WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS
HEARING STARTED.
GOOD AFTERNOON WELCOME EVERYONE.
THIS IS A JOINT HEARING OF
THREE.
COMMITTEES THE JOINT WAS SORT OF
AUDIT COMMITTEE.
THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION FINANCE.
AND THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
HIGHER EDUCATION.
WE ARE ALSO JOINED BY THE CHAIR
OF THE ASSEMBLY BUDGET
COMMITTEE.
AND.
SO WELCOME EVERYONE.
THE TOPIC OF TODAY'S HEARING IS
OF COURSE THE UNIVERSE OF
CALIFORNIA AND SPECIFICALLY THE
UC BOARD OF REGENTS INDEPENDENT
FACT FINDING REVIEW.
WE ARE FOCUSED ON.
THIS REVIEW BECAUSE THE CENTRAL
ISSUE THAT WE ARE. ALL TRYING TO
ADDRESS.
IS.
THE ISSUE OF.
INTERFERENCE.
SPECIFIC.
AND INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE.
UP BY THE UNIVERSE OF CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
AND THE STATE AUDITOR'S.
WELL AUDIT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY
REQUESTED BY.
ASSEMBLY BUDGET YOUR TING.
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCCARTY.
WE HAD THE HEARING GO IN MAY OF
LAST YEAR.
UP THE THREE JOINT COMMITTEES.
THAT WE HAVE RECONVENE TODAY.
AND AT THAT HEARING ON MAY
SECOND.
THE STATE AUDITOR DETAIL THE
MANY FINDINGS OF HER AUDIT.
ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT SHE.
CONCLUDED THAT THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT.
HAD INTENTIONALLY INTERFERED
WITH THE AUDIT PROCESS.
AND THAT THE AUDITING STANDARDS.
REQUIRED OF HER IN HER OFFICE.
PREVENTED HER FROM.
A DRAWING VALLEY CONCLUSIONS AS
TO.
THE PORTION OF THE AUDIT.
THAT.
WAS FOCUSED.
ON THE ISSUE OF DUPLICATE
DUPLICATIVE SERVICES.
BETWEEN THE YOU SEE OKAY THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
AND THE CAMPUSES.
AT THE OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MAY
SECOND.
PRESIDENT A POLL TONTO.
STATED THAT OUR TEAM MADE THE
DECISION TO WORK WITH THE
CAMPUSES AND RESPONDING TO THE
STATE AUDITOR'S CAMPUS SURVEYS.
TO INSURE THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD
THE PURPOSE OF THE AUDIT.
AND THE AUDIT SCOPE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ENGAGEMENT
SHE STATED WAS TO HELP.
ENSURE THAT ACCURATE RESPONSIVE
INFORMATION WAS CONVEYED TO THE
AUDIT TEAM.
AND THE PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME
FOR FURTHER STATED. IT CLEARLY
WAS NOT A PROCESS THAT WAS
DESIGNED TO MAKE YOU SEE OP LOOK
GOOD.
FURTHERMORE AT THAT SAME HEARING
AND THEN CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF
REGENTS.
CHAIR LOZANO STATED THAT
PRESIDENT OF ALL TARO. HAD QUOTE
ASSURED HER.
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE HAD
NO INTENT TO INFLUENCE THE
RESULTS.
BUT RATHER SOUGHT TO ENSURE THAT
THE SURVEY RESPONSES WERE
FACTUALLY ACCURATE.
AND REFLECTED THE VIEWS OF THE
CAMPUS LEADERSHIP.
THAT IS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH WE
RECEIVED.
JUSTICE MORAN DOES.
REPORT THE INDEPENDENT FACT
FINDER REVIEW.
THAT WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE
BOARD OF REGENTS.
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
WE ARE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED
THAT.
JUSTICE MARINO'S INDEPENDENT
REPORT.
CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE
STATE AUDITOR.
OF THE INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE.
ON THE PART OF THE UNIVERSE OF
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT.
AND SO HERE TODAY.
WE WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY.
WE WELCOME CAL FOR CALIFORNIA
CHIEF.
JUSTICE CARLOS MORENO.
TO PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF HIS
FACT FINDING REVIEW.
WE WILL THEN.
WELCOME.
THE CURRENT CHAIR OF THE BOARD
OF REGENTS GEORGE KEEFER.
AND THEN.
WE WELCOME.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
CALIFORNIA JANET NAPOLITANO.
TO.
RESPOND.
TWO THE FACT FINDING REVIEW.
NOW LET ME SAY THAT UP AND
BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER.
I THINK I SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND
FOR MANY OF US IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE.
THAT WE ARE.
PROUD OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
AS.
IN MY OPINION.
THE PAST.
PUBLIC UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN THE
ENTIRE WORLD.
AND IT IS BECAUSE WE ARE
COMMITTED.
TO.
PROTECTING THEIR BRAND.
AND TO.
FIGURE OUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO.
RESTORE SOME QUESTIONS OF TRUST.
IN MOVING FORWARD
IN WORKING TOGETHER.
TO SUPPORT.
OUR STEAMED UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA SYSTEM.
THAT WE APPROACH THIS HEARING
HERE TODAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOW INVITE THE
CHAIR OF THE ASSEMBLY.
COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION.
MR MEDINA TO SAY A FEW WORDS.
THANK YOU CHAIR.
A MERCER G..
.
LAST TIME THAT WE GATHER HERE I
THINK I EXPRESS MY
DISAPPOINTMENT.
IN.
.
PRESIDENT OF THE UC.
.
AND I I I STATED THAT PUBLICLY.
BUT AS WE BEGAN THIS TODAY'S
HEARING.
I I I WANT TO GO A DIFFERENT
ROUTE. AND EXPRESS SOMETHING
DIFFERENT.
AND THAT IS.
PICKING UP WHERE I CHAIR. A
SAID ABOUT THE PRIDE IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
.
I I WANNA REMIND. THIS A
COMMITTEE.
AS WE TALK ABOUT THE LONG
HISTORY THE LONG PROUD TRADITION
OF UC.
A UNIVERSITY THAT WAS FOUNDED IN
EIGHTEEN SIXTY EIGHT.
THE US SOON AFTER OF UNITE PARA
CALIFORNIA JOINED THE UNION.
THAT IT HAS BEEN AND AS FACED
MANY OTHER CRISIS.
BEFORE AND ITS LONG HISTORY.
AND AS I THOUGHT OF THAT I WENT
BACK AND SAW.
BUT CURRENT A RECENT ARTICLE.
IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
I TALKED ABOUT THE LOYALTY OATH
CRISIS.
THAT THE UNIVERSITY FACED IN THE
LATE NINETEEN FIFTIES AND EARLY
NINETEEN SIXTIES.
WHERE THE LEGISLATURE ITSELF?
BASS FOR LOYALTY OATHS.
ON THE FACULTY.
AND HOW THAT GREW.
TO SHAKE.
THE CONFIDENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY
AND ALMOST.
AS THE ARTICLE POINTED OUT
DESTROYED THE UNIVERSITY.
THEN I THINK BACK TO.
FURTHER ON NINETEEN SIXTIES WITH
STUDENT UNREST
ON THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES.
AND THEN GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN.
A FIERY.
PRESIDENT CLARK KERR.
AND SO I WANT TO SAY A WORD OF
CAUTION.
THAT AS WE'VE MOVED FORWARD AS
WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS
LEGISLATIVE YEAR. THAT WE THINK.
AND THINK DEEPLY.
A AND LONG ABOUT BEFORE WE TAKE
ACTION.
OF AND WHAT WE WANT TO DO AS IT.
PERTAINS UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
AND AND I THINK UNIVERSITY
CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN THE PREMIER
INSTITUTION THAT IT IS.
OF PARTLY BECAUSE IT HAS HAD THE
ABILITY TO STAY OUTSIDE THE FRAY
OR REMAIN. A. A TIMES.
AND SO I I CAUTIONED US TO THROW
OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH
WATER.
AND.
AND TO THINK MORE ABOUT WHAT WE
DO.
AS IT PERTAINS TO YOU SEE.
AND.
.
AND TO TO BE CAUTIOUS.
BUT I DO LOOK FORWARD TO A.
THE GOING OVER AND LISTENING TO.
JUSTICE MODANO.
AND.
TO HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
.
MISTER TING WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SAY ANY OPENING COMMENTS.
OKAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO INVITES OF.
THE IN THE VICE CHAIR OF THE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
COMMITTEE SENATOR ROTH WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SING OKAY.
ALRIGHT.
ABOUT I'D LIKE TO NOW ASK.
JUSTICE MORENO.
PLEASE SIR.
COME TO THE TABLE
.
WELCOME YOUR HONOR.
PLEASE SIR NOTE WE WOULD
APPRECIATE IF YOU CAN NOW. MAKE
A PRESENTATION.
THE.
OH GOOD AFTERNOON IT'S A
PLEASURE. TO BE HERE.
OF BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION THE.
HI MY NAME IS CARLOS MORENO SAYS
HERE PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR
THE RECORD.
AND OF FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
DON'T KNOW ME I SERVED ON.
VARIOUS CALIFORNIA COURTS ABOUT
TWENTY FIVE YEARS THE LAST TEN
OF WHICH RUN THE.
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT.
NO I ALONG WITH FEEL LAW FIRM OF
HOUSTON HENNIGAN.
IN LOS ANGELES WERE RETAINED BY
THE UC REGENTS.
TO CONDUCT A FACT FINDING THE.
REVIEW TEAM. REGARDING CERTAIN
ALLEGATIONS.
THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF.
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT YOU COPD.
HAD INTERFERED WITH THE CAMPUS
RESPONSES TO SURVEYS DISTRIBUTED
BY THESE.
STATE AUDITOR IN CONNECTION WITH
A CERTAIN AUDIT.
NO THE SCOPE OF OUR.
WORK AS WE DEFINED IT.
CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FROM
THE UC REGENTS.
WAS FIRST TO.
DETERMINE WHETHER YOU COPD.
INTERFERED IN PREPARATION.
CAMPUS SURVEY RESPONSES.
SECOND IF THERE WAS
INTERFERENCE.
THE REASON FOR SUCH AN
APPEARANCE.
THIRD AT WHOSE DIRECTION THE
INTERFERENCE TOOK PLACE.
FOR ALL RELEVANT FACTS
ASSOCIATED WITH ANY SUCH.
DIRECTION AND OR INTERFERENCE.
AND FIFTH ANY FACTS RELEVANT.
TO THE CONTEXT.
FOR ANY SUCH PURPORTED
INVOLVEMENT.
NOW AFTER THE SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY OF OUR. A FACT
FINDING MISSION.
I WOULD LET THE.
.
COMMITTEES HERE NO THAT WE
INTERVIEWED THIRTY EIGHT
PERCEPTIVE WITNESSES.
MANY OF THOSE WERE IN PERSON
OTHERS WERE TELEPHONICALLY.
ACROSS THE BROAD SCOPE OF EACH
OF THE TEN CAMPUSES.
YEAH I AM THE SYSTEM INCLUDING
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.
WE REVIEWED APPROXIMATELY FOUR
HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND
DOCUMENTS.
THAT CONSISTED MOSTLY OF OUR
EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES AND
OTHER. PERTINENT DOCUMENTS.
WE ALSO REVIEWED AUDIT STANDARDS
BLOW YOU SEE GOVERNMENT
STRUCTURES.
AND CALIFORNIA STATUTES
GOVERNING PUBLIC AUDITS.
AS TO OUR FINDINGS ONE WE ARE
ASKED.
WE WERE TASKED WITH DETERMINING
WHETHER INTERFERENCE OCCURRED.
SECOND WE DEFINED INTERFERENCE.
QUITE BROADLY ACTUALLY.
AS ANY ACTION THAT HAD THE
EFFECT OF HINDERING.
OR IMPEDING.
A SURVEY RESPONSES.
THIS DEFINITION OF INTERFERENCE
IS NOT BASED ON ANY.
CIVIL OR CRIMINAL OF STATUTE.
IT IS ALSO A STRICT LIABILITY
PROVISION.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE INTENT TO
INTERFERE.
ALTHOUGH WE DID FIND THAT SOME
ACTIONS WERE TAKEN.
WITH THIS PURPOSE.
I SHOULD NOTE THE AS AN ASIDE.
THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF AN AUDIT.
.
AS WE HAVE HERE.
THAT IS WHERE THE.
MANAGEMENT UCL P..
IS THAT.
PARTY.
THAT THAT.
PARTICULAR ASPECT IN THE
CONTEXT.
.
AND ANY INTERFERENCE AS WE'VE
DEFINED WOULD AFFECT THE
RELIABILITY OF ANY SURVEY.
SPONSORS.
IN OTHER WORDS.
IF THE SUBJECT BEING AUDITED.
HAS ANY KIND OF ROLE.
ANY KIND OF INPUT. IN THE AUDIT
ITSELF.
THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE LA
INTERFERENCE EVEN THOUGH THE
CONTENT.
OR THE MOTIVE. A WAS COMPLETELY
OF THE NIGHT WITH A VERY BROAD.
THE DEFINITION OF INTERFERENCE
THAT WE WILL APPLY.
OUR FINDINGS REGARDING
INTERFERENCE.
PARSE FOLLOWS.
WE FOUND THAT YOU SEE OPIATE.
INTERFERE AS WE'VE DEFINED THAT.
HAVE A BETTER INTERFERENCE
COMPRISED R. CONSISTED OF FOUR
ACTIONS.
ONE.
INFORMING CAMPUSES THAT
CHANCELLOR'S WERE TO REVIEW THE
SURVEY RESPONSES.
TOGETHER WITH INFORMING CAMPUSES
SECOND.
THAT YOU CO P.. WOULD ALSO OF
REVIEW.
THIRD.
WE ALSO FOUND THAT INFORMING
CAMPUSES THAT SURVEY RESPONSES.
WE'RE NOT A TIME TO QUOTE AIR
DIRTY LAUNDRY.
AND FOURTH TYPE OF INTERFERENCE
WAS SUGGESTING REVISIONS.
AND CHANGES TO RESPONSES.
THAT REFLECTED POORLY FUND. A UC
OPIATE ALMOST.
I WOULD SAY LARGELY IF NOT.
EXCLUSIVELY THE REVISIONS.
TENDED TO PUT.
THE UC OPIUM A MORE FAVORABLE AS
OPPOSED TO UNFAVORABLE. FILED
LYFT.
WE ALSO FOUND THAT PRESIDENT
APOLLO TUNNEL APPROVED A PLAN.
THAT INVOLVED THE FIRST TWO ACTS
THAT I HAVE DESCRIBED.
THAT IS ONE.
INFORMING CAMPUSES THAT
CHANCELLORS WERE TO REVIEW THE
RESPONSE WAS.
IT'S PART OF THE. CAMPUS MEAL.
AND SECOND.
THE CAMPUSES PERFORMED AT UC OP
WOULD UP REVIEW.
THOSE RESPONSES.
HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE
WE FOUND.
IS INSUFFICIENT BUT TO CONCLUDE.
THAT SHE KNEW OF OR APPROVED.
THE LATTER TWO ACTIONS.
THAT IS.
INFORMING CAMPUSES THAT THEIR
SURVEY RESPONSES WERE NOT THE
TIME TO AIR DIRTY LAUNDRY.
AND SECOND.
SUGGESTING REVISIONS AND CHANGES
TO RESPONSES THAT REFLECTED
POORLY. ON UC LP.
NOW THESE FIRST TWO ACTIONS THAT
I'VE DESCRIBED INVOLVED
INTERFERENCE.
BECAUSE IN A VERY LARGE SENSE.
THE CHILLED A CAMPUS RESPONSES.
INDEED ONE TRAPS WERE ADMITTED
TO REVISING.
HIS ANSWERS AS A RESULT.
OF THESE TWO ACTIONS.
WHAT I MEAN TO SAY BY THAT IS
THAT?
SIMPLY KNOWING.
FROM THE CHANCELLOR'S
PERSPECTIVE.
SUBORDINATES OF THAT CHANCELLOR.
THAT YOU SEE OP WOULD REVIEW
SURVEY RESPONSES.
IN EFFECT
PLACED A CHILLING EFFECT ON.
OF THOSE.
RESPONSES.
THE PRESIDENT DAN CHIEF OF STAFF
AND THEN DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF.
ENGAGED IN THE LETTER TO
ACTIONS.
THAT IS THE AIRING OF DIRTY
LAUNDRY AND ALSO MAKING THE
REVISIONS.
A TWO THE. SURVEY RESPONSES.
THEY INFORMED CAMPUSES THAT THE
SURVEYS WERE NOT THE TIME TO
REVEAL.
NEGATIVE INFORMATION.
AND THE PATIENT SUBMIT THEIR
RESPONSE TO YOU FEEL PRETTY.
FOR THE AUDITOR FOR REVIEW.
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE CHIEF
OF STAFF.
THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF THEN
PROVIDED COMMENTS.
THE SOME CAMPUSES ABOUT. THEIR
RESPONSES.
NOW THESE ACTIONS OBVIOUSLY
INTERFERED WITH THE RESPONSES.
THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THESE
ACTIONS WERE UNDERTAEN BY THE
CHIEF OF STAFF AND DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF.
WITH THE PURPOSE.
WITH THE PURPOSE
PREVENTING SOME NEGATIVE
INFORMATION.
FROM THE CAMPUSES ACTUALLY
REACHING THE STATE AUDITOR.
BY YOU FEEL P..
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT AND OF HER
SUBORDINATES OFFERED THREE
REASONS.
PORTS PLAN TO REVIEW AND TO
COMMENT UPON THE SURVEYS.
FIRST.
THAT YOU FEEL P. INTENDED TO
REVIEW.
INTO THE BILL REVIEW
FLAG RESPONSES WHICH WERE WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT.
THAT RESPONSES WOULD BE
FACTUALLY ACCURATE.
AND THIRD.
THAT THE SURVEY RESPONSES WOULD
REFLECT THE ACTUAL VIEWS.
OF THE CAMPUS
CHANCELLOR IN QUESTION.
SECOND.
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF
PROFFERED THAT.
THE CAMPUS IS THEMSELVES.
EXPRESSED CONFUSION REGARDING.
A SURVEY.
AND IN THAT SENSE WELCOMED ANY
KIND OF INPUT.
BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
AND THIRD.
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT HAS
INDICATED THAT THEY RELY ON THE
ADVICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL.
IN CONDUCTING THE REVIEW.
REGARDING.
THE FIRST A POINT.
THAT IS TO ENSURE THE SKILL
BACKERS SEE.
AND THE VIEWS OF THE.
CHANCELLOR.
THE COMMENTS PROVIDED ON THE
SURVEY RESPONSES.
AS WE'VE ANALYZE THOSE.
WE'RE NOT IN FACT LIMITED.
SCOPE ACCURACY IN CHANCELLOR
REVIEW.
REGARDING THE SECOND POINT.
AND THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT IN
THE CAMPUSES THEMSELVES FOR
EXPRESS SOME DEGREE OF
CONFUSION.
CONSERVING THE SURVEY.
ITSELF.
WE FIND THE ASSERTION THAT THE.
CAMPUSES WE'RE CONFUSED
GENERALLY.
UNSUPPORTED.
BY THE RECORD ALTHOUGH.
INTERNALLY A WITHIN CAMPUSES
THERE WAS SOME.
DEGREE A CONFUSION ABOUT WHO
WOULD BE THE DESIGNATED.
OF RESPONDER.
AND I BELIEVE ON THE.
.
SURVEY THE SERVICES RESPOND
SURVEY.
.
THEREWERE APPROXIMATELY SIXTY
QUESTIONS THAT HAD TO BE
DISTRIBUTED OUT TO DIFFERENT
PEOPLE ON CAMPUS SO TO THAT
DEGREE.
THE OTHER MAY HAVE BEEN SOME
CONFUSION AS TO WHO THE PROPER
RESPONDER WAS.
FOR CERTAIN DRUG QUESTIONS.
AT A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT
CHANCELLOR'S DID COMPLAIN ABOUT
THE SERVICE.
BUT THE RECORD DOES NOT REFLECT.
THAT PASSED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S
EXECUTIVE OFFICE.
TO ASSIST OR REVIEW THE
RESPONSES.
THE THIRD POINT.
THE ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL.
WE CONCLUDE THAT THE ADVICE
PROVIDED BY THE OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL DID PLAY
SIGNIFICA THAT A MITIGATING
FACTOR.
IN RESPONSE TO CAMUS CONCERNS.
YOU CO P. SOUGHT ADVICE AS TO
THE LEGALITY.
OF THE PLAN THAT IS HAVING.
YOU FEEL PEER REVIEW OF THE
RESPONSES.
THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL
COUNSEL ADVICE CORRECTLY.
WELL AS FAR AS THAT WENT.
THAT THE STATUTE CITED BY THE
STATE AUDITOR GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION EIGHTY FIVE FORTY FIVE.
BE.
DID NOT PRECLUDE THE CAMPUSES
FROM SHARING SURVEY RESPONSES.
THAT WASN'T ADMONITION CONTAINED
IN THE PREFACE TO THE SURVEY
THAT THEY WERE NOT TO SHARE
THEIR. RESPONSES WITH ANYONE
OUTSIDE THE CAMPUS.
THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL
COUNCIL ADVISE YOU FEEL P..
HOWEVER OF THE POLITICAL. RISK
OF THE PLAN.
THAT THE STATE AUDITOR WOULD TO
NO DOUBT IT AT SOME POINT.
COMMENT ON CHANGES THAT HAVE
BEEN MADE GIVEN THE.
THE TRACKING.
.
OF THEIR SYSTEM THAT WOULD ALLOW
YOU TO SEE. THE INITIAL DRAFT
AMENDMENTS AND SO FORTH. RIGHT
UP AND DOWN. OF THE LINE.
LATER IN THE PROCESS THE OFFICE
OF GENERAL COUNSEL OF DEPUTY.
.
THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL.
PROVIDED REVISIONS RELEASED AND
IN ONE INSTANCE WORKS.
SARAH CREWS INSTANCE.
PROVIDED REVISIONS TO THE DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF COMMENTS TO ONE
CAMPUSES OF SURVEY RESPONSES.
HOWEVER WE CONCLUDE.
BUT IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO SAY
THAT THE OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL.
APPROVED OF THE PLAN IN
QUESTION.
THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
DID PROVIDE ADVICE ON THE
STATUTE IN QUESTION THAT WAS AS
FAR AS IT WENT. ACCURATE.
AT FACE VALUE THE. ADVICE WAS
ACCURATE.
BUT THE OFFICE ALSO WARNED OF
THE POLITICAL RISKS ATTENDANT
POSED BY OF THE PLAN.
AND THOSE POLITICAL RISKS.
WOULD THAT BE A RESULT.
OF CHANGES BEING MADE TO THE
INITIAL.
OF SURVEY RESPONSES.
THERE WAS ALSO. NO ONE INSTANCE.
WHERE?
?
RELUCTANTLY THE.
.
THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL AGAIN
ADVISING AGAINST FOR. OF THE
PLAN.
SAID WILL SOME OF MY OF PEOPLE
AT THE CAMPUS LEVEL.
WOULD LIKE.
THE AUDITOR TO KNOW THAT.
.
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS
REVIEWING THE RESPONSES.
I HOPE THERE'S NO RESPONSE
FORTHCOMING FROM.
EITHER THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF.
AND ULTIMATELY THE.
A STATE AUDITOR WAS NOT ADVISED
AT LEAST THAT TIME.
THAT THESE.
SURVEY RESPONSES WERE BEING
REVIEWED. AROUND BY THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL IS
MORE DIRECT INVOLVEMENT.
ALSO WAS AFTER YOU SEE OP HAD
MADE THE DECISION TO REVIEW
RESPONSES. AND AFTER SEVERAL
CAMPUSES A BEEN ADVISED TO
RECONSIDER RESPONSES THAT COULD
BE CONSTRUED.
TO REFLECT POORLY ON YOU FEEL
P..
THE PRESIDENT.
PREVENTION OF OF STAFF.
AND.
THEN DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF ALL
STATE IN RETROSPECT.
BUT THE REVIEW PLAN WAS AN ERROR
IN JUDGMENT AND THEY DID NOT
INTEND TO. INTERFERE WITH A
RESPONSE OF.
AB BEFORE I CONCLUDE.
I JUST WANT TO.
HAD WANT OTHER OF PERTINENT
OBSERVATION.
ON ITS FACE EVEN THE TWO PART
PLAN.
OF WHICH I DESCRIBED.
AND OF WHICH.
PRESIDENT APOLLO TUNNEL
APPROVED.
YEAH CONSTITUTED INTERFERENCE IN
THE SUBMISSION OF SURVEY
RESPONSES.
FROM THE CAMPUS WAS TO THE STATE
AUDITOR.
IN ADOPTING SUCH A PLAN YOU SEE
OP WAS AFFIRMATIVELY NOTIFYING
EACH CAMPUS CHANCELLOR.
THAT FEAR SHE.
WOULD BE SEEN AS THE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY.
FOR ANY STATEMENT CRITICAL OF
YOU CO P..
IN THE SURVEY OF RESPONSES.
FURTHER IN ADOPTING THE TWO PART
PLAN USE YOUR P. TOLD EACH
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE.
BUT THE CAMPUS SHOULD SHOULD
SUBMIT.
I CAPS RESPONSES TO YOU SEE OP
FOR REVIEW.
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE STATE
AUDITOR.
MEANING.
THAT ANY CRITICISM FROM THE
CAMPUS WAS WOULD BECOME KNOWN.
DO YOU CO P..
AND SHORT THE REVIEW PLAN WAS
LIKELY TO AND AT LEAST IN ONE
CASE THE CHILL.
CAPAS RESPONSES TO THE STATE
PEARL AUDITOR.
ALTHOUGH IT HAD THE EFFECT OF
INTERFERING WITH THE CAMPUS
RESPONSES THE PLAN THAT.
PRESIDENT APOLLO TUNNELING
KNOWLEDGE IS ADOPTING DID NOT.
DID NOT ON ITS FACE ATTEMPT
ALTERED THROUGH INFLUENCE FOR
SUBSTANTIVE.
SURVEY RESPONSES.
REPAIRED AND SUBMITTED BY THE
INDIVIDUAL CAMPUSES.
HOWEVER. A BEYOND THAT.
HER CHIEF OF STAFF AND DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF TOOK THOSE
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS.
BUT I'VE DESCRIBED. TO DO JUST
THAT.
AND IN WHICH IN MANY CASES
ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED.
IN CHANGING THE SURVEY
RESPONSES.
VIRTUALLY ELIMINATING EVERY
SINGLE. UP POR UM RATING
RESPONSE.
THE ADVICE CAMPUSES TO REFRAIN
FROM INCLUDING NEGATIVE
INFORMATION ABOUT YOU SEE
OPIATE.
AND ITS PROGRAMS AND SERVICES.
THEY ALSO PROVIDED DETAILED
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
REGARDING THE CAMPUS OF SURVEY
RESPONSES.
BUT BECAUSE SOME CAMPUSES TO
REVISE THE RESPONSES TO REFLECT.
IN THE END.
MORE FAVORABLY UPON UC OP.
WE CONCLUDE.
THAT PRESIDENT APOLLO TARO.
HAS REPRESENTED THAT SHE DID NOT
APPROVE AND WOULD NOT OF
APPROVED.
OF THE EXECUTION OF ANY PLAN.
THAT INCLUDED THESE LATTER TWO
ACTIONS.
FURTHER SHARE STATED THAT SHE
HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT HER.
CHIEF OF STAFF AND DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF. ENGAGED HERE IN THESE
ACTIONS.
WE CONCLUDE.
THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS
INSUFFICIENT AND INCONCLUSIVE.
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF ALITALIA
APPROVED OR HAD KNOWLEDGE.
THOSE TWO.
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS.
WELL I'M HAPPY TO RESPOND ANY
QUESTIONS.
OF THE CHAIR RELATED CHAIRS OR
ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS MIGHT
HAVE.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH JUSTICE
MORENO.
DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE.
I CAN GET US STARTED OUT. MS
BAKER NOTHING I REALLY ON THE
OTHER END OF THESE DISCUSSIONS
BUT BECAUSE.
THANK YOU JUSTICE.
.
NORMALLY IT WOULD APPEAR FOR.
FOR YOU ON A DIFFERENT SIDE
SERVICES HAVE BEEN FRIENDS AT
HOME THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY A FEW QUESTIONS.
IN THE U. GATHERED I THINK OF A
FOREIGNER THOUSAND DOCUMENTS YOU
MENTIONED YES.
AND ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY THAT
WERE WITHHELD THAT THE UNIVERSE
HE SAID YOU'RE NOT GONNA GIVE
YOU THOSE DID AT ANY POINT DID
THEY SAY NO YOU CAN'T HAVE THEIR
VERY. INVOLVED AND WE'RE VERY
CONFIDENT THAT WE GOT THE WHOLE
UNIVERSE APARTMENT DOCKING.
AND AND WAS THAT.
SO WHEN SHE IT PRINT THE SCOPE
WITH THE ASK WAS ANYTHING
RELATED TO SURVEYS INTO HOW HOW
DID YOU DEFINE THEY. THE WEB
THAT YOU CAST.
NO I DON'T HAVE THE PRECISE AND
YOU KNOW THAT SOME OF THE OTHER
LAWYERS ACCUSED AND HAVING HIM
CAST A BROAD NET.
AND THERE'S A FORMS OF
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY I'M SURE
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT IF. WE
WERE SATISFIED THAT.
WE HAD EVERYTHING OKAY
THANK YOU AND.
WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE AT ANY
POINT?
IF THE PRESIDENT APOLOGIZED NO.
AFTER.
I HAD THE SURVEYS WERE RECALLED
WHICH YOU'RE SAYING WAS SHE WAS
AWARE OF THAT THE SURVEYS ARE
BEING RECALL YES.
DID AT ANYTIME AFTER THAT DID
YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT SHE
THEN.
CIRCLE BACK WITH HERS STAFF THE
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF AND CHIEF
OF STAFF TO CHECK AND ABOUT THE
SERVICE.
WHAT?
DID SHE.
.
