5 minute read
New Interim Dean of the Division of Social Sciences
Wednesday, August 17, 2022
Advertisement
Beginning Sept. 1, 2022, Abel Valenzuela Jr. — professor of labor studies, urban planning and Chicana/o and Central American studies and director of UCLA’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment — will serve as interim dean of UCLA’s division of social sciences.
He will remain in the role through the end of the 2023–24 academic year as UCLA conducts a search for the division’s next permanent dean to succeed Darnell Hunt, who was appointed the university’s next executive vice chancellor and provost.
“I am proud to pass the torch to such an extraordinary colleague as Abel Valenzuela,” said Hunt. “He is an exceptional scholar, visionary and leader who exemplifies the highest ideals of the division, College and UCLA itself.” ...
Full news release at https://www.college.ucla.edu/2022/08/16/abel-valenzuela-interimdean-division-social-sciences.
We're experimenting. Click on link below to hear text above:
Watch the Regents Off-Cycle Special Meeting on the Big Ten: 8-17-2022
Thursday, August 18, 2022
Yesterday, we noted that even shortly before the UC Regents were getting ready to discuss a report on UCLA's move to the Big Ten, the report was not available. At the actual meeting, it popped up on the website and is available now.* Also, at the meeting itself, there were calls for "transparency" in major athletic decisions (which seemed in contrast with not making the report available in advance).
What was odd about the meeting was the absence of UCLA. The chancellor wasn't there (or at least not visible). Athletic Director Martin Jarmond was not there (or at least not visible). No one representing UCLA athletics or finance was involved. The day before football coach Chip Kelly said he was not involved in the decision and was not consulted about it. You can see his remarks at:
h t t p s : / / i a 8 0 1 5 0 1 . u s . a r c h i v e . o r g / 1 2 / i t e m s / b o a r d - h e a l t h - s e r v i c e s committee/Chip%20Kelly%208-16-22%20not%20involved%20in%20Big%2010%20decisi on.mp4.
Note that normally when the Regents discuss something related to a specific campus such as a major capital project - the chancellor of that campus and others in the campus administration make a presentation and are available for questions. It might also be noted that this meeting happened to be held at UCLA so it would have been easy for UCLA representatives to be involved. (Of course, we don't know who was present during the closed-door legal discussion that followed the public segment.)
The report was presented as a series of slides by UCOP folks. It contains estimates of the impact of USC going to the Big Ten - something the Regents don't control - on UCLA, Berkeley, and the other campuses. Various Regents had suggestions for more detailed estimates including breaking down the impact on the different sports, including those that don't generate significant revenue. It was also noted that both UC-Berkeley and UCLA had "structural deficits" in their athletic programs before the Big Ten decision.
There was discussion of the travel implications for student-athletes and talk of maybe using chartered aircraft for travel rather than commercial airlines. Regent Cohen asked if there were research studies on the effects of missing classes on academic performance.
General Counsel Robinson seemed to surprise the Regents with his assertion as to how much authority they had in matters such as the Big Ten. Part of his discussion indicated that the chair of the Regents, if a matter were urgent and no Regents meeting was scheduled, could unilaterally revoke the authority of the UC president (and therefore the president's delegation of athletic decisions to chancellors). But there was no talk - at least in the public segment - of the Regents trying to void the UCLA Big Ten decision. At least yours truly came away with the impression that the move to the Big Ten was a done deal. That is, in theory, the Regents could have vetoed it had they known about it. But they didn't know. (Coach Chip Kelly in the clip referred to above seemed to suggest that he knew nothing about it until UCLA announced the decision.)
Robinson came up with a suggestion for a system going forward in which there would be triggers for athletic decisions that involved specific amounts of money or impacts on other campuses. If the trigger were reached, the Regents would be notified and could intervene. It seemed likely, based on the discussion, that the suggested triggers would be altered by the Regents. No decision was scheduled for this meeting but the matter would be taken up - and presumably decided - at the normal September Regents meeting.
Back in July - as blog readers will know - there was a closed-door meeting on the UCLA Big Ten decision at which the governor appeared. He did not appear this time - at least during the public segment. Regent Hernandez at one point seemed to reveal a bit of what went on at the July closed meeting. He said that someone had explained why the Regents had not been given advance notice by saying that it was assumed that the Regents had no interest in sports.
As always, yours truly preserves recordings of Regents meetings since the Regents - for no known reason - delete them after one year. You can see the meeting on the Big Ten at the link below:
https://ia601501.us.archive.org/12/items/board-health-services-committee/BoardBig%20Ten.mp4.
We have also preserved the morning meeting of the Health Services Committee which we will review soon.
* https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/aug22/b1attach.pdf.
We are experimenting. You can hear the text above at the link below:
