Black Hole

Blog readers will know that the Hawaiian telescope issue - which involves UC - comes up again and again in public comment segments of the Regents meetings. It may well come up at the upcoming meetings later this month. The Regents have held only one session of their own on the topic, but it was a discussion only. No action was taken.* Most of the public comments have tended to be negative, i.e., demands that UC pull out of the consortium that is proposing the Thirty-Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea.

The Regents, however, have not acted. Most likely, the reason for their non-action in the face of protests by native Hawaiians and allies is that the site with its existing telescopes has been very valuable to the astronomy community. A recent article from the New York Times suggests that value:

Astronomers Find a Black Hole in Our Cosmic Back Yard

Almost but not quite in time for Halloween, astronomers announced on Friday that they had discovered the closest known black hole. It is a biggie, a shell of yawning emptiness 10 times as massive as the sun, orbiting as far from its own star as the Earth is from ours... Dr. [Kareem] El-Badry, [an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics], and his team detected a star, virtually identical to our sun, that was jittering strangely, as if under the gravitational influence of an invisible companion. To investigate further, the researchers commandeered the Gemini North telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii, which could measure the speed and period of this wobble and thus determine the relative masses of the objects involved. The technique is identical to the process by which astronomers analyze the wobbles of stars to detect the presence of orbiting exoplanets — except this time the quarry was far bigger. Their results and subsequent calculations were consistent with a black hole of 10 solar masses being circled by a star similar to our own. They named it Gaia BH1...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/05/science/astronomy-black-hole.html.

====

*Audio of that session is at https://ia801904.us.archive.org/20/items/regents-7-30-20am-part-2/Regents%207-30-20am%20Part%202.mp3 or https://archive.org/details/regents-7-30-20am-part-2/Regents+7-30-20am+Part+2.WMA.

====

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/black%20hole.mp3

Still there

Our weekly look at California new claims for unemployment insurance shows this series stuck around the pre-pandemic (boom) 40,000 mark, as it has been during 2022. No sign of recession.

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

You didn't forget to "fall back," did you?

The clock change last night gave you an extra hour today for sleeping. Or you can use that hour to find out all you wanted to know - and probably more - about time and clock changing at: 

https://archive.org/details/mitchell-time-edited.

The Regents Next Week: Big Ten & Other Topics

A preliminary agenda for the Regents meetings of next week is now available and can be found below. The mysterious Pension Administration Project - no one seems to know what it is - will yet again be discussed behind closed doors in a closed session of the Compliance and Audit Committee. The project appears again and again on Regents agendas, always in closed sessions. Actuarial valuations of the various UC retirement plans will be discussed at the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee.

Finance and Capital Strategies will also be taking up the proposed Neuropsychiatric Replacement Hospital at UCLA.

Finally, after all the speculation, the UCLA move to the Big Ten conference will be discussed at a closed session of the full board on November 17. There will then be some action taken - or at least scheduled to be taken - at a following open session. Note that the closed discussion is labeled "Potential Legal Issues and Financial Impacts." Presumably, although we won't know for sure, this discussion will include the UC general counsel telling the Regents that, yes, they can override the campus decision that was taken pursuant to existing Regents' delegations of authority, but such a decision would invite costly litigation. What is not clear is what will be said about this in the open session that follows. Will the Regents just take a vote without any public discussion of the implications? We will see. 

As noted in a post yesterday, UC is apparently going to spend big bucks to defend its proposed name change for UC-Hastings.* Given the vast dollar sums entailed in the Big Ten move, the Regents could end up spending substantially more on outside legal bills were they to void the UCLA decision. A revenue-sharing decision with Berkeley would be less controversial, but it's not clear why that option needs to be discussed behind closed doors with just the decision in public. 

Agenda: November 16-17, 2022

===

Wednesday, November 16

8:30 am Board (open session - includes public comment session)  

Public Comment Period (30 minutes)

Remarks of the Chair of the Board

Remarks from Nobel Prize Recipient and UC Berkeley Professor David Card

Remarks of the President of the University

Remarks of the Chair of the Academic Senate

---

Concurrent Meetings:

9:30 am Public Engagement and Development Committee (open session)

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

P1 Discussion: November 2022 Election: Outcomes and Insights for the Year Ahead

P2 Discussion: Safeguarding Democracy in the 21st Century

P3 Discussion: UC Systemwide 2022 Civic Engagement Efforts  

---

9:30 am Compliance and Audit Committee (open session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

C1 Discussion: Ethics, Compliance and Audit Services Annual Report 2021-22

C2 Discussion: Annual Report of External Auditors for the Year Ended June 30, 2022

