Grade The Regents

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

The UC Board of Regents met at UCSF from January 21-23.

Below are highlights from the meeting. Items marked with an asterisk are agenda items tracked toward UCSA’s Regent Report Cards in which grades for Regents’ voting records and accessibility to students will be released at the end of the academic year.

Associate Vice President David Alcoccer and Interim Chief Financial Officer Paul Jenny presented on the UC Tuition & Fee Plan item*. They outlined where the UC budget currently stands, how the January budget of Governor Newsom fits into the university’s asks, and the need for more revenue to be generated on a continuous basis. Two models for tuition increases were presented, both of which were 5-year plans. The first would include annual increases on all current students at the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate (currently at 2.8%). The second plan keeps tuition constant for current students, but increases it by slightly higher rates than CPI over future years and tapers off to CPI level increases at the end of the 5-year plan to make up for revenue loss. Both proposals received some criticism for their multi-year approach of increases and lack of responsiveness to the more generous investment Governor Newsom provided this year in his January budget. The Regents delved into conversations around impact on student financial aid, affordability, and predictability of both tuition models if implemented. A vote will be taken in a subsequent meeting, likely in March or May 2020.

Vice Provost Gullatt, along with staff from UC Berkeley and Santa Cruz, led a presentation on the basic needs of parenting students*. Kiyoko Thomas, the Basic Needs Manager at UC Berkeley, presenting on the matter from a housing standpoint. Several factors were brought up in consideration of housing support for parenting students such as access to childcare, transportation, proximity to campus, and affordability. There is only 1 temporary space in family housing for parenting students at UC Berkeley who pay be facing homelessness. Ron Williams, the Independent Student Program Director at UC Berkeley, presented on his program that serves foster youth, military-affiliated, re-entry, and parenting students. He emphasized the importance of treating childcare as a basic need that impacts access and engagement. Mariah Lyons, the Slug Support Director at UCSC, presented on the program’s mission of addressing housing and financial needs for students, including parenting students, through a connective approach to community resources and departments. UCSC’s financial aid office is implementing the new Cal Grant Access for students with dependents. The Student Parent Meal Plan serves 23 students in its inaugural year, providing 10 free meals for the student and their dependent per quarter through their campus Student Fee Advisory Committee. The program helps increase networking with peers and a sense of belonging to the university. UCOP Student Affairs has initiated a UC Parenting Students Workgroup to address campus best practices and the community’s needs more holistically.

Vice President of Institutional Research Pamela Brown and Dr. Suzanna Martinez presented on housing insecurity and homelessness among students across the UC system*. Dr. Martinez shared her research on the matter. Based on student focus group findings from across the UC, 8 themes were identified, of which the first defined the various elements that are considered to be basic needs: sleep, sufficient healthy food, stability (peace of mind), safe/secure housing, hygiene, and transportation. The findings recommend assessing student experiences of housing insecurity to better address basic needs for students. VP Brown stated that IRAP will incorporate questions on basic needs in student surveys as early as Spring 2020.

Provost Brown and IRAP Vice President Brown presented on the freshman pipeline to the UC*. The focus is K-12 access to UC across California, focusing on a district-level analysis. There is least variation in high school graduation rates, percent receiving admission into UC, and percent enrolling at UC. The two factors with the greatest variation across districts is the percentage of students who complete A-G courses, and of those who do, the percentage that apply into UC. The rate of enrollment of 9th graders to joining UC later is at an average of 7.9%, but ranges between 18.1% and 3.1% depending on which district examined. Three SAPEP programs were shown on the database to represent UC outreach and its impact. These programs are EAOP, MESA, and Puente Project. Regent Lansing inquired if A-G courses are available in all public schools by high quality, credentialed math and science teachers. Provost Brown stated that this was not the case. Regent Lansing suggested UC run a program that recruits future California teachers. Provost Brown agreed, highlighting that many schools have high graduation rates but low college-ready levels (assessed by A-G completion). UC Scout, a nearly free online UC platform that offers 45 A-G courses, was highlighted as one of the ways this issue was addressed. Rural areas, such as the Inland Empire, tended to have high graduation rates but lower completion of A-G and low rates of application to UC.

