Unlike Day 1, there was ademonstration during the public comment session during Day 2. The room was cleared by the police. Subsequently the Regents continued themeeting but apparently could not exit. During Part 3 it was announced that the demonstrators had left the UC-Riversidebuilding in which the Regents were meeting.
There are remarks in therecord in Part 3 in which the governor is praised for giving UC permission touse general fund allocations for the pension system. As noted previously on this blog, UC did notneed permission and so the governor’s action meant little. Indeed, UC – not that long ago – was told bythe state that the state had no liability to the pension and that it was up toUC to fund it – presumably from general fund allocations. What has changed, as readers of this blogwill know, is that the Legislative Analyst has gradually come to acknowledgethe need for the state to take some responsibility for the pension as it didbefore the two-decade contribution “holiday.” Unlike the governor, the Analyst did not insist that UC be put undersome statewide one-size-fits-all pension arrangement.
Agenda:
Part 1
8:30 am Committeeof the Whole - public comment [ends in demonstration]
The Regents met on January 18 at UC-Riverside. Day 1 was relatively calm. The agenda is below. (An angry demonstration occurred in thesecond day.) You can hear Day 1 at thelink below.
As usual, we raise the issueof why – since the Regents live-stream the audio of their meetings – they donot archive the audio. The UCLA FacultyAssociation has to request the audio files and post them – which inevitablymeans a significant lag in availability.
The full agenda with links to relevant documents is at:
Audio of the December 14 legislative hearing on the UC-Davis pepper spray incident may be heard at the link below. The excerpt edits out the testimony of a witness from CSU-Fresno. Earlier, the testimony of UC systemwide officials at the hearing was posted on this blog at http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2011/12/uc-excerpt-from-dec-14-legislative.html
As readers of this blog are aware, an incident in which student demonstrators at UC-Davis sparked concerns and received wide public attention. A joint legislative hearing was held on December 14. Below is an audio of the testimony of UC president Mark Yudof and General Counsel Charles Robinson at the “Legislative Hearing on California University Campus Police Policy.”
The excerpts include the formal statements of the two witnesses from UC plus a question and answer session which followed similar testimony by CSU witnesses.The main information to be found in these excerpts is that there is likely to be a UC-systemwide policy about police activity that comes out of the various reviews. March 1, 2012 was given as the probable date in which the findings/outcomes would be released. Note that there are occasional silent pauses due to interruptions in streaming. President Yudof indicated he found no conflict of interest involved in the choice of former LA Police Chief William Bratton to conduct an investigation. Some legislators expressed concern about what they perceived as a large number of independently-conducted investigations going on at UC.Links are below:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Alternative audio link of full excerpt (not divided into parts):
Note 1: The CSU portions were largely edited out although some elements remain since they were part of the general discussion. Note 2: Full video of the hearings is available in three parts from CalChannel. The excerpts here are from parts 1 and 2. It is not known how long CalChannel will retain the hearings online. There are 3 links at:
We earlier posted the bulk of the Regents meeting of Nov. 28 up to the point where demonstrations temporarily shut down the proceedings. The Nov. 28 meeting was the result of a postponement of the meeting originally scheduled for two weeks earlier. That meeting was cancelled due to concern over possible violent demonstrations.
We now have the audio for the brief portion of the meeting that resumed (about 17 minutes). Various capital projects were approved. There was a further disturbance at one point. Minutes of committees were approved. A change in compensation reporting practices was approved. Various executive compensation adjustments were approved with President Yudof arguing that they were necessary for retention and complaining about losses to Stanford which paid more. (One Regent voted “no” on the pay increases. Notably, Lt. Gov. Newsom voted “yes.”)
The UC Regents Committee on Compliance and Audit met on November 7, 2011 in advance of the full Regents meeting that was originally scheduled for the following week. The full Regents meeting was postponed due to concern about possible violent demonstrations. This blog has been making available audios of the Regents meetings. A link to the audio can be found at the bottom of this blog entry.
During the public comment section of the Committee meeting, the first speaker made a satirical speech for privatizing UC on behalf of the 1%, as opposed to the 99%, as per the Occupy movement. There was discussion at the Committee of funding of retirement benefits. The agenda is below:
COMMITTEE ON COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT
Committee membership: Regents Crane, Makarechian, Mireles, Pelliccioni, Ruiz, and Zettel (Chair); Ex officio members Brown, Gould, and Lansing; Advisory member Anderson; Staff Advisor Herbert
Date: November 7, 2011
Time: 2:30 p.m.
