Coverage of the UC system has been dominated by the tussle between UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi and UC system President Janet Napolitano, who placed Katehi on leave. As an investigation into Katehi begins, the chancellor has filed a formal complaint with UCOP, possibly paving the way for a lawsuit. Napolitano’s name has popped up in a number of media outlets as a possible VP choice for Hillary Clinton, though the UC system’s top administrator is rarely near the top of any lists.
6/2 – Conflict of interest alleged between UC president and investigator in Katehi case (Aggie): Student newspaper notes academic senate chair is also skeptical of the firm hired to investigate Katehi, due to the lead investigator’s ties to Napolitano. Also, check out this “Students for Linda” Facebook page. The opposition, “Fire Katehi,” has more likes…
6/3 – UC Davis delays release of public records regarding beleaguered chancellor (SacBee): UC Davis has dragged its feet on releasing a number of records, a move the SacBee clearly thinks is illegal
6/3 – When universities try to behave like businesses, education suffers (LATimes): Column calls out Katehi’s membership on two corporate boards who, the author alleges, have interests that conflict with UC (DeVry and Wiley) and goes on to discuss the corporatization of public higher education
6/3 – Suspend probe of Katehi, UC Davis chancellor’s reps demand (SacBee): Katehi’s lawyer says the firm investigating her client is biased, asks for the investigation to be halted.
6/3 – Suspended UC Davis Chancellor’s Attorney Reacts To Allegations (CapRadio): Katehi’s lawyers say their client only broke one rule — by joining the DeVry board — but that UCOP was well aware of that move before it happened. The lawyers also contend UCOP tried to mislead the public and media and insists the hold up on public records is due to UCOP, not UC Davis.
6/8 – Katehi’s team files a grievance, sets stage for a lawsuit (DavisEnt): A grievance filed by Katehi may be the first step in the filing of a lawsuit. The complaint cites breach of contract, violation of privacy rights and defamation, violation of confidentiality rights, retaliation, constructive termination and discrimination due to gender. Katehi alleges UCOP tried to slander her by releasing what she claims was a confidential memo, though UCOP says the memo was requested by the media and disclosure was in the public interest.
6/9 – Katehi Fighting Back against Allegations from UC President Napolitano (DavisVanguard): A longer rundown from Katehi’s perspective on the various missteps by UCOP. Among them, Napolitano asked Katehi not only to resign as chancellor but to give up her faculty position.
6/10 – UC Responds to Allegations from Katehi’s Attorney (DavisVanguard): UC insists Katehi is holding up investigation by not turning over UC-owned devices and refusing to meet with investigators. The investigation is set to end in early August.
6/8 – We narrowed Clinton’s VP possibilities to 27 (WaPo): This article mentions Napolitano as a potential VP pick, though it doesn’t say much about why she made the list.
6/9 – UC retirement plan under threat (Capital&Main): McCarty proposes including language in the budget bill to block a loophole that would allow high-earners in the UC system to use a private IRA and avoid the PEPRA cap.
6/1 – Editorial: UC should heed assembly’s message on in-state students (UnionTribune): Editorial backs state audit finding that UC isn’t allowing enough in-state students to enroll
6/3 – State lawmakers vote to cap nonresident enrollment at UC schools (LATimes): The measure still needs to be approved by the senate.
ALSO: Compare the assembly and senate budgets for UC beginning on page 38.
This & That
6/3 – UCLA sells landmark Japanese garden for $12.5 million (LATimes): I don’t really know what this is about, but seems interesting UC gets rid of a cultural asset for some cash.
6/8 – UC admissions applicants face more essay choices, shorter lengths (EdSource): The UC system will do away with its two longish essay questions for freshman and transfer applicants, instead letting applicants choose four shorter questions from a range of topics. Move is intended to deter canned responses and to be easier to evaluate.