Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the University of California’s $32.5 billion in operating expenses by function for fiscal year 2015-16. The university’s medical centers are the largest proportion of the total at 30 percent or $9,883 million. The next largest is instruction at 21 percent or $6,687 million and then research which equals 14 percent or $4,554 million. Academic support is the next largest share at 7 percent or $2,413 million and then other expenditures—which primarily represent depreciation and noncash amortization—represent 6 percent or $1,886 million. Institutional support represents 5 percent of the university’s operating expenditures at $1,547 million. This is followed by Department of Energy Laboratories and auxiliary enterprises which both represent 4 percent of the total expenditures or $1,253 million. Student services represents 3 percent or $1,087 million. Finally, the rest of the expenditures represent 2 percent of the total with operations of maintenance and plant at $649 million, student financial aid at $649 million, and public service at $630 million.

Figure 2

Figure 2 displays the University of California’s $30 billion in revenue by category for the fiscal year 2015-16. The medical centers and auxiliary enterprises account for 48.7 percent of the university’s revenues or $14,639 million. Grants and contracts account for 17.5 percent or $5,273 million, tuition and fees 13.7 percent or $4,132 million, and the state general fund and other appropriations for 10.2 percent or $3,053 million. In descending order, the Department of Energy Laboratories represent 4.2 percent or $1,260 million, private gifts represent 3.6 percent or $1,092 million, federal Pell grants represent 1.3 percent or $376 million, and capital gifts and grants represent .8 percent or $249 million.

Figure 3

Figure 3 illustrates the multiple levels of administration of the University of California. First is the Board of Regents which is the university’s governing board. It consists of 26 members: 18 members appointed by the governor with the approval of the California Senate; seven ex officio members, including the governor, the speaker of the Assembly, and the president of the university; and one student member appointed by the regents. Below, the President, the executive head of the university who is appointed by the regents and has full authority and responsibility over the administration of university affairs and operations. Below the regents is the President who is the executive head of the university who is appointed by the regents and has full authority and responsibility over the administration of university affairs and operations. Connected by a dotted line to the President is the Academic Senate which is the body of faculty members and some administrators that determines academic policy, sets conditions for admission and the granting of degrees, and authorizes courses and curricula for the university. Under the President is the Office of the President which is the systemwide headquarters for the university. The Office of the President is divided into three functional areas: Central and Administrative Services, Systemwide Initiatives, and Office of the President Operations. Central and Administrative services are the divisions that provide services such as management of the university’s budget and its retirement plans –on behalf of the entire university system. Systemwide initiatives are programs, such as Agriculture and Natural Resources, that the Office of the President administers or funds to benefit the entire university system. The Office of the President operations is the department that manages the day-to-day operations for the Office of the President, including human resources and budget activities. Lines connect the Central and Administrative Services and the Systemwide Initiatives to the Chancellor’s Offices at each of the 10 university campuses. The Chancellors’ offices oversee three areas of administration: institutional support, academic support, and operation and maintenance of plant. Institutional support is the administrative infrastructure, which includes various Vice Chancellors responsible for fiscal operations, human resources, community relations, etc. Academic support is clinical and other support activities that serve the public, such as dental and veterinary clinics, and enhance student experiences such as museum, and galleries. Operation and maintenance of plant is the management and improvement of campus facilities and grounds.

Figure 4

Figure 4 illustrates the Office of the President’s funding which starts with the Legislature appropriating $3 billion from the State’s General Fund to the University of California System. The graphic then shows each campus and the amount of the campus assessment that each campus pays by fund source. The campus assessment is a charge the Office of the President levies on campuses each year. Specifically, in fiscal year 2015-16 the Berkeley campus paid the Office of the President up to $28 million. The Berkeley campus pays its assessment from a fund that the university’s account manager guidelines define as State General Funds. However, the Berkeley campus confirmed that although this fund contains mostly State General Funds, it also contains amounts from other sources, amounts which the Berkeley campus did not specify. Thus, the Berkeley campus paid up to $28 million of its fiscal year 2015-16 assessment with State General Funds.

