Use the links below to skip to the Appendix you wish to view:
APPENDIX A
DATA FROM OUR ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE STAFF SALARIES
Figure 13 in Chapter 2 displays the results of our comparison of the salaries of the Office of the President’s executives to those of three similar state executives and similar California State University executives. The data supporting Figure 13 are summarized in Table A.
| University of California Office of the President |
State and California State University (CSU) Executives | Difference Between the Office of the President and State and CSU Salaries |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job Classification | Base Salary | Job Classification | Agency | Salary Plus Cost‑Of‑Living Index Adjustment | |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | $412,000 | Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer | California State University | $341,500 | $70,500 |
| Chief Financial Officer | Public Employees Retirement System | 340,900 | 71,100 | ||
| Chief Financial Officer | State Compensation Insurance Fund | 331,000 | 81,000 | ||
| Chief Financial Officer | California Health Benefit Exchange | 202,500 | 209,500 | ||
| General Counsel and Vice President of Legal Affairs | 428,500 | General Counsel | Public Employees Retirement System | 414,300 | 14,200 |
| Executive Vice Chancellor and General Counsel | California State University | 342,300 | 86,200 | ||
| General Counsel | Teachers’ Retirement System | 300,500 | 128,000 | ||
| General Counsel and Division Director | Judicial Council | 148,900 | 279,600 | ||
| Associate Vice President and Chief Procurement Officer | 314,200 | Deputy Director of the Procurement Division | Department of General Services | 195,900 | 118,300 |
| No other comparable state employees found | |||||
| Provost and Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs | 360,500 | Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer | California State University | 335,600 | 24,900 |
| Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs | Board of Governors of Community Colleges | 158,200 | 202,300 | ||
| Vice President of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer | 345,100 | Chief Information Officer | State Compensation Insurance Fund | 409,100 | (64,000) |
| Director and State Chief Information Officer | California Department of Technology | 230,200 | 114,900 | ||
| Information Technology Director | California Institute for Regenerative Medicine | 200,600 | 144,500 | ||
| Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer | $330,000 | Chief Operating Officer | State Compensation Insurance Fund | $306,800 | $23,200 |
| Chief Administrative Officer | Judicial Council | 198,500 | 131,500 | ||
| Chief Deputy Director of Operations | California Department of Technology | 189,800 | 140,200 | ||
| Senior Vice President of Government Relations | 280,000 | Vice Chancellor, University Relations and Advancement | California State University | 264,200 | 15,800 |
| Vice Chancellor of Governmental Relations | Board of Governors of Community Colleges | 149,600 | 130,400 | ||
| Deputy Secretary for Border and Intergovernmental Relations | California Environmental Protection Agency | 146,800 | 133,200 | ||
| Deputy Director of Legislative and Governmental Affairs | California Department of Public Health | 145,900 | 134,100 | ||
| Chief Investment Officer and Vice President of Investments | 615,000 | Chief Investment Officer | Public Employees Retirement System | 614,500 | 500 |
| Chief Investment Officer | Teachers’ Retirement System | 568,000 | 47,000 | ||
| Chief Operating Investment Officer | Public Employees Retirement System | 449,300 | 165,700 | ||
| Vice President of Human Resources | 318,300 | Vice Chancellor, Human Resources | California State University | 287,700 | 30,600 |
| Director | Department of Human Resources | 215,200 | 103,100 | ||
| Human Resources Officer | California Institute for Regenerative Medicine | 182,900 | 135,400 | ||
| Deputy Secretary of Human Resources | California Government Operations Agency | 151,400 | 166,900 | ||
| Associate Vice President and Systemwide Controller | 303,900 | State Controller | State Controller’s Office | 176,400 | 127,500 |
| Deputy State Controller | State Controller’s Office | 162,700 | 141,200 | ||
| Chief of Accounting and Reporting | State Controller’s Office | 148,500 | 155,400 | ||
Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of data obtained from the Office of the President’s Corporate Data Warehouse and Decision Support System, and State Controller’s Office information for the CSU and state government employees.
* We increased the state executive and CSU employee salaries based on a cost-of-living adjustment calculated by comparing the city where each agency’s main office is located to the city of Oakland, where the Office of the President is headquartered. The adjustments were calculated using cost‑of‑living index information from the Council for Community and Economic Research for quarter two of 2016. We used the following adjustment rates: Sacramento 26.2%, San Francisco -15.7%, and Long Beach 5.1%. We did not make adjustments for agencies headquartered in the East Bay Area.
APPENDIX B
OUR CAMPUSWIDE SURVEY RESULTS, WHICH AUDITING STANDARDS PROHIBIT US FROM USING TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS
As we discuss in Chapter 3, the Office of the President screened our two campuswide surveys, and we therefore have serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the survey responses we summarize in this Appendix. We sent the two surveys to each campus to obtain feedback about the services the Office of the President provides and the costs campuses pay for those services. We explicitly directed campuses not to share their responses beyond their respective campus. Although all of the campuses responded to both of our surveys, correspondence between the Office of the President and some campuses shows that the Office of the President reviewed their survey responses and campuses subsequently changed or deleted answers that were critical of the Office of the President. In effect, the Office of the President participated in our survey without asking us if its participation was appropriate—to which we would have responded it was not—and without telling us about its involvement until after we requested documentation regarding the administration of the survey to satisfy auditing standards. As a result, the survey responses we received may not accurately or completely represent the campuses’ perspectives.
