Where's the bus while the UCLA Grand Hotel is being built?

From the Big Blue Bus

The answer seems to be what bus and when?  The image below is from the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus whose website says:

On Monday, July 8 Ackerman Terminal will close for renovations as part of the Luskin Conference and Guest Center construction through the summer of 2016. Due to this closure, all Big Blue Bus routes serving Ackerman Terminal, Routes 1, 2, 3, 8, 12 and Rapid 12, will begin using the new temporary transit center located on Charles E. Young Dr. between Westholme Ave. and Manning Ave. (in front of the P2 Parking Garage).

Source: http://bigbluebus.com/Newsroom/News/UCLA_Ackerman_Terminal_Closure_Begins_July_8.aspx

More generally:

For Culver CityBus service, both the Rapid 6 and Local 6 service will be shifted south on Westwood Plaza, along the east side of the roadway, at Stein Plaza. Big Blue Bus (BBB) Rapid 12 and all BBB evening and weekend service will terminate on Charles E. Young (CEY) Drive north of Manning. These buses will also make stops at Westwood/Stein Plaza (northbound) and Westwood/Med Plaza (southbound). The University Apartment Shuttle will replace its Ackerman Turnaround stop with a stop at Westwood/Stein Plaza (east side of street). Metro bus routes 2 and 302 have used the Ackerman Terminal for a layover location, which will now be moved to Gayley just north of Le Conte. The most proximate Metro bus stop is located on the southeast corner of Le Conte/Westwood Blvd. Visiting tour buses and school buses should park along CEY Drive North in the designated bus parking zone proximate to the IM Field. All buses will be prohibited north of CEY Drive after the closure of the terminal as the Strathmore Bridge height limitation precludes exiting, and there will be no other area to turn around in this location. Vanpool pick-ups and drop-offs that use the Ackerman Turnaround will be shifted to the southeast corner of the nearby Westwood and Strathmore intersection. This location will also serve as a disabled person pick-up and drop-off location, including the Access Paratransit countywide service. Staff, faculty, and students who have utilized the James West or Ackerman turnarounds for pick-up and drop-off are advised to utilize alternate turnarounds such as Marion Davies, Medical Plaza, or Sunset/Westwood Plaza adjacent to the Anderson School.

Source: http://ucod.ucla.edu/important-information-ackerman-turnaround-closure-effective-july-8-2013-summer-2016

Confused?  Well, maybe you didn't want to take the bus after all:

Get Ready to Miss the Bus

As we noted in a prior blog post, on July 8 they are coming to rip up the Ackerman bus turnaround in preparation for the construction of -TA-TA! - the UCLA Grand Hotel.  That step will put facts-on-the-ground while litigation continues.  Here is the official notice from the transportation folks:

The Ackerman Turnaround and its bus terminal will be closed due to the construction of the Meyer and Renee Luskin Conference and Guest Center for the period of July 8, 2013 through summer 2016. This closure affects campus traffic circulation, bus service, and general wayfinding, as the Turnaround is an easily reached, central point of campus. 

Transit bus service will be shifted to several locations on campus, and you can view the changes on this linked map. For Culver CityBus service, both the Rapid 6 and Local 6 service will be shifted south on Westwood Plaza, along the east side of the roadway, to Stein Plaza. Big Blue Bus (BBB) Rapid 12 and all BBB evening and weekend service will terminate on Charles E. Young (CEY) Drive north of Manning. These buses will also make stops at Westwood/Stein Plaza (northbound) and Westwood/Med Plaza (southbound). The University Apartment Shuttle will replace its Ackerman Turnaround stop with a stop at Westwood/Stein Plaza (east side of street). Metro bus routes 2 and 302 have used the Ackerman Terminal for a layover location, which will now be moved to Gayley just north of Le Conte. The most proximate Metro bus stop is located on the southeast corner of Le Conte/Westwood Blvd. Visiting tour buses and school buses should park along CEY Drive North in the designated bus parking zone proximate to the IM Field. All buses will be prohibited north of CEY Drive after the closure of the terminal as the Strathmore Bridge height limitation precludes exiting, and there will be no other area to turn around in this location.