INQUIRE ABOUT HOW THAT WAS GOING
HER OR CHECK ON THE STATUS OF
THE SURVEYS AFTER THEY HAD BEEN
RECALLED. I DON'T HAVE ANY
PRESENT RECOLLECTION OF THAT I
DO KNOW WHAT I CAN SAY
POSITIVELY THAT.
SHE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE
SUGGESTED REVISIONS THAT WERE
BEING MADE A BUYER STAFFERS TO
WHETHER OR NOT. SHE HAD A
GENERAL.
KNOWLEDGE OR DISCUSSION WITH.
HER SUBORDINATES LISTA HOW THE
SURVEY RESPONSES WERE COMING AND
I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON
THAT OKAY. AND SUPER SO NO
AWARENESS OF IF SHE FOLLOWED UP
WITH THEM TO SEE AFTER THE
DIRECTIVE HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO
RECALL THEM TO TO SEE WHERE THEY
WERE GOING THAT'S CORRECT OKAY.
AND DID YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE
THAT WOULD LEAD TO WHAT SHE
THOUGHT MIGHT HAPPEN ONCE THEY
CAME BACK TO THAT WHAT'D WHAT'D
SHE THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IF
THEY WERE GOING TO BE BROUGHT
BACK TO THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT. FOR WHAT PURPOSE WAS
THAT GOING TO BE.
WELL THE THIS STATED THE PURPOSE
FOR THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE UC OP
GENERALLY WAS TO BASICALLY.
ASSURE THAT THE RESPONSES WERE
WITHIN THE SCOPE.
LEARNED THE OBJECTIVE OF THE
AUDITOR'S.
SURVEY. OF THAT THOSE RESPONSES
WERE ACCURATE IN NATURE.
AND THAT ALSO THAT THEY
ACCURATELY REFLECT THE
CHANCELLOR'S.
VIEW THE CAMPUS WAS VIEW.
OF.
BECAUSE YOU HAD IN SOME
INSTANCES I MENTIONED WITH SIXTY
QUESTIONS BEING DISTRIBUTED
THROUGHOUT.
MANY LAYERS OF CAMPUS
BUREAUCRACY.
OTHER SMALL LIARS I WOULD THINK
AND.
.
V. UP PRESIDENT UNDERSTAND ONE
OF TO MAKE SURE THAT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT THE
RESPONSES REFLECT THE VIEWS OF
THAT CAMPUS IN THE FORM OF THE
CHANCELLOR'S VIEWS OKAY ARE YOU
CAN THAT WAS THEIR STATED
PURPOSE START HAVE YOU CONCLUDED
THAT THAT.
THEY STE BUT THAT WHAT'S THE
PURPOSE EXACT WORLD I AND WE
CONCLUDED THAT WITH RESPECT TO
THE. BUT TO SUBORDINATES AND
QUESTION THAT. OTHER WAS SOME
INTENT THERE.
LOVE THEN BECAUSE SOME OF THEIR
COMMENTS WENT BEYOND SCOPE
ACCURACY AND CHANCELLORS BICU.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S DETAILED IN
THE REPORT IN THE APPENDIX.
AND WE CONCLUDE THAT THEIR
OBJECTIVE OR MOTIVE IF YOU WILL.
WAS TO ASSURE THAT THE
UNFAVORABLE RESPONSES WERE
SENSUALLY DELETED. IN THE THAT
IS PART OF WHAT YOUR TEAM ASKED
FOR ANY SAY THEIR CALENDAR
ENTRIES FOR AFTER THE SURVEY'S
RECALLED MEETINGS BETWEEN THE
PRESIDENT AND HER DEPUTY A
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF.
ANY.
.
EITHER EMAILS.
AFTER THAT OR ANY ENTRIES IN THE
CALENDAR SHOWING THAT THEY WERE
HAVING MEETINGS SHORTLY AFTER
THE SURVEYS ARE RECALLED. WILL
CLEARLY OTHER THERE WERE THERE
WERE MADE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY
MEETING CERTAINLY WE PILED.
DISCUSSIONS
A BETWEEN THE.
DEPUTY CHIEF STUFF AND THE
CHIEF OF STAFF WITH RESPECT TO
CERTAIN.
I WITH THE PRESIDENT. BY WHAT
THE PRESIDENT JUST BE BETWEEN
THEMSELVES OKAY.
AND SO WE HAVE IT MAY NOT HAVE
HEARD TALENT THE PRESIDENT'S
CALENDAR TO FIND OUT IF SHE MET
WITH HER DEPUTY AND.
CHIEF OF STAFF.
EITHER ABOUT THAT SUBJECT MATTER
OTHERWISE YOU KNOW WE DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING IN THE RECORD THAT SHE
IN ANY WAY HAVE ANY INPUT AS TO.
REVISING OR COMMENTING ON THE
RESPONSE OF THEMSELVES AND THEN
THERE'S ONE NOTE IN YOUR REPORT
ON PAGE TWENTY FIVE JUST MENTION
HAS TO DO WITH THE SANTA CRUZ
EMAIL WITH WHICH IS GOTTEN A LOT
OF ATTENTION. AND AND IT JUST
MENTIONED AT THE TOP OF COURSE
PRESIDENTE PALATINUS ACTIVITIES
IN CONNECTION WITH THE SURVEY
RESPONSES FROM UC SANTA CRUZ ARE
THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE ON WHICH
TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT
UNDERSTOOD. THAT MEMBERS OF HER
STAFF WERE SYSTEMATICALLY
HIGHLIGHTED OR SANITIZING
CRITICAL COMMENTS
FROM THE CAMPUSES. BUT YOUR
CONCLUSION IS NOT THAT SHE KNEW.
THAT THAT WAS HAPPENING.
BUT SO I'M AYE.
IF YOU CAN JUST HELP US FIND
WHAT WAS THE COUNTERBALANCE SEEN
EVIDENCE THAT TO THE SANTA CRUZ
EMAIL.
WE MATCH IT'S THE STRONGEST
EVIDENCE ROSE YOU IS WELL AWARE
OF SYSTEMATIC.
SANITIZING WHAT WAS THE COUNTER
BALLOT THOUGH THAT THE COUNTER
BALANCE AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR
QUESTION. CORRECTLY IS THAT THAT
DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE
CHANCELLOR AND.
NOW THE PRESIDENT IS SOMEONE.
INDISPUTABLE TONE AND SOFORTH.
AND ONE CONCLUSION BASED UPON.
THE TONE MAYBE THAT.
SHE WAS MORE AWARE OF THE FACT
THAT.
SHE WAS MORE THAN JUST UPSET
ABOUT THE FACT THAT.
LOVE THE CHANCELLOR.
SUBMITTED THE.
RESPONSES WITHOUT CLEARING THEM
THROUGH YOU STILL PAY.
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT WE
FOUND THAT SHE KNEW.
THAT SOME OF THOSE INITIAL
RESPONSES WHICH ARE DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF FOUND TO BE.
PROBLEMATICAL.
OF THAT SHE HAD ANY INFORMATION
ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE.
OF THOSE RESPONSES WE SAY THE
SERBS IN KEEPING THE SPECIFIC
WORDS INCIDENT WORD YES OKAY
YEAH SO SHOULDN'T THERE WAS A
BIT OF AUDITING. OR EDITING
RATHER.
BETWEEN THE DEPUTY CHIEF STAFF.
AND THE CHANCELLOR THAT WENT
BACK AND FORTH AND ULTIMATELY.
OF THE CHANCELLOR BASICALLY
EXCEEDED TO WHATEVER CHANGES
WERE SUGGESTED.
BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF.
BUT IN SO FAR AS THAT. GOES
EMAILS LE.
ARE CONCERNED THEY DO NOT
REFLECT ANY KNOWLEDGE OR IMPLIED
BY THE PRESIDENT. OKAY AND I AND
I GET SCHEDULED A LOOK AT THE
SHE WASN'T AWARE. ARE YOU SEE
THAT SHE WAS AWARE THE SPECIFIC
CHANGES THAT WERE MADE BY RISE
OF WHERE THE CHANGES WERE BEING
MADE.
WELL THEY WERE BEING REVIEWED
AND WHETHER IF THAT'S CONSIDERED
REVIEWED A RECOMMENDATION WAS
READ. THE WHOLE PROCESS WAS FOR
YOU COPD.
SUBORDINATES TO REVIEW.
THANK YOU ALL THAT THANK YOU IN
LAST WHEN IS IS THE. YOU
MENTIONED THE OPINION THAT THE
GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE
PROVIDED WHO REQUESTED THAT.
WAS IT THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
THE CHIEF OF STAFF THE PRESIDENT
WAS THERE ANY.
FOR SOME WHO MAY HAVE REQUESTED
THAT OPINION THAT I BELIEVE IN
THAT. I BELIEVE WAS THE DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF INITIALLY.
WHEN HE SOUGHT ADVICE THAT WAS
ULTIMATELY PROVIDED.
BY THE ACTUAL OH GENERAL
COUNSEL.
BELLS EARLY IN THE PROCESS.
AND THAT JUST DEALT WITH THE.
PRELIMINARY QUESTION.
OF THE AS TO WHETHER IT WAS
PROPER TO SHARE.
THE SURVEY RESPONSES OUTSIDE THE
CAMPUS SO WHAT IS OUTSIDE THE
CAMPUS MAIN.
DOES IT INCLUDE THE THE OFFICE
WITH THE PRESIDENT THE YES OR
NO.
WITH LIMITED THE TO THAT LATER.
THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL DID
GET INVOLVED IN THE WORD
SMITHING IF YOU WILL.
THE SANTA CRUZ FOR.
EXCHANGE AND IN FACT AS I
RECALL THERE'S EVEN. AT THE VERY
BEGINNING.
ADVICE WAS SOUGHT. AS TO WHAT
EXACTLY WAS THIS THE AUDITOR'S
SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.
AND I BELIEVE THE CONCLUSION WAS
TAKEN ASKING GET ANYTHING THEY
WANT.
SAID IT WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT
YOU SAW.
ANY EMAILS OR EVIDENCE THAT THE
PRESIDENT HERSELF.
WAS AWARE OR HAD REQUESTED OF
HER DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO GET
ANY LEGAL OPINION AND THAT IT
HAD BEEN SURE DIRECTLY WITH HER.
NOT TO SOLICIT THE ADVICE BUT
LATER SHE WAS ADVISED.
THAT THAT ADVICE HAD BEEN
OBTAINED AND THEY WERE GOOD TO
GO. AT LEAST ON ITEMS ONE AND
TWO.
AND DID YOU SEE ANYTHING THAT
INDICATED WHETHER NOT THE
PRESIDENT WAS WE ARE AWARE THAT
THE SURVEYS.
WE'RE MEANT TO BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL OR HAVE THAT STAMP
ON THEM. THAT THIS THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS AWARE OF THAT.
CONFIDENTIAL AT THE CAMPUS
LEVEL.
WELL FROM OUR UNDERSTAND IS
THAT THE AUDITOR HAD MARKED THE
SURVEYS. DON'T SHARE OUTSIDE THE
CAMP ALSO THE CAMPUS ARE YOU
WHERE DID YOU FIND ANY
INDICATION IN YOUR INVESTIGATION
THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT THE
AUDITOR HAD GIVEN THAT
INSTRUCTION.
NOT SO MUCH HOW SHE MIGHT
INTERPRET IT IF SHE DID KNOW BUT
THAT DID YOU DID YOU FIND ANY OF
IT SHE KNEW THAT WAS INSTRUCTION
FROM THE AUDITOR HIM LIKE THAT
TO BE HONEST I'M NOT I'M NOT
SURE. ABOUT THAT BUT CLEARLY SHE
FELT SHE HAD THE IMPRIMATUR.
ALL THE GENERAL COUNSEL AT SOME
STAGE TO HAVE YOU CO PEER
REVIEW.
AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR.
REVIEW OF ALL THIS DID YOU
REVIEW THE PRESIDENT'S TESTIMONY
TO THIS COMMITTEE BACK EARLIER
THIS YEAR ABOUT THE AUDIT REPORT
AND I THINK.
I DON'T RECALL I'M SURE I SAW
EXCERPTS OF IT EITHER IN THE
NEWS OR ELSEWHERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THANK YOU.
ALRIGHT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM
THE COMMITTEE.
MR SACK AROUND.
ON THE U. SO MUCH.
JUSTICE FOR FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT
IN THIS.
I I WANTED TO JUST ASK A COUPLE
QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR SENSE OF.
OF. YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GET WHEN
I.
WHEN. WHEN SWENSON ONE GETS A
FIFTY PAGE SURVEY.
I. IS IT NOT.
WHAT WHAT'S YOUR SENSE OF IN
HERE EVERY SPENT SOME TIME
LOOKING AT THAT QUESTION OF HOW
COMPLICATED THE SURVEY WASN'T?
WHETHER IT BE REASONABLE FOR.
PEOPLE TO WANT TO RUN SOME OF
THE. RESPONSES THAT THE CHAIN
NOT BECAUSE ATTORNEY HIDE
SOMETHING THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A
DIFFICULT COMPLEX SURVEY WITH A
LOT OF MOVING PARTS PUTTING
THAT'S THAT'S CORRECTIVE NOT.
ITO REVEALED WAY TO THE
CHANCELLOR'S CERTAINLY WITHIN.
THEIR UNIT OR SECTION.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE REASONABLE
TO DO FOR.
SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
AND.
YOU WITHIN A FEW DAYS AFTER THE.
THE SURVEY WAS SENT TO THE
CAMPS IS YOU SEE.
CALL THE STATE AUDIT STAFF AND
THEY TOLD THEM THEY WERE HOLDING
A CONFERENCE CALL TO CLARIFY ITS
A QUESTION RIGHT.
I MEAN IN THE AUDIT STAFF NEVER
PROJECT TIME.
I'M I GUESS THE QUESTION IS IF
THAT WAS SUCH A GROSS VIOLATION
OF PROCEDURE TO WIDEN. YOUR
SENSE OF WHY HONORED IN JACK.
WOULD YOU SAY THE STATE AUDITOR
OR THE OR THE INTERNAL AUDITORS
I THINK THAT WAS THE MEETING
THAT.
WHAT SORT OF CAMPUS WIDE CHAIRED
BY THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ACTING COMPLIANCE BY SISTER
MAGICS DEMANDING AND I HAVE TO
GO BACK AND LOOK?
SAID KITTY CARDENAS WAS SHE MEN
AND PART OF THE STATE AUDITOR.
SHE MIGHT HAVE IN THE THE
CONTACT A LOT ABOUT POSITIVE BUT
I THINK THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
YOU'RE REFERRING TO WAS
INTERNAL.
WITH THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ACTING COMPLIANCE OFFICER IN
EACH OF THE. CAMPUSES THAT THAT
PHONE BEEN.
THAT I THINK.
THERE WAS CONTACT BETWEEN THE
UC.
ACTING COMPLIANCE OFFICER AND.
CARTOONIST FROM THE STATE
AUDITOR SO IN THAT SENSE THERE'S
SOME SUGGESTION THAT.
.
THE. ARE YOU SEE AUDITOR'S.
INTERNAL.
HOWEVER LET HAVE LEFT THE STATE
AUDITOR CONTACT NO.
THAT THEY WERE HAVING THIS.
A CAMPUS WIDE RANGE SORT OF
TOTAL CONFIDENCE SOME LOOKING AT
APPENDIX A. OF THE REPORT PAGE
FOUR AND IT IS THIS LOW
SUBHEADINGS HAVE HICKS
EMAIL STATE AUDIT STAFF.
AND IT JUST TALKS ABOUT HOW
THERE WAS A DIRECT OUTREACH TO
THE STE TO STAFFORD STATE
AUDITOR'S OFFICE.
.
AND I I GUESS MY QUESTION IS.
IF THAT IF IF IF.
WHAT DO YOU SEE WAS DOING IN
TERMS OF HAVING THIS CALL AND
HAVING PEOPLE HAVE A
CONVERSATION GET QUESTIONS
ANSWERED?
YOU KNOW I'M GETTING GAUGE AND.
YOU KNOW.
YOU KNOW IF IF IF IF THE AUDITOR
NEW THAT THE ABOUT THIS CALL
AND.
I I GUESS I'M I'M I'M I'M
STRUGGLING WITH.
THE.
WITH WITH WITH IT AFTER THE
FACT.
RESPONSE TO. THESE EFFORTS. THAT
IF IT WERE REALLY SO OUTRAGEOUS
ANYWHERE SO FACIALLY.
IMPROPER IMPROPER.
WHY WOULD IT WHY WHY WOULD THE
STATE AUDITOR NOT HAS RAISE ANY
OBJECTIONS WHEN THE ROOM FORM
HILL AYE I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER
THAT IS IS A A CURIOUS SITUATION
ONE COULD ARGUE THAT? WELL THE
STATE AUDITOR KNEW FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING.
THAT THIS.
SYSTEM WIDE.
CONFERENCE.
CALL.
WAS TAKING PLACE OR HAD TAKEN
PLACE.
TO RESPOND TO ANY.
QUESTIONS.
THAT THE INTERNAL.
CAPS AUDITOR'S OF HAD.
SO THAT DOES SUGGEST I THINK IS
YOUR INFERRING THAT WELL MAYBE
THE STATE AUDITOR NEW.
OR LEAST ONE OF THE
REPRESENTATIVES NEARLY AS ON
NEW.
PREDICT THAT INFORMATION IS
BEING SHARE FILE AND I DON'T
THINK.
SUBSTANTIVE.
RESPONSES I WERE BEING PROVIDED
JUST MORE.
HOW WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THE
SURVEY THAT JUST CAME AND? ONE
OF WHETHER IT WAS SIXTY PAGES.
SO IS MORE OF A PROCEDURAL.
LA
FORMAT AS OPPOSED TO HOW DO WE
ANSWER THIS QUESTION OKAY OKAY.
IMMEDIATE DO YOU THINK THAT THAT
FROM YOUR SIN THE CALLERS
RESEMBLED YOU THINK IT'S.
REASONABLE TO EXPECT ONE PERSON
FROM EVERY CAMPUS TO COMPLETE A
FIFTY PAGE SURVEY WITHOUT WELL.
.
NOT NOT FOR ME TO SAY BUT GIVEN
THE THE BROAD SCOPE OF THE
QUESTIONS I THINK IT'S MORE
REASONABLE THAT.
THEY WOULD DISTRIBUTE THESE OUT
TO PEOPLE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE
PARA.
AND MAYBE THAT WAS ONE OF THE
CONCERNS WE NEED TO REALLY KNOW
HOW WE'RE GOING TO GO ABOUT.
PROVIDING ANSWERS YEAH I GUESS
IT'S PART ONE SERVING WITH THE
NEEDS OF VERY COMPLICATED
SURVEY.
ITS LONG SURVEY.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE ON
CAMPUS WHO IT IS HARD TO
UNDERSTAND HOW TO BELIEVE THAT
ANY ONE INDIVIDUAL WOULD HAVE
ACCESS TO ALL THE ANSWERS. THAT
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO TREAT
FUNDS JUST GOT IT YOU GOT IT
FARMING OUT TO VARIOUS VOTE
RIGHT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. ON
AND THAT SEEMS REASONABLE AND I
GUESS THE QUESTION IS YOU KNOW.
WHO'S ULTIMATELY THE RIGHT
PERSON ON CAMPUS CANCERS
QUESTION. YOU KNOW ISN'T SHOULD
THE CHANCELLOR REVIEW IS THAT
WOULD THAT BE.
YOU GIVEN THEIR HIS OR HER
CENTRAL ROLE IN MANAGING THE.
OPERATION.
WELL FIRST TASK TO REVIEW UNDER
CHANCELLOR REVIEW OBVIOUSLY A
CHANCE WAS NOT.
HAVE THE DETAILED KIND OF
INFORMATION TO RESPOND.
QUESTION REGARDING A CERTAIN
DEPARTMENT OR.
OR PROGRAM THE GUEST RELY ON
FROM SUBORDINATES.
YEAH OKAY Y. SIGNATURE GOES ON.
AND IT HAS HIS IMPRIMATUR.
RIGHT GREAT.
OKAY WHY I APPRECIATE THOSE
ANSWERS BECAUSE I THINK GUN I
THINK YOU ARE VERY GOOD I I
THINK THAT CONCERN I THINK YOUR
ANSWERS ARE ARE VERY FAIR IN THE
SENSE THAT THEY REFLECT.
THE COMPLEXITY OF WHAT WAS BEING
ASKED THESE CAMPUSES IN THE
LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED
WITH GIVING. FACTUAL TRUTHFUL
ANSWERS ACROSS THE BOARD.
AND THE FACT THAT TO EXPECTED
THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY
COMMUNICATION OF COORDINATION
WITHIN THE SYSTEM. TO TO ANSWER
HIS QUESTION THIS IS.
IT JUST SEEMS REALLY AND
REASONABLE THAT DOESN'T JUSTIFY.
WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE
RATHER OVERBEARING ACTIONS TAKEN
BY A COUPLE OF?
THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF TOP
STAFFERS WHO ANDERSON ARE NOW
GONE.
BUT I THINK AT LEAST IT HELPS
TO CONTEXTUALIZE A LITTLE BIT OF
THE WAY THE UNIVERSITY.
RESPONDED TO THIS.
I THINK I'VE EVER HERE I THINK
YOU.
THANK YOU MR MEDINA BEST FOR
FIRST THANK YOU JUST AS MY OWN
FOR A VERY THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION.
AND FOR SHARING THAT INFORMATION
WITH US.
ARE ARE ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF
THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY. THE
REGION'S OR THE OFFICE THE
PRESIDENT.
IN REACTION TO YOUR REPORT.
IT ONLY WHAT I WHAT I'VE READ.
AND THAT I THINK THE.
AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE
AUDITOR'S REPORT I THINK THEY'VE
ADOPTED ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS
I KNOW THAT.
AND I THINK WITH RESPECT A TO MY
REPORT.
.
I GUESS WE'LL HEAR FROM FROM THE
PRESIDENT BUT BY SEN BEN FROM
THE CHAIR OF THE REGENTS.
A BUT I THINK THEY'VE.
THEY'VE TAKEN THAT THE REPORT
AND I THINK.
VIEW IT TOUGH FAVORABLY.
I'VE EVER SURE DOES LIKE
CONCLUDED THAT.
THE WHOLE IDEA ABOUT.
ENGAGING IN THEM THIS KIND OF.
.
SURVEY REVIEW WAS.
NOT A GOOD IDEA.
OTHER HIGH AND THAT THE.
IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN AND
I FACT I THINK THIS BODY.
I AN ACT WITH SOME LEGISLATION
REALLY CORRECT. RATTLED PUTTING.
RESTRICTIONS ON MAKING IT CLEAR
IT WASN'T CLEAR BEFORE.
THAT THE ANY KIND OF
INTERFERENCE WITH THE TYPE I
DESCRIBED. THAT CANNOT HAPPEN
AGAIN THE LEASE WITHOUT.
THE CONSEQUENCES
SO IN YOUR ESTIMATION YOU THINK
THEY HAVE DONE SUFFICIENT
ACTIONS.
TO TO GUARANTEE THAT.
THAT KIND OF TAMPERING WOULDN'T
HAPPEN AGAIN IT'LL AS FAR GOOD
IS I KNOW AND GIVEN THE STATE OF
THE LAW I WOULD SAY I THINK
THEY'VE LEARNED THEIR LESSON.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU JUSTICE.
A MISTER KILEY.
DEFINITE JUST RIGHT NOW
MOVEMENT.
I DON'T ASK A FEW QUESTIONS
ABOUT.
SECTION THREE.
SUBSECTION A IN OF THE REPORT
WHICH PAGES THAT I THIS IS
STARTING NEAR THE BOTTOM OF PAGE
FIVE.
KIND OF GOT.
AND YOU DESCRIBE THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU CO P.
AND THE STATE HONOR IN THE FALL
OF TWENTY SIXTEEN AS TENSE I
EVEN TOXIC.
SUPPOSE TO SOME EXTENT IT'S
UNAVOIDABLE NO ONE REALLY LIKES
AYE BEING AUDITED UMMAH CLOSER
LIDO.
YOU GO ON TO SAY THAT WITNESSES
AT ALL LEVELS OF THE UNIVERSITY
REPORTED THAT AT THIS POINT.
THE STATE AUDITOR WAS KNOWN TO
OVERLOOKED FACTS AND PAINT
CERTAIN FACTS IN A MISLEADING
LIFE.
SO I WITNESSES AT ALL LEVELS OF
THE UNIVERSITY COULD YOU PROVIDE
SHED A LITTLE MORE LIGHT ON HOW
MANY FOLKS ARE TALKING ABOUT
WHAT ROLES THEY OCCUPIED IN THE
UNIVERSITY.
IT I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC
NUMBER I CERTAINLY KNOW THAT
FLOOR.
AT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
THE OTHER CONCERNS THERE. AND
ALSO THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS
EXPRESSED TO US THAT THE CAMPUS
LEVEL. AS WELL AND I THINK IT
ALL ORIGINATED WITH AN EARLIER.
SURVEY NAM NOR AUDIT CONCERNING.
NONRESIDENT.
STUDENTS IN TUITION AND SO
FORTH.
THAT KIND OF LEFT A BAD TASTE IN
THEIR MOUTH SO.
WE DIDN'T REALLY GOING TO ALL
THAT DETAIL BECAUSE THAT WAS
KIND OF COLLATERAL AND ISSUE
THAT PERHAPS SUB BUT HOME.
AND THE SCREEN DE DESCRIBES
RELATIONSHIP. AS BEING THAT WE
HEARD THAT.
A NUMBER OF TIMES
LOW. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
THAT MOTIVATED.
THE COMMENTS AND REVISIONS AND
SO FORTH MINUTES THINK MIGHT BE
SPECULATIVE TO.
THE SAILOR.
I OF THE LANGUAGE JUST STRUCK ME
BECAUSE IT'S QUITE SIMILAR LATER
ON THE REPORT YOU ARE GO OVER
THERE.
THE GOVERNMENT AUDITING
STANDARDS YEAH AND.
KNOW THAT INTENTIONAL EMISSIONS
OR MISLEADING INFORMATION CAN
CAUSE THE AUDITOR'S FINDINGS TO
BE INCOMPLETE OR IMPROPER AND
HERE WE HAVE MULTIPLE.
WITNESSES AT ALL LEVELS OF THE
UNIVERSITY
I SAYING BASICALLY THAT'S WHAT
OCCURRED THAT THE STATE AUDITOR
WAS KNOWN OVERLOOKED FACTS. AND
PAINT CERTAIN FACTS IN A
MISLEADING Y..
YOU ALSO REVIEW.
THE AYE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
RELIABILITY OF TESTIMONIAL
EVIDENCE WHEN IT COMES FROM
SOMEONE IN MANAGEMENT ON THE ONE
HAND AND WHEN IT COMES FROM AN
UNBIASED A KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON
ON THE OTHER. NUYS.
WITH THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU GOT
IN THIS RESPECT INCLUDE. JOB
BEING FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO WORK
FELL ON THAT UNBIASED
KNOWLEDGEABLE CATEGORY AS
OPPOSED THE MANAGER OF.
MONEY MANAGEMENT CATEGORY YOU
KNOW THAT'S THE EASIEST BECAUSE
THE NEGATIVE. COMMENTS ABOUT
RIGHT THE COMMENTS THAT
BASICALLY PURPORT THAT THE
AUDITOR I WAS NOT VIOLENT
FOLLOWING GOVERNOR LISTENING
THINKS FOR THE MOST PART THEY
WERE CONFINED KIND OF THE.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT FLOOR
THAT EXECUTIVE OFFICE. FLOOR
BECAUSE I THINK.
THEY FELT THEY WERE BEING
DILUTED WITH.
AUDITOR'S MILLING ABOUT IN
ASKING QUESTIONS AND.
ASKING FOR HARD DRIVES AND. THIS
IS WHAT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT
THEY WERE JUST.
CONCERNED THAT THERE.
BEING TOO INVASIVE RIGHT BUT.
THOSE FEELINGS WERE.
YOU KNOW CAN CERTAINLY.
NEGATIVE FEELINGS CONCERNING THE
AUTHOR REALLY REACH BEYOND.
JUST THE THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE I
WOULD. REALLY WITH JUST THE
WORKLOAD.
I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.
THAT THERE'S A CALCULATION THAT
SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT.
THINK THE AUDITOR GAVE THEM.
UNDERESTIMATE THIS ISN'T IT
LIKE THE IRS TELL YOU SEEM TO
TAKE TWENTY MINUTES.
HOW LONG DOES IT REALLY TAKE?
HIM TWENTY DOLLARS SOLOS ON THE
MAGNITUDE OF MAYBE FOUR TO ONE.
OF THAT THE WORK TO RESPOND.
ACCURATELY.
TO THESE QUESTIONS WASN'T TAKE
MUCH MORE TIME THAN.
THAT WAS APPARENT AND I THINK
THAT WAS THE JUST.
OF THE CONCERN.
UP AT THE LOWER LEVEL.
UP PEOPLE AFTER PROVIDING THE
ANSWERS.
A HAPPY EXECUTIVE OFFICE LEVEL
LOSE MORE.
KIND OF.
DEMANDING ACCESS THEM.
LOVE.
PEOPLE MILLING ABOUT A HALF OF
THE AUTHENTIC I THINK THE
PRESIDENT EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN
RIFLE ABOUT PLAN.
SO ON THAT.
SPECIFIC CLAIM THAT THE AUDITOR
WOULD OVERLOOK BACKS AND PAINT
SOME FACTS AND MISLEADING Y. DID
YOU FIND ANYTHING TO CORROBORATE
THAT WELL YOU KNOW WE.
I DO WE DIDN'T DO A.
THAT ISN'T THAT WASN'T THE
FOCUS NOW IS PART OF THE
CONTACTS YOU LOOKED ME UP WITH
THE TO CONTACT WERE TOLD YOU
KNOW. ALL THIS OCCURRED IN AN
ENVIRONMENT.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE.
HE NOTED THAT.
.
WAS THAT A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN
OUR IN OUR SCHOOL IN OUR STUDY
WE WEREN'T REALLY LOOKING AT
THAT THAT WAS. A COLLATERAL
THING THAT MAYBE.
I GAVE SOME COLOR TO WHAT WAS
GOING ON.
THERE ALSO I'M A STATEMENT IN
HERE THAT.
