddened that you let your ideology take over critical thinking.”
I do not have any idea what you think you know about my ideology. I also do not know what makes you think that I have not engaged in critical thinking. While it is true that I do not work on the campus of UCD this does not mean that I am “unaware” of the workings of UCD.
I graduated from the UCD medical school in 1983. With the exception of a few years away for training, I have worked my entire career in the Sacramento area. I have maintained close ties with the medical school as volunteer faculty for virtually the entire time that I have been here. I am friends with people who work in a number of different capacities on the UC campus, some in the sciences, some not.
I can certainly see from the perspective of someone who favors privatization, STEM, and research that is readily marketable how one might feel that Ms. Katehi’s contributions have far out weighed her “missteps”. I do not agree with that assessment. Ms. Katehi certainly did not promote and engage with all departments equally. Just like other Chancellors before her, she also picked her “winners” and “losers”. While some disciplines have risen, others have certainly been allowed to remain in “mediocrity” to use your word.
During a UCD graduation ceremony yesterday, I was sitting next to a woman whose daughter was graduating in theater and design. One of her comments really struck me. She said that she felt it was ironic that so little investment relatively is provided to the arts when what we remember and cherish the most about civilizations in the long term is their art. It is my view that Chancellor Katehi has through her limited promotion of money making ventures has done is to further imbalance the primary function of a public university which is the education of all qualifying students in a full range of subject matter in favor of a particular limited set of “winners”.
While this would in and of itself not be enough to disqualify her as Chancellor I do not see it as the unmitigated good that you and her supporters seem to. I also do not minimize the many “missteps” over many years but see them as a totality that demonstrates poor judgement, unwillingness or inability to accept full responsibility for the outcomes of her actions, a willingness to obfuscate and strive for a burnished appearance rather than actual accomplishment ( the social media PR fiasco) and finally her willingness to harm the university she claims to love in the name of “integrity”or “honor” as Anon put it. I would point out that her name, reputation and “integrity” could all have been maintained simply by tendering her resignation as Chancellor and keeping her faculty position long before any of this blew up in public. While these actions may be appropriate and fitting for someone at the level of a lecturer or professor, they certainly do not rise to the level of exemplary behavior that I would expect from a Chancellor, part of whose job is to serve as a role model for all others on campus.
Ms. Tia
You know that I respect yours and everybody’s views and opinion here.
I would like to ask you if have ever worked for the UC Davis or more specifically if you worked in UC Davis after the year 2009 when Chancellor Katehi was hired .
You are constantly alleging with others repeating the allegations about Chancellor’s missteps and wrongdoing etc . I am curious if you or any participants in this discussion who worked in UC Davis brought ever any concerns to higher level about the the Chancellor missteps , nepotism , wrongdoing etc.
The knowledge of the University Policies and how the UC Gestapo works in fabrication of evidences , destruction of evidences, withholding of evidences , how the employees being terrorized and intimidated to make them quit after they were singled out to be terminated without valid and legitimate cause . I know this stuff from in and out and I am dealing with since year 2000.
I attended training for supervisors and managers . The course was entitled ” Principles in Public Employment ” The Director of HR UCDMC was instructing and guiding managers and superiors how make make subordinates employees quit their job , how to make them think that they can’t do their job and make them ask for self demotion. I am not union person , pro union or against union . I was once against Soviet Union and I landed in America . Once I attended interesting discussion between UCOP and organized labor in California Capitol where labor Union speakers called the UC System the “worst public employer in California” and a “Stalin-era employer.
My problem with employment in UCDMC was that I did not know howto look to other direction when I saw serious problem which could jeopardize seriously my or my coworkers safety , life endangerment problem was causing damage to natural environment. The good example was the massive discharge of machine oil to Sacramento River instead of repair leaking oil gear boxes which could cost $ 110, 000. Chancellor Vanderhoef was involved in this disclosure. All who participated in this crime were promoted and got significant salary increase because they were participated in witch hunt after the disclosure . This how the UC system works . I provided this example in the previous Vanguard article about Chancellor .
With warm regards
Jerry
There are many points in your post above that I feel compelled to respond. I will probably do it in several parts.
Have you been involved in department politics (not necessarily in a negative way)? Have you been involved in hiring new faculty members and staff? Have you been involved in hiring department chairs and college deans? Have you been involved in renovation or upgrade projects (of infrastructure, of labs, etc)? By “involved”, I mean being engaged in the discussion, but not necessarily being someone who make decisions.
If not, perhaps it would occur to you why those who have experienced (MK, Jerry, me, etc) the above have such different views from yours?
UC is such an immensely complicated system. A seemingly simple project/task will involve more-than-you-think many different parties who all have their different and often competing interest. You won’t see much by observing from the outside, and most likely you see something that is quite different from what’s really going on.
Chancellor Katehi has done so much to correct the wrongs in UCD. Many, including myself, are indeed passionate about keep her as the Chancellor. Put it simply, we are getting a real bargain to have a Chancellor like Katehi at $400k. If you looking around the nation, there are few chancellor/president getting this low level of payment at comparable institutions and many of them are not nearly as capable as Katehi. It would be tragic if we lose her as the Chancellor. Unfortunately it does look that she will not come back.
Tia
You see this is why I think you are somewhat an outsider who doesn’t understand higher education in the United States. What exactly do you mean by privatization? Are you saying the the administrators are turning the university into their own private assets? Most likely that’s not what you mean.
