Thursday, May 30, 1996
Democratic senator predicts tough road until final approvalBy
Michael Howerton
Daily Bruin Staff
Gov. Pete Wilson is expected to officially announce the
nomination of two new members to the University of California Board
of Regents tomorrow.
Although both Gerald Parsky and Peter Preuss will have to be
approved by the Senate Rules Committee, they will become board
members as soon as the official announcement is made.
They will remain members of the board until the Senate decides
to confirm or reject their nominations, which will be sometime
within a year.
Parsky, 53, is a Republican and a chairman of a Los
Angeles-based investment firm, Aurora Capital Partners. He was an
assistant secretary in the U.S. Treasury Department from 1974 to
1977.
Parsky has been involved in the University of California since
1992 when he became a trustee of the UC San Diego Foundation.
Peter Preuss, 53, founded the Preuss Foundation, a brain tumor
research firm, in 1985. He received his masters degree in math at
UC San Diego in 1968 and has been involved in the campus as a
teaching assistant in the 1960s and currently as a member of the
Board of Overseers.
Both have revealed that they support Wilson’s attempts to
eliminate preferences based on gender or race in the university.
Reports have also come to light that both are significant
contributors to Wilson’s campaigns.
Reports that Wilson has received donations of $74,000 from
Parsky and $32,000 from Preuss might become issues of contention as
the senate has vowed to put an end to the tradition of regental
positions as rewards for the governor’s allies.
Only once in the university’s history has a governor’s nominee
ever been rejected by the senate committee. The confirmation
process has largely been considered a mere formality by state
officials.
But this time around things are going to be different, vowed a
spokesman of Democratic Sen. Bill Lockyer, chair of the Senate
Rules Committee, which votes to confirm or reject the nominations.
The senate committee is taking a tougher stance in approving
regents because of the numerous recent battles over university
policies.
Critics have repeatedly charged that the regents have forsaken
their obligation to the university by turning the board into a
political arena  at times resembling a platform or a
battlefield, seldom a regental body.
Over the past year, the board has also come under attack for
becoming increasingly politicized in its decisions. Every one of
the 16 appointed Board of Regents members are Republican and
critics charge that this engenders a politicized atmosphere where
the regents can pursue a program to complement the political aims
of the Republican governor.
Many have speculated that the decision to eliminate affirmative
action from the university last July was politically motivated to
aid Wilson’s attempts to launch a presidential campaign. Recently,
the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) has crept into the
discussion at board meetings,as well.
Regent Ward Connerly, who spearheaded the drive to eliminate
affirmative action, is also one of the main supporting forces
behind Wilson’s attempt to get CCRI passed by California voters.
The initiative would eliminate all preferences due to race or
gender in public institutions.
For many, Connerly is the epitome of the politicalization of the
board. Other board members have reproached him during their monthly
open meetings for dragging the board into the political waters.
At the March meeting in San Francisco, Regent William Bagley
told Connerly that he resented Connerly’s attempts to use his
position as a regent to campaign for CCRI. Connerly’s actions were
destroying the integrity of the board, Bagley told him.
Connerly responded that the Board of Regents was political by
nature and any beliefs that the board’s actions were divorced from
the political sphere were dillusions.
Lockyer however, disagrees and has vowed to prevent the trend of
turning the University of California into a flag in the political
winds. Parsky and Preuss will be examined with greater severity
than any previous nominees, Lockyer’s press secretary, Sandy
Harrison said.
"(They) will be put under close scrutiny on a close array of
issues," Harrison said. "Especially on student fees there will be
very, very, close scrutiny."
Along with student fees, Harrison said Parsky and Preuss will be
closely questioned on other controversial issues that have
dominated the board’s discussions this year.
While Harrison said he wouldn’t consider the issues of
affirmative action and admissions policies a litmus test for the
nominees, he said, they will be central to the senate’s
examination.
"(They) will certainly be asked about their beliefs of diversity
and will certainly be asked to defend their views," he said.
A spokesman for Republican Sen. Rob Beverly, also a member of
the Rules Committee, agreed that the battle the nominees face will
be tougher than usual.
"(The nominations) are going to be controversial," Beverly’s
administrative assistant, Tom Martin said. "There are lots of
issues that the nominees are going to have to discuss and should
expect to be questioned on."
Beverly will most likely support Wilson and vote in favor of
confirming the two nominees, Martin said.
Despite the rigorous scrutiny the senate promises to apply,
Martin speculated the past will probably serve as an accurate
predictor of Parsky’s and Preuss’ fates.
"If you go with the track record," he said, "I would guess that
the process would favor confirmation."
There have been two vacancies on the board since Regent Glenn
Campbell and Regent Dean Watkins ended their 12-year terms in
March. Watkins and Campbell were regarded as two of the most
conservative regents on the board and both backed Wilson’s plan to
eliminate affirmative action in the university.