Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef has an audience today with the Academic Senate, the very organization that is preparing to ask its members to vote "yes" or "no" on whether they have confidence in the chancellor.

Vanderhoef is due at the senate this afternoon to give his annual State of the Campus address. It will be his third opportunity in eight days to meet with members of the campus community on UC executive compensation and an agreement with former Vice Chancellor Celeste Rose.

Regardless of the outcome of the senate's no-confidence vote, which is only advisory, Vanderhoef told reporters last week: "I am not going to resign. Absolutely, I am not going to resign."

Earlier that same day, Jan. 27, at a Brown Bag Chat with an overflow crowd, Vanderhoef said he and Rose were "finally close" to deciding on a project for her to take on as a senior adviser to the chancellor. He has been under fire for keeping her on the payroll, for $205,000 plus benefits annually for two years, without a requirement that she do any work after her July 1 resignation as vice chancellor for university relations.

Jerold Theis, a professor of medical microbiology who launched the petition seeking a no-confidence vote, said he did so because he believes Vanderhoef showed "poor judgment" in his Rose decisions.

Vanderhoef, at his Brown Bag Chat, said he acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the university, to avoid the financial and political fallout from an extended legal battle over Rose's claims of gender and racial discrimination.

Vanderhoef also was concerned that Rose's claims could hurt recruitment and retention of students, faculty and staff. The chancellor adamantly denied that his actions were discriminatory.

The Academic Senate reported Tuesday that it had certified Theis' petition — meaning that the document held at least 50 valid signatures of senate members. Gina Anderson, the senate's executive director, said Theis submitted the petition Monday afternoon with 57 signatures, and all but one was valid.

Faculty vote looms

Anderson said a vote will be conducted through campus mail, probably starting in late February and extending to mid-March. Senate membership is 2,491, including emeriti; all are eligible to vote.

Even if a majority of voters declare that they have no confidence in the chancellor, he would not be bound to step down.

During last week's Brown Bag, the chancellor said he would never challenge the right of faculty to bring a no-confidence vote, but he said he was "disappointed" that his critics did not come to him to "talk it out."

Dialogue, Vanderhoef said in a campuswide e-mail the afternoon before his Brown Bag, "has long been our campus's tradition … no matter how difficult the issue."

The Brown Bag, the latest of his regularly scheduled, quarterly chats, drew a larger-than-expected audience of 125 — so many, in fact, that some people had to stand and others did not get in to the Silo Cabernet Room at all.

Vanderhoef had planned to ask several people to read their "My Personal Compass" essays.

Instead, he put that off, saying: "I felt like there were many other things higher on the agenda today."

Using a wireless microphone and walking up and down the aisle between seats, Vanderhoef said his biggest regret is that the executive compensation issue and Rose agreement had "sullied" the reputations of UC and UC Davis "and caused so much hurt all of us have had to bear."

"That hurts more than anything else," he said.

And, Vanderhoef said, the "hurt" could extend to faculty retention. "I can't quite imagine that (the controversies) will have no effect," he said in response to an audience member's question, adding that the university must work hard to keep its top faculty, by talking with them "one-on-one, face-to-face."

The executive compensation issue stems from a San Francisco Chronicle report that the UC system as a whole had allegedly spent $871 million on "bonuses, moving allow-ances, administrative stipends, and other types of cash compensation in addition to salaries and overtime."

'Change will come'

At the forum, Vanderhoef said the Chronicle and others have mischaracterized the $871 million figure.

For example, the chancellor said, more than two-thirds of the total, or $600 million, was compensation paid to health sciences faculty for treating patients or conducting research, and for summer teaching and research.

He said senior managers received $7 million, or less than 1 percent of the $871 million.

The Davis chancellor repeated his appeal for "change, clarity and transparency" in the UC compensation system. "We have learned a lot, and we have got to change, and we will," he said.

Vanderhoef pointed out that UC Davis — at his direction — was the first campus in the UC system to call for an audit of expenditures by top administrators, including his own spending.

Vanderhoef said he does not blame anyone for being concerned about the Rose agreement. The chancellor repeated his statements that he made his decisions in the Rose matter by considering what was best for the university, based on what was known at the time and especially in light of the fact that the Rose talks came during the heat of legislative debate over the 2005 state budget, with UC funds at stake.

He denied keeping the Rose agreement a secret, and pointed out that the Office of General Counsel — which reports to the UC Office of the President and the Board of Regents — took part in all of the negotiations and determined that the regents' approval of the agreement was not necessary.

Vanderhoef also clarified that the $20,000 raise that Rose received had actually been previously approved but deferred, because of budget constraints, since 2002. The UC-Rose agreement also included a $50,000 "transition payment."

"I made the best decision I could at the time," Vanderhoef said about the settlement, while acknowledging that he might not make the same decision if he had it to do over again.

The chancellor noted reports saying that Rose "doesn't have to do any work." He acknowledged that the agreement requires that she and the chancellor agree on her project or projects.

That has yet to happen, "but I think we're close," the chancellor said. He noted Rose's experience in university affairs, and voiced optimism about what she can do for UC Davis.

During the hourlong Brown Bag, Vanderhoef and the participants addressed a range of issues, including: Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposed state budget, and what it means for UC; the campus's preparedness for an avian influenza outbreak; the use of AGR Hall, in the Beuhler Alumni and Visitors Center, for a sexual harassment workshop; and an Associated Students of UC Davis resolution regarding barring military recruiters from campus.

Senate meeting

Today's Academic Senate meeting, open to the public (but with seating reserved for senate members), is scheduled from 2:10 to 4 p.m., in Memorial Union II.