Chapter 10 Table of Contents
I. The System UC Built — and What It Destroyed
For more than three decades, Chuck Harold has documented what the University of California did to his records. His disability status was reclassified without authorization. His tax filings were corrupted by conflicting 1099-R codes. His personnel file disappeared from systems that were supposed to preserve it. A UC Benefits employee admitted in writing that records were “lost during computer system upgrades.” Four UC systems classified him four different ways at the same time.
Harold documented all of it. In Bruin Watch, in Schrödinger’s UC Retiree, in Behave Like Heroes, and in formal complaints to POST, CMS, and DMHC. He was told, in various ways, that the problems were his. That the records were too old. That the systems had moved on.
Then, in December 2025, the University of California sued its own pension system contractor.
The system UC is suing over is the same system that manages Harold’s pension payments, disability classification, tax reporting, and benefits records. The errors UC now admits occurred in that system — canceled benefits, incorrect calculations, corrupted data — are the same categories of errors Harold has documented since 2015.
UC is now paying lawyers to prove, in court, what Harold has been proving on paper for ten years.
And the pension system is not the only one that failed. On February 13, 2026, UCLA’s own Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer, Stephen Agostini — a man who had served as CFO of the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and testified before Congress — told the Daily Bruin that UCLA’s annual financial reports posted on its website since 2002 are “erroneous and unaudited,” that the university carries a $425 million annual structural deficit caused by “financial management flaws and failures” predating his arrival, and that the Ascend Finance Transformation Project — UCLA’s initiative to replace a legacy mainframe designed in the 1980s — consumed $213 million over seven years, including $150 million with “nothing to show for it.” Four days later, Chancellor Julio Frenk fired him. The Daily Bruin editorial board responded: “Agostini’s departure after interview with The Bruin shows UCLA punishes transparency.”
UCLA called his claims “inaccurate.” Then the record caught up. On January 29, 2026, UCLA’s own Academic Senate Council on Planning and Budget — having voted 115–1 to demand financial transparency — issued an interim report confirming the campus structural deficit approaches $400 million annually. By March 26, even UCLA’s interim CFO admitted a $220 million deficit on central accounts alone, while acknowledging that additional shortfalls across academic and administrative units had not yet been captured. On March 31, the City of Culver City announced it had hired Agostini as its new CFO — lauding him for having “closed a $300 million budget gap” at UCLA and “delivered a balanced budget with a surplus.”
The “since 2002” window Agostini identified encompasses every year of Harold’s records dispute — from the 2003 workers’ compensation settlement through the 2015 reclassification through today. The failed Ascend upgrade explains why Ida Fong could not locate Harold’s records in 2021 and why UCRAYS retains only “a couple years” of history. UCLA has not published a campus-wide budget since fiscal year 2022–23. Two independent sources — one on the benefits processing floor, one in the executive suite — described the same institutional failure affecting the same systems during overlapping time periods. UCLA fired the one in the executive suite. Culver City hired him — the same Culver City Police Department where Harold began his law enforcement career before joining UCLA PD.
II. UCRAYS: The $28 Million Upgrade That Produced Chaos
In 2013, the University of California awarded contracts totaling $28 million to two firms — Sagitec Solutions and Linea Solutions — to overhaul the pension administration system serving more than 151,000 retirees. The system they built is called UC Retirement At Your Service (UCRAYS).
UCRAYS is not a minor administrative tool. It is the system of record for pension calculations, benefit elections, disability classifications, tax reporting, and direct deposit for every UC retiree in the state of California and beyond. It is the system Harold uses. It is the system that generates his 1099-R forms. It is the system Ida Fong could not locate his records in.
2013: UC awards $28 million in contracts to Sagitec Solutions and Linea Solutions to upgrade the UC pension administration system.
Spring 2019: UCRAYS launches. Pension payments do not go out on time. Complaints flood in from retirees — including former chancellors and executives — who go directly to UC President Janet Napolitano with “vociferous complaints.”
Spring–Fall 2019: Over the next six months, the system logs more than 1,000 errors, with 170 deemed “critical.” Errors include canceled benefits, incorrect calculations, and payment failures requiring UC staff to manually verify payments.
2019–2025: UC continues to use Sagitec’s software. The system distributes more than $28 billion in benefits over six years — while UC simultaneously alleges the system was fraudulently built.
February 2021: Ida Fong, UC Benefits employee, tells Harold that records were “lost during computer system upgrades.” She cannot locate Harold’s disability status, workers’ compensation history, or benefit classifications in the system.
