Emanual M. Maverakis, Walter S. Leal, Tilahun Yilma, Kyaw Tha Paw U, Leopoldo M. Bernucci, Charles E. Hess, Bruno Nachtergaele and Linda F. Bisson published an op-ed piece arguing, “With so many controversies surrounding her, it is easy to think Katehi’s resignation is best for UCD and the UC system. However, the more interesting and less publicized story is why the majority of UCD faculty support her and why many decry Napolitano’s decision to put Katehi on administrative leave following her refusal to resign.”
After a long background explaining the finances of the system, the authors note, “The governor of California appoints regents who in turn appoint a university president who in turn nominates chancellors, who are charged with running the different UC campuses. Finding good chancellors is the key to the success of the UC system, and unfortunately it has been hit or miss for many of the campuses.”
They argue that the “ideal chancellor will be an accomplished academician with the business savvy of a Fortune 500 CEO but with a broader portfolio. After all, they will be overseeing their campus’ multibillion-dollar budget as well as educational and research missions.”
They note, “One caveat to this design is that accomplished academicians often are not interested in becoming chancellors because the demands of the job are not compatible with a productive research and academic career.”
“Is Linda Katehi a good chancellor?” they ask. “Given the breadth and intricacies of the job, no UC chancellor will be a perfect fit, and Katehi is no exception. Some professors do not support her for various reasons and there is ongoing animosity by some students who believe their tuition is being squandered on highly paid university executives. This is amplified by residual sentiment from the pepper-spraying incident and the recent reports of her compensated outside university activities.”
“We agree with our students that the loss of the middle class and the deepening of the divide between wealthy and poor limiting access to education creates the type of society UC was created to prevent from arising in California,” they write.
However, “student protesters who view Katehi as personally responsible for the decline of the middle class make up only a relatively tiny fraction of the enormous student body, and the faculty members of the Academic Senate have in the past voted to express their confidence in her.”
While the professor clearly understate the number of student who do not like Chancellor Katehi, they turn their focus to the popularity of Chancellor Katehi among university professors. This, they argue, “has never been accurately reported by the news media, who have been historically focused on the sport of taking her down, as it creates the best headlines. However, in many ways Katehi is the epitome of an ‘ideal’ chancellor: an award-winning, patent-holding engineer with the business savvy to lead the university to record heights in company and government grants and contracts, while raising well over a billion dollars in philanthropic donations, much of which is used to keep UCD affordable via student fellowships, grants and scholarships. This financial aid enables UCD to rely less on out-of-state students and the higher tuition gained therefrom.”
They then enumerate “numerous other contributions that Katehi has made.”
Here they focus on “”promoting diversity and bringing women into STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).” They call her efforts here “unparalleled.” They write, “With partial support from a grant from the National Science Foundation, UCD has added dozens of women and under-represented minorities to its faculty. These efforts have been recognized by Forbes, which named UCD as the most important STEM university for women.”
They add, “The same is true for UCD’s undergraduate student body, which is the most diverse it has ever been. Also noteworthy is the service UCD has provided for the state of California. Under Katehi’s leadership, this campus has consistently enrolled more California residents than any of the other UC campuses.”
“Should California politicians ask for the removal of Katehi?” they ask. “The answer to this ought to be a resounding ‘no.’ Unfortunately, most California politicians do not have the appropriate background to understand how to best run the multifaceted UC system, and its complex budget and economic model, the success of which depends on continuous envelope-pushing by the best and brightest minds.”
What they do not address is the accusations that Linda Katehi faces.
So why are UC faculty disappointed in Janet Napolitano? They come forward with a long list of complaints here.
- Napolitano has no experience with the typical educational, research and publishing activities of academics. She has no past experience in guiding the process of discovery of new knowledge that drives true innovation. She has not been involved in the process of educating young adults and teaching them to become lifelong learners, productive citizens and critical thinkers.
Previous UC presidents historically have been distinguished professors with well-established academic accomplishments and a deep understanding of the education process; many were graduates of the UC system. In contrast, Napolitano is a career politician and lawyer.