My guess is that you are referring to the high tuition, large number of out of state students who pay an even higher tuition, and intense pursuit of privately and publicly funded research programs. All of these are done to increase the revenue of the university.
But why? Why do we have to do all these? We don’t do it for personal gains for sure. When an external grant comes in, more than 80% of it spent on paying for the infrastructure, project consumables, and student/researcher stipend. The researcher or the administrator in charge of the grant gets very little, if any, compensation out of the project.
Then why don’t we just sit on state funding, do our teaching, and some research projects when needed? After all, we are a “public” university and we are being paid by the taxpayers’ money to education our next generations, right?
The answer is quite simply that we can’t rely on public funding. The numbers are all out there and you can look them up by yourself. A mere 10% of the UC’s operating budget is provided by the state. Now can you call UC a “public” university? How on earth do you expect UC to fulfill all your requirements for a “public” university on this level of public support? Is it realistic to cut off all the money generating activities? I think anyone with common sense would arrive at the same conclusion.
I’ll also give you another example. In our department, we admit a lot of overseas students because they pay out-of-state tuition and part of that tuition comes back to the department. It is on this money that the department can sustain itself. If no out-of-state students are admitted, we would run a deficit. For every in-state student we admit, we lose money. We have little to no money to upgrade our failing infrastructure.
If we are a true public university, the State of California should provide enough funding to at least make sure we can educate our kids. Unfortunately it is not the case now and it will not be the case in the future.
Tia, you talk about privatization? Putting all the argument aside, how do you propose we can keep the university running? Where do you suppose we could get our operating budget given that the State only provide 10% and wants all the benefits? It is so easy of you to point your fingers. Can you provide a solution??!!
I feel that anyone with a little understanding of how the university operates should be able to see what the issue really is. I call the protesters and occupier stupid because it’s so simple yet they can’t see it. You don’t like high tuition? You should be sitting in front of the governor’s office instead of your Chancellors!
And coming back to the current topic of argument, Chancellor Katehi has done tremendous work in raising more funds for the university, starting new initiatives so that we can raise more funds, and improving the operating efficiency of the university operations so that we don’t waste unnecessary money. All these were done to survive. Sure nothing is perfect and there is still a long long way to go.
And some of you don’t feel like that we should strive to be a top university. Why do you think students come from across the world and pay a hefty price to study in UC? Because they have too much money they don’t know how to spend? Can you tell me why?
Really? Tia Will, you put STEM in the same line with “privatization”? You think it’s the STEM people who are vowing on the wrong side? Without science and engineering, you won’t even have the opportunity to speak here in public.
Then I see where you come from.
Your privileged kids can cherish all the art they want, and I don’t have to remind you that there are people starving in this world and UCD scientists and engineers have done tremendous work to help them survive.
DavidSmith
“when many of us (MK, Jerry, etc) have pointed you in the right direction”
I would like to paraphrase your statement to : when many of us ( MK, Jerry,etc.) have pointed you in what we consider to be the right direction”.
This completely eliminates the possibility that others, presented with exactly the same information may interpret it differently. This to me is the antithesis of what education should be. Education for me involves exposure to differing ideas, not a blind conviction that our opinion is the only correct one as MK, Jerry, and now you seem to be asserting.
That’s fine. You can call it that way (“what we consider to be the right direction”).
Have you given it any thought though? Have you done your work to understand how UCOP and Napolitano operates? Have you investigated how other UC Chancellors are operating and why they have not been call out for the same reason that Chancellor Katehi has been? Have you thought about why? Have you tried to figure more evidence than just hearsay and “what I think” ?
David
You are wasting your time with Ms. Tia . Every article posted by Vanguard about Chancellor Katehi has common goal with Ms. Tia goal and view in regard to Chancellor . You no need a magnified glass to see this .
Jerry
I don’t think so. I finally came to understand Tia’s tactics. She never adds anything new in her posts and just kept posting the same things again and again. I will not stop posting and responding to her. You and others may disagree with what I say, but the more I write, the more I will bring people to notice and think about the matter. There is no harm in doing that.
David
I did not mean by my comment to discourage you to argue with Ms. Tia. Sometimes persuasion works and sometimes not. It depend on the Ms. Mia’s Firewall strength to absorb or repel yours convincing arguments.
Jerry
Thanks Jerry. I get it.
This article did not brought anything new into to subject which we were previously discussed to the exhaustion .
However I would like point at the following statement in the article:
“I think everyone would agree, including the folks in Davis, that she brought many good things to the campus. Her reputation in the STEM sciences and in science and engineering, she raised the billion dollars or more two years in advance, (and) she’s a very reputable researcher with the 19 patents that she’s been involved in.”
Regardless of my point of view what the “Italian Job” did to 62 years old Greek born Chancellor. I am not sure if author of this article and some participants in this discussion understand the meaning what is the the billion or more dollars ($1,000,000,000) for the UC Davis , City of Davis and Yolo County which Chancellor brought to UC Davis versa to the alleged Chancellor’s missteps and mistakes.
Would’s be nice if President Napolitano who was brought to the university landscape by Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi would call 62 years old Greek born Chancellor in December 2015 and would ask her: Linda, we have some problems , can we meet and talk and resolve our differences for the benefits of the university? Than during the meeting Napolitano would make an offer to Chancellor she would not reject to step down for personal reason with assurance of security for her and her family . Napolitan0 supposedly to be an experienced politician . Is she ? . $1,000,000,000 is lot more than Chancellor would take to leave for personal reason . I bet on it.