Vanpool pick-ups and drop-offs that use the Ackerman Turnaround will be shifted to the southeast corner of the nearby Westwood and Strathmore intersection (map). This location will also serve as a disabled person pick-up and drop-off location, including the Access Paratransit countywide service. Staff, faculty, and students who have utilized the James West or Ackerman turnarounds for pick-up and drop-off are advised to utilize alternate turnarounds such as Marion Davies, Medical Plaza, or Sunset/Westwood Plaza adjacent to the Anderson School. Departments should advise visitors accustomed to utilizing pay stations in Parking Structure (PS) 6 that PS 6 is now closed. Visitor parking is available on the top level of Parking Structure 8.
 
Lastly, service and delivery vehicles that use the James West Turnaround will need to shift to either the Ackerman loading dock access road (by Engineering) or the bollarded pathways leading to Bruin Walk. Impacted departments should contact service providers to ensure a smooth transition. 

Source: http://www.transportation.ucla.edu/portal/emails/bcc/0713/News1.html

So if you miss the bus, you know who to blame:

More Scrutiny of University Enterprise Tax Exempt Status

Pay up!

We have from time to time noted the potential tax problems of the UCLA Grand Hotel project.  More generally, there is growing scrutiny of commercial-type activity conducted by universities that claim tax exemptions. 

Inside Higher Ed today points to a court decision that questions Princeton's tax exempt status.  It links to a local New Jersey newspaper:

A lawsuit that argues Princeton University violates the provisions of its tax-exempt status survived a university-led attempt to throw the case out Thursday. Plaintiffs in the case argue that, because Princeton is earning hundreds of millions of dollars in patent royalty income and is distributing some of that money to faculty, the school is deeply involved in commercial enterprise and isn’t entitled to its tax exemptions. The suit also takes aim at campus buildings that host extensive commercial activity, such as the Frist Campus Center and McCarter Theatre, which sells tickets to the general public for many events and performances...

Full story at http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/06/lawsuit_challenging_princeton_universitys_tax-exempt_status_wont_be_dismissed.html#incart_river_mercer

The Inside Higher Ed story is at http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2013/07/01/suit-challenges-princetons-tax-exempt-status 

The tax folks are thinking they are owed:

Berkeley's Grand Project Seems Similar to UCLA's

From the San Francisco Chronicle: UC Berkeley's plan to sell special football seats to pay off nearly half a billion dollars in stadium debt has long inspired skepticism, as if Cal were setting up a lemonade stand to finance a home mortgage. True, each of those chairs at the newly renovated Memorial Stadium costs $40,000 to $250,000 and is yours for 40 or 50 years. But even Cal officials, who had said they would sell all 2,902 pricey seats by this month, grew skeptical of their own claims last fall. The latest figures show sales have stagnated at 1,857 seats. Declined, in fact. Sixteen buyers gave their seats back this winter, stopping payments and cutting short their ownership deal. None of that surprises longtime critics of the stadium renovation...

Full story at
http://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports/article/Cal-scrambling-to-cover-stadium-bill-4604221.php

Blog readers will see the similarities to UCLA's Grand Hotel project.
It's coming soon to a parking structure near you!  
There is one difference.  
UCLA has blended its project with other enterprises.
So the Grand Hotel will always officially seem to meet its business objectives.  
Berkeley just wasn't creative enough in doing its stadium.

All you need is money - or creativity:

It Ain't What it Was

Westwood in 1929 wasn't very exciting, either.

The LA Times reviews attempts to revitalize Westwood and notes at one time it was a commercial center. 

For decades, Westwood Village was the heartbeat of Los Angeles nightlife while downtown languished in solitude. Westwood had the movie theaters, fancy restaurants and bustling street traffic, and downtown was known as a quiet and intimidating place to be after dark. These days, a humbled Westwood finds itself in the unexpected position of turning to a resurgent downtown for ideas. Of the more than a dozen movie theaters that once stood in the village, all but three have closed down. A count this week found that about a quarter of the storefronts on the main boulevard are vacant. After numerous failed revitalization attempts over the last two decades, Westwood is now looking to some of its neighborhood rivals for inspiration. Village leaders see how the arts have helped pump new life into downtown as well as formerly sleepy areas like Culver City. With a new focus, Westwood is moving away from its past as an entertainment and upscale shopping mecca. Backers see the 21st century Westwood as a magnet for arts and culture, filled with galleries, museums, performance space and trendy food...