Because of the Office of the President’s involvement, we believe that the survey results carry an unacceptably high risk of leading us and readers of this report to reach incorrect or improper conclusions about the efficacy of the Office of the President’s operations. Auditing standards prohibit us from using such evidence as support for findings and conclusions. Nevertheless, we are including a summary of the survey results exactly as campuses submitted them to us. Survey responses are also available on our website.
Summary of Our Campuswide Survey Regarding the Use and Quality of the Office of the President’s Services and Programs
The Office of the President provided us with a list of services and programs it offers campuses. Using this list as a basis, our survey asked the campuses to report whether they used the Office of the President’s services and programs. If a campus did use a service or program, we asked it to rate the service or program’s quality. Additionally, we asked campuses to indicate whether services were redundant, partially redundant, or not redundant. Their responses are shown in Tables B.1, B.2, B.3,and B.4.
| NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL SERVICES | NUMBER OF SERVICES MULTIPLIED BY 10 CAMPUSES | NUMBER OF SERVICES CAMPUSES REPORTED THEY USED |
NUMBER OF SERVICES CAMPUSES REPORTED THEY DID NOT USE |
PERCENTAGE OF SERVICES USED* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | 110 | 1,100 | 937† | 163 | 85% |
QUALITY RATINGS FOR OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT SERVICES |
|||||
| RATING | NUMBER† | PERCENT† | |||
| Exceptional | 373 | 39% | |||
| Good | 517 | 55 | |||
| Fair | 57 | 6 | |||
| Poor | 1 | 0 | |||
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of the results of the campus services survey.
Note: Data are not reliable because of the Office of the President’s interference.
* At least one campus used each service.
† The total number of quality ratings is not equal to the number of services that campuses reported they used because some survey respondents provided a quality rating for some services they marked as not used.
| NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS | NUMBER OF PROGRAMS MULTIPLIED BY 10 CAMPUSES | NUMBER OF PROGRAMS CAMPUSES REPORTED THEY USED |
NUMBER OF PROGRAMS CAMPUSES REPORTED THEY DID NOT USE* |
PERCENTAGE OF PROGRAMS USED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | 31 | 310 | 187† | 123 | 60% |
QUALITY RATINGS FOR OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT PROGRAMS |
|||||
| RATING | NUMBER† | PERCENT† | |||
| Exceptional | 105 | 56% | |||
| Good | 68 | 36 | |||
| Fair | 14 | 7 | |||
| Poor | 1 | 1 | |||
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of the results of the campus services survey.
Note: Data are not reliable because of the Office of the President’s interference.
* Some campuses reported not using systemwide programs because those programs are not connected to campus activities. For example, programs associated with the Office of National Laboratories are not associated with campuses.
† The total number of quality ratings is not equal to the number of programs that campuses reported they used because a survey respondent provided a quality rating for a program marked as not used.
| NUMBER OF DIVISIONS OFFERING SERVICES | NUMBER OF DIVISIONS OFFERING SERVICES MULTIPLIED BY 10 CAMPUSES | NUMBER OF DIVISIONS OFFERING PROGRAMS | NUMBER OF DIVISIONS OFFERING Programs MULTIPLIED BY 10 CAMPUSES |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 110 | 5 | 50 |
| RATING | SERVICES | PROGRAMS | |
| Redundant | 1 | 0 | |
| Partially redundant | 19 | 3 | |
| Not redundant | 90 | 47 |
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of the results of the campus services survey.
Note: Data are not reliable because of the Office of the President’s interference.
Summary of Campuswide Survey Regarding the Campus Assessment Process
Our second survey asked the chief financial officer—or equivalent executive manager—at each campus to provide feedback regarding the Office of the President’s process for determining the campus assessment amount. The ratings these individuals provided are presented below.
| RATE YOUR CAMPUS’S CURRENT SATISFACTION WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S... | VERY DISSATISFIED | DISSATISFIED | OKAY | SATISFIED | VERY SATISFIED |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collaboration with your campus related to the total campus assessment amount | 4 | 6 | |||
| Collaboration with your campus related to the formula for the campus assessment distribution among all University of California campuses | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | |
| Process for announcing when your campus must pay the assessment | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | |
| Transparency regarding what the campus assessment pays for within the Office of the President | 4 | 4 | 2 | ||
| Guidance on what funds are appropriate for paying the campus assessment | 2 | 5 | 3 | ||
| Coordination with your budget unit regarding the impact of the campus assessment increases or decreases | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of the results of the campus assessment survey.
Note: Data are not reliable because of the Office of the President’s interference.