C3 Discussion: Fostering a Fair and Accountable Culture to Promote High Reliability in Health Care

---

Upon end of open session:

Compliance and Audit Committee (closed session) 

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

C4(X) Discussion: Annual Consultation with Regents’ Auditors Concerning Performance of University Personnel

C5(X) Discussion: Compliance and Audit Personnel Matters

C6(X) Discussion: Update on the Pension Administration Project 

---

12:30 pm Investments Committee (open session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 20, 2022

I-1 Discussion: Real Estate Investment Strategy Update

---

Concurrent Meetings:

12:50 pm Academic and Student Affairs Committee (open session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

A1 Action: Amendment of Regents Policy 3105 – Regents Policy on Residency and Payment or Waiver of Tuition, Non-Resident Supplemental Tuition and Mandatory Systemwide Fees

A2 Discussion: Achieving the Academic Mission: Academic Senate Survey of UC Faculty and Instructors and the Continuing Impact of the Pandemic in the 2021–22 Academic Year

A3 Discussion: Statements Describing Faculty Contributions to Inclusive Excellence

A4 Discussion: Accountability Sub-Report on Diversity

A5 Discussion: How UC Research Informs Academic Planning

---

12:50 pm Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (closed session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

F1(X) Action: Business Terms for the Public-Private Partnership Development of the Science Research Park, San Diego Campus

---

Upon end of closed session:

Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (open session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

F2 Action: Consent Item: Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for Site and Make-Ready Portion of the Project, UC Merced Medical Education Building, Merced Campus

F3 Action: Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Viterbi Family Vision Research Center, San Diego Campus

F4 Action: Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Neuropsychiatric Replacement Hospital, UCLA Health, Los Angeles Campus

F5 Action: Amendment of the Budget, Scope, External Financing, and Design Following Action: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Kresge College Non-Academic, Santa Cruz Campus

F6 Action: University of California 2022-28 Capital Financial Plan

F7 Action: University of California Financial Reports, 2022

F8 Action: Approval of the University of California’s 2023-24 Budget for Current Operations and State Request for Capital Projects

F9 Discussion: Annual Actuarial Valuations for the University of California Retirement Plan and Its Segments and for the 1991 University of California-Public Employees’ Retirement System Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program

F10 Discussion: Annual Actuarial Valuation of the University of California Retiree Health Benefit Program

F11 Discussion: Report of Budget to Actual Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Office of the President and First Quarter Fiscal Year 2022-23 Results

---

3:30 pm Governance Committee (closed session) 

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

G1(X) Discussion: Appointment of and Compensation for Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents

G2(X) Discussion: Exception for Moving and Relocation Expenses for Associate Vice President – Systemwide Controller, Office of the President

G3(X) Discussion: Collective Bargaining Matters 

---

Upon end of closed session:

Governance Committee (open session) 

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September 21, 2022

G1 Action: Approval of Appointment of and Compensation for Secretary and Chief of Staff to the Regents as Discussed in Closed Session

G2 Action: Approval of Exception for Moving and Relocation Expenses for Associate Vice President – Systemwide Controller, Office of the President as Discussed in Closed Session

G4 Action: Amendment of Regents Policy 7102: Policy on Appointment of Chancellors

G5 Action: Amendment of Regents Policy 7701: Senior Management Group Appointment and Compensation 

===

Thursday, November 17

8:30 am Board (open session - includes public comment session)  

Public Comment Period (30 minutes)

Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of September 21 and 22, 2022

Remarks from Student Associations

---

9:15 am Board (closed session)  

Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of August 17 and September 22, 2022

B1(X) Discussion: UCLA Big Ten Membership – Potential Legal Issues and Financial Impacts

---

Upon end of closed session:

Board (open session)  

B2 Action: UCLA Big Ten Membership

B3 Discussion: Update on Implementation Progress of UC Community Safety Plan

B4 Discussion: Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Prevention, Response, and Complaint Resolution Programs

Committee Reports Including Approvals of Recommendations from Committees:

- Academic and Student Affairs Committee

- Compliance and Audit Committee

- Finance and Capital Strategies Committee

- Governance Committee (meetings of October 18 and November 16, 2022)

- Health Services Committee (meeting of October 19, 2022)

- Investments Committee

Public Engagement and Development Committee

Resolution in Appreciation

---

12:15 pm Joint Meeting: Academic and Student Affairs Committee & Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (open session)  

J1 Discussion: Overview of the Multi-Year Compact Between the Governor and the University of California

