University of California President Janet Napolitano’s office is refusing to disclose the price of those controversial Internet snooping scanners installed recently at the 10 UC campuses — or reveal whether the taxpayer-financed security system went through competitive bidding.

Napolitano had the Web scanners installed in the wake of a hacker attack at the UCLA medical center last summer. They are capable of monitoring all faculty and staff e-mail and Web traffic.

Faculty members at UC Berkeley sounded the alarm, saying the system conjured the prospect that university bosses could eavesdrop on all sorts of private communications.

Now, they’re also pointing out that the system doesn’t come cheap.

“It looks as though the cost, just for the hardware installed on the Berkeley campus, is in the ballpark of $4 million to $6 million,” said Ethan Ligon, an associate professor of agriculture and resource economics and one of six members of a joint faculty-administration committee on information technology.

“Add numbers like that up over all 10 campuses and medical centers,” and you’ve got one pricey security system, Ligon said.

UC spokesman Steve Montiel insists there are no plans to read anyone’s e-mails, and that the entire process of planning and installing the new security system was discussed in open meetings with faculty participation.

However, when we asked for the cost of the system and whether there had been an open bidding process for what looks like a multimillion-dollar operation, Montiel responded in an e-mail: “Our cyber security efforts after the attack at UCLA Health were conducted at the direction of legal counsel in anticipation of lawsuits.

“We wound up with 17 lawsuits altogether,” Montiel said. “Because of the litigation and legal issues, we are unfortunately limited in what we can share broadly at this point.”

Ligon’s take: “Not only faculty, but also administration here at Berkeley are being kept completely in the dark on this and other issues.”

He and other Berkeley faculty members on the technology committee have asked Napolitano’s office to remove the devices — and if that doesn’t happen, for no communications to be monitored without a subpoena.

“On the basis of the meetings we’ve had,” Ligon said, UC “seems unwilling to give on any of these points.”

Raider deal details: The Raiders’ new one-year lease at the O.co Coliseum is actually a three-year deal that gives the team a nice rent break in the second and third years in exchange for a promise to continue “good-faith” negotiations for a new stadium.

Everyone is staying publicly mum on the deal until it’s signed, but sources close to the negotiations confirm that the Raiders’ rent would climb from $925,000 to $3.6 million in year one — then drop to $2.6 million in year two and $2 million in year three.

In return, the Raiders would continue to get $3.5 million a year from their cut of concessions sales, club seating charges and naming rights.

The Coliseum Authority (i.e., Oakland and Alameda County taxpayers) will also continue to pick up the tab for game-day expenses for everything from security to ticket takers to cleanup, which came to $8.3 million last year.

“In return, it gives us time to work out a stadium deal,” said one authority member who asked not to be named until the deal is signed.

If the Raiders decide to pick up and leave after next season — and not extend their lease option — they don’t pay the Coliseum another dime.

“That’s the price of doing business,” the authority member said.

Pushback: A November Charter amendment being floated around San Francisco City Hall by a group that hasn’t identified itself would limit the mayor and Board of Supervisors to two consecutive terms — period.

In other words, it would close the loophole in the current law that allowed Supervisor Aaron Peskin to return to the board after a hiatus — and it would also assure no do-overs down the road for soon-to-be-termed-out Supervisor John Avalos, or the loser of the upcoming contest between Supervisors Scott Wiener and Jane Kim for the state Senate.

It would also disqualify the likes of former Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier should she contemplate a return to the Marina district seat held by Mark Farrell, who is eyeing a run for mayor in three years.

While the group behind the measure hasn’t actually stepped out of the shadows to claim ownership, it appears to have the fingerprints of a cadre of business-friendly loyalists to Mayor Ed Lee. City Hall sources on the second floor tell us it’s very real — and intended to send a message to Peskin and his newly energized board progressives not to get too carried away with any of the ballot reforms they’ve being contemplating.

That includes Avalos’ planned measure to strip the mayor of his current authority to appoint members to fill board vacancies. Avalos had said he had six votes to put it on the June ballot, but just the other day declared he was postponing the effort until the bigger-turnout November presidential election.

San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KPIX TV morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call (415) 777-8815, or e-mail matierandross@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @matierandross