The Davis, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and Santa Barbara campuses pay the campus assessment using state general funds, sales, service, and auxiliary enterprises, other general funds, endowments and private gifts, tuition and student fees, and other funds. The Davis campus paid the Office of the President a total of $45 million, the Los Angeles campus paid $63 million, the Riverside campus paid $15 million, the San Diego campus paid $41 million, and the Santa Barbara campus paid $16 million. In contrast, the Irvine campus paid $31 million from sales, service, and auxiliary enterprises, other general funds, and tuition and student fees. The Merced campus paid $5 million from sales, service and auxiliary enterprises and tuition and student fees. The San Francisco campus paid $32 million from state general funds, sales, service, and auxiliary enterprises, endowments and private gifts, tuition and student fees, and other funds. The Santa Cruz campus paid $12 million from state general funds, sales, service, and auxiliary enterprises, other general funds, endowments and private gifts, and tuition and student fees.

Thus in total, the campuses paid the Office of the President $288 million in campus assessment money. By fund, the Office of the President received up to $106 million in State’s General Fund money or 37 percent; $80 million in sales, service, and auxiliary enterprises or 28 percent; $50 million in other general funds or 17 percent; $21 million in endowments and private gifts or 7 percent; $20 million in tuition and student fees or 7 percent; and $11 million in other funds or 4 percent.

Figure 5

Figure 5 shows that the Office of the President’s total discretionary revenue was $322 million in fiscal year 2015-16. 89.5 percent of its discretionary revenue or $288 million came from the campus assessment fund. 5 percent or $16 million came from the President’s Endowment Fund. 3.3 percent or $11 million came from the Common Fund. 2.2 percent or $7 million came from the Searles Fund.

Figure 6

Figure 6 shows that the Office of the President has an annual budget it discloses to the University of California Board of Regents for its approval, as well as an undisclosed budget which includes spending from its reserves that it does not show to the Board of Regents, the Legislature, or the public. The Office of the President’s disclosed budget includes $339 million in planned spending for ongoing operations. The discretionary budget is funded by $304 million in campus assessment funds that are shown to the regents and $35 million in endowments and other funds—which include the Searles fund, the President’s endowment fund, the common fund, investment pool funds, and others—which are not shown to the regents as part of the annual budget approval. The restricted budget’s planned expenditures equaled $316 million. The Office of the President did not show the regents information about the $316 million restricted revenue for the disclosed budget; restricted revenue represents dollars that are subject to general limitations of use, such as grants.

The Office of the President’s undisclosed budget for fiscal year 2015-16 included $30 million in spending funded by reserves from discretionary fund sources for planned one-time projects, unanticipated expenses, and unspent dollars for committed expenditures, known as carry forwards. The undisclosed budget also included $62 million in planned spending funded by restricted revenue sources considered as short-term and reserves from restricted fund sources. Together, the undisclosed budget totaled $92 million in fiscal year 2015-16, bringing the disclosed and undisclosed total budget to $747 million. Finally, the Office of the President’s undisclosed budget for fiscal year 2015-16 included $92 million in cumulative discretionary reserves and $83 million in cumulative restricted reserves, for a cumulative undisclosed reserve of $175 million.

Figure 7

The Office of the President’s total budget is comprised of the disclosed and undisclosed budgets. The total budget amounted to $638 million in fiscal year 2012-13, $557 million from the disclosed budget and $81 million from the undisclosed budget. In fiscal year 2013-14 the total budget amounted grew to $664 million, $587 million from the disclosed budget and $77 million from the undisclosed budget. In fiscal year 2014-15 the total budget amounted grew to $733 million, $619 million from the disclosed budget and $114 million from the undisclosed budget. The total budget increased to $747 million by fiscal year 2015-16, $665 million from the disclosed budget and $92 million from the undisclosed budget. Considering the high education price index, which is a measure of inflation, the total budget surpassed inflation by $65 million in fiscal year 2015-16.

Figure 8

Figure 8 shows that the Office of the President’s actual spending exceeded the budget approved by the Board of Regents. The Office of the President’s actual spending was not shown to the regents in any of the four fiscal years we reviewed. The budget presented to the regents was $557 million in fiscal year 2012 whereas the actual spending amounted to $580 million, a difference of $23 million. In fiscal year 2013-14, they presented $587 million and spent $627 million, a difference of $40 million. In fiscal year 2014-15, they presented $619 million and spent $692 million, a difference of $73 million. In fiscal year 2015-16, they presented $655 million and spent $657 million, a difference of $2 million.

