8 minute read
Watch the Regents' Morning Meeting of July 20, 2022
Friday, July 22, 2022
At the first meeting of the two-day set of Regents sessions, the full board had its usual public comments session. Comments included admissions from community colleges (transfers), vaccine mandates, abortion, ethnic studies, fossil fuel use, labor relations, pesticides on campuses, UC enrollment, and online education. Although the Regents are now mainly back in-person, Chair Leib was on Zoom due to his having COVID.
Advertisement
Following the public comments, there were the usual statements by Leib and Drake. Academic Senate Chair Robert Horwitz spoke about the Senate's fossil fuel memorial, affiliation with religious hospitals, and tensions around BOARS and ethnic studies. He said BOARS is in consultation with ethnic studies faculty, but gave no timing about the process. New Student Regent-designate Tesfai from UCLA was introduced.*
Similarly, he noted tensions around departmental political statements and some Regents' concerns about them which are somehow being addressed. Again, no timing was mentioned. Statements are supposed to have disclaimers indicating they do not represent the official position of the university and should have indications as to who in the department supports the statement. Horwitz expressed skepticism of the idea of an online undergraduate degree.
After these remarks, there was a lengthy review of the US Supreme Court's Roe/abortion decision.
The Compliance and Audit Committee heard a description of the various audit plans. Regent Makarechian took note of the various medical sexual harassment cases that have arisen and wondered why audits didn't spot the potential for such situations to arise before they occurred.
Regent Park noted the plethora of audits that are done and wondered if - with so many audits - resources aren't overstretched to the point where a proper job cannot be done. She also asked why UCLA seemed to be overrepresented in the proportion of audit
hours.
In Public Engagement and Development, there was much discussion of a student volunteer program. The university is opposing SB1364 in the legislature - a bill limiting contracting out.
As always, we preserve the Regents' recordings since they are otherwise deleted after one year for no particular reason. The links to the morning sessions are below:
Full session: https://archive.org/details/1-board-7-20-22.
Full Board: https://archive.org/details/1-board-7-20-22/1-Board+7-20-22.mp4.
C o m p l i a n c e a n d A u d i t : h t t p s : / / a r c h i v e . o r g / d e t a i l s / 1 - b o a r d - 7 - 2 0 - 2 2 / 1 Compliance+and+Audit+Committee.mp4.
Public Engagement and Development: https://archive.org/details/1-board-7-20-22/1Public+Engagement+and+Development+Committee.mp4.
*See http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/07/new-student-regentdelegate.html.
Friday, July 22, 2022
The AP speculated yesterday about the governor's concerns about UCLA moving to the Big Ten as reportedly expressed at a closed Regents meeting on Wednesday:
... The UC Board of Regents cannot force UCLA to reverse the decision. In 1991, campus chancellors were delegated authority by the UC Office of the President to execute their own contracts, including intercollegiate athletic agreements. The regents though could require UCLA pay UC Berkeley an exit fee for leaving the Pac-12 or share TV revenues they will gain from a move to the Big Ten...
Full story at https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-california-san-francisco-gavinnewsom-c280f0760d69f195135ae379453c9852.
Note that the entire session was closed - so only the participants know for sure what went on. The closed session for this topic was supposed to be on Thursday according to the original agenda, but apparently the Regents used the closed session on Wednesday instead.*
The grounds for closing the session on a topic in which there was an evident public interest is given in the agenda as " Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]." Note that the element that seemed to be of concern to the governor was the financial impact on Berkeley, not "litigation." If there is any litigation going on or pending, it is surprising that no one knows about it, again given the level of public interest.
Note that other items for which there is litigation and for which there is closed discussion in fact list the specific cases. The cases are listed publicly on the agenda even though discussion about them was to be closed. No litigation case was listed on the agenda item related to the Big Ten.
Let's look at Education Code Section 92032(b)(5). It says:
(a) The Regents of the University of California, as occasioned by necessity, may hold special meetings. The regents shall give public notice for these meetings. This notice shall be given by means of a notice hand delivered or mailed to each newspaper of
general circulation and television or radio station that has requested notice in writing, so that the notice may be published or broadcast at least 72 hours before the time of the meeting. The notice shall specify the time, place, and agenda of the special meeting. The regents shall not consider any business not included in the agenda portion of the notice. Failure to comply with this subdivision shall not be excused by the fact that no action was taken at the special meeting.