Full article at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-westwood-village-20130618,0,7278089,full.story

Note that to the extent that UCLA creates itself as an internal city - with its own Grand Hotel - the surrounding neighborhood gets no spillover effects.  Students can live on campus and buy meals and other supplies without leaving.  With the Grand Hotel, the same will be true for visitors to campus.  So no one should be shocked, shocked at the results.

Just another sign of the times; they're coming to build the grand hotel

Just another reminder that UCLA is marching ahead with its plans to build the grand hotel where parking structure #6 and the Ackerman-area bus turnaround now stand.  There are two lawsuits pending but the build-and-bond folks are anxious to put "facts on the ground."  

Bus riders will be displaced starting July 8 and during the construction period, as the sign indicates.

Of course, we don't know what direction they will be coming from to build the grand hotel on July 8.  But there are rumors it will be down the Janss Steps:

Rush, Rush: The Grand Hotel Can't Wait!!

UCLA seems to be in a big rush to create "facts on the ground" by demolishing parking structure #6, the site of the planned Grand Hotel.  The powers-that-be certainly apparently don't want to wait for the various lawsuits to play out.

From the Daily Bruin today:

...Demolition of Parking Structure 6 will begin in early July. Construction crews will remove the structure in preparation for building the Meyer and Renee Luskin Conference and Guest Center, which will be built in Parking Structure 6’s current location...

Full story at http://dailybruin.com/2013/06/03/luskin-center-construction-to-demolish-parking-structure-6-relocate-drivers/

Some folks just have to hurry:

How Big Is the Planned UCLA Hotel?

Once a year, the LA Business Journal provides a list of the largest 100 hotels in LA County ranked by number of rooms.  The latest list appears in the May 6 edition.  Of the top 100, the smallest is Shutters at the Beach with 198 rooms.  The planned UCLA hotel is on a par with the W Hotel in Westwood (258 rooms), a bit smaller than the Hotel Palomar (Wilshire - a few blocks east of Westwood Blvd. with 264 rooms), and notably larger than the Angeleno (Sunset and the 405 with 209 rooms).  In rough terms, 25-30% of the top-sized 100 hotels in LA County are either comparable in size to the planned UCLA hotel or smaller.

The university can studiously avoid calling it a hotel.  But "the conference and guest center" is in fact a good sized hotel that will require a lot of business to keep its rooms filled throughout the year.

We have pointed out these facts in prior posts but from time to time a reminder is in order. The hotel is big:

The Taxman Looketh

Inside Higher Ed today reports that the IRS has been studying the tax payments (or nonpayments) of colleges and universities for their semi-commercial activities.  As we have noted in prior posts,  a couple of lawsuits have been filed against UCLA's grand hotel plan, one of which challenges the University's claim of tax exemption for the hotel and other activities.  You can find the Inside Higher Ed report at:
http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2013/04/29/irs-publishes-report-wide-review-colleges

The article has links to the IRS report and earlier preliminary reports by the IRS.  You can also find the IRS report at:
http://issuu.com/danieljbmitchell/docs/cucp_finalrpt_042513

It can be hard to get away from the taxman:

Now You See It...

We previously posted about the recent lawsuit filed against the UCLA hotel project based on the university's failure to pay taxes on its various existing hotel facilities, although non-UCLA usage is allowed.  Above, for example, is a screenshot of what yours truly found on the website of the UCLA Lake Arrowhead facility this morning [click on the image to enlarge]:
http://www.lakearrowheadmeetings.com/contact/index.cfm

The text reads:
WHO CAN MEET AT THE UCLA LAKE ARROWHEAD CONFERENCE CENTER?

Groups that meet at the Conference Center include Universities, Schools, Government Agencies, Hospitals, Private Companies, and Boards from all types of organizations and institutions.  A Learning Purpose is required to meet at the UCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference Center.

Note that a "learning purpose" would include just about any corporate retreat.

