We now have confirmation that the telephone poll on the hotel/conference center was in fact sponsored by the capital projects folks at UCLA. (See our earlier post of a recording of the poll.)

Apparently, the goal is to have 400 completed interviews. Whether we will get info on the details of the polling methodology – how many call recipients refused to participate, etc. – is unclear.

Reports have come in from people at some distance from campus that they have received poll calls. Obviously, the neighborhood opposition – presumably that is the subject of the poll – will be concentrated among those who live close to campus and worry about traffic. The wider the area covered, the less will be the percentage opposition; you don’t need a poll to tell you that.

So if the poll results are released, who is supposed to salute them? Faculty opposition has largely centered on the business model of the hotel and the concern that the hotel/conference center in one way or another will drain revenue from the campus. The poll has no particular relevance to that issue which was the key to the Academic Senate’s official opposition. Hotel owners in the area are concerned about competition from a publicly-supported hotel. The poll has no relevance to their issue. The business model for the existing Faculty Center is also not connected to the poll. Those who are concerned with architectural preservation of the Faculty Center also would not be influenced by poll results.

So what is the purpose of the poll? To prove neighborhood opposition comes from NIMBYism? Even if that were so, it is not of particular relevance to the main issues of concern to faculty.

Who is supposed to salute the poll?

A resident of the area around UCLA received a call from the pollster who has been posing questions about the proposed campus hotel/conference center to replace the Faculty Center. He made a recording of the call WITH PERMISSION OF THE POLLSTER.

At the outset of the recording, the pollster acknowledges that the recipient has set up recording equipment to record the call. You can click on the option below and hear the call. The final questions which were for personal information have been omitted at the request of the call recipient. None of the omitted questions deal with the hotel/conference center.

Note that the call recipient is asked to assume that various arguments concerning the hotel/conference center are true when the call recipient says they are false. But he is asked to imagine that the arguments are true.

It is unknown at this time who is making the calls, although another recipient found via caller ID that they originate (or at least have a phone exchange) from New Jersey. It is also unknown if the script for this call is identical to that used for other polling calls that are being made.

The name you see on the video/audio is that of yours truly, not that of the call recipient.

Click below to hear the call:

UPDATE: The calls appear to be coming from a company called Maximum Research. While it seems reasonable to assume UCLA is the client, there has been no confirmation of that as yet:

MAXimum Research, Inc.
1860 Greentree Road
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

Phone Number: (856) 874 – 9000
Toll Free Number: (888) 212 – 7200
Fax Number: (856) 874 – 9002
info@maximumresearch.com

From the firm’s website:

Our Phone Room

We maintain a 100-station telephone interviewing facility and employ more than 200 people. We use the well known and versatile interviewing software package, Survent, created by CfMC. Running Survent allows for complex quota control, centralized data management across modes, operational reports, and flexible sample management capabilities. The software allows for dialing schedules tailored to fit any and all of our clients’ needs.

Our experience in telephone interviewing allows us to fully handle all aspects of a project in house. Our phone room of specially trained interviewers, have completed projects in practically every industry, including, Healthcare, Financial, Business-to-Business, Retail, Travel, Telecommunications, Food & Beverage and more. These projects have ranged from customer satisfaction and tracking to positioning, advertising and everything in between.

We have a number of dedicated Inbound phone lines allowing respondents to call in at their most convenient time to complete surveys.

Source: http://www.maximumresearch.com/phoneroom.shtml

An earlier posting noted that the caller for the poll on the hotel/conference center, ostensibly being conducted on behalf of UCLA, refused to talk to a female neighborhood resident because there were too many women in the sample. Apparently, women are now being allowed to answer.

Another recipient of a call (a woman) took notes on the questions and reported that it included the questions in italics below. She reported that the pollster was reading from a script and seemed to know nothing about the hotel/conference center other than what was on the script.

In the script, the hotel/conference center is referred to in the university’s terminology as a residential conference center (RCC). From her notes on the call and the questions posed:

1. UCLA has proposed a 6-story residential conference center…etc. [description] Do you think this will happen? a) strongly doubt, b) doubt, c) don’t know, d) don’t doubt

2. The traffic at the corner of Sunset and Hilgard is bad enough already and an RCC will make it worse. a) strongly doubt, b) doubt, c) don’t know, d) don’t doubt

3. The Faculty Center is a historic building. Are you in favor of preserving the Faculty Center as part of a Residential Conference Center? a) yes, b) no

4. The RCC will charge $xxx per night, and academics cannot afford this. a) strongly doubt, b) doubt, c) don’t know, d) don’t doubt

