Food for Thought

Vorboten (sort of)

Recently, an email circulated in at least one campus school regarding a local restaurant. It included the curious statement below which attracted the interest of yours truly:

Based on some recent requests, we have again looked at using Napa Valley Grill.  A new review of their contract and terms was completed and unfortunately we are unable to book events with them.  As a reminder: Per Campus Purchasing, “Napa Valley Grill contract language violates the Regents Standing Orders and their legal team has not been able to come to an agreement with UCLA.”

So the interesting question raised (apart from what happened to the "e" in Grille in the email) is what standing order of the Regents is potentially violated?

After diligent research, it appears that the provision violated is contained in Standing Order 100.4(dd)(9). Now you may not be fully acquainted with that section. But it involves contracts undertaken by the university and essentially bans "agreements by which the University assumes liability for conduct of persons other than University officers, agents, employees, students, invitees, and guests. In circumstances where it is deemed necessary by the President, in consultation with the General Counsel, to indemnify non-University persons who have agreed at the University's request to serve as advisors on operational matters for conduct within the scope of their role as advisors, the President is authorized to provide for defense and indemnification. This restriction does not apply to agreements under which the University assumes responsibility for the condition of property in its custody."

So apparently - for reasons unknown - the restaurant's standard contract requires the university to indemnify it for damage done by persons unrelated to the university. Note that the ban does not prevent reimbursements for meals on university business that do not involve a contract.