Monday, November 3, 1997
Q&A: Regent potential
REGENTS
Ralph Ochoa is Gov. Pete Wilson’s nominee to the Board of
Regents.
By Caroline M. Bontia
Daily Bruin Contributor
Just two weeks after being nominated as one of three candidates,
Ralph Ochoa, a Sacramento lawyer, may become a member of the Board
of Regents, the governing body of the University of California.
The 56-year-old is Gov. Pete Wilson’s nominee, and a Democrat. A
senior partner of Ochoa and Sillas since 1978, Ochoa earned a
bachelor’s degree in zoology and later a juris doctorate from UCLA.
In his long history of involvement and leadership in the education
community, he has been an active member of UCLA’s Board of Trustees
and the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Public Policy Advisory
Board.
Ochoa is now awaiting his formal confirmation. He may begin his
tenure as a Regent as early as mid-November.
Speaking of his on-going nomination process and his recent
interview with the advisory committee, Ochoa reveals the challenges
ahead.
Q: Did you feel that you had a good interview with the advisory
committee?
I thought so. But at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I have
not only been a high-profile volunteer at my own alma mater, UCLA,
at every level, and president of the Alumni Association; I’ve
(also) been on the board of visitors for four years and am in my
second term, nominated by both chancellors (Young and Carnesale).
And I have been on a foundation that knows how to raise $1.4
billion.
I had special expertise from my upbringing – culturally, etc. –
in being active in the minority community. I had the opportunity to
be the unofficial advisor to particular chancellors when they have
had issues that attended to a minority population on their
campuses.
Q: What type of questions did the advisory committee ask?
Where I might be on the graduate student (move) to unionize; I
was asked about domestic partner issues; whether I thought the
population explosion on campus justified a new campus; what types
of issues I would bring to the board; what message reverberates
from issues such as 209; and how I would speak to youngsters about
hope.
Q: Where do you stand on Proposition 209?
I am dedicated to the notion of diversity. It’s natural in my
view. It makes sense from a human, social, business point of view.
The issue of affirmative action depends on how you describe it or
define it.
(Prop 209) is one of the ways to accomplish diversity. The goal
isn’t affirmative action, the goal is an equitable notion of
diversity. I am committed to that. I am public with the notion that
I am not in favor of affirmative action right now.
As I mentioned before, I am looking into poor communities to
find the extent that we are involved in affirmative action
programs. We are focused on the wrong area. We are losing hundreds
and thousands of youngsters from K-12, with our limited number of
outreach programs.
Q: What standing committees are you interested in joining on the
Regents?
The finance committee, although I know that it is difficult to
be on. The chairman has the decision on placing members. I am
interested in that committee because I don’t think you can
implement programs unless there are financial allocations to
implement them.
I am experienced in reviewing budget cutting, and I am not
hesitant in asking the real questions.
Q: What do you think is the stigma when someone says, "I am a
Regents board member"? What do you think students want to know
about their Regents?
The image is that the Regents continue to be a collegial body of
‘fat cats’ who are so removed from the real world … that they,
the Regents, cannot really identify with the working student and
their parents … or those kinds of obstacles that the student is
confronted with in terms of financial sacrifices that families or
students themselves have to make.
And that the board is (made up of people) who make from $55,000
to $165,000 a year or more, looking at families that are really
struggling in making $28,000 to $42,000 a year … who also have
two working spouses in the family.
So that is the image, though I would say to the student: One:
unfortunately we don’t have as great a mix (on the board) as
perhaps we should. However, I am convinced that just because
persons are well-to-do financially, it doesn’t mean that they
forget their past.
We have members of the board who are not born with a silver
spoon in their mouth, so to speak. They are self-made business
persons, very successful, etc. They, in my point of view, are
well-meaning persons who are committed to education, and we do
indeed see things differently.
But I don’t think it’s fair to categorize the Regents … as
mean-spirited, when someone doesn’t know them with any
particularity. But clearly that image exists, and I intend to do
something to change that.
I intend to really make a pilgrimage to get out to
superintendents of school districts, asking them to set me up with
key principals of that area, so we can talk person-to-person.
I have a source of money that we can at least start addressing
those problems with those excuses, because I want to bring
accountability as to what those districts are doing in producing
qualified students that the parents are sending. Parents’
expectations are just not being met.
I also want some dialogue with teacher associations that are
very powerful with the legislature, but who are not involved with
pieces of legislation that would allow teachers to deal with the
discipline that is necessary in the classroom.
Those teachers’ associations, who will go unnamed, are dealing
with the pension plan, etc. I’m not saying that is bad. But, there
is a real problem when you are not dealing with the tools you need.
The legislation can’t give you (those tools), as unions have done
"a, b, c, and d" that are now working against the student. The
student needs to be the focus and we have missed it by a mile. And
I said that to the panel. There are too many discussions that go on
that don’t mention the student. How does the student fit in the
deliberations?
Q: When you mentioned that it isn’t about the "student," then
where has the focus been specifically?
It is about, "How does the faculty feel about it? What is the
convenience or inconvenience to them? How does the administration
or the academic senate look here or there?"
Those are real factors, but you shouldn’t stop there. How do we
discuss the factor of how the students come into play? Too often
there isn’t a fair hearing to the concerns of the students.
Part of our job is to explain to students what problems we’re
having with limited funding.
But we have to dialogue more with students and have an
opportunity to educate them on what is going on in campuses. So we
have to get out there. And sometimes it isn’t enough to get
chancellors out there on the campuses. Sometimes it’s a matter of
saying, "If we’re making the decisions as Regents because we have
the final fiduciary duty, then we need to be there." And I have a
record of doing that.
Students are not always going to like what I say. But that’s OK.
I’ll be out there. I’m active about it, I am passionate, I do have
some position, but I am very careful. …
But when the quarterback calls the play, then you run it until
the next play. It’s the art of compromise.
Q: What do you think is unique about the University of
California?
What is special about it: In the master plan, the UC is a
research university. And in that plan, they have consciously taken
the best students on a formula, they have taken the best faculty
possible, and they have formulated an administration around that
core of talent. When you take that kind of critical mass, you have
to do something quite wrong not to be on the top.
But the UCs have dealt with some really tough problems that
other universities have not worked their way out of successfully.
And the UCs have done the best that anyone in the world can, with
the excellence and the talent that they start with. And I try to
describe and explain it that way because I don’t think the
administration, or the Regents, should take credit that doesn’t
belong to them.
The faculty and the students really give the UCs the greatest
amount of lift-off possible.
Q: How will you deal with not being confirmed on the board?
I am one partner of three in the law firm, and I owe them a
fiduciary duty. There were thousands of dollars (in my earnings)
that I asked the firm to give up. I could not have done it without
their support. I am giving up cash flow for doing this, but I think
it is worth it.
Q: Who do you owe your motivation to?
My family should be commended. Because they were uneducated
people, immigrants from Mexico who fled the revolution in 1915.
They just said, "There is nothing more we can do except try and get
an education for our children."
Q: What are your personal hobbies?
I run everyday, five miles. I like to drive my convertible with
the top down! I have an olive green, ’96 Mustang. It’s my hot rod.
I never had the money to have one.
Q: How do you feel about stepping into the spotlight?
I don’t mind it. I guess I should be more positive about it.
There is a sensitivity issue, because the spotlight means that you
can get kudos. You can also be criticized and be highly
embarrassed.
But I feel comfortable in my training, and my life has been very
public. I feel very fortunate about my activities. And I intend to
utilize my position in the bully pulpit:
"What is going wrong? When does it start? What have you done to
correct it?" And if there is no attitudinal change, (the Regents)
are going to be on the hot seat. I’m bringing the media on
them.
It was former President John F. Kennedy who once responded to a
question about controversy in his administration. He said, "If
you’re dealing with an entity in which there is no controversy,
then probably nothing is going on."
We’re in a controversial entity, in times of controversy, but we
can take it in a positive mode.