THE OVER ARCHING FEELING WITHIN
THE UNIVERSITY WAS THE U. COPD
AUDIT WAS POLITICAL. IN NATURE
AND.
CAN YOU IT IS PROBABLY MORE
ABOUT WHAT WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD.
POLITICAL IN NATURE TO MEANS.
YEAH SO IT.
.
SO THE FACT THAT THE.
THE ENTITY WAS BEING AUDIT THE.
YOU KNOW.
REGARDLESS OF HOW THAT SURVEY
MADE COME OUT THERE'S ALWAYS
SOMEONE WHO'S NOT HAPPY AND CAN.
CONSERVATIVE MAKE POLITICAL HAY
OUT OF IT ME THAT'S WHAT I THINK
THAT.
IF I HAD TO GET INTO THE MINDS
OF PEOPLE WHO WERE SAYING THAT
THE UNITED SANTA.
BUT THEY'VE FILLED A SUSPICIOUS
POLITICAL.
IT MAY BE THE TERM WITCH HUNT
WAS USED TO ONE POINT.
YOU KNOW WE HEAR THAT ACROSS THE
COUNTRY NOW.
RIGHT SO I YOU ALSO.
DESCRIBED A LETTER WRITTEN BY
CHERYL.
BACK OFF ABOUT MILLION LACA.
AND SHE WAS UNHAPPY.
WELL NUMBER ONE WITH THE FACT
THAT YOU SEE IF YOU WERE GIVEN A
HEADS UP ABOUT THE SERVICE GOING
OUT.
BUT THEN YOU SAY SHE LEFT THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND LATER
SIGNED HER NAME TO A MEMO TO
PRESENT A POTANO DETAILING
MOTHER THINGS PRODUCER INTO THE
ACTIONS OF THE STATE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE THROUGHOUT THE AUDIT. IS
THAT MEMO PART OF THE REPORT
HERE ACT OR IS THAT THINK
OTHERWISE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IT
IS NOT A WHICH CERTAINLY. WE
WOULD WE COULD MAKE THAT
AVAILABLE WITH YOU KNOW
THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS BUT I
DON'T THINK WE.
INCLUDED EXCERPTS LA IN THE
APPENDIX ATTACK IT EASILY BE
OBTAINED.
AND HER CONCERNS WERE SIMILAR TO
THE ONES YOU ARE DISCUSSED LATER
AGAINST AND THEN SHE WAS HAVING
ON HER WAY OUT.
BECAUSE ALREADY RETIRED.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU JUSTICE.
.
I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS OF.
.
THREE CLICK HERE.
.
LOT OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE
TOUCHED ON SEVERAL ISSUES THAT I
WANTED TO.
TOUCH ON SO LET'S GO.
PERILS AWAITING LITTLE TOO LONG
BUT I SAID THAT JUST MARINO
THANK YOU OFFER A VERY THOROUGH
DETAILED REPORT THANK YOU FOR
YOUR SERVICE.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE I I
JUST A BRIEF QUESTION TO TOUCH
ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT
WERE THAT WERE MADE RELATIVE TO
THE.
THE AUDITOR STAFF I MEAN I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE YOU KNOW
THIS
THIS AUDITOR.
WHO? I AM BY HOLY RECOMMENDED
FOR YOU TO PUT A REAPPOINTMENT.
THAT MAYBE HER STAFF AS A
LITTLE OVERZEALOUS IN YOUR
EXPERIENCE. VERY TOUCHED ON THE
FACT THAT YOU KNOW NO ONE LIKES
TO GET AUDITED. BUT.
ISN'T THERE A PRESUMPTION THAT
WHEN WHEN AUDITOR'S COME IN THAT
THEY HAVE A AN IMPLICIT.
RIGHT I MEAN EVERYBODY SHOULD BE
RESPECTFUL BUT AN IMPLICIT RIGHT
TO THE DATA THAT THEY'RE.
CHARGED WITH UNDER THE LAW TO TO
HAVE ACCESS TO AND THAT.
MAYBE THEY NEED TO SAY PLEASE
AND THANK YOU MORE OFTEN BUT.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT THE.
ABSOLUTELY I DON'T EVEN THINK
THEY HAVE TO SAY PLEASE THANK
YOU WOULD. ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO
RIGHT NICE. YEAH PERHAPS BUT
IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE
JOB AND I MEAN I'M LOOKING AT
THE THAT THE STATEMENTS HERE.
ARE AUDIT STAFF ROAMING THE
HALLS THEY FELT CORDON THREAT
I'M PRETTY HAD I HAD A. CONTEXT
OF IT BOOK OAKLAND HEADQUARTERS
UNCOMFORTABLE EVEN CORNERED
THREATENED.
I I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT
THE THREATENED PART YEAH AND
THEY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU
KNOW YOU CAN BE SUBJECT TO
SANCTIONS OR. OR SOME OTHER
REPERCUSSIONS IF YOU DON'T
COOPERATE THAT'S ONE FORMER
THREATENING OR YOU KNOW YOU'RE
GONNA GET BEAT UP IN AN ALLEY
AND WHICH WHICH IS A.
AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE FLIPPANT
BUT I'M LOW CORNERED THREATEN
MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO
DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND IN CONTEXT
IS IT.
YOUR JOB IS THREATENED YOUR
FREEDOM IS THREATENED OR YOUR
YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT IS IT. AND
THEN ALSO BEYOND ITS STAFF
ROAMING THE HALLS WELL THAT'S
WHAT ANA STAFFS DO. IT IF MY
RECOLLECTION SERVES ME CORRECTLY
WITH WHEN YOU GO WITH THAT SIR.
WELL. THEY DON'T SIT IN A ROOM
AND SAY PLEASE BRING US ALL THIS
INFORMATION OFTENTIMES THEY'VE
LITERALLY GO DOWN THE HALLWAY TO
THIS OFFICE TO THAT STAFF REMOVE
ROOM TO THAT. YOU KNOW PART OF
THE BUILDING IS IN THAT WAY IT'S
NORMALLY DONE.
WELL I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S THAT
NORMALLY DONE AND AND I DON'T
THINK WE INQUIRE DISLIKE WHAT DO
YOU MEAN BY BY THREATEN.
AND AGAIN WE DIDN'T REALLY.
EXPLORE IN DETAIL.
THAT. THE THOSE ALLEGATIONS MADE
BY PERSONS WHO REPORTED THAT SO
SOMEONE CAN SAY I FELT CORNERED
AND THREATENED. AND THEY'RE IN
AND YOUR EXPERIENCE IS NOT A
FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS WHAT WHAT
DO YOU MEAN BY CURRENTLY ACTIVE
TITLE REMEMBER WELL AND THAT'S
FAIR ENOUGH MONEY JUST WAS THE
IT JUST STRUCK ME AS WHILE. WE
NO ONE SHOULD BE CORDON
THREATENED IT CERTAINLY. BUT
THEN ITS FOLLOW UP AUDIT STAFF
ROAMING THE HALLS.
BUT THEN AGAIN THE SALUTE TO THE
PHRASE CORNERING PEOPLE.
MAN HAS A CONNOTATION TO IT YOU
GIRLS ALL VERY SUBJECTIVE
DISPARITIES ACTUALLY SAWWHAT
WAS LOOKING FOR A LITTLE MORE
COLOR IN CONTEXT BUT NOT YOU
ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT IT'S NO
PROCEDURE FOR.
FOR THE INFORMATION THEY HAVE A
LEGAL RIGHT TO UNDER THE LAW
BUT.
I THINK THIS YEAR AS I MENTIONED
OF THE FIRST TIME THAT.
.
LEGAL ADVICE WAS SOUGHT.
ON ON THE AUDITOR'S ROLE.
OF THE RESPONSE WAS HEY. THEY'VE
GOT FULL AUTHORITY.
TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING.
SO THE THE. OF THE UC OP OFFICE
KNEW THAT THE SCALPERS
VIRTUALLY.
UNLIMITED MOVIES OR IS THIS A
STATE AGENCY. REVIEWING A STATE
AGENCIES I THINK.
.
IF THEY INTENDED TO TO FIGHT
THAT BATTLE WAS GOING TO BE A
LOSING CAUSE YOU ANSWERED THE
QUESTION AND THEY'RE ACTING
UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS
LEGISLATIVE BODY AND STATE LAW
NO. THANK YOU.
MR LIVING DID YOU WANT TO GO TO
LATIN AMERICA FIRST OKAY.
YEAH I THINK YOU JUSTICE. THE
THE IN LOOKING AT THE WAY THAT
THE.
THE AUDITOR AND THE CAMPUS IS
ALL BEHAVED.
IT.
COSMAN REFLECT A LITTLE BIT ON
THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF HIGHER
EDUCATION WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA.
SO FOR EXAMPLE THE COMMUNITY
COLLEGE SYSTEM HAS A STATEWIDE
GOVERNING BOARD BUT WE ALSO
HAVE.
AND MANY MORE DISTRICTS THAT
HAVE THEIR OWN GOVERNING BOARDS
AND THERE ARE SEPARATE AND
DISTINCT INSTITUTIONS AND THAT
WAY. YOU SEE IS.
DIFFERENT
AND IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS BUT
TIED TO A PARTICULAR TO SEEN.
MORE AS A AS A SYSTEM. ORGANISM
IF YOU WELL.
AND.
I THINK THAT THAT THE QUESTION
I HAD IN AND.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE INTERNAL
SHARING OF A SURVEY THAT SENATOR
ALLEN HAD REMARKED ABOUT WHICH
YOU KNOW.
BOB PERHAPS CAUSED FOR SOME OF
THIS CONFUSION. BUT THAT.
THE INSTITUTION PERHAPS USUALLY
ACTS AS A SYSTEM RATHER THAN AS
MANY DIFFERENT CAMPUSES.
INDEPENDENTLY.
VERY DIFFERENT STARKLY
DIFFERENT FROM. THE.
BIKINI COLLEGE SYSTEM.
AND THAT PERHAPS
NOT HAVING.
CLEAR DIRECTION WHETHER IT WAS
FROM THE AUDITOR PERHAPS THERE
WAS KERN OBSTRUCTION FROM FROM
THE AUDITOR BUT BECAUSE. THE
SYSTEM AS A WHOLE IS NOT USED TO
ACTING.
HAS THE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
CAMPUSES AND WITH ARE THIS TYPE
OF INTERACTION OF THE STATE
AGENCY KNOW. THAT BACK HAVE BEEN
A CAUSE FOR CONFUSION AND
MISCOMMUNICATION THAT
UNFORTUNATE WHAT TO US.
LET ME THINK I LOVE I AGREE MEAN
THERE'S A. THERE'S A CERTAIN
AMOUNT AND I'M NOT REALLY THE
EXTRA HOMELESS BUT.
THERE'S A CERTAIN NOT AUTONOMY
AMONG THE INDIVIDUAL CAMPUSES
AND NAY DEPEND ON THE STYLE OF.
OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
IS IT MORE OF. A REPUBLIC.
IS IT THE UNIFIED STRUCTURE
THINK YOU'RE HERE HINTING AT
THAT.
LOVE. SO AND I DON'T KNOW HOW.
THAT MIGHT CHANGE OVER TIME WITH
WHOEVER'S
WELL THE PRESIDENT.
BUT HERE CLEARLY THIS WAS A
SYSTEM WIDE.
.
SURVEY.
THE CAMPUSES RESPONDED
INDIVIDUALLY. THEY HAVE THEIR.
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL THAT
EACH AT EACH CAMPUS.
A BUT I THINK THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT THEIR.
IN THIS INSTANCE ACTED TO YOU TO
UNIFY.
THE RESPONSES TO THIS SURVEY
FROM ANOTHER INDEPENDENT.
STATE AGENCY.
SHOULD THIS HAVE BEEN A THIS
CONSIDERATION BEEN.
PART OF AN AUDIT REQUEST AS TO
HOW TO PROVE APPROACH THE
INSTITUTION. THAT.
YET IS THERE A.
POINT OF ENTRY INTO SUCH A
SYSTEM OR ARE WE GOING DIRECTLY
TO.
WHOEVER THAT APPROPRIATE
OFFICER MIGHT BE YET EACH
INDIVIDUAL CAMPUS WHICH I THINK
PERHAPS WOULD BE.
MAYBE MORE APPROPRIATE WITH THAT
COMMUNITY COLLEGE MODEL THEN A
UC SYSTEM MODEL BUT YOU KNOW
THIS IS OF COURSE HINDSIGHT FOR
US. AS WE PREPARE OUR AUDIT SOON
IN APPROVED ON. YEAH I THINK ONE
OF THE THE CONCERNS THAT I
RECALL WAS THAT.
ALTHOUGH THE BE.
UNIVERSE IS A WHOLE NEW THE
AUDIT. WAS COMING IT DIDN'T
REALIZE THAT.
THERE WERE NOT ANY NOTICE THAT
WHAT WAS BEING SENT OUT TO SORT
OF SENT TO ALL THE INDIVIDUAL
CAMPUSES.
WITHOUT ANY SORT OF A.
FOR NOTICE.
TO THE OFFICE THE PRESIDENT IT'S
GOING OUT. IT OCTOBER SIXTEENTH
OR WHATEVER WHEN OUT.
SO.
PEOPLE ACTED SURPRISED WHEN IT
DID COME OUT AND THEN THAT'S.
WHEN THE RECOMMENDATION TABLED
LET'S HAVE A CONFERENCE CALL.
WHAT WE DO WITH THE SLITS?
GET TOGETHER SO WE HAVE SOME
KIND OF. WE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
THAT THE CAPSULES MIGHT HAS.
WELL WE OF VERY FINE AUDITOR'S
AND SOMETIMES YOU DON'T KNOW
WHAT THEY'LL FIND BUT THEY WILL
FIND SOMETHING YEAH. AND IS THIS
AN AUDIT TECHNIQUE OR DO YOU
THINK THAT'S IT THIS IS JUST A
HAPPENSTANCE WE GET ABOUT THE
ONE THAT. YEAH DANCER WHAT
YOU'RE WRITING THEM.
YOU KNOW WITH ALL THE.
THE FACT THAT.
EVERYTHING IS DIGITAL AND CAN BE
RECOVER AND.
.
INITIAL DRAFTS CAN BE.
YELLOW LAB DISCOVERED AND
AMENDMENTS IT'S ALL. THERE TAKES
A LOT OF WORK A.
TO PUT TOGETHER. AND I THINK
THERE'S ONE INSTANCE.
IN MY REPORT.
WHERE THERE'S SOME SUGGESTION
THAT WE SHOULD GO OFF LINE?
NOT SEND EMAILS.
YOU MAY GO ON TEXT MESSAGING.
AND LOW AND BEHOLD. YOU CAN
RECOVER THOSE TWO AS WE'VE
LEARNED FROM KERN INVESTIGATIONS
IN WASHINGTON.
THANK YOU JUSTICE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH JUSTICE
BRUNO I LIKE TO OF.
GET BACK TO.
THE SPECIFIC ACTS OF INTENTIONAL
INTERFERENCE AND WHO EXACTLY
COMMITTED THESE
SPECIFIC ACTS OF INTERFERENCE.
ON A PAGE THREE OF YOUR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY YOU INDICATE
THAT.
YOU FIND THAT THE MEMBERS.
OF THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE
OFFICE.
ENGAGED IN ACTIONS THAT
INTERFERED.
WITH THE CAPS SURVEY RESPONSES.
HIS THE ID RECALL THAT WON'T YES
YES. AND.
A SPECIFICALLY IF YOU FOUND
THAT YOU SEE OP INVITATION FOR
ACTS WHICH YOU DESCRIBED
EARLIER.
AND.
.
AS TO THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS
INVOLVED BUT WHAT WOULD BE FAIR
TO SAY THAT.
THAT THE TWO ACTORS IN THIS.
.
THAT THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
IN THIS.
.
FACT FINDING REVIEW THAT.
COMMITTED THE MOST EGREGIOUS
ACTIONS WERE A CHIEF OF STAFF
SELF GROSSMAN. AND DEPUTY CHIEF
OF STAFF BERNIE JONES NO THREAT
INC.
AND IN FACT ON PAGE FOUR OF YOUR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. YOU INDICATE
THAT.
.
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF
STAFF AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF.
TOOK.
ADDITIONAL ACTION DESIGNED.
TO.
CULTURE OR INFLUENCE OF. OF
SURVEY ANSWERS.
AND WIT AND WHICH IN MANY CASES
SUCCEEDED IN DOING SO THAT'S
RIGHT.
SO.
WE KNOW THAT.
THE THE CHIEF OF STAFF IN THE
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF COMMITTED
THESE SPECIFIC ACTS OF
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
CORRECT.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
PRESIDENT DID THAT'S RIGHT.
AND I THINK YOUR
CHARACTERIZATION OF INTENTIONAL
INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE
THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS.
IT'S QUITE OBVIOUS.
SO I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE.
SOME SECTIONS THAT I FOUND
PARTICULARLY INTERESTING IN IN
YOUR REPORT ON PAGE NINE OF YOUR
REPORT.
YOU TALK ABOUT HOW AND A
NOVEMBER TENTH MEETING.
AT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
WITH ONE WITNESS.
WHO SPOKE TO INVESTIGATORS
DESCRIBE PRESIDENT PAUL TUNNEL
AS?
QUOTE UNQUOTE VERY UPSET.
REGARDING THE AUDIT AND ASKING
HOW THE UC OP COULD GET.
MORE QUOTE UNQUOTE CONTROL OVER
THE SURVEYS IS THAT.
YEAH YOU RECALL THAT STATEMENT
YES I SEE IT OKAY.
AND THEN.
THERE WERE CALLS THAT FOLLOWED
THAT NOVEMBER TENTH MEETING.
BETWEEN THE CHIEF OF STAFF THE
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF AND CAMPUS
ACCEPTED EXECUTIVES ON NOVEMBER
FOURTEENTH.
AND ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT.
SEVERAL PARTICIPANTS DESCRIBED
AN IMPLICIT MESSAGE CONVEYED ON
THE CALLS.
THAT CAMPUSES WHO WOULD BE
ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY SURVEY
RESPONSES CRITICAL OF YOU CO P..
IT IS THAT CORRECT YES.
AND IN FACT TO ONE WITNESS SIR
IT WAS CLEAR THAT YOU CO P.
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE SURVEY
RESPONSES WOULD REFLECT WELL ON
PRESIDENT NEPAL TANA.
IS THAT ACCURATE YES.
AND FINALLY ON.
THE ON THAT ON PAGE TEN OF YOUR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THERE AT LEAST
THREE ASSOCIATE CHANCELLOR'S WHO
REPORTED. THAT ON NOVEMBER
FOURTEENTH ON THE NOVEMBER
FOURTEENTH.
CALLS THE CONFERENCE CALLS.
THEIR CHIEF OF STAFF OR THE
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF.
CAUTION THE PARTICIPANTS THAT
THE SURVEYS WERE NOT THE PLACE
OR FORUM IN WHICH TO AIR DIRTY
LAUNDRY. THAT THAT'S WHERE YOU
GOT THE OTHER DURING THE.
THE DIRTY LAUNDRY.
YES MY WAS THAT THAT WAS THE.
RECURRENT.
PHRASE THAT TO.
MORE THAN ONE WITNESS WHO
REPORTED.
ALSO.
I THINK WITH RESPECT TO.
CERTAIN PROGRAMS LIKE THE PATH
PROGRAM COMES TO MIND.
BUT THIS WAS NOT THE PLACE TO
AIR GRIEVANCES CONCERNING
PARTICULAR PROGRAMS. THAT THOSE.
YOUR CONCERNS WOULD BE CONVEYED.
SORT OF OFF LINE ON A SEPARATE.
A MODE BUTTON.
BUT THE SURVEY RESPONSE WAS NOT
PLACE.
TO AIR THOSE CONCERNS TEARING.
AND AND FOLLOWING THAT.
CONFERENCE CALL ON THE VERY NEXT
DAY. AYE AS INDICATEDON PAGE
ELEVEN OF YOUR.
REPORT THE EVENING OF NOVEMBER
FIFTEENTH PRESIDENT TO PULL TARA
HOSTED A DINNER AT HER RESIDENCE
FOR THE CAMPUS CHANCELLORS.
IS THAT CORRECT RIGHT YES.
AND AT THAT DINNER A ONE AT
LEAST ONE SHASTA TOLD
INVESTIGATORS THAT. PRESIDENT
NEPAL TANO ADVISED THE CAMPUS
CHANCELLORS THAT THE SURVEY
RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE OVERLY
NEGATIVE.
IS THAT CORRECT YES NOW. IN YOUR
REPORT TO BE FAIR IT ALSO
INDICATES THAT PRESIDENT
PLATONIC DENIED SAYING THAT.
CORRECT.
AND AND FINALLY.
.
GOING TO THE UC SANTA CRUZ.
AND OUR ACTIONS THEY YOU
INDICATED.
WERE THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE.
OF THE PRESIDENT'S.
DIRECT PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN.
THIS.
.
FINDINGS OF INTERFERENCE.
YOU INDICATED ON PAGE TWENTY
FIVE THAT ON NOVEMBER TWENTY
SECOND PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME NO.
.
CALLED THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ
CHANCELLOR.
AND THE SANTA CRUZ CHANCELLOR
DESCRIBED PRESENT NEPAL TANO IS
BEING A QUOTE FURIOUS.
WHILE PRESIDENT PULL TARA TOLD
INVESTIGATORS.
THAT DATE ISSUES A MEASURE TELL
HIS IT IS AFTER CORRECT YES
THAT'S WHAT EACH OF THEM
REPORTED.
SO.
THERE WHAT WHILE YOU CONCLUDED
THAT THERE WAS NOT.
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND.
DIRECT INVOLVEMENT ON THE PART
PART OF PRESIDENT TO PULL TUNNEL
THERE THERE THERE THERE SEEMS TO
BE.
.
THE CIRCUMSTANCE LARA
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE A LOT OF
CONTEXT
SURROUNDING THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY
THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF OF
THE.
AND THE CHIEF OF STAFF IS THAT
FAIR TO SAY YES.
AND SO DID YOU EVER ASK THE. DUH
CHIEF OF STAFF.
WHY?
EARLIER THAT THAT CHIEF OF STAFF
OR THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF WHY
THEY.
TOOK THE ACTIONS THAT THEY TOOK
INCLUDING THE FOR ACTIONS THAT
YOU SPECIFIC ACCOUNT IS AN
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE.
ILL.
ESSENTIALLY THERE THEIR
RESPONSE WAS.
YOU KNOW TO ENSURE THAT THEY
TOOK THE ACTIONS THEY DID TO
ENSURE. THE RESPONSES WOULD
REMOVE PROPER SCOPE OF THE
AUDIT.
RESPONSES WERE ACCURATELY
REFLECTED THE CHANCELLOR'S VIEW.
OBVIOUSLY BAY STRAYED FROM THAT
BUT THEY DENY.
YOU KNOW MAKING.
STATEMENTS CONCERNING PARA DIRTY
LAUNDRY AND REVISING.
ANSWERS TO BE MORE FAVORABLE.
BUT I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE
FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES WHEN
YOU LOOK AT PARTICULAR.
A. EMAIL EXCHANGES.
ABOUT THE WRITTEN WORD BELIES.
OTHER THEIR TESTIMONY.
THE SHOOTING.
OKAY THANK YOU JUST RAN OUT
REALLY APPRECIATE.
YOU'RE YOU'RE VERY THOROUGH
REPORT AND AND.
TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF
CONTEXT AS TO WHY. YOU'RE HERE
TODAY SCENE IS.
THE LEGISLATURE POLICE DURING
MY.
TENURE THOMAS.
FIVE PLUS YEARS NOW.
WE HAVE HAD TROUBLE. GETTING THE
FACTS FROM YOU SEE.
AND THAT EVERY TIME WE CONTINUE
TO ASK FOR PARKS.
WE FACE SIMILAR ACTIONS THAT
YOU'VE DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT.
ON IT HAS REALLY.
HE WROTE IT THE TRUST
BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE IN YOU
SEE AND FRANKLY THE TRUST
BETWEEN THE.
THE PUBLIC CAN YOU SEE.
SO WHILE MY. COLLEAGUE FROM
SANTA MONICA TALKS ABOUT THE
COMPLEXITIES OF SURVEYS.
THAT'S REALLY NOT WHAT WE'RE
HERE TO THAT WE'RE HERE BECAUSE.
THERE IS AN INABILITY TO.
WHAT ARE?
SO THERE THERE ISN'T AN ABILITY
TO.
GET THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION.
AND.
HAS AS YOU SAID VERY CLEARLY
THE FACTS ARE.
ARE THE FACTS. ON HOW I WAS
CURIOUS GIVEN ALL THE INSTANCES
MY.
THAT THE CHAIR LAID OUT ABOUT
THE
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR. A IT DOES
APPEAR VERY CLEAR THAT SHE WAS
INVOLVED ARM IN.
THE SURVEYS AND INVOLVED IN IN
PROVIDING INSTRUCTION AS TO HOW
THE SURVEYS.
SURE TURNOUT WHY DID YOU BELIEVE
THAT THAT WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE.
TO.
COOPERATE THAT SHE WAS INVOLVED.
YOU KNOW.
I WAS A TRIAL JUDGE FOR FIFTEEN
YEARS.
OF MANY INSTANCES OF.
.
AS THE TRIER OF FACT.
MAKING A DETERMINATION.
IN A BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE OR IN CRIMINAL CASES
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND
IT'S.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT I
APPRECIATE.
YOUR CONCERN.
OF.
AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU MIGHT
SAY THAT.
THIS PERSONALLY I SIDE IMPACT
REPOSE.
.
BUT I THINK WEIGHING THE
TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES I
JUST DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS JUST
ENOUGH NARRATIVE.
CONCLUDED AT LEAST.
I COULDN'T CONCLUDE.
.
AT LEAST.
BY PREPONDERANCE.
THAT.
SHE KNEW WHAT FACTORS THREE AND
FOUR.
I THINK IT'S FLOOR. OF THE
REGION'S AND AND YOU AS A BODY
TO DECIDE.
.
THE WHAT DO YOU THINK IT MIGHT
WE REPORTED THE FACTS.
AM CONCLUSIONS I'M LIKE I
SUBMIT THAT YOU CAN PROBABLY
ARGUE DIFFERENTLY.
BUT THIS WAS THE BEST THAT I
CAN DO THAT AND THEN WE%
CHRISTIAN WHICH IS WHY I THINK
WE WANTED TO TALK TO YOU FOR
YOUR FOR DR REACHING KEY FOR TO
THE PRESIDENT. YEAH HOME.
THAT.
I I TYPE MYSELF IN HER POSITION
IN THIS IS WHAT I CERTAINLY HAD
A CONVERSATION A FEW MONTHS AGO.
HOME IT WE ALL AS LEGISLATORS
HAVE CHIEF THE STEPS. DART OUR
CHIEF OF STAFF IS.
PERSON THAT WE PROBABLY.
INTERFACE.
ALMOST THE MOST IN EACH OF OUR
OFFICES THERE HOPING NO
INDIVIDUAL.
ON THAT AND WE WOULD INTERFACE
WITH ANY MORE THAN THAT CHIEF OF
STAFF. A AND I DON'T KNOW TOLD
HER WE SPOKE I FIND IT.
IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
THAT.
THE CHIEF OF STAFF AXED.
WITHOUT.
DIRECTION FROM THEIR LOSS.
THAT'S THAT'S USUALLY WHEN THE
CHEAPEST ROCKETS FIRE YOUR.
IT.
DID YOU BELIEVE FOUR DID YOU
FEEL THAT THEY WERE ACTING
WITHOUT. DIRECTION OR IT. OR
THEY WERE ACTING ON THEIR OWN.
IT ARE CLEAR LISTA FACTORS ONE
AND TWO THEY WERE ACTING WITH
HER APPROVAL AND KNOWLEDGE IN
HER.
AUTHORIZATION.
BUT AS TO THE GIVE AND TAKE.
THE REVISIONS RECONSIDER
REFRAMING.
NO THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT WE
FOUND.
SORRY NO EVIDENCE THAT WAS
DOCUMENTED IN WRITING.
THAT SHE KNEW.
OF THAT.
THOSE.
.
CHANGES.
WE'RE BEING OFFERED IS
RECONSIDER CONSIDER CHANGE.
NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE DIRECTED
THAT.
THEY DO THAT.
CHAU MAYBE THEY WERE STILL
BELIEVE THEY WERE SERVING THEIR
MASTER. WANTING THE BAKER THE
UNIVERSITY THAT LIKE HIKE.
SITTING HERE I COULDN'T I
COULDN'T TELL YOU YES THAT'S
WHAT WAS GOING ON SHE KNEW.
THAT THE DEGREE OF THEIR
INVOLVEMENT.
SUGGESTED OF THOSE TWO STEPS.
SIX EVEN IF SHE DIDN'T KNOW SAY
THOUGH THE BRADFORD THAT REALITY
TO WHAT WHICH IS COMMON WE WE
VERY RARELY KNOW. ALL THE THINGS
THAT.
OUR STAFFS DO OR SEE OUR CHIEF
OF STAFF SABRINA DO. A BASED ON
THE APPENDICES BASED ON WHAT
YOU'VE WRITTEN.
ON. HER HORROR ACTIONS ALIGNED
WITH THEIR ACTIONS
IN THE SENSE THAT SHE. SHOULD
OUT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
CHANCELLOR'S.
SHE TALKED ABOUT CONTROLLING THE
SURVEYS
SHE INDICATED THAT HOME.
THAT SURVEYS NEEDED TO BE ON
THEM WRITTEN IN A CERTAIN WAY
TO.
.
TWO IOTA.
SHARE INTIMATE THATTHEY NEEDED
TERM SORT OF THE BRITAIN IN A
PARTICULAR WAY WHICH IS VERY
MUCH IN LINE WITH HER TO
SUBORDINATES.
WELL LET ME JUST SAY TWO THINGS
ONE PASSED THROUGH TAKING
CONTROL. OF I BELIEVE IT WAS IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE.
LOVE AUDITOR'S PRESENCE IN THE
BUILDING THAT.
SHE FELT THAT THINGS WERE OUT OF
CONTROL ASSEMBLY DID ASK YOUR.
YOU CAN ASK HER.
