BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Friday, July 7, 2017

UC Fees

I ran across the proposed UC fee distribution from LANS and LLNS income for 2016-2017 in the May 17, 2017 minutes of the UC Board of Regents National Lab Subcommittee. It was noted that the award fee to UC actually went up a bit; going from $23.1 million to $26.5 million for 2016. The UC subcommittee recommended the following:

  1. Contract Non-Reimbursable Compensation for LLC Employees in UC-Designated Key Personnel Positions = $2.2 million
  2. UC Office of the President Oversight = $4.9 millio
  3. Post-Contract Contingency Fund = $3.1 million (was $2.1 million)
  4. LLC Fee Contingency Fund = $0
  5. UC Laboratory Research Programs = $15 million (was $13 million) (including UC Graduate Student Fellowships at the labs) 
  6. Livermore Lab Foundation = $0.3 million
  7. Accelerating Therapeutic Opportunities for Medicine (UCSF-LLNL) = $1 million (was $0)

"Vice President [for Laboratory Management] Budil explained that each year her office estimates a budget based on anticipated fee income from the Los Alamos National Security, LLC and Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. Once the actual allocation is received, the budget is brought back to the Regents for approval of the distribution of actual earned income from Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The proposed amendment reflected the slightly higher fee income than originally anticipated in July [2016]. The increase would be allocated to three areas: a slight increase to the Post-Contract Contingency Fund; an increase to the UC Laboratory Fees Research Program, which includes a graduate student fellowship program; and an allocation of $1 million to a new collaboration Accelerating Therapeutic Opportunities for Medicine."

----------

I find it curious that they added to the "post contract contingency" fund, I wonder if this is in anticipation of losing the LANL contract. Also it's nice that UC puts its money back into the Labs, as far as what the industrial partners like Bechtel do with their cut, anyone want to guess at how much comes back LANL or LLNL...

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/minutes-index/index.html

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting this information so that all can see that Budil's office costs the UC 4.9M per year. Just look at what a wonderful job that has bought.

Anonymous said...

What a sad misdirection.

$26 M could pay for places in the freshman for 2000 rejected qualified California resident applicants. Instead thousands if not tens of thousands of unwelcome foreigners and non-residents take the place of our qualified California students. UC Leaders do not serve the people who pay them.

Down with carpetbagging Napolitano and her seedy diffident non-resident ilk.

California students first!

Anonymous said...

...and only.

Anonymous said...

California students first!

Fine, than California could fund the universities...of wait they don't. So the UC system which is now basically semi private should favor the best students who can pay...just like Duke, Stanford, Yale, Cornell, and every other private University. If you have a problem with UC than maybe just maybe you should have not voted for Wilson, Davis, and Arnold. Ok if this does not convince you than that 26M could have served Bechtel profits much better. In any case by 2018 this argument does not matter. Hey have you kids get better grades and you will not care about the dreg Cal State or UC schools but worry about paying tuition at Wellsely, Northwestern, Yale, Pepperdine or Chapman college instead.


California students first!

So why did you vote for Pete Wilson?

Anonymous said...

UC is not semi private, it is Califonia property periodm

Yet it is a typical liberal unresposive goverment agency full of overpaid lazy prima donna sybarites who feather their own nests at the expense and to the continuing detriment of its consituency.

California gives plenty of caSh To run UC. It is deliberately mismanaged.
Resident student fees add lots more.

The admin, staff and faculty are bloated, underworked and overpaid. They collude to overcharge and exclude resident students.

Instead, admin positions shoukd be halved along with salaries. Professor's teaching loads should be doubled to a measley 4 classes per year.

Non resident students should be limited to 3-5 %. They are not welcome. Each outsider displaces a qualified hard working entitled resident student. Foreigners can attend institutions their countrymen paid for.

Let the gold metals, Nobel prizes and Pulitzers go elsewhere. UC needs to teach all qualified Californians inexpensively. This is its mission. Not suck-ass honorifics. Not bureaucratic laziness. Work baby. Not play

Anonymous said...

July 8, 2017 at 11:36 AM

You do realize that the $26 million comes directly out of the overhead budgets of the two Labs.

Also since the fee is split about 50-50 between UC and the industrial partners, Bechtel is getting around $26 million too (also out of the Lab overhead budgets) and unlike UC they are not spending any of it reinvesting it back into Lab projects.

Anonymous said...

