UC Regents Torn by Plan to Cut Back on Meetings

A plan by University of California President David P. Gardner to reduce the number of UC Board of Regents’ business meetings by one-third has provoked strong criticism from both board members and state legislators.

While numerous regents have said privately that they believe Gardner may be trying to usurp power from the 28-member governing body, few are willing to openly oppose him. The regents’ reluctance to do so has been attacked by some legislators.

“The UC Board of Regents has always been captive of the executive,” said John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), chairman of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. “This (plan to reduce the number of business meetings) will make it captive in spades.”

Under the plan, which is scheduled for a vote Friday, the business meetings would be replaced with policy sessions, which Gardner contends would strengthen, not weaken, the role of the board.

Could Do ‘Wonders’

Vasconcellos said that, if the regents were really to get involved in substantive policy issues, it could do “wonders” for public higher education in California.

But Vasconcellos said he had never seen them do so in the 20 years he has been in the Legislature, and he, along with several other legislators, is not confident that Gardner’s plan would bring about that result.

“Regents who are unwilling to speak publicly on their own feelings on this issue--or any other issue--ought to resign and let those who are willing to speak out take their place,” Vasconcellos said.

Most observers assume that the proposal will be approved at least on a trial basis for a limited period of time, perhaps one year, despite strong objections by at least a half-dozen prominent members of the 28-member board.

“Most regents are all people who are only too delighted to have their responsibilities diluted and reduced,” commented one regent who would not be quoted by name but said he opposes the plan.

‘I Am Very Uneasy’

Another, who opposes the change and also requested not to be quoted by name, said, “I do not agree that all regents are not willing to work hard. But I am very uneasy about this plan. . . . I cannot explain why no one is willing to speak out openly about it, except to say that there is something about the University of California and being a regent that inspires awe. Nobody wants to rock the boat.”

In a telephone interview Wednesday, Gardner said he was utterly “perplexed” by the criticism against his proposal, none of which had been voiced directly to him.

In fact, he said, in his 2 1/2 years as president of the nine-campus system, a number of regents had come to him to complain that the board did not have a large enough role in setting university policy, largely because their time was being eaten up by insignificant business matters. Those regents, he said, were very happy about the proposed change.

By changing the format so that regents meet every other month on business matters and then three times a year strictly on policy issues, he said he hoped that “rather than disengage the regents,” he would “engage them in a more open, systematic way.”

Moreover, he suggested, it might improve attendance at regents meetings, which has always been fairly low, running only at about 60%.

As further evidence that the regents have not taken an active role in policy questions, several legislators noted that in recent months only one major proposal has been initiated by the regents, and that involved the divestment of funds in South Africa. Two proposals on the subject were put forth last year--one from an ex-officio member of the board, Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), speaker of the Assembly, and the other from a student regent serving a one-year term.

Although, in theory, some board members said they would support a plan that would engage them in policy debates, in practice, the critics believe that the so-called policy meetings would amount to little more than “show and tell” sessions.

The reason for their skepticism, they said, is because of changes already instigated by the president. Since Gardner became head of the university, much of the regents’ business during their two-day meetings has been rubber-stamped without discussion by the full board under what is known as the president’s “consent agenda.” In the time that has been saved by the consent agenda, which requires one vote instead of a half dozen or more, the administration now makes 30-minute to one-hour presentations on various aspects of the university, from research in the health sciences to the university’s automated library system.

Bill Honig, state superintendent of public instruction who is an ex-officio member of the board, characterized most of these presentations as “not profound” and said he would welcome new policy sessions if substantive issues were really taken up and debated. “The issue is not how many meetings but what is discussed at them,” Honig said.

Called ‘Monumental’

At last month’s meeting, when the proposal to alter the meeting schedule first surfaced, Edward W. Carter, chairman emeritus of Carter Hawley Hale Stores Inc., who has served on the board through the tenure of several UC presidents, warned that the proposal was one of the “most monumental recommendations that has ever come before the regents.”

Although he said he had “high regard” for Gardner’s “ability and demonstrated wisdom in guiding the affairs of the university,” Carter warned against “tampering with the basic governance” of the university, which “has served it so well over the years.”

Moreover, he was quick to remind the president and other board members of “one president who pushed very hard to greatly decrease the participation and effectiveness of the regents.”

“He got fired largely because of that. . . . And I might say, by unanimous vote of the Regents,” Carter said, referring to Clark Kerr, a controversial university president who served during the student unrest in the 1960s.

Despite his concerns, Carter did not say that he will oppose the change when it comes to a vote.