U.C. Berkeley administrator Diane Leite accepted a 7 percent cut to her $188,000 salary after protesting a planned 8 percent cut, meted out because she insisted on her sexual partner's rapid pay raises, from $41,000 in 2005 to $120,000 in 2010. She had overruled the supervisor of her boyfriend, Jonathan Caniezo, in granting raises.
After completing mandatory sexual harassment training several times in recent years, she claimed to be unaware that her actions were wrong.
She should either resign immediately, or actions to terminate her employment should begin at once for at least two reasons. State employees at the management level all have repeated sexual harassment training which emphasizes avoidance of the types of actions committed by Leite. Claiming unawareness of this indicates that she is either lying about not knowing, or perhaps even worse, unable to assimilate even simple facts about the inappropriateness of her actions. In either case, her allocating our public money to her sexual partner borders on a criminal action.
Her actions and the resultant wrist tap should lead to additional questions about the insular bubble in which too many University of California administrators reside, and the apparent disconnect from the world in which the rest of us live.