Systemwide Title IX Director, Suzanne Taylor, and her Deputy Director, Kendra Fox-Davis, led a presentation on systemwide initiatives pertaining to sexual violence and harassment (SVSH)*. Title IX prohibits sex and gender discrimination or harassment. In 2014, a task force was established by the President to examine ways of developing a comprehensive approach to SVSH. Some recommendations included mandated comprehensive training/education, an advocacy office for survivors on each campus called CARE, a Respondent Services Coordinator, and a systemwide website with consistent content. In 2016, systemwide SVSH policy was issued and a response team model was established. In 2017, a Peer Review Committee was established systemwide and on a campus level to review and approve sanctions for senior university leaders and faculty members with substantiated SVSH complaints. In 2018, a student advisory board was developed to connect undergraduate and graduate students with the systemwide Title IX Office. Student complaints have increased since new policy modifications, likely attributed to better training and the improved reporting process. In January 2019, a California Appellate Court ruled that universities must hold live hearings to resolve sexual misconduct allegations against students. UC had to change their investigative model to a hearing model for that reason. Finally, workgroup was created to develop Presidential Policy on sexual harassment in the clinical setting. Interim directives were released until more thorough policies are put forth.

The UC Board of Regents met at UCSF from July 16-18.

The following highlights from this meeting are:
*items marked with an asterisk are agenda items tracked during this meeting.

In the Basic Needs committee, a presentation was made on how UC supports students’ financial literacy* needs within its current basic needs service model. Some campuses offer workshops during student orientation or provided training to those that contacted the financial crisis center. UCLA had an impressive system, where they determined which students receive a large cash amount from financial aid for living expenses and provided 2500 such students with financial literacy training. 60% of the trainees were Pell-grant recipients. This was determined as a best practice. Financial aid literacy prepares students to be the adults they are as carry greater responsibilities like filing taxes, taking out car loans, or managing a house mortgage. The UC Berkeley has several services through the Financial Aid and Scholarships program like funding and staff support for food assistance, winter break housing, emergency housing, support for CalFresh messaging, and a financial wellness program.

Another presentation on housing insecurity* was made by AVP Elizabeth Halimah and UCSF Assistant Professor Suzanna Martinez. The UC Global Food Initiative was started several objectives, including to explore housing insecurity and homelessness among UC students. Research was conducted as part of this initiative and recruited participants from Berkeley, Irvine, Merced, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz through basic needs hubs and food pantries. Reports of housing insecurity increased from 34 to 63 percent after the time frame for questions was changed from 30 days to 12 months. Martinez stated that findings from this research should be released by the Fall 2020 and will be used to estimate homelessness and housing insecurity along with identifying critical intervention points. Chair Perez encouraged the board towards long-term plans for housing affordability, such as how a UC campus is financing their housing and offering it at 10% below the market rate.

In the Academic and Student Affairs Committee, UCSA President Caroline Siegel Singh presented the UCSA and Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS) report on student debt*. The report shows that low-income students are more likely to borrow money compared to their higher-income peers. By race, African American and Chicano/Latino students are more likely to graduate with debt than their white peers. By campus, students at UCM are more likely to graduate with debt than students of any other UC campus. Though financial aid exists, it does not comprehensively address total cost of attendance which is around $34,700 annually. Currently, African American and Chicano/Latino students were more likely to borrow at every income level than their peers and have more debt. This is in spite of the fact that underrepresented students receive more financial aid. Interim Director of Student Financial Support Shawn Brick stated that there are two explanations: either the delay in graduation of underrepresented students causes the greater level of debt taken on or the formula used to determine parents’ ability to pay fall short. Several recommendations were made including focusing on improving time-to-degree to close gaps in debt, partnering with nonprofits that can directly offer scholarships to underrepresented students in need, and facilitating dialogue between financial aid directors and basic needs coordinators to serve students in financial crisis.

In the Public Engagement and Development Committee, Chief Medical Officer Brad Buchman presented on the need for more investment from the state in mental health*. Members discussed the importance of pursuing Proposition 63 funding on a local level for mental health services. Committee Chair Leib suggested putting together a working group with himself, Regents Lansing, Kieffer, and Thurmond, and Chancellor Block to study the issue further.