GOT WITH THE SECOND THINK THAT
YOU'RE THE SAME LITTLE FELLOW
SETTING WAS RIGHT IN THE DINNER
AND THE DIRECTION TO OUR CHANCES
WERE AGAIN HER THAT THE. GOING
THROUGH THE SPECIFICS OF YOUR
* HE'S VERY MUCH.
HUNG HER ACTIONS WERE VERY MUCH
ALIGNED WITH HER STAFF ACTIONS I
REMEMBERED THE SECOND YES YOU
KNOW.
AS I INDICATED THE BEGINNING.
.
THE CHILLING EFFECT.
I MEAN EVEN AT THE.
SUBORDINATE POSITIONS BELOW THE
CHANCELLOR WHEN.
PERSON KNOWS THAT THEIR
SUPERIOR.
IT'S GONNA BE. REVEALING.
BUT YOU KNOW YOU'RE A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF CIRCUMSPECTION.
NATURALLY AND I THINK THE SAME
THING WHEN.
SUBORDINATES LOW WHO ARE
WORKING.
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
THINKER AND AGAIN I'M NOT USE
MAYBE IT'S HUMAN NATURE BUT.
I THINK THEY'VE. MADE A BELIEVE
THE WRAPPING AT HER BEHEST
INTERACTIONS WERE CONSISTENT.
BUT AGAIN THERE'S NO DIRECT
EVIDENCE IN MY VIEW. THAT WOULD
IMPLICATE HER AT LEAST IN MY.
.
THEY'LL BE ABLE TO CONFIDENTLY
CONCLUDE SHE KNEW ABOUT THOSE.
.
FACTORS THREE.
AND FOR.
TELL WHETHER AGAIN THIS IS
SOMETHING YOU CAN POST HER
WHETHER SHE SHOULD HAVE NEW NO.
THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION.
BUT AS YOU POINTED OUT.
.
WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW CHIEF OF
STAFF ARE DOING AND THEY THINK
THEY'RE DOING THINGS AT THE.
AT THE BEHEST OF.
THEIR BOSS BUT IN FACT THAT.
AUTHORIZATION BILL THAT EXTEND.
IS NOT THERE ARE CERTAINLY NOT
EXPLICITLY.
BUT BUT WHICH WOULD YOU AGREE
THAT HER HER ACTIONS ALSO SEEM
CONSISTENT WITH HER STAFF
ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW CURIOUS
OVERALL BIG PICTURE I THINK YOU
COULD CERTAINLY ARGUE THAT.
YOU ONE THAT'S WHAT WE ARE
TALKING WE'RE TRYING TO IT WE
THAT THE SURVEY'S WORTH THE
LEGISLATURE'S DIRECTION TO TRY
TO GET.
FAX
NO AND I THINK THE OVERALL
CONCERN IS THAT THERE WAS A
COVER UP THERE WAS A
FABRICATION.
THERE WAS A INTENTION TO HOME
KEEP THE FACTS AWAY FROM THE
AUDITOR INNOCENCE KEEPING THE
FACTS WHICH IN THE LEGISLATURE
KEEPING THE WAY FOR THE POPULAR.
LATE ME NO I CAN'T. I CAN'T
AGREE WITH THAT TO THE EXTENT.
THE PRESIDENT IS INVOLVED.
THAT SHE HAD THAT INTENT LIKE I
JUST CAN'T SAY THAT.
BUT.
I'M LIKE I DID ONE ALONE HOUSE
THERE IN GOING THROUGH THE
APPENDICES THERE IS ANOTHER.
STAFF PERSON I WAS.
WRITTEN ABOUT A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT TOM TIMES BUT HE
DIDN'T REALLY MENTION THIS
INDIVIDUAL IN IN EUROPE SOME
PURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY YOUR THE.
ACTUAL REPORT KNOWLEDGE IS YOUR
SISTER Y. THAT WASN'T. AND THAT
WAS SORT REGARDING MR
PROSCRIBED.
YOU'VE YOU'VE MENTIONED HIM IN
ART AND THEN FRIDAY DEPENDENCIES
HE WAS ON A NUMBER OF CALLS HE
WAS INSTRUCTED TO TALK TO. A
NUMBER OF THE CFO'S AND HE'S
MENTIONED OVER AND OVER
INDEPENDENCE HE'S
KING. DO YOU KNOW WHY HE WASN'T
MENTIONED TO KNOW MY MY
RECOLLECTION. WAS HE IS A
FINANCE GUY YEAH HE'S THE CHIEF
AS WELL AS A MUCH SIMPLER.
.
SURVEY.
AND I DON'T THINK MEANING THE
THE BRUNT OF.
OF THE.
.
REVISED RESPONSES IF YOU WILL
DEL WITH MORE OF THE.
.
THE SERVICES ASPECT AND NOT THE
FINANCIAL.
BUT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE YOU'RE
I THINK SAYS EVEN THOUGH HE WAS.
REPEATING IN CALLS IN
COORDINATION.
YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY SITUATION
WHERE SHE WAS.
CHANGING THINGS ALTERING THINGS
DOING DOING SOME ATTRACTIONS
HERE IS DEALING WITH THE
PROVOST'S PERHAPS DUE TO
DIFFERENT UNIVERSITIES OKAY OF
HER. VERY GOOD THANK YOU. ARM IN
IN REGARDS TO THE HOME.
CONVERSATION IN WITH THE SANTA
CRUZ CHANNELER.
HOME IF TWO DIFFERENT.
I GUESS VERSIONS OF IT SO HARD
YEAH. HEARTENING YOU HAVE TO
ONLY TWO PEOPLE SO YOU CAN HAVE
A THIRD. YOU DON'T HAVE A THIRD
PERSON TO COOPERATE ROOM.
.
HE AND DISCOS BACK TO THE.
HOME. PRESENCE ATTENTION I KNOW.
MY MY ON MY OTHER COLLEAGUE
FROM.
DUBLIN ASHES THIS ALREADY. HOME
BUT IT DE.
BUT DID YOU FEEL THE INTENTION
WAS ABOUT.
THAT.
PHONE CALL BECAUSE FROM FROM THE
WAY AND AGAIN IT'S EVERYTHING'S
PERSPECTIVE RIGHT FROM WHATEVER
ANGLE YOU'RE LOOKING AT PER FROM
THE. PERSPECTIVE BASED ON THE
BEHAVIOR OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF
OF THE PITCHING STAFF EVEN.
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR AB.
DINNER. HARM. THAT DID IT IT
APPEARS THAT THERE IS
ON.
CONCERN I I DON'T WANT OTHER.
YOU'RE MISREPRESENT DETAILS OF
NOT JUST CONCERNED. THAT THE.
.
SURVEY RESPONSES MAY HAVE UP THE
UNIVERSITY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT.
WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT VICTOR.
THE PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT THE
ACTUAL SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE WAS.
CLEARLY.
AT LEAST AT ONE LEVEL.
AND YOU CAN ASK HER SHE WAS
UPSET PAT.
BE TRANSFERRED COUNTERMANDED
HER.
ORDER TO ALL THE CHANCELLOR'S
TO SUBMIT THEIR RESPONSE WAS.
TO USE YOUR PRE FIRST BEFORE
SENDING THEM TO.
THE AUTHOR AND THAT WAS NOT
DONE.
SO.
ONE LEVEL.
.
GOD WOULD BE REASON THE DAVID
CHIU SOMEONE NOW.
BUT AGAIN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
THAT.
IT WENT BEYOND THAT.
THAT THERE WAS ANY.
KNOWLEDGE ON HER PART.
THAT THE ANSWERS.
WERE UNFAVORABLE. BUT WHAT IS
CLEAR IS AND THIS IS DOCUMENTED.
IS THAT WHEN THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF.
INTERCEDED IN WELL WITH A BACK
AND FORTH WITH THE CHANCELLOR.
I MEAN IT'S PLAIN AS DAY.
THAT THE RESPONSES. CHANGE IN
THE MATERIAL WAY. TO REFLECT
MORE FAVORABLY.
ON ON THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU. HOME DID YOU IMAGINE
THIS CHEWING. ON THE ACTIONS
FROM THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT
YEAH IN IN THE CHANCES A
PARTICULAR.
HOME DO YOU THINK THAT ON THE
CHILLY AFFECT HAS ANY LONG TERM
ASPECT BASED ON YOUR INTERVIEWS
OR DO YOU THINK THAT WAS JUST.
ACTUALLY FACT BASED ON THIS ONE.
PARTICULAR SITUATION.
WELL I THINK I THINK YOU'RE
GENERALLY.
AS I'VE SAID IF YOU KNOW YOUR
BOSS WHO IS BEING AUDITED.
IS.
GOING TO BE REVIEWING YOUR
RESPONSES TO THAT AUDIT. I THINK
IT'S GOING TO CHURCH IN HUMAN
NATURE TO BE CHILL. AND NOT A
GOOD WAY TO BE SO.
IN AND EVEN GIVEN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES SOME OF THE OTHER
RESPONSES THAT CAME BACK HAD
SOME.
FEEDBACK OR YOUR CRITIQUE I
GUESS YES.
ON THE I SO EVEN GIVEN THAT
SITUATION WHERE YOU KNOW THE
SOMEONE'S LOOKING OVER THERE ARE
STILL YEAH.
SINCE SOME FEEDBACK THAT WAS
GIVEN.
SO BABY GIVEN ACTUALLY FACT
CLEARLY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT
COURTS ARE.
TAKE UNDERTAKE SIGNIFICANT BUT A
AN AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK WAS
CLEARLY. NOT GIVING BACK BECAUSE
OF THAT RIGHT. WHERE THEY GAVE
INFLICTED THEM MAYBE THREE
INSTANCES?
WITHOUT ANY KIND OF A BACK AND
FORTH.
REVISIONS WERE MADE ONCE THE.
CAMPUS IN NEW THAT THERE'S GONNA
BE YOU COPD REVIEW SORT OF A
PREEMPTIVE. REVISION.
DO YOU THINK WILL BE. DO YOU
THINK THERE IS A LONG TERM
IMPACTS IS BECAUSE YOU'VE
OBVIOUSLY TALKED TO ALL THE
VARIOUS NOT RIGHT I REALLY
COULDN'T ANSWER.
CREDENTIAL ADMITTED SO MANY
PEOPLE PERSONALITIES AT TIMES
BOOKS I REALLY TECH COULDN'T
REALLY ADDRESS OF LONG TERM EVEN
SHORT TERM.
I JUST KNOW THAT IN THIS CASE
THERE WAS A CHILLING EFFECT OKAY
THANK YOU BUT THEN AGAIN I THINK
I THINK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE
REPORT MEMBERS PERSONAL
PLEASURE.
WELL THANK YOU I KNOW THAT
YOU'VE HAD QUITE OF A LOT OF
QUESTIONS AND I COME WHAT ABOUT
THAT JUST REALLY QUICKLY TO THE
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE WERE.
HEREIN APRIL WHICH WAS NOT TO
SPEAK ABOUT THE NON DISCLOSED.
A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE
MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE BUDGET
AND AND THEN WHAT CAME AFTER AS
FAR AS THE AUDIT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT.
AND I WILL PARTICIPATED IN THAT
HEARING AND IN THE SPRING WAS A.
HOW MUCH WAS REPORTED TO THE
REGENTS HOW MUCH DID THE
LEGISLATURE KNOW MOUNT THOSE
FUNDS AND I THINK THE CONCERN
FOR MANY OF US HAS BEEN THAT HOW
WE ALL ARE? BELIEVERS IN THE UC
* OF SYSTEM MANY OF US HAVE
ATTENDED. A COLLEGE THERE BUT
ALSO OUR COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND
CAL STATES.
AND EVERY DOLLAR COUNTS IF YOU
WANT TO SAY IT THAT WAY. AND WE
HAVE TO MAKE VERY.
DIFFICULT DECISIONS AS HOW MUCH
EACH INSTITUTION IS GOING TO BE
FUNDED SO TEND TO.
QUESTION A HUNDRED AND SEVENTY
FIVE MILLION AND IS THAT REALLY.
SHOULD OF IT AND HAVE BEEN
DISCLOSED OR NOT. I THINK FOR ME
WAS KIND OF A RED FLAG OF WELL
WHY WASN'T THAT AND I KNOW I
FELT AS IF A.
THAT THAT WAS A SERIOUS A PIECE
OF INFORMATION THAT SHOULD HAVE
BEEN DISCLOSED.
BUT THEN READING YOUR ANALYSIS
AND AS IF YOU WOULD SAY YOU
CAN'T COME TO THE ULTIMATE
CONCLUSION THAT.
ON ALL FOUR ITEMS AND YOU
MENTIONED THERE WAS IF YOU WANT
TO SAY.
DISCUSSIONS EVERYBODY IT DOES
CREATE A PATTERN FOR ME MA THAT
ONE COULD. INFER THAT.
.
IT JUST PUTTING IT AS SIMPLY AS
POSSIBLE THAT NGUYEN A SURVEY
TAKES PLACE IN ONE OF THE BEST.
RESULTS POSSIBLE I KNOW. FIFTY
QUESTIONS IS QUITE LENGTHY BUT
MOST SCHOOL DISTRICTS NOW EVEN.
K. TWELVE OR DOING SURVEYS OF
FOR THEIR OWN TEACHERS AND A LOT
OF MEMBERS BECOME.
TEACHERS THEMSELVES DON'T EVEN
WANT TO PARTICIPATE BECAUSE
THEY'RE ALWAYS AFRAID THAT
RESULTS ARE GOING TO GET OUT AND
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANONYMOUS
OR IT'S NOT. AND THERE'S ALWAYS
THE FEAR.
THAT IS IT REALLY GOING TO SHED
LIGHT ON WHAT'S HAPPENING BUT
THAT'S THE. EXACT POINT OF SOME
OF THE SURVEYS IS TO FIND OUT
REALLY WHAT IS HAPPENING WITHOUT
INTERFERENCE AND KIND OF GAUGE
IT. BECAUSE IF YOU ASK SOMEBODY
FACE TO FACE ON THERE ARE ALWAYS
GOING TO SAY HOW THEY REALLY
FEEL BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID
AGAIN. THAT MAYBE THEIR BOSS OR
SUPERINTENDENT OR IN THIS CASE
CHANCELLOR IS GOING TO THINK
POORLY OF THEM SO AS I. HAVE
LISTENED TO THE QUESTIONS AS I
HAVE LOOKED AT THE REPORT.
I GUESS THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU
DID SAY THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES
IN THE OFFICE. OF.
OR USE MENTIONED TO ARE THERE
OTHERS THAT YOU KNOW OF OR.
YOU SAID THAT ALL THE
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE I
WORK WHAT ARE TAKING PLACE DO
YOU CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANY MORE OF
THOSE ITEMS.
I CANNOT BECAUSE I JUST I JUST
KNOW BASICALLY WHAT I'VE READ.
IT IN PUBLIC CA REPORTS ARE ARE.
SO FAR TRACK FINDING.
TASK WAS REALLY LIMITED TO WHAT
HAPPENED.
IN THAT VERY.
CONSTRAINED TIME PERIOD. SO
SPARSE THE CHANGES THAT WERE
MADE THE LAWS OF CHANGE I
REALLY.
HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JUST CRIED OUT. HAVE TYPE.
MR SHOT THAT'S.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH JUST FROM
THE PRESENTATION HERE.
.
LISTEN ALL QUESTIONS OF.
.
I COLLEAGUES UP HERE.
ONE TO PUT THIS IN.
VINCE.
KIND OF A TIMELINE.
SEE THIS ALL STARTED OUT SOME
TIME AGO SOME YEARS AGO I THINK.
FOURTEEN FIFTEEN.
SINCE LOT OF SCOTT APPEARANCE
TWELVE YEAR WHEN WE'RE LOOKING
AT TUITIONS.
AND WORRYING ABOUT HOW MUCH DE
OF US COSTS IN FOR STUDENTS AND
HOME FOR ELECTRONIC GOING TO
PAY.
SO THE QUESTION ONLY FOR MY WHEN
MY COLLEAGUES ANYWHERE ASK
QUESTIONS OF FELT WE WERE
GETTING THEM.
THAT'S WHERE THE OUT IT CAME
FROM.
BECAUSE IN OUR SUB TO MEETINGS
WE HAD WE SAY WELL YOU KNOW HOW
MUCH THE BECAUSE YOU KNOW
DIFFERENT UNIVERSITY SYSTEM WITH
ALL THE DETAILS.
THE.
AND I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE
WE HAVE SECOND WE WHAT WE EACH
OF US RANSOM IT TO OUR OWN.
THE CHURCH ONE SEES.
WHEN THE AUDIT WENT FORWARD.
YEAH.
AND IT CAME BACK.
I'M.
IN YOUR REPORT HERE ON THE END
OF IT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
HOW EVERYBODY IS INVOLVED. YOU
MAKE A STATEMENT ALL THREE
INDIVIDUAL STATED THEY DID NOT
INTEND TO INTERFERE WITH THE
SURVEYS.
STAY WITH THAT.
AFTER MEGA GOOD. CREDIBILITY.
CALLED CERTAINLY AYE THERE'S A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SKEPTICISM.
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT I BELIEVE
WHETHER OR NOT.
THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF AND
THE CHIEF STAFF ONE ABOUT THIS
BUT AS FAR AS THE. NEPAL CONNOR
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU DID NOT
INTEND TO INTERFERE WITH THE
SERVICE.
WELL AS WE'VE DEFINED AT ME SHE
DID IN FACT INTERFERE WITH OUR
ITEMS ONE AND TWO BUT AS TO
THREE AND FOUR. THAT AIRING
THEIR DIRTY LAUNDRY NEGATIVE
RESPONSE MOVES AND AMENDING.
WE AYE THERE'S INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE.
SHE EITHER APPROVE SANCTIONED.
RATIFIED OF THOSE ACTIONS BY HER
SUBORDINATES
AND THAT WAS MY IMPRESSION WE
HAD THE HEARING I GUESS TO
HEARINGS AGO WHEN WE HAD AND
EVERYBODY HERE THAT. ANSWER
QUESTIONS I I LISTENED TO IT
DOWN.
WHAT WAS PROBABLY IN EVERYBODY'S
MIND ON NOVEMBER THE TENTH
TWENTY SIXTEEN?
YOU HAVE A COCKTAIL PARTY COMING
AND WHAT WAS YOUR REASON MINE.
WE JUST COMPLETED ELECTION.
WE HAD SOMEBODY JUST ELECTED IN
THE WHITE HOUSE.
NOW THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF GOING
ON THE TIME AND I WOULD IMAGINE
IN THE UC SYSTEM THERE ARE A LOT
OF THINGS GOING TO BE ON THIS.
I DON'T.
AND.
.
I WOULD JUST ASK ALL OF US AS WE
LOOK AT THIS KIND OF PUT IT IN
CONTEXT AND GO THE NEXT RAISES
QUESTIONS THAT.
WE'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE'S
CAREERS IN AND THEIR CONDUCT AS
THERE IS A DOING VERY DIFFICULT
JOBS IN.
AND THAT WE'VE HAD. A STATEMENT
RIGHT HERE THAT'S. CLEARLY
ALIGNED IF SOMETHING HAD TO BE
CORRECTED IT WAS COUPLE PEOPLE
REMOVED.
WISDOM THE OTHER ACTIONS LATER
ON ABOUT YOU KNOW THIS MONEY
OVER TO DO WITH IT. BUT WE
EVERYBODY APPEARS SAYS ARE
SUPPORTING THE THE UC'S.
AND SO.
WE SHOULD NOT.
IMPUGN ANYBODY OR MAKE ENDS
ABOUT THINGS OR IF I HAD A CHIEF
OF STAFF I WOULD KNOW WHERE
SOMEBODY WOULD DO THAT BECAUSE.
AND DEALING HOW BIG HOW BIG IS
YOUR ORGANIZATION READ HOW MANY
PEOPLE DISH
SHE MANAGE.
A BOLT ON.
YOU KNOW SHE WOULDN'T SHE WOULD
KNOW THE EXACT WITH GIVE ME A
BALLPARK ISM IS A MORE THAN
SEVEN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE
HELL YEAH GOVERNOR A.
A THINK IT ISN'T IT OCCUPIES
MORE THAN A ONE FLOOR IN OAKLAND
I'M SURE OF THAT YET TONIGHT I
COMMANDED TWENTY TWO THOUSAND
ONE TIME.
AND I COULD TELL YOU THINGS GO
ON THAT YOU DON'T ALWAYS KNOW
WHEN YOU HAVE LEVELS AND LEVELS
OF THINGS GOING ON SO MIKE AND I
CAN CONFIRM THAT WHILE I WAS
UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO
BILLY'S.
I HAD A HUNDRED THIRTY PEOPLE I
COULDN'T TELL YOU. THE NAMES OF
EACH AND EVERYONE OR WHAT THEY
DID RESPONSIBLE FOR BUT I TRIED.
I AGREE SO I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR REPORT I THINK IS VERY
CLEAR. LAID OUT SOMETHING THAT
WAS THERE AND I'M I'VE MEMBER
ASKING THE AUDITOR HOW MS IS
ALWAYS GOOD.
BECAUSE I JUST TO BE AN
INSPECTOR GENERAL ST MILITARY
SING BECAUSE NOT OUR.
WE EGO WHEN TO DO THESE TO MAKE
ORGANIZATION BETTER.
AND I ASKED HER I SAID IS THE
ORGANIZATION BETTER BECAUSE WHAT
YOU DID. AND SHE SAID YES.
THERE'S A METAL RECORD.
AND I SAID THAT'S GREAT.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
POUND OF FLESH.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT'S BEST FOR
THE ORGANIZATION AND THERE'S
REGION'S AND RATHER MILLION DO
THAT I DON'T KNOW THE
LEGISLATORS ARE.
THAT'S OUR PER REACHED BUT THANK
YOU VERY MUCH TWENTY TWO
TESTIMONY.
GOING THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK
THAT YOU'VE DONE. AND OBVIOUSLY.
I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT WORK THIS
THAT IS TO BE DONE TO GO INTO
SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHEN YOU. OF
OF AS EVERYONE IS KEEP SAYING
OVER AND OVER THAT MY THE
INSTITUTION AND WE BY NO MEANS A
TALKING ABOUT DESTROYING IT.
TEARING APART THE UNIVERSE
ITSELF WHEN YOU AND THAT IS NOT
AN AGENDA ITEM I THINK FOR
ANYONE IN THIS. ON THE STATUS IT
YOU KNOW IT IT BECOMES A
DIFFICULT TASK TONIGHT IS I SAY
THIS TO YOU AS SOON AS TO MY
COLLEAGUES THAT.
YOU KNOW. MOST OFFENSES SOME
BEGIN OFF AS BIG THINGS WOULD
BEGIN AS LITTLE THINGS.
AND AND THEN THEY BLOW UP YOU
KNOW AND THEY CONTINUE TO GROW.
AND.
YOU KNOW HAVING BEEN A TRIPLE
BREWING ALL MY DEGREES ME SILLY
YOU I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT
FOR THE INSTITUTION BUT ALSO
KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WORK
THERE. ARE VERY RESEARCH
ORIENTED INDIVIDUALS. AND THEY
UNDERSTAND SURVEYS.
DAMN STAND WITH THEIR ABOUT
THROW AND THEY KNOW THAT THEIR
OWN INSTITUTION THAT THE VALUE
THAT INSTITUTION RIDES ON THEIR
ABILITY TO DO EXCELLENT
RESEARCH.
AND TO BE HONEST IN THE
COLLECTION OF DATA AND REPORTING
OUT OF INFORMATION.
PEOPLE'S WHOLE CAREERS ARE
DESTROYED IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD
BECAUSE THEY FALSIFIED DATA
WILL%
ALTER INFORMATION AND SO THIS IS
NOT JUST A MOM AND POP OPERATION
THIS IS UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA.
THESE A PERSONS WHO HAVE
PROBABLY SOME OF THEM HAVE LONG
EXTENSIVE CAREERS IN ACADEMIA.
AND HAVE COME TO GO. TO RISE TO
BE A PART OF THIS SO I WOULD
WANT US TO DISMISS THE FINDINGS.
IN IN MAY THAT REQUIRE A TWO
MINUTES ACTION ON OUR PART.
BUT UP WE SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY
DIMINISH THE SIGNIFICANCE.
ALTERING SURVEYS.
AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS AND AND
AND I'M HAVING A CHILLING EFFECT
ON INDIVIDUALSWHO ARE PART OF
THE INSTITUTION WHO HAVE SOME
INFORMATION PRESENT. AND FEEL
THAT THE OF THE PRESENTATION OF
THAT INFORMATION COULD HAVE
CONSEQUENCES.
SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S
COMMENTS I AND YOU KNOW AND AND
I'M I'M NOT SURE WHERE THIS IS
WILL IN AT THE END BUT I DO WANT
TO SAY THAT IT IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT THE PROCESS OF
SURVEYING. DATA COLLECTION
HONESTY IN THAT IN THAT BAND
THAT INFORMATION IS REALLY WHAT
DETERMINES EXCELLENT
UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH
INSTITUTIONS.
BUT ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT NO
MATTER WHAT PEOPLE TELL YOU IS
NOT GOING TO FLY AS A RESEARCH
INSTITUTION.
AND MOST OF THE TIME THOSE
INSTITUTIONS GET THEIR GRANTS
BASED ON THE HONESTY AND
INTEGRITY OF THE FACULTY AND THE
MEMBERS WHO DO RESEARCH.
AND A OTHERWISE YOU KNOW SOMEONE
SAYS WHERE THIS CAME FROM
STANFORD THIS RESEARCH CAME UCLA
OR UC BERKELEY THE AVERAGE
PERSON WHO'S READING THAT DOES
NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO BACK
INTO THE RESEARCH THEMSELVES. SO
HIS REPUTATION OF THOSE
INSTITUTIONS IN THE QUALITY OF
THAT RESEARCH THE DETERMINES THE
VALUE OF IT IN ANY DISCUSSION.
SO I WANT IS TO MINIMIZE THE
COLLECTION OF DATA AND
INFORMATION AND THOSE WHO
COLLECTED BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT A PREMIER RESEARCH
INSTITUTION. NOT ONLY IN
CALIFORNIA AND THIS NATION BUT
IN THE WORLD.
AND THAT BECOMES IMPORTANT THANK
YOU.
SEEING NO FURTHER.
REQUESTS.
JUSTICE MARINO THANK YOU VERY
MUCH THANKS FOR SERVICE THANK
YOU AND I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT.
IN ADDITION TO THE TWO.
INDIVIDUALS DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF
WERE.
HAVE DEPARTED.
THE COMPLIANCE OFFICER IN
QUESTION I THINK RETIRED.
AND THE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE.
OF SANTA CRUZ.
DIALOGUE IS ALSO RETIRED.
I THINK YOU.
NEXT WE WOULD LIKE TO.
INVITE AND WELCOME.
GEORGE KEEFER CHAIR OF THE BOARD
OF REGENTS
.
MR KIEFER WELCOME FLOOR IS
YOURS.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN.
.
I'M GEORGE KEEFER CHAIR OF THE
BOARD OF REGENTS.
I WAY BACKGROUND I'M.
FORMER ALUMNI REGION AS WELL
MANY MANY YEARS AGO.
TOO MANY YEARS AGO.
FORMER CHAIR THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OF CALIFORNIA
COMMITTEE COLLEGES AND.
FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE ALUMNI
ASSOCIATION AT UC SANTA BARBARA
AND NINETY FOUNDATION AND I CO
FOUNDED THE.
COMMITTEE COLLEGE FOUNDATION.
THAT A PREVIOUS APPEARANCE FOR
THIS JOINT COMMITTEE FORMER
REGENTS BOARD CHAIR MONICA
LOZANO.
COMMITTED UNDERTAKING THE
BOARD'S OWN REVIEW OF FACTS
FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS BY THE
STATE AUDITOR THAT ACTIONS BY
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
AMOUNTED TO A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT
TO BIAS CAMPUS SURVEY RESULTS.
WE PROBABLY HELD A SPECIAL BOARD
MEETING AND THAT YOU'VE HEARD
RETAIN JUSTICE MARINO IN THE LAW
FIRM OF HOUSTON HAD AGAIN TO DO
AN INDEPENDENT FACT FINDING.
FOR THE BOARD.
AS YOU'VE ALSO HEARD THAT REPORT
CONFIRMED INTERFERENCE OF
VARIOUS KINDS HAVE VARIOUS
LEVELS WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT. AND THAT IN TURN
REYES DEEP CONCERN SHOCK ANGER.
AND DISAPPOINTMENT AMONG BOARD
MEMBERS INCLUDING ME.
IN OTHER WORDS WE TOOK IT VERY
SERIOUSLY.
BRIDGET WAS ON I RECOMMENDED
VARIOUS FOLLOW ON ACTIONS TO THE
FULL BOARD AS A RESULT OF THOSE
FINDINGS.
AND OUR NOVEMBER BOARD MEETING
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE
HEARD.
EXTENSIVELY DEBATED AND VOTED
UPON FOLLOWING ORAL
PRESENTATION.
BY AND DISCUSSION WITH SOME
QUESTIONS TO THE MARINO HOUSTON
HANNIGAN TEAM.
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS WERE
APPROVED BY THE BOARD AT THE
NOVEMBER MEETING AND MULTIPLE
CHANGES TO THE BY LAWS AND
POLICIES WERE APPROVED AT THE
RECENT JANUARY MEETING.
HAVING RUN OUT OF TIME TO FULLY
CONSIDER THOSE AT THE NOVEMBER
MEETING.
ACTIONS TAKEN REGARDING
DISCIPLINE AT THE NOVEMBER
MEETING WERE AS FOLLOWS.
ONE A PUBLIC STATEMENT BY ME AS
CHAIR ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
ADMONISHING THE PRESIDENT FOR
HER ACTIONS IN DIRECTING THE
PRESIDENT.
TO EXAMINE THE CULTURE WITHIN
HER OFFICE THAT MAY HAVE
CONTRIBUTED. TO THE FAILURE OF
OTHERS IN MEETING THEIR
RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES.
TWO REQUIRING AT THE SAME TIME A
PUBLIC STATEMENT BY THE
PRESIDENT.
ACKNOWLEDGING RESPONSIBILITY AND
APOLOGIZING FOR HER ACTIONS.
