Photograph by Erik Jepsen / UCSD

UCSD auditors wrote that they had “identified four faculty who had received salary and benefits from funds to which they had donated.”

Inspecting a gift horse’s mouth

A number of questionable self-contributions to UCSD have been targeted for audit by the school’s Audit & Management Advisory Services. A June 16 report covers cash donations from UCSD faculty members, given to the university to cover the costs of their own research. The law says that’s okay if “the purpose of the gift is to support bonafide University activities or purchases,” according to the document.” However, “the University should not put itself in the position of acting as a conduit for funds for which employees claim a deduction that is likely to be disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service.” That includes “any personal benefit to the donor such as salary, travel, or entertainment” that “would compromise the element of donative intent.”

Auditors wrote that they had “identified four faculty who had received salary and benefits from funds to which they had donated.” They included a “Department of Psychiatry faculty member [who] donated $359,376 from [Fiscal Year] 2017 through July 2022 to a research fund. The faculty member had received $241,875 in payroll from the gift fund from July 2021 through November 2022. We met with the department to review the [Fiscal Year] 2022 salary payments. The department was previously aware of the salary payments and was conducting further review in consultation with UCSD Health Legal. This matter requires additional inquiry and will be managed outside of his review.”

In a second case, “an Infectious Diseases & Global Public Health department faculty member had received recognition credit for a $25,000 gift from their spouse in [Fiscal Year] 2020 to a fund for which the faculty member was the designated [Principal Investigator]. In July 2022, the faculty member began receiving a recurring monthly salary and benefit expenses, totaling $35,177 through January 2023.” A follow-up review, per the audit, found that the errant faculty member “was unaware that they had been drawing salary on a fund their spouse had donated to and indicated they would stop the expense and move the salary to another fund. As of March 8, 2023, salary and benefits totaling $36,869 were transferred from the fund, and the recurring salary and benefit expense had ceased.”

When it comes to skiing, Reed Hastings enjoys peak performance.

Additionally, there was the case of a “physics professor’s July and August 2020 salary and benefits totaling $26,768 was charged to a [fund] they received recognition credit for, with donations totaling $1.9 million from FY2018 through 2022.” Per the report, “The department’s [management services officer] had only been in their role since July 2021 and was unaware of why the faculty member’s salary and benefits were charged to the fund. Queried by auditors, “The [management services officer] stated salary and benefits charged in 2020 would be moved off the project in June 2023.” In another example, “A Pharmacology professor received salary and benefits totaling $977 from March 2020 through July 2020 from a fund they had donated $580,000 from FY 2017 through 2022.”

To avoid future problems with bad donations, a new policy, titled Faculty Gifts in Support of Their Own Research, is in the works, subject to approval by the school’s academic senate. Already self-giving faculty members are being required to sign a warning statement saying, “I understand that University policy prohibits the use of the gift funds in a way that provides me, as the donor, with personal benefits such as personal travel and entertainment. I further understand that my gifts may not be used as a fund source to pay salary and benefits to me.”...

Meanwhile, in another case of suspicious gift-giving, UCSD’s audit team investigated student admissions linked to financial gifts to the school from January 1, 2019, through September 2022. “Our analysis identified 67 matches of applicants admitted to UCSD who appear to be related to donors who gave a cumulative amount of $10,000 or more during the audit period.” Says the June 23, document, adding no further detail, “The risk assessment for the 67 matches of applicants admitted to UCSD who appear to be related to donors who gave a cumulative amount of $10,000 or more during the audit period was documented and provided to the [Locally Designated Official] for further review.”

No-publicity politics

Patty Quillin, wife of billionaire Netflix founder and former co-CEO Reed Hastings, came up with $9100 on October 16 for the campaign of termed-out San Diego state Senate Democrat Toni Atkins for lieutenant governor in 2026. “She has no publicity team around her, and that’s by design. So, in my world, a lot of people still don’t know her name,” Democratic political strategist Brian Brokaw told the Hollywood Reporter in November 2020. “That’s fascinating, considering how much influence and money she’s spent in recent years.” Quillin’s string of liberal political gifting has included $1 million to failed affirmative action Proposition 16.

Last month, Hastings and spouse sunk $100 million into the Powder Mountain ski resort in Utah. “This is an investment in what we consider to be the ultimate skier experience,” Hastings said in a statement cited by the Deseret News. “My wife Patty and I love this place; we love the untracked powder several days after a storm cycle, we love the vastness of the terrain, and we love the community.”

The Netflix billionaire’s arrival follows years of turmoil for Powder Mountain, including fierce resistance by locals to four Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, founders of the Summit Series, who in 2013 took over the property with grand expansion plans for 500 housing units, a branch of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and an alternative medical center, according to an April 10, 2023, account by the ski news website Unofficial Networks.

Toni Atkins: raising a mountain of money for her campaign.

“Applicants to Summit are screened and interviewed to ensure they display the correct ‘psychographic’ (or mindset) for the events. It is pitched as an entertaining ideas festival, comparable to TED and Burning Man, featuring speakers such as Quentin Tarantino, Jane Fonda, Peter Thiel, and Jeff Bezos. Guests pay $3000-$8000 for access to three-day flagship events, hosted everywhere from beaches in Tulum, Mexico, to cruise ships in the Caribbean,” per a March 2018 account by The Guardian.

“Having finessed the art of persuading rich people to pay to join these getaways, the founders convinced their friends to help them buy an entire mountain in Utah.” But natives “feared that the teenagers and young adults that worked at Powder Mountain would be exposed to the tech bros’ acts of debauchery,” according to Unofficial Networks. In addition, the resort’s “increased water usage made many locals put protest signs on their lawns, which had the slogan: ‘Summit Sucks Water.’”

— Matt Potter

(@sdmattpotter)

The Reader offers $25 for news tips published in this column. Call our voice mail at 619-235-3000, ext. 440, or sandiegoreader.com/staff/matt-potter/contact/.