Napolitano acted toward Chancellor and her family like a terrorists and slaves owner by disposing Chancellor who is no longer needed because she already brought $1,000,000,000 and she is in her retirement age ( Chancellor age is strictly protected status in employment by the state and federal law and and especially it should be considered by the university which is federal contractor ) Sickening.
Jerry
“Chancellor age is strictly protected status in employment by the state and federal law and and especially it should be considered by the university which is federal contractor ) Sickening.”
And I had absolutely no idea of the Chancellor’s age until your post. So should I conclude that this behavior of mentioning her age is “sickening” or is it just possible that since you found it relevant to your post, that others might have non “sickening” reasons for doing so also ?
Ms. Tia
I am considering your posts about Chancellors Katehi as a slander and defamation of her character .
With warm regards
Jerry
Tia wrote:
> I had absolutely no idea of the Chancellor’s
> age until your post.
I’m assuming that Tia looks at the charts (or screens) of her patients that all show their ages.
I find it hard to believe that a trained physician who sees the age of multiple women a day would have “absolutely no idea” of the Chancellors age.
Before Jerry posted her age I’m wondering if Tia thought she was closer to 30 or closer to 90 (since she claims to have “absolutely” no idea of her age…
I cannot believe how incompetent the UCOP is. Yet so many people are siding with them against the Chancellor who is the only one that has UCD at heart in all this non-sense. Why? What happened to your critical thinking ability?
Will reflect your question back to you… you seem overly passionate on this… Katehi is not the second coming of ‘the christ’… I also believe she is not the ‘devil incarnate’… yet, some seem to think the whole issues are ‘armeggedon’, the ‘end of times’… so much for ‘critical thinking’…
Gotta’ ask… you’re a liberal arts major, right?
Then let it reflect back to me. I don’t hide my passion for the Chancellor, my passion for UCD, and my aspiration for it to become a top-notch university. All I’m asking you guys to do is to investigate a little deeper, go beyond what’s on the surface, and try to understand the logic behind the UCOP’s actions. I think this article is a very good start. By going through the evidences, I can see that David has started to realize what’s really going on (I’m not trying to put words into David’s mouth, but it’s clear that he sees something new now).
I am from the sciences. Why bringing up the major?
I think most people see that the chancellor made a lot of mistakes as well. That’s why they are not siding with her.
That is OK. Look, I never denied that Chancellor Katehi has made “missteps” but in deciding whether she should resign or be fired, one needs to take both sides of the argument into consideration. Do you agree?
I’d be very happy if my words here bring people to think a little deeper.
I was initially convinced that she had to go, now I’m less so. And I appreciate your insight into that. I guess of all the things I am most concerned about – the contract to remove pepper spray references on the net, which is spelled out clearly in the contract and where I think she has been dishonest. (In fact, talk to some of the local media people and they say she flat out lied to them).
“Contrary to the claims of Ms. Klein, this kind of release is highly unusual. We have seen a rash of shake ups in academic institutions across the country – but I’m not sure we can find a single example of this type of letter being disseminated to the press.”
This is an unusual case. Examples where a University Chancellor refused to resign when asked to by their bosses are pretty rare. I vaguely recall one case but the circumstances are quite different. Can you think of any other cases like this one where someone had created so much division and animosity and then refused to resign? Clark Kerr she is not.
“I cannot believe how incompetent the UCOP is. Yet so many people are siding with them against the Chancellor who is the only one that has UCD at heart in all this non-sense. Why? What happened to your critical thinking ability?”
What I cannot believe is how one dimensionally you and some other posters seem in your assessment of this situation. Can you really not see that there are valid points on both sides of this issue ?
So Tia Will, do you feel you’re seeing both sides of the issue?
BP
“So Tia Will, do you feel you’re seeing both sides of the issue?”
Yes, for a few reasons:
1. Many were calling for Chancellor Katehi’s resignation at the time of the pepper spray incident. I believed that she should not have to resign on this basis alone. I was willing to give her a second chance even after what I saw as an egregious series of errors in judgement.
2. It is the cumulative actions, not a single action that I believe warranted her resignation. I have stated what I believe them to be on other treads. It is not my trust in the actions of Ms. Napolitano that makes me believe that the Chancellor should have resigned. It was the cumulative bad judgement in case after case even when she was still being backed by Ms. Napolitano.
3. As I stated, I can see how one could strongly support the Chancellor if one believed that being “the top” research university is the most important goal. I respect this opinion, but do not share it. I am much more in favor of more devotion to a more balanced approach to education for all qualifying students rather than exclusively to the commercial success of the university and its graduates. The Chancellor, in my opinion, did not share my primary goal.
4. I fully understand the points that Jerry makes about what I see as the “missteps” of Ms. Napolitano. I have said here that I would favor an investigation into how she managed ( or mismanaged as I see it) this fiasco with Chancellor Katehi. But wanting an investigation of Ms. Napolitano does not in any way mean that there was “no wrong doing” by Chancellor Katehi as some of her supporters contend even when she herself admits to repetitive error.
So how, in your opinion is this not “seeing both sides” ?
I don’t see the Chancellor pursuing “exclusively” “the commercial success of the university and its graduates”. Can you provide some concrete evidence?
To me, it is very clear that the Chancellor is truly dedicated to bringing up the academic excellence of UCD, which is the sole goal of any academic institution, public or private.
Tia Will, poster and assoc editor who supposedly taught in BOTH UCD science and the humanities (but has never actually verified this),
You were always on the wrong side of this, at least David has begun to see the problems more evenly. Napolitano was tired of the Chancellor haranguing her for more state money for UCD undergraduates (for which UCD has the MOST). Read her grievance. It’s clear that Office of the President went after her, and it has seriously damaged Davis.
