Requa case settlement - Part 2

Plaintiff Joe Requa

Below is more information on the Lawrence Livermore National Lab court case/settlement known as Requa that had the possibility of challenging the Regents' position that retiree health care is an obligation, not a gift, but - in the end - didn't.* UC chose to settle to avoid the possibility of a court decision that, based on UC assurances and documents, retiree health care was a vested benefit like the UC pension.
====
Lab Retirees Settle Lawsuit with UC

By Jeff Garberson, The Independent (local newspaper in the Livermore area), 12-19-19

Nearly a decade after they first sued to regain University of California health care, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory retirees have reached an $84.5 million settlement that provides a range of benefits: reimbursement for those who lost financially, support for future medical premium payments and a promise of future medical coverage if the federal government should ever drop its support for health care. The settlement is subject to approval by the court, and the retirees themselves will be able to review and comment. Absent major changes or objections, the first benefits to the roughly 9,000 retirees could come through in mid-2020, according to those familiar with the anticipated schedule.

The earliest payments are likely to be $1,000 to each retiree, to compensate for the added expense they incurred as a result of losing UC health care. This benefit would also be paid to the estates of qualified retirees who passed away. The settlement provides for creation of a $60 million trust fund that can be used to lower the cost of medical care for retirees for the next 20 years; and another $20 million to cover past damages. It also provides for what is being called a “backstop,” a court-supervised requirement that University of California will reinstate UC-sponsored programs if retiree health care benefits are terminated or materially changed by LLNL’s operating manager. Beyond the $84.5 million settlement, the University will also cover attorney’s fees of $12 million.

Asked why it had accepted an agreement that fell short of its original goal of reinstatement in the UC health care system, the retirees said in their prepared comments that the settlement “provides health coverage equivalent to that offered current UC retirees.” The University and the partnership that operates LLNL today “will remain under court monitoring to assure this result,” according to the retiree statement. “Continuing to a trial might have required another four years… We wished to provide closure and repayment to both the deceased and the living as soon as possible.”

To Ernest Galvan, a San Francisco attorney who has argued retiree benefits cases before the state Supreme Court, the settlement is very impressive, a successful David vs. Goliath case. Galvan did not represent any of the parties in the retiree lawsuit, but acknowledged sympathy for the retirees’ cause. 
The attorneys for the retirees “were extremely well prepared… against the much better funded University of California attorneys, so they had to be twice as smart and twice as nimble… They did a great job,” he said. He believes public employers around the state will now be on notice that they cannot simply decide to save money by eliminating retiree benefits.

If the University of California, with all its resources, has ended up with an $85 million obligation plus $12 million in attorney’s fees after a lengthy lawsuit, he reasoned, city and county benefits managers should be aware that they may be legally vulnerable and financially exposed if they act without considering retiree interests.

LLNL declined comment on the settlement on the grounds that it was not a defendant and had not reviewed the decision. A spokesperson for the University California said that “we are pleased to have reached an agreement with the retirees of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory that provides them and their families security for their health care benefits.” The spokesperson restated UC’s institutional position that “these retirees do not have a vested contractual right to University-sponsored retiree benefits,” but the settlement “will help offset cost” of the benefits. He said that the National Nuclear Security Administration “is providing the majority of the funding” for the settlement, but declined to be more specific on the ground that the agreement will not be complete until the court finally approves it.

UC managed the Laboratory from its founding in 1952, so LLNL employees were University employees just as they are at Berkeley or UCLA. In 1961, the University’s Board of Regents authorized the expansion of health care benefits to cover UC retirees as well as active employees. Laboratory retirees enjoyed UC health care benefits until 2008, shortly after a for-profit consortium called Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC replaced UC as manager. Retirees were then forced to find health care in individual, industrial-style programs, some of which were less reliable and more expensive than UC’s had been.

In addition, there was no certainty of continued health care coverage, which many of the retirees felt they were promised as UC employees – and which they later documented in court. Then and later, many of the retirees claimed that they had made career decisions at least partly on the basis of these promises. In face-to-face meetings with senior University managers in Oakland in 2008-9, they tried to negotiate a return to UC health care. When that didn’t work, they formed a grassroots organization called the UC Livermore Retiree Group under the leadership of retiree Joe Requa. They began raising funds and, in 2010, filed suit. The fundraising was remarkably effective, eventually bringing in more than $900,000 from more than 1,000 donors.

