UC Regents Pressured to Change Elite Image : Education: Board faces plans to diversify and democratize a panel dominated by political donors.

The University of California’s Board of Regents, overseer of the nation’s most prestigious public system of higher education, has been badly bruised in the past three months by the difficult selection of a new UC president, furors over executive compensation and the looming specter of state budget deficits.

Now, fueled by their controversial handling of those issues, the UC regents face proposals to reform the board, to democratize what critics complain is a governing panel dominated by affluent political donors to the governors who appointed them.

Some observers say that a more diverse board might not have taken actions in closed session that resulted in outgoing UC President David P. Gardner receiving $858,000 in deferred pay and retirement benefits he otherwise would have forfeited.

“I think there is a general public mood, especially at a time when we are having a real budget crisis, that the regents are completely out of touch with the people of California,” said Andy Shaw, legislative advocate for the systemwide UC Students Assn. That group and others advocate a state constitutional amendment that would sharply limit the number of gubernatorial appointments to the regents board and give legislators, faculty, students and alumni more influence in making crucial decisions for the nine-campus system.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader recently spoke in favor of a popularly elected Board of Regents, similar to other state university systems, including the well-respected University of Michigan and University of Illinois.

“You cannot run an institution that large, that’s funded by taxpayers, that’s supposed to be operating in a democratic society, in an autocratic and top-down manner,” said Nader. He sharply criticized the regents’ action last year that ended UC students’ contributions to a Nader-allied organization through campus registration fees.

Conceding that their image has been tarnished, regent leaders stress that they have moved to allow more public scrutiny of decisions and to review the salary and benefits given top administrators. Some even agree with critics that the board’s composition does not meet the state Constitution’s mandate that regents be “broadly reflective of the economic, cultural and social diversity of the state, including ethnic minorities and women.”

However, regents also argue that the governance structure has nurtured an amazingly complex and productive university, as measured by Nobel Prizes, research grants and demand for admissions. Alternatives may only politicize UC further, not improve it, they say.

“We’ve been through a pretty traumatic time, and it’s made us re-examine things that aren’t (examined) when things are going well, when there is a lot of money around in the budget,” said Meredith Khachigian, who is chairing the regents board for her second year.

Still, the overall structure “has worked well and you don’t change a system that is working well,” said Khachigian, who was appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian to the board in 1987. A UC Santa Barbara alumna and education activist, she is married to Republican attorney Kenneth Khachigian, a former Deukmejian adviser and aide to Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

The debate is taking place as Gardner prepares to retire as president Oct. 1, to be replaced by Jack W. Peltason. Peltason, 68, a political scientist, has been UC Irvine chancellor since 1984, overseeing the greatest period of sustained growth in building, fund raising, big-name hires and research grants in the university’s 27-year history. He is also credited with repairing strained relations with the city of Irvine and reaching out to the greater Orange County business and social communities, which have responded with major endowments, as well as partnerships in a community theater and research facilities.

As Peltason prepares to assume leadership, the UC system faces difficult questions about its future: Will Peltason be a temporary caretaker? Should fees paid by the 166,000 students be raised once again as state budget support dwindles? Should UC give up its hopes to build a 10th campus? How can the university provide access to the growing ranks of minority students? Can UC continue world-renowned research while providing quality education to undergraduates? Have UC administrators become too imperial in ambitions and perks and is it time to dramatically pull in their reins?

Unlike the Cal State system, UC has constitutional independence to make most decisions.

“Constitutional independence sounds great, but if you lose the confidence of the people, what’s the point?” asked Regent Roy T. Brophy, who says the board will regain public support.

Day-to-day leadership is provided by Gardner--who retires Oct. 1--and the large bureaucracy headquartered in Oakland, as well as by the nine campus chancellors and their labyrinthine administrations. The faculty Senate has a powerful voice on curriculum and other academic issues. But overarching policy is supposed to be set by regents.

Jeremiah Hallisey, the dissident regent who first publicly raised the pension dispute, complained that Gardner and his staff “started a program of seizing as much delegations and powers as possible and this board continually went along with it.” Other regents deny that.

Eighteen of the 26 regents are appointed by the governor for 12-year terms that expire intermittently. The state Senate must confirm a nomination within a year. It has refused to do so only once in UC’s 124-year-history, according to regents’ secretary Bonnie M. Smotony--the 1882 nomination of railroad magnate and politician Leland Stanford, who later went on to establish a Northern California university in memory of his deceased son.

Seven other regents serve ex officio, by holding other posts: the governor, the lieutenant governor, the Assembly Speaker, the state superintendent of public instruction, the UC system president and the president and vice president of the statewide alumni association. In addition, regents annually select a student representative.

Regents are not paid but are reimbursed for travel expenses for their nine or 10 meetings a year plus conferences. The spots are coveted political plums because of the prestige. Regents say it can be heady to be, in effect, the boss of cutting-edge scientists, to control a $6-billion annual budget and to potentially influence the lives of future generations.

Some regents cite the story of a San Diego woman who reportedly paid consultants more than $40,000 to lobby Deukmejian for a regent appointment; she was unsuccessful.

Many of the current and past regents made sizable financial donations to the governors who appointed them, according to a review of state records.

“That’s true,” said Brophy, a Sacramento area developer and education activist who helped raise funds for Deukmejian and was appointed by him in 1986. “But the only argument I would have with that is: Have the people who were contributors . . . been bad regents? I really don’t think so.”