DISCIPLINE THIRD DISCIPLINARY
ACTIONS WERE TO BE RECOMMENDED
REGARDING THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO
THE PRESIDENT BUT WERE RENDERED
MOOT DUE TO HIS RESIGNATION.
AND DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS WOULD
BE RECOMMENDED REGARDING THE
DEPUTY CHIEF STAFF EQUIPMENT
RENDERED MOOT BECAUSE OF HIS
RESIGNATION.
FOLLOWING THE MEETING THE FULL
HOUSTON.
PENTAGON MORENO REPORT WAS MADE
PUBLIC.
AND PRESIDENT NOT I CONDUCTED A
PRESS AVAILABILITY TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS.
AS NOTED MULTIPLE RECOMMENDED
CHANGES TO THE BY LAWS WERE
APPROVED AT THE RECENT JANUARY
MEETING WE HAD DETERMINED.
THAT A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO
THE INTERFERENCE RELATED TO THE
LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN
THE BOARD. AND OFFICERS WITH
DUAL REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES
TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOARD.
AND ALSO CLEAR COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN THE GENERAL COUNSEL IN
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS AND
BOARD POLICIES ARE INTENDED TO
PREVENT FUTURE INTERFERENCE WITH
STATE AUDITS.
RESET THE AUTHORITY AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF DUAL
REPORTS. IN THE EVENT OF FUTURE
AUDITS OF THE OFF OFFICE THE
PRESIDENT.
AND RESTRAINT IN THE REPORTING
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN. THE
GENERAL COUNSEL ON THE BOARD AND
THE CHIEF AUDIT AND COMPLIANCE
OFFICER AND THE BOARD.
MORE SPECIFICALLY THEY INCLUDE
THE FOLLOWING PREVENTING THE
DIRECTOR IN HER DIRECT
INTERFERENCE WITH STATE AUDITS
THE FUTURE.
ENSURING THAT OFFICERS WHO
REPORT TO BOTH THE BOARD IN THE
PRESIDENT PERFORM THEIR DUTIES
TO REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.
WHEN THE OFFICE THE PRESIDENT IS
SUBJECT TO AN AUDIT.
AN EXPLICIT DUTY OF ALL DUAL
REPORTS REPORT TO THE BOARD ANY
SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT AT ANY TIME.
WHETHER AS PART OF AN AUDIT WERE
GENERALLY.
REQUIRING DIRECT THE EQUAL
INVOLVEMENT BY THE BOARD IN THE
HIRING.
COMPENSATING AND EVALUATING THE
PERFORMANCE OF ANY DUAL REPORT.
WE EXPECT TO FURTHER ENSURE THIS
BY REQUIRING REGULAR ONE ON ONE
MEETINGS WITH THE GENERAL
COUNSEL OF BOARD CHAIR AND THE
CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER AND THE
BOARD CHAIR AND THAT WATCHER OF
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE THOSE
MEETINGS ARE SET.
I MEET NOW WITH THE THE. GENERAL
COUNSEL EVERY OTHER MONTH AND
WITH THE COMPLIANCE OFFICER
EVERY QUARTER.
BESIDES ALL OF OUR NUMEROUS
REGULAR BECAUSE THESE ARE SET
ASIDE FOR. ONE ON ONE
DISCUSSIONS
OPEN NO JANET YOU TALK TO ME.
I TALK TO YOU.
FOLLOWING MY DISCUSSIONS WITH
ASSEMBLY BUDGET CHAIR TING AND
UPON HIS RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
EARLIER HEARING.
THE BOARD RETAIN THE ADDITIONAL
SERVICES OF THE CHAU BERG EVER
SHANK CONSULTING FIRM HEADED BY
THE FORMER STATE AUDITOR. AND
CHIEF DEPUTY STATE AUDITOR.
THEY ARE LOOKING AT POSSIBLE
DUPLICATION OF WORK AS BETWEEN
THE SYSTEM OFFICE AND CAMPUSES.
AS WELL AS REVIEWING WITH THE
CAMPUS IS THE SERVICES PROVIDED
THIS WILL GET AT SIMILAR
QUESTIONS TO THOSE PROPOSED IN
THE AUDIT SURVEYS.
WE EXPECT THE HAVE THE SCHOBER
GIVE A CHECK REPORT BY THE END
OF APRIL.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THIS
IS IN ADDITION TO A SEPARATE
EXAMINATION YOU MAY READ ABOUT
BY THE HURON EDUCATIONAL
CONSULTING GROUP.
COMMISSIONED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
REVIEW THE STRUCTURE OF THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
THE BOARD HEARD A PRESENTATION
BY HERE ON AT ITS JANUARY
MEETING AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS
WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF
CONTINUING EXAMINATION.
BY THE BOARD.
THROUGHOUT THIS PERIOD OF HAD
NUMEROUS.
I HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF
CONSTRUCTIVE MEETINGS AND PHONE
CALLS WITH THE STATE AUDITOR.
I HOPE AND BELIEVE WE HAVE
FORMED A BASIS FOR CONTINUING
CANDOR AND TRUST.
SHE HAS MY CELLPHONE AND I HAVE
HERS IN THE EVENT THAT EITHER OF
US SEE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED AT THE BOARD LEVEL.
I WANT TO THANK HER INNER STAFF
THE ADVICE THEY HAVE GIVEN US.
AS WE ADDRESS THE BY LAW AND
POLICY CONCERNS.
I'VE ALSO HAD MEETINGS WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S TING AND
MCCARTY ASSEMBLY HIGHER
EDUCATION COMMITTEE CHAIR
MEDINA.
SENATE EDUCATION CHAIR ALLEN
ADDITIONAL PHONE CALLS WITH
BUDGET CHAIR TAKING AND
CONVERSATIONS ARE MEETINGS WITH
MANY OF YOUR COLLEAGUES.
I HOPE TO HAVE FURTHER DIALOGUE
WITH THOSE WITH WHOM I HAVE NOT
YET HAD THE OPPORTUNITY MEET.
AND TO CONTINUE MANY FULL
DISCUSSIONS WITH THOSE WHO I
HAVE MEANT.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S A
WHAT IS WIDELY CONSIDERED.
TO THE BEST SYSTEM OF PUBLIC
HIGHER EDUCATION THE WORLD.
WE CAN BE PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE
BUILT. BUT WE WITHIN THE
UNIVERSITY OR THE BOARD OF
REGENTS CERTAINLY DID NOT BUILD
IT ALONE.
FROM ITS FOUNDING IT WAS A
PARTNERSHIP AMONG THE STATE
GOVERNMENT.
CIVIC LEADERS AND ACADEMICS.
PERHAPS IT DERIVES FROM BOTH THE
ROMANTIC ON MY PART PRACTICAL
DEEP APPRECIATION AND RESPECT
FOR BOTH HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT.
BUT I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE DEEPLY
IN THE NECESSITY OF THAT
PARTNERSHIP.
AND THE TRUST REQUIRED TO DO AS
WELL IN THE FUTURE AS WE HAVE
DONE.
IN THE PAST.
THIS IS A DIFFICULT TIME FOR ALL
NATIONAL PUBLIC HIGHER
EDUCATION.
AS WE GRAPPLE WITH DEMAND.
RESOURCES COST.
AND FRANKLY PURPOSE.
FOR OUR PART WE MUST BE AS
CANDID OPEN AND TRANSPARENT AND
RESPONSIVE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.
WE MUST EMBRACE THE OVERSIGHT
ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT
INCLUDING THE STATE AUDITOR.
AS WE ALL RECOGNIZED
RESPONSIBILITIES TO TOMORROW AS
WELL AS TODAY.
AS IMPORTANT AS MEANS.
HONEST AND RESPECTFUL SHARING OF
RESPECT FOR THE RESPECTIVE
RESPONSIBILITIES AMONG US.
VIEWPOINTS AND IDEAS MUCH JUST
DID THE CIVIC AN ACADEMIC AND
GOVERNMENT FOUNDERS OF THIS
UNIVERSITY FIFTY HUNDRED FIFTY
YEARS AGO.
AS CHAIR OF THIS BOARD OF
REGENTS I BELIEVE WE'RE PREPARED
TO DO THIS WORK.
RESPOND MORE QUICKLY.
LISTEN MORE CAREFULLY AND ANSWER
MORE FULLY TO OUR PUBLIC
REPRESENTATIVES.
AS AND THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING OUR
PARTNERSHIP
WITH ALL OF YOU.
S. THE END OF MY REMARKS HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU MISTER KEY FOR ANY
QUESTIONS FROM
MAYBE.
MS BAKER.
THINK YOU MISTER KIEFER AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR AFTER BEING
HERE AND FOR BEING A REGION. AND
AND MAKING YOURSELF AVAILABLE TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
AND I CLEAN THE CHURCH YOU
MENTION OTHER MEMBERS AND TO THE
AUDITOR.
I GIVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND
REALLY TRYING TO CHANNEL MY
CONSTITUENTS IN HER HER. AND AND
FELLOW ALUM.
YOUR TIE CAN DEFINITELY BE
INTERPRETED AS AT LEAST THREE
EUSTICE COUPLES. I'M GONNA GO
WITH A COW MIGHT BE IS STILL AND
NOT SURE.
FIRST IT GOES TO AYE I'D LIKE
TO ASK IF IF THERE REGION'S.
IF YOU SAW PRESENT APOLLO'S
TESTIMONY TO PASS.
WHEN THE AUDIT CAME OUT AND WE
ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS
YOUR ROLE.
I ASKED IS DO YOU JUSTICE MARINO
THIS THE SAME QUESTION AS WELL
BUT I'M CURIOUS IF THE REGENTS
DID.
I DON'T KNOW OF ALL THE REDUCE
IT I I CERTAINLY SAW A LOT OF
IT.
AND AND PERHAPS NOT ALL. BUT.
.
AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS
BECAUSE I WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU
I DID NOT BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT
WAS FORTHRIGHT. WITH US IN THAT
TESTIMONY I'VE GONE BACK
MULTIPLE TIMES AND LOOKED AT THE
QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED ABOUT
THIS ISSUE OF INTERFERENCE
BECAUSE IT IS SO CENTRAL TO OUR
ABILITY TO. FIND OUT HOW WE CAN.
DO BETTER BY YOU SEE NOT JUST
WITH FUNNY BUT IMPROVEMENTS.
AND I JUST FLAT OUT ASKED DO
WORK WHERE THERE SURVEYS
RECALLED AT YOUR DIRECTION AND
THE ANSWER WAS NO.
AND WHAT CONCERNS ME IS AN ONLY
WHAT CAME OUT HAVE THAT THIS
REPORT AND THE WHOLE INCIDENT
BUT WAS THE CONDUCT TOWARDS THE
LEGISLATURE EVEN AFTER THE FACT.
AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL
REGIONS
TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT AS THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT
HOW TO MOVE FORWARD AND REBUILD
CREDIBILITY.
IT'S NOT JUST THE DISAPPOINTMENT
AND WHAT HAPPENED TO BEGIN WITH.
AND WE JUST HEARD FROM THE THE
JUSTICE THAT TWO OF THE FOUR.
AREAS THAT WENT OFF OF THE
PRESIDENT HE JUST IS QUITE
CERTAIN SHE WAS INVOLVED IN ITS
IT IS CAN CONCLUDE ON THE THREE
AND FOUR.
ITEMS BUT.
THAT ALONE WOULD HAVE BEEN.
IN MY VIEW REASON TO TO KNOW TO
TURN THE PAGE AND I DO THINK THE
UNIVERSE OF CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO
TURN THE PAGE AND LEADERSHIP
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
BUT NOT BEING FORTHRIGHT WITH
THIS LEGISLATURE IS ALSO AN
ISSUE.
AND SO THAT IS AN ASK FIRST OF
ALL THAT THAT I REALLY
RECOMMEND.
THE NEXT IS.
WHEN THE REPORT CAME OUT.
AT THE END OF REPORT THERE WAS.
EXTENSIVE
I THINK ABOUT FOUR FIVE HOURS OF
CLOSED SESSION THAT THE YOUR
REGION'S HAD WITH PRESIDENT
APOLLO TIME NOW BUT THERE IS.
IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY
VIRTUALLY NO. QUESTIONING IN
PUBLIC OF THE PRESIDENT ABOUT
THE INTERFERENCE THERE'S NOTHING
FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE.
AND C. CANDIDLY HER EXPLANATION.
IF IT WAS DIFFERENT WHEN I WAS
TO THE LEGISLATURE WAS IN THE
EVIDENCE.
AND I'M WONDERING WHAT WAS THE
RATIONALE FOR THAT I CERTAINLY
KNOW A LOT OF CLOSE SESSIONS
TEND TO BE MORE PERSONNEL
RELATED. YOU KNOW PRIVATE OR
MAYBE LEGAL MATTERS AND AND
COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT WHY WAS THAT CAN YOU I MIGHT
NOT SO Y. IT WITH THEIR WRISTS.
QUESTIONING IN PUBLIC AS I
RECALL ABOUT THE INTERFERENCE
FOR CALIFORNIANS TO UNDERSTAND
BETTER.
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND.
MAYBE IF WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT WE
WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.
DIFFERENTLY AS WELL OUR FOCUS
WAS IN THOSE FIVE HOURS TIME
WHICH INCLUDED THE REPORT BY
HOUSTON HAD TAKEN MARINO.
IT WE INCLUDED ALSO.
QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT AND
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT TO US
THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND TO US
AND.
.
LOST TO HIM. AND THEN OUR OWN
DEBATE.
WE LOOKED AT IT AS A PERSONNEL
MATTER.
ON A SERIOUS PERSONAL MATTER
THAT.
JUST THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS
THAT WOULD BE MEANINGFUL. ARE
FOR US TO GET OUT.
WOULD BE QUESTIONS THAT WERE
APPROPRIATE FOR A CLOSED
SESSION.
.
WE DID HAVE A.
AS I SAID I'VE. READ A
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
ADMONISHING THE PRESIDENT WHAT
YOU DID TO HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
REPORTS IN THE NEWSPAPER AND
SHE.
BREADED STATEMENT APOLOGIZING.
.
SO I'M NOT.
SURE WHAT WOULD BE A GAINED BY
FOG.
A PUBLIC THE PUBLIC.
DISCUSSION OF THAT BECAUSE WE
WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GO
DEEPER THAN THE SURFACE LEVEL.
BUT IT IT'S SOMETHING THAT
PERHAPS WE WELL UP WE WOULD
CONSIDER. AND MIGHT HAVE
CONSIDERED YEAH AND I APPRECIATE
THAT I KNOW THAT I GOT QUESTIONS
ABOUT THAT FOR MY CONSTITUENTS I
CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND
WHATEVER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
WOULD NEED TO BE ASKED. TOTALLY
WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE
REGION'S TO DO AND AND WHETHER
TO MAKE IT OPEN OR CLOSED TO THE
PUBLIC IT IS AS WELL BUT. GIVEN
HOW TRANSPARENCY HAS BEEN SUCH
AN ISSUE WITH THIS AUDIT AND
THEN THE INTERFERENCE AND
PREVIOUS AUDITS.
THAT JUST MADE IT EVEN MORE
DIFFICULT FOR.
USE MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS TO
FEEL LIKE THEY COULD READ REAR
IN THE TRUSTBUT LET ME DID I I
DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT.
.
THAT IMMEDIATELY UPON.
ACTING AND I IT FROM THAT CLOSE
SESSION AND THEN REPORTING ON
OUR ACTIONS AND THE ACTIONS THAT
WE WERE TAKING.
JUST AS WE DID AT THE JANUARY
MEETING.
WHICH WAS OPEN SESSION.
WE DID RELEASED THE ENTIRE
HOUSTON HAD AGAIN REPORT TO THE
PUBLIC AND HAVE A PRESS
AVAILABILITY.
I WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT A FORMER
CHAIR LOZANO WAS QUESTIONED AND
THE PRESIDENT WAS QUESTION
PUBLICLY.
BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
AND I. I KNEW IT'S A PERSONNEL
MATTER THAT YOU SEE IS
INDEPENDENT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF
THAT INDEPENDENCE IT SHOULD BE A
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE LEGISLATURE
AND WE HAVE WORK TO DO TO
SUPPORT YOU SEE.
BUT I I I ASK THIS NEXT
QUESTION NOT TO BE FLIP BUT IT.
WITH THE WE JUST HEARD THAT THE
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
CHIEF OF STAFF RETIRED OR NOT
FIRED.
AND THE PRESIDENT.
IT HAS BEEN HAS APOLOGIZED AND
UC REGENTS HAVE
SAID HOW MUCH THEY WERE
DISAPPOINTED BUT IS STILL
PRESIDENT AND THERE'S A REAL
LACK OF TRUST ME WHAT.
I I'M SURPRISED WHAT ALMOST HAS
TO HAPPEN YOU SEE FOR THEIR TO
BE A CHANGE IN PERSONNEL AND I.
BECAUSE THIS IS TO ME SERIOUS
AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR A POUND
OF FLESH.
BUT FOR REBUILDING THAT TRUST I
REALLY DO BELIEVE IT'S TIME TO
TURN THE PAGE.
AND I. I HOPE YOU SEE WILL
CONSIDER THAT I HOPE WE WON'T
HAVE A REPEAT OF ANY OF THESE
POINTS THAT WE WON'T BECAUSE IT.
BUT THAT.
THAT IS.
THAT IS A A GREAT CONCERN IS IS
ESPECIALLY AS AS MEMBER WEBER
MENTIONED ACADEMIC INSTITUTION
AND THE CREDIBILITY IS SO VERY
CENTRAL. AND.
THESE WHOLE SERIES OF THAT'S
UNDERMINE THAT.
YEAH I I APPRECIATE THAT AND I
APPRECIATE THE DOUBLE DIFFERENT
VIEWS ON.
TO WHAT DEGREE. WE TURN THE
PAGE AND HOW REFER TO THOSE.
THOSE WORDS I WHETHER THEY'RE
POUNDS OF FLASHER PAGE TURNS.
TOM.
A LOT OF THINGS.
WENT INTO OUR OWN DECISION
ABOUT THAT.
.
AND PART OF IT IS THE CONTACT IS
AN ENTIRE SET OF. CONTEXTUAL
POINTS THAT ARE REFERENCED IN.
.
THE REPORT BY HOUSTON HANNIGAN
MORENO.
AND TOUCHED ON. THE GENERAL
COUNSEL'S ADVICE.
ó WHICH WAS CORRECT WITH
RESPECT TO THE.
THE AUTHOR THE AUDITOR HAD SAID.
.
I MONTH AND THERE'S A DEAD
THERE'S A STATUTE IT DOESN'T
PERMIT DISCLOSURE BUT APPLIED TO
HER NOT TO THE.
TO THE UNIVERSITY SO HIS ADVICE
WAS CORRECT ON THAT.
BY IT WAS HE ALSO SAID I SEXY NO
REASON THAT THESE CANNOT BE
SHARED.
YOU KNOW WITH THE SYSTEM.
.
AND AND SO ALTHOUGH THAT HE ALSO
POINTED OUT WAS PROBABLY A
POLITICAL CHOICE WAS NOT BE A
WISE ONE.
SO BUT THERE WAS CONFUSION AND
THAT WENT THROUGH THE DEPUTY.
CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE CHIEF OF
STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT.
WE HAD THE CONTEXT OF THE
PREVIOUS AUDIT.
WE HAD.
.
A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON AT THAT
TIME I COULD LIST I SORT OF A
BECAUSE I I I THOUGHT SOMEONE
WOULD ASK THIS QUESTION SOME
WAY.
AND AND NOT IT WAS.
.
FAIRLY UNANIMOUS THAT AND IN
FACT I WOULD SAY WAS I I DON'T
SEE THERE'S ANY OBJECTION BET
THE
PRESIDENT CONTINUE.
BUT WE HAD TO ALSO DETERMINE A
WAY TOO SOON TO MAKE A MARK ON
WHAT THAT HOW SERIOUS THAT WAS
AND AND AND. THERE MAY BE
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE DID
THAT PROPERLY OR NOT WE THOUGHT
WE DID IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE
MOST EFFECTIVE.
WE STILL HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE
PRESIDENT.
AND THAT THE PRESIDENT
INTELLIGENCE AND AND DILIGENCE
AND AND AND DR.
CAN CAN BENEFIT THAT UNIVERSITY.
ITEM. WE BELIEVE WE WILL.
THAT WILL TAKE PLACE OTHERWISE
WE WOULD HAVE GONE WE WOULD HAVE
TURNED THE PAGE.
ON BOTH BUT THAT'S HOW WE CAME
OUT ON IT.
.
AT THE SAME TIME WE WANTED TO
PUT INTO PROCESS IN INTO INTO
AFFECT A LOT OF PROCEDURES THAT
WE THINK WILL MINIMIZE THE KIND
OF CONTEXTUAL THINGS THAT. THAT
ADDED TO THE TO THE SITUATION
THE FACT THAT NOT A DIRECT
REPORTS THE DOOR REPORTS WERE.
TALK TO THE BOARD ABOUT IT.
THESE KIND OF THINGS.
WORKED WHERE WHERE WE'RE
CORRECTING.
.
PEOPLE AS I THINK PEOPLE FEEL
DIFFERENTLY ABOUT IT WHILE WE
WERE PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE THINK
WE'RE BETTER OFF WITH THE
PRESIDENT AND WITHOUT PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU AND I I I DO BELIEVE
IN GRACE AND FORGIVENESS AND I I
DO BELIEVE SPECIAL FOLKS OF
APOLOGIZE.
IT HELPS WHEN THERE'S
FORTHRIGHTNESS.
YOU'VE BEEN DILIGENT AND I JUST
SHARE THE SENTIMENT OF
CONSTITUENTS I SEE ALMOST ON
DAILY BASIS THAT. THEY REALLY
WANT TO SEE A CHANGE AND TRUST
RESTORED WE WANT TO WE NEED TO
DO OUR PART AS A LEGISLATURE.
AND.
I HOPE WE CAN CAN CONTINUE TO
PARTNER ON THAT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME KEEP
THAT IN MIND.
AS YOU'RE GOING FORWARD AS WELL
THANK YOU.
GIVE.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE.
SAYING NONE.
THANK YOU UP YESTERDAY.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR FADEN
THANK YOU MISTER OR BOARD CHAIR
FOR BEING HERE THAT. I THINK
ABOUT MY.
COLLEAGUE FROM DUBLIN SORT OF
CHARACTERIZED.
ON THE THE BROADER CONCERN AND I
THINK WE'VE HAD DONE NUMEROUS
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SAME
ISSUE GROUP.
REGARDING.
REALLY THE TRUST FACTOR.
ON MY MY COLLEAGUE FROM
OCEANSIDE MENTIONED EARLIER
WE'VE.
PRO AND WE SAT FROM WHEN WE
FIRST STARTED IN TWENTY THIRTEEN
ON THE.
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE FOR
EDUCATION SO WERE VERY. VIABLE
FIRST AND HOME.
ALL THE VARIOUS HIGHER EDUCATION
ISSUES AND ALL THE ISSUES AROUND
YOU SEE. HOME THAT THE ISSUE AND
I DON'T I TRUST THIS WITH
JUSTICE MARINO WASN'T JUST
A. JUSTICE AUDIT THIS AUDIT WAS
A SNAPSHOT AN EXAMPLE OF THE
SITUATION THE OVERALL A LARGER
SITUATION IS WHEN AND IF YOU CAN
ADDRESS IT TO SORT OF ASSURE US
THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS.
THE.
VERY DIFFICULT TIME WE WOULD
HAVE GETTING. INFORMATION DATA.
A FAX WHOM IN THIS OUR AUDIT IN
WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS AUDIT WAS
JUST A SORT OF A PARALLEL STORY
TO NOT. SEE YOU'VE MENTIONED
THAT YOU'VE PUT ON.
PROTOCOLS IN PLACE N AND TO
ENSURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN
IN RESPECT TO THE HONDA CAN YOU
ALSO. UP PROVIDING STILL SHIRTS
WAS JUST WITHIN THE RELATIVE HER
COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE UNIVERSITY.
.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS A
FEE OF VERY KEEN AWARENESS ON
THE BOARD OF REGENTS.
ABOUT THE NEED TO BE RESPONSIVE
TO THIS BODY TO THE LEGISLATURE
NAM AND OBVIOUSLY TO PUBLIC.
.
PEOPLE.
I AM CONCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY BELIEVE
THEY THEY ARE GENERALLY
RESPONSIVE.
AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE
ANECDOTAL.
POINTS ON ON BOTH SIDES.
ON THAT POINT.
I THINK WITH THE MOST.
AND FACT I'VE BEEN TOLD WITH
THE MOST TRANSPARENT OPEN
UNIVERSITY IN THE COUNTRY.
THERE ARE MAYBE PARTICULAR.
MEMBERS THE LEGISLATURE HAVE
HAD PARTICULAR ISSUES WITH
GETTING INFORMATION THAT THEY
WANT.
BUT I HAVE NOT.
HEARD THAT FROM EVERYONE.
.
WE HAVE TEN CAMPUSES
FIVE.
.
A HOSPITAL SYSTEMS THREE LAPS I
IT'S A BIG EXECUTION AND HALF
YOU WANNA FIND.
ISSUES THEY WILL BE THERE WE
FIND THEM ALL THE TIME.
I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY PART.
AT WHAT WAS ASKED EARLIER ABOUT
THE CHILLING EFFECT THAT
OCCURRED IN THIS I THINK THAT
THERE THERE THERE IS A CHILLING
EFFECT WHEN YOU ASK THAT KIND OF
A QUESTION.
BUT IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN AGAIN.
IT WHEN YOU GO THROUGH SOMETHING
LIKE THIS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY
KINDA REACTS TO IT THAT'S ONE.
TO WE HAVE A BOARD THAT'S VERY
MUCH ON.
.
ON TOP OF THIS RIGHT NOW.
WELL I CAN PAY MY OWN VIEW
THOUGH ABOUT THIS AND AND I'LL
BE CHAIR FOR ANOTHER CUP YOU
KNOW THE YEAR AND A HALF.
I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN
GOVERNMENT.
UP HA IT'S JUST WHO I AM I
BELIEVE STRONGLY IN OVERSIGHT.
AYE HONOR WHAT YOU ALL DO I I I
I COULD NOT DO THAT.
BUT I DO WHAT I DO.
SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO A
KIND OF PARTNERSHIP THAT
EXISTED.
I'LL QUITE AWHILE AGO.
I THINK THE PARTNERSHIP NOT TO
THE EXTENT IT'S FRAYED.
MORE RADICALLY RECENTLY BY
PEOPLE'S VIEWS.
BEGAN FRAYING SOMETIME AGO WOULD
AND FROM MULTIPLE CAUSES NOW I'M
NOT I THINK.
WHETHER THAT IS.
.
BUT THE THE RECESSION OF TWO
THOUSAND SEVEN AND EIGHT. AND
THE FOLLOW ON AND AND THEN THE
FINGER POINTING ABOUT TUITION.
THAT WAS I THINK THOUGHT OF BY
THOSE PEOPLE LEGISLATURE THAT
TIME HAS.
GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND THEN IT SORT OF BECAME MY
GOD THERE'S GAMBLING IN CASA
BLANCA THERE'S TUITION.
WHAT A SURPRISE?
?
SO I THINK THERE'S A THERE'S A
NEED FOR TRUST AND AND
PARTNERSHIP ON ALL SIDES.
I THINK THE BIGGEST BURDENS ON
US.
GIVEN WHAT'S OCCURRED AND ON THE
UNIVERSITY.
WAS BUT A A CLEAR DIRECTION HAS
GONE OUT TO THE CHANCELLOR'S AND
THAT THE PRESIDENT FIRST OF ALL.
THE BOARD THE CHANCELLOR'S.
THAT WE NEED TO BE.
MUCH MORE RESPONSIVE AND MUCH
MORE QUICKLY MUCH MORE QUICKLY.
I RESPONSIVE AND ACCURATE IN OUR
RESPONSES SO.
I THINK THAT WILL TAKE PLACE
THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT SO MANY
RULES YOU CAN PUT IN FOR THAT
YOU DEVELOP A CULTURE FOR THAT.
AND AND I THINK THAT CULTURE HAS
BEEN THERE I THINK IT'S THEIR
LARGELY.
WHEN WE HEARD FROM THE HERE ON
PEOPLE THE OTHER DAY ABOUT WHAT
THEY WERE PICKING UP FROM.
CAMPUSES AS TO HOW THEY REACTED
TO THE SYSTEM OFFICE.
NO WHAT THEY TOLD US IS THAT WAS
THERE WAS NO GENERAL COMPLAINT
BUT THERE WAS ANECDOTAL COMPLAIN
IF THEY CALL JOHN SMITH.
HE WASN'T VERY RESPONSIVE BY
BETTY JONES WAS.
SO I WAS MUCH MORE PERSONAL WE
NEED TO PUSH THAT RIGHT THROUGH
THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION
CULTURALLY.
ANA AND I KNOW FOR ME AND FOR
THE BOARD WE'RE COMMITTED. TO
THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPRECIATE
THAT AND JUST AND JUST TO
CLARIFY.
HOME WHAT WHEN I WAS A
DISCUSSING THROUGHOUT. THE
CHALLENGES GETTING AIRPORT
INFORMATION IS IS REALLY. ON MY
EXPERIENCE AS A BUDGET
SUBCOMMITTEE IN EDUCATION WHICH
IS WHERE. THE TIAS ASSEMBLY ARM
FIGURES OUT HOW MUCH TO
APPROPRIATE TO THE UNIVERSITY I
THINK.
WHEN IT WAS OR WASN'T AN
INDIVIDUAL ON MEMBER REQUESTED
WAS JUST THE ACTUAL ABILITY OF
THEM HOW THE BODY TO GET FACTS
OF THAT WE COULD FIGURE OUT WHAT
THE APPROPRIATE
APPROPRIATIONS IS WHICH IS
FRANKLY OUR JOB. SO I THOUGHT
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THOSE
COMMENTS I THINK IT IS YOU'RE
EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT.
I AS I SAID DO YOU NUMBER
NUMEROUS TIMES THAT I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THAT THE REACHING THE
BOARD OF REGENTS REALLY. PROVIDE
A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER
OVERSIGHT OVER THE UNIVERSITY TO
REALLY BE PROBABLE THE OVERSIGHT
AGENCY THAT THE. THAT THE STATE
REALLY INTENDED WHEN IT WAS
FORMED AND I HOPE THAT THE CAN.