In the Governance Committee, policies regarding UC contracting out practices* was discussed. CFO Bostrom stated that financial savings will never guide the decision for subcontracting. Perez recommended eliminating any potential for economic benefit by guaranteeing that outside employees are paid at the same level or higher than UC employees. This change will be pursued by UCOP.

The cohort-based tuition model* was tabled for the Board meeting in November.

At the conclusion of the Board of Regents meeting and the 2018-19 Academic Year, Regents’ Grades are:

Regent Anguiano: 66%
Regent Blum: 65%
Regent Elliot: 53%
Regent Guber: 56%
Regent Kieffer: 66%
Regent Lansing: 67%
Regent Makarechian: 71%
Regent Oakley: 73%
Regent Park: 73%
Regent Perez: 88%
Regent Sherman: 54%
Regent Zettel: 59%
Regent Cohen: 79%
Regent Butler: 63%
Regent Estolano: 67%
Regent Leib: 83%
Regent Sures: 43% (not enough information – only 4 meetings attended)

The UC Board of Regents met at UCSF from May 14-16.

The following highlights from this meeting are:
*items marked with an asterisk are agenda items tracked during this meeting.

The PDST for the UC Berkeley Master of Business Administration (MBA) program* was increased after it had initially been tabled in March 2019 for concerns regarding lack of justification for the increase, a higher fee being assessed to residents than nonresidents, some classes being majority nonresident, and a missing plan for addressing diversity issues. The new plan eliminated the gap between the resident and nonresident PDST and extra funds were meant to be allocated to build a “more diverse and equitable business community”, according to Dean Harrison. Regent Graves asked how students in the focus groups that reviewed the proposed increase were recruited. Dean Harrison said they “opted in” without further clarification upon follow-up questions. There was great ambiguity around the student feedback solicitation process. Nonetheless, all Regents voted in support of the increase except for Student Regent Graves.

A presentation was made on the experience of Transfer and Nonbinary students* across the UC. Data from the most recent UC Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) showed that trans and nonbinary students feel a low level of belongining on their campuses. Interim Vice President Gullatt stated that UC must work towards better inclusion and responsiveness to these issues. Faculty Representative May committed to discussing within Academic Senate the possibility of writing a students’ preferred name on their diploma, and exploring the revision of former diplomas that did not include this option.

Health sciences diversity* was also under discussion. The percentage of underrepresented health sciences students was around 20.5%, being significantly lower than the percentage of minorities of the state. Dr. Cathryn Nation stated that 4 of the 6 medical schools admit residents only, with UCSF and UCLA admitting some nonresidents. She explained that diversity in the health workforce improves healthcare deliversity and minimizes disparities in health status. Dr. Nation pointed out the UC Programs in Medical Education (PRIME) which increases medical student graduates at UC by 75 students per year, includes a socially conscious mission in its curriculum, and enrolls a higher percentage of underrepresented students. Regent Perez expressed concern regarding the racial diversity among UC Health Senate faculty by discipline and stated that intervention is necessary to reverse course.

SB 14* is the Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of 2020. Chief Financial Officer Nathan Bostron states that it has been 14 years since a general obligation bond was placed on the ballot, and funds from this bill are much needed for seismic upgrades and deferred maintenance. The university has had to take on some of these costs over the past years, which results in a lower amount of funding available for the UC operating budget that goes towards faculty hiring, financial aid, and staff support. Regent Kounalakis expressed her enthusiastic support of the bill. The finance committee recommended the endorsement of SB 14 to the board.

Vice President Mark Cianca presented on UC Path*, which was very successfully deployed at UC Berkeley in March and April. It has reached the 100,000 employee mark. UC Berkeley’s population now represents 25% of the total UCPath population, but only 19% of calls received by the UCPath Center. The deployment of UCPath at UC Davis and for the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources is scheduled for September 2019.

Faculty Representative May responded to Chair Kieffer’s letter request a response and action to the California State Auditor’s report* titled “The University of California: It Must Take Additional Steps to Address Long-Standing Issues With Its Response to Sexual Harassment Complaints”. The Academic Senate created a working group, which proposed changes to Academic Senate Bylaw 336 (Privilege and Tenure: Divisional Committees – Disciplinary Cases). The recommendations received final approval April 2019. A major amendment requires that a hearing occurs within 60 days from the date on which disciplinary charges are filed with the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. Additionally, within 30 days of the hearing’s conclusion, the recommendations will be forwarded to the Chancellor. These changes go into effect July 1, 2019.