Figure 9

Figure 9 shows that the Office of the President’s discretionary reserve grew from $49 million in fiscal year 2011-12 to $92 million in fiscal year 2015-16. The share of that reserve that is made up of the campus assessment increased from $7 million to $32 million over these five years. In fiscal year 2011-12 the discretionary reserve consisted of $7 million in campus assessment dollars, $11 million in endowment funds which include the Searles fund and the President’s Endowment Fund as well as $31 million in other funds which include the Common Fund, the University General Fund, investment pool earnings and miscellaneous others. In fiscal year 2012-13 the discretionary reserve consisted of $17 million in campus assessment dollars, $9 million in endowment funds as well as $21 million in other funds. In fiscal year 2013-14 the discretionary reserve consisted of $36 million in campus assessment dollars, $10 million in endowment funds as well as $33 million in other funds. In fiscal year 2014-15 the discretionary reserve consisted of $35 million in campus assessment dollars, $23 million in endowment funds as well as $39 million in other funds. In fiscal year 2015-16 the discretionary reserve consisted of $32 million in campus assessment dollars, $24 million in endowment funds as well as $36 million in other funds.

Figure 10

Figure 10 shows that the Office of the President could redirect at least $38 million from its fiscal year 2015-16 reserves, and potentially more, after reevaluating its commitments to stakeholders. The graphic displays three general sections as a mathematical formula: uncommitted reserve plus discretionary commitments equal discretionary reserve balance. Uncommitted reserves could be returned to campuses and amount to $38 million. Discretionary commitments could be reassessed with stakeholders and amount to a total of $54 million. The discretionary commitments contain $0.5 million in Office of the President one-time expenses, $1.3 million in Office of the President projects, $14.6 million in Office of the President ongoing operations, $16 million in presidential commitments, $7.6 million in campus commitments, and $14 million in Office of the President systemwide expenses. Each discretionary commitment lists individual items within them with specific dollar amounts. The discretionary reserve balance amounted to $92 million in fiscal year 2015-16, $38 million of these could be returned to campuses. Next to the discretionary reserve balance, the figure illustrates the restricted reserve balance with $83 million and indicates that the Office of the President could reevaluate their internal restrictions. Together, discretionary and restricted reserve balances amount to $175 million.

Figure 11

Figure 11 shows the Office of the President’s July 2015 budget summary and how it could potentially look if the Office of the President implemented a number of best practices for budget presentation. On the left side of the figure is a table showing the Office of the President’s July 2015 budget summary it presented to the University of California’s Board of Regents. The table shows that the Office of the President with a $300 million restated budget for Central and Administrative Services for fiscal year 2014-15 and a proposed $315 million budget for fiscal year 2015-16. The Office of the President also had a $327 million restated budget for Systemwide Academic and Public Service Programs for fiscal year 2014-15 and a proposed a $340 million budget for fiscal year 2015-16. The Office of the President’s July 2015 budget summary shows a total fiscal year 2014-15 budget of $627 million and a proposed a total fiscal year 2015-16 budget of $655 million, a 4 percent increase.

The middle of Figure 11 shows five best practices to be implemented onto the Office of the President’s budget. In order, they are (1) Include all budgetary allocations from the disclosed and undisclosed budget and adjustments to budget; (2) Separately display other expenditures, such as the restricted pass-through funds that the Office of the President receives from external entities and sends directly to the campuses, and administrative services provided by the Office of the President to the campuses on a fee-for-service basis that are in addition to the services it provides through its operating budget; (3) Provide budget-to-actual results; (4) Base proposed budget on projected actual expenditures with other adjustments as needed for program changes; and (5) Provide projected discretionary reserve balance available for re-appropriation.

The right side of Figure 11 illustrates how the Office of the President’s July 2015 budget summary could look after it has implemented the best practices. The Office of the President’s July 2015 budget summary with best practices would show that its fiscal year 2014-15 budget for central and administrative services, including both the disclosed and undisclosed budget and excluding other expenditures, was $310 million, that its projected actual expenditures were $280 million, with a budget-to-actual difference for the year was $30 million, and that it proposed a $15 million increase above its projected actual expenditures for a fiscal year 2015-16 proposal of $295 million.

Similarly, the Office of the President’s budget summary with best practices would show that its fiscal year 2014-15 budget for Systemwide Academic and Public Services Programs, including both the disclosed and undisclosed budget and excluding other expenditures, was $248 million, that its projected actual expenditures were $212 million, with a budget-to-actual difference for the year was $36 million, and that it proposed a $38 million increase above its projected actual expenditures for a fiscal year 2015-16 proposal of $250 million.