The suit became a class action in 2014. As the years dragged on, the retirees experienced both wins and losses. Significantly, they won two major court of appeal decisions, including one that reversed a ruling that would have decertified the class.

To Jay Davis, one of the named retiree plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the financial support provided by the Retiree Group was invaluable for making it possible to bring in actuarial expertise. This was used to analyze benefits, project medical costs and predict survival rates, according to a Retiree Group statement. The analyses “gave us the resources to outthink and outfight the University of California,” he said. “The University was just not prepared for a lawsuit by people who could do that depth of analysis... The problem they got into was that when we had an argument, they had to argue with our numbers.”

Two other named plaintiffs, Wendell Moen and Donna Ventura, felt a strong connection with the old Laboratory that had been operated by the University of California. They felt little allegiance to the for-profit partnership, Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, that took over in late 2007. Ventura recalls her 32 years at the Laboratory as “a good career.” It felt like something of a “betrayal” when “the LLC took over” and UC health care suddenly was no longer available. To Moen, anxiety among class members grew out of the recognition that future contractors might have no loyalty to retirees — and that their health care could disappear.

“I think that’s where the lawsuit drew its support from so many people,” he said. “There was nothing that would compel another organization (in the future) to respect the employment that we had with the University.”

Davis finds it both sad and ironic that if the current settlement had been offered at the start of the lawsuit nearly a decade ago, “we would have taken it in a minute. In the meantime, 2,500 retirees have died. That, I think, weighs on us more than anything else. We have lost friends who will never know how this came out.”

Source: https://www.independentnews.com/news/lab-retirees-settle-lawsuit-with-uc/article_c628f592-2216-11ea-9d03-a739683b33ac.html. There is also an editorial describing the settlement in positive terms in the same newspaper at:
https://www.independentnews.com/editorials/a-settlement-worth-noting/article_81d8f56e-221a-11ea-8f50-7f1505d4c4c0.html
====
*Our previous post on the subject is at http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2019/12/requa-case-settlement.html.

California Looks Better Than Most Other States, But...

The two charts below from the Center on Budget and Priorities suggest that California looks good compared to most other states in regard to overall state higher ed spending per student:
[Click on the charts to clarify.]

Keep in mind, however, that the path between the two dates was U-shaped. That is, spending fell and then came back. But during the period in between, there were real cuts and you can't go back in time and fill in what was lost. Put another way, if I give you $1000 in year 1 and year 3, but only $600 in year 2, that is less money than if I had given you $1000 each year. In the first scenario, you are down by $400 for the three years combined relative to the second scenario.

Source of charts: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/unkept-promises-state-cuts-to-higher-education-threaten-access-and

Ripple Effects of UCPath

From a recent email:

UCLA officially kicked off its Financial System Replacement Initiative in Spring 2018 following a period of planning and analysis. Thanks to the hard work of so many across campus, we developed a project plan that leverages the new cloud-based financial application, called Ascend. However, through conversations with campus stakeholders over the course of the past month, we have determined that changes to our financial systems and business processes will be more successful under an extended implementation process. We now expect that our transition to Ascend will extend beyond the previously stated target of July 2021.

Over the past year, the financial challenges facing UC and UCLA have increased greatly and we face a sobering budget forecast in the years ahead. We are also sensitive to the potential for change fatigue if we implement a new system too soon, particularly while the campus community is still adjusting to UCPath. We believe that a new timetable for Ascend will ultimately help ensure its success.

This change in our implementation timeline will allow for the continued stabilization of UCPath, create a window to implement the new budget model, and allow our academic and administrative units the opportunity for a more manageable process that should also result in project savings. A subsequent communication anticipated by early February will provide more details on the revised implementation plan for Ascend. This plan will include system components that will be ready for deployment in July 2021, while others will be ready to deploy in future years...

The LAO on Higher Ed Spending

[Click on image to enlarge and clarify.]

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has thoughts about higher ed spending in the future in a new report. LAO continues to argue that UC is accepting more students than are eligible under the Master Plan's original vision.