Saying she had bad judgment without calling out ALL of the other (mostly men) senior managers is either a personal attack or sexist. Which are you, Tia?
Napolitano is just plain reckless. All of this could have been handled easily by asking the Chancellor for her resignation and providing a way out that didn’t wreck her career. Everyone that went after Katehi without getting the facts first just made Napolitano happy (she likes walls!). Is this the person you want to support???
Well if you read my comments carefully, I specifically mentioned my viewpoints on considering “both sides of this issue”. I will quote myself:
My conclusion, which is obviously very different from yours, is that the positive changes that the Chancellor has brought to this campus far outweighs the “missteps”.
“My conclusion, which is obviously very different from yours, is that the positive changes that the Chancellor has brought to this campus far outweighs the “missteps”.”
That’s what I would like to understand better – and btw, I don’t think the chancellor was malicious, I think they were honest mistakes.
Pugilist, I wish I could give you concrete examples which I have many. But if I do that, then my identity would be revealed, and I’m 100% certain that I will be punished by UCOP.
Napolitano has power to approve $500, 000 settlement . Above $500,000, Regents.
So Jerry, what $ amount are you looking for in your “settlement”? Or are you just looking for re-instatement, protection of your ‘integrity’?
hPierce
I am looking for to recover the damages from January 1, 2011 to the the age of my full retirement at 66 ( I am 65 )
Damages are due to violation or breach of the Contract or the February 2009 Settlement -Agreement the Regents of the University of California signed with me and trashed two years later . I am not even looking for the legal fees Just for restoration of my normal life which was completely destroyed by UC Gestapo in the very similar way Napolitano destroying Katehi’s family life with difference that my salary were to live on different level than Chancellor Katehi lives .
I could post the calculations with explanation for calculations but it is quite long . if you like to read it than send me e-mail to jaros-law@outlook.com . No secret . I calculated myself everything. No lawyers involved . I had a lawyer but UC bought him six weeks after I hired him and I lost 20 K . Case is in California State Bar since December 2014
INTERESTING ARTICLE ABOUT UC DAVIS
UC Davis cuts deal to avoid bias suit / Ex-vice chancellor gets $205,000 job — regents didn’t know
Todd Wallack, Tanya Schevitz, Chronicle Staff Writers
Published 4:00 am, Monday, December 19, 2005
When UC Davis Vice Chancellor Celeste Rose resigned under pressure last summer, the university gave her a new job with a new title, a $20,000 a year raise — and very little responsibility. In fact, Rose, 55, isn’t required to do any work at all.
As part of a secret legal settlement negotiated to avoid a potentially embarrassing lawsuit, UC Davis promised to keep Rose on the payroll as the “senior adviser to the chancellor” for two years at an annual salary of $205,000, plus all the benefits of a senior manager, including health care, severance pay and a growing pension.
Yet her new job has no formal job description or regular duties. She gave up her office on campus. And UC promised not to fire her, no matter how little she does. If Rose quits, she is still entitled to receive the remainder of her two years’ salary under the agreement.
In addition, UC Davis agreed to give her a $50,000 “transition payment” to help her find a new job, a letter of recommendation and a promise to tell reporters that she voluntarily resigned from her old position.
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-Davis-cuts-deal-to-avoid-bias-suit-Ex-vice-2556385.php
Tia Will: “But I completely disagree with your statement. No one is forced to do something by the actions of another unless they are literally holding a gun to their head.”
Katehi chose to defend her integrity or else never find employment again (remember Napolitano wouldn’t even allow Katehi to retain a teaching position at UCD)… I would consider that “forced”…
Anon
“ I would consider that “forced”
And had this come completely out of the blue, or had Chancellor Katehi been totally innocent of the breeches ( which she is not by her own admission) I would probably have agreed with you. But for such a brilliant woman to be so totally unaware of what her actions were costing not only herself, but her family and the university she claims to love is beyond credulity for me.
I do not believe it is her “integrity” that she is fighting for. If it were, that could have been salvaged very early in this debacle by her letting it be known that she intended to resign voluntarily ( while she still ostensibly had Ms. Napolitano;s support) and sought another position before Ms. Napolitano made all the allegations public. There are ways to stage a graceful exit. Chancellor Katehi did not choose to avail herself of any. While I do not condone the actions of Ms. Napolitano, this was all preventable in my eyes through voluntary actions on the part of Chancellor Katehi.
Napolitano has no authority to remove the Chancellor from a Teaching position….
Once again, it must go through lines and channels… That is why the Academic Senate is so upset.
Her department and her chair and her dean and the Vice Provost and Cap and the Provost and so forth have to initiate it…. good luck Napo…
Dear Jerry, that is ancient history, which I decided to not reveal…as others were unhappy with something I said about my friend Larry.
There is way more to any story…those in the know on this one thought that it was a good deal for all.
When one has someone who is truly not doing the job at UCD, it is almost impossible to remove them.
And, if one is union represented or of color, then it is almost “forget about it”…
Sometimes, the person is causing so many problems that one feels better about paying through the nose just so they go away.
In the long run, it is cheaper for all………………………..
