This end-of-year report is intended to reflect on the first year of utilizing the Board of Regents performance tracker. The purpose of this tool was to hold the Regents accountable for their commentary and votes on issues that impact the UC community. With scores out of 100, the higher the score, the more in alignment the Regent has been with students’ priorities and values.
Issues & Priorities
This past year, UCSA has chosen to prioritize several issues of significant relevance to student wellbeing and community affairs. Among those issues are:
- Affordability of the UC education for all students
- Faculty diversity on university campuses
- Reforming sexual violence and sexual harassment policies
- Addressing students’ basic needs (e.g. food & housing insecurity)
- Expanding our mental health services
- Supporting unions in their contract negotiations and demands
- Offering student input on the UCPath rollout process
- Eliminating standardized testing (SAT/ACT) from undergraduate admission criteria
Methodology
Prior to every meeting, all items relevant to student wellbeing and/or community interests (e.g. labor rights, environmental impact, university investments) within the board and committee agendas are marked for tracking. Regents’ attendance is recorded to assess their level of commitment to the role. On the pre-selected items, all commentary by the Regents’ is noted and scored on a 0-100 scale as follows:
0 = Voted and spoke against UCSA position
25 = Voted against UCSA position, did not speak on the issue.
50 = Abstained from the vote, did not speak on the issue, or was absent
75 = Voted in line with UCSA position, did not speak on the issue
100 = Voted and spoke in line with UCSA position
Each Regents’ raw number is then divided by the maximum number of points they could have received. This gives us a certain percentage to which extra credit percentage points can be added in the following scenarios:
- Attending UCSA Board Meetings
- Visiting campuses and meeting with student leadership during campus visits
- Sharing their contact information with students
- Working with UCSA to get agenda items we want to be considered by the Board
For final grading, Regents were graded on a curve. The highest score, which was 88%, was recognized as an A+ while curving all other grades accordingly.
Results
Regent Grades for the 2018-19 Academic Year:
Regent Anguiano: C+
Regent Blum: C+
Regent Elliot: D
Regent Guber: D+
Regent Kieffer: C+
Regent Lansing: C+
Regent Makarechian: B
Regent Oakley: B
Regent Park: B
Regent Perez: A+
Regent Sherman: D
Regent Zettel: C-
Regent Cohen: A-
Regent Butler: C
Regent Estolano: C+
Regent Leib: A
Proposed Changes
Firstly, the extra credit offered was valued at 10% per accomplished item. However, this amount seems excessive as it adds to the overall performance of a Regent throughout a time period that spans a full academic year in our annual report. Thus, it will be reduced to 5% to ensure the final results sufficiently encapsulate a Regent’s engagement with students while not being excessively skewed by events that take place outside the board’s conversations and consequential votes. This also allows us to grant extra credit for more items as opposed to feeling constrained to one extra credit opportunity per Regent.
Secondly, rather than recording the attendance of each Regent once, at the beginning of the board’s convening, we will be tracking each Regent’s attendance at all committees to capture their holistic engagement. This allows us to fully appreciate the importance of conversations occurring in committees as they often significantly guide the final decisions made by the board.
Thirdly, some changes will be made to the scoring system. For instance, Regents will not be assigned a score of 50 when there is a significant time constraint that hinders their engagement on an agenda item that does not require immediate action that impacts student wellbeing. This allows all other scores where the Regent is engaged, in favor of students or not, to better reflect their performance. Regents will be given a score of 25 if they speak but do not vote against the UCSA position in the case of an action item.
0 = Voted and spoke against UCSA position
25 = Either voted against UCSA position or spoke against UCSA position
50 = Abstained from a vote or comment does not relate to UCSA position
75 = Voted in line with UCSA position, did not speak on the issue (if time permits)
100 = Voted and spoke in line with UCSA position (if time permits)
Fourthly, we will be adding our extra credit criteria to the four aforementioned items. The updated criteria will be as such:
- Attending UCSA Board Meetings and/or Conferences
- Visiting campuses and meeting with student leadership during campus visits
- Sharing their contact information with students
- Working with UCSA to get agenda items we want to be considered by the Board
- Leading the board on a novel issue that brings about equitable change
