Correction appended
University of California officials acknowledged violations of UC
policy and reaffirmed their commitment to accountability and
transparency in compensation practices at a Senate Education
Committee hearing Wednesday.
In the second of two hearings, state senators demanded from both
UC President Robert Dynes and UC Board of Regents Chairman Gerald
Parsky clear and definite action to correct policies that have lead
to the recent controversy over UC pay practices.
They urged administrators to take responsibility for past
transgressions, expressing frustration over the UC’s
inability to comply with its own policies and to keep practices
accountable to the public.
Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, said she believes there has
been wrongdoing on the part of UC officials and there should be
ramifications, such as the resignation or firing of those
responsible.
“I hope that you and the regents have the sense to stand
up and shake things up so that, for the next few years, things
won’t go as awry as they have obviously gone in the last few
years,” Romero said to Dynes.
Senators were dissatisfied with UC officials’ defense at
the first hearing on Feb. 8 that UC compensation practices were on
par with those of comparable institutions, saying the UC cannot be
pardoned simply because other institutions may also lack
transparency in their practices.
“The University of California may be average when it comes
to accountability, but the average is mediocre,” said Sen.
Elaine Alquist, D-San Jose.
And Sen. Jackie Speier, D-San Francisco, said that just because
other institutions are run the same way does not make it right to
be unaccountable to the public.
“What we need to do is lead the way by transforming our
institutions,” Speier said.
UC officials were apologetic and admitted again to mistakes in
which UC policies were not followed. Dynes blamed this lack of
compliance on officials making exceptions to university policy.
“We have far too many (exceptions). Exceptions to policy
have become the norm. Exceptions become policy, and nobody looks at
the policy after that,” he said.
In order to solve the problem of compliance, Dynes said the UC
Office of the President, in consultation with the regents, must now
approve all exceptions to policy in compensation matters for senior
managers.
One such “exception” was a $30,000 dog run that was
built for UC Santa Cruz Chancellor Denise Denton.
Dynes called it a “project that just got out of
whack” because no one was watching.
The UC Office of the President also approved $7,000 to build a
fence for the university house, but the UC ended up paying $30,000
to finish the project, Dynes said.
To prevent such misuses of the university’s finances in
the future, Dynes said he has asked the university controller to
monitor projects more closely, so he will hear about runaway
projects and “somebody will be there to raise the red
flag.”
At the hearing, Parsky, along with Regents Judith Hopkinson and
Joanne Kozberg, confirmed the board’s direct role in
oversight of compensation at the university.
Parsky said the regents remain “valiant and very
hands-on” in university matters and that the board has never
hesitated to correct policies and practices when warranted.
“We do believe … we have the responsibility of holding
the administration accountable,” Parsky said. “If that
means firing people, then we will.”
But he added that the regents must first have full knowledge of
the facts surrounding each issue, including an understanding of
whether the matter arose due to error, misjudgment or
organizational deficiencies, he said.
Parksy said UC officials have failed to properly and
consistently disclose their compensation practices to the regents
and to the public.
He said the regents were not notified of the compensation
packages given to former Provost MRC Greenwood and UC Davis Vice
Chancellor Celeste Rose at the time of the agreements.
Greenwood resigned in November following violations of
university conflict-of-interest policies, and the university has
been criticized for paying her $300,000 for a one-year sabbatical
before allowing her to return to a UC faculty position at an annual
salary of $301,840.
Rose received a severance package that allows her to work from
home with no specific duties for two years at $205,000 a year after
she cited racial and gender bias after the UC asked her to give up
her position as vice chancellor.
Dynes said Rose’s severance package could be better called
a settlement and was negotiated by well-intentioned people who
wanted to avoid a lawsuit.
Dynes said the “ambiguity and misjudgments” in the
Rose case will not happen in the future because of a new UC policy
that states that any separation packages or settlements worth more
than $100,000 will have to go to the regents for approval.
But even so, Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria, said he is
frustrated and saddened that compensation reports had to come from
the press and did not come from the UC Office of the President.
Since the series of media reports, the UC has launched an
outside audit of senior management compensation and separation
agreements, which is expected to provide a preliminary report in
mid-March.
The board also created a task force to review compensation
policies and practices and a committee on compensation to provide
ongoing regent oversight of university pay practices.
Dynes said the compensation controversy has driven the UC to a
self-appraisal process that “isn’t very pleasant, but
is true and real.”