Posts Tagged ‘UC’

See SFPD Interim Chief Toney Chaplin and Jeff Adachi at “Panel Discussion on Race and Policing” – UC Hastings on Wednesday, September 28th, 2016

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016

All the deets:

“Panel Discussion on Race and Policing

September 28, 2016
3:30 – 5:00 pm
UC Hastings College of the Law
Louis B. Mayer Lounge
198 McAllister Street

In the last few years, a series of tragic incidents raised public attention to a serious crisis of trust between police departments and the communities they serve, particularly communities of color and of low income. These incidents have led to vocal riots and to the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, leading to violent clashes between activists and police officers. What are the roots of this crisis? How can racialized practices in policing be understood and addressed? What is being done, and what should be done, to heal the broken trust between the police and the community? This panel on Race & Policing will feature voices of activists, police officers, lawyers, community-relations officials, and academics, in an effort to tackle these important questions.

invite1

Race and Policing Panel at UC Hastings
WHO: Panelists include San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi, San Francisco Police Department Interim Chief Toney Chaplin, UC Berkeley Professor Nikki Jones, Former Director of the DOJ’s Community Service Relations Service Grande Lum, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, and UC Hastings Professor Hadar Aviram (moderator).
WHAT: UC Hastings is hosting a panel of leaders in the criminal justice field — activists, police officers, lawyers, community-relations officials, and academics — to discuss the complicated relationship between race and policing.
WHEN: Wednesday, September 28, 2016, 3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
WHERE: Louis B. Mayer Lounge, UC Hastings College of the Law, 198 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 OR watch via livestream
REGISTRATION: Event is free and open to the public. Registration online here.

An Endangered Species: The Solitary Squad Car Used by UC Hastings Law School “Public Safety Officers” in the Twitterloin

Wednesday, May 18th, 2016

This is it – they have just this one, as seen on McAllister:

IMG_5650 copy

All the deets

“UC Hastings-UCSF Public Safety Partnership Proposal – Presenting the initial UC Hastings proposal to replace the college’s Public Safety Department with the University of California San Francisco Police Department.

A Public Meeting was held this morning to present the initial UC Hastings proposal to replace the college’s Public Safety Department with the University of California San Francisco Police Department (UCSFPD). All UC Hastings students, faculty, and staff were invited to attend.

UC Hastings General Counsel Elise Traynum welcomed attendees and introduced the proposal.

“The UC Hastings community is in need of additional protection which can only be provided by a police department,” said Traynum. “An advantage to entering into an agreement with UCSFPD is access to a broad array of basic police services and support services that the college cannot fund.”

“It is proposed that UCSFPD would handle all street patrols, investigations, and crime prevention services, emergency management functions in the event of life-threatening disasters, homeland security and related community policing responsibilities,” said Traynum.

Traynum also outlined options for the five affected UC Hastings Public Safety officer’s unit members, listing four possibilities: 1) Officers may be hired as police officers for UCSFPD if they meet requisite qualifications; or 2) Officers may be hired as security guards, or security guard supervisors, for UCSFPD if they meet required qualifications; or, 3) Officers may be hired for positions at UC Hastings if they meet requisite qualifications; or, 4) for Officers who do not qualify for jobs with the UCSFPD or alternative position with UC Hastings, or officers who elect to not apply for these, the College would consider buying them out, at an amount to be determined.

Finally, Traynum underscored that reducing labor costs is not the motivation for contracting out public safety. “The motivation for contracting out public safety is to give the UC Hastings community access to a broad array of basic police services and support services that the college could not fund.”

UCSFPD Chief Mike Denson then presented “A Study of a Public Safety Partnership” (click here to view), and highlighted the department’s commitment to safety and security externally and internally, including the physical and emotional well-being of students.

Time for public comment was provided following the presentation, and the UC Hastings Public Safety Officers Association (PSOA) and representatives were also offered the opportunity to present a counter proposal at the meeting.

Acting Chancellor & Dean David Faigman called the input “enormously helpful” and laid out two basic principles he and the college will follow in making this decision. First, that any change would be to create a more secure and safer campus. Second, that UC Hastings will do the best we can for our current officers. He also noted that UC Hastings does not plan to raise tuition to improve safety and security. “If in the end it doesn’t make sense for our campus, we’re not going to do it,” concluded Faigman. “And if it does, we’ll do so in a conscientious manner.”

The college will hold a follow-up public meeting in April to present its final proposal. Details will be publicized widely.