J2 Discussion: Strategic Campus Overview, San Diego Campus

---

Upon end of Joint meeting:

Board (closed session)  

B5(X) Discussion: Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Litigation Overview

---

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/nov2022.html.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/11/boutrous-dhillon-and-hastings.html.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below: 

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/prelim%20agenda%20nov.mp3

Notice for UCLA Night Owls

If you are a night owl coming to UCLA November 7-10, avoid Wilshire due to subway construction. (Indeed, it's a good idea to avoid Wilshire more generally during subway construction.) Below is a notice from LA Metro:

Westwood Bl and Wilshire Bl: Cap Beam Installations 

Summary: 

Metro contractors will install a cap beam and waler at the northwest corner of the intersection of Westwood Bl and Wilshire Bl.  These installations will support construction and excavation of the future Westwood/UCLA Station. 

Date:  November 7 to November 10

Work hours: Monday to Friday, 9 pm to 6 am 

Traffic Control: 

The southbound Westwood Bl lanes will be closed between Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl.   

The southbound Westwood Bl right turn pocket will be closed between Lindbrook Dr and Wilshire Bl. 

Southbound Westwood Bl  thru traffic and left turn pocket at Wilshire will be maintained for eastbound access. 

Westbound Wilshire Bl traffic lanes will be reduced from before Glendon Av. 

The westbound Wilshire Bl #3 and #4 lanes will be closed between Glendon Av and 200 feet west of Westwood Bl. 

The west leg cross walk at Wilshire Bl and Westwood Bl will be closed. 

Noteworthy: 

All work will receive the necessary permits and approvals. 

Access to driveways, residences & businesses will always be maintained unless notified in advance. 

Access for pedestrians will be maintained outside of construction zones. 

Access for the Fire Department and emergency responders will be maintained. 

Parking restrictions will be implemented in the immediate area of the work zone. 

Construction is dynamic and schedules are subject to change. 

24/7 Hotline: 213-922-6934 

Source: https://mcknbr0fgxh5k0f2vx078zts2980.pub.sfmc-content.com/fwucvt55ocs/1tgsqlbldzy.

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/night%20owls.mp3

The (Parking) Taxman

The taxman is coming, according to the Bruin: UCLA will start collecting a city tax on university parking fees Jan. 1 in accordance with a 2019 California Supreme Court decision.

The city of Los Angeles passed a parking occupancy tax in 1990 requiring those who pay parking fees at privately owned facilities to pay an additional 10% tax to the city. Before the state Supreme Court case – the City and County of San Francisco v. the Regents of the University of California – UCLA community members did not have to pay the parking tax on UCLA-owned property, according to a universitywide email sent Wednesday.*

The 10% tax will be applied to all university parking, including employee and student parking permits and daily, visitor and patient parking, according to the email. UCLA will not keep any of the tax money – which will go to the city of LA – and is looking into possible on-campus student exemptions...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2022/11/04/parking-at-ucla-to-be-taxed-in-light-of-state-supreme-court-decision.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/park%20tax.mp3

===

And to hear Taxman, click on the link below:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMdcE8jdz70.

===

*The email, which contains information on existing and upcoming parking charges, is at:

https://view.bp.e.ucla.edu/?qs=4af1858dbf81a18f9f4a0eee1ea4b0995298ff90db6caed465e7a84d36a64c2ba7a410edca8842905119653810f36e01e07d068bd4f965926716928934c93ec177846095d7bc247d046d9c16323de940a477ef77556d49f1.

Cost to Harvard of Admissions Case: $27 Million - Part 2

Follow up: A prior posting on this blog noted that the cost to Harvard of defending its affirmative action admissions program before the US Supreme Court totaled $27 million, and that a goof by Harvard endangered an insurance payment for those expenses of $15 million.* A court has now ruled that the goof prevails, i.e., Harvard will not be able to collect that $15 million from its insurance company. From the NY Times:

Harvard’s failure to tell an insurance company that it had been sued over its race-conscious admissions program means that it cannot use a $15 million policy to cover its legal expenses, a federal judge in Boston ruled on Wednesday. Acting two days after Harvard faced skeptical questions at the Supreme Court about its admissions practices, Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the Federal District Court in Boston ruled that “an unambiguous insurance policy must be applied as written.” She said it was undisputed that Harvard had failed to file a timely formal claim with one of its insurance companies, Zurich American Insurance. It did not matter, she wrote, that Zurich may have learned about the affirmative action suit informally...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/us/harvard-insurance-affirmative-action.html.

===

*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/10/cost-to-harvard-of-admissions-case-27.html.

===

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/harvard%20goof.mp3