The only restriction is listed later on the same page:

DO YOU BOOK WEDDINGS OR OTHER PRIVATE EVENTS?

The UCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference Center is primarily for conferences only.  The Conference Center does not book weddings, receptions, graduations, etc. 

Even neglecting the qualifying word "primarily," the limit does not relate to university affiliation.  Presumably, a UCLA faculty member's wedding would be barred by this restriction.

One of the exhibits provided in the lawsuit is a brochure from the Arrowhead website that explicitly said that no university affiliation was required to rent the facility.  That language was apparently removed after the filing of the lawsuit but you can read it at the link below. If it is really UCLA's position that there is no problem with the manner in which it runs its hotels, why remove that language?  Why is it, now-you-see-it, now-you-don't?  Just asking!

Columnist asks about needs vs. wants

Note: In the future, there are likely to be more such questions - of the type excerpted below - about campus plans for new programs, schools, and even grand hotels.

Dan Walters today in the Sacramento Bee:

Was UC-Irvine's Law School Strictly Necessary?

Six years ago, yours truly wrote a column about a proposed law school at the University of California's Irvine campus, suggesting that it was more about academic ego and Orange County boosterism than a shortage of lawyers. The column pointed out that the state already had 25 accredited law schools and the number of graduates taking the State Bar examination had been rising steadily to nearly 7,000 a year. It also cited a study by the California Postsecondary Education Commission's staff, concluding that there was simply no need for another law school, especially one whose construction and operation partially depended on public funds...

UC – both its Irvine campus and the statewide Board of Regents – ignored the commission's criticism and created the law school anyway. Fast forward to 2012. The UCI law school graduated its first class and boasted that 46 of its 51 graduates who took the State Bar examination passed... Fast forward again. Last week, the Los Angeles Times published a lengthy article describing the angst felt by recent law school graduates who cannot find jobs while struggling to repay huge loans they took out to finance their legal educations.CPEC was absolutely correct six years ago in concluding that the state had more than enough lawyers and didn't need another expensive, taxpayer-subsidized law school....

There is – or should be – a lesson in this tale.

Full column at http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/08/v-print/5323708/dan-walters-was-uc-irvines-law.html

Contemplating necessity isn't always pleasant:

Lawsuit on UCLA Hotel - That UCLA Could Have Avoided

As was inevitable, once UCLA locked itself into a grand hotel-conference center plan, a lawsuit has now been filed that questions not only the grand hotel but also all the other hotel-type operations run by UCLA. Essentially, UCLA operates all of these entities - there are more of them than you might think - on a quasi-commercial basis but isn't paying the taxes that commercial hotels do.  The local hotels were willing to tolerate this competition by a public enterprise to a limit - since activity from UCLA spills over to them.  But there are limits. The lawsuit demands that UCLA pay taxes - not just on the grand hotel - but for all of its other hotel-type enterprises.

The Regents sharply questioned UCLA about the hotel project initially, but they inevitably collapse when a campus wants something. This project started out as a grand hotel which involved demolishing the Faculty Center.  When there was an outcry, there was a modest scaling back and a move in location to the current parking structure 6.  The plan is still way too grand and when it is built (with tax-favored bond finance available to public entities), it is unlikely to meet business plan expectations.  Its costs will be hidden - so it will never officially show a loss - but somehow the campus will pay. Had the powers-that-be resisted pressure from the build-and-bond "hospitality" empire that has grown up on campus, a reasonably-sized conference center could have been designed and costly litigation and embarrassment at the Regents could have been avoided. 

You can read the press release announcing the lawsuit at the link below:

The lawsuit itself is at:

UPDATE: The LA Times has a story on this lawsuit at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ucla-hotel-20130404,0,7267572.story

UPDATE: The Daily Bruin story is at http://dailybruin.com/2013/04/04/lawsuit-challenges-luskin-center-projects-tax-exemptions/

With One Question on Funding, Regents Approve UCLA New Med Center Building

As predicted, the UC Regents approved the architectural and CEQA review for the planned new UCLA Teaching and Learning Center for the Health Sciences with a virtual rubber stamp.  There was one question on funding from a regent and the answer was that $120 million (!) would be raised from gifts.  No follow up on funding or costs was part of the approval.  By the way, if you raise $120 million by tapping donors, that means there will be less money from gifts that could be tapped for some other purpose.  In past regental reviews of this project, the issue of a high cost per usable square foot was raised.  No questions about that concern were raised this time.  The Center may well be a worthy project.  But as with the case of the UCLA hotel project, ultimately regental review of these big buck affairs - even if objections are raised along the way - ends up in approval with no follow up to see what actually occurs.  And there is no independent auditing capacity available for the initial approval or for any follow up.