5. Is it beneficial for UCLA to have a conference center where conferees, faculty, and students can interact? a) strongly doubt, b) doubt, c) don’t know, d) don’t doubt

6. Is it important for you to have cultural and intellectual activity nearby? a) strongly doubt, b) doubt, c) don’t know, d) don’t doubt

7. Will Westwood Village get better? [no mention of hotel] a) yes, b) no

8. Will the neighborhood get better? [no mention of hotel] a) yes, b) no

9. Are you optimistic about L.A.? a) yes, b) no

10. Should the (or a) RCC host private events? [“the” could have been “a”]

11. Are there enough hotels in the area to handle conferences?

12. What is your age? (ranges given).

If other blog readers receive calls and can find more info about the origin of the poll or more questions from the script, please do so. I don’t want to be accused of back-stabbing or strangling the university’s quest for knowledge – but be careful when you answer! You never know what could happen:

An earlier post indicated that someone is calling Westwood-area residents, ostensibly on behalf of UCLA, as a kind of push-poll favoring the hotel/conference center.

A resident who got such a call today was told she was not eligible to answer because there were too many women in the study. When her husband was not available to respond, the caller declined to continue and terminated the call.

And we thought that issue was settled some time ago!

Some reports have been received of a telephone poll of Westwood residents being taken – allegedly on behalf of UCLA – about the hotel/conference center proposal to replace the Faculty Center. Reportedly, it is something of a push-poll, i.e., framed to elicit a positive response to the project.

It is unclear who is doing the polling or whether it is actually coming from – or on behalf of – UCLA. Inquiries are being made about its source. If you receive such a call, try to elicit whatever information you can as to its source. When and if more info becomes available, we will update on the blog.

Of course, there are always risks in answering the phone:

The LA Business Journal reports that the developer of the hotel proposed for the old Hollywood video store site on Wilshire & Gayley will do the building as condos-only if UCLA goes ahead with the plan to replace the Faculty Center with a large hotel/conference center. See below. Scroll down to boldface type.

No Vacancy?

Jacquelyn Ryan

Los Angeles Business Journal

July 4th, 2011

It seems the biggest battles these days in Westwood aren’t on the basketball court but over luxury suites – and not the ones in arenas. Just months after a controversial plan to build an upscale hotel at UCLA was temporarily sidelined by administrators, a separate proposal to build a four-star hotel near Westwood Village is raising a ruckus of its own. Prominent developer Kambiz Hekmat wants to build a 250-room four-star hotel on a vacant lot at Wilshire Boulevard and Gayley Avenue, once the site of a Hollywood Video store. The proposal has attracted the support of a homeowners group, the area’s business association and City Councilman Paul Koretz. But opponents, including rival hotel owners, aren’t happy.

“We don’t need another four-star hotel in this market,” said Mark Beccaria, a partner in the 256-room Hotel Angeleno and 36-room Royal Palace Westwood Hotel. “They are definitely going to hurt our business.” …

Hekmat disagrees there isn’t room for another upscale hotel in Westwood, which has seen declining room rates during the recession. He said any such problems are temporary…

Hekmat has been a developer in Westwood for decades. He built the 22-story Center West office tower in 1990 and is the driving force behind a proposed Westwood Business Improvement District to clean up and improve the struggling shopping and entertainment neighborhood. He also acquired the 19-story Murdock Plaza and is building a six-story hotel, Plaza la Reina, on Lindbrook Drive in Westwood. The rooms are aimed at corporate executives and others on extended stays.

…UCLA most recently proposed to replace its 50-year-old Faculty Center with a $160 million hotel and conference center that would be open to tourists and others outside the university. But administrators withdrew the proposal for a six-month review after fierce opposition from faculty who wanted to save the center and questioned the need for such a complex.

Indeed, Hekmat said he will not move forward with his luxury hotel proposal if UCLA proceeds with its hotel. Instead, he would build more than 100 luxury condos on the site using the same floor plan and exterior design. “There is only room in the market for one of the two (hotel) projects,” Hekmat said. “It would not to be economically sustainable.” …

…(T)there is substantial official support for the project, including from the Westwood Village Business Association, which functions as the area’s chamber. In an unusual turn, residents in the typically antidevelopment neighborhood have come out in support of the project…

…The City Council approved Hekmat’s hotel project in December. Then, last month, the Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee voted to have a city consultant conduct a report to determine whether the project needs financial assistance. The report, due in 30 to 90 days, will consider an exemption from the transient occupancy tax, or bed tax, which is 14 percent of the rate charged for each room…

Full article at http://www.atlashospitality.com/index-4.html?id=1387033380

Yours truly received a phone call yesterday from a reporter about a 29-story hotel project on the site of the old Hollywood video store, long closed, on the northwest corner of Wilshire and Gayley (adjacent to the UCLA parking lot).