MEDIA CONTACT
Alex A.G. Shapiro
Director of External Relations
UC Hastings College of the Law
Office: (415) 581-8842
Cell: (415) 813-9214
Email: shapiroa@uchastings.edu

A Most Unwelcome Headline for SF’s Giant Law School: UC “Hastings Slips Again in U.S. News List”

Tuesday, March 10th, 2015

In-house legal reporter for The Recorder David Ruiz covers all the bases here:

Hastings Slips Again in U.S. News List

1. This is excellent coverage of what I used to consider an under-covered issue, with no paywall to boot. So huzzah for that.

2. The headline is a bit dramatic, but it gets to the heart of the matter. I already knew the new ranking number of 59*, but if I hadn’t, well that hed would have made me think the fall was to 80-something or, Heaven forfend, “Third Tier,” up (or down?) in Triple-Digit Country.

3. I”m not sure if this story is worthy of a general-interest publication, such as the now-frivolous(?) SFGate or the now-paywalled(?)-but-nevertheless-serious SF Chronicle. (Oh, but here’s a person who would be good for both: 3L student and Oak-Town resident Hali Ford on Survivor. That one would write itself. Yowzer.)

4. California law schools don’t appear to be the focus this year, since the punishment meted out by the Great Recession isn’t hitting all the Cali schools in one fell swoop the way it was doing the past few years.

5. I’m thinking maybe this post should have just been a Tweet, but it’s too late now, as I’m done already. Sorry for the nothingburger post. Anyway, here’s what the Tweet would have been, and I’ll repeat it for emphasis: This is excellent coverage of what I used to consider an under-covered issue, with no paywall to boot. So huzzah for that.

*US News appears to simply love it when schools tie in the rankings, so that’s why you’ll see 12 schools in the Top Ten and seven schools tied for 48th place, that kind of thing. It’s a kind of grade inflation for universities. Speaking of which, there’s a lot of pressure on school employees to game the numbers specifically for the US News rankings, so sometimes people get a bit … creative, oh well.

Nothing Escapes the Gaze of this University of California Police Force Security Officer

Thursday, January 1st, 2015

Absolutely nothing.

This one’s from the vault, from 2009. But it remains an arresting sight.

(Would you think this woman is a police officer or not? Look closely. I guessed the wrong way.)

As seen in Mission Bay. Click to expand:

IMG_6571 copy

Remember the 1980’s?

retro_mix_40_2007-pet-shop-boys-suburbia copy

I do.

Ed Reiskin Refuses to Comply with the SFMTA Citizens Advisory Council, So Let’s Run a Trial on Masonic Ourselves

Wednesday, December 17th, 2014

Here’s the Citizens Advisory Council’s recommendation that Ed Reiskin, operator of America’s slowest and least efficient big-city transit system, has refused:

“Motion 140122.01 – The SFMTA CAC recommends that the peak hour restrictions be repealed on Masonic Avenue between Geary and Fell Streets, with the objective to measure traffic impacts on the 43 Masonic prior to the implementation of the Masonic Avenue street design project.”

Why did he do that? Well, because a “success” for him is the SFMTA spending the money it’s been given to spend. So why should he do anything to interfere with that when he’s in the red zone already?

Anywho, you can read what he has to say about a test-run after the jump.

In view of this dysfunction, let’s run a Masonic “streetscape” trial of our own, shall we?

Let’s start here, northbound, on the 3000 foot stretch of Masonic that will soon be changed: 

7J7C0082 copy

See the bus? It’s stopped at a bus stop, let’s imagine. That means that Masonic will be down to one lane inbound, you know, temporarily, during the morning drive. How will this affect traffic, do you suppose? How many minutes will it add to your commute each way, each day? Mmmm…

Since we’re imagining, imagine a large median filled with trees on either side of the double yellow line. Now is that for safety or for aesthetics? The answer is that it’s for aesthetics. Compare that with the SFMTA’s disastrous, expensive, deadly 105-foot-wide Octavia “Boulevard” / I-80 on ramp. Yes, it’s has a vegetated median as well. So, is “safety” the SFMTA’s “number one goal?” No, not at all. Its real goal is expanding its payroll and spending ever more money. So of course if you pressure it to do things you want done, like planting trees in the middle of the street, which, of course, has nothing to do with safety, it will happily comply.