The operating total equaled $558 million for its fiscal year 2014-15 budget, $492 million for its projected actual expenditures, $66 million for its budget-to-actual difference, $53 million for its proposed change for fiscal year 2015-16, with a total proposed operating budget of $545 million.

The figure also separately displays other expenditures for restricted pass-throughs and administrative services paid for on a fee-for-service basis. The restricted pass-through expenditures would be $214 million for its fiscal year 2014-15 budget, $200 million for its projected actual expenditures, $14 million for its budget-to-actual difference, $16 million for its proposed change for fiscal year 2015-16, with a proposed restricted pass-through budget of $216 million.

The fee-for-service administrative services expenditures would be $95 million for its fiscal year 2014-15 budget, $118 million for its projected actual expenditures, negative $23 million for its budget-to-actual difference, $37 million for its proposed change for fiscal year 2015-16, with a proposed fee-for-service administrative services budget of $155 million.

The total amount for these other expenditures equals $309 million for its fiscal year 2014-15 budget, $318 million for its projected actual expenditures, negative $9 million for its budget-to-actual difference, $53 million for its proposed change for fiscal year 2015-16, with a proposed budget for other expenditures of $371 million.

The grand total containing both the operating total and total for other expenditures is $867 million for its fiscal year 2014-15 budget, $810 million for its projected actual expenditures, $57 million for its budget-to-actual difference, $106 million for its proposed change for fiscal year 2015-16, with a proposed grand total budget of $916 million.

Finally, Figure 11 shows that the Office of the President’s budget summary with best practices implemented would show a fiscal year 2014-15 discretionary reserve balance of $97 million and a restricted reserve balance of $65 million.

Figure 12

Figure 12 includes two line graphs that show the increase of staffing numbers and salary costs. The first line graph shows that total staffing numbers grew from 1,496 in fiscal year 2010-11 to 1,667 in fiscal year 2015-16. Professional and support staff grew from 885 to 919 during that period, and managers and senior professionals grew from 519 to 685. Senior management group employees decreased from 46 to 42, and academic staff decreased from 46 to 21.

The second line graph shows total salary costs increased from $137 million in 2010-11 to $187 million in fiscal year 2015-16. Professional and support staff salary costs grew from $53 million to $68 million, and managers and senior professional salary costs grew from $64 million to $102 million. Senior management group salary costs remained constant at $15 million, and academic staff salary costs decreased from $5 million to $2 million.

Figure 13

Figure 13 compares Office of the President executive staff to executive positions from state agencies and from the California State University system (CSU) for fiscal year 2014-15. We increased the state executive and CSU employee salaries based on a cost-of-living adjustment calculated by comparing the city where their agencies’ main offices are located to the city of Oakland, where the Office of the President is headquartered. We calculated the adjustments 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 percent; San Francisco: -15.7 percent; and Long Beach: 5.1 percent. We did not make adjustments for agencies headquartered in the East Bay Area.

The Office of the President’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer makes more than three comparable state agency executives and one CSU executive after adjusting for the cost of living.

The Office of the President’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal Affairs makes more than three comparable state agency executives and one CSU executive.

The Associate Vice President and Chief Procurement Officer makes more than one comparable state agency executive.

The Provost and Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs makes more than one comparable state agency executive and one CSU executive.

The Vice President of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer makes less than one comparable state agency executive, and more than two comparable state agency executives.

The Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer makes more than three comparable state agency executives.

The Senior Vice President of Government Relations makes more than three comparable state agency executives and one CSU executive.

The Chief Investment Officer and Vice President of Investments make more than three comparable state agency executives.

The Vice President of Human Resources makes more than three comparable state agency executives and one CSU executive.

The Associate Vice President and Systemwide Controller makes more than three comparable state agency executives.

Figure 14

Figure 14 shows that the Office of the President’s employees generally fall in the middle of the salary range for fiscal year 2015-16 by illustrating two examples.

The first example shows the Office of the President’s executive assistant 3 salary distribution. The Office of the President’s salary range starts at $47,700, has a midpoint of $72,900, and a maximum of $98,100. A bar graph shows the appointment salaries of 24 Office of the President employees in this classification. One employee’s salary rate is between $50,000 and $55,000 . Two employees have a salary rate between $55,000 and $60,000 . Three employees have a salary rate between $60,000 and $65,000. Seven employees have a salary rate between $65,000 and $70,000 and nine employees have a salary rate between $70,000 and $75,000, which encompasses the middle of the salary range. One employee’s salary rate is between $75,000 and $80,000. Finally, one employee’s salary rate is between $80,000 and $85,000.