Executive Summary

Report Analyzes Cost Pressures at UC and CSU. California operates two public university systems: (1) the University of California (UC), consisting of 10 campuses, and (2) the California State University (CSU), consisting of 23 campuses. Compared with many other areas of the state budget, the Legislature has considerable flexibility through the annual budget process to decide which university costs to support. Despite this greater flexibility, the Legislature faces many pressures to increase funding for UC and CSU in 2020‑21. This report examines these university cost pressures, assesses the state’s capacity to fund some of them, and identifies options for expanding budget capacity to fund additional cost pressures.

Cost Pressures

Employee Salary Increases Likely to Remain Key Cost Pressure. Existing law grants both university systems authority to negotiate compensation levels for their employees. Since 2013‑14, both systems have provided annual salary increases, generally ranging from 2 percent to 5 percent depending on the employee group. Because contracts are not in place for most university employee groups in 2020‑21, salary increases will likely be a key issue facing the Legislature in the upcoming budget. We estimate the cost of a 1 percent salary increase to be around $45 million at each segment in 2020‑21.

Employee Benefit Costs Continue to Rise, Universities Have Notable Unfunded Liabilities. Like most government employees in California, university employees receive subsidized health care while they are employed, and they receive both pensions and subsidized health care when they retire. These benefit costs are among the fastest growing cost pressures at UC and CSU. We estimate benefit costs across both university segments will increase by around $195 million in 2020‑21. In addition, both university systems have billions of dollars in unfunded pension and retiree health liabilities resulting from underfunding earned benefits in previous years.

Universities Have Large Facility Maintenance Backlogs. Like most state agencies, UC and CSU dedicate a portion of their core budgets for facility maintenance, such as keeping electrical and plumbing systems in working order. As their spending on maintenance has tended to be insufficient over the years, campuses have accrued billions of dollars in unaddressed facility maintenance and seismic renovation projects. These backlogs create significant cost pressure for the Legislature in the budget year and future years. To better guide state funding decisions, the Legislature recently directed the universities to develop long‑term plans to address their backlogs. The Legislature is to receive CSU’s report by January 2020 and UC’s report by January 2021.

Some Pressure to Expand Enrollment but No Underlying Demographic Growth. When weighing enrollment growth decisions in the upcoming budget, the Legislature faces a number of key factors. First, the number of high school graduates is projected to decline slightly in the upcoming year. Both segments are also drawing from larger pools of high school students than expected under state policy. These factors potentially suggest further enrollment growth is not warranted in 2020‑21. On the other hand, the Legislature may wish to grow enrollment to improve access at high demand campuses. Based on the state’s existing per‑student funding rates, we estimate growing enrollment by an additional 1 percent would cost the state around $40 million at UC and $45 million at CSU.

Legislature Likely to Face Many Other University Cost Pressures. In recent years, the Legislature has considered various initiatives that change the level or scope of university services. These initiatives have included: (1) increasing the number of tenured/tenure‑track faculty; (2) improving graduation rates at CSU; (3) limiting nonresident enrollment at UC; (4) expanding student food, housing, and mental health programs; and (5) establishing new academic programs and campuses. In 2020‑21, the Legislature very likely will continue to face pressure for additional spending in each of these areas.

Planning Issues

State Budget Has Capacity to Fund Some University Cost Pressures. In The 2020‑21 Budget: California’s Fiscal Outlook (fiscal outlook), we calculate the state’s budget capacity for the coming year. In making our calculations, we first assume the state maintains existing services, as adjusted for inflation. For the universities specifically, we assume the state covers salary, pension, health benefits, and debt service cost increases. After accounting for these types of cost pressures, we estimate the state would have a $7 billion surplus. Given certain risks to the General Fund, we recommend the Legislature limit new ongoing spending commitments across all areas of the state budget to around $1 billion. In the case of the universities, any remaining ongoing pressures (such as enrollment growth, expansion of services, and new programs or campuses) likely would be up for legislative consideration for a portion of this $1 billion. After making new ongoing commitments, the remainder of the state surplus would be available for one‑time commitments, accelerated debt payments, or larger state reserves. If the Legislature would like to direct some of the remaining surplus to the universities, we encourage it to give high priority to addressing the universities’ unfunded liabilities and facility maintenance backlogs (including seismic renovations). Addressing these liabilities now would reduce the burden on future generations and improve the fiscal health of the state and universities.

