UC Regents

| |

Listen to Audio of Regents Meeting on UCLA Hotel/Conference Center

The discussion of the proposed UCLA Hotel/Conference Center occurred in two segments of the March 28, 2012 UC Regents meeting.  During the morning public comment period, there was testimony on the hotel by outside interest groups.  In the afternoon at the Committee on Buildings and Grounds, there was a full hearing on the proposal.  As readers of this blog will know, the result was an embarrassment for UCLA.  Committee members asked questions and were dissatisfied with the responses received.  They were unwilling to endorse the proposal and would have sent it without endorsement to the full Board of Regents the…

| |

More Bad Hotel PR for UCLA

From LA Business Journal: UCLA Expansion Fails to Make Grade With Regents: Board seeks more details on plan for hotel-conference center. Jacquelyn Ryan, April 9, 2012 UCLA’s controversial plan to build a hotel and conference center on its Westwood campus has sustained another setback.  The University of California Board of Regents postponed a decision on the $162 million project at its March 28 meeting after citing concerns about the project’s viability.  The board questioned whether the area would support a new hotel and suggested that the university consider acquiring and repositioning an existing nearby hotel. Specifically, it sought more details…

|

Unfriendly Persuasion?

Three UCLA students were arrested Thursday during a confrontation with university police after protesters disrupted a UC regents meeting with a “spring break” demonstration during which some stripped down to bathing suits and tossed inflatable beach balls. The clash took place as 40 protesters, angry about high tuition, were leaving the UC San Francisco meeting hall after repeated warnings by police to clear the area. Authorities said that one student then pushed a police officer in a corridor and two others interfered with his arrest. Students denied pushing and said UC police overreacted, particularly by piling on to the arrested students and…

| |

The Story So Far: Part 2 – Hotel Proves Highly Embarrassing for UCLA

My previous blog entry noted the objections to the UCLA hotel/conference center raised by non-UCLA participants at the public comments session this morning. As in the case of the morning session, I was unable to record the afternoon session of the Regents’ Committee on Building and Grounds.  However, I did hear most of it. There were presentations by Gene Block and Steve Olsen which led to a very skeptical set of questions by the Regents on the Committee.  They questioned all of the items raised by the morning witnesses. Ultimately, the Committee was not willing to conclude its session with…

| | | | | | | | |

The Story So Far: Tuition, Ballot Propositions, Hotel, Japanese Garden, Pepper Spray, and More

Yours truly tried to get a decent recording of the Regents public comment session this morning. Unfortunately, an aging office computer produced such a low quality recording that I will summarize below in writing: Prior to the public comment period, President Yudof said he intended to endorse the governor’s tax initiative and would ask the Regents to do so.  After the comment period, Academic Council chair Bob Anderson noted that faculty members are voting on a memorial to the Regents asking them to endorse ballot propositions that provide funding to the university.  (The memorial does not designate a particular initiative.)…

| |

Sneak Preview

Later this morning at the UC Regents meeting, there will be a public comments period.  There may be oral testimony by persons opposed to the latest version of the UCLA hotel/conference center project. Below you can find a link to the written testimony of “Save Westwood Village,” a group of neighbors and local business & hotel owners.  Although the group may have interests regarding this project different from those of the faculty, it will be necessary for any Academic Senate review of this project to respond to the objections raised.  The faculty interest essentially is that the project not end…

| | |

Regental Lament (and maybe action)

Scroll down on today’s blog posts and you will find an odd item slated for the Regents Committee on Finance scheduled for March 28.  On March 29, in contrast, there will be a discussion at that Committee on the budget and on tax initiatives on the November ballot.  The background report laments the current situation and notes: For UC to remain true to President Daniel Coit Gilman’s promise in the 1800s to be the “University of this State” – to help fuel its economy and provide opportunities for its continually changing population and its needs – the University must strengthen…

| | |

Pension Cap at Regents

Those who follow this blog will know that a brouhaha developed when certain highly compensated administrators in the UC system pushed for a lifting of a cap on the level of pay considered for pension calculations under IRS rules. In 1999, the Regents applied for an exemption that would have lifted the cap.  It was approved by IRS in 2007.  But the Regents never implemented the exemption, have indicated they will not do so, and are now threatened with litigation. Apparently as a result, the Regents have a recommendation on their upcoming agenda to rescind their 1999 action.  The item…

Finance?

One oddity of the upcoming Regents meeting is the placement of the report and agenda item described below on the docket of the Committee on Finance.  The connection of the topic of the item with “finance” is a bit difficult to comprehend: Office of the General Counsel  TO MEMBERS OF THE  COMMITTEE ON FINANCE:  DISCUSSION ITEM  For Meeting of March 28, 2012 REPORT ON REVIEW OF POLICIES AND BEST PRACTICES IN RESPONSE TO CAMPUS PROTESTS Following the incidents at the Berkeley and Davis campuses in November, the President directed Vice President and General Counsel Robinson and Dean Christopher Edley of…

| | |

Will There Be a Pension Lawsuit Over the Cap for the Highly Paid?

The upcoming Regents agenda contains a mix of open sessions and closed sessions.  One closed session involves a sensitive pension issue to be discussed in private by the Committee on Compensation. Readers of this blog with long memories will recall a controversy that erupted when certain highly-paid UC administrators complained that a cap – based on IRS rules – on their pensions should be removed.  The cap limits the amount of the basic pension to the first $245,000 of pay.  Essentially, back in the day when folks didn’t worry much about pension funding, the Regents applied for an exemption from…