(b) The Regents of the University of California may conduct closed sessions when they meet to consider or discuss any of the following matters: ...
(5) Matters involving litigation, when discussion in open session concerning those matters would adversely affect, or be detrimental to, the public interest.
Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/education-code/edc-sect-92032.html.
In fact, if you look at the entire section, not just part (5), there doesn't seem to be anything that would cover a general policy surrounding a campus athletic program moving to the Big Ten. So, why was the entire session on the Big Ten closed? The governor didn't seem to be reticent about talking in public about the topic. What seems to have occurred was a violation of the Education Code.
* https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/07/upcoming-agenda-for-julyregents.html. In case there is a change in the official agenda, here is a screenshot of the original item:
Saturday, July 23, 2022
Yesterday, we raised questions about the legality of the closed Regents meeting on UCLA's move to the Big Ten.* As we noted, the rationale officially offered for a closed session discussion cited an Education Code section on secrecy needed for "litigation." But, as far as anyone knows, there is no litigation pending or even rumored.
We do know that the governor - who normally doesn't attend Regents meetings even though he is an ex officio Regent - did attend the closed session. He spoke about his opinion BEFORE the session - so there is no secrecy about that. And, as the LA Times pointed out below, there is no secrecy about UC's response. Specifically, there will be a presumably public report by August 17 from UC president Drake about this matter. In short, the secret meeting is becoming an open secret:
The University of California announced Thursday it will scrutinize UCLA’s Pac-12 exit and issue a public report on the effect on student-athletes and the ripple effect on UC Berkeley and other campuses. The request for a review came from the UC Board of Regents and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who demanded an explanation from UCLA on its planned move in August 2024 after he attended a closed-door regents meeting Wednesday about the matter in San Francisco. He has expressed concern about what he views as a lack of transparency by UCLA, which informed UC President Michael V. Drake about its conversations with Big Ten officials but did not consult with regents. Only a handful of UC regents were notified just before the decision was announced. UC Berkeley — the only UC campus that will be left behind in a weakened conference without UCLA and USC — will probably take a big financial hit...
Drake’s office will conduct and publicly present its findings and recommendations to the regents on or before Aug. 17. The report will assess several major areas. First, regents have asked for information on the effect of the Pac-12 move on UCLA and other UC campuses’ culture, operations and finances.
UCLA stands to gain big, touting its move to the Big Ten as a huge boost for its male and female athletes. In addition to the ability to compete for national titles across all sports and draw high-profile media exposure, the change in conferences will help secure the financial future of an athletic department facing an unprecedented $102.8-million deficit.**
A new Big Ten media rights deal including USC and UCLA, which is expected to yield in excess of $1 billion, could more than double the yearly payout the Bruins would have received by remaining in the Pac-12. Also, the move spares UCLA from a doomsday scenario it potentially faced — the elimination of some Olympic sports teams — because of diminished resources. But regents also want to know how other UC campuses will fare. UC Berkeley is bracing to lose millions in media revenue under a new TV contract in two years, which will probably be far less lucrative without USC and UCLA and the huge Southern California market.
Regents also want to know the effects of the move on UCLA’s student-athletes, including how the campus plans to address issues related to travel, competition schedules and academic support. As part of the Big Ten, UCLA student-athletes will play in the nation’s only conference spanning coast to coast, boosting recruiting efforts and enhancing their ability to secure lucrative name, image and likeness deals. But the longer travel distances and time zone differences could affect their health and academic achievement. Finally, UC will examine the regents’ policy that allows each university to control its athletics operations, and offer recommendations on policy changes necessary to ensure “proper oversight of major athletics-related decisions.” ...
Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-07-21/uc-regents-ask-for-areview-of-uclas-controversial-pac-12-exit.
It is doubtful there is any recording of the closed session, but if there is, it should be made public. There surely are minutes which should now immediately be made public. If not, there should be an explanation as to what litigation justified closing the meeting.
* http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-governor-is-annoyed-about-bigten_22.html.
**It's unclear whether this sum is a debt or a deficit. Most likely, it is the former. As blog readers will know from our coverage of state budgeting, news reports often confuse the two concepts.