This is so true.
heck, maybe instead of retiring, I should have pushed a little harder for MY paid administrative leave. he he…
PS> Even my primary care physician, who I saw recently at the UCDMC, a lovely woman, is horrified at what is being done to the Chancellor….I may have already mentioned that on another thread related to this…but seems like some forget….
and, look at the Academic Senate votes…also posted here and there in recent weeks…….if the whole senate were to vote today, they would reinstate the Chancellor AND censure the Napo…
( I don’t know if they have the authority with the censure but they do with the reinstatement…I am pretty sure)…
oh boy……I am past retirement age AND I have been sick a lot….hmmmmm…thank you for newer and better ideas LOL
the AS did what they could….it is hard when the ones they feel all wrong are above them and can and will make decisions to retaliate….like the Napo, the gov, a few (newer and dumber) regents, some of the legislators who are in the pockets of or are otherwise manipulated by some of the unions…..lessee
I can even name some, but I am not naming other names except the ones already named…
“That is ancient history, which I decided to not reveal…as others were unhappy with something I said about my friend Larry.”
Marina
I noticed that the article is ancient before I posted it . What caught my attention in the article is the difference of treatment Vice-Chancellor Celesta Rose received in comparison with the treatment Chancellor Katehi is receiving from Napolitano and her evil spirited “Devil Advocates”. The Devil Advocates followers from left wing media including and limited to the “Sacramento Bee’; like Lambert or Stanton, the La Raza’s California legislators lead by Luis Alejo, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and other PINKOS who are spilling their despicable hate, intolerance and without any knowledge of facts and common sense attacking, slandering and defaming Greek Born 62 years old Chancellor and her family like the blood thirsty KKK mob and they are dancing and laughing like a hyenas after killing their prey.
I am not looking at the ancient article about Celesta Rose in the context of the violation of UC policies which not permitting for the UC Davis administration to cut such deals without regent’s OK.
I am looking at the destruction of Linda Kathy ‘s whole family lives and livelihoods by Janet Napolitano, her thugs and clappers who found unavailable pleasure as participants and bystanders in the orchestrated witch hunt and crucifixion of Chancellor and her family which came from other state and found home in Davis, California.
Even if you look at the last statement in this article: BUT NOW THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT LOOKS JUST AS SLOPPY AS THE CHANCELLOR, IN THEIR HANDLING OF THIS MESS.
What the quoted statement in the Vanguard’s article telling you? All and above. Greek Zorba dance and Sirtaki music are not the favorites Vanguard’s entertainments.
JW
[moderator] Tone it down, please. Your language is getting very extreme.
Moderator
Thanks for advise
When you dealing with racism aimed at Greek born 62 years old Chancellor and her Greek family than what you going to say ? Vanguard no need to be a part of .
Chancellor signature in June 2016
https://twitter.com/search?q=katehi&src=spxr
Jerry
“I am considering your posts about Chancellors Katehi as a slander and defamation of her character .”
This is truly baffling to me since I have not made any claim whatsoever about Chancellor Katehi that she herself has not admitted to including errors in the handling of the pepper spray incident, errors in judgement ( nothing illegal) with regard to her board participation and the optics of the social media “optimization” of her reputation. Since she has openly stated that she made poor decisions with regard to all of the above, wherein lies the slander ?
Ms. Mia
Maybe you should read all your posts about Chancellor , my and others response to your posts than you will come to the conclusion yourself who you really are ?
“Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:
I saw the tears of the oppressed – and they have no comforter.
Power and Tia Mia was on the side of their oppressors.”
Jerry
“When you dealing with racism aimed at Greek born 62 years old Chancellor and her Greek family than what you going to say ?
Perhaps it would be better to say nothing at all than to accuse people of slander and racism without the slightest bit of proof to support those claims.
Ms. Tia
See your mentor.
UC Regents address conflict of interest incidents with new policyhttp://www.dailycal.org/2016/06/12/uc-regents-address-conflict-interest-incidents-new-policy/?platform=hootsuite
DavidSmith
“ Are you saying the the administrators are turning the university into their own private assets? “
I think that there are a number of aspects to the question of privatization. While I agree with you that for UCD to flourish as a public university it should be funded by government funds. However, have you looked at the comments on other threads where people are unwilling to support even the infrastructure of our city or our grade schools because they see taxes as “looting” their private funds as opposed to the means by which we contribute to our society. As to the solution, to most problems, there is more than one solution. I do not like the fact that the route the Chancellor chose allowed many foreign and out of state students to attend while not granting admission to a number of in state qualifying students. I find this antithetical to the mission of the university.
However, on the personal level, I do not believe that your argument holds with regard to the actions of Chancellor Katehi. She certainly used her position to enhance her own wealth. There was no rule or regulation that said that she personally had to accept funds from her board activities. There was nothing to stop her from establishing a fund for students rather than pocketing these proceeds. And the reason that I know this is because she did so with part of her earnings once she became aware of how bad this looked to some in the community who believe that $400,000 plus a high salary for her husband, a home and multiple perks was probably sufficient compensation. I simply think that it is wrong to claim that everything she did was for the benefit of the university as though she were some kind of martyr. She chose to maximize her monetary benefits in ways that I, and probably some others see as quite unseemly.
As for my role which you have asked about, I suppose that depends on what you consider the “university”. If you feel that the medical center counts, then yes I have been involved for many years( since 1992 so well preceding the arrival of Chancellor Katehi) in who gets accepted and who gets advanced to academic positions in medicine at the medical center though input through our joint UCD / Kaiser residency program. If you are exempting the medical center, then the answer would be no.
Tia
You have not provided a solution. I can’t blame you for that, because if you look around the nation, you will see that all public universities are suffering from the same problems. It’s not unique to UC. Nobody has come up with a better solution than making them more like private universities, which is where they are all converging to.