This project has been in the works for some time. For example, you can read a description of it in a 2009 filing with the City of LA at http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/WilshireGayleyProject/DEIR/issues/I._Executive_Summary.pdf

At that time, i.e., in 2009, the developer was describing it as either a mixed condo/hotel project or just a condo project. A more recent news article, however, terms it a “hotel.”

There was reference to this project in the FAQ list on the UCLA hotel/conference center project posted by the Faculty Center and dated 2/14/11. See http://facultycenter.ucla.edu/FAQs.htm (Scroll to the bottom.) But yours truly assumed the idea back then was more hypothetical than real. Apparently, it is real enough; bulldozers removed the Hollywood video building in May although the developer says project construction is not yet slated to begin. See http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/05/westwood_hollywood_video_gets_boot_stern_tower_coming_soon.php

Below is a description of the project from CurbedLA as of 11/19/2010. A picture of the proposed structure can be seen in the rendition above.

In what would bring a 29-story hotel to Westwood, the proposed Robert AM Stern-designed Wilshire Gayley is moving closer to breaking ground. With many locals coming out to speak in favor of the development at a Tuesday Planning and Land Use Committee meeting, the subcommittee approved the supergraphic-blocking project, and now developer Kambiz Hekmat is in negotiations with the city for an agreement to waive the bed tax on the hotel for a certain time period, according to Christopher Koontz, Planning Deputy for Councilman Koretz…

Full article at: http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/11/wilshire_gayley_likely_a_hotel_looks_to_break.php

The construction of a major new hotel in Westwood adding to the room capacity of the hotels already in the general UCLA area has obvious (negative) implications for the fiscal feasibility of a UCLA-built hotel/conference center.

The Faculty Center just emailed the results of its recent election. If you did not receive the email, the results are listed below, along with the campaign statements of the winning candidates.

These are the individuals that will have to deal with the UCLA administration with regard to the hotel/conference center issue.

The Election Committee has completed the task of counting the ballots and the following candidates have been elected to served on the 2011-12 Faculty Center Board of Governors

President-elect: Joseph Nagy
Treasurer: Lawrence Kruger

Members-at-large: Charles Berst, Laura Lake, R. Michael Rich

Candidate Statements:

President-elect
Joseph Nagy, Professor of English

I’ve been at UCLA since 1978 and a member of the Faculty Center Association ever since. This is a pivotal time for the Association and the Faculty Center, both of which have proven to be essential strands in the fabric of the UCLA community’s identity, in good times and bad. Preserving the independence and character of the Faculty Center, building up membership, making sure that the University administration appreciates how much the FC means to so many of us, and leaving the FC in sound physical and financial condition for future UCLA generations to utilize and enjoy–these will be my priorities, if I have the honor to be elected as President-elect of the FCA Board of Governors.

Treasurer
Lawrence Kruger, Distinguished Professor of Neurobiology (Emeritus)

I was first appointed to the UCLA faculty in 1957 and have been a continuous member of the UCLA Faculty Center Association from ~1959 to the present. I have previously served a term as Treasurer many years ago (when Mary Erickson was Manager) and have recently pursued active interest in the finances and future of the “Faculty Club” consequent to discovery, (while serving on the Faculty Welfare Committee of the Academic Senate), that the future of our physical plant and financial future was under administrative siege. In recent years, I have continued to serve on Senate committees, including two terms on Library and Emeriti (UEPRRC) Committees, also serving each as Chair. In recent years I have served on the Finance Committee of the Society for Neuroscience and if elected to the Board of the Faculty Center I am likely to pursue an aggressive, rather than conciliatory style. I currently serve UCLA recalled as “Distinguished Professor of Neurobiology (Emeritus)” with minimal teaching responsibility, while writing a new scholarly book and serving UCLA in whatever manner I might be useful.

Member-at-Large (3 open seats)
Charles Berst, Professor of English (Emeritus)

Since Faculty Center members voted 815 to 269-75%-against replacing the Center’s building with a residential conference center/faculty club, its Board should now contribute Center perspectives to the even stronger reservations of three Academic Senate committees and many others. Perfunctory notification and careless “done-deal” planning by Capital Programs have dodged transparent, truly broad-based consultation. Particularly underappreciated, moreover, have been the intellectual, interdisciplinary, and social ties and occasions that make our current Center a very special hub and oasis for faculty and emeriti-a facility arguably more important for faculty retention and recruitment in these tough budgetary times than another conference center.
Forthrightly detailed answers to such questions as the following could now lead to productive consultations: 1. Who and what schools and departments are seeking a conference center? What are their time, space and use needs? 2. Detail annual time, space, and use statistics of existing and prospective campus meeting facilities. 3. Why have alternative sites been dismissed? 4. What are the costs of commercial L.A. facilities? 5. Have flexible, debt-free alternatives such as a Luskin Conference Endowment been considered? 6. Might 20% of such an endowment subsidize refurbishment and overhead of the Faculty Center-to facilitate faculty, emeriti, and conference use?

