In an attempt to intervene in the University of
California’s process of improving transparency, the state
Senate Education Committee approved 6-1 last Wednesday a bill which
would require all discussions regarding executive compensation to
be conducted in public meetings.
Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who authored the bill,
said that this method of action will force the UC to attend to its
obligation to transparency and to the public.
“For too long the UC has been acting in secrecy when it
comes to determining high-level salaries,” Yee said.
“This legislation will finally bring sunshine to these
discussions, give members of the media the access they deserve, and
restore the public’s trust.”
Adam Keigwin, spokesman for Yee, said if the bill, AB 775, is
passed by the state Congress by Aug. 1 it would go to the governor,
who would have 30 days to either sign or veto it. If he signs it,
the bill would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2007.
The San Francisco Chronicle, which exposed the UC’s lack
of transparency, also went to court against the UC last week in an
attempt to gain access to the minutes of the regents’
discussion regarding executive compensation.
Organizations such as the California Newspaper Publishers
Association, the Council of UC Faculty Associations, the University
of California Student Association and the California Labor
Federation supported the bill, and the only opposition filed is
from the UC Board of Regents itself.
Having faced scrutiny and pressure from labor unions, education
interest groups, media publications and its own students and
faculty, the UC has taken steps to improve transparency within the
system since the controversy arose last November. These steps
include both external and internal audits and the creation of
committees to provide a check on the UC’s actions.
But discussions continue to be open only to members of the
board.
Though the regents insist the university is very committed to
improving disclosure regarding compensation matters, Stephen
Arditti, the assistant vice president and director of state
governmental relations, made it clear that the UC does not believe
opening compensation meetings is the most effective way to achieve
complete transparency due to the type of information discussed in
compensation meetings.
The discussed merits and criticism of an executive is a matter
which should stay within the board and UC officials, Arditti wrote
in the letter.
“(The bill) fails to recognize that the regents’
discussion of executive compensation are intertwined with
discussions about the performance and value of individuals, as well
as with negotiations that are often going on with
individuals,” he wrote.
Publicly debating the flaws and characteristics of an
administrator or whether they are “more valuable than
another” executive would “not make the university an
attractive place for talented people to come,” he added.
But Keigwin said other public entities in California have open
meetings, but still manage to recruit top talent as administrative
faculty.
“The UC seems to think they should live by different rules
than other public entities. Most of the individuals in connection
with the UC support the bill, but the regents don’t,”
Keigwin said.
However, Arditti said the UC, unlike most state agencies within
the government and education, recruits from and competes in a
national pool largely represented by private institutions.
“That’s true for faculty, and it’s
increasingly true at the administrative level as we try to bring
more private-sector management capability to UC. It’s a
different negotiating environment, and one that may require a
different set of guidelines than applies to some other public
agencies,” Arditti said.
Though Keigwin said he understands where the UC is coming from,
there is still much more that the university can do to completely
improve transparency.
“All the real action has been behind closed doors. All
that is in public is the UC’s rubber stamp of
approval,” he said.
UCSA, the representative of UC students, has come out to support
the bill.
“I understand (the UC’s) position that it will hurt
(the) competitive recruitment process, but at this point in the
game it is not a good enough reason,” said UCSA President Anu
Joshi.
Though Joshi admits the regents and UC officials are taking
proactive steps, she said the UC’s past and secrecy
surrounding compensation discussions merits this measure of
accountability. She said this would completely dissolve the lack of
transparency and allow students and California taxpayers to know
what tuition and tax money is going toward.
“When the average UC student graduates with $20,000 in
debt, and then this comes out, it makes students wonder where their
fees are going,” Joshi said.
With reports from Abigail Palmer, Bruin
contributor.