A proposal to increase the Nonresident Supplemental Tuition (NRST)* by 2.6% ($762/year) was rediscussed after it was tabled at the March 2019 meeting due to concerns from Regents and the public. This tuition hike would raise $28.9 million. A 10% return-to-aid ($2.9million) component was added to address the board’s hesitation. Chancellors Block and Christ spoke in support of the increase for needed campus funding. Chair Perez spoke in favor of the increase while explaining that the UC should be advocating for the non-AB540 undocumented students to be eligible for financial aid. Regent Park spoke of her great discomfort that the UC is continuing to admit the wealthiest of the nonresident population, sharing statistics of the shifting socioeconomic background of the community since 2010. Nonetheless, a motion to approve the increase passed.

Voting record on NRST Increase:

Yes – Regents Estolano, Guber, Kieffer, Lansing, Leib, Makarechian, Morimoto, Napolitano, Pérez, Sherman, Sures, and Zettel
No – Regents Butler, Cohen, Graves, Kounalakis, Ortiz Oakley, and Park
Abstain – Regent Elliott

At the conclusion of the Board of Regents meeting, Regents’ Grades are:
Regent Anguiano: 65%
Regent Blum: 65%
Regent Elliot: 50%
Regent Guber: 57%
Regent Kieffer: 64%
Regent Lansing: 65%
Regent Makarechian: 68%
Regent Oakley: 70%
Regent Park: 71%
Regent Perez: 86%
Regent Sherman: 55%
Regent Zettel: 56%
Regent Cohen: 74%
Regent Butler: 63%
Regent Estolano: 61%
Regent Leib: 82%
Regent Sures: 29% (not enough information – only 3 meetings attended)

The Board of UC Regents met at UC Davis on April 22nd. Only the Public Engagement and Development Committee and the Special Committee on Basic Needs convened. All items were discussion items (no action items).

The following highlights from this meeting are:
*items marked with an asterisk are agenda items tracked during this meeting

In Public Engagement and Development Committee, Regents Engagement update* discussion covered the co-sponsorship between UCSA and UCOP on the summer CAL Grant expansion bill. Student Regent Graves mentioned that during 18-19 academic year, 15 regents have done 16 legislative visits. Regents Advocacy day in Sacramento to occur in early-mid 2020. Regent Leib recommended that UC Merced to show up first to advocacy because of the high PhD ongoing rate especially graduate students from diverse backgrounds to address faculty diversity* There was also a presentation from UCSA president and UCOP State Government Relations on this year’s joint student advocacy. Regent Pérez asked how can UCOP and Regents restructure and have internal conversations about why Black students are burdened disproportionately with debt at the UC. Claire Holmes committed to “taking that on to to be a better bridge.” UCOP’s Federal Government Relations launched a communications campaign for the passage of Dream and Promise Act of 2019 and identified financial aid and simplifying FAFSA as priorities.

In Special Committee on Basic Needs meeting, there was a presentation on rapid rehousing by John Burton Advocates.* The presenter briefly mentioned 2017 UC study that found that 1:20 students experience homelessness. 8% of Black first generation students and 13% of former foster youth experienced homelessness. Rapid rehousing helps people exit to stable housing and lower costs than transitional housing and emergency shelters. UC System Basic Needs Co-Chairs Ruben Canedo and Tim Galarneau presented and mentioned how all campuses have basic needs interventions but there’s limited staffing due to funds. Ruben said for that reason, ongoing funds are necessary. Regent Cohen asked for more information on utilizing CAL FRESH and the proposal for allocation mechanism for these services.Regent Butler asked how is the UC designing basic needs to support campus police and minimize potential of what happened at Columbia University where a Black student was profiled and harrassed at the library. Butler asked Yvette Gullat for follow up on the inclusion of campus police in these discussions as UC builds out these services.