December 2025: UC files lawsuit against Sagitec under the California False Claims Act, seeking triple damages and alleging fraud.
January 2026: UC publishes a fraud warning on UCnet, disclosing that UCRAYS accounts have been targeted by fraudulent transactions attempting to change direct deposit information.
Politico, Dec. 4, 2025: “The University of California says it wants justice for messy rollout of pension system. Contractors call it revenge.”
CalMatters, Dec. 16, 2025: “UC’s $28 million system for pensions produced chaos”
UCLA Faculty Association, Jan. 19, 2025: “A clue to an ongoing mystery”
III. Regents of UC v. Sagitec Solutions
The University of California is suing Sagitec Solutions and Linea Solutions under the California False Claims Act — the same statute that enables governmental entities to pursue triple damages against private contractors who defraud the government.
According to court filings and investigative reporting, UC alleges that:
Pension payments did not go out on time when UCRAYS launched in spring 2019.
Benefits were canceled as a result of system errors.
Calculations were incorrect, requiring UC staff to manually verify pension payments.
More than 1,000 errors were logged in the first six months, with 170 classified as “critical.”
Sagitec and Linea officials sent employees home for the weekend at a critical point during the system launch.
UC suffered “substantial reputational harm” from the failures.
UC seeks tens of millions of dollars in damages.
Sagitec, in its counterclaim, alleges that UC “embarked on a vindictive crusade” because it “got egg on its face.” Sagitec contends that UC’s own “late-stage design changes” were “complex, costly and time-consuming” and caused many of the problems. Sagitec further notes that UC has continued to use the software for six years, distributing more than $28 billion in benefits through the very system UC now calls fraudulent.
UC then hired former Sagitec employees — the same individuals UC alleges committed fraud — to build an in-house replacement system. As Sagitec’s lawyers observed: “These are the very people that UC alleges engaged in the supposed fraud for which UC seeks tens of millions of dollars.”
IV. 1,000+ Errors, 170 Critical — In the Same System That Manages Harold’s Benefits
The errors UC alleges in the Sagitec lawsuit fall into categories that align precisely with the errors Harold has documented across nine chapters of Bruin Watch and fifteen chapters of Schrödinger’s UC Retiree:
| Error Category (UC’s Allegation) | Harold’s Documented Experience | Cross-Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Incorrect calculations | Harold’s 1099-R forms show three conflicting distribution codes for tax year 2015 alone — Codes 3, 2, and 7 — producing $133,215 to $149,532 in documented financial harm | Schrödinger CH-07 §§ III–VI; Bruin Watch CH-06 Q10–Q14 |
| Canceled benefits | UC ceased Harold’s $727.48 monthly Anthem Blue Cross premium deduction in February 2026 without notice, explanation, or administrative process | Bruin Watch CH-06 Q15; Schrödinger CH-10 §§ III–IV |
| Payment failures | Harold’s gross distribution dropped from $33,188 (2014) to $27,767 (2016) — a 16.3% decrease consistent with unauthorized premium deductions | Schrödinger CH-07 § V |
| System unable to maintain accurate records | Ida Fong admitted in March 2021 that records were “lost during computer system upgrades.” UCRAYS showed Harold’s son my son coded as disabled — the wrong family member entirely | Bruin Watch CH-07 Q17–Q19; Schrödinger CH-07 § VII |
| Four UC systems with conflicting data | PeopleSoft, UCPath, UCRAYS, and the Workers’ Compensation record each classify Harold differently — disability, retired, medically separated, or active — simultaneously | Schrödinger CH-06 §§ III–IX; Bruin Watch CH-03 § V |
| Data corruption affecting 151,000 retirees | Harold is one of those 151,000 retirees. The system that failed for all of them failed specifically and documentably for him | All chapters |
V. Cross-Reference: What Harold Documented Before UC Admitted It
Harold’s documentation of system failures predates UC’s own lawsuit by years. Every category of error UC now attributes to Sagitec, Harold attributed to UC’s systems in real time — often with contemporaneous written evidence.
CH-06: Tax Classification and Financial Records — Documents 15 years of 1099-R codes, account number changes, and premium deductions. Questions 10–14 challenge UC to explain the conflicting distribution codes that UCRAYS generated. The tax harm — $23,848 to California, $6,936 to Arizona — is calculable from UCRAYS data.