I CONTINUE TO.
SEE THAT HAPPEN A I ALSO WANTED
TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BY CARRYING
OUT CHáVEZ ON HOMES. COMMITMENT
TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE THAT
WASN'T ABLE TO BE LOOKED INTO
BECAUSE OF THE INTERFERENCE AND
THAT'S.
I IN THE CULMINATION OF THE OF
THE SHOW BUT REPORT
I'M. GOING BACK TO MY COLLEAGUE
FROM DUBLIN DISARMING COMMENTS
IN THE BUT ALSO MY COMMENTS HOW
HOW CAN WE. BE ASSURED THAT THE
REPORT WILL BE AN ACCURATE
REPORT THAT IT WON'T. ON.
SOMEHOW PIECE SOME SORT OF SUGAR
COATED DUH VERSION OR SOME SORT
OF FOUND. HER FIRST THAT REALLY
DOESN'T TAKE A VERY FRANK VIEW
OF THIS DUPLICATION ISSUE TO THE
VERY ISSUE THE HONOR WASN'T AYE
PETARD BECAUSE LOOK AT.
I I THINK YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT
JUDGMENT WHEN YOU GET THE
REPORT.
THE I THINK PART OF THE
CREDIBILITY COMES FROM THE FACT
THAT THE PERSONS WE HAVE TO DO
IT. ARE THE IMMEDIATELY
IMMEDIATE PAST.
HEADS OF.
ESSAY DOT AND THE DEPUTY.
STATE AUDITOR.
SO WE'VE PICKED PEOPLE WHO HAVE
A LONG HISTORY OF CREDIBILITY
WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND
THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICES.
OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT THAT WILL
HELP. FOR SOME PEOPLE MAYBE IT
WILL NEVER.
BE ENOUGH BUT I'M I'M HOPEFUL
THAT.
THAT THAT WILL PROVIDE
CREDIBILITY I THINK IT'LL HOUSE
SO HAVE TO BE SEEN IN CONTEXT
WITH THE.
SURE ON REPORT AND WHAT THEY
COME UP WITH HOW DOES THAT CROSS
AND HOW WE FEEL GOT WISE. AND
THEN I IN TALKING WITH THE
CHANCELLOR'S.
UNITED'S TO YOUR BUDGET POINT I
GET THAT FOR YOU I TOOK ME A FOR
EVER KNIFE IN THE STATE TIED TO
IT. TO BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE
BUDGET.
HA I HOPE THAT BY.
MAY.
AND AND THEREAFTER WILL BE ABLE
TO PUT THE BUDGET IN A FORM
THAT'S MUCH MORE CONSISTENT WITH
HOW YOU USUALLY LOOK AT BUDGETS.
.
THESE BUDGETS CROSS INTO THE
HOSPITAL SYSTEM RELATES TO THE
MEDICAL SCHOOLS.
THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE GETS
MONEY THAT DOESN'T END UP IN HER
OFFICE IT JUST GETS PASSED
THROUGH. LOT TO ANOTHER AND BUT
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN THE
PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.
SO WHO WERE IN THE PROCESS OF
PUTTING THAT IN ORDER HOW WE'VE
GOTTEN GOOD ADVICE ON HOW TO DO
THAT FROM THE AUDITOR. AND FROM
THE FORMER A STATE AUDITOR AND.
APPRECIATE THAT I'VE I'M
HOPEFUL THAT WE'LL GET CLOSER TO
WHAT YOU WANT.
THANK YOU.
THERE'S SO QUIRK SILVA.
THANK YOU AND MISTER KEY FOR OR
BOARD PRESIDENT
I DO WANT TO GO BACK TO AGAIN
SOME OF THE THE.
LAST SPRING WHERE THE HUNDRED
AND FIFTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS
THAT WAS NOT DISCLOSED. AND THE
SURPRISE UP WAS AS WE WERE GOING
THROUGH AGAIN HOW.
IT BE ALLOCATING. BUT YOU TALKED
ABOUT THAT YOU IN THE REGENTS.
HAVE THE CLOSED SESSION AND
THAT YOU FELT THAT IT WOULD
UNANIMOUS WAS THERE A VOTE TAKEN
IN CLOSED SESSION ABOUT ON THE
THE FUTURE LEADERSHIP.
.
THERE WAS NO FORMAL VOTE TAKEN.
THERE WAS SAKE THERE WAS AND
CLEAR CONSENSUS THERE WAS NO
OBJECTION.
I WOULD SAY THAT WHILE THAT WAS
A VERY VERY LONG TIME.
AND.
A FIVE HOURS OR WHATEVER THE
TIME WAS IT WAS A LONG TIME AND
I WAS.
CHAIRING THE MEETING.
A LOT OF IT WAS TAKEN UP BY THE
QUESTION AND ANSWER AND ANSWERS
TO OTHER HOUSTON HANNIGAN MORENO
FOLKS.
THE POT TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL
TO THE PRESIDENT.
AND THEN A DISCUSSION REALLY
ABOUT WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE
ACTION WE TAKE FOLLOWING THAT.
SO.
THAT WAS WHERE THE TIME WAS
SPENT.
ON WHAT ACTION SHOULD BE
APPROPRIATE UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
UP BECAUSE ONE OF THE INITIAL
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE
AUDIT ON.
WAS THAT THERE HAD BEEN DO. AT
LEAST SOME DUPLICATION AS FAR AS
POSITIONS AND AND AS THAT HAS
BEEN LOOKED INTO THERE HAS BEEN
SOME INFORMATION THAT IF THAT
DUPLICATION WAS NOT HAPPENING
THERE COULD BE COST SAVINGS FOR
THE UNIVERSITY. AND ALSO SOME OF
THE INCREASES IN ADMINISTRATION
SO KNOWING ABOUT YOUR CALENDAR
FOR NOW THAT THERE WERE THERE
WAS A MEETING SCHEDULED LAST
WEEK FOR A TUITION INCREASE. UP
SOME OF THE COST SAVINGS THAT
HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR SOME
OF THE DIG DUPLICATION IS UP THE
BATTLE OVER FORTY MILLION
DOLLARS THAT YOU CAN SAVE. BY
NOT HAVING A DUPLICATION AND
POSITIONS.
AND AS WAS NOTED TO ONE OF MY
COLLEAGUES UP HERE MS BAKER
THAT.
SHE HEARS FROM HER CONSTITUENTS
I HEAR FROM STUDENTS ALL THE
TIME ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY OF
COLLEGE ABOUT ARE THEY GOING TO
BE ABLE TO. AYE NOT ONLY US. GET
INTO A YOU SEE BUT CAN THEY
AFFORD TO GO AND SO WHEN WE LOOK
AT TUITION INCREASES AND I KNOW
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OFF TRACK
HERE. THAT'S IT'S REAL IT'S REAL
TO US STUDENTS ACROSS CALIFORNIA
AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT.
THAT YOU DIDN'T MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION.
THAT THE THE PRESIDENT WOULD
NEED TO APOLOGIZE.
THAT YOU HAD. A LETTER THAT YOU
WERE WRITING I'M STILL
STRUGGLING WITH IS THAT FAR
ENOUGH I HAVE BEEN ONE OF TO A
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS TO ASK FOR THE
PRESIDENT'S RESIGNATION. I KNOW
THAT'S.
SOUNDS UP PRETTY HARSH BUT WHEN
WE LOOK AT THAT THE CHIEF OF
STAFF THE DEPUTY.
CHIEF THAT THEY HAVE LEFT THE
MANSION TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE
LAUGHED I MEAN TYPICALLY IN
ORGANIZATIONS IT RISES TO THE
TOP AND ALTHOUGH. A SO I GUESS
MY QUESTION WOULD BE AS MISS
BAKER WHAT IS ENOUGH AS FAR AS.
.
THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU
DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE BECAUSE I
CERTAINLY HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE
IN I HAVE COFFEES IN MY DISTRICT
ALL THE TIME I'M IN ORANGE
COUNTY.
AND WE GET ASKED UP HOW ARE
USING OUR PUBLIC DOLLARS YOU
KNOW WHY IS THIS GOING ON AND.
SO I'M GONNA GO ON RECORD
SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK WE'VE
GONE FAR ENOUGH IN TO BUILD
PUBLIC TRUST COMES WITH ACTION.
POLLINIA.
RESPOND TO OF A FEW THINGS YOU
SAID ON THEIR.
WITH RESPECT TO THE HUNTERDON
ROUGHLY HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE
MILLION ROUGHLY WAS WHAT THE
AUDITOR ORDER I THINK WHEN YOU
BROKE THAT DOWN.
IT.
IT IT BECAME A DIFFERENT STORY
THAN THE HEADLINE THAT WAS THERE
FROM THE BEGINNING.
.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT HUNDRED
THIRTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS WAS
NOT THAT IT WAS MISS SPENT.
ARE WASTED OR ANY FOUND ANYBODY
FOUND ANY SAVINGS AND THAT.
WHAT WAS FOUND WAS A AND I
THINK?
PARTLY OUR AIR AS WELL AS THE
PRESIDENT'S AREA.
THAT DOES IN FACT THAT THE
AUDITOR DIDN'T CRITICIZE ANY
OTHER PROGRAMS
AND NOBODY DEBATED THE VALUE OF
THE PROGRAMS. AND WE KNEW THE
PROGRAMS
THAT WERE THERE WHAT WE HADN'T
DONE AND WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
DONE. WAS BUDGET THOSE PROGRAMS
OUT PROPERLY AND BUDGET TO
ACTUAL.
.
SO WHAT WAS DESCRIBED BY THE
AUDITOR.
AS OF BEING HIDDEN TO VIEW.
BECAUSE NOT HAVING BEEN BUDGETED
AND THEN ACCOUNTED FOR PROPERLY.
I THINK WAS CORRECT.
TO THE EXTENT THEY WERE HIDDEN
AND THEN PLAYED BY NEWSPAPERS AS
A SLUSH FUND WAS ENTIRELY
INACCURATE AND UNFAIR. AND LEAD
TO TO SERIOUS.
MISCONCEPTIONS
BY THE PUBLIC CERTAINLY.
AND AND OTHERS.
SO I.
WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT
DIFFERENTLY IN THE FUTURE THOSE
ARE ALL GOING TO BE BUDGETED IN
ADVANCE.
THE FUN THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR.
.
FOR. SPECIAL INITIATIVES IS
GOING TO BE VERY IS RELATIVELY
SMALL.
AHA AND APPROVALS WILL BE
REQUIRED BY THE BOARD CHAIR AND
SOMETIMES THE BOARD CHAIR OF THE
FINANCE CHAIR. AND E. AND THE.
.
CHAIR THE AUDIT COMPLIANCE
COMMITTEE FOR CERTAIN KIND
EXPENDITURES.
SO I THINK THAT UNFORTUNATE THAT
WHEN RAN AWAY WELL FROM US A
PUBLICLY AND CREATED A FOR AN
IMPRESSION WAS FAR DIFFERENT
THAN I THINK THE REALITY. AND
THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN OUR IN
OUR BUDGETING.
WITH RESPECT TO TUITION.
THIS WILL ALWAYS BE A DIFFICULT
ISSUE.
I PROTESTED TUITION UP HERE.
AGAINST YOUR PREDECESSORS.
BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS
INAPPROPRIATE AT A TIME WHEN I
WAS PAYIG VIRTUALLY NOTHING
COMPARATIVELY.
.
BUT.
.
WE AYE.
AT AND THE OTHER FIFTY FIVE
PERCENT OF OUR STUDENTS QUALIFY
FOR NOTE NO TUITION AS YOU KNOW.
I UP TO HUNT AT ABOUT A HUNDRED
SIXTY FIVE OUT YOU'RE GOING TO
FAKE PAY FULL TUITION.
TOO WE LIKE THIS PROCESS OF
RAISING TUITION AYE WE DO NOT
AND IT'S THE ONE WE GET THE MOST
PRESSURE ON FROM OUR
CONSTITUENTS INCLUDING YOU.
BUT OUT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
.
BECAUSE OF OTHER PRESSURES ON
THE BUDGET.
THOSE PRESSURES HAVE PUT
PRESSURES ON THE UNIVERSITY.
AND IF YOU RAISE THE BUDGET FOR
THE UNIVERSITY BY FOUR PERCENT.
WHICH IS NOT BEING PROPOSED AS
YET.
WHEN THE STATE ONLY PAYS FORTY
FIVE PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE
CORE EDUCATION AYE COMES OUT TO
ONE POINT EIGHT PERCENT.
INCREASING THE STATE BUDGET.
COMPARED OF TWO POINT FIVE
PERCENT INCREASED INFLATION.
NOW.
WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO KEEP UP
WITH INFLATION.
BUT GIVEN THE HISTORIC ONE THIRD
CUTS IN THE BUDGET OVER SINCE TO
THAT TOO NOW THE YEAR TWO
THOUSAND.
IF WE DON'T IF WE DON'T EVERY
YEAR KEEP UP WITH INFLATION.
AND TRY TO TO HAVE MORE
STUDENTS COMMITTED SYSTEM WHICH.
WE'RE GETTING A GREAT DEMAND
FROM STUDENTS WHO NOW QUALIFY
FOR A THROUGH G. COURSES AND SO
FORTH.
WE'RE WE'RE KINDA RIDING THEIR
THE WRONG MESSAGE FOR THE
UNIVERSITY.
OVER THE LONG TERM WE'RE GONNA
HAVE TO FIND DIFFERENT DELIVERY
METHODS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION I
THINK THE GOVERNOR'S CORRECT ON
THAT.
IN THE MEDIUM TERM WE'RE HAVING
TROUBLE.
FUNDING.
THE STUDENTS WHO TODAY WANT TO
GET IN ON A QUALIFY BUT THE
COURSES THEY TAKE TO BE
SOMEPLACE WITHIN.
CSU ARE YOU SEE.
SO.
I WISH.
IN A HOPEFULLY WE WE WE WE WE
DEFERRED THAT DECISION AND I WAS
A AT AT A REALLY OF. ON A SPLIT
FEELING AMONG THE BOARD ABOUT
IT.
AND.
WILL TAKE IT UP AGAIN IN MAY
AND BY THAT TIME I'M SURE I'LL
HEAR FROM. A NUMBER OF YOU A
NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE.
ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT
THAT.
MR MEDINA.
S. FIRST.
THANK YOU.
MISTER KEY FOR.
AND.
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO
RIVERSIDE AND MEETING WITH ME.
I FOUND THAT VERY HELPFUL AND I
WOULD SAY THAT IN MY FIVE YEARS
HERE IN THE ASSEMBLY. AND
SEVERAL THOSE YEARS AS CHAIR
HYBRID OF EDUCATION. I HAVE NOT
SEEN OF BEFORE. OF WHAT I'VE
SEEN FROM YOU AND I THANK YOU
AND GRATEFUL FOR THAT AND THAT
IS. A A MUCH MORE ENGAGEMENT.
WITH THE.
WITH THE REGIONS OF WITH THE
LEGISLATURE.
AND.
AS TO TRUST.
BUT I I THINK IT'S SOMETHING
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
AND SOMETHING THAT WAS CALLED
INTO DOUBT. OF WITH.
DURING THE AUDIT BUT I THINK
YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF
ADDRESSING.
AND AND I WOULD DARE SAY OR BE
SO BOLD AS TO SAY THAT
RELATIONSHIP IS TWO WAYS.
AND. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR OF
FORT RIGHTNESS BUT CHALLENGING
US.
THAT.
A.
THE UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA CAN'T
DO.
WITHOUT OUR SUPPORT.
AND WE'RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT
THAT MORE.
AS A LEGISLATIVE YEAR COMES
AHEAD OF GOES FORWARD. BUT BUT
IT IS A TWO WAY STREET.
AND.
BUT I SENATE COMMITTEES ALONG
WITH OUR CHAIR AND AND SAW YOU
SEE BEING A LITTLE OF IT NOT
BEING ABLE TO BRING FIGURES TO
US.
NO WE'RE OR BRING FIGURES IN A
USEFUL MATTER. TO US SO I SAT ON
THOSE SUBJECTS.
SUBCOMMITTEES.
UP BUT I I KNOW THAT. IF ALL OF
US HERE YOU KNOW OUR SINCERE IN
WHAT WE SAY. THAT WE ARE ALL
LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA AND OUR STUDENTS.
THAT WE WILL DO A BETTER JOB
MOVING FORWARD THANK YOU.
Q. AND I'LL BE OUT AND RIVERSIDE
NAY MARCH FIRST AND SECOND FOR
ANOTHER CAMPUS WAS.
BOB. THANK YOU WHISKEY RIVER
BEING HERE I I JUST HAD A
COMMENT I AND I.
I WAS A LITTLE HESITANT TO BRING
THIS UP BUT IT IT'S SOMETHING
THAT STUCK WITH ME YOU MENTIONED
ABOUT THE CLOSE SESSION WHICH I
BELIEVE TOOK PLACE AFTER OUR
HEARING. WHERE WE HAD THE
QUESTIONING OF OF?
OF AMUSEMENT PALATABLE PRISON
PONZANO.
YOU REFERRED TO THAT IT AS A
PERSONNEL MATTER WHEN MY OTHER
COLLEAGUES INQUIRED ABOUT THAT
AND ABOUT. THE YOU SAID THERE
WERE NOT THERE
WASN'T A VOTE.
YOU KNOW GENERALLY SPEAKING ONE
PERSONNEL MATTERS OF THIS.
NATURE SERIOUSNESS AND CONCERNED
STATEWIDE.
OBVIOUSLY THAT LEGISLATURE'S
VERY CONCERNED.
MANY MEMBERS STICK STICKING
AROUND OF FOR EVERY HEARING.
ONE OF THINGS YOU SAID REALLY
STRUCK ME AND I'M I'M VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT IT HAS ONE OF
BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
AND THAT'S A FACT WHEN YOU WERE
QUERIED ABOUT THE WEATHER OR NOT
YOU WATCHED THE HEARING AND AND
THE TESTIMONY OF A PRESENT OF
ALL TIME NOW. YOU HAD JUST A
LITTLE BIT.
AND I'M NOT GONNA PUT YOU ON
THE SPOT I DON'T I DON'T REALLY
EXPECT YOU TO FULLY.
RECALL WHETHER YOU SEEN AT ALL
OR PART OR WHAT PARTS YOU SEEN.
BUT.
I DO I THINK GIVEN THE THE
SEVERITY OF THAT OF THE NAME OF
AN AND THE NATURE OF.
THIS INQUIRY AND THIS AUDIT THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S INVOLVED
AMOUNT OF QUESTIONS WE GET FROM
OUR CONSTITUENTS REGULARLY ON
THIS ISSUE.
IT'S IT'S ONE OF IT UP SECOND
ONLY TO THE GAS TAX BY THE WAY.
OF THE HIGHEST RESPONSE RATE ON
MY SOCIAL MEDIA RIGHT NOW HAS
BEEN THIS ISSUE SO THAT JUST
GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF OF THE
SEVERITY.
AND I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT IT
WASN'T A MATTER OF. OF.
POLICY IF YOU WELL OF THE
REGENTS TO WATCH THAT HEARING.
AND I KNOW THEY CAN BE BORING IS
HACK I KNOW THEY CAN BE DRYING I
KNOW THEY CAN BE CHALLENGING TO
WATCH BUT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING
WITH SOMETHING OF THIS
MAGNITUDE.
I I I'M VERY CONCERNED.
SIR THAT.
NOT ONLY DID YOU HATCH BUT YOU
WEREN'TCONFIDENT THAT YOU THE
REST OF THE REGENTS HAD SEEN
THAT HIT THE HEARING IN BECAUSE
THERE WERE FACTUAL ON MISTAKES.
AND ERRORS A MADE IN IT
MISSTATEMENTS MADE AND THAT
HEARING AND.
AND THEY'VE BEEN OUTLINED SOME
OF THEM TODAY IN THEIR OUTLINED
IN THE REPORT FROM A JUSTICE
MARINO SO. I WOULD BE.
I WOULD AYE I THINK WITH THAT I
WOULD BE VERY.
.
I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IF
THE BOARD OF REGENTS WOULD GO
BACK.
AND REVISIT THAT THE ALL OF THE
TESTIMONY THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN
THIS PARTICULAR CASE ASIDE FROM
THE HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE MILLION
DOLLARS THAT.
IS NOW DOWN TO THIRTY TWO OR
WHATEVER IT IS TO OUR
CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE TRYING TO
GET THE KIDS AND YOU SEE. IT'S A
HECK OF A LOT OF MONEY AND
THEY'RE VERY VERY CONCERNED
ABOUT IT SO I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT
APPRECIATE YOU KNOW HAVE TO
RESPOND TO THAT BUT I'M YOU
YOU'RE WELCOME WELL I'D LIKE TO
I'D WANT TO. YEAH I'D LIKE TO.
THE AYE HEADS BECAUSE I DID NOT
WATCH ALL FOUR HOURS FOR.
SOMETHING HOURS OF IT I TURNED
IT OFF IT PARTS WHERE THE
AUDITOR WAS SPEAKING BECAUSE I
HAD SOMETHING ELSE THAT CAME UP.
BUT I I THINK I SAW ALMOST ALL
OF THE TESTIMONY OF MS LOZANO
AND AND THE PRESIDENT.
.
THE I THINK WE HAVE LEARNED A
LOT. AND I THINK THE PRESIDENT
HAS LEARNED A LOT.
SINCE THAT.
HEARING AS WELL.
MAMA AND ONE OF THINGS I'VE
LEARNED ABOUT A LOT ABOUT WAS
THE IMPACT OF THE CHIEF STAFF.
MOM I THINK MOST OF THE REGION'S
WATCH THAT HEARING.
I CAN'T TELL YOU THE DIRECTION
WAS MADE TO WATCH IT AND
PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD
IDEA.
BUT THE REGION'S WERE KEENLY
INTERESTED IN THAT HEARING.
AFTER WHAT HAD.
COME OUT.
MOMMY SO I TAKE IT I TAKE YOUR
ADVICE.
TO TO HEART.
AND.
I'LL DO MY OWN LITTLE POLL TO
FIND OUT AND TO THE EXTENT OF
PEOPLE HAVEN'T SEEN ABOUT ASKING
THE WATCH IT. I'M SURE THEY'RE
WATCHING OF THIS ONE AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
MR KEY FOR HOW WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR COMING TO MY DISTRICT INTO
THE BEAUTIFUL CITY OF GARDENA.
AND.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT.
LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST I
WOULD LIKE TO. INVITE AND
WELCOME.
THE UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA
PRESIDENT JANET NAPOLITANO
.
WELCOME A PRESIDENT OF THE
POTANO.
FLOOR IS YOURS.
WELL THANK YOU ARE CHAIRMAN
MURATSUCHI AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE.
I AM HERE TODAY TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTIONS TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION.
THAT I HOPE WILL BE USEFUL TO
YOU AND TO RESPOND TO YOUR
CONCERNS.
AND WHILE WE'RE HERE TODAY TO
DELVE INTO SOME DIFFICULT TOPICS
I DON'T WANT TO OVERLOOK.
POSITIVE ACHIEVEMENTS WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO DEVELOP TOGETHER.
DURING MY TIME AS PRESIDENT OF
THE UNIVERSITY.
OR FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR
ACTIVE SUPPORT IN IMPROVING THE
EXPERIENCE OF YOU SEE STUDENTS
ON OUR CAMPUSES.
MANY OF YOU HERE TODAY ALONG
WITH YOUR COLLEAGUES IN THE
LEGISLATURE HAVE ENABLED YOU
SEE.
TO INCREASE CALIFORNIA
ENROLLMENT.
UNDER TAKE NEW EFFORTS TO
PROMOTE FACULTY DIVERSITY.
INCREASED. AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ACTIVITIES.
AND INCREASED SUPPORT AND ACCESS
FOR STUDENTS FROM ALL ECONOMIC
BACKGROUNDS.
YOU SEE NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT.
AND I AM COMMITTED TO CONTINUING
TO WORK PRODUCTIVELY WITH YOU.
I WANT TO START BY STATING VERY
CLEARLY THAT I MADE A MISTAKE.
AND I AM SORRY FOR.
I ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE FACT
FINDING REVIEW IN THE ACTIONS
THE BOARD OF REGENTS HAVE TAKEN.
TO ADMONISH ME FOR MY ROLE IN
THIS.
IT WAS A MISTAKE FOR ME TO
APPROVE A PLAN.
TO HAVE THE CAMPUSES SENSE
SURVEY RESPONSESTO MY OFFICE.
PRIOR TO THEIR SUBMISSION TO THE
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR.
MY INTENT AT THE TIME WAS TO
ENSURE THAT THE RESPONSES TO THE
SURVEY QUESTIONS.
WERE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE
AUDIT.
THEY WERE FACTUALLY ACCURATE.
THAT THEY REFLECTED THE
CHANCELLOR'S VIEWS.
BUT ITS CLEAR TO ME NOW THAT NO
ONE AT THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED IN REVIEWING THE SURVEY
RESPONSES.
PROCESS THAT I APPROVED.
HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON SOME
CAMPUSES.
THAT I SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED
AT THE TIME.
I DID NOT KNOW UNTIL I READ
JUSTICE MORE RENTALS REPORT.
WHAT SOME OF MY STAFF MEMBERS
SAID TO THE CAMPUSES?
BUT IS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY I TAKE FULL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTIONS
OF THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR ME.
IT WAS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE
FOR ANYONE FROM MY OFFICE TO
DISCOURAGE CAMPUSES FROM
PROVIDING NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.
ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT.
I APOLOGIZE TO THE AUDITOR.
TO YOU IN THE LEGISLATURE. TO
THE REGENTS.
AND TO THE UNIVERSITY FOR THAT
HAPPENING.
I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT I WILL
MAKE SURE THAT THIS TYPE OF
THING DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
BOTH MY FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF
AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF.
ARE NO LONGER WITH THE
UNIVERSITY.
AND CHOSE TO LEAVE PRIOR TO THE
PUBLICATION OF THE MARIN A
REPORT.
MY NEW LEADERSHIP TEAM AND ALL
OF THEIR REPORTS
ARE KEENLY AWARE OF THE HIGH
STANDARDS WE MUST UPHOLD AS A
PUBLIC INSTITUTION.
AND OF LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM
THIS EXPERIENCE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT OF WHICH IS
TO NEVER REPEAT IT.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I MYSELF
HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM
THIS EXPERIENCE.
IT IS CLEAR THAT PEOPLE IN THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM DID NOT FEEL
THEY WERE ABLE TO COME TO ME
WITH THEIR CONCERNS. ABOUT HOW
MY OFFICE WAS DEALING WITH THE
SURVEYS.
THAT IS MY FAULT AND MY
RESPONSIBILITY.
I WANT EVERYONE IN THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TO KNOW THAT
MY OFFICE AND I VERY MUCH WANT
TO HEAR YOUR CRITICISM AND
CONCERNS ABOUT THE JOB WE ARE
DOING.
IF THAT MESSAGE WASN'T CLEAR
BEFORE. I WANT YOU TO ASSURE YOU
THAT IT IS CLEAR NOW.
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND
I AS PRESIDENT WANT TO HEAR WHAT
WE ARE DOING RIGHT AND WHAT WE
ARE DOING WRONG.
OPEN DISCUSSION WILL ONLY HELP
US DO A BETTER JOB OF SERVING
THE CAMPUSES AND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND I WELCOME THAT
DISCUSSION.
ADDITIONALLY WE HAVE TAKEN SOME
SPECIFIC STEPS TO ENSURE THAT
SOMETHING LIKE THE MISTAKES
RELATED TO THE AUDIT DO NOT
HAPPEN AGAIN.
IN MAY OF TWO THOUSAND
SEVENTEEN.
FOR THE PROMULGATION OF MARIN A
REPORT.
WE ADOPTED A NEW POLICY FOR
HANDLING OUTSIDE AUDITS TO
ENSURE THAT AUDITOR'S RECEIVE
THE INFORMATION THEY NEED. AND
IN A MANNER THAT ENSURES ITS
INTEGRITY.
UNDER THAT POLICY ALL UNIVERSITY
EMPLOYEES MUST FOLLOW THESE
PROTOCOLS DURING THE STATE
AUDIT.
COOPERATE FULLY WITH ALL REQUEST
FROM THE STATE AUDITOR INCLUDING
INFORMATION REQUESTS AND MEETING
REQUEST.
PROVIDE TIMELY CANDID INCOMPLETE
RESPONSES TO ENQUIRIES FROM THE
STATE AUDITOR TO THE BEST OF THE
EMPLOYEES KNOWLEDGE.
PRIMARY CONTACT FOR ANY
ENQUIRIES RELATING TO A STATE
AUDIT DURING AUDIT FIELDWORK IS
A MEMBER OF THE STATE AUDITOR'S
TEAM.
AND THE CAMPUS INTERNAL AUDIT
DIRECTOR OR DESIGNATED EXTERNAL
AUDIT AUDIT COORDINATOR. WILL
SERVE AS THE INTERNAL POINT OF
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES RELATING
TO A STATE AUDIT AND CONSERVE TO
FACILITATE COMMUNICATION WITH
THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AS
NECESSARY.
WE'VE ALSO HIRED ALEX BUSTAMANTE
IS THE NEW SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT
OFFICER. FOR THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT.
MISTER BUSTAMANTE IS
DEMONSTRATED INDEPENDENCE AND AN
UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO HIS
RESPONSIBILITIES THROUGHOUT HIS
CAREER.
AND MOST RECENTLY SERVED AS THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.
FURTHERMORE AS HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED THE REGIONS HAVE
ADOPTED A NEW POLICY THAT GIVES
THE CHIEF COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT
OFFICER A DIRECT SOUL REPORTING
LINE TO THE REGENTS.
ON ANY MATTERS RELATED TO AUDITS
AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT.
A POLICY CLARIFIES AND
STRENGTHENS ALEX'S ROLL AND
REINFORCES HIS INDEPENDENT
REPORTING OBLIGATIONS TO THE
BOARD.
PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT IN
MATTERS CONCERNING THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT.
CHIEF COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT
OFFICER NOT ONLY HAS THE
ABILITY.
