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-gavin-newsom-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-july-regents.html. In case there is a change in the official agenda, here is a screenshot of the original item:
No comments:
Post a Comment