A state Senate bill that would require the UC Board of Regents and CSU Board of Trustees to hold all votes regarding executive compensation in open session has cleared two Senate committees and could be on its way to a vote on the Senate floor.
The bill, SB 190, was introduced last year by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who introduced a similar bill last year that died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Yee introduced last year’s version of the bill after the San Francisco Chronicle revealed in late 2005 that extravagant compensation packages were awarded to several University of California employees without approval of the regents.
Adam Keigwin, a spokesman for Yee, said the bill has been slightly modified to allow the regents to still discuss compensation packages in closed session, but any committee and subcommittee votes would have to be in open session.
The bill cleared the Senate Education Committee by an 8-0 vote, and on Tuesday cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 4-0 vote. The next stop for the bill is the Appropriations Committee, and if it passes, it will be moved for a vote on the Senate floor.
Though the bill did not pass in the Senate Appropriations Committee last year, Keigwin said he was optimistic it would pass this time around.
“The chair of Appropriations from last year is no longer on the legislature,” he said. “Since our bill last year, there have only been more allegations against the regents and trustees and more exorbitant compensation packages for executives while raising student fees.”
The UC maintains its opposition to the bill, arguing there is a strong need for privacy when discussing compensation issues.
“Because regents’ discussions of executive compensation are intertwined with discussions about the performance and value of individuals, it is important that regents be able to discuss and evaluate compensation and personnel performance in private before taking action in public,” UC spokesman Paul Schwartz said in a statement.
The bill would also require the regents and trustees to hold specific public comment sessions about executive compensation issues when they come up.
“We want public comment on this specific action item,” he said.
Currently, public comment is allowed 20 minutes before or after meetings, but Keigwin said this is not enough time to properly address these issues and supported additional time to discuss compensation. The bill’s supporters include the UC Students Association, several UC and CSU unions and UC Faculty Associations.
Tina Park, a UCSA board member and the external vice president of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, said she supports the bill but would like to see the committee discussions on executive compensation in open session.
“This doesn’t scare the people that hide information because they can still talk in closed session, but this is a good first step,” Park said. “A lot is said in committee discussions that is valuable.”
But the UC argues it is going beyond what is legally required in open-meeting laws to address issues of compensation.
“The university has implemented, and continues to implement, a wide range of reforms regarding the approval and public disclosure of compensation actions, including a new practice established in 2006 that requires the regents’ compensation committee to vote in open session on compensation for all university officials requiring approval by the regents,” Schwartz said in a statement.
CORRECTION: A paragraph discussing the time alloted to public comment sessions incorrectly attributed Paul Schwartz as the source. The correct source is Adam Keigwin.