Students shut down UC regents meeting

[alp227]

Source: SF Chronicle

Hundreds of students and faculty members temporarily shut down a University of California Board of Regents meeting being held simultaneously today at campuses in San Francisco, Davis, Merced and Los Angeles by standing in the conference rooms and chanting slogans so loudly the regents could no longer conduct business.

The meeting was going smoothly until the public comment portion ended at 9:30 a.m. and several demonstrators began yelling the Occupy movement's familiar "mic check!" call, signalling the desire to have a protest meeting.

There were about 50 students at each campus' regents meeting, which was being conducted by speakerphone. "We're not going away," and "We are the majority," the protesters chanted at each location.

After several minutes, most regents got up and left the room to the students, who began conducting what they called a "People's Regents" meeting - complete with two-minute speaker limits and planned votes on actions such as a proposed call for some regents and UC officials to resign.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/28/BAAP1M52GR.DTL

[RKP5637]

1. Good!!! People are fed up with being pushed around by TPTB! n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

21. The lesson we have to keep re-learning, apparently, is:

[RKP5637]

22. Yep, and a new generation is learning that with OWS, fortunately. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

2. They should ask how much the Regents get paid

and how much of their income is not taxed.

[MADem]

7. They get paid for showing up, even if they can't get their work done.

If this makes them have to meet again, they'll probably be thrilled.

[Igel]

8. Depends what you mean by "paid."

If it's for being a Regent, IIRC only the student regent gets a stipend. The regular appointees get neither stipend nor compensation for their time as Regents, only their travel expenses. (Some can be appointed to another committee, but the Regent compensation bylaws don't apply to what the other committee pays or doesn't pay.)

Most of the regents are well off. Back in the '90s most tried hard with making sure they met their mission--making the UC campuses a nationally renowned institution, maintaining Cal and UCLA as top tier research universities, and trying to make it possible for that magic 12.5% to attend without bankrupting themselves or parents. Especially in the face of plummeting public support as more and more money in the budget (even with increased revenue) went for entitlements or K-12 education.

Students have no fiduciary responsibility to the university, just to their peers. If their actions means that the UC system is crap in 6 years, they don't have to care: Their responsibility is to current students (and, often, it seems, to non-students with certain esp. important traits). In the mid-late '90s there was a recurring argument, as to whether student representatives had to include as their "constituents" not only currently enrolled students but students who'd be enrolling in 2, 5, 10 years or if they could limit their representation. It was "recurring" because a few thought reps should represent both present and future students but most student reps, esp. the undergrads', thought it shouldn't be. (The few that thought it should be typically were grad students who would still be enrolled, in many instances, in 5 years.)

As for blocking the Regents' actions, it probably made no difference to what action will eventually be taken. What things like this have done in the past, however, is push the resolution of the budget decisions until later in the year. This meant that a budget cut would have to be spread over 2 or 3 months, not 6 or 7; or that the fee increase would be approved in April or May and not in January, when students could still use that information in making reasoned planning decisions. (Then again, those are future students, not present students, aren't they?) It's meant that depts. wouldn't know about funding for tenure lines or student support until summer, or the administration couldn't work out its budget without creating a bit of shock for employees.

It feels good. Many would rather see a few heads lopped off by a guillotine even if it means a Reign of Terror and the ultimate restoration of a monarchy then a reasoned settlement that leads to a moderately better, stable conclusion.

[Xithras]

26. $0

Regents can be reimbursed for travel expenses to attend the meetings, but it's an unpaid position otherwise.

[EFerrari]

3. Excellent.

[red dog 1]

4. Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, a Regent, joined the protesters in SF..Good for him!

As a Californian, I wish Gavin Newsom was our Governor!

[EFerrari]

9. Newsom is a good corporate Democrat.

If he went to that meeting it was because he had nothing to lose.

[red dog 1]

11. Newsom is a good Democrat.....Period!

"If he went to that meeting it was because he had nothing to lose"

He went to that meeting because, as a regent, it was part of his job to do so.



Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that he's a "corporate Democrat"?

[EFerrari]

12. LOL. I lived in San Francisco while he was mayor.

Newsom is all about photo ops. He has a zipper problem and the social conscience of a bar fly. His "Crap Not Care" homeless policy was a resounding failure, as we all knew it would be. He tried to stick us with the very same voting machines that failed all over Cook County. He's a product of Bill Clinton's which is to say, the DLC mentality that failed us up one side and down the other and got us exactly here. If you want to vote for nice hair and good teeth, Newsom is your man.

[red dog 1]

14. I've lived in San Francisco all my life!

If you're correct that Newsom "tried to stick us with the very same voting machines that failed all over Cook County"..... I'd say that he was wrong to do that...

As to your referring to him as "a product of Bill Clinton's",.
I'm not sure that is, necessarily, a bad thing.

When Clinton left office, there was a $350 billion dollar Budget SURPLUS,
which "W" then turned into a budget deficit in less than a year, because of his tax cuts for the rich (the famous "Bush Tax Cuts")

Perhaps what the Democratic Party needs right now are more Gavin Newsoms,.... smart, progressive, and able to defeat Republican opponents.

As to your comment that Newsom "has a zipper problem", WTF do you mean by that?

[EFerrari]

15. Sounds like you need to do a little homework on Newsom

who famously had an affair with his campaign manager's wife.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-31/news/17229155_1_newsom-alex-tourk-mayor-s-office

And on Bill Clinton, too, who danced with the deregulators which led to the bundling of bad loans such that no one even knows who holds title to only God knows how many properties all over the country.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#Repeal

It's not enough to beat Republicans if you act like a Republican in office.

[red dog 1]

17. Sounds like you need to do a little homework on Clinton.

Bill Clinton - Forty-second President of the United States.

A huge defeat for Clinton was when he and Hillary Clinton's plan for a national health care system failed, because of Republican opposition.in Congress.

An important protective bill that passed in 1993 soon after taking office was the Family and Medical Leave Act, This act required large employers to give employees time off for illnesses or pregnancy.

Clinton was the first two term Democratic President since Franklin Roosevelt.
In a period of increasingly divided politics, Clinton moved his policies more to the center to appeal to mainstream America.
Despite being impeached, he remained a very popular president.

Economically, the U.S. experienced a period of prosperity during Clinton's time in office.
The stock market rose dramatically.
This helped add to his popularity.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/willialjclinton/p/pclinton.htm
Enter into search-bar "William J. Clinton", then click on second link...
"Bill Clinton..Biography..Forty-second President of the US"

[EFerrari]

24. Nope. I'm fine. nt

[red dog 1]

18. Who cares about Newsom having an affair with his campaign manager's wife?.....and

the "Care Not Cash Program" was approved by the voters of San Francisco.

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. If I rememeber correctly, did he not admit to a drinking problem also?

I could be wrong..seems to me I remember about the same time his screwing around came to light he admitted to a ..
substance abuse problem?

[axollot]

30. LOL. That's where I remember the name! eom

[clixtox]

13. Gavin Newsom is, and always has been...

a corporate Democrat!

Newsom wouldn't have been elected mayor of SF twice, or Lt. Governor, if he wasn't a predictable partisan for, and enabler of, the 1%.

His primary mentor and promoters, in biz and politics, are the Gordon Getty family in SF, certainly not known for being progressives, and definitely in the 1%.

Gavin is a consummate politician now, he started out very rough, but he is now a seasoned, glib, typical opportunist politician, as this facile stunt reveals.

Of course he might have just taken an acid trip, or somehow realized his past sins are likely to be his eventual undoing, who knows?

Miracles happen...

[red dog 1]

19. Newsom joining the protesters was a "facile stunt"?

From Webster's Dictionary: "facile"...."superficial; having a superficial or simplistic knowledge or approach."
His getting up and leaving the UC Regents meeting to join the protesters was a "facile stunt"?