I see no problem with that. I believe people should be rewarded according to their capabilities. Quite frankly, I think she deserves the perks she gets. Keep in mind that she is managing $3B annual budget. I have no problem with her Wiley board position and its compensation either. Now you may feel I’m nuts. But the reality is, there is a market for of university presidents/chancellors and their salaries are largely determined by the market forces. If you don’t pay well, then you will have a hard time finding anyone good. I know of several presidents/chancellors who are making 7-figure salary and they do way worse than what our Chancellor is doing to UCD.
I don’t think I ever said that. Can you quote me on that? I think all I said was that Chancellor has done great things for our university. I don’t think I said “everything” she was for the benefit the university. She certainly benefited from getting a salary and again I see no problem with that. I also work hard for the university but at the same time I benefited from my work because I earn a salary for what I do. I think the same thing could be said for you. You and I need the salary to make a living. So does the Chancellor.
The university certainly include the MC. But you do realize that the MC is very very different from the academic side of the university.
DavidSmith
“You have not provided a solution”
This is true. But I do not believe it is true for the reason that you cite. Chancellor Katehi was chosen to be a leader. But in fact she did exactly what you said. She chose the route that everyone else has chosen, that of privatization. One role of a leader is to strive to find better ways. What she chose is the typical privatization/capitalization model which amongst some admirable outcomes has also led us to the degree of economic inequality that we have currently. There are other potential ways forward, such as Bernie Sanders has been promoting with free 4 year college for all qualified. There is the concept of a UBI which certainly could be applied to students. Instead of truly leading by promoting new solutions, she chose the role of a follower within the current system.
“I see no problem with that. I believe people should be rewarded according to their capabilities”
I see a major problem with using nothing more than your position to accrue additional wealth. I have no problem with her being fully compensated for her research and her patents. I see no problem with her being paid whatever the going rate is for Chancellor as long as she is performing well and not breeching the regulations of her position and not making major errors of judgement. Unfortunately, in her own words, this did not apply to the Chancellor’s performance. In addition, I see a very large problem with saying that there is not enough money to run the university, so I will promote privatization, and since I am promoting privatization I will pocket the additional monies myself based on my position as lead of the university rather than using these funds to promote the education of those I have been chosen to lead. She had a major opportunity to lead by demonstrating that those at the top could choose to share the wealth with those who are struggling without in any way harming herself, (unless you consider $400,000/yearly inadequate) and yet she chose not to.
“I don’t think I ever said that. Can you quote me on that? “
You did not say that directly. But then I also did not say that “you” did. Certainly with Marina having stated directly and in all caps “She has done nothing wrong” and Jerry’s unwavering defense also stating at times that all of this was a “set up” by Ms. Napolitano one could easily interpret the comments from the three of you as to see no fault in the Chancellor. I see a great deal of difference between you being compensated by your salary and the Chancellor receiving hers + all of the perks of her position + the very highly compensated position of her husband + the monies from her board activities.
With regard to this issue of “looking deeper” at what is going on, I see this as a red herring. I am making no claims whatsoever about the appropriateness ( or lack thereof ) of the actions of Ms. Napolitano. But none of these current “missteps” on the part of Ms. Napolitano change the poor judgment demonstrated by the actions of Chancellor Katehi who was on shaking ground for me ever since the pepper spray incident. Unlike others who were calling for her resignation at that time, I was in favor of her being given another chance. In my mind, she squandered her second, and third, and fourth chances. When Ms. Napolitano was still supporting her, I had completely given up after DeVry and KAU. That is when I think it would have been both prudent, and integrity saving for her to have resigned as Chancellor, the job she was no longer demonstrably doing well from my perspective. And that was before the news of the PR fiasco became public and well before Ms. Napolitano’s messy public announcement
Your logic is as follows:
Suppose you are a doctor and I’m a cancer patient. I demand that you give me a cure for my cancer but you couldn’t because there is not a cure yet. So I decide that you are a bad doctor and that you should be fired and publicly humiliated.
How do you know that the Chancellor has not tried? I see many areas that she has innovated to strengthen the financial standing of the university. Note that UCD admits the most in-state students and receives the least favorable funding allocation from the UCOP.
I’m all for that. Free 4 year college. How wonderful! I think the Chancellor would love to see that as well. After all, why going through all the hurdles if we are generously funded by the State?
But who will pay for the free 4-year college? I just don’t think it’s possible with 1/10th the budget provided by the state. Show me the money!
Tia Will, these are such ridiculously slanderous statements with not substance.
The Chancellor is not promoting privatization. If you think she is, provide a formal definition of what you call “privatization” and show evidence that she is pursuing it.
Your logic is flawed. If she is serving the university well, she deserves the compensation, and she doesn’t have any obligation to put her personal money into the university.
Then please be more specific when you post such statements. Reply to MK or Jerry and voice your objections if you are referring to them.
Although we share some similar views, I am not MK or Jerry. I don’t agree with MK’s statement, “She has done nothing wrong”. I have repeatedly said that I think the achievement of the Chancellor at UCD outweighs her “missteps”. I have been very clear and consistent with my view.
Please read my comments carefully before replying and stop putting words into my mouth.
You are really dodging the question by bringing up Bernie Sanders. We have been discussing Chancellor Katehi. She will not be able to promote free 4-year college education at the national, the state, the UC system, or even the campus level. She can only work with what she has and what’s under her jurisdiction. There is no point in bringing up Bernie.