BUT THE DUTY TO REPORT DIRECTLY
TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS
AND REPORTS A MEETS REGULARLY
WITH THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD. AND
THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON
COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT.
THE POLICY ALSO EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITS.
INTERFERENCE WAS STATE AUDITOR
AUDITS AND INVESTIGATIONS.
WE'VE INSTITUTED SOME CHANGES
THAT I BELIEVE FOSTER A MORE
OPEN AND INCLUSIVE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN YOU CO P. AND THE
CAMPUSES.
FOR EXAMPLE WE HAVE
RECONSTITUTED THE EXECUTIVE
BUDGET COMMITTEE.
COMPRISED OF LEADERS FROM EACH
CAMPUS
MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE.
AND LEADERS FROM MY OFFICE TO
ADVISE THE UC OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT IN DECISION MAKING
THAT ENSURES THAT ARE BUDGET
PRIORITIES ARE ALIGNED WITH
CAMPUS PRIORITIES.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS THAT I
PERSONALLY MEETING MORE
REGULARLY ON A ONE TO ONE BASIS.
WITH INDIVIDUAL UC CAMPUS
CHANCELLORS WITH YOU CO P.
LEADERS AND WITH REGENTS.
SO BEFORE I ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION.
I WANT TO SAY THAT I'M EXTREMELY
PROUD TO LEAD THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
I APOLOGIZE AGAIN FOR MY ACTIONS
AND THOSE OF MY OFFICE.
THAT HAVE DISTRACTED FROM THE
MISSION OF THIS WONDERFUL
INSTITUTION.
I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE CALIFORNIA
AND THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
TOGETHER WITH YOU. TO ENSURE
THAT YOU SEE IT REMAINS A GREAT
PUBLIC INSTITUTION AND MAINTAINS
ITS HONORED POSITION AMONG
UNIVERSITIES WORLDWIDE.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
AS BAKER.
I THINK YOU AND I THINK YOU FOR
YOUR APOLOGY. AND FOR BEING HERE
TODAY.
.
SOME FACTUAL QUESTIONS THAT
WE'VE WE'VE BROUGHT UP BEFORE.
AND. AND I I JUST WANT TO. VISIT
WITH YOU DIRECTLY BOTTOM ONE IS.
DID IT AT WHAT POINT IF ANY DID
YOU LEARN THAT THE AUDITOR AND
MARK THE SURVEYS ARE INTENDED
FOR THE SURVEYS NOT TO BE SHARED
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE WAS
THAT SOMETHING THAT. THAT YOUR
TEAM EVER MADE AWARE TO YOU THAT
THEY WERE STAMPED DO NOT SHARE
OUTSIDE OF THE CAMPUS.
I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT AT THE
TIME OKAY.
AND DO YOU REMEMBER ROUGHLY WHEN
YOU WERE MADE AWARE CERTAIN WAS
THAT WHEN THE AUDIT REPORT CAME
OUT OR.
AT WHAT POINT YOU LEARNED THAT
THEY WERE THAT THEY HAD BEEN
MARK THAT WHEN THE AUDITOR
INTENDED THAT WERE SERVICE TO BE
KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
I LEARNED THAT WHEN THE AUDIT
REPORT CAME OUT.
AND AND I I VERY MUCH TRIED TO
BE SYMPATHETIC UNDERSTANDING
AFTER AUDITS FROM FROM THE
LEGISLATURE. AND MEDIA COVERAGE
AND ANOTHER AUDIT HAPPENING A
TEAM FEELING LIKE THEY'RE BACK
IS UP AGAINST THE WALL AND YOU
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
UNIVERSITY HAS THEIR BEST.
FOOT FORWARD AND.
SO I AM TRYING TO BE SYMPATHETIC
TO THAT BUT AT THE SAME TIME.
ALSO VERY CONCERNED.
THAT.
.
THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED
WITH US WAS NOT IN CANDOR AND
FORTHRIGHT.
WENT FOR FOR EXAMPLE WENT WHEN
YOU DID.
DIRECT THE TEAM TO RECALL THE
SERVICE AT THAT IS THE
CONCLUSION OF.
MISTER MARINO'S REPORT WAS THAT
YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE SURVEYS
ARE GOING TO BE RECALLED Y.
THINK THE REPORT IF I MIGHT SAY
SO.
AND I THINK WE MAY BE HAVING UP
A MISCOMMUNICATION.
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED FIVE PROVED
A PLAN.
BY WHICH THE CAMPUSES WOULD
SUBMIT THEIR SURVEYS.
TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
BEFORE SUBMITTING THEM TO THE
STATE AUDITOR.
.
OTHER THAN.
A DISCUSSION WITH THE
CHANCELLOR AT SANTA CRUZ ON ONE
INSTANCE.
.
I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN SO CALLED
RECALLING THE SURVEYS.
OKAY.
I AM NOT SURE THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN APPROVING A PLAN THAT
THE SURVEYS COME BACK TO THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
MAYBE MEAN YOU WEREN'T INVOLVED
IN THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF
THAT. I'M NOT SURE. BUT THAT THE
REPORT CONCLUDED.
THAT YOU ARE AWARE.
AND THE.
EMAIL.
FROM SANTA CRUZ INDICATES THAT
CURRENT DISCUSSION WITH YOU THE
SURVEYS WERE GOING TO BE COMING
TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
YOU KNEW THEY WERE COMING TO
YOUR OFFICE
AND THAT WAS WITH YOUR.
NOW THE KNOWLEDGE BUT MY
UNDERSTAND IS A DIRECTION.
YES.
I'VE PROVED IN IN THIS WAS A
MISTAKE.
I APPROVED A PLAN.
BY WHICH.
THE CAMPUSES WOULD SUBMIT THEIR
SURVEYS TO THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT PRIOR TO SUBMITTING
THEM TO THE STATE AUDITOR'S.
WHEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS.
IN APPROVING THAT PLANNED WHAT
DID YOU ANTICIPATE WAS GOING TO
HAPPEN TO THE SURVEYS WHEN THEY
CAME BACK TO THE OFFICE WHAT
AFFECT WHAT ACTION DID YOU THINK
WOULD BE TAKEN.
THE REVIEW WAS INTENDED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE ANSWERS WERE
ACCURATE.
WITHIN SCOPE. AND THAT THEY
REFLECTED THE VIEWS OF THE
CAMPUS LEADERSHIP.
AND.
.
YOU KNOW WE HAD HAD PREVIOUS
EXPERIENCE OF WITH.
.
PREVIOUS AUDIT WHERE INACCURATE
INFORMATION.
ENDED UP HAVING A LONG TAIL AND
GOT INTO THE FINAL AUDIT REPORT.
WE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO CORRECT
IT IN THE BACK AND FORTH WITH
THE STATE AUDITOR.
AND SO.
THE FOCUS ON ACCURACY WAS WAS
KEY.
AND REALIZE THE SURVEYS HAD GONE
TO THE CAMPUS AUDITOR'S.
BUT.
THE CAMPUS AUDITORS WERE NOT
NECESSARILY THE PEOPLE IN THE
BEST POSITION TO ANSWER THE
SURVEYS.
AND THERE WAS.
I NOW KNOW A CONCLUSORY
QUESTION AT THE END ABOUT
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY
ABOUT THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT.
THAT THAT ALSO.
VALIDATED THE NEED FOR THE
CHANCELLOR HIM OR HERSELF.
TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD REVIEWED
THE ANSWERS
SO.
THAT WAS THE INTENT AS JUSTICE
MORENO I THINK JUST DESCRIBED.
IT WAS.
WRONG BUT IT WAS BENIGN AT THE
OUTSET.
SO IF IF THE ENTITY AND SAID THE
REASON WHY YOU WANTED TO DO
WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE
ACCURATE THAT THE CHANCELLOR'S
HAD.
AT OP TO SEE THEM THERE WERE
SOME ALL THAT THREE OR FOUR
REASONS IT BEEN GIVEN FOR WHY.
BUT LET'S SAY WHAT WHAT I'M
HEARING AS WE THOUGHT THEY WERE
GONNA COME BACK IF THEY WEREN'T
ACCURATE.
THEN WE WERE GOING WE'D BE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT TO
DO SOMETHING ABOUT.
THAT'S WHAT I HEAR WHEN I HEAR
IT WE WE WANTED THEM TO COME
HERE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE
ACCURATE AND DID THESE THINGS.
AND STATE YOU'RE GOING TO BE
INVOLVED SOMEHOW IN THE
RESPONSES OF THOSE SURVEYS.
WHEN THEY CAME BACK IT WASN'T
JUST THAT.
WE'RE GONNA SPRING INTO THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND DO
NOTHING ABOUT IT.
AND THAT'S WHY I HAVE A VERY
DIFFICULT TIME. UNDERSTANDING
HOW A DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF AND
CHIEF OF STAFF IN THE PRESIDENT.
DIDN'T HAVE AN INDICATION THAT
THIS THEY WERE GONNA BE INVOLVED
IN THE SERVICE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER I.
DELEGATED THE WORK OF THE
SURVEYS.
TO MY STAFF.
.
ONCE IT WAS DECIDED THAT.
WE WERE GOING TO.
RECEIVE THE SURVEYS.
BACK AND CHECK THEM FOR
ACCURACY SCOPE CHANCELLOR
INVOLVEMENT.
YOU KNOW I MOVED ON TO OTHER
THINGS.
AND.
YOU NO PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE
PAID GREATER ATTENTION.
BECAUSE I NOW KNOW HAVING READ
THE MORENO REPORT.
THAT UP WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE
SURVEYS WENT FAR BEYOND THAT
INITIAL INTO.
I APPRECIATE THAT I I WOULD ALSO
ADD THAT A LESSON LEARNED IN ANY
ONE OF US COULD TAKE THIS LESSON
IS IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR
SOMETHING COME BACK TO YOUR
OFFICE TO MAKE SURE IT'S
ACCURATE.
YOU'RE OPENING THE DOOR FOR THE
LIKELIHOOD THAT IT'S GOING TO BE
CHANGED BY OUR OFFICE.
AND WHETHER IT'S FUTURE AUDITS
THAT HAPPENED OR FUTURE
INFORMATION. THAT IS A.
A STRAIGHT FORWARD. LASSEN ALSO
IN HERE JUST TO SPELL IT OUT
REALLY CLEARLY.
AND.
I AM FINALLY AFTER THESE.
SURVEYS WERE THE DIRECTIVE WAS
GIVEN TO RETURN THE SURVEYS TO
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT DID
YOU HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP WITH YOUR
STAFF TO ASK.
HEY HOW IS THAT GOING WHAT'S
WHAT'S OUR BABY GIVING THEM TO
YOU AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH
THEM OR DID YOU NOT HAVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH YOUR STAFF AT
ALL. AFTER THAT.
MEANING THE DEPUTY YOUR CHIEF OF
STAFF.
THE ONLY.
INTERACTION I HAD WITH THE
SURVEYS AFTER THAT POINT WAS.
WHEN.
I BELIEVE IT WAS THE CHIEF OF
STAFF SAID.
COULD COULD I CALL THE
CHANCELLOR AT SANTA CRUZ
BECAUSE.
SOMEHOW HE HAD LEARNED.
THAT.
THEIR SURVEY HAD GONE AND
APPARENTLY WITHOUT THE
CHANCELLOR'S REVIEW.
AND AYE CALLED CHANCELLOR
BLUMENTHAL AND.
OUR RECOLLECTIONS OF THAT PHONE
CALL DIFFER.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A PRETTY
BUSINESSLIKE CALL.
.
YOU KNOW.
CHANCELLOR DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE
TO.
REVIEW THAT.
AUDIT RESPONSE TO THIS SURVEY
AND.
HE SAID NO HE WAS UNAWARE THAT
IT HAD GONE AND THEN WE TALK FOR
A MINUTE OR TWO ABOUT.
WHAT HE COULD DO ABOUT THAT AND?
EITHER HERE I CAME UP WITH THE
IDEA OF A ONE OUT YOU JUST ASK
TO WITHDRAW IT SO YOU HAVE A
CHANCE TO REVIEW IT AND THAT WAS
THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF MY
INTERACTION.
WELL THANK YOU.
I SAID MENTIONED I HOPE THERE
WILL BE A TURNING OF THE PAGE IT
YOU SEE.
AND I I KNOW THAT THE STUDENTS
NEED IT.
FAMILIES IN CALIFORNIA NEEDED WE
WE WANT TO BE AND SHOULD BE
SUPPORTED THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
I WILL CONTINUE TO BE.
AND WHAT WE CAN FIND WAYS IN
WHICH WE CAN WORK TOGETHER.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR APOLOGY.
I AM I DO BELIEVE THAT.
THERE ARE NO OTHER INSTITUTIONS
WHERE FOLKS AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL
MAY HAVE DONE SOMETHING LIKE
THIS AND NOT HAD MUCH MORE
SEVERE CONSEQUENCES THAT YOU'VE
HAD.
EXPERIENCE HERE.
YEAH I THANK YOU FOR COMING AND
TESTIFYING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
TODAY.
THANK YOU.
THIS SHOW US AROUND.
I THINK YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT
THANK YOU OFFER. FOR YOUR STATE
ANY APOLOGY.
ON I I LIKE TO. TO. TALK A
LITTLE ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT WAS
RAISED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
A COUPLE DAYS AGO.
AND THAT TALKED ABOUT THIS
UPCOMING HEARING.
AND IT HAS TO DO WITH ONE OF THE
PARTICULAR.
THINGS COMING OUT OF THE AUDIT
WHICH IS THIS YEAR ON REVIEW AND
AN EFFECT ON ME.
ME WANT TO HEAR SOME COMMENTS
FROM PRESIDENT KEY FOR WHO'S
HERE.
STILL. OUR ABOUT THE REACTION I
SUPPOSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
THE LA TIMES REPORTS.
WAS CONCERNED FROM A LOT OF
FOLKS THAT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE
CRITICISM IT'S HAPPENING AS A
RESULT. OF THIS INCIDENT THAT
WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TODAY.
THAT THE UC OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT MAY BE CONSIDERING. A
SERIES OF CHANGES THAT MADE ME A
BIG MAY BE DISRUPTIVE
UNNECESSARY AS THE AS THE LA
TIMES REPORTS.
AND. YOU KNOW. THAT THE TIMES
REPORTED THAT THE MOB OUTSIDE
REVIEW FOUND RELATIVELY LITTLE
FAT.
IN THE OFFICE OF HE PRESENCE
OVERSIGHT OF THE MOST COMPLEX
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN THE NATION.
NINE AND FOUND THAT THE UC
OFFICE IS RELATIVELY LEAN AS IT
LEADS THE NATION WITH WORLD
CLASS SERVICES.
MY CONCERN I SUPPOSE IS THAT IN
THE WAKE OF ALL OF THE. FOCUS
THAT'S BEEN ON.
THESE.
YOU KNOW THIS THIS RUN THIS IS
CLEAR WRONGDOING THAT WAS DONE
BY SOME FOLKS IN YOUR OFFICE.
THAT YOU ARE FEELING PRESSURE TO
MAKE A SERIES OF DRAMATIC
CHANGES THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT. THEY MAY END UP ON.
EFFECTIVELY RESULT AND JUST KIND
OF REARRANGING DECK CHAIRS ON
THE ON THE ON THE DECK. WHILE
NOT NECESSARILY AND.
SITTING ON A MONEY.
I KNOW THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT UP
IN AN OUTRIGHT ELIMINATION OF
THE YOU SEE MEXICO INITIATIVE.
ARE I KNOW THERE'S A PUSH TO TRY
TO SPIN OUT A LOT OF THESE
PROGRAMS TO THE CAMPUS IS WHICH.
DOESN'T LIMIT THE PROGRAM I
DON'T I DON'T SEE HOW THAT SAVES
MONEY NECESSARILY JUST MEANS AT
THAT WORK IS HAPPENING ON CAMPUS
AS OPPOSED TO CENTRALLY. I
SUPPOSE THAT HAS SOME ADVANTAGES
THOUGH THAT COURSE OF ITS AS IF
IT'S A SYSTEM WIDE PROGRAM. MAY
MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A RUN OUT OF
THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT SO I
SUPPOSE MY FEAR AND IN AS HE
SAID ABUSE IN HERE WELL ANOTHER
THING IT'S BEEN MENTIONED IS
LIMITING POSTDOC FELLOWSHIPS FOR
UNDERREPRESENTED WOMEN
MINORITIES.
AND THERE WAS ALSO IN THE
REPORT SO I GET.
THE FACT THAT AND. THAT THERE'S
A LOT OF PRESSURE NOW ON YOU TO
MAKE YOU KNOW TO SLASH. THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT I JUST
WANNA MAKE SURE NOT BEING PENNY
WISE AND POUND FOOLISH.
I IN RESPONSE TO ALL OF THIS
LEGITIMATE CRITICISM.
THAT EIGHT IN WAYS THAT WILL BE
DAMAGING TO THE UNIVERSITY ON
THE LONG TERM.
AND I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR
THOUGHTS ON THAT AND IF THE
PRESIDENT HAS ANY. IF THE POOR
CHAIR OF THE CHECK THOUGHTS ON
THIS AS WELL SALINAS IN HEARING.
SURE SIR SO.
.
FIRST OF ALL THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
SOMETHING LIKE. TEN TIMES IN THE
PAST ELEVEN YEARS.
EVERYONE WANTS TO FIND THE HOLY
GRAIL OF.
WASTE FRAUD ABUSE WHAT WHATEVER.
AND THE REPORT BY.
A CONSULTANT WHO'S REVIEWED
FIVE HUNDRED HIGHER EDUCATION.
SYSTEMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
CONCLUDES.
WELL ACTUALLY.
FAIRLY LEAN IN OUR IN OUR
OPERATION GIVEN THE SIZE AND
COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
NONE THE LESS WE NEED TO
CONSISTENTLY.
BE THINKING ABOUT.
WELL HOW ARE WE.
ORGANIZED TO PROVIDE THE BEST
VALUE TO THE SYSTEM.
ARE THERE THINGS THAT ARE
LOCATED IN OAKLAND.
THAT.
COULD BE RUN BY A CAMPUS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE SYSTEM.
YOU SEE PRESS.
BY WAY OF EXAMPLE.
UP ARE THERE.
PROGRAMS THAT ARE SUFFICIENTLY.
MATURE THAT THEY CAN BE ALMOST
STANDALONE UNITS WITHIN THE
UNIVERSITY SO THE TWO REFERENCED
ARE.
YOU SEE HEALTH.
A AND AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES.
DOESOUR.
SOME OF THOSE ARE. RELATIVELY
DISCREET DECISIONS THAT WE WILL
HAVE TO LOOK AT.
SOME OF THEM ARE.
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES WITHIN THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE UNIVERSITY.
AND SO WE HAVE TO BE GUIDED BY
OUR BEST ANALYSIS AS TO. WHAT IS
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA?
REGARDLESS OF THE POLITICAL
PRESSURES OF THE DAY.
AND THAT IS OUR INTENT IN
RECEIVING THE HURON REPORT WE'RE
NOW IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING.
.
CONSULTATIONS ABOUT IT.
THESE ARE NOT DECISIONS TO BE
TAKEN QUICKLY OR LIGHTLY.
AND THEY'RE ALL GUIDED BY.
YOU KNOW WHAT WHAT IS THE IDEAL
SIZE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND AND
YOU'RE RIGHT IT'S NOT AS IF
THESE PROGRAMS GO AWAY.
THAT THE QUESTION IS.
OR THEY.
BEST A MANAGED FROM.
THE CENTRAL OFFICE
OR.
CAN THEY BE CALM BEST MANAGED
BY THE CAMPUS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THIS IS.
RIGHT I MAY JUST.
I I HOPE THAT THAT'S EXACTLY THE
GUIDING PRINCIPLE BECAUSE.
.
I'D JUST SEE I SEE IT ALL THIS
MAELSTROM ALL THIS PRESSURE THAT
YOU'RE FEELING I AM WORRIED
ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY MAKING SOME
ABRUPT DECISIONS THAT MAY END UP
BEING.
TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE SYSTEM
AND I'LL I'LL JUST. YOU KNOW
SITE THIS.
QUOTE IN THE PAPER FROM THE
CHAIRMAN THE ACADEMIC SENATE AND
YOU KNOW SOMEONE YOU. WERE CLOSE
TO THE ACADEMIC SENATE WHEN I
WAS ON THE REGION'S AND AND HAVE
MEMBERS MY FAMILY OR PROFESSORS
I KNOW THAT'S NOT A LOT OF LOVE
LOST AMONGST THE FACULTY FOR THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. WITHIN
THE FIRST CALIFORNIA AND YET.
ARE NONE THE YOU KNOW BUT I I
THINK THAT THE CHAIR MAKES A
VERY GOOD POINT MR Y.. WHEN HE
SAYS ANY CHANGES TO BE MADE MUST
BE DONE SO SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE
THE COMMON GOOD NOT FOR ANY
THOUGHT OF EMPTY POLITICAL
APPEASEMENT.
AND DOWN.
YOU KNOW I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
FOLKS APPEAR WHO JUST WANT TO
TAKE RAZAK REVENGE. ON THE
OFFICE THE PRESIDENT. ARE
BECAUSE IT'S POLITICALLY
EXPEDIENT BUT TOWN.
I REALLY HOPE THAT.
THAT THE.
YOU DON'T.
THAT MAKE DECISIONS THAT WILL BE
YEAH DAMAGING IN THE LONG TERM
OF THE INSTITUTION. ARE BECAUSE
OF THE POLITICAL HEAT OF THE
MOMENT.
I'M WITH YOU.
YOU SEE. HAS A.
ALMOST MONTHLY.
A ROUND TABLE WITH LEGISLATORS.
OTHER WE WE.
DID YOU SEE CONVENES A
ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE MEMBERS WHO
HAVE THE UC CAMPUS
AND THERE DISTRICT.
I THINK IT'S EITHER MONTHLY BI
MONTHLY THINK IT'S BIMONTHLY AT
ITS VALUE. VERY VALUABLE I THINK
TO TO ME AND OTHER LEGISLATORS
WHO PARTICIPATE.
AND I KNOW THAT MANY TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE EVEN
SOME WHO MAY NOT HAVE THE UC
CAMPUS.
ON THEIR.
IN THEIR DISTRICT.
A WE'VE HEARD FROM.
.
THE CHAIR KEY FOR THAT.
THERE THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE
VISITS.
IN OUR DISTRICTS WITH US WITH US
AS LEGISLATORS.
SO I I SEE A LOT OF A.
A.
YOU KNOW INITIATIVE BY UC.
TO TO IMPROVE THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN YOU SEE.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND
LEGISLATORS.
BESIDES THOSE TWO THAT I
MENTIONED WHAT ELSE.
MIGHT YOU HAVE IN MIND TO
IMPROVE THE RELATIONSHIP.
BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND THE LEGISLATURE.
AND YOU SEE IN GENERAL.
WHAT BY I THINK THE MORE THAT?
?
WE CAN ENGAGE IN PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATION ABOUT ONE ON ONE
COMMITTEE HEARINGS.
SOCIAL EVENTS.
NEXT WEEK.
THE SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY AND
YOU ARE CO SPONSORING.
AN EVENT WITH.
OUR CAMPUS CHANCELLORS WHO WILL
ALL BE MEETING IN SACRAMENTO.
WE THINK OF IT ALMOST AS A
SPEED DATING WITH CHANCELLOR'S.
WHERE?
MEMBERS MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE CAN COME AND TALK
WITH CHANCELLORS AND I WOULD
HOPE.
THAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS
REVOLVE AROUND THE FINANCIAL
NEEDS OF THE UNIVERSITY.
THIS THIS UNIVERSITY HAS BEEN
RUN ON A TIGHT STRING.
FOR ON A NUMBER OF YEARS THAT'S
WHY THERE'S SUCH PRESSURE ON
TUITION.
AND YES WE CAN CONTINUALLY LOOK
FOR WAYS TO CUT COSTS.
BUT IN THE AND TO RUN A WORLD
CLASS INSTITUTION LIKE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PAY
FACULTY SUPPORT GRADUATE
STUDENTS.
DO DEFERRED MAINTENANCE.
ON YOUR FACILITIES.
A THOSE NEEDS DON'T GO AWAY AND
AND AND THAT I HOPE IS SOMETHING
THAT THE CHANCELLOR'S CAN PUT
INTO TANGIBLE FORM BEYOND
NUMBERS ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
OFFER MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
CHARLIE.
A PRESIDENT ALTERNATE LIKE TO
ASK YOU ABOUT A STATEMENT HERE
ON PAGE TWO OF THE APPENDIX THAT
YOU MAKE.
.
YOU QUOTED AS SAYING YOU'D LIKE
TO THINK THAT AN AUDITOR COMES
IN. AYE WITHOUT ANY PRECONCEIVED
NOTIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO FIND. ALL CONFESSED
THAT ON THIS ONE I DIDN'T HAVE
THAT CONFIDENCE.
FROM THE OUTSET WE NEED THIS IS
GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT AUDIT. I
WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR YOUR LACK
OF CONFIDENCE THAT THE AUTHOR
WOULD COME IN WITHOUT ANY
PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS.
WELL WE HAD A VERY DIFFICULT
RELATIONSHIP WITH.
THE AUDITOR.
AND.
.
WE NEW FOR EXAMPLE THAT THIS
PARTICULAR AUDIT THAT SHE HAD
BUDGETED THREE TO FOUR THOUSAND
HOURS.
AND WE KNOW FROM OUR EXPERIENCE
THAT THAT MEANS THREE TIMES THAT
IN TERMS OF THE.
TIME IT WILL TAKE FOR US TO
RESPOND TO THE THE AUDIT
REQUESTS.
WE NEWS THAT.
THE.
I IT WAS MADE AWARE THAT THE.
TREME MEETING OF OF THE.
AUDIT TEAM TO THE UNIVERSITY
WAS.
EXTRAORDINARILY TOUGH FAR
RANGING.
AND.
.
THAT.
.
THAT THEY WERE GOING TO LOOK AT
EVERYTHING.
NOW LOOK LOOKING AT EVERYTHING
IS IS PERFECTLY WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF OF AN AUDITOR WE KNOW
THAT. GETTING ACCURATE
INFORMATION IS SOMETHING THAT.
NEEDS TO HAPPEN DURING AN AUDIT
WE KNOW THAT.
BUT.
AS THE AUDIT.
WAS HAPPENING.
IT WAS A CONCERN THAT.
THIS.
AUDIT TEAM WAS.
.
ROAMING THE HALLS AT THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT.
.
NOT COORDINATING.
MEETINGS OR APPOINTMENTS.
YOU KNOW PEOPLE OF THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT WERE ALSO
INVOLVED IN OTHER WORK FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE UNIVERSITY SO.
TRYING TO.
DEAL WITH THE AUDITOR AND
CONTINUE WITH A YEAR WHERE WE
WERE HAVING A RECORD INCREASE IN
ENROLLMENT WE HAD TO CHANCELLOR
SEARCHES UNDERWAY.
WE WERE UNDERGOING A MASSIVE
REVISION OF OUR POLICIES ON.
SEXUAL VIOLENCE SEXUAL ASSAULT.
THAT THAT WAS IT A CONCERN SO.
.
YOU KNOW ALL OF THAT BLENDED
TOGETHER.
BUT YOU MENTION PRECONCEIVED
NOTIONS I'VE WHAT WERE THOSE
PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS THAT YOU
THINK ARE BROUGHT. INTO THE
AUDIT THE OUTSIDE.
SO I THINK THERE.
.
I WAS REFLECTING THE COMMON
KNOWLEDGE THAT.
AUDITORS ARE THERE TO FIND
STUFF.
AND.
GIVEN THE TENOR WITH WHICH.
OUR LAST AUDIT EXPERIENCE SAID
AND DID.
ON SATISFACTORILY FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE.
WE WE WE DIDN'T SEE ANY CHANGE
OR IMPROVEMENT IN THAT
RELATIONSHIP PASSING WOULD YOU
HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS AND
GIVE THEM THE RECEIVING END OF
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
BUT FOR HOW FUTURE AUDITS UP
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR AND MIGHT
BE MORE PRODUCTIVE AND BETTER
SERVE THAT THE PURPOSES OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
WEALTH.
I DON'T WANNA MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO.
THE STATE AUDITOR.
SHE HAS HER JOB WE HAVE OUR JOB
SURE.
AND.
I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS
FIGURE OUT HOW SHE CAN DO HER
JOB AND WE CAN DO OUR JOB.
AND MOVE MOVE THE UNIVERSITY
FOR.
THANK YOU.
ASSERTING.
THANK MISTER CHAIRMAN THANK YOU
MADAM PRESIDENT FOR BEING HERE
DAY I THINK.
I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER TO BOTH
ARMS THE. CHEROKEE FOR INJUSTICE
MORENO.
THE.
.
THE CHAD THE HISTORIC
CHALLENGING HERE WE'VE HAD
CONVERSATION ABOUT ABOUT TRYING
TO GET.
INFORMATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY
ON I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN
WORKING VERY HARD TO I CONTINUE
TO IMPROVE THAT AN OPPONENT. ON.
MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE TO
MAKE UP PROGRESS ON ENSURING
THAT WE CONTINUE TO GET.
FACTUAL INFORMATION YOU GET
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FROM THE
UNIVERSITY WE WANNA.
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE YOUR
YOUR COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO.
YOU KNOW WORK WITH US IN THAT
MANNER.
YEAH. YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT
AND.
YOU ALSO HAVE MY PHONE NUMBER SO
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT IS
OCCURRING I HOPE YOU'LL LET ME
KNOW AT NO ABSOLUTELY AND WE WE
APPRECIATE THAT. COMMUNICATION I
I'D I DO WANNA GO BACK TO HER
HOME ME I ASKED JUSTICE MORENO
SOME QUESTIONS AROUND.
.
THAT. DID THE THREE.
I DEALS THAT YOU OUTLINED IN
TERMS OF THE PLAN. AND.
THROUGH HIS REPORT
HE HE WENT THROUGH AND JUST LOOK
AT THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE.
AND THAT THAT NONE OF THE
EVIDENCE SUGGESTED THAT ANY OF
THE THREE STATED REASONS WAR.
WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING?
A.