CH-07: Records Integrity and Data Breach — Documents Ida Fong’s admission that records were lost during system upgrades (Q17); the erroneous disability coding of my son (Q18–Q19); the Echols file-location reversal (Q20–Q21); and 25 data breaches affecting UC and Anthem systems (Q25). The “computer system upgrades” Fong referenced are the UCRAYS upgrade at issue in the Sagitec lawsuit.
CH-03: The Herz Correspondence — UC’s own RASC analyst classified Harold as a “retiree on disability” in written correspondence, then UC reversed course. The classification that Herz confirmed is the classification UCRAYS failed to preserve.
CH-09: The Invalid Benefits Election — Documents how UC used a superseded UBEN form and a compressed enrollment window to force a benefits election Harold was ineligible to make. The form used was superseded — generated by a system UC now admits was defective.
CH-05: 25 Data Breaches — A comprehensive chronological archive documenting 25 data breaches affecting UC, UCLA, and Anthem Blue Cross from 2005 through 2026. Seventeen of 25 (68%) correlate with documented events affecting Harold’s records. The largest single breach — Anthem Inc., February 2014 — affected 78.8 million individuals during the same period Harold’s disability status was being reclassified. The UCRAYS system launched into this environment of compromised data.
CH-07: UC’s Own Tax Filings Expose the Switch from Disability — A year-by-year analysis of every 1099-R form UC issued to Harold from 2010 through 2024, proving the unauthorized reclassification from disability (Code 3) to retirement (Codes 2 and 7). The 2015 transition year produced multiple conflicting 1099-R forms for the same tax year — a hallmark of a system that could not determine what Harold’s classification was. Financial harm: $133,215 to $149,532.
CH-09: The Invalid Benefits Election — Establishes that UC’s coerced benefits conversion in 2015 coincided with the UCRAYS pre-launch testing period, during which system data was being migrated and validated. Harold’s reclassification occurred in the same window that UC’s own lawsuit now describes as a period of “chaos.”
Behave Like Heroes, campus_ucla-11: UCLA PD’s compliance table reveals zero disclosures under SB 1421 across the entire reporting period — the same period during which Harold’s CCW permit was revoked using a classification (“medically separated”) that UCRAYS generated and no UC policy defines.
POST Complaints (DOC1–DOC3): Harold’s February 2026 POST complaints against Officers Chobanian, Valenzuela, and Davis document conduct that relied on UCRAYS classifications — classifications UC now admits were produced by a system riddled with over 1,000 errors.
VI. UC’s Own Fraud Warning — January 2026
On January 22, 2026, the UC Retirement Administration Service Center published a systemwide fraud alert on UCnet disclosing that UCRAYS accounts had been targeted by fraudulent transactions — specifically, attempts to change retirees’ direct deposit information and initiate unauthorized transactions on their behalf.
“The UC Retirement Administration Service Center (RASC) has learned of recent attempts to defraud UC retirees by changing their direct deposit information in UC Retirement At Your Service (UCRAYS), and/or by initiating transactions on their behalf. It is critical that you monitor your benefit payments carefully and contact the RASC immediately if you suspect fraud.”
This is the same UCRAYS system that:
• UC admits logged 1,000+ errors and 170 critical defects at launch
• UC is suing its own contractor for building defectively
• Ida Fong could not locate Harold’s records in
• Generated conflicting 1099-R codes for Harold’s tax filings
• Coded my son as disabled instead of Charles Harold
• Is now being exploited by external fraudsters
Harold did not need UC to tell him the system was compromised. He has been telling UC for a decade.
VII. Questions for the Plan Administrator
UC has alleged in Regents of UC v. Sagitec Solutions that UCRAYS produced more than 1,000 errors, including canceled benefits and incorrect calculations. Harold’s benefits were canceled and his calculations were incorrect during the same period. Has the Plan Administrator determined whether Harold’s records were among those affected by the UCRAYS errors UC has now identified in litigation?
On March 12, 2021, UC Benefits employee Ida Fong stated in writing that records were “lost during computer system upgrades.” The UCRAYS upgrade is the largest computer system upgrade affecting UC retirement records in the relevant timeframe. Is the “computer system upgrade” Fong referenced the UCRAYS upgrade at issue in the Sagitec litigation? If not, which upgrade was it?
Harold’s disability classification (Distribution Code 3) was in effect from 2003 through 2014. The UCRAYS data migration and testing period preceded the spring 2019 launch. During this migration, was Harold’s disability classification accurately transferred from the legacy pension system to UCRAYS? What validation was performed? What records exist documenting that validation?
