UCLA Academic Senate April 1, 2011 To: Ann Karagozian UCLA Academic Senate, Chair From: Shane White Faculty Welfare Committee, Chair Re: Concerns about plans for the proposed Residential Conference Center (RRC) The UCLA Committee on Faculty Welfare (FWC) has discussed the proposed Residential Conference Center (RCC) many times over the past two years, notably on January 11, 2011 when guests included Norman Abrams, Dick Weiss, and Sam Morabito. The proposed RCC has the potential to enhance the UCLA campus. However, valid concerns have been expressed, information sought, and questions asked, but many responses remain incomplete, or in some cases inadequate or absent. The attention of the UCLA FWC to the proposed Residential Conference Center must be viewed in the context of the charge to the FWC (to advise the Division and confer with administrative agencies on all matters involving the economic welfare of the faculty‌), and the exceptional interest in this proposal. The FWC is aware of the many fora: Senate; Administration; Community; UCLA Faculty Center Association; UCLA Faculty Association; individual letters; newspaper articles, and of at least 6 Departmental meetings; where concerns, objections, and suggestions have been presented or unsupportive votes made. The UCFW has 3 main areas of concern; we request that these issues be specifically addressed in detail: (1) Financial Risk to the UCLA Campus. Although the redacted consultant’s report (Market Analysis, July 24, 2009) and a one-page pro-forma spreadsheet have now been made available for study, data supporting the key underlying assumptions remains unavailable. Risk and viability analyses have not yet been promulgated. Projections on room and occupancy rates appear unrealistic. The 10-year no-interest debt structure appears to push long-term risk further down the road. A letter containing specific questions related to the presentation by AVC Morabito to the Council on Planning and Budget about the Residential Conference Center has been appended. (2) Alignment of the RRC Facility with the University mission and campus needs. It is not clear that the facility is designed to meet the needs of our research, teaching, and service missions. Projected room cost is believed to be incompatible with current academic meeting practice. Particular interest has
been expressed that the needs of electronic communication, remote meeting, and distance learning technologies must be fully and seamlessly “plugged in�. Our campus record has so far been somewhat patchy in this regard, past mistakes must not be repeated and future opportunities must not be lost. (3) The Relationship between the Faculty Center Association and the University. This relationship has yet to be defined. Despite years of discussion, a MOU has not yet been agreed. This relationship will be critical to the continuation of a vibrant Faculty Center Association and all the benefits it brings to the University through communication and fellowship among the active faculty and the extremely active emeriti. This relationship must be defined before, not after RCC plans are finalized.
Cc:
Norman Abrams, Acting Chancellor Emeritus Dottie Ayer, Assistant to Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate Jaime Balboa, Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate Brandie Henderson, Policy Analyst, Academic Senate David Lopez, Council on Planning and Budget, Chair Sam Morabito, Administration, Administrative Vice Chancellor Steve Olsen, Vice Chancellor, Finance, Budget and Capital Programs Lawrence Kruger, Chair, University Emeriti & Pre-Retirement Relations Committee Richard L. Weiss, President, Faculty Center Board of Governors