- The process of shared governance at UC delegates much of the responsibility for academic programs to faculty. Faculty and administrators work closely together to deliver our educational and research missions to the benefit of citizens of California.
President Napolitano consistently ignores the UC faculty’s input, expressed collectively through the UC Academic Senate or via letters signed by hundreds of professors. Often she does not even acknowledge receipt of these documents, nor does she convey them to the regents.
To the faculty, this hard-hitting management strategy is not in line with the creative and collective goals of the UC system and the many decades of shared governance that have served this university so well.
- We are distressed that Napolitano is handling the Katehi issue as if it were a political campaign by attempting to convict her of wrongdoing through the court of public opinion. While Katehi has been silenced with a gag order, Napolitano and her operatives are free to release statements and to conduct interviews with the press that damage Katehi’s reputation.
Napolitano persistently states that she is basing her judgment of the chancellor on factual “documents,” but has failed to release these to the UCD faculty.
- Although the Office of the President has knowledge of the UC polices and their implementation, the supposed violation of which led to Katehi being placed on administrative leave, Napolitano is steering her office clear of any connection to these publicly unpopular polices by controlling what information is released to the media.
For example, one of the claims is that Vice Chancellor Adela de la Torre received excessive pay increases and that Katehi showed poor judgment when she elected to serve on the DeVry University board. What Napolitano fails to mention is that the regents approved de la Torre’s pay increase and, even more surprisingly, her office knew of Katehi’s service on DeVry’s board prior to any public announcement.
In fact, Katehi had asked Napolitano’s office for advice regarding DeVry well before DeVry announced the appointment to the public. Prior to the negative press, Napolitano’s office never advised Katehi to resign from this or any other board. And the fact that such board service is encouraged by regents policy was not immediately reported by the Office of the President in spite of public requests for information on this policy and its implementation.
- The faculty find many of Napolitano’s claims to be completely absurd. For example, she makes the accusation that Katehi’s son reports directly to his wife. However in reality, Katehi’s son is an epidemiology graduate student, who reports to faculty. From faculty and student perspectives, graduate students report to their professors and to the director of their graduate program. Making such a claim highlights the lack of experience Napolitano has in academics, having never trained a graduate student of her own, and having never been directly involved in graduate education administration.
In fact, the issue of Katehi’s son was independently investigated by the UCD Academic Senate and found to be entirely baseless.
- Other accusations also show that Napolitano does not understand the business side of the UC system. For example, much criticism is being given to the approximately $172,000 that Katehi’s administration paid to improve UCD’s online image. Although this amount might seem excessive, in reality UCD is a multibillion-dollar enterprise with a public relations budget that is in the lower half of UC campuses.
However, with a relentless news media on the hunt, this modest investment made negative headlines later, fueled by the release of contracts boasting a squeaky-clean internet scrubbed of negative information. Clearly, erasing negative press reports from internet history is impossible, but common sense in news reporting and politics do not go hand in hand.
The fact is that a university’s public image is directly linked to its online image, which therefore plays an important role, and this is why most major U.S. research universities have significant public relations budgets. It is especially important for a public institution to transparently report out on the use of public funds, even as the percentage of those funds of the total budget decreases.
Also in this day and age, management of a cyber profile is completely routine across both the public and private sectors. Not noted in any of the public outrage is the obvious connection between telling the story of accomplishment of an institution and the garnering of philanthropic interest.
- As has been pointed out by multiple groups, including Katehi’s legal team, Napolitano is investigating a direct report, Katehi, an individual in which she has publicly expressed no confidence, and therefore has a direct interest in a specific outcome. This constitutes a clear conflict of interest in an investigation.
Napolitano appointed Melinda Haag, a former U.S. attorney under the Obama administration, to head the investigation. Haag represented the Department of Homeland Security while Napolitano was serving as the agency’s head and her firm has worked for UC in the past.
For these and many other reasons, it will be difficult for the results of any investigation conducted by Haag to be viewed as unbiased. For the staggering amount that the state is paying to investigate Katehi, one would hope that it would be conducted appropriately the first time.
