It has been nearly two years since the University of California pay scandal exploded on the front pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, but since that very enlightening November, little has changed. Students continue to watch their education costs soar along with extra compensation to high-ranking UC officials, with a feverish rush on all sides to achieve transparency.

In an effort to avoid negative publicity and regain some lost public confidence, the UC Board of Regents promised more disclosure and constructed the Task Force on UC Compensation, Accountability and Transparency to study compensation policies and report on their findings. But with compensation voting still taking place behind closed doors, the concerned state Senate took action last week by approving a bill they hope will boost transparency.

In all the haste to right past wrongs, however, the problem seems to have been misunderstood. Transparency isn’t the issue.

Imagine a teenage daughter goes on an unapproved shopping spree with her daddy’s credit card. Of course, he finds out – and in his anger he says, “”Next time just tell me when you spend that much.””

Peculiarly, that is the kind of chastisement that the Senate’s transparency bill proposes to resolve inappropriate spending – a slap on the wrist, and a discomforting hope that the state will be informed before the regents go on anymore unexpected shopping sprees.

But for the students and the union workers, and the professors and the taxpayers, this shouldn’t be enough. It isn’t enough.

Last year, above-base pay rose from $7 million to $7.17 million following a promise from the UC Regents to remedy increases in above-base pay. While it may appear to be only a minor jump, its does not include base salary increases that have been continuously controversial. The regents even approved $30,000 for a dog run for former UC Santa Cruz Chancellor Denice Denton, not to mention that they now plan to spend an absurd $6.9 million on restructuring to allow for more transparency.

The legislation, therefore, is a nice but unsuitable reaction to the perpetually troubling and equally exorbitant incomes of the few high-ranking senior managers. As a result, it sets the stage for habitual reactionary bouts of anger among legislators, citizens and students caused by pay hikes approved by the regents – who currently show little concern for the swelling salaries.

The lack of concern, however, is unsurprising. After all, board members – for the most part – have always remained rather disconnected from the universities, the students, the professors and UC employees. The majority are business moguls who have little conception of what it means to be the little guy trying to get an education while facing mounting fees. One is the senior vice president for Wachovia Bank and another the former chief operating officer of Ameriquest Capital. The chairman of the San Diego Padres baseball club and the chairman of Aurora Capital Group are members. Even the former chair and CEO of Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Group – who is apparently buddies with Tom Cruise – sits on the board. The rest are a mix of lawyers, company chairmen, state politicians, a doctor, a newspaper publisher and, out of the 26, only one (nonvoting) student representative.

Of the entire board, only two have classroom instruction experience, and out of the rest, very few have any bond with the inner workings of the individual universities – in part because the regents’ bylaws prohibit members from standing on campus administrative committees or being appointed “”to any position in connection with the university for which a salary or other compensation is paid.””

Without any true student, faculty or individual campus representation on the board, there is little possibility for headway. Under the current system of governor-appointed regents, who each serve lengthy 12-year terms, the board cannot represent the various factions that make up the university system.

While transparency is nice, it does little to prevent future altercations with the board. Accomplishing significant change in spending limits to prevent the creation of any more unnecessary dog runs will require a major renovation to the structure of the regents board by adding more university representatives, more students and more faculty members.

To paraphrase Johnny Nash, “”We can see clearly now, the rain has fallen.”” Now all that is left to do is put a final end to excessive squandering of student and taxpayer money so that we may finally feel some closure to that stunning November expose.