Reviews of the sketchy conflict-of-interest statements required of regents suggest that almost all are wealthy. UC Berkeley physics professor Charles Schwartz, a longtime critic of the regents, estimated in a study that their median wealth was $700,000, 15 times that of the average American.

Last year, Schwartz conducted a liquids-only fast for two weeks to protest what he called the undemocratic nature of the board. His action was considered a minor annoyance by regents then, but now his concerns are being taken more seriously.

“I’m willing to grant that every person on the board has been a capable, honorable, intelligent and hard-working person. I don’t quarrel with personalities. I argue with the whole character of the board,” said Schwartz, who opposes UC’s operation of nuclear weapons laboratories for the U.S. government.

Fifteen of the 18 appointed regents were either named or reappointed by Deukmejian, giving the board its most conservative flavor in decades, most observers agree. As a result, Schwartz said he fears that in coping with the budget crisis, the board will allow UC “to go into the direction of an elite private school” with very high fees.

Chairwoman Khachigian said the board is aware of responsibilities to low-income and minority students. Although all regents want to preserve access to UC for eligible applicants, she said, having attorneys and corporate executives as regents is useful in running the system’s five hospitals and $17-billion endowment and pension funds.

“I realize that sounds like a position of privilege, but it’s the reality. You have to be in a certain position, No. 1, to understand all the issues and, No. 2, to devote the time to them,” she said. Still, Khachigian said she hoped that new appointments would bring more ethnic minorities and women to the board.

Of the 18 gubernatorial appointees, four are women: Khachigian; Alice J. Gonzales, director of the state Employment Development Department in Deukmejian’s Administration; S. Sue Johnson, an active alumni leader, and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, the Democratic attorney who is running for a seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Burke, appointed by Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr., is the only African-American regent, and S. Stephen Nakashima, a wealthy San Jose attorney active in the Republican Party, is the only Asian-American. There are two Latinos: Gonzales and Tirso del Junco, a Los Angeles physician and former state GOP chairman.

State Senate Leader David A. Roberti (D-Van Nuys) has complained to Deukmejian and Gov. Pete Wilson about the lack of diversity on the board. But Roberti has not blocked any nomination. “It’s difficult to reject someone who is fit to serve simply because they aren’t a person of color, or not young enough or poor,” a Roberti aide said.

Past and present regents report that they were asked relatively few questions about education issues during their confirmation hearings before the Senate Rules Committee.

“The idea that it’s just a reward for allies and contributors is so ingrained that . . . unless someone turns out to be a felon or a child molester, he is very unlikely to be subjected to any real scrutiny,” said Christopher Cabaldon, a consultant to the Assembly Higher Education Committee, which is chaired by Tom Hayden, the Santa Monica Democrat who has criticized many regent actions.

Wilson recently had 110 applications for his first two regent openings, according to appointment aides. He gave a second term to Nakashima, partly for Asian-American representation, Wilson deputies said. For the other seat, he appointed John G. Davies, a San Diego attorney and civic leader who is Wilson’s close friend and the trustee for his personal blind trust.

“People can put any cast on it they want,” said Davies, who graduated with Wilson from UC Berkeley’s Law School. “It’s easy to say this is a reward for a long association with the governor. It’s just as easy to say that the governor knows someone very well and still has enough confidence in him to appoint him.”

Wilson’s deputy press secretary, James Lee, said the governor wants a regents board that “reflects all segments of society. But the overriding principle is to appoint qualified people with the best interest of the education system at heart, who understand the type of choices that have to be made to keep the university’s standing in the academic community and its financial well being.” Wilson would resist any proposals to overhaul the board and appointment process, he added.

In calling for an elected board, Nader dismissed complaints that the result would be a university overly swayed by politics. “Do you want it corporatized or politicized? I’d take my chances with the voters and not with the multinational corporations” that he alleges many regents are tied to professionally.

Under the reform plan offered by the UC Student Assn., nine regent appointments would be divided evenly among student, alumni and faculty groups. In addition, the governor, the Senate and the Assembly would each have three appointments. Regents’ terms would be shorter than the current 12 years and an appropriate length is being studied, said Shaw, the students’ legislative advocate.

If the Legislature does not place a UC reform measure on the ballot soon, there will be a campaign to have a public initiative for the constitutional amendment, Shaw said. Other groups working for the change include Common Cause, the California Public Interest Research Group and the Latino Issues Forum, a San Francisco group.

Nationwide, experts are divided about what type of university governing system is best.

Marian L. Gade, a research associate at UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education, said regents must protect schools’ long-range interests while handling current issues. Such balancing is hard for elected boards or those with strong constituent group representation, said Gade, who co-authored a book on such issues with former UC President Clark Kerr. The present UC system should continue with more varied appointments, she added.

However, elected boards can work well if candidates are screened carefully by political parties, said Aims C. McGuinness Jr., policy studies director at the Education Commission of the States, a Denver-based organization that advises state governments. In some states, though, elected boards can be racked by regional and party disputes, as has happened in Illinois, where there are proposals to switch to an appointed board.

Despite traveling different paths to board seats, all universities’ regents “should understand the changing demographic and economic status of the state . . . relating to tuition policy, financial aid policy, the nature and mission of new campuses,” McGuinness said. “It is always a matter of concern that the people on the governing boards are sensitive to those matters.”