The Regents began their September meetings yesterday. As in the past, yours truly will be preserving the recordings of their sessions since the Regents - for no good reason - delete the recordings after one year.
The discussion on this coming Thursday of the Regents about its power to delegate authority and reverse such delegations, as blog readers will know, was triggered by the UCLA/Big Ten deal. However, it's important to note that the relevant item on the agenda is listed as for "discussion" and not "action." Hence, the Regents are not expected to do something. Instead, they are expected to consider alternative courses of action that they might undertake in the future. The report on delegation has the following relevant language:
...Regents Bylaws – and general governance principles – permit the Board of Regents to rescind any delegation of authority previously issued. The Board of Regents can take action to rescind a delegation of authority over either an entire type or class of matters, or over an individual matter or transaction. Rescissions of authority over a type or class of matters should be codified in Regents Bylaws or Regents Policy, while rescission of delegated authority over an individual matter or transaction could simply take the form of the Board acting on that matter.
The Board can rescind authority over a particular matter or transaction by voting at a publicly noticed Regents meeting, or via the Interim Action process discussed further below, whereby the Chair of the Board and the Chair of the Standing Committee with jurisdiction over the matter have been delegated authority by the Board to take action on behalf of the Board on matters where time sensitivity requires action between Regents meetings.
As a matter of governance, the Board of Regents has the authority to attempt to reverse an action already undertaken by University administrators under delegated authority. However, dependent on the facts of the matter, such a reversal might be infeasible (e.g., a building approved for demolition might already have been demolished prior to the Board’s action attempting to reverse the approval), or might create legal, financial, or reputational risks to the University...
Full report at https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/sept22/b2.pdf.
Note the language referencing adverse legal consequences. Undoing a deal negotiated by an authorized agent of the Regents would invite adverse legal action.
The report goes on to refer explicitly to athletics delegations, but not specifically to the UCLA/Big Ten situation. In the closed session that will take place before the open discussion, the Big Ten matter is listed, but no report is available to the public.
Meanwhile, there is a news report that Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff is hopeful that the Regents will reverse the UCLA/Big Ten agreement. From the Mercury News:
...“There’s a couple of key reasons why we think overturning the decision would not be a bad idea,’’ Kliavkoff said. He cited the mental and physical impact of cross-country competitions on the players and the increased travel and administrative costs associated with Big Ten membership. “We think the incremental money they are going to receive from the Big Ten’s media rights deal will be more than 100 percent offset by additional expenses, so you end up taking the money you earned and it goes to airline and charter companies and coaches and administrators,’’ Kliavkoff said. “It doesn’t go to supporting the student-athletes. And obviously, there’s the negative impact on Cal that I’m sure the regents will take into account when they are considering this.” ...
It is important to note, however, that the closed door item on this issue - like the governance item in the open session - is listed as for "discussion," not "action." So, it does not appear that the Regents will emerge from the closed session and announce some action on their part.
===
https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/governance%20report%20regents.mp3
No comments:
Post a Comment