You said:
"His primary mentor and promoters, in biz and politics, are the Gordon Getty family in SF, certainly not known for being progressives.."


Newsom's father, retired State Appeals Judge William Newsom, has been friends with Gordon Getty since their high school days.

Though a Republican, Getty is a major fund-raiser for local and national Democratic Party candidates, and has contributed to the campaigns of Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry.
Maybe he's not as "progressive' as you'd like him to be, but how many Republican billionaires do you know who contribute to the campaigns of Democrats?

Also, you called Newsom a "consummate politician" What's wrong with that?

Webster's Dictionary defines "consumate" as "extremely skilled and accomplished."

Do you live in San Francisco?

Do you think the current mayor, Ed Lee, is doing a better job than Newsom did?

[clixtox]

20. I live in Saigon, Vietnam, most of the time now...

I think Ed Lee is another in a long, uninterrupted string of so-called Democrats who have enough humanity to not be too outrageously cruel. They all enthusiastically condone police violence, blaming the victims of our economic system for their poverty, and sucking up to the local "big-wigs". From George Christopher, "Slippery" Joe Alioto, DiFi, Art Agnos, Willie and Gavin, now Ed, the mis-management is legend. Crony corruption and notorious nepotism are not secrets. You don't have to read the SF Bay Guardian, even the half-blind Chronicle regularly prints exposés detailing these gaffes and scandals.

I do choose my words carefully, and on further consideration I am going to let my prose stand.

I've met Bill Newsom at charity events through the years and he is a great guy, no question...

Yah, Gavin has learned a few lessons along the way, enough that I can refer to him as "consummate", more or less tongue in cheek.

In SF it would be very stupid, whatever wing of the capitalist party you are registered in, to not contribute generously to the local Democratic machine and certain selected candidates, especially if you are extremely wealthy.

Gordon Getty, and Ann, are such social butterflies that supporting the local power-elite is good business, allows good, smooth entree to certain local institutions, and ensures other perquisites.

Hell, why not create your own, in-house, politician? Who knows? If the breaks go your way, like they did for DiFi and the Princess of Baltimore formerly, now SF, Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, you could go a long ways.

Miraculous...

Gavin is a piece of work, for sure! He is like a rubber ball who keeps bouncing back for more...

A remarkable, nearly meteoric, rise from a well funded restauranteur, to Supervisor, then mayor, now LG, dazzling...

[red dog 1]

25. Did George Moscone "mis-manage" San Francisco too?

How about Harvey Milk, who probably would have become mayor, if that Republican whacko hadn't assassinated him, would he too have joined your list of crappy mayors?

I agree that Christopher (Republican) & all the Dems you listed, could have done a better job as mayor, especially Willie Brown, (who I never voted for), but Feinstein
wasn't bad, and as Senator she helped me get Bank of America to modify my mortgage, which they did not want to do until her office contacted them....I'm sure she has helped others stay in their homes too.
As far as Pelosi, who was never mayor, I think she's done a pretty good job representing San Franciscans in the House, although her "impeachment of "W" is off the table" crap was total bullshit.

Back to Newsom, what specifically has he done as mayor that you disapprove of?
His rise from well-funded restaurateur to Supervisor, then mayor wasn't really
"remarkable & nearly meteoric"...He was a popular mayor, could have been re-elected again & again if he wanted to...and he remains popular with the people of SF today.

What does "whatever wing of the capitalist party you are registered in" actually mean?
San Francisco is probably the most progressive large city in the US, and whether you like it or not, Newsom remains popular, as does "DiFi" and Pelosi.

As a former SF resident who didn't seem to like any of the Dems....would you have preferred a Republican SF mayor?...like Christopher?

[clixtox]

31. Obviously George Moscone is an exception...

and Harvey Milk would have possibly been an exemplary mayor.

All of the SF mayors for generations have been deeply in the pocket of PG&E, including, of course, Gavin.

Gavin also has shown himself to not be a particularly honorable person after the scandal over his dalliance with a staffer's wife.