UC issued three conflicting 1099-R forms for Harold’s tax year 2015, bearing Distribution Codes 3, 2, and 7. This is the same period UC now identifies as a transition window in its pension system operations. Were the conflicting forms generated by a legacy system, by UCRAYS, or by a combination of both? Which system of record controlled Harold’s classification in 2015?
UCRAYS listed my son — Harold’s son — as “disabled” rather than Harold himself. UC corrected my son’s records, issued a premium refund, and removed my son from subsequent 1095-B forms — all within approximately one year. UC has never corrected Harold’s disability classification in over five years. If the system error that assigned disability status to the wrong family member was a UCRAYS defect, how does UC justify not correcting the classification for the correct family member?
UC disclosed in January 2026 that UCRAYS accounts were being targeted by fraudulent transactions, including unauthorized changes to direct deposit information. Has UC determined whether Harold’s UCRAYS account was among those targeted or compromised? Has UC audited Harold’s UCRAYS transaction history for unauthorized changes?
UC has continued to use Sagitec’s UCRAYS software for six years after identifying the errors, during which the system has distributed more than $28 billion in benefits. If the system was defective enough to warrant a False Claims Act lawsuit, on what basis does UC assert that the records UCRAYS produced for Harold during this same six-year period are accurate?
On September 2, 2020, Harold’s enrolled agent, David Kabachnick, EA, sent written reconciliation questions regarding Harold’s 2018 and 2019 1099-R forms and a 1099-MISC with an incorrect entity identification number. UC never responded. Harold’s UCRAYS secure message history extends back only to approximately 2022, with no record of the 2020 communications. Were those messages lost in a UCRAYS system failure? Were they purged? Or did UC receive them and choose not to respond?
VIII. A 30-Second Search
Throughout Harold’s three-decade effort to resolve his records, UC administrators have responded with variations of the same claim: they don’t know, they weren’t aware, or they can’t find the information. The suggestion, sometimes spoken and sometimes implied, is that Harold’s case is obscure — a minor clerical matter involving a former employee they can’t quite place.
That claim does not survive a 30-second internet search.
In March 2022, UCLA’s own Luskin Center for History and Policy published a 50-page institutional report titled The History of Racism and the Quest for Racial Justice at UCLA. In its section on “Modern Years of Policing and Surveillance,” the report names Harold directly. It documents that UCLA Police Department officer Charles A. Harold was forced to take administrative leave because he had filed grievances against the university. It details his 1993 lawsuit alleging violation of civil rights, conspiracy, negligence, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and constructive termination. It describes Harold’s letter to UC President Jack Peltason warning that excessive force by UCPD was “routine” and the “potential for violence is tremendous.” The report then notes that UCLA’s Risk Management Office dismissed his charges as “specious” and accused him of “trying to manufacture problems that don’t exist.” (UCLA Luskin Center, March 2022, pp. 35–36)
That is not the testimony of an outside critic. That is UCLA documenting, in its own institutional research, what it did to Harold.
In April 1994, the Los Angeles Times published a front-page cover story headlined “Police Force Under Fire: UCLA’s 59-Member Department Maintains Peace Everywhere on Campus Except Within Its Own Ranks.” Harold is named throughout as the central figure — “at the center of the storm, creating a veritable blizzard of grievances.” The article describes his complaint against Lt. James Vandenberg for racial and ethnic slurs, which UCLA’s own fact-finding report upheld. It reports that Harold was placed on indefinite paid leave, denied promotional opportunities, and told his record had been “smeared with phony violations.” Administrative Vice Chancellor John Curry acknowledged that Harold’s case had dragged on for an “unconscionably long” time. (Los Angeles Times, April 24, 1994)
And Harold did not disappear after leaving UCLA. He built one of the most documented careers in American security management — spanning law enforcement, corporate Hollywood, and international media.
- 1983–1985 • San Gabriel Police Department — Police Officer / Dispatcher. Burglary suppression, Explorer Scout coordinator. First officer in the department to use a personal computer for police reports.
- 1985–1989 • Culver City Police Department — Police Officer / FTO. Field Training Officer, Motorcycle Officer, Crime Impact Team, Traffic Investigations, K-9 agitator.
- 1989–1996 • UCLA Police Department — Police Officer / FTO. 900+ arrests, 39 Field Commendations, 25 Bureau Commendations, 16 Citizen Commendations. Motorcycle Officer, Traffic, Defensive Tactics. 13-year law enforcement career across three agencies.
