THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

Oakland, Collier-inn 94507-5200

 

DANIEL Wvllel's direct line. ssvezzaexiv Ext 
snow. Acrmu SverMwluE loam nestewru 

March 25,2015

 

Re: Whistleblower Complaint against Regent De La Pena related to alleged
violation ofRegcnt Policy 1110 (Policy on Conflicts uflnterest)

Dear --

oversaw the investigation of whistleblower complaints filed against Regent De La Pena under
the University of California's Policy on Reporting and Investigating Allegations of Suspected
Improper Governmental Activity (Whistleblower Policy) in my capacity as the Systemwide
Lecally Designaled Official. I recently retired, but 1 am continuing to serve as the Special
Acting Systemwidc Locally Designated Official at the University's request.

The complaints raised a number ofquestions about Regent De La Pena's conduct related to the
potential acquisition by UCLA of Regen! De La Pcna's ophthalmology clinics. The specific
questions raised by the complaints were:

- Did Regent De La Pena repeatedly request that Dr, Felnberg find a way to purchase
his clinics outside of the Regenlal process?

- Did these alleged hy Regent De La Pena include suggestiun to orchestrate
a sale of his clinics to the Doheny institute weeks before the UCLA Doheny
deal to avoid a conflict (if interest on his pan?

- Did Regent De La Pena retaliate in any manner against Dri Feirlberg as a
Consequence of his refusal to involve UCLA in the purchase ofhis clinics?

An outside investigator, Keith Ruhnran, Public lnterest investigations, Inc, was
retained to investigate the allegations. Mr. Rohman interviewed numerous witnesses and
considered voluminous documentation gathered during the course of the investigation from

 Page 2
March 25, 2015

Regent De La Pena and other witnesses. Mr. Rohman prepared a substantial written report
detailing his ?ndings.

Based upon ?ndings in the report, I ?nd that Regent De La Pena continued to engage in
discussions regarding the Doheny deal after Regent De La Pena had been recused from
participating in the matter. I also ?nd that Regent De La Pena continued to pursue alternative
scenarios by which Regent De La Pena?s clinics could be turned over to UCLA, up to the time of
the January 2014 Regents meeting. I accept the investigator?s ?nding that Regent De La Pena
did not retaliate against Dr. Feinberg and UCLA for Dr. Feinberg?s refusal to involve UCLA in
the purchase of Regent De La Pena?s ophthalmology clinics.

Importantly, the University adopted Regents Policy 1110 to conform to the Political Reform Act
of 1974, rather than assert that its Constitutional autonomy exempted the University from
provisions of the Act. It is reasonably settled in the law that it does not matter whether a
designated of?cial under the statute and corresponding con?icts of interest code initiated the
prohibited contact or not. The facts are clear that Regent De La Pena engaged in a series of
discussions about a potential transaction in which he had a ?nancial interest, from October 14,
2013 through and including the January 2014 Regents meeting.

I have carefully reviewed the investigation report, which analyzes the evidence and provides Mr.
Rohman?s ?ndings of fact. I have also consulted with an attorney with substantial experience in
California law related to conflicts of interest codes. Based upon a review of Mr. Rohman?s
report and advice I received from the con?ict of interest attorney, I am adepting the ?ndings of
Mr. Rohman. Consequently, I ?nd Regent De La Pena?s conduct to be a substantial violation of
Regents Policy 1110 regarding con?icts of interest. Pursuant to the University?s Whistleblower
Policy, this clearly constitutes an improper governmental activity.

I will be sharing this decision with Chairman Varner and President Napolitano for their
determination of the appropriate disposition.

Very truly yours 

Daniel M. Dooley
Special Acting Systemwide Locally Designated Of?cial

cc: Chairman Varner
President Napolitano
Senior Vice President Vacca
Director Lohse