Laura Lake, Adjunct Asst. Professor (Retired)
Political Science and Environmental Science and Engineering

I am a member of the Ad Hoc Committee to Save the Faculty Center and am committed to saving and improving the Center. My husband, Jim Lake, and I were recruited to UCLA in 1976 and feel privileged to call so many members of the Faculty Center friends. We know that lunch on the Center’s patio is often the final factor that persuades the very best job candidates to choose UCLA. Also, we have celebrated countless family events there. That is why ever since last summer I have been working with faculty members, neighbors, Westwood hotels and our City Councilmember to stop demolition of our beloved Center and urge the Administration to build a conference center without a hotel, near Westwood Village. The Faculty Center must increase its membership and refurbish antiquated conference facilities. As a former UCLA faculty member, environmental leader, and former President of the National Council of Jewish Women/LA, I have the experience and contacts to raise funds and recruit members. My vision for the Board of Governors is to be effective advocates for this beloved and vital institution and wise stewards of a campus treasure. To save the Faculty Center I need your vote.

R. Michael Rich, Research Astronomer – Department of Physics and Astronomy

I am a member of the ad hoc Committee to Save the Faculty Center, and if elected, I will support the 75% of members who voted against demolition of the Faculty Center. I am a Research Astronomer and have been at UCLA, and a member, since 1998; my family has deep UCLA connections. In addition to my qualifications as a scientist (over 300 refereed publications, h-index 64) I have 30 years of involvement in a family real estate business. I can interpret a balance sheet, assess a business plan, and evaluate a stock portfolio. To survive, we must grow. I will work to expand the member base, to advertise our event facilities, and to raise funds for needed renovations. We can restore the Faculty Center to mid-century elegance and make it an attractive and functional site for conferences and events without changing its fundamental character. Every one of our conference spaces has access to a private outdoor patio. All rooms can be updated with the most modern AV equipment, including high-lumen projectors that will allow meetings in our daylit, garden-view rooms, far better than the dreary black boxes with dropped ceilings that are the staple of the typical “modern” conference center.

Will there be changes coming along?

Seems like – despite the supposed “pause” while the 280 room hotel/conference center is being restudied – someone at UCLA is determined to pursue the plan “as is.” Recently, the LA airport authorities announced a plan to discontinue the Flyaway bus service to LAX from Westwood. As part of its presentation of June 6 to the airport authorities aimed at keeping the service in operation, UCLA promised its 280 room hotel/conference center. Above you see page 4 from the presentation. The full presentation is accessible below:

Yours truly did suggest a modest alternative that would combine the flyaway and the hotel, a flyaway hotel. But who listens?

Meanwhile, when asked about why the hotel plan that is supposedly being re-evaluated is now being promised, some UCLA spokespersons responded they couldn’t help themselves:

Story about a questionable China venture at Duke from Inside Higher Ed appeared today. The numbers didn’t add up. It reminds me of something at UCLA that rhymes with “motel.” Excerpt below:

Faculty members at Duke University’s business school expressed deep reservations at a meeting last week regarding the viability of what were supposed to be the first programs at the university’s new campus in Kunshan, China.

Following the recommendations of two committees convened to design the programs — a master’s of management science and an executive M.B.A. — the faculty sent the M.M.S. program back to the drawing board, with the E.M.B.A. program’s fate contingent on a redesign of the M.M.S. The faculty decisions also put off a review by the full university faculty that has been scheduled for this month — and those moves could jeopardize plans to open the China campus in fall 2012.

The decision is another blow to Duke’s plans to create a campus in China, and reinforces complaints that the university’s administration pushed forward on the campus without faculty approval. Over the past year, faculty members and outside observers have criticized the university’s administration for pushing ahead on the program in the face of poor financial projections. They also have argued that faculty members have not been as involved in the planning process as they should have been.

Some of those critics said the rejection of the programs could be the death knell for the controversial plan, which has already been criticized as financially infeasible. Administrators and business school faculty say the decision will not kill the campus, but is just one step in a deliberative process that will make the China campus stronger and more viable and exactly the kind of deliberation that critics say has been lacking from the process…

Full tale at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/06/06/duke_university_faculty_reject_degree_programs_for_china_campus