Skip Repetitive Navigation Links
California State Auditor Logo

Report Number: 2016-130

University of California Office of the President
It Failed to Disclose Tens of Millions in Surplus Funds and Its Budget Practices Are Misleading

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.

Table A
Selected Office of the President, California State University, and State Executive Salaries for Fiscal Year 2014–15

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.


Back to top





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.

Table B.1
Number of the Office of the President’s Services That University of
California Campuses Reported Using

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.


Table B.2
Number of The Office of the President’s Programs That University of
California Campuses Reported Using

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.

Table B.3
University of California Campuses’ Redundancy Ratings for the Office of the President’s Divisions Offering Services or Programs

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
Totals 110 50

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.

Table B.4
University of California Campuses’ Quality Ratings for the Campus Assessment Process

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.



Back to top