Legislature Has Some University Options for Expanding Budget Capacity. Our fiscal outlook assumes the state covers inflationary cost increases, with no increases in tuition for resident students. However, one key option available to the Legislature for covering additional cost pressures is to share ongoing university cost increases with students through a tuition increase. We estimate that every 1 percent increase in tuition raises associated net revenue by about $15 million at UC and $10 million at CSU. Another option would be to work with the universities to pursue efficiencies in their operations and facility utilization. The amount of freed‑up funding that could be redirected would depend upon the specific efficiencies pursued, with some options creating budget‑year savings but others not yielding savings until later years. Another option would be to factor campuses’ reserves into state budget decisions. The Legislature could be strategic in the use of these reserves—using them to protect ongoing university operations during an economic downturn or using them to address key one‑time priorities, such as deferred maintenance, in the budget year. Each of the university systems potentially has hundreds of millions of dollars in reserves that are available for such spending purposes.

Full report at https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4127

Remember the Hawaii telescope impasse?

It's still with us:

From the Honolulu Star-Advertiser: Frustration with the standoff on Mauna Kea and the high cost of policing the protests boiled over today as the Hawaii County Council voted 9-0 to reject an agreement that would have required the state to pick up the tab for county police overtime and other protest-related costs. Council members said they want to recover the millions of dollars that county police have already spent coping with the protests and patrolling the Daniel K. Inouye Highway around the protest camp. But the council refused to endorse a deal signed by Mayor Harry Kim that would have required county police to respond to Mauna Kea protests for up to five more years.

Puna Councilmember Matt Kaneali‘i-Kleinfelder, who led the opposition to agreement, said he wants to teach the Kim administration “a lesson” that it must consult with council before entering into such agreements, and said he would never agree to taking more state money if it obligates the county to police protests on the mountain for another five years.

Officers who are deployed near the protest site at the base of the Mauna Kea Access Road have issued more than 8,000 traffic citations since mid-August, and police say they are patrolling and writing tickets to make the area safer for motorists and the protesters who regularly walk across the highway. Gov. David Ige has said the state and counties spent $15 million so far coping with the 22 weeks of non-violent protests designed to block construction of the $1.4 billion Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea. Much of that cost has been borne by Hawaii County, which has spent more than $4.7 million on police overtime alone.

The protesters, who call themselves kiai, or protectors, say building the TMT would be a desecration of a mountain that many Hawaiians consider sacred. They say they will not allow the telescope to be built. Supporters of the TMT say the project has won the legal right to proceed. Sponsors of the TMT spent a decade obtaining permits and fending off legal challenges, but construction of the telescope remains stalled by the protests.

Source: https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/12/18/breaking-news/hawaii-county-council-rejects-agreement-with-state-on-cost-of-policing-tmt-protests/

As noted in innumerable past posts, UC is a participant in the TMT project.

Online Education: Who goes there?

Remember the old 1993 New Yorker cartoon about how your identity on the Internet could be hidden? One dog says to another, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."

The Mercury-News carries an article about a revelation that came out as a byproduct of the admissions scandal of payments for substitutes to take online courses for students who were already admitted. See below:

...There has been conflicting research on whether students actually cheat more online than in person. Melanie N. Clay, executive director of extended learning at the University of West Georgia and editor of the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, said: “cheating can and does occur in both traditional and online environments.”

“There is no perfect system,” Clay said.

Jason M. Ruckert, vice chancellor and chief digital learning officer at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida, said in some ways, technology gives online courses an edge in defeating cheaters. Software can track locations where students log in, learn to recognize a student’s keystroke patterns and check for plagiarism by scanning other  published reports.

“I believe identifying a student cheating in an online classroom might be easier than doing so in a large face-to-face course,” Ruckert said.

UC spokesman Andrew Gordon said that the system checks “VPN addresses” of its students enrolled online “to ensure that the individuals submitting assignments and taking exams are the students who are enrolled.”
But Newton said those measures aren’t always employed and don’t always work.