They argue: “When the outcome appears predetermined due to public statements of the individual calling for the investigation, in our view there is no way for justice to prevail. If one disregards the actual denominators, the outcome of the Katehi investigation may seem headline-worthy but what is really saddening is the impact that this and other politically driven events ultimately will have on the UC system and our ability to recruit the kind of risk-taking innovators essential to the continued creativity, accomplishment and societal impact of UC.”
The continue: “Does UC Davis need to implement some administrative changes? Yes, but asking Katehi to resign is like firing a Fortune 500 CEO after she has successfully led her company to new heights against the backdrop of a global economic downturn.”
They conclude: “The handling of the Davis crisis by Janet Napolitano is a political heavy-handed approach, which has caused irreparable damage to the university’s reputation. Given the circumstances surrounding this possible separation, it is likely that we will never find a replacement of the same caliber as Katehi.”
Yes, but asking Katehi to resign is like firing a Fortune 500 CEO after she has successfully led her company to new heights against the backdrop of a global economic downturn.”
What anybody could expect from the homosovieticus like Janet Napolitano or any other marksist who thinks that he is liberal but in fact he is an American communist who is hiding his ideology under the umbrella of liberalism.
Once you have evidence of theft and corruption, the success of the organization becomes secondary to the Integrity and Perceived Honesty of the principals.
Many meetings and memos I read since Katehi came on board has mentioned an increased income stream at all levels by recruiting out of state and international students due to the increased income they bring. This comes at the expense of California Students.
Another facet of this is the theft and mismanagement of the place, articulated by the Professors, that claim she “understands” what they do and support it. Many Faculty are little enterprises all to themselves, and violate UC Policies, and State Laws, yet get it covered up after the fact.
Katehi’s membership in the DeVry board and the other one demonstrate how she is out for what she can glean on the side while spreading around the largess. Creating “Foundations” and “Public-Private” partnerships for the benefit (ostensibly) of the University are good for the Press releases, yet suck real money out of the place to control it out of the accountability stream, since those books are sealed.
“This financial aid enables UCD to rely less on out-of-state students and the higher tuition gained therefrom.”
Just think if it wasn’t for Katehi UCD would have surpassed the number of full paying “out-of-state” admitted students, many of whom underperformed our in-state and un-admitted applicants, that were brought in under Katehi.. The fact that UCD admitted the most full pay out-of-state students of any UC campus seems to be lost on her supporters. The fact that this program has been such a public relations disaster for UC and has resulted in the UC surging more in-state students into the unprepared Davis community and campus also seems overlooked by the authors.
I was far away two weeks ago visiting old friends from Davis and one of them was outraged about the policy of admitting out-of -state students at the expense of qualified in-state students. I have heard the same thing from my cousin who lives in a different part of the state and has a much different political identity than my friend. My cousin, a UCLA grad, even went further claiming she was going to stop giving to the alumni association. It’s no wonder Napolitano had to quell the outrage across the state by increasing enrollment. Nobody implemented the out-of-state policy more fully than Katehi but I’m not sure her defenders are being wise by including the issue in this defense of Katehi offensive attack on Napolitano.
Read it twice, but don’t find anything in the story itself that justifies the “headline”… please enlighten…
Ha ha! Made you read it!
Typical tactic of a dying online blog.
I completely understand how those who have benefited directly from the actions of Chancellor Katehi would be inclined to defend her philosophy and actions. I also understand how those who are not benefited or perceive themselves as having their tuition and fees contribute to what are seen as the egregious compensation of top administrators would not be as supportive. I am writing as someone who has no economic interest one way or the other in the actions of the Chancellor or Ms. Napolitano. I write only as someone who has a strong interest in the “public” nature of our public university system. I understand that these points are repetitive, so I will address only those specifically brought up again in this article.
For each quote I have chosen, I would like to provide an alternative path that could have been, but was not chosen because of the desire to turn a public institution into a privatized one.