Below is a link to the audio of the approval of the Grounds and Building Committee on 3-13-13.  Gov. Brown attended part of the regents meeting that day and, as a regent, had the full agenda available.  Apparently, despite his hopes that online education will save some money, the approval of large and expensive capital projects is not a gubernatorial concern.

The full regents agenda for this meeting with links to video is at:
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13.html

There's a Place on Campus

From time to time, we like to remind you that even without a new hotel-conference center, events are routinely held on campus.  The photo is of yesterday's UCLA Anderson Forecast held at Korn Hall.  (Sometimes the event is at Ackerman.) Parking, food service, etc., was all accommodated. There were even some TV cameras from a local station.

Just a reminder that there is (already) a place for us somewhere:


And if you still can't find a place:
http://www.uclameetings.com/Meeting-Event-Spaces/Overview.aspx

Regents Meeting Coming Next Week

The Regents are meeting March 13-14 – Wednesday-Thursday of next week.  The agenda is only partly online.  At this point it just lists topics without the supporting materials.  One March 13 item is the UCLA Health Sciences Teaching and Learning Center which we are assured won’t cost the campus a penny.  Of course, we know the Regents will carefully undertake a review of the business plan using outside independent expertise and will be monitoring the project after it is built to ensure it is a total success, just as they did, and surely will do, with the Grand Hotel:

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/gb.pdf

They will also be Working Smarter – or at least reviewing plans of the administration to do so:

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/fin.pdf

There will be a review of something called systemwide “social fundraising.”  Yours truly is not exactly sure what that is but Googling suggests it has to do with raising money on the web:

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/edpol.pdf

In the afternoon of March 13, there is a lot of closed activity - including the search for a new UC president and collective bargaining issues.*  Behind the closed doors, there will some discussion of legal actions:  (selection below of cases that have been mentioned in earlier postings on this blog)

• AIME, et al. v. REGENTS – Case Settled and Judgment in Favor of Regents Entered – Challenge to Streaming of Copyrighted Videos for Classes – Los Angeles

• AUTHORS GUILD, et al. v. HATHITRUST, et al. – Appeal and Motion for Fees Denied – Copyright Infringement – Systemwide 

• BAKER, et al. v. KATEHI, et al. – Settlement Approved by Court – Constitutional and State Law Claims Arising from Pepper Spraying Incident – Davis

• CALDWELL, et al. v. REGENTS – Motion to Stay Trial Court Proceedings Granted – Challenge to Sale of Japanese Garden – Los Angeles

• FELARCA, et al. v. BIRGENEAU, et al. – Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part – First and Fourth Amendment and Conspiracy Claims Arising from Police Response to Campus Protests – Berkeley

• PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PATRICK HARRAN – Preliminary Hearing Concluded – Felony Criminal Charges for Willful Violation of Cal-OSHA Regulations – Los Angeles [This is the lab fire case.]

• REUTERS AMERICA LLC v. REGENTS – Petition Granted in Part – Petition under California Public Records Act to Compel Release of Performance Records for Private Equity Funds – Office of the President

The full list of cases can be found at:

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/finx.pdf

In an open session, there will be a review of UCPath– the new payroll system that is being implemented.

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/audit.pdf

Moving on to March 14...  There is an item entitled “Change to Appointment Terms for Employees Subject to Mandatory Retirement Age Requirements."  Mandatory retirement is not allowed under law except for certain top manager types.  This item: http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/comp.pdf  appears to be a holdover from the January meeting at which an end to mandatory retirement was proposed: http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan13/g2.pdf

 

There will be a recommendation on “Continuation of Tuition Surcharge” which I assume involves no change in tuition since it is listed as a consent