California’s ‘Secret’ Elite Has Got to Go : UC: The regents are all Republican and unaccountable.

The first thing to keep clear about the Board of Regents that governs the University of California is that each member is appointed to a 12-year term.

No one else in state government even approaches the regents in such tenure. Members of the Assembly must answer to the people every two years; senators, governors and other constitutional officers every four. Even Supreme Court justices are obliged to submit to the voters. But regents, who hold a public trust so extraordinary that it stands virtually unrivaled in California, get a 12-year free ride.

The regents, men and women of high civic acclaim, serve a mandate to sustain a great university system. And they must do so without permitting partisan political concerns to intrude on their deliberations, either in appearance or fact.

But how nonpartisan can the exercise of those responsibilities be when all 18 appointed regents are in the same party?

I raise this not out of partisan concern (I’m a Democrat, but I voted for Pete Wilson) but because it is bad government and bad policy to have any public board whose membership is exclusively that of one political party. No matter how faithfully it executes its responsibilities, such a board will suffer the taint of partisanship.

The exclusive Republican nature of the current regents is a product of nearly 12 years of that party’s rule in the governor’s office. George Deukmejian did not appoint a single Democrat; neither has Pete Wilson. For the record, Jerry Brown named three Republicans as regents.

The question of partisanship wouldn’t have come up when the University of California was at its zenith years ago, when Clark Kerr was lionized for his remarkable leadership and UC was thought the greatest system of higher education in the world. It was thought that the 18 appointed regents (there are also seven ex-officio members) were wise in their stewardship. California was booming and the UC system was booming with it.

Well, the state isn’t booming any longer; nor is the university. The UC system is in crisis. That crisis does not begin with the regents; it is much greater than any board or the means by which they are chosen. But partisanship is appropriate to bring up when that board makes questionable policy decisions and hides behind the safety of 12-year tenure, unaccountable to anyone.

It is the present Board of Regents (excepting one newly appointed member) that gave former UC President David P. Gardner a $2.4-million retirement package and set the annual salary and perks for his successor, Jack Peltason, at more than $400,000. (Earlier this month, Peltason, hoping to head off legislators’ moves for tighter control, canceled the customary year of paid sabbatical for top administrators, including himself; 27 had been up for this perk, at a minimum $180,000 each.)

All this generosity came from the regents as they cut the pay of UC employees 3.5% (after a two-year salary freeze) and raised student fees 166%.

There is also the issue of whether the regents reflect the society they represent. There are only three women on the 18-member board, and minority representation is limited to two Latinos, two Asians and one African American.

I make three proposals: Limit regents to single five-year terms; spread appointments among Republicans, Democrats and independents, and open all meetings of the regents to the public (no more salary giveaways behind closed doors).

In a state of 30 million, there must be more than 18 men and women of achievement and distinction who would do well as UC regents. Some of them even might be Democrats. And if any proved less than competent, which would be obvious if their meetings were open, we wouldn’t have to wait up to 12 years to find someone better.