“the “ideal chancellor will be an accomplished academician with the business savvy of a Fortune 500 CEO but with a broader portfolio. After all, they will be overseeing their campus’ multibillion-dollar budget as well as educational and research missions.”
I have no objection to the criteria of “an accomplished academician”. I also have no problem with “the business savvy of a Fortune 500 CEO” as long as it refers only to her knowledge base. The problem that I have with the Chancellor is her relentless drive to essentially turn a public university into a private enterprise. Having knowledge of the way a system works does not imply leadership. For me, leadership should entail the ability to see the short comings of a system that you are in ( such as well compensated leaders further contributing to their own personal wealth, but not the well being of their students by participating in outside boards for pay). Had Chancellor Katehi used her extensive knowledge of business and boards to say “Those of us at the top do not need more money, let’s revisit this policy and either make the contributions for free or donate the funds to our students” she would have had my complete respect for standing up to and leading the way out of an obviously inequitable and some cases frankly corrupt ( KAU ) system. It is precisely because she did have the business savvy of a CEO that she should have been working to change rather than personally profit further from the system.
““One caveat to this design is that accomplished academicians often are not interested in becoming chancellors because the demands of the job are not compatible with a productive research and academic career.”
Another caveat to this design is that some accomplished academicians are interested in the dissemination of information for the actual wellbeing of our environment, our community and our people rather than simply as a means of wealth and prestige accumulation. One notable example would be the researcher on the Zika virus who was posting his experiments and findings on line for all to evaluate in real time for the sole purpose of acquiring the knowledge necessary to develop a vaccine as soon as possible, not so that he could get rich fast by hoarding the information and then profiting as much as possible by patenting the formula and then charging egregious amounts claiming the financial “need” due to the expense of its formulation. Another example would be the Kaiser research teams, earning exactly the same amount of money as any other doctor in their specialty, who have changed the national standards for cervical cancer testing simply by doing their jobs, not by focusing on personal wealth accumulation. A public university should be promoting the public well being, not just further lining the pockets of those at the top.
“”promoting diversity and bringing women into STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).” They call her efforts here “unparalleled.””
As pointed out previously, I salute Chancellor Katehi’s continuance of the long standing leadership of UCD in “promoting diversity and bringing women into STEM fields. However, I do not accept, having been a member of the half female medical school class of 1983 that she has done anything more than continue this tradition at UCD which has been a leader in female educational advancement for decades prior to the arrival of Chancellor Katehi.
“We agree with our students that the loss of the middle class and the deepening of the divide between wealthy and poor limiting access to education creates the type of society UC was created to prevent from arising in California,” they write.
However, “student protesters who view Katehi as personally responsible for the decline of the middle class make up only a relatively tiny fraction”
I would take this statement further. I do not believe that there is a single student who believes that Chancellor Katehi is personally responsible for the decline of the middle class. However, I believe that there are many who share my view that as the Chancellor of a public as opposed to private university part of her leadership mission should be to steer the university away from the practices that lead and contribute to the decline of the middle class and increase in wealth disparity rather than promoting and personally benefitting from these practices. This she has consistently chosen not to do so. This is the main reason that while I see her as a highly accomplished scientist, and researcher, and I can easily see how she would be a great asset for a private university, I see her as completely unsuitable to head a public university. Now I can also see that there may be some here who simply do not believe in public universities and believe that everything should be privatized. If you hold this view, I can certainly understand your unwavering support for Chancellor Katehi. However, this is a philosophic difference that we will not overcome and will just have to accept.
Tia
Just donate 80% of your annual income to UC Davis than I see that your philosophy and writing on this forum has any meanings or at least launch the financial donation campaign and bring to the UC Davis over one billion dollars in same way as Chancellor Katehi did . edited
Jerry
Over the years, I have donated to the alumni association as well as a great deal of teaching time, speaking time to pre-med and medical student groups, and have participated in research through Kaiser that we are not allowed to benefit from. I am currently teaching for free in my clinic two days weekly. But I am not a leader ( mid level manager at most). I expect even more from those who put themselves forward into leadership positions than I do from the rank and file. Thus my disappointment.