The Office of the President’s executive assistant 3 salary range spreads from $47,700 to $98,100; its salary width is $50,400. In comparison, CSU’s salary range spreads from $42,900 to $93,800; its salary width is $50,900. The state employee’s salary range spreads from $42,900 to $53,700; its salary width is $10,800. The cumulative portions of each individual Office of the President employee’s annualized appointed salary that exceeded the State maximum salary range for the equivalent executive assistant classification is $367,200.

The second example shows the Office of the President’s financial analyst 3 salary distribution. The Office of the President’s minimum salary is $59,000, the middle is $89,800, and the maximum is $120,600. A bar graph shows the salaries of 13 Office of the President employees in this classification. One employee’s salary rate is between $59,000 and $70,000. One employee’s salary rate is between $70,000 and $80,000. Seven employees have a salary rate between $80,000 and $90,000, which encompasses the middle of the salary range. Three employees have a salary rate between $90,000 and $100,000. One employee’s salary rate is between $100,000 and $110,000.

The Office of the President’s salary range spreads from $59,000 to $120,600; its salary width is $61,600. In comparison, CSU’s salary range spreads from $55,300 to $93,000; its salary width is $37,700. The state employee’s salary range spreads from $69,600 to $86,500; its salary width is $16,900. The cumulative portions of each individual Office of the President employee’s annualized appointed salary that exceeded the State maximum salary range for the equivalent financial analyst classification is $45,000.

Figure 15

Figure 15 displays that the Office of the President’s salary ranges contain significant overlap and are wider than the ranges for similar classifications for state employees for fiscal year 2015-16. A horizontal bar graphic illustrates various classifications for the Office of the President and the State. The Office of the President’s bars include a frequency chart that shows employee distribution within the salary ranges.

First the figure illustrates that the state’s ranges for classifications comparable to the Office of the President’s financial analyst series are much narrower and have less overlap. Specifically, from lowest to highest:

• The State financial analyst classification, entry level with a salary range between $58,000 and $72,600
• The State financial analyst classification, journey level with a salary range between $66,900 and $83,100 with an overlap of $5,700 over the entry level classification
• The State principal program budget analyst 1 with a salary range between $85,100 and $96,600 with a gap of $1,900 between the classification and the State financial analyst journey level classification
• The State principal budget program analyst 2 with a salary range between $89,300 and $101,400 with an overlap of $7,300 over the State principal program budget analyst 1 classification
• The State principal budget program analyst 3 with a salary range between $93,600 and $106,400 with an overlap of $7,800 over the State principal budget program analyst 2 classification

The graphic includes the following classifications for the Office of the President from lowest to highest and demonstrates that the Office of the President has much wider ranges with significant overlap. For this reason there are individuals in each classification that make more than employees in the classification above them.

• The financial analyst 2 classification with a salary range between $47,700 and $98,100. There are six employees in this classification and four employees in this category have a higher salary than the lowest-paid financial analyst 3.
• The financial analyst 3 classification with a salary range between $59,000 and $120,600, with an overlap of $39,100 over the financial analyst 2 classification. There are 13 employees in this classification and one employee has a higher salary than the three lowest-paid financial analyst 4 employees.
• The financial analyst 4 classification with a salary range between $66,200 and $135,000, with an overlap of $54,000 over the financial analyst 3 classification. There are 7 employees in this classification and one employee makes more than the five lowest-paid financial analyst 5 employees, making this individual the third highest paid individual in the series. The financial analyst 5 classification with a salary range between $82,800 and $169,600, with an overlap of $52,200 over the financial analyst 4 classification. There are seven employees in this classification.

Figure 16

Figure 16 displays the amount that the Office of the President has spent on stipends and performance bonuses from fiscal year 2011-12 to 2015-16.

In fiscal year 2011-12, the Office of the President spent a total of $544,000 in stipends and bonuses; the Office of the President spent $429,000 on stipends and $115,000 on performance bonuses.

For fiscal year 2012-13 the total increased to $762,000; the Office of the President spent $466,000 on stipends and $296,000 on performance bonuses.

For fiscal year 2013-14, the total increased by $278,000 to $1,040,000; the Office of the President spent $491,000 on stipends and $549,000 on performance bonuses.

For fiscal year 2014-15, the total decreased to $896,000; the Office of the President spent $451,000 on stipends and $445,000 on performance bonuses.

