UC shenanigans

WE SHOULD ALL SCREW UP like former University of California Provost M.R.C. Greenwood.

An investigation showed that Greenwood, who had been the No. 2 executive for the UC system, violated conflict-of-interest rules by giving her partner in real estate deals a well-paid university job. She also failed to reveal her business interests in a required statement.

Her punishment? A 15-month sabbatical during which she will collect an annual salary of more than $300,000, plus a $100,000 research grant when she moves to a tenured professorship at UC Davis paying $163,800 a year. This and other revelations show that UC is far too inclined to use public money as a slush fund -- and that it will take more than a legislative committee or even the outside audit that UC is finally launching to fix matters.

A separate UC report chided its vice president for student affairs over his bad judgment in creating a job for Greenwood’s son at the Merced campus after James Greenwood had applied unsuccessfully for other UC jobs. Winston C. Doby provided the funding for an internship with the job description tailored to Greenwood. UC has not decided what if any action will be taken against Doby.

In addition, the San Francisco Chronicle last week reported that UC tried to hush up a claim of discrimination by a former Davis vice chancellor by giving her a $205,000-a-year job for two years, plus benefits and other perks, for which she was not required to do any work. Regents were not consulted about this secret settlement despite UC rules.

When revelations first arose this fall about millions of dollars in perquisites given to UC administrators, this page cautioned that though they should be thoroughly investigated by an outside body, running a prestige university is costly and most of the expenses might be justified.

That’s still true. But these early examples show that UC administrators have a disquieting tendency to run a loose ship, and run it by their own, rather than state or university, rules. Such shenanigans hardly enhance the university’s prestige. Further, UC President Robert C. Dynes has strenuously resisted closer oversight or public transparency. His initial plan to appoint a current regent and a former one to look into the matter only damaged his own credibility.

Under continued pressure, UC is launching an outside audit of top managers’ compensation, and creating a regents’ committee on compensation. It is not enough. It will take sustained, outside scrutiny of UC -- by auditors hired by the Legislature, rather than the regents -- to remind UC executives that they are accountable to the public for each costly decision.