to final decisions about service restructuring, UCOP should solicitsystematic advice from a broad cross-section of the service-users of the campuses(and not only from their senior managers) as to which services should or shouldnot be devolved, and how, and to what extent. Systemwide support should bedevolved, cancelled, spun-off, downsized, or outsourced only in carefulconsultation with the current users of those services.6.
UCOP should not direct academic planning, but should focus on finding anddeveloping resources to support the specific goals and the common ambitions of the campuses, and to coordinate and synthesize bottom-up goals across campuses.Given UCOP¶s recent difficulties with playing constructive, supportive,coordinating roles with its academic programs, it should consider devolving allacademic affairs to campuses, with UCOP¶s role being taken over by a designatedlead campus.
The UCOP restructuring process began as an effort to reduce administrative costs byaround $20-30 million a year while also improving operations. For many reasons,restructuring escalated into a rethinking of the entire function and status of UCOP, hasresulted in operational cuts, a voluntary separation program, and layoffs, and is in the process of spinning off what had long been regarded as core service functions such as pension and benefits administration to third-party vendors or to individual campuses.Many, perhaps most, of the restructuring changes are highly desirable. Examples of goodchanges are the consolidation of business support functions such as accounting andcomputing support, and the redesigning of the capital projects operation to reflect astreamlined, modernized capital projects approval process. Every campus has a longlitany of complaints about the ineffectiveness and obtuseness of the old OP, and UCPBendorses the general practice of intelligent redesign of UCOP operation, as well as itstimely implementation. We have also made every effort to offer ³real-time´ feedback toUCOP as part of our role in shared governance. In general we affirm the overall goals of UCOP restructuring, and see the dark clouds surrounding the University as having asilver lining of enabling new economies, new effectiveness, and new thinking in UC¶scentral administration.But other aspects of the change have not been so obviously positive. As noted above,UCOP has issued a Request for Proposals to farm out Benefits to a 3
-party vendor, andwe have been unable to obtain any indications of service complaints or major operating problems that would justify the RFP: to the contrary, Benefits is an OP success story,highly popular with faculty and staff. It is not clear to us why UCOP would keep HumanResources ± which gets less favorable reviews ± while getting rid of Benefits. Similarly,sending Continuing Education at the Bar to Berkeley Law School gets 197 staff FTE off UCOP¶s books but saves no money for the UC system through a program that was in anycase financially self-sustaining; the change was not accompanied by any academic