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:
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/Board-Big%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.
===
No comments:
Post a Comment