For fiscal year 2015-16, the total increased to $1,031,000; the Office of the President spent $553,000 on stipends and $478,000 on performance bonuses.

Figure 17

Figure 17 shows the number of presidential initiatives and ongoing programs and their increase since fiscal year 2012-13. The figure lists 32 presidential initiatives and illustrates the instances when presidential initiatives have become permanent programs between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2015-16. There were 14 presidential initiatives in fiscal year 2012-13. By fiscal year 2015-16, there were 15 presidential initiatives and 9 former presidential initiatives were ongoing as permanent programs. We list the presidential initiatives and the fiscal years they began.

1. Historically Black Colleges and Universities identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2015-16

2. Accountability Report identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, the Accountability Report was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

3. Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

4. UCPath is the university’s replacement payroll and human resources system identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, UCPath was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

5. Science and Mathematics Teacher Initiative identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, the Science and Mathematics Teacher Initiative was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

6. Sustainability identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, Sustainability was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

7. Working Smarter identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, Working Smarter was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

8. Innovative Learning Technology Initiative identified as a presidential initiative in fiscal year 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, the Innovative Learning Technology Initiative was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

9. University of California Online in fiscal year 2012-13 identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, University of California Online was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

10. Enterprise Risk Management in fiscal year 2012-13 identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14. As of fiscal year 2014-15, Enterprise Risk Management was no longer identified as a presidential initiative online but was ongoing as of February 2017.

11. Commission on the Future identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2014-15.

12. Campus Climate identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2014-15.

13. Project You Can identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

14. Data Improvement Project identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14.

15. Civil Disobedience Initiative identified as a presidential initiative in fiscal year 2013-14.

16. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

17. Global Food Initiative identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

18. President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

19. Undocumented Students Initiative identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

20. Transfer Students Action Team identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

21. University of California – Mexico Initiative identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

22. Carbon Neutrality Initiative identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

23. Research Catalyst Awards identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

24. University of California – Oakland Partnership identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

25. We Vote in fiscal year 2014-15 identified as a presidential initiative in fiscal year 2014-15.

26. Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Initiative identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2012-13 and 2014-15.

27. Staff Appreciation in fiscal year 2013-14 identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

28. Sexual Violence Initiatives in fiscal year 2014-15 identified as a presidential initiative between fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16.

29. Western Hemisphere Initiative identified as a presidential initiative in fiscal years 2013-14 and 2015-16.

30. Blum Federation Grant identified as a presidential initiative in fiscal year 2015-16.

31. Various initiatives related charges in fiscal year 2015-16.

32. Staff Education Scholarships identified as a presidential initiative in fiscal year 2015-16.

Figure 18

Figure 18 includes two line graphs that show that administrative costs have grown at both the Office of the President and the campuses. The first line graphic shows the Office of the President expenditures by function from fiscal year 2012-13 to 2015-16. Administrative expenditures at the Office of the President grew from $284 million in fiscal year 2012-13 to $362 million in fiscal year 2015-16; in the same period, its nonadministrative expenditures decreased from $159 million in fiscal year 2012-13 to $135 million in fiscal year 2015-16.

The second line graph shows campus administrative expenditures grew from $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2012-13 to $8 billion in fiscal year 2015-16; its nonadministrative expenditures grew from $14.9 billion in fiscal year 2012-13 to $19 billion in fiscal year 2015-16.

Figure 19

Figure 19 illustrates that actions by the Legislature will be more effective at establishing long-term accountability and transparency at the Office of the President. A flow chart shows at the top two key legislative actions. The first key legislative action is that the Legislature should appropriate an amount directly to the Office of the President through the annual state budget process that eliminates the need for a campus assessment. The second legislative action is for the Legislature, from the funds appropriated, to require the Board of Regents to contract with an independent third party that can facilitate and monitor three-year corrective action plan for the Office of the President. Based on this legislative action, the Board of Regents should facilitate a contract with an independent third party. The independent third party should be an individual or group of individuals who specialize in higher education, public administration, and public finance. The independent third party should have complete access to the Office of the President’s documentation. The independent third party should monitor and validate a three-year plan at the Office of the President. In year one, the plan includes the Office of the President evaluating current priorities and decisions. In year two, the Office of the President needs to set targets and implement policies. In year three the Office of the President needs to meet targets and evaluate new policies. The independent third party will be responsible for reporting on the Office of the President’s progress to the regents and the Legislature.