At the conclusion of the Board of Regents meeting as of 4/22/19, Regents’ Grades are:

Regent Anguiano: 63.8%
Regent Blum: 55%
Regent Elliot: 56.2%
Regent Guber: 66.7%
Regent Kieffer: 68.3%
Regent Lansing: 55.2%
Regent Makarechian: 55.83%
Regent Oakley: 60.4%
Regent Park: 79.7%
Regent Perez: 91.7%
Regent Sherman: 46.9%
Regent Tauscher: 82%
Regent Zettel: 50.7%
Regent Cohen: 75%
Regent Butler: 75%
Regent Estolano: 65.5%
Regent Leib: 77%
Regent Sures: N/A. This Regent was recently appointed, so not enough data exists to issue a grade.

The Board of UC Regents met at UCLA on March 13 and 14th. UCSA President Siegel Singh provided remarks on Thursday about an upcoming report on student debt, standardized testing and the national college admissions scam, as well as stated her support against increasing tuition for nonresident students.

The following highlights from this meeting are:

In the Special Committee on Basic Needs, recent data shows that more students reported very low food insecurity (up 3% to 27% of undergraduates since 2015). Students of color and LGBTQ students more likely to be homeless and food insecure. Campuses facing highest food and housing security: UC Merced, UC Riverside and UC Santa Barbara. Regent Anguiano asked about what new survey items being considered for future surveys. Regent Perez asked about non campus services to support food and housing security.

AFSCME 3299 members continued to provide public comment about their contract negotiations & held an action outside UCLA joined with students. The UC still has not provided a fair contract with AFSCME 3299. UPTE also spoke about their fight for a fair contract.

In Academic and Student Affairs Committee: Student observer spoke out against PDST increases. Student Regent Designate commented about the variability in student consultation regarding proposals on professional degree supplemental tuition increases. Chair Pérez expressed similar sentiment of making it more clear. PDST proposals increases for campuses approved, variety of when it will be going from. Some campuses will see it for 2 years while other for 5 years.

In Finance and Capital Strategies Committee: Student observer spoke out against the nonresident tuition increase and detailed benefits nonresident students bring, before the vote. Regent Lark Park said we should not be focused on recruiting wealthy international students, and think about refugees and vocally said that she cannot support nonresident tuition. Regent Kieffer said, “it’s not about educating the world but is your system competitive to attract world leaders” and Napolitano said “increase is not that much when considering inflation”. Park, Lieb, Markachian, and Cohen vote no, rest vote yes on approving increase to nonresident tuition and made this a separate item to discuss and vote on Thursday*
Before nonresident tuition vote, President Napolitano said, “that the increase is a modest increase to keep up with the ongoing educational mission for university. If we don’t increase, we are creating a $300 million deficit in budget”. Makarchian: spoke out against tuition increase countering Napolitano that there are no such thing as constant dollars for nonresident because fluctuation of currency. Cohen: spoke out against tuition, need to stop treating nonresident as cash cows and voiced we have to support on undocumented students. Perez: immoral where we have no means to support nonresident students with financial aid. Guber: keep tuition the same but provide resources that are vital for them to be here. Regent Oakley and Eleni Kounalakis verbally spoke out against tuition. Lansing said UC and this state needs to get more diversity with in-state and recommended to postpone vote. Leib: Said he voted no in committee and supports tabling. Butler: made motion to table item, passed.

In Compliance and Audit Committee, approved external audit plan and new changes on the scope of that audit. UCOP has 8 incomplete audit recommendations with a deadline by April 2020. Regent Lansing mentioned, “I hope I can speak for everyone and say raising fees is painful” when discussing PDST increases.

At the conclusion of the Board of Regents meeting as of 3/14/19, Regents’ Grades are:

Regent Anguiano: 48.6%
Regent Blum: 56.3%
Regent Elliot: 52%
Regent Guber: 52.08%
Regent Kieffer: 57.9%
Regent Lansing: 61.25%
Regent Makarechian: 55.83%
Regent Oakley: 53.65%
Regent Park: 54.69%
Regent Perez: 65.2%
Regent Sherman: 51.25%
Regent Tauscher: 65.3%
Regent Zettel: 48.33%
Regent Cohen: 53.75%
Regent Butler: 50%
Regent Estolano: 50%
Regent Leib: 59.5%
Regent Sures: N/A. This Regent was recently appointed, so not enough data exists to issue a grade.