The USA has only one major political party, the capitalist party with two incredibly enthusiastic branches, The Democrats and the Republicans.

Of course there are differences between the two... Otherwise they couldn't fool anyone, including you, apparently, Red Dog 1!

I would have loved to have seen Matt Gonzalez get elected mayor and I am thrilled that Ross Mirkarimi was just elected to succeed Michael Hennessey as SF County Sherriff.

I did maintain a fabulous penthouse apartment for awhile in SF 30 years ago, was raised in Berkeley, attended Lick-Wilmerding HS in SF, and have lived on my ranch in Sonoma County for over 40 years.

For the last 6 years I have been spending most of my precious time in Vietnam. I have a wonderful penthouse here overlooking downtown Saigon.

I love Vietnam!

[red dog 1]

32. BREAKING NEWS: The USA has only one political party!...See post 31

[clixtox]

33. This is news only to the naive and bamboozled!

This is, for sure, a very large group in the country where ignorance is manufactured, though little else is these daze.

The 1% in the USA have the most adroit propaganda apparatus ever unleashed on a groomed to be receptive, unable to think "critically", citizenry.

Now that you realize your smoke blowing on Gavin Newsom's behalf isn't going over unchallenged you childishly attempt to get cute.

Well, Red Dog 1, you have chosen a battle of the wits while grievously mis-matched.

You are out of your element, here on DU, if simplistic boosting is the limit of your argumentation ability.

Now, at least, you know what is occurring behind the curtain although I can't imagine a hip San Franciscan like yourself is unaware of how the two parties have completely sold us, the 99%, out.

Pelosi's keeping shrub's completely deserved impeachment "off the table" should have been enough to open your eyes, and mind...

Or not!

The two major political parties in the USA do not represent working people, poor people, and they no longer represent the middle class. Neither of them.

Really!

[Xithras]

27. Newsom is the Lieberman of California politics

He holds liberal positions on quite a few subjects, but he's also a solid pro-corporate supporter of the 1%. Always has been. In many ways, he's Feinstein's political heir, both in policy and history. Let's just hope that he never gets anywhere near the Senate.

[red dog 1]

29. I don't think the people of San Francisco would agree with you on that.

Gavin Newsom has "corporate friends", especially Gordon Getty, who went to school with Newsom's father, retired State Court of Appeals Judge William Newsom.
Getty, though a Republican, often does fund-raising for Democrats, local and national.

Do you have any facts to support your statement comparing Newsom with Lieberman?

San Francisco is the most progressive big city in the nation, and I don't think the San Franciscan voters would have elected and re-elected Newsom if what you imply were true......He could have remained Mayor indefinitely....He is still extremely popular with the residents of San Francisco.

[daleanime]

5. Good to hear....

I'm sure that the students accomplished more then the regents would have.:evilgrin:

[ellisonz]

6. Good.

[lonestarnot]

10. Glad to hear it!

[defendandprotect]

16. "People's Regents" -- Good for them - - !!!

[Xithras]

28. These kids are misguided and are protesting the wrong place.

The state has systematically butchered the budgets of the UC system every single year since 2007. Even before that, Sacramento had failed to deliver budget increases that actually matched inflationary spending increases and mandated cost increases since 2004. In essence, the UC and CSU systems have seen effective budget cuts annually for seven years straight.

The Regents don't have any power to tax, and don't get to set their own budgets. In the face of consistently declining revenue, there are ONLY two options: 1) Charge the students more. Or 2) Cut programs and majors, so you give the students LESS for the same money. Neither of those options are all that palatable, and both generate student protests. The Regents are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and no amount of protesting or "Peoples Regents" meetings are going to fix that. It takes money to run these universities, and that money has to come from somewhere. There are only TWO somewhere's...the taxpayers, or the students. The Regents authority covers the students, not the taxpayers.

If they want to block these increases, there's only one way to do so. Convince Sacramento to give the UC/CSU/CC systems the money they deserve. Occupy THIS building: