All 230,000 UC employees required to take ethics course

- Tanya Schevitz, SF Chronicle Staff Writer, January 14, 2007

In the wake of last year's executive compensation scandal, the University of California is requiring every employee -- from President Robert Dynes down to the guy who empties his trash basket -- to complete an online course about ethics.

The course, which takes about 30 minutes, is designed to brief UC's 230,000 employees on the university's expectations about ethics, values and standards of conduct. Members of UC's 26-member governing Board of Regents, including ex officio members such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, are supposed to complete the training too.

"Of course, the university has always endorsed the highest level of ethical standards and behavior," Dynes says in the online video introduction to the ethics training. "But in today's climate it is clear that all institutions, and especially those that derive their support from the public, need to do more to demonstrate their commitment to ethical behavior in everything we do."

UC has faced a firestorm of criticism after revelations first reported in The Chronicle that UC officials violated university policies in awarding hidden compensation and special perks to some top executives, sometimes without telling the regents. The hidden compensation, which involved millions of dollars, was handed out at the same time students saw their tuition skyrocket.

Although the course was developed to support an ethics policy adopted by the regents in May 2005, the compensation controversy of the past year has highlighted the need for it, said UC spokesman Paul Schwartz.

The regents' ethics policy covers everything from respect for others to compliance with university rules to encouraging employees to report workplace wrongdoing.

"I think it's fair to say that the importance of the ethics training was highlighted by the audit findings and issues," Schwartz said.

The online course warns employees that, "Some activities may be legal, but they may not pass the 'smell' test. Avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest or commitment can be a bit tricky. The easiest way to stay out of a trouble spot is to ask yourself, 'Would I want to read about this in the newspaper or online?' ''

However, Schwartz noted that the university has been working on ethics issues independent of the controversy.

Employees at the university's Office of the President and senior officials at the 10 campuses are scheduled to take the course first, followed by all employees over the next few months.

According to a Web site created for employees, the online briefing runs participants through interactive scenarios to give them the chance to "ponder possible ethical challenges in the workplace" and determine how the university's values and standards apply.

The answers are multiple-choice, and in some cases there are multiple correct answers, "to get people thinking about all of the ramifications of a questionable act," Schwartz said.

There is no real score, and answers are not monitored. "People are shown what answers they got right/wrong as they go through each scenario so they can assess their learning," Schwartz said.

Among the scenarios employees have to navigate are nepotism in hiring, using university funds to buy employees cocktails at a reward dinner and making promises to provide extra pay to employees beyond what is allowed by policies.

The scenarios are especially relevant in light of the recent controversy, in which some top UC officials were found to have engaged in such behavior. In addition, last year Dynes admitted to regents and state legislators that there was a culture in his office of "trying to get away with as much as possible and disclose as little as possible.'' Dynes, who has already completed the course, said in his video introduction that it is important for all employees to have a common frame of reference on ethics.

"I liked it because it reminded me just how important it is to keep these values and standards in the forefront of our thinking as we go about our daily work,'' he said. "Every decision we make and action we take needs to be grounded in these core values and standards."

Not everyone shares his view of the training.

LaKesha Harrison, president of the UC service workers union and a vocational nurse at UCLA, was skeptical about UC's motives and the effectiveness of the training. She said that with the state Legislature entering a new budget cycle, UC officials probably feel they need to burnish the university's image.

"You learn right from wrong in kindergarten. It is a publicity stunt and it is a ploy to try to help their image to get what they want from the Legislature," she said.

The test

Here's one ethical scenario. The question and answer are on Page B2:

-- Edna and Tim, a staff manager, are talking about filling an open position funded by a research grant. Edna asks if human resources has posted the job. Tim looks embarrassed and says that there's a little problem: The principal investigator in charge of the project wants to hire the department chair's wife. Edna asks, "So you told her that there has to be an open recruitment, right?'' Tim replies, "You know, I'm already on her 'list' for complaining about that student hire last semester. I guess I'll just go ahead and process the paperwork." Edna exclaims, "But what about the other staff in the lab? Won't they gripe about it? After all, it's a pretty high-level opening."

Test answer

Question: Before continuing the conversation, Edna wants to consider whether Tim's approach is ethical. Which standards apply in this scenario?

It's unfair for Tim to bypass the appropriate channels to fill an open position. (1. Fair Dealing)

Hiring for university jobs must follow relevant laws and university procedures regarding open recruitment. (4. Compliance with Applicable Laws and 5. Compliance with Applicable University Policies & Procedures)

Giving a job as a favor is not an appropriate use of university resources. (10. Use of University Resources)

All of the above

Answer: All of the standards mentioned above apply to the scenario.

Bypassing the normal recruitment process is unfair to both internal staff seeking promotional opportunities and outside candidates looking to work for the university. Failing to go through the formal application process violates UC policies that require open recruitment and may also violate federal regulations. Furthermore, by using a job for personal benefit (to do a favor), the principal investigator is violating Standard 10. (So are Edna and Tim, if they go along with the principal investigator's plan.) A university position is a resource and should be allocated to the best qualified candidate in a pool of qualified applicants.

E-mail Tanya Schevitz at .

URL: