Traveling

When the Regents this week contemplate UC-Berkeley's move to the ACC and the travel implications of that move, they will undoubtedly have seen either the analysis below from the San Francisco Chronicle or something like it. The Chronicle article compares UC-Berkeley in the ACC with the travel issues faced by U of Hawaii teams that must fly to the mainland for competitions:

...Just look at Hawaii’s travel itinerary this past weekend for its game at No. 13 Oregon. After losing 55-10 on Saturday in front of 52,779 fans at Autzen Stadium, the Rainbow Warriors took a bus an hour north to Salem, Ore., where they stayed the night before riding another hour north to Portland and boarding a six-hour Hawaiian Airlines flight to Honolulu. Such logistics often put Hawaii at a competitive disadvantage, but that’s reality for a cash-strapped athletic department located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. As Vallejo native and Rainbow Warriors men’s basketball guard JoVon McClanahan put it, “No one’s going to feel bad for us that we have to travel further than other schools. We just have to be pros about it.”

Cal and Stanford must adopt a similar mindset as they prepare to join the Atlantic Coast Conference next August. With far less TV revenue about to come in than many of their ACC peers, and travel schedules that could rival Hawaii’s as the most burdensome in Division I, the Bears and Cardinal have a lot to hammer out over the next 11 months. Every current ACC school, including non-football member Notre Dame, is more than 2,000 miles from the Bay Area and in the Eastern Time Zone. Like Hawaii has done for decades, Cal and Stanford figure to touch down in cities two days before conference away games so they can rest up for competition and acclimate to the time difference.

Commercial flights, the mode of travel for almost all the Bay Area duo’s non-revenue sports, could also force the Bears and Cardinal to stay an extra night. This means more days in hotels, more team-provided meals and more classes missed — a daunting proposition for academically rigorous universities like Cal and Stanford that were so eager to stay at the Power 5 level that they settled for only a 30% share of TV revenue during their first seven years in the ACC.  

USC and UCLA, which join the Big Ten next summer, reportedly plan to ease cross-country travel concerns by spending eight figures annually to bolster academic tutoring, mental health support and flight arrangements. But while the Trojans and Bruins are poised to more than double their yearly TV revenue thanks to a Big Ten media-rights deal that will net each of them between $65 million and $75 million, Cal and Stanford are about to earn way less money than they did in the Pac-12...

Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/cal-stanford-acc-travel-hawaii-18367174.php.

And there is this chart to contemplate:

Lots of traveling:

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

Survivor Insurance: The 3 Fixes Are In

I am happy to announce that we (think we) have a solution to the improper cancellation of survivor health insurance under the retiree health plan. When I last registered to speak to the Regents at their retreat, that request triggered an inquiry from the Regents' office to UCOP which in turn set in motion a process, including a Zoom consultation with administrators of the plan. What emerged was a three-part solution:

A longer-term fix;

An interim fix;

An interim-interim fix.

To understand the various fixes, we need to start with the current workings of the system, as it was presented to us during the Zoom call. The various insurance carriers are given what can be viewed as operating documents telling them what to do on behalf of UC. As they are written, these documents assume modern operating procedures at UC, such as those that exist at other public plans that, as we have noted in the past, don't have a survivor cancellation problem. 

When a retiree dies, an eligible survivor converts from dependent status to survivor status. The documents assume that, thanks to computers and computer records, this conversion happens quickly. In effect, the computer "knows" in advance who is eligible for survivor coverage. So, upon the death of the retiree, there is a one-month grace period in which dependent coverage continues. That coverage is then seamlessly cancelled and survivor coverage begins with no interruption of coverage.

The longer-term fix is to make UC's computer and administrative system operate as described above. And the current problem is that it doesn't.

UC's computer system doesn't "know" prior to the death of the retiree who is an eligible survivor of that retiree. As a result, manual processing is set in motion when a death report comes in. If the manual processing takes longer than the one-month grace period, the eligible dependent-survivor is cancelled as a dependent but is not picked up as a survivor. The survivor goes into a no-coverage limbo and is effectively cancelled. That is the root of the current problem. The manual processing takes too long.

So, the interim fix is to have the one-month grace period extended to two months. That extension, we were assured, will allow the current slow manual processing to occur. We have been told that the extension of the grace period to two months can happen as early as November 1 but not later than December 1.

Assuming the interim fix is put in place some time in November, there might still be some survivors who are cancelled between now and then. 

The interim-interim fix is to create a temporary arrangement so that any survivor who finds his/her insurance has been cancelled and who calls to complain will immediately default to restored coverage. The manual processing of their case will then proceed. But the default will be that any survivor who complains of cancellation will get immediate coverage until the interim fix is implemented.

Yours truly will make a brief public comment to the Regents later this week. He will thank them and everyone else involved for their assistance, and will give an abridged description of the three fixes above. Assuming everything goes as plans, he will not need to revisit the Regents on this matter thereafter.

Why we keep harping on due process

From time to time, we have noted that in Title IX cases, due process that outside courts will recognize as such is important. The Biden administration is expected to come out with guidelines that shift away from the Trump guidelines that shifted away from the Obama guidelines. But no one has shifted the kind of sniff tests external courts are likely to apply when such cases are appealed to them. Here is yet another illustration from the NY Times:

In a 2018 disciplinary hearing at Yale University, Saifullah Khan listened as a woman accused him of raping her after a Halloween party. The woman, who had graduated, gave a statement by teleconference to a university panel, but Mr. Khan and his lawyer were not allowed in the  room with the panel. Nor could his lawyer, under the rules of the hearing, cross-examine her. Instead, they were cloistered in a separate room, as her testimony piped in by speakerphone. He felt, he said, “there is absolutely nothing I can do to change my situation.” As he feared, Yale expelled him.

Mr. Khan’s criminal trial, months earlier, was markedly different. His lawyer cross-examined the woman in ways that horrified women’s rights advocates: How were you dressed? How much did you drink? Did you send flirty texts? And unlike the Yale hearing, the prosecutors had to prove his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” After barely three hours of deliberations, Mr. Khan was acquitted.

The difference between those two hearings — in process and outcome — led Mr. Khan to make an unusual move: He sued his accuser for defamation for statements she had made during the Yale hearing. That lawsuit, filed in 2019, is challenging the way universities across the country have adjudicated such sexual assault hearings. Normally, such a lawsuit would not have much of a chance. In Connecticut and other states, witnesses in such “quasi-judicial” hearings carry absolute immunity against defamation lawsuits.

But the Connecticut Supreme Court in June gave Mr. Khan’s suit the greenlight to proceed. It ruled that the Yale hearing was not quasi-judicial because it lacked due process, including the ability to cross-examine witnesses...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/17/us/yale-rape-case-defamation.html.

As part of our harping on the need for due process, we have also noted that courts generally do defer to union-management grievance-and-arbitration cases of the type found at UC and other universities with unionization. Those mechanisms are not as formal as external courts, but do feature such characteristics as final decisions by outside neutrals, cross-examination of witnesses, etc.

Subsidy for UC Health?

A bill sent to the governor would create a $25/hour minimum wage for health care workers. According to a news report in the Sacramento Bee, one byproduct of the bill, if signed by the governor, would be a subsidy payment to UC Health: 

Hundreds of thousands of health care workers in California are likely to secure a new minimum wage of $25 an hour as the Legislature successfully sent the bill Thursday night to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. One caveat, though, is workers would have to wait between three and 10 years to see the full wage. Senate Bill 525, introduced by Los Angeles Democratic Sen. Maria Elena Durazo and backed by unions, would ensure a minimum wage of $25 for a wide variety of employees at covered health care facilities. The wage floor applies to direct patient care providers, such as nurses, physicians and medical residents, but also to workers in support positions, such as janitors, housekeepers, food service workers, medical billing personnel and gift shop clerks...

An analysis from the Assembly’s appropriations committee estimated it would cost the state at least $970 million a year to raise wages for all affected state employees. Analysts caution that the state could also incur billions of dollars in increases to Medi-Cal provider reimbursement rates. The state isn’t required to increase provider rates to keep up with state-mandated changes, except for certain long-term care facilities. But the Department of Health Care Services said that rate increases would likely be necessary to maintain patient access to providers, especially given that the Medi-Cal program covers approximately a third of Californians. The state would also need to pay an “unknown, but definitely significant” sum to increase wages for University of California health system employees.

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article279229709.html.

Pac-12: Who gets what and what is there to get? - Part 3 (more details for the Regents)

Court documents reveal more detail about the internecine fight over the assets of the soon-to-be-defunct Pac-12. The information comes as the Regents will later this week discuss UC-Berkeley's move to the ACC and its financial repercussions. Those repercussions depend in part on who controls the assets of the Pac-12. And it appears that little will be decided in time for their meeting. Jon Wilner of the Mercury News reports:

Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a named defendant in the complaint filed against the conference by Oregon State and Washington State, did not attend the hearing Monday in which the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order was granted. When the defense attorney noted that Kliavkoff is in a “terrible position” in the internecine dispute over the makeup of the governing board, Whitman County (Wash.) Superior Court judge Gary Libey interrupted. “He’s in Montana,” Libey said. Montana, Michigan, Mars — anywhere but the courthouse.

Kliavoff is attempting to stay neutral as the 10 departing universities and the two remaining schools plot their divergent futures and determine control of the conference, according to documents obtained by the Hotline. In a declaration to the court on Sept. 11, the day of the hearing, Kliavkoff stated:

“Neither the Conference nor I have a position with respect to the proper composition of the Pac-12 Board. This is fundamentally a dispute among members. As Commissioner, I will follow lawful directives of the Board pursuant to the Constitution and Bylaws and consistent with my duties in the best interests of the Conference.”

The “dispute among members” is focused on which schools possess voting rights and control of the Pac-12’s assets.

According to the bylaws, any school that gives “notice of withdrawal” prior to Aug. 1, 2024, relinquishes its position on the board of directors.

Washington State and Oregon State have argued the 10 outbound members gave “notice of withdrawal” upon announcing their moves to new leagues — even if they did not submit legal documents to the Pac-12 stating their intentions to leave.

As a result, the Cougars and Beavers believe they are the only remaining members of the board.

The stakes are high. If all 12 university presidents and chancellors retain their board seats, the 10 departing schools could vote to dissolve the conference and split the assets equally.

If WSU and OSU are the sole members of the board, they will control the Pac-12’s assets, including NCAA Tournament revenue worth tens of millions of dollars over time. That money could be used to fund their athletic departments or rebuild the conference after the 10 schools depart next summer.

Where does Kliavkoff stand on the makeup of the board? Is he siding with the 10 or the two? With the schools that have their futures secured or those left behind?

Kliavkoff has not spoken publicly since Aug. 4, Black Friday, when his plans to finalize a media rights deal imploded and five schools withdrew. But his view of the board’s makeup is outlined, in detail, in a letter to Washington State and Oregon State that was included in his court declaration. The letter is dated Sept. 8, two days after WSU president Kirk Schulz and OSU president Jayathi Murthy drew their line in the turf.

The two presidents sent a letter (via email) to Kliavkoff and their peers that highlighted the wording in the bylaws and asked the conference to confirm the 10 outbounds schools had, in fact, given their “notice of withdrawal.” Schulz and Murthy requested an answer within two days, by 10 a.m. on Sept. 8. Lacking a response to their liking, they were prepared to proceed with legal action. Kliavkoff’s response to their request, marked as Exhibit 15 in his declaration, was obtained by the Hotline on Wednesday.

In a letter to WSU and OSU (via email), he disputed the notion that the 10 outbound schools have relinquished their board positions:

“Your suggestion that ten of the Conference’s 12 members have ‘withdrawn’ from the Conference within the meaning of the Bylaws is mistaken. Not one member school has signaled any intention — or actually attempted — to leave Conference play at any time prior to the end of the current fiscal year on July 31, 2024, or to take back and exploit their media rights.

“We simply cannot accept the suggestion that only two members. — Oregon State University (OSU) and Washington State University (WSU) — now have the right to determine by themselves all issues affecting the Conference, and determine the course of all revenue coming into the Conference, to the exclusion of the other ten member schools.”

The wording is important, and it undoubtedly will be discussed in upcoming court hearings intended to determine the makeup of the board.

Kliavkoff writes that the 10 departing schools have not “withdrawn” from the Pac-12 “within the meaning of the bylaws.” But in their letter of Sept. 6, WSU and OSU requested confirmation that the 10 had given “notice of withdrawal” — the exact phrase used in the bylaws. (Italics ours.)

What accounts for the apparent discrepancy between Kliavkoff’s declaration of neutrality — “Neither the Conference nor I have a position with respect to the proper composition of the Pac-12 Board” — and the Sept. 8 letter in which he states the 10 schools have not “withdrawn” and WSU and OSU are “mistaken”? In the letter, he was stating the position of the outgoing presidents, who are contesting the notion that they have withdrawn, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

(Kliavkoff declined to comment for this story.)

Key point: The bylaws do not define “notice of withdrawal” and whether it must come in writing. Washington president Ana Mari Cauce held a news conference on Aug. 5 in which she discussed UW’s move to the Big Ten. Does that constitute “notice of withdrawal”? The Big 12 released a video on social media welcoming Colorado to the league on July 27. Does that serve as CU’s “notice of withdrawal”? That’s for the attorneys and the court to determine.

WSU and OSU believe the 10 departing schools are conflicted — that their allegiance is now to their new conferences. If allowed to remain on the Pac-12 board, the 10 could vote as a bloc in a manner that harms the two remaining schools, financially or otherwise. After explaining that the 10 have not “withdrawn,” Kliavkoff then acknowledges the nuanced nature of the situation. The letter continues:

“That said, I do have the view that there are decisions (for example, which, if any, schools to invite to join the Conference after July 1, 2024) that should solely be made by OSU and WSU, to the exclusion of our ten other members.”

Then he addresses the middle ground:

“There may also be other decisions that don’t clearly fall within the purview for either all 12 or just the 2 to decide and will be contested. Regardless, it is the Board that should and will determine its governance pursuant to the rules set forth in the Bylaws.”

“My recommendation is that all 12 Presidents and Chancellors should use the opportunity of next week’s Board meeting to see if we can agree on which decisions get decided by all 12, which get decided by just OSU and WSU, and further discuss whether the 12 can agree on a process to consider and decide the contested issues.

“We also plan to distribute, in advance of Wednesday’s Board meeting, a suggested conflict of interest policy that addresses how we might think about the 12 schools agreeing on governance issues to avoid conflict.”

That meeting never happened. Kliavkoff’s letter was deemed unacceptable by WSU and OSU. Moments after the 10 a.m. deadline on Sept. 8, attorneys for the plaintiffs walked into Whitman County Superior Court and filed the complaint. On Monday [of last week], the judge issued the temporary restraining order preventing the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors from holding any meetings until the legal process determines the proper makeup of the board. The sides are expected to schedule a preliminary injunction hearing for later this month.

Source: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/14/pac-12-chaos-is-commissioner-george-kliavkoff-siding-with-the-10-or-the-two-court-records-reveal-his-strategy/. 

Note that since the eventual court rulings on this conflict are not going to happen before the Regents meet, making a final decision on what UCLA has to pay to UC-Berkeley would seem to be premature. Both might get some remaining assets from the Pac-12 - or not - depending on court rulings that have yet to occur. 

Students Now Get Free Transit

Blog readers may recall that back in April, students voted for a fee that would provide free transit on the various lines serving UCLA. UCLA has now announced the new program's debut:

With the April 2023 passage of the UCLA undergraduate student transit pass referendum, undergrads have fare-free access to all transit agencies throughout LA County including those serving UCLA through the new Bruin U-Pass program. Students can enjoy unlimited rides on the local lines serving UCLA: Los Angeles Metro bus and rail lines, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, and Culver CityBus; the four commuter lines with direct access to campus: Antelope Valley Transit, Santa Clarita Transit, Long Beach Transit, and LADOT Commuter Express; and more!

This new Bruin U-Pass transit program allows students to commute to campus or travel throughout Los Angeles County without a car... 

Source: https://transportation.ucla.edu/getting-to-ucla/public-transit/bruin-u-pass.

Now it's just a matter of getting on the right bus:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd4mveP5Aq8.

And we wait...

We continue our weekly watch for signs of a recession in California data on new weekly claims for unemployment benefits without seeing any (through the week ending Sept. 9).

As always, the claims data are at https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf. The UCLA Anderson Forecast will be presented in early October. We'll see if the forecasters have continued their two-scenario approach (recession, no recession), or whether they will come down on one side or the other.