NO BELIEVE WEATHER IS ON. YOU
KNOW YOUR ACTIONS ARE YOUR
COUGAR DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF YOU
CHIEF OF STAFF ACTIONS.
HOME IN IN YOUR MIND WHAT WHY DO
YOU THINK.
YOU HAD THREE PARTICULAR. THINGS
THAT WERE STATED.
THE CAMPUS IS NEVER. ASK FOR
HELP.
NONE OF THE FEEDBACK WAS
REGARDING ACCURACY.
ON NONE OF THE FEEDBACK WAS
REALLY REGARDING SCOPE.
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE? THERE WERE
SUCH A.
SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE IN TERMS
OF ACTION FROM WHAT AND WHAT THE
PLAN WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.
YOU KNOW.
.
THE.
PLAN AS ADOPTED IN AND.
.
WAS.
INTENDED JUSTICE I'VE STATED
WITH THE THREE PURPOSES.
.
PERHAPS.
MY CHIEF OF STAFF AND DEPUTY
CHIEF OF STAFF.
THOUGHT THAT.
.
IF THEY WERE DOING WHAT I WANTED
THEM TO DO.
ALTHOUGH I'D NOT.
GIVEN THEM THAT DIRECTION.
HAD I KNOWN WHAT THEY WERE
DOING I WOULD HAVE INTERVENED
AND STOPPED. AND I'VE TESTIFIED
TO THAT PREVIOUSLY I DIDN'T KNOW
THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR
ACTIVITIES UNTIL I RECEIVE THEM
AROUND A REPORT.
.
BUT.
.
ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT.
YOU KNOW IT HAPPENED ON MY
WATCH.
THAT WAS MY STAFF.
I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THAT.
AND I THINK I APPRECIATE THAT I
I GUESS I WANT TO GO BACK TO
CSUS
WELL WHAT THAT.
JUSTICE OUTLINED IN THE APPENDIX
TERMS OF DIRECTION SO THERE WAS
THIS.
A NOVEMBER FIFTEENTH DINNER
THERE WAS PRIOR I THINK PART OF
VOTE FRAUD REGENTS MEETING GET
TO CONVENE WITH CHESTER'S.
WHERE? HOME CHANCES HEARD THAT
THEY WERE THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE
THEY HEARD ABOUT YOU TALKING
ABOUT THE SERVER AT THE HEART OF
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S.
POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT YOU
HAD A CALL. WITH THE CHANCELLOR
BLUMENTHAL ON TEN NOVEMBER
SECOND TWENTY SECOND LATER ON
AFTER SURVEYS WERE BEING TURNED
IN.
ARM.
YOU YOUR ACTIONS.
HOME.
EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T GIVE
INSTRUCTION WITH YOUR STAFF SEEM
TO OF LONGING. IN THE SAME
DIRECTION.
AS YOUR STAFF.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS I AND
THAT'S THE WAY IT LOOKS JUST
BASED ON THE APPENDICES MAYBE
IT'S NOT A.
A COMPLETELY ACTOR CAN YOU CAN
YOU SEE WHY THAT IS IF IF YOU
GIVE THIS PLANNED. THIS THIS
PLAN ON AND THE EXECUTION WENT
INTO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
DIRECTIONS.
YET THE THREE OF YOU ALL SEEM TO
GO IN THE SAME.
DIRECTION.
WELL.
.
FIRST.
.
YOU KNOW RECOLLECTIONS OF WHAT.
HAPPENED AT THE CHANCELLOR'S
DINNER DIFFER.
.
ONE CHANCELLOR.
SAID.
.
THAT I REFERENCE CONTROLLING.
.
THE SURVEY.
.
THE OTHER CHANCELLORS WERE AT
THE DINNER THEY WERE PROBABLY
ASKED THE SAME QUESTION BY
HOUSTON HAD AGAIN AND. NONE OF
THEM SAID THAT AND I DON'T
RECALL SAYING.
SO. YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENCE IN
RECOLLECTION.
OBVIOUSLY.
THE THE.
ON IT.
CAME UP IT WAS A BIG DEAL IT
WAS A BIG SURVEY IT WAS A BIG
AUDIT.
.
SO.
YES IT WAS A TOPIC OF.
CONVERSATION WHAT I REGRET.
IS.
THAT.
NONE OF THAT THE.
CHANCELLOR'S
RAISED WITH ME DIRECTLY.
THE CONCERNED WITH HAVING OP IN
THE MIDDLE OF.
THE SURVEY.
AND.
NOW.
YOU KNOW.
WHY THAT IS IS A CULTURE
QUESTION?
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAVE
TO CORRECT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE OF
SPOKEN ABOUT DIRECTLY WITH THE
CHANCELLOR'S.
AND.
YOU KNOW WE NEED TO HAVE THAT
EASY KIND OF RELATIONSHIP AND I
AND I FRANKLY THOUGHT DID.
.
BECAUSE WE HAVE VERY ACTIVE
MEETINGS OF MONTHLY WITH THE
CHANCELLOR'S AND THEY HAVE ALL
SORTS OF OPINIONS THAT THEY
SHARE WITH ME.
.
NO ONE RAISED THEIR HAND AT AT
AT THAT TIME.
AND.
AGAIN I THINK I'VE.
DESCRIBE THE PHONE CALL WITH.
THE CHANCELLOR AT SANTA CRUZ
AND.
AND HE AND I HAVE SPOKEN SINCE
THEN.
AND.
CLEARED WHATEVER AIR THERE WAS
TO CLEAR.
BUT.
.
WE JUST HAVE VERY DIFFERENT
RECOLLECTIONS OF THAT PHONE
CALL.
FAIR FAIR ENOUGH I THINK ALL
GOING BACK TO THIS.
WHEN I ALSO ASKED THE.
CHAIRMAN THE JUSTICE
WHAT'S AROUND THIS CONCERN
AROUND THAT.
THE CHILLING EFFECT ON WHETHER
THE IT WHAT IT IS CHILLING
EFFECT WAS JUST ONLY IN REGARDS
TO THE AUDIT.
OR WHETHER YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT
I MIGHT HAVE LONG SOME LONG TERM
CONSEQUENCES AND.
STILL MAY BE.
A IN EFFECT.
SO. THE MUCH I UNDERSTAND YOU
JUSTICE JUSTICE MORENO.
TALKED ABOUT THE INTIMIDATION
OF A CHILLING EFFECT BASED ON
THE ALTERING OF THE SURVEY IS
THE COLLECTION OF THE SURVEYS.
AND THE CHILLING EFFECT WAS HOME
IN ESSENCE THE.
.
INABILITY FOR THE CAMPUSES TO
REALLY SAY WHAT WAS.
ON THERE MIGHT.
I YOU YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SAME
THING REGARDING THIS DINNER HOW
WHETHER OR NOT THE SURVEYS YOU
KNOW IN WHAT FASHION SERVICE
COME UP.
IF TEN CHANCELLORS I TALKED TO
THEM PERSONALLY FOR A NUMBER OF
THEM JUST TO THINK THAT THEY'RE
QUIET WOULD BE. A VERY DIFFICULT
FOR ME TO IMAGINE AYE AYE A I
FIND IT VERY BELIEVABLE THAT YOU
HAVE VERY ANIMATED MEETINGS
HAVING TALK TO MANY OF THEM I
WOULD EXPECT THAT. ON THE FACT
THAT YOU SAY THAT NONE OF THEM
SAID ANYTHING.
.
GIVE ME SOME CONCERN IN TERMS
OF.
ARE THEY. GOING TO GIVE YOU.
THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU NEED TO
KEEP YOU KNOW TO LEAVE. THE
UNIVERSITY TO THINK IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT.
SO YES AND.
.
I THINK THEY WILL I'M RELYING ON
THEM TO.
THEY GAVE ME SOME IMMEDIATE
FEEDBACK TO THE HURON REPORT.
ONE DAY.
SAW IT.
AND I HAVE INDIVIDUAL
CONVERSATIONS TO FOLLOW UP WITH
THEM ON THAT.
YOU KNOW THEY'RE IN THE IN THE
PROCESS OF.
RESPONDING TO SHOW OVER EVER
SHANK.
AND.
YOU KNOW I NEED THE BAD
INFORMATION AS WELL AS THE GOOD
IF I'M TO EFFECTIVELY LEAD THIS
ORGANIZATION.
IT DOES NO ONE ANY GOOD TO PAINT
A FALSE ROSY PICTURE.
DOESN'T DO ME ANY GOOD DOESN'T
DO YOU ANY GOOD SO.
I'M.
RELYING ON THE CHANCELLORS AND
YOU KNOW I THINK WE HAVE WORKED
OUR WAY THROUGH THIS
GREAT THANK YOU MY MY LAST
QUESTION JUST REGARDING THE SHOW
PRINT REPORTERS.
.
I WOULD JUST LIKE YOUR
COMMITMENT THAT. THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT GONNA BE
INVOLVED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR
FORM RESERVE ALTERING ALTERING
THAT REPORT OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN
PARTICIPATE IN THAT REPORT YOU
CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS THAT.
THAT'S. DATA I JUST WANNA BE
ASSURED THAT THERE IS NOT GOING
TO BE. A A REPEAT OF THIS
HOME SANITIZING THE INFORMATION
WHICH AS YOU HEARD DOCTOR WEBER
STATE AN ACADEMIC SETTING IS
JOE'S TOM.
COMPLETELY. INEXCUSABLE YOU
KNOW.
I'M.
HAVING.
ANY REPEAT OF THIS WOULD BE
CALM.
INEXCUSABLE.
THANK YOU.
MR LIVING.
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR THANK YOU
PRESIDENT PATAN ALSO THANK YOU
MISTER KEY FOR FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY EARLIER. AND FOR SEEN
THROUGH THE SIDE THIS I'VE FACT
FINDING. REVIEW.
THE. I I THINK IT'S IT'S BEEN
SAID THAT BUT THE BREAKDOWN IN
TRUST IS SOMETHING THAT THE
LEGISLATURE TO
IT'S PRETTY SERIOUSLY AND.
THAT.
.
CERTAINLY DOESN'T HELP THE FACT.
NOW GOING BACK A NUMBER OF YEARS
NOW WE'VE.
CONDUCTED A GREAT NUMBER OF
AUDITS MIND YOU SEE.
AND SO. THE MEDIA AT THE
BREAKDOWN IN TRUST I THINK
PROBABLY GOES BOTH WAYS AND
THAT.
.
YOU SEE YOUR STAFF.
CAN SEE AN AUDIT REQUEST AND AND
WONDER. HOW THIS AUDIT GRENADE
IS GOING TO BE LOBBED OVER AND
AFFECT YOU IN THE INSTITUTION?
WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AUDIT.
AFTER IT WAS DIED THE THE
ORIGINAL AUDIT.
.
I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE OCALAN AT
WHICH WHICH ONE WAS THAT BUT THE
AUDIT THAT WAS ON YOU CO P..
THAT.
THE FINDINGS ARE NOT FINDINGS
THAT ALARMED ME.
AS A LAWMAKER.
I.
FOUND THEM INSIGHTFUL
INSTRUCTIVE THEY TALKED A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT HOW TO BE BETTER
BUDGET MEAN. BETTER BUDGETING
PROCESSES.
AT E. COMPARED A LITTLE BIT
APPLES TO ORANGES WITH SOME OF
THAT EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS
ACROSS DIFFERENT PARA EDUCATION
SEGMENT SO. IF YOU COULD PUT
COME LOOK AT IT IN AND AND
ANALYZED IT YOU WOULD SEE.
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE.
.
COMPARABLE UP POSITIONS ARE NOT.
THAT WE CAN JUST TAKE THE
INFORMATION AND SAY WELL THE CSU
CFO IN THE U. CCF ARE EXACT SAME
SPOT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME JOB.
SO WHY WOULD THEY BE PAID THE
SAME AMOUNT.
SO AS AS LAWMAKERS.
AND YOU KNOW IT'S OUR JOB TO
LOOK AT THESE AUDITS AND THEN.
ANALYZE IT FOR OURSELVES AND
COME OUT WITH SOMETHING SO.
.
AND SO I ALSO LOOK AT.
SOME OF THE DISCRETIONARY
PRIVATELY RAISED MONEY IN AND
HOW THAT WAS SPENT AND THOUGHT
WELL THAT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE.
WHAT LAWMAKERS DO? WE PRIVATELY
RAISE MONEY AND IF THERE'S A
DINNER THAT'S PAID FOR BY THE
PRIVATELY RAISE MONEY THAT'S NOT
SUCH A BIG PROBLEM BUT.
FOR YOU SEE PERHAPS THERE'S A
BETTER BUDGETING SYSTEM ON THAT
CAN BE WORKED OUT SO NONE OF
THESE THINGS RAISE ALARM BELLS
FOR ME AND. IT WAS THE HUMAN
BEHAVIOR ELEMENT
THAT JUST CAME IN AND OUR
CURRENT TOUR THROUGH. THIS
BUILDING AND THAT WERE STILL
STRUGGLING WITH.
AND I THINK.
.
I THINK IT'S IT'S IMPORTANT FOR.
BOTH YOU SEE.
AS WELL AS THE LEGISLATURE TO BE
CIRCUMSPECT ABOUT IT AT THIS
MOMENT.
SO.
MORE ENGAGEMENT BY YOU SEE IS
PROBABLY GOOD DONE.
BY.
AGAIN A FACT FINDING REVIEW WAS
A VERY POSITIVE THING.
.
THAT WAS TAKEN ASIDE TAKING ON
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
AUDITOR OF COURSE THAT IS ALWAYS
WELCOME. AND.
AND I THINK FOR US.
OUR CHARGES LAWMAKERS IS TO.
REMAIN IN THAT OVERSIGHT ROLE
BUT MAYBE WE CAN DO THIS IN A
MORE CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER.
THAT ALSO DOESN'T HIDE IT YOU
KNOW IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT.
SEIZE UPON
FINDINGS WITHOUT OUR OWN
ANALYSIS OF THOSE FINDINGS TO
DETERMINE.
WHETHER NOT WE SHOULD BE
OUTRAGED OR THERE'S A MORE
CONSTRUCTIVE WAY. TO BUILD TRUST
IN WHAT HAS BEEN AN AMAZING
INSTITUTION FOR A HUNDRED AND
FIFTY YEARS.
THAT SHINES AS BRIGHTLY TODAY AS
IT EVER DID AND BRIGHTER THAN
ITS PEER INSTITUTIONS.
THAT.
WHAT WE DO WITH YOU SEE?
YEAH I IT AND IN THE IMPACT OF
THESE AUDITS IN THIS HUMAN
BEHAVIOR ON YOU SEE IS MUCH
BIGGER THAN THAT AND MUCH MORE
IMPORTANT THAN THAT.
AND THAT WE SHOULD WORK TOGETHER
TO PROTECT IT.
THANK YOU.
I AGREE WITH YOU.
MISTER CHALMERS.
THANK YOU ARE.
LISTEN THIS WITH GREAT INTEREST
AND OTHER ASKING WHY THEY WOULD
BE HEAT.
.
IN A AUDIT YOU KNOW HIS JOKE
AROUND TWO GREATEST LIES ONE OF
MS.
I'M INSPECTING GENERAL I'M HERE
TO HELP YOU.
AND A LOT YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT
THE OTHER ONE IS THE BIGGEST
LIE.
THE.
.
I WANT TO TAKE THE TIME BECAUSE
I FOR LOT DISCUSSIONS APPEAR TO
YOU WAY AND IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION.
THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IS ONE OF
THE GREATEST.
ECONOMIC DRIVERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
AND THEY PROVIDE JOBS IN
ACTIVITIES THAT DEFINE AN AREA
IN THE PARTICULARS SAN DIEGO
IT'S ALL IN THE.
PHARMACEUTICALS AND IN THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION.
AND.
I WOULD LIKE.
TO GIVE DIRECTION TO.
.
MR PALMISANO INTO THE REJECTS.
THAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FOCUS
ON THAT.
I LIKE YOU TO SPEND THE HOURS IN
YOUR TIME.
I'M SURE IN THE YOUNG PEOPLE.
RB UNEDUCATED. AND BEING TRAINED
FOR THE FUTURE.
P. YOU ALIGN YOURSELF TO
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY IS
CONTINUE TO GROW OUR ECONOMY.
EN I WOULD HOPE THAT WE ARE NOT.
CONTINUE TO BURN THESE
HUNDREDS OF HOURS OF THOUSANDS
OF HOURS.
THAT WE HAVE TO IT AS LITTLE
QUESTIONS AND TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT WHERE SOMETHING GOING WRONG.
BECAUSE I THINK.
GOVERNMENT IS BEST WHEN WE HAVE
CLEAR LINES OF RESPONSIBILITY
HAS RESPONSIBILITY LEGISLATORS
WE DO LAWS WE DO BUDGETS.
HOW WE CAN YOU OVERSIGHT?
BUT WE SHOULD NOT USE OUR
INFLUENCE TO STOP INSTITUTIONS
DEBT REALLY DRIVE THE ECONOMY IN
THE STATE.
AND SO.
PRESIDENT PUB DOT I HAVE FULL
CONFIDENCE IN YOU.
PLEASE GO FORTH INTO GREAT I WAS
LOOKING HISTORICALLY HERE HOW
LONG PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN YOUR
POSITION. I GUESS GO LIKE FIVE
EIGHT YEARS NINE YEARS SO. YOUR
YOUR FIFTH YEAR.
HOPE YOU GET TO MAKE EIGHT OR
NINE AND CONTINUE TO GO WHERE
EVER LET ANYONE DO THIS.
BUT.
I'M CONFIDENT THAT WHATEVER AIR
WHEN ON WAS CORRECTED. AND WE
USED TO HAVE A A LINE THAT WE
USED WHEN WE WOULD DO.
INVESTIGATIONS IS.
YOU CAN OF.
FORGIVE AND THERE OF.
WELL MISSION THAT'S WHAT I THINK
THIS IS.
WE DON'T FORGIVE ERRORS OF
COMMISSION WHERE PEOPLE CLEARLY
SO I'M GONNA DO A. B. C. DEED
BARRETT SOMEBODY TO DO
SOMETHING.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS CASES
TROUT ASK US ALL TO STAND BACK
AND LOOK AT THAT.
AND DON'T. TRY TO JUDGE A LARGE
INSTITUTION HONOR SOMETIMES OWN
LIMITED ABILITIES
SO. THANK YOU FOR YOU DO ONE.
I SEE YOU NEXT WEEK THANK YOU BY
THE WAY I DON'T HAVE YOUR CELL
NUMBER NO WHATEVER VISIT MY
OFFICE.
BUT THAT'S OKAY I UNDERSTAND I'M
THE REPUBLIC IF WE DON'T GET
THAT.
MR ACOSTA THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MISTER CHAIR.
CLEANED ROOM LOOK AT THAT.
POLITICAL FAST.
THANK YOU.
MR CULT TANA FOR BEING HERE.
AND THANK YOU FOR.
.
FRANKLY TAKING SOME
RESPONSIBILITY AYE AYE TERRIBLE
HATCHING IN YOU AS WELL AND I'M
I'M I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
BUT.
I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE I THINK
IF WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE
HEARING THAT WE HAD RIGHT SAT
OVER THERE AND ASK YOU DIRECT
QUESTIONS.
STORIES CHANGE A LITTLE BIT.
AND I'M GONNA GIVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TO RESPOND A
COUPLE THINGS BUT ONE OF THEM
IS.
ASK A DIRECT QUESTION AND DO
YOU HAVE THE.
TRUST IN YOUR CHANCELLOR'S.
AND IN EACH CAMPUS THAT YOU ARE
OVERSEE.
I DO OKAY SO WHEN A SURVEY COMES
TO A CAMPUS WHICH IS ITS OWN.
THEIR YOU KNOW.
SELF SUPPORTING ENTITY IN A
SENSE AND IT RELIES ON THE U.
OBVIOUSLY THAT THAT
ADMINISTRATION ETCETERA I
UNDERSTAND ARE THERE IN A
CONNECTED. AND SAYS DO NOT.
YOU DON'T SHARE THIS OUTSIDE THE
CAMPUS.
WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT?
THAT THE CHANCELLOR'S WERE NOT
CAPABLE WITHIN THEIR THEIR
COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE CAMPUS AT
THE UNIVERSITY AFTER ALL IT HAS.
MATH AND SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
AND MEDICINE AND
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENTS AND
PHILOSOPHY AND ALL THE GREAT
THINGS THAT GO ON THERE.
NOW YOU.
AYE WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY THAT
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN.
JUDICIAL PROCESSES IN AND
EXPERTS
WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY NEEDED
THEN TO.
SEND THEIR INFORMATION OFF TO
TO.
TO IT TO THEIR OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT TO BE REVIEWED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE CHANCELLOR'S DID
THEIR JOB IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
YOU DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE IN
YOUR CANCERS.
IF BY THE VERY NATURE OF YOU
REQUESTING THE INFORMATION THAT
THE CHANCELLOR'S WERE CHARGED
WITH.
THAT YOU'RE.
YOUR SECOND GUESSING THE
CHANCELLOR'S ANOTHER WORDS.
WAR IS THERE SOMETHING IN THAT
THOSE SURVEYS THAT CONCERNED YOU
BECAUSE YOU USE THIS THIS TERM.
HERE THIS PHRASE HE SAID IT WAS
A BIG DEAL AT BIG SURVEY A BIG
AUDIT SO OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT IT KNOWS ON
EVERYBODY'S RADAR.
IF THAT WERE THE CASE.
WHY THEN DID YOU NOT FOLLOW THE
THE THE THAT?
PRE SCRIBED AND PRE DESCRIBED
ARE EFFORTS BY THE THE AUDITOR
AND YOU'VE IT EVEN MINUTE WITH
YOU GONE THROUGH LOTS AND LOTS
ABOUT IT SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT
THEY'D ALL BE.
YOU KNOW PERFORM AT THIS POINT
FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT YOU DID
KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT A LITTLE
BIT.
WHY DIDN'T YOUR YOU'D HAVE THE
CONFIDENCE IN YOUR CHANCELLOR'S
THEN TO COMPLETE THE INFORMATION
AND GET IT BACK TO THE AUDITOR
WITHOUT THIS INTERFERENCE THAT
NOW YOU'VE ADMITTED THAT YOU?
FRANKLY I I HAVE DONE.
WELL AS I RECALL.
AT THE TIME.
.
THERE WAS CONCERN EXPRESSED BY
SOME OF THE CHANCELLOR'S.
THAT.
THERE.
CAMPUS AUDITOR'S
MAY RESPOND TO THE SURVEYS.
WITHOUT TO THE CHANCELLOR.
AND I BELIEVE THAT.
THE APPENDIX TO THE MORETTO
REPORT.
INCLUDES A REFERENCE.
TO THAT CONSUMER.
AND. YOU KNOW.
OUT OF THAT.
CONCERT OUT OF.
YOU KNOW THE PREVIOUS ME NO
PRACTICE OF THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT WHICH IS WEAK WE
COORDINATE SURVEY RESPONSES TO
THE CAMPUSES ALL THE TIME.
AND IT'S NOT A REFLECTION OF A
LACK OF TRUST IN THE CHANCELLOR
IS JUST AS YOU MENTION THESE
CAMPUSES ARE BIG PLACES AND SO.
IT BECOMES KIND OF A BELT AND
SUSPENDERS APPROACH.
TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY.
GETS THE INFORMATION AND HAS HAD
A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.
SO.
AND AND AGAIN.
.
WE WOULD NOT DO IT THE SAME WAY
AGAIN.
AND HAVE.
ADOPTED POLICIES ETCETERA TO
MAKE SURE THAT THAT DOESN'T
HAPPEN.
BUT.
I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE
GENESIS.
I I I'M STILL TROUBLED BY.
THERE
THE REQUIREMENT IF YOU WELL FOR
IT TO COME UP IT TO MIKE MIKE MY
COLLEAGUE FROM THE BAY AREA'S.
.
QUESTION EARLIER COMMENT EARLIER
AS TO WHAT DID YOU EXPECT WHEN
YOU GOT THEM BACK IN OTHER
WORDS.
THE CHANCELLOR'S DIDN'T TRUST
THE AUDITOR'S TWENTY HEARING.
TO NOT.
COMPLETE PEACE WITHOUT THE
CHANCELLOR'S IMPORT.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON
WITH THE CHANCELLOR'S THAT
THEY'RE NOT.
IN YOU KNOW INTEGRATED INTO
THEIR INTO THEIR CAMPUSES.
THAT SEEMS LIKE A MANAGEMENT
PROBLEM THERE.
TO WHERE THEY CAN'T TRUST THE
AUDITOR'S TO WORK WITH THEM.
AND THEN WHEN YOU FELT THAT WA
THEIR YOUR OFFICE FELT IN SOME
CASES THAT IT WAS RESPONSIBILITY
FOR YOU TO TAKE THAT AND THEN
OVERSEE THE CHANCELLOR'S OR
OVERSEEING THE AUDITOR'S.
OUT WHAT DID YOU EXPECT TO
HAPPEN AT THAT POINT WHEN YOU
GOT THEM AND IS MISSING
INFORMATION WHO WAS GOING TO
WE'RE GOING TO JUST SIMPLY
SENATE BACK SAY YOU DIDN'T
COMPLETE LINE FOURTEEN. I DON'T
THINK WE GOT A CLEAR ANSWER FOR
MIKE MY COLLEAGUE AND ASK YOU
THAT QUESTION.
WHAT WERE YOU PLANNING ON DOING?
WHEN YOU DIRECTED THOSE TO COME
BACK TO YOUR OFFICE
THE WITH THEY WERE INCOMPLETE OR
NEED TO BE CHANGED OF.
TWO. OF WORK WITH OF THE CAMPUS.
AND.
WHERE?
THERE WAS MISSING.
INFORMATION.
.
OR.
.
INFORMATION THAT APPEARED
INACCURATE.
TO BE ABLE TO RAISE THAT WITH
THE CAMPUS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
CAMPUS WAS.
COMFORTABLE SAY YES THIS IS WHAT
WE WANT TO SAY.
WHERE THIS WENT OFF THE RAILS
WAS THAT?
THE ACTIONS.
.
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
WENT BEYOND THAT TO ACTUALLY.
EDITING SOME OF THE RESPONSES
AND A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH
THE CAN.
IT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL INTENT.
BUT FORGIVE ME.
.
MADAM PRESIDENT YOU'VE WORKED
IN.
PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS AND
STATE GOVERNMENT AND.
DO YOUR CURRENT POSITION
ETCETERA.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT.
YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE
CHILLING EFFECT AS IT'S BEEN
CALLED YOU KNOW CALLED HERE
PREVIOUSLY REFERRED TO.
OF.
EUROPE.
YOU KNOW YOUR YOUR YOUR BOSS IS
GOING TO REVIEW YOUR HOMEWORK.
YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR REPORT BEFORE
YOU PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BUT
IT'S ABOUT YOUR BOSS.
I I MEAN.
IS THAT WAS THAT JUST I'M SORRY
THAT AT NO DISRESPECT MEANT WAS
I DO I'M GONNA LOOK AT ALL YOUR
STUFF BEFORE YOU SEND IT TO.
MY BOSSES AND THE AUDITOR'S IN
THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS THAT
WHAT HAPPENED HERE YOU KNOW.
.
IT WAS A SERIOUS ERROR ON MY
PART I JUST DIDN'T THINK OF IT
THAT WAY.
OUR CHANCELLORS ARE ALL STRONG
INDEPENDENT PEOPLE AYE I DIDN'T
SEE.
THAT THERE WAS AN INHERENT
CHILLING EFFECT THAT WOULD.
BE IMPLICATED HERE.
AND.
.
YOU KNOW I NOW FULLY RECOGNIZE
THAT HAVING THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT INVOLVED IN THE MIDDLE
OF A SURVEY ABOUT THE OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT.
WAS OF FATALLY FLAWED THIS.
YOU DIDN'T MAKE THAT IT WAS
CHIU.
AND I SAID THAT.
I CERTAINLY DIDN'T INTEND IT TO
BE CHILLING.
.
ARE WELL THANK YOU UP THANK YOU
VERY MUCH I'M NOT CONVINCED.
THAT THAT.
FULL FAITH AND TRUST HAS BEEN
RESTORED BY AND A SIMPLE
APOLOGY.
IN SOMETHING AGAIN.
YOU KNOW SOMETHING SO SUCH A BIG
DEAL A BIG SURVEY AND A BIG
AUDIT.
WHEN SO MANY THINGS WENT AWRY
FROM SOMEONE WITH YOU YOU KNOW
YOUR. AT YOUR PEDIGREE.
FRANKLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN
BETTER AND NOW IT'S LIKE WELL
IT'S MY SUBORDINATES DID THIS
AND IT THAT WE FOR THAT FAR TOO
MANY TIMES.
SO I'M AYE I APPRECIATE YOU
COMING HERE AND SIT HERE AND.
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I DO
RESPECT YOU FOR THAT AND.
FOR FREER ANSWERS IN YOUR TIME
TODAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALRIGHT.
MATTER PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
FOR.
.
YOU'RE VERY.
DIRECTED KNOWLEDGE MEANT.
OF FOR.
YOUR ROLE AND NOW ALL OF THIS.
I.
.
WANT TO JOIN AND MY COLLEAGUES
AND.
ACCEPTING YOUR POLICY. TO THE
PEOPLE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I FOR ONE.
I'M READY TO TURN THE PAGE.
AND TO WORK WITH YOU AND TO
WORK WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW I BELIEVE THAT
THE UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA IS ONE
OF THE BEST THINGS THAT WE HAVE
GOING.
AND.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AND WE NEED TO FOCUS ON WHAT'S
BIGGER THAN. YOU ARE I OR ANY OF
US SITTING ON THIS PODIUM WHICH
IS THAT WE.
CONTINUE.
TO.
KEEP THE UNIVERSE OF CALIFORNIA
AS THE BEST PUBLIC UNIVERSITY
SYSTEM IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.
AND SO ON.
I.
NO.
I HAVE.
HURT AND PROBABLY TOO MUCH ABOUT
THE SUBJECT AND I AM READY TO
TURN THE PAGE.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOU
THANK YOU LIKEWISE.
ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ALRIGHT.
SEEING THEIR ENOUGH FOR THE
COMMENTS THIS MEETING IS
ADJOURNED