- 1996–2000 • Fox Broadcasting Company — Director of Building Services & Security. Created the department for Fox’s worldwide headquarters (Fox Network Center). $2M operating budget, 250,000-sq-ft live broadcast facility, union/vendor contracts, civil and criminal investigations.
- 2000–2002 • Fox Entertainment Group — Director of Corporate Investigations. Established Fox’s first corporate investigations division. 52-acre studio lot, 22 television stations, 27 productions nationwide. Forensic data recovery, database design, threat assessment. Published “The Detective and the Database” in Security Management Magazine (ASIS International).
- 2002–2005 • The Walt Disney Company — Senior Manager, Security Operations. Nine million square feet across three studios, 100+ buildings in three cities. $25 million operating budget — larger than UCLA PD’s entire annual budget at the time. Union/vendor contracts, 375 security personnel, 7 direct reports. Intelligence collection and executive briefings.
- 2006–2007 • Nagy Protection Services (NPSI) — Vice President / COO. 500-employee regional guard company. Clients included Guess? Inc., Loyola Marymount University, Warner Bros., Hollywood Center Studios, Jimmy Kimmel.
- 2008–2013 • McRoberts Protective Agency (MPA) — Vice President of Operations. Launched the California branch of America’s oldest security agency (est. 1876). Hired and deployed 400+ uniformed security officers for the Academy Awards, five consecutive years.
- 2013–Present • SecurityGuyTV.com — Creator, Host, Executive Producer. 3,000+ podcasts and video broadcasts. Official host of ASIS TV for ASIS International (2018–2022). Live broadcasts from Black Hat USA, ISC West, RVAsec. Board of Advisors, Robotic Assistance Devices. 65,000+ monthly listeners, ~30,000 LinkedIn followers.
Harold is not obscure. He is not unknown. He is a public figure with a documented UCLA history that UCLA itself published, a Los Angeles Times cover story with his name in it, and a professional media footprint that any intern with a browser could locate in seconds.
When UC administrators claim they don’t know who Harold is or can’t find the context for his complaints, the question is no longer whether the information was available. It is why they chose not to look.
IX. What This Means
The Sagitec lawsuit does not merely corroborate Harold’s claims. It transforms them. Before December 2025, Harold was a retiree alleging that UC’s systems had failed him. After December 2025, Harold is a retiree whose documented system failures are now the subject of UC’s own multimillion-dollar fraud case.
The University of California has now made the following position untenable: that Harold’s records are reliable.
UC alleges in Regents v. Sagitec that the pension system produced canceled benefits, incorrect calculations, and more than 1,000 errors affecting 151,000 retirees. Harold is one of those 151,000. His benefits were canceled. His calculations were incorrect. His records were lost.
UC cannot claim in one courtroom that UCRAYS was so defective it constitutes fraud — and then claim in another forum that the data UCRAYS produced about Harold is accurate. The Sagitec lawsuit is an institutional admission against interest. It is UC, under oath, telling a court that the system of record was broken.
Harold documented the breakage before UC admitted it. He documented it with UC’s own correspondence, UC’s own tax filings, UC’s own RASC analysts’ written admissions, and 25 UC-affiliated data breaches spanning two decades. He was told, in various ways and by various UC representatives, that the problems were somewhere between imagined and irrelevant.
They were neither. They were systemic. And UC just proved it.
The next chapter presents the full Table of Authorities — 282 statutes, cases, regulations, and UC policies that Harold’s evidentiary record invokes. The Sagitec lawsuit adds one more: the California False Claims Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12650–12656, which UC itself has chosen as the vehicle to prove that its pension system was built on fraud.
Documents referenced herein that were created by UC, issued by UC, filed by UC, retained by UC, or filed with the IRS under penalty of perjury, or generated by UC’s own contracted insurer, are UC’s own institutional record. Documents created by the undersigned were created in direct response to UC’s own records and communications. Where UC’s own institutional records are not produced to clarify this audit, the author will rely on California Evidence Code § 413, under which the failure to produce evidence within a party’s control permits the inference that such evidence would be adverse to the party withholding it.
Submitted for Regulatory Review and Public Accountability
Chuck Harold
UCLA Police Department (Retired?), Badge #341
Founder and First President, Federated University Police Officers’ Association (FUPOA)
I affirm that the information contained in this document and its exhibits is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and good faith belief, submitted under the protections of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (False Claims Act anti-retaliation) and California Labor Code § 1102.5.