This has nothing to do with socialism. It has a great deal to do with personal responsibility and the recognition that all of us who have benefitted from our public institutions have a responsibility to pay back to those institutions to help those who follow. Now I agree, that there are those such as you and perhaps Chancellor Katehi who do not appear to have appreciation for the role that a public institution has played in your career, but I feel very, very differently. I did not get to be a doctor by myself alone.
It took my public elementary, junior high and high school education followed by my entirely public school advanced education to get me where I am. I owe a personal debt to those who saw the wisdom of supporting public education. I cannot pay back the debt to those who preceded me, but I can support the public education of those who follow. I am sorry that you do not seem to be able to see beyond your ideology to recognize the benefit of public efforts as well as individual efforts in advancing education.
When did advocating for public schools become, “cheap socialist propaganda”? JW, do you also want a private police force and fire department? How about private roads?
Grok
UC system is not entirely supported by tax payers money . If would than most likely Sate of California would go go broke . We have toll roads and toll bridges in this country and in this state . Maybe these bridges are not private but they are supported by users income as same as the parking in the University of California . Public schools are no avoidable . In Davis and Lodi where I live public schools are good but no everywhere is not a same situation like in Davis and Lodi , CA . Lodi has a quite few private schools as well
edit
You got it in a nutshell, Tia.. Good Job. As a multi decade employee there I see the same thing happening, which I resist, although my comments never reach to top.
The other thing is jobs that used to be available, and for a University of this size, growing by thousands of students per year, are not only less than they have ever been, they are all “contract” and “limited appointment” jobs, with no benefits, limited when they can be, they have never paid overtime in violation of State Law, and don’t even take out SSI or OSDAI (?) like they should.
There used to be hundreds of openings, now there are less than 25 on any given day. Services are being combined and moved to different campuses, cloud services and contractors, and the Med Center (UCDHS) the same in spite of a new Nursing School.
Of course the Bonus Program is still rampant, which is easier than legitimately raising salaries.
Look these esteemed faculty members up on Transparent California. If my total compensation had increased by 50-100% or more in the past two years I too would write a glowing op/ed for my benefactor. Don’t bite the hand that feeds your greed!
Her defining characteristic is she blames others fur her mistakes as a routine personal and management style. Did it at U of I when her staff were selling admission slots to the sons and daughters of the rich and famous alums. I publicly stated years ago my opposition to hiring.
Thinking through having a senior national security official and lawyer heading UC, I would guess that for the President, having a whining and blame shifting Chancellor, those characteristics alone would lead to forcing the Chancellor to move on. Like nails on a chalk board …
This isn’t news, David. They obviously all know she is going to be fired and they are angling for position, somehow, politically.
At this point I would say more financially…..
Agree: it’s in negotiation right now.
No, she delegates that.
In contrary to the previous Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef, Katehi has no record in the Yolo County Superior Court ,Sacramento County Superior Court or Federal Court that Katehi had been sued by an employee or she was involved in the lawsuit with the exception to the November 18, 2011 pepper spray show. If she would be involved than I would know regardless if she delegated somebody or directly gave order to fire somebody . UC is not employment at will and is self governed public employment entity than is difficult to hide any settlement .
[Moderator]: Ok, folks, ready? Watch them go….
Don Shor
July 24, 2016 at 1:58 pm
[Moderator]: Ok, folks, ready? Watch them g
Thanks Don
The ego of Katehi rubs off on her hangers-on, that she is a vital element we cannot live without. The cemetaries of the world are filled with indispensible people.
She’s an embarrassment, and a magnet for unpleasant future scrutiny. I realize SHE doesn’t want to get fired, because nobody else would hire at this point. She’ll cling to this job like a drowning victim claws at their rescuer.
Fire her, find a replacement and let’s move on. I’m sick and TIRED of having the “Katehi conversation” everytime I meet someone and they find out I’m from UC Davis.
It smells so nice and fresh around here. Did someone clean the latrine?
Thank you Don Shor.