Will any commuters benefit from these soon-to-come “improvements?” No, not at all. These changes are going to slow the commute way down and that will impede people in cars and MUNI buses. Did the SFMTA do any “outreach” to / with commuters? Nope. It didn’t feel like it. The SFMTA prefers to host meetings packed with “urbanists” and San Francisco Bicycle Coalition employees and members. Do these people represent “the public?” No, not at all. Yet the SFMTA claims do have done public outreach.

How will these changes to Masonic, the Great Connector, affect the surrounding area? We’ll just have to wait and see. If, later on, you raise any issues with the SFMTA about the negative effects of all their changes, they’ll be all, well, expand our budget even more and we’ll redo the project again to fix this and that.

Of course, the way to run the trial run would be simply take away all the parking spaces for a day or so, right? So what you’d do is just simply shut down the slow lanes as a test. This alternative would satisfry (mmmm, Satisfries…. R.I.P) at least some of the objections that Ed Reiskin, operator of America’s slowest and least efficient big-city transit system, mentioned.

Would Ed Reiskin want to try this alternative trial? No, not at all. (See above.) Mr. R will be happy to ignore all the complaints only after the tens of millions of dollars have been spent.

Do I think that a bunch of people riding MUNI and driving cars every day, tens of thousands of people, are going say, wow, my commute has really slowed down after all these changes so I’m going to join the handful of souls on bicycles huffing and puffing up this big hill? Nope. Some might, of course, but it won’t be any kind of meaningful number.

And do I think it’s honest for SFMTA employees to tell higher authorities that’s there’s no public opposition to these changes? Nope. Oh well.

All right, that’s the thought experiment. It looks like this one’s going to go like a bunch of other SFMTA-created initiatives, you know, like the ideologically-driven traffic circles,  the absurdly-wide Octavia “Boulevard,” the crazy re-striping of the east end of JFK Drive – they’ll just look at them all and then pat themselves on the back and hand each other awards for these “accomplishments,” these “successes.”

[UPDATE: Oh yeah, a couple people asked me if I approve of this project. And like, I live a block away, but it won’t really affect me, myself, I don’t think. Seems selfish to think now-hey-what-about-me, anyway. What ended up happening  with Octavia is that they really biased the lights in favor of Octavia, so people have to wait to a long time to get across the whole 105 foot width. So maybe it’ll be a 90-second wait to get across Masonic when all is said and done? IDK, it’s hard to predict how much the SFMTA is going to mess things up with this arbor project, this tree planting diversion. So, what will the effects be? Will commuters abandon Masonic? How will they get around instead? IDK]

On It Goes…

Now, as promised, a note from Ed Reiskin, after the jump

(more…)

News Release: “Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Statement on the University of California’s Threat to Increase Tuition Fees”

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

It’s on. Here’s Gav’s reply to this recent effort from President Janet Napolitano

***News Release*** – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom statement on the University of California’s threat to increase tuition fees

Contact: Andrea Koskey, Communications Director

California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom issued the following statement on the University of California’s threat to increase tuition unless the state appropriates additional funds, thereby breaking its two-year old tuition-freeze agreement negotiated in 2013 in exchange for increased state funding:

The University of California cannot bestow pay raises on its top earners with one hand, while continually taking more from students and their families with the other and deflecting criticism by laying its solution at the door of taxpayers. New funding must be tied to earnest and innovative attempts to reduce the university’s cost structure and promote affordability and accessibility, not threats that reward the status quo.”

Background

The proposed increase to students comes just two months after the same board approved up to 20 percent increases to four chancellors and increased a base salary for a new chancellor by 23 percent of his predecessor. These decisions are not tied to performance or outcomes.

Lieutenant Governor Newsom believes that high-level solutions could be factored in to meet the growing costs.  For instance, UC facilities system-wide could save $500,000 per contract if in-house employment was used over outside contractors; another $160 million could be saved if UC offered an Associate Degree to Transfer Program from California Community Colleges, similar to existing program between community colleges and California State Universities; and millions could be saved if the failed IT implementation of UC Path was addressed. That program’s repayment costs have ballooned to $200 million over the next 20 years.

The University of California system has received numerous increases to financial resources including full funding of State’s Cal grant program; expansion of the middle-income fee grants covering one-half of tuition and fee increases for middle-income students from families earning up to $120,000; 20 percent increase in state funding as part of a multi-year stable funding plan; a 5 percent increase from the 2014-15 state budget contingent a tuition freeze through 2016-17; and $50 million to promote innovative models of higher education at the campus level that result in more bachelor’s degrees, improved four‑year completion rates, and more effective transfers between the community colleges and the universities.