To me, your statement above shows that you don’t really have UCD at heart.
By dragging our Chancellor into all this nonsense, the UCOP is doing a real disservice to the Davis campus and UC system as a whole. The potential harm of UCOP actions to UCD is unthinkable. This is what infuriates many of us.
You post because you don’t like Katehi, which is fine, everyone has their taste.
I post because I want to see a better future for UCD. I do it because I love this university and I don’t want to see it going down the tube.
Tia Will said . . . “This is true. But I do not believe it is true for the reason that you cite. Chancellor Katehi was chosen to be a leader. But in fact she did exactly what you said. She chose the route that everyone else has chosen, that of privatization. One role of a leader is to strive to find better ways.”
Tia, I suspect she did not choose that route. Rather, I suspect the Regents chose that route, and then chose her to implement their chosen route.
I do not share and am strongly opposed to this kind of view.
Tia, are you living above the poverty line? If yes, why don’t you share your wealth with those who are not doing so well? Why don’t you share your wealth with those starving and suffering in other parts of the world?
How hypocritical!
David, my own personal definition of “privatization” is when the proportion of funding for the university from private sources is increasing and the proportion of funding for the university from public sources is decreasing.
With that said, UCD may well have gotten to the point where the private sector sources of funding actually exceeds the public sector sources of funding.
Matt
You can see my post above and also this link (page S-6) for what percentage the State is funding UC.
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov13/f6attach.pdf
David, that is UC systemwide. Do you have a similar link to UCD only?
Matt
The State doesn’t give money directly to UCD. All the money goes to UCOP and then gets distributed to the campuses.
I don’t have a document that shows how much State money flows from UCOP to Davis. But you can expect that it would be roughly proportional to the relative size of the campus.
The final number would be roughly similar to 10%, and most likely slightly lower.
David, I’m not sure how you got your 10% number. When I plug in the numbers from page S-6 of that document I get the following:
$2,640,000,000 State General Funds
$3,030,000,000 Student tuition and fee revenue
$3,968,000,000 Government Contracts and Grants
$9,638,000,000 Total Public Funds (37.7%)
$929,000,000 UC General Funds (Nonresident Supplemental Tuition revenue, cost recovery funds from research contracts and grants, patent royalty income, and fees earned for management of Department of Energy laboratories)
$7,296,000,000 Medical Center Revenues
$5,376,000,000 Other Sales and Services
$1,920,000,000 Private Support
$435,200,000 Other Sources
$15,956,200,000 Total Private Sources (62.3%)
Matt
I count only the state general funds ($2.64B) because this is the money that the State of California gives UC. This is the portion that we refer to when we speak of taxpayers’ money.
The public grants money is provided in the form of research and study programs but both the federal and state agencies. I’m on my cellphone and cant look up the break down, but I think most of it comes from federal agencies like the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, etc. This is considered public money because they ultimately come from tax, either federal or tax. However, we should not count them because: 1) they are not allocated but rather won on a competitive bases; 2) private universities, non-profits, and in some cases for-profits can also compete for this money. So this part of the money, even though it’s public, does not differentiate between a public and private university.
The tuition part should not be counted either, because it’s not tax. Private universities also collect tuition.
I commend you that you took the time to actually study the numbers, unlike some posters here who can never go beyond what they “think”.
I will sharea bit more of my thoughts on the budget issue. You see that a good portion of the budget is generated by UC itself. For example, it’s our world class faculty members and researchers who are behind the public grant money. Many units within the UC are self-sustained. However, the undergraduate education part always run a deficit because it is very expensive to maintain good facilities and high quality teaching personnel. This is the part that the State needs to fund. In fact, all UC is asking is for the State to fund this part of the expense. I believe that if UC is held as a public university, the State is obligated to fund this part. However, the State, or the public, is not willing to fulfill this obligation, and as a result, UC has to raise tuition or find alternative ways to generate the funds. Unfortunately, any money making activities will be categorized by people like Tia Will, who really doesn’t have a clue of how the university operates, as promoting “privitization”.
Some corrections of typos and inaccuracies.
David, I follow your 10% now. I originally had the Student Tuition and Government Contracts and Grants in the Private Sources category, but since I had assumed you were headed in the direction of arguing that our public universities are more public than private, I chose to lean in the public direction whenever there was any questions of categorization.
So, depending which column the Tuition and Government Contracts are put in, the UC system is between 10% and 37% “public” and between 63% and 90% “private” in their funding sources. That appears to really shoot serious holes in the idea that the UC’s are “public” universities.
Thank you for commendation. I try to consistently take the time to dig into the available information rather than jump to hasty conclusions.
I too am fundamentally opposed to high tax rate and big government. My problem with the “public” university notation is that if the state cannot fund these universities, they should stop attaching all the requirements of preferentially admitting in-state students and all that. It’s very simple; if you are not willing to pay (fund the public universities) then you don’t deserve the service.
You are absolutely right… we should eliminate all GPA/SAT scores and go to a ‘pay to play’ model… absolutely no funding from taxpayers.. and completely remove all faculty and staff from the benefit/pay schedules they currently have, to be competitive… thank you DavidSmith for my epiphany!
I’m sorry. How did you arrive at these conclusions? I don’t think I ever said or implied what you have said.
My point has been consistent and clear. The State should fund UC at a sufficiently high level so that in-state students don’t have to pay an arm and a leg to receive good higher education. The current funding level is way too low for UC to sustain its education mission to California.