“There are tools that can prevent this or make it more likely you’ll get caught,” Newton said, “but if you hire somebody to take classes for you and the URL is always the same, whether it’s in Liberia or San Jose, those things won’t catch it.”

Schools and companies that make anti-cheating software for them are, Newton said, in a constant arms race with “essay mills” that sell work to students and develop workarounds.

Clay acknowledged that “a more difficult problem to detect” in either online or traditional classes is “when students pay others to write original papers for them.”

Newton said administrators are far more confident than their teachers that online cheating isn’t rampant.

“Deans and presidents will tell you cheating just doesn’t happen and their standards are rigorous and that’s just nonsense,” Newton said. “The professors I speak to will tell you, ‘Yeah it’s fairly common.'”

But as with the admissions system, schools tend to rely on the honor system and the threat that cheaters will face serious consequences. Arizona State would only say about the latest case that it “investigates all allegations of academic dishonesty that it receives.”

The most effective measures to defeat cheaters, Newton said, are having incentives for teachers to catch cheaters, severely punishing those who are caught, regularly updating anti-cheating software and using video to establish a personal recognition between the teacher and student. But he added that universities see online classes as cash cows and aren’t motivated to employ costly measures to counter cheating.

“We don’t even have a comprehensive sense of how broad the problem is,” Newton said. “I think they’re just afraid of the answer because they don’t have a good solution.”

Full story at https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/12/15/theres-a-new-front-in-the-college-cheating-scandal-online-classes/

No Pot

Email circulated today:

UCLA Office of Environment, Health & Safety

To the Campus Community,

Following review and comment from the campus community, the Office of Environment, Health and Safety (EH&S) has revised UCLA Policy 810, Smoke and Tobacco-Free Environment (formerly known as Smoke-Free Environment) effective December 6, 2019. The changes align with the University of California Smoke and Tobacco Free Environment Policy that incorporated marijuana and broadened the scope of products, in accordance with state and federal mandates. EH&S received substantial input from the campus community on the revisions to this policy, and we thank everyone who participated in the review process. The policy is now available at the UCLA Administrative Policies and Procedures website.

If you have questions about the policy process, please contact Anna Joyce at ajoyce@capnet.ucla.edu.

Sincerely,
Michelle A. Sityar, MPH
Executive Officer

==============
UCLA Policy 810 : Smoke and Tobacco-Free Environment

Issuing Officer: Administrative Vice Chancellor - Administrative Vice Chancellor's Office
Responsible Office: Environment, Health & Safety - Look Up Contact Person
Effective Date: December 7, 2019
Supersedes: UCLA Policy 810 - Tobacco-Free Environment, dated 4/22/2013
Revision History: APP History

I.     BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE  

This Policy sets forth the responsibilities of the members of the campus community in establishing and maintaining a smoke and tobacco-free campus environment.

In January, 2012, citing healthcare and environmental considerations, former UC President Yudof asked that each UC Chancellor implement a smoke-free policy on their respective campuses. President Yudof set out the key elements expected to be present in any such campus policy: that smoking, the use of smokeless tobacco products, and the use of unregulated nicotine products (e.g., “e-cigarettes”) be strictly prohibited in all indoor and outdoor spaces, including parking lots, residential spaces, and the Medical Center campuses; that the policy apply to all UC facilities, whether owned or leased; and that the sale or advertising of Tobacco Products be prohibited in University Owned or occupied buildings.

Prior to President Yudof’s 2012, memo UCLA Health was already smoke-free and the UCLA campus established a smoke-free policy in April 2013. The change to a smoke and tobacco-free environment for the entire campus is consistent with UCLA’s commitment to maintaining a safe and healthy environment for students, staff, faculty, volunteers and visitors.

II.    DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Policy:

Marijuana means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

Tobacco or Marijuana Use means the act of using any Tobacco or Marijuana Product, including smoking, heating, chewing, spitting, absorbing, dissolving, snorting, sniffing, inhaling, exhaling, ingesting, burning, or carrying any lighted or heated plant product intended for inhalation, whether natural or synthetic, including Tobacco and Marijuana. This includes the use of any electronic smoking device that creates an aerosol or a vapor in any manner or in any form or the use of any oral smoking device for the purpose of circumventing the prohibition of smoking.