Locations: 1111 Franklin Street, Room 11326, Oakland ; West Coast Room, Covel Commons, Los Angeles Campus; 3104 Mosher Alumni House, Santa Barbara Campus
Agenda – Open Session (there was a closed session before this audio begins)
Public Comment Period
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 13, 2011
A5 Discussion Annual Report of External Auditors for the Year Ended June 30, 2011
UC Annual Financial Report,
UC Retirement Plan, including the PERS-VERIP,
UC Retirement Savings Program (Defined Contribution, 403b and 457b Plans),
UC Health and Welfare Program, including the retiree health benefit trust
Annual Financial Reports for each of the five UC Medical Centers.
A6 Discussion Chief Financial Officer Division AIM Report: Actionable Information for Managers
A7 Discussion Annual Report on Internal Audit Activities, 2010-11
A8 Discussion Report on Ethics and Compliance Activities
Audio of Dec. 1, 2011 hearing by the legislative Conference Committee on Public Employee Pensions on Gov. Jerry Brown's proposals for state and local public pensions in California.
Click on link above. If you don't want to listen to the full four and a half hours, scroll towards the bottom to hear the governor's testimony and UC's testimony.
Testimony by representatives of the Dept. of Finance, the Legislative Analyst's Office, Gov. Jerry Brown in person, CalPERS, CalSTRS, State Assn. of County Retirement Systems, University of California pension system, Employer groups (League of California Cities, California State Assn. of Counties, California Special Districts), Employee union groups (CTA, California School Employees Assn., Professional Engineers & Scientists, AFSCME, Peace Officers Research Assn.), Public Comments. See earlier post for agenda of this hearing. Gov. Brown was not on the original agenda.
Dept. of Finance: The governor’s 50-50 sharing of contributions idea refers to the normal cost, not the unfunded liability. The 75% notion is not a cap but a kind of goal. There was vague reference to a dollar cap. But much was unclear. It was said that the Dept. of Finance would be hiring a consultant to work out details. There would be a minimum early retirement age but it is not clear what that will be. There was an allusion to a 6-month period to get an actual hybrid plan in shape. There was some discussion of legal issues surrounding “impairment of contracts” but again there was fuzziness. It came up in the context of what the governor wanted to put on the ballot in the way of constitutional changes. The only clear cut response was that it would be necessary for voters to approve changes in the CalPERS board.
Legislative Analyst’s Office (Jason Sisney): Noted there are thousands of pension plans and occupations so putting together a plan will be complicated. There was reference to the total compensation idea (if you cut pensions, other forms of compensation may need to rise so the savings may be offset). The details are not yet in the governor’s plan. Legal doubts raised about changes for current employees, even changes in contributions. Recommended not fiddling with current workers. Thus, changes would be for new hires so there would be little short term savings. Specifically cautioned about high paid workers and need to be competitive, particularly university professors who are recruited in a national market.
Gov. Brown: Philosophized about debt, Greek financial crisis, Europe. At one point, referring to a statement by CalPERS that freezing its plan would cut off incoming contributions from new hires, said that seemed like a Ponzi scheme. That is, if a plan depended on new people coming in, it sounded like a Ponzi scheme. This remark could be a media sound bite. Told the Democrats that there will be taxes on the ballot they would like voters to pass but unless there is a pension reform also on the ballot, the taxes won’t pass. So there needs to be compromise, balance, etc.
Note: The Ponzi scheme quote has already hit the news:
CalPERS: Prefers pure defined benefit to hybrid of defined benefit and defined contribution. The latter is more expensive to administer and will earn less. Said the proposed ban on contribution holidays when plans become overfunded could violate tax rules and lead to loss of tax-exempt status. Tried to respond to governor’s Ponzi comment without using the word Ponzi. Said what was meant was that if a pension plan such as CalPERS is frozen (closed), it no longer gets cash from new hires and it needs cash for paying benefits. Need for cash flow would cause it to invest in assets that throw off a lot of cash and therefore have lower rates of return. The answer was not great since if the plan were really 100% funded, you could in theory freeze it and pay off the obligations. CalPERS problem (and the reason for the governor’s proposal) is largely a matter of unfunded liabilities.
CalSTRS: CalSTRS is recognized as the most problematic state plan. Spokesperson noted that the governor’s plan doesn’t deal with CalSTRS’ unfunded liability. Complained about fuzziness in governor’s plan as to who pays for the defined contribution component. But polite language that the governor’s plan was a good “starting point.”
County Systems: Noted that there were many plans. They are already negotiating two-tier arrangements and other features such as increased contributions similar to the governor’s plan. Doubts raised about hybrid proposal. Total compensation point made (if you cut pensions, you have to raise something else).