July 9, 2017 at 2:45 AM

That'd called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Turn UC into a cheap second rate community college that no one wants to attend, because you don't understand the impact and value of good reputation and excellence in an institution. I'm sure you will be surprised when all the excellent professors move elsewhere to protect their academic prestige and careers, replaced by ex-high school teachers.

Anonymous said...

"UC is not semi private, it is Califonia property periodm"

Again UC is much more like U of Michigan or U of Virginia where most of their money and support do not come the state. As such they have more say in which students they can accept. The out of state students that do attend generally have higher qualifications and pay out of state tuition. Even with that 70% of the students are in state so in the end it seems like a very fair system.

What you are proposing for the doubling of teaching loads getting rid of the Nobels and all that is something that we already have, which are called the Cal State schools. (Note this is not a slam on Cal State schools, it is justing pointing to the fact their mission is more focused on teaching rather than research).

Anonymous said...

The issue is not black and white and has many facets.

The state support for UC has collapsed. As of 2015, the state general funds made up only 10.5% of the $26.7B operating budget. For comparison, back in the 1980's the state provided about half the budget. To balance the books, tuition had to be jacked up and the number of out-of-state students had to be increased. See http://www.ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/rbudget/2015-16budgetforcurrentoperations_.pdf for details. Today's budget numbers make UC a de facto private school, so don't expect California residents to be guaranteed admission to UC, the state doesn't pay them nearly enough for this.

That said, certain California high school graduates are still guaranteed UC admission: if you are in the top 9% of your high school, you may be admitted, see here:
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/index.html
This is actually not as marvelous as it may sound at first. You don't need to know much, or have incredible talent or work ethics, so long as you come from a horrible school where other students are even worse than you. The weakest students I met in Berkeley were from this category. These poor souls required severe remedial education, were lost, overwhelmed and demoralized. Not a good deal for them, or for the more qualified people who could have been admitted in their place.

Finally, is it important to have world leading scientists on faculty? Depends. For lower division undergraduate education, no, not really. In fact, lower division classes in Berkeley were remarkably bad: overcrowded, understaffed, and nobody's concern. For graduate school, it's the complete opposite: having world class scientists was key.

Anonymous said...

July 11, 2017 at 12:15 AM

Overall this is a very good assessment. It also points to students and parents needing to choose wisely to the best school to attend. One size fits does not fit all. Sure UCB is ranked the highest but that is not the whole story. UC Merced is ranked lower however they are much smaller and have more teaching focus. Almost every Cal state school has at least certain programs which are highly ranked as well. The idea of the top 9% of high school students being admitted was never a good idea for just the reasons you say and probably has hurt way more students than helped.

Anonymous said...

Many of you miss the point. Educating Caifornia students.

Cost control discipline and a laser focus on educating ONLY qualified California children, with a low cost, effective, minimalist, high value education is UCs most appropriate, legitimate purpose in these cash strapped times. California supports that and will fund that well.

Otherwise Oddball Brown.and the legislature, under severe citizen pressure have mafe that clear to the independent, motley, air-headed Regents.

Instead UCs long-term waste and dross on perks, politics, egos, excess admin, honorifics and wasting precious resources on non-resident students is the continuong Regents error that infuriates Calfornians.

The Regents and UC admin behavior both in perks, laxness, lack of focus and especially mis-admissions is what makes it a well-bashed pariah in its own state.

It will not be well supported by citizens or Alumni alike until the admissions policy changes.

The state colleges do a mich better job of serving California citizens efficiently, albiet with less accomplished applicants, and they recieve much wider support for accomplishing the mission-- educating Californians.

UC leaders are unresponsive.

Anonymous said...

"Today's budget numbers make UC a de facto private school, so don't expect California residents to be guaranteed admission to UC, the state doesn't pay them nearly enough for this.
the state general funds made up only 10.5% of the $26.7B operating budget. "

So 9:51 AM, you see this is the end of the story. Also you fail to mention that many many Californians like the UC just the way it is. Additionally alot of high tech comes from the UC research which benefits the state in terms of jobs. Alumni are still going to give lots of money and many California will continue to support the system. If anything UC are going to become more private like their operations and increase the number of out of state students and there is nothing you can do about. We cool now?

Anonymous said...

12:03

you miss the point. Simple. UC for CALIFORNIA students.

Nothing less.

Anonymous said...

"you miss the point. Simple. UC for CALIFORNIA students.

Nothing less"

Ok, than pay more than 10% of their budget. Hell maybe they should have only 10% California students.

Blog Archive