Watch the Regents Health Services Committee Meeting of Aug. 17, 2022

Most of the attention paid to the Regents meeting of August 17th was on the Big Ten issue, which we have discussed in earlier postings. However, the original purpose of the August 17th meeting was to have a regularly scheduled off-cycle session of the Health Services Committee.  

The meeting began with public comments that included the Big Ten issue, and various labor relations concerns including a COVID bonus. Following public comments, there were opening remarks by President Drake. Then Executive Vice President for UC Health Carrie Byington took note of a new collective bargaining agreement with the California Nurses Association. She gave an overview of the COVID and Monkeypox situations. One point she made was that the Monkeypox vaccine is of the weakened virus type. As a result, it can't be given to persons with compromised immune systems.

Regarding COVID, Byington thought that we are likely heading to a situation in which there will be annual booster shots, perhaps starting in the fall.

A report was made by the Clinical Quality Committee. Although various metrics were presented, Regent Park in particular pushed for specific goals to be set by the Committee.

As always, we have preserved the recording of the meeting since the Regents - for no reason - delete their recordings after one year. You can see the video at the link provided below:

https://archive.org/details/board-health-services-committee.

===

We are experimenting. You can listen to the text above at the link below:

New Claims: No Sign of Recession (again)

We keep looking for signs of recession in the new weekly claims for unemployment benefits in California - and not finding them. The most recent data continue to run at pre-pandemic/boom levels.

And the most recent unemployment rate data for the state put California below 4%, i.e., very low.

As always, the latest claims data are at https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf. 

It must be important: The NY Times takes notice

It took a couple of weeks but the New York Times has now taken notice of Berkeley's People's Park affair, so... it is now officially important: 

...The park... is one of the Bay Area’s most storied plots of land, the site of massive counterculture protests in the 1960s. And after facing decades of opposition to developing People’s Park, the leaders of the University of California system last year approved a $312 million plan to build housing there for both students and unhoused people from the community. But the university’s efforts to transform the park have been plagued by delays, lawsuits and protests, especially in recent weeks. On August 3, workers arrived at People’s Park to fence off the site and cut down trees to begin construction. But protesters soon showed up, too. Park supporters view the land as precious community space and a historical site that represents the wins of the Free Speech Movement... In a victory for the protesters, campus officials paused construction. Two days later, a judge issued an order officially halting further development, in response to a lawsuit filed by activists.

...“Obviously, we’re going to seek to avoid any repeat of what happened last time around,” Dan Mogulof, a campus spokesman, told me. “The commitment to the project is unwavering, but we need to rethink how we’re going to approach that given the sort of response and behavior we’ve seen.”

...In an email sent to students and staff members this week as the fall semester begins, the U.C. Berkeley chancellor, Carol Christ, said the changes to People’s Park were necessary to meet an urgent need for student housing... 

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/us/berkeley-peoples-park.html.

===

We're experimenting. Click on link below to hear the text above:

Big Ten Affair: If it quacks like a negotiation...

We noted yesterday that the Regents in their public review of UCLA's move to the Big Ten didn't really discuss that topic.* They discussed USC's move to the Big Ten - over which they have no control - and they discussed what policies should govern major athletic decisions going forward. But no one from UCLA was present. Nobody from UCLA was asked about the decision.

After the closed session - which was justified as closed because of "litigation" (that so far doesn't exist), the former chair of the Regents and the current chair made statements about their authority to override UCLA's decision. First, as a matter of practice, it is very rare for the Regents to order someone to do something. We are talking about the Regents firing Clark Kerr and Angela Davis, back in the day. Are they really prepared to do something like that now? Second, it remains unclear what commitments UCLA has already made and whether a command from on high to void the deal would lead to "litigation." So, yes, the Regents could technically order Chancellor Block to void the deal. He could then either comply or quit. You don't need an opinion from the UC general counsel to know that simple fact. But what kind of fallout would result from a high-handed regental decision? It wouldn't be pleasant.

So what is this brouhaha about? To yours truly, it walks like a negotiation and it quacks like a negotiation, albeit one that is partly being conducted in public - through statements to the news media - and partly in private. UCLA representatives may not have been at the Regents meeting, at least at the public segment. But surely there has been some level of communication behind the scenes. The way conflicts which are essentially about money are often settled is by money changing hands. Could that mean some kind of revenue sharing? Could it mean that UCLA ends up sharing some of the spoils of the move to the Big Ten with Berkeley and maybe other campuses?

The LA Times carries a story about public statements by the Regents and a warning from a long time UCLA operative, John Sandbrook, that there could be litigation if the deal were to be voided:

After the end of a closed session spanning more than an hour, regent John Perez told The Times that the regents retained the power to block UCLA’s move. “All options are on the table,” he said. Did that mean options could be pursued that would prevent the Bruins from joining cross-town rival USC as the newest members of the Big Ten starting in the summer of 2024? “All options are on the table,” Perez repeated, “up to and including that. … We’re going to look at what all the different options look like and then the board will assert itself in terms of what its desired outcome is.” ...

Richard Leib, the chair of the board, affirmed his power after the end of the meeting. “We always have the ability to retain authority,” he said, “which is what we heard today.” ...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-08-17/ucla-big-ten-move-uc-impact.

Any attempt by the University of California regents to block UCLA’s move to the Big Ten could endanger the way the governing body does business, according to a former chief of staff of a UC president. John Sandbrook, who was chief of staff to former UC President Mark Yudof and a longtime UCLA assistant chancellor under Charles Young, told The Los Angeles Times that the regents trying to thwart a business transaction properly made by a university chancellor under his delegation of authority could have a chilling effect on future transactions of any type with a third party for all 10 UC campuses. “Other members of the Board of Regents need to stop and think about that for a moment,” said Sandbrook, who attended more than 100 regents meetings and wrote dozens of agenda items for the board each year from 1974 to his retirement from the UC in 2010.

Two regents told The Times on Wednesday that they believed their governing body retained the authority to prevent UCLA from leaving the Pac-12 in 2024, though they stopped short of saying that authority would be exercised...

Should the regents rescind UCLA’s defection, Sandbrook said, he wondered if the Big Ten could sue them for interfering with their new multibillion-dollar media contract that was agreed upon with the understanding that UCLA would soon be a member of the conference...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-08-18/blocking-ucla-move-to-big-ten-could-have-fallout-for-uc-regents.

For now, it's best to remember the old Winston Churchill quote:

"To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war."

===

*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/08/watch-regents-off-cycle-special-meeting.html.

===

We are experimenting. To hear the text above, click on the link below:

Watch the Regents Off-Cycle Special Meeting on the Big Ten: 8-17-2022

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:

https://ia801501.us.archive.org/12/items/board-health-services-committee/Chip%20Kelly%208-16-22%20not%20involved%20in%20Big%2010%20decision.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/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.

===

We are experimenting. You can hear the text above at the link below:

New Interim Dean of the Division of Social Sciences

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-interim-dean-division-social-sciences.

===

We're experimenting. Click on link below to hear text above:

Guv's Twitter Account Promotes Going to UCLA

Well, it really promotes the new college savings accounts plan, but indirectly it promotes UCLA.

Video below:

Or direct to https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1559665775887073280 or

https://archive.org/details/newsom-7-1-22-guns/college+savings+8-16-22.mp4.