University of California: (Nathan Brostrom and Gary Schlimgen) Some history of the UC system. Discussed the two-decade contribution holiday. The other sources of funding are paying but not the state. Regents have been ramping up contributions but must pay for state share out of operating budget funds. Defined benefit model helps retain mid-career faculty but encourages retirement so that there is faculty renewal at older ages. Discussion of Regents’ pension changes of 2010 after PEB report. Many features of the governor’s plan have already been adopted by UC such as two tier. We already have 3-year HAPC to prevent spiking. UC doesn’t offer “airtime” purchases of past service unlike CalPERS. Regents are not plan members so no conflict of interest in serving as plan trustees. UC doesn’t make retroactive improvements. UC is less generous than the state on retiree health care. UC has problems with 50-50 contribution proposal for current employees. Hybrid model is problematic. 75% replacement target is too low for retention/recruitment. Some UC unions have already agreed to two tier. The constraints in the governor’s plan would make collective bargaining more difficult. UC plan has the right balance. (Note: brief break in audio stream towards end.) In Q&A period, pointed to current projection of full funding by 2039. Notes that contributions of current employees are rising as part of that projection.
Local Employer groups: There was again reference to the idea that the tax status of plans could be at risk if an overfunded plan could not have a contribution holiday.
State and Local Employee groups: No unexpected points.
Public comment: Included some external groups pushing pension reforms.
Below you can listen to the audio of the rescheduled Regents meeting of earlier today. The meeting was a teleconference at various campus sites. It consisted mainly of the public comment session. See earlier postings on this blog for further information.
After the public comments session, the Regents attempted to discuss the UC budget. At that point, the audio went on and off, apparently in response to demonstrations. There was a statement that the room at UC-San Francisco had been cleared. The audio finally cut off entirely about 11:45 AM.
Update: A copy of the Regents audio that covers the session after the cut off recorded above has been requested. It will be posted when received.
As noted in our earlier post of the Sept. 13, 2011 Regents meeting, the audio received from the Regents appeared to be incomplete. Below is the complete audio.
Regents Committee Meeting: Sept. 13, 2011
1:00 pm Committee on Compliance and Audit (Regents only session)
1:15 pm Committee on Compliance and Audit (open session - includes public comment)
2:30 pm Committee on Grounds and Buildings (open session - includes public comment)
The Regents met Sept. 13-15, 2011. Yesterday, we posted audio for the first two days. This is Day 3. That day is significant for what did not happen, namely approval of President Yudof's plan for a multi-year schedule of tuition increases in light of diminishing state budget support.
The audio is divided into Parts 1 and 2. Part 2 contains the discussion in which the Regents fret about the budget situation but do not act.
Below you can listen to audio from the first two days of the Sept. 13-15, 2011 Regents meeting. We will post the audio for Sept. 15 later. Note that we have already posted excerpts from the September Regents meetings recorded by Jim Chalfant. The audios below were obtained from the Regents.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011:
====================== Note: The audio received from the Regents for Sept. 13 runs only 25 minutes and appears to be incomplete. If a fuller version becomes available, it will be posed.
------------------- Agenda
1:00 pm Committee on Compliance and Audit (Regents only session)
Courtesy of Jim Chalfant - who recorded the session from the live-stream - here is the second part of the Regents meeting of 9-15-11. You can find part 1 of the advance audio by scrolling down on this blog.
There is discussion on this recording of the economic impact of UC on California - a report that was prepared on the subject and described to the Regents. (See an earlier post on this blog concerning that report.) Then there is discussion of the UC budget situation.
Below is the agenda for that session: 8:30 am Committee of the Whole (public comment) 8:50 am Committee on Compensation (open session) 9:00 am Committee on Educational Policy (open session) 10:45 am Committee on Finance (open session) 1:15 pm Board (open session)
We will post the full audio when it is received from the Regents.
We previously posted the audio for the July 2011 Regents meeting.Normally, we have to wait until we can get the recordings from the Regents to post the audio.However, Prof. Jim Chalfant of UC-Davis recorded part of the Sept. 15 meeting including discussion of graduate student tuition and support.
Eventually, we will post the full Sept. 13-15 meeting - once we get the recordings.In the meantime, below is the Regents agenda for Sept. 15 and below that is a link to the Chalfant recording.
The Regents met for the third day of their July 2011 meetings on July 14.Below is the agenda for that day's session.The audio is divided into two parts.Previous blog posts have provided the audio for the first two days.Links are below the third day agenda. Below the agenda are links to the audio.
Yesterday, we posted the audios of the first day of the July 12-14, 2011 Regents meetings.(The first day was actually meetings of two committees.) Today we post the second day audio in two parts.Below is the agenda with links to agenda documents.We again note that the Regents live-stream the audio of their meetings and record them.But they do not archive the recordings for public access.Why not?We have to request the recordings and do the posting, an unnecessary step which – as is evident from the posting at this late date – involves a delay.