Tobacco or Tobacco Product means any product that contains tobacco (excluding those that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for cessation of smoking or tobacco use), including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, pipes, water pipes (hookah), smokeless tobacco products and electronic products that delivers nicotine (e.g., “e-cigarettes”).

University Owned or Leased Property  means a) all University property operated as part of the UCLA campus, including campus buildings, private residential facilities, structures and facilities, parking structures and surface lots, and grounds areas; and b) all off-campus University owned or leased property or facilities operated by UCLA staff or faculty in support of UCLA administrative, teaching, research, medical care or other public service functions or private residential facilities for UCLA students, faculty and staff.

III.   POLICY STATEMENT

Except as provided below, Tobacco or Marijuana Use, is not permitted on any University Owned or Leased Property, including any portions of such Property that may have been previously designated smoking areas. The sale, advertising or promotion of Tobacco or Marijuana Products is also prohibited on all University Owned or Leased Property.

Exceptions to this Policy may be granted for the following reasons:

1.    Tobacco or Marijuana Use may be permitted in connection with research if it adheres to all federal and state regulatory requirements, EH&S health and safety guidelines, or in connection with research approved in writing by the UCLA Institutional Review Board or Animal Research Committee. See UCLA Cannabis FAQs for performing research and conducting other activities involving Marijuana.

2.    Smoking or Tobacco Use may be permitted for traditional ceremonial activities of recognized cultural and/or religious groups with prior written approval of the sponsoring department, the UCLA Events Office and the Fire Marshal’s Office.

IV.   RESPONSIBILITIES

1.    Each member of the UCLA community, including, students, faculty, staff, volunteers, and visitors is responsible for observing and adhering to this Policy. All persons on University Property are required to abide by University of California (“University”) and UCLA policies. Violation of University and/or UCLA policies may subject a person to disciplinary action; if the person is a student or employee of the University, that person may be subject to discipline procedures in accordance with University and UCLA policies or, as applicable, collective bargaining agreements.

2.    Vice Chancellors, Deans, and Department Heads have the responsibility to ensure that students, faculty, staff, volunteers, and visitors within their areas are informed of this Policy; this includes:

a)    Ensuring that this Policy is prominently posted and noted in handbooks, websites, catalogs, and in student, staff, and faculty recruitment materials within their area of responsibility; 

b)    Promulgating this Policy to all employees and students within their respective areas, including incorporating the Policy in appropriate student or employee recruitment or orientation programs; and

c)    Ensuring that visitors who may attend programs or events, or are retained to stage events sponsored by the department, or any guest, volunteer, trainee, vendor, or contractor are notified of this Policy and UCLA's requirement that all such visitors comply with this Policy.

3.    Managers, supervisors and administrative officers are encouraged to answer questions and concerns by their employees and constituents regarding this Policy.  Concerns related to application of this Policy should be forwarded to the responsible department head for coordination with the office of the Administrative Vice Chancellor or Office of Environment, Health and Safety.

4.    Compliance with this Policy is grounded in informing and educating members of the UCLA community about this Policy and encouraging those who use Tobacco Products to seek treatment for Tobacco or Marijuana dependence. In order to maintain a smoke & tobacco-free environment, notifying others about this Policy will be an ongoing effort to enhance awareness of and foster compliance with this Policy. For confidential counseling support, employees may contact UCLA’s Staff & Faculty Counseling Center at 310-794-0245.  For information about reasonable accommodations, employees may contact Employee Disability Management Services at 310-794-6948.

5.     The Tobacco Free Steering Committee is responsible for providing information and answering questions regarding smoking cessation resources. Visit the campus website at https://breathewell.healthy.ucla.edu and the UCLA Health website at https://www.uclahealth.org/smokefree/ for more information. 

V.    REFERENCES

1.    University of California Smoke and Tobacco Free Environment Policy;
2.    California Government Code, Division 7, Chapter 32; and § 7596-7598;
3.    University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices;
4.    UCLA Health System Smoke-Free Environment Policy, HS 8002;
5.    U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Rules 2016 Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp;
6.     Title 21 United States Code Controlled Substances Act, Subchapter I Part A.

Source: http://www.adminpolicies.ucla.edu/APP/Number/810.0