Where does eliminating GPA/SAT come from? I never said we should remove merit based admission.
If you remove the faculty/researchers how can you be competitive as an academic institution?
I just don’t follow your logic. Could you elaborate?
DavidSmith
“I too am fundamentally opposed to high tax rate and big government”
And I think that this is the basis for our differences in perspective. I do not believe that taxes are evil. I see them as the way that we pay for what we have decided benefits us as members of our society. The decision was made to establish a low cost public university system based on the idea that all would benefit by a more highly educated population. I am a very strong believer in this goal. There is already a robust system of private colleges and universities in this country for those who can afford to pay and the Chancellor might very well have thrived at such an institution. I am opposed in the extreme to in effect coopting the public universities thus effectively excluding those who cannot continue to pay the ever increasing costs or those who could, but are effectively eliminated from doing so by preferentially accepting students from out of state and out of country.
“f you are not willing to pay (fund the public universities) then you don’t deserve the service.”
Ahhh….but I am willing to pay. I would choose to pay much, much more in taxes in order to fully fund the university. Do you really see no irony in those who favor privatization belonging to largely the same group as those who oppose higher taxes as a general principle ? And no irony in those who support the chancellor being those who have personally benefitted from her choice to privatize ?
I see no connection as you mentioned and I don’t see any irony. Same as you, I am also willing to pay much more for public universities. What is the problem then? Why doesn’t the governor give more money to universities? Why don’t you make a complaint to the governor?
Tia, I really don’t see that. Do you have statistics to back up your claim? I know I’m not one of them.
DavidSmith
This was not a statistical comment I was making but a selection of the positions of commenters on the Vanguard. Read the posts of Frankly, BP and SOD and it will not be difficult to understand my point even if you do not agree with it.
Tia
Thanks for clarification. I now understand that your sample size is roughly 3, and that you have picked your “selection”
Some people are never afraid to generalize and stereotype, aren’t they
I do not believe that taxes are evil.
Tia, I don’t believe that either. You kept putting words into my mouth. I said
I didn’t say that I’m opposed to all taxes. Tax is the revenue for the government and as long as we desire public services and infrastructure, we need to pay tax.
You can make all the decisions you want but at the end of the day you have to face the reality of economics. On the one hand, you want great education; on the other hand, you don’t want to pay the price. Note that I’m not accusing you specifically. By “you” I refer to the collective public. As you mentioned, it seems that either the majority of the public, or the state politicians, don’t want to pay for education. In either case, you shouldn’t ask the “public” universities to fulfill the roles of your “decision”. Again it’s very simple; you deserve what you pay for. It doesn’t matter whether you, or me, are “willing” to pay or not. We need to see the real money.
This is slanderous. I’m actually lost here by your statement. What do you mean by “personally benefitted from her choice to privatize”? What people are you referring to? How do they “personally benefitted from her choice to privatize”? Do you have evidence? Can you give some examples?
David
Ms. Tia’s conclusions and observations are priceless hopeless and helpless
Tia wrote:
> I am willing to pay. I would choose to pay much, much
> more in taxes in order to fully fund the university.
If you are “willing” to pay UC will take your money.
What department at UCD do you plan to donate money to?
Will you ask them to name anything after you?
South of Davis
PRICELESS !!!!
DavidSmith
“Would you just resign? Would you not take legal actions? What if other male workers also steal and the boss knows it all but only fires you? Would you not take legal actions??”
That would depend on whether or not I had stolen. If so, I would most certainly resign and not take legal action. Chancellor Katehi has admitted to breeching policy in her acceptance of an unapproved board position. She has admitted to other “missteps” which are enough for me to believe that she is a poor fit as a leader of a public university. She is not being accused of criminal activity. She is being accused of being unfit for her leadership position. We simply disagree on whether or not her “missteps” outweigh the positives. I see it one way, you see it the other. It really is that straightforward. I have never accused the Chancellor of doing anything to which she has not already admitted. I simply believe that those actions warrant resignation as Chancellor while you do not.
On the issue of “putting words in your mouth, often my posts will include points that other posters have made. Just because I make a point in a post addressed to you does not mean that I am implying that you are saying everything that they are saying. I understand that this is an emotional issue for you while it is not for me. I regret having made statements that led you to believe that I was accusing of you when I had no intention to do so. I will try to be more careful in my attributions in the future.
It is indeed very straightforward. You absolutely have the right to believe whatever you want to believe.
All I’ve been doing is trying to shed more light to the issue, because people who understand the university operation and cares about UCD know it’s as not simple as what we see on the surface. I have provided my view, reasoning, facts, and evidences, whereas you provided nothing more than an opinion. You (TW) dodged every time I ask you for evidence to back up your claims. I realized this half way (assuming that discussion in this post is winding down) through the discussion, and I realized that I’ll never be able to convince you. But I also realized it’s not only you (TW) who see this post and some, I hope, will see reason.
I’m absolutely emotional on this issue because I love this University and this nonsense created by Napolitano will affect everyone of us. I can understand why you are not emotional. You are an outsider. You stand on your self-proclaimed moral high ground and you point your fingers. It is the easiest thing to do in the world.
Tia Will
Just so that we are all on the same page, could you list all the missteps that the Chancellor has admitted to? Please do provide original quotes.
Trap is set, bait in place…
Well, you can take your pick of quotes from Katehi in this article, which came up quickly with a Google search for the phrase “Katehi admits missteps”. Hope you find that helpful.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article73218382.html
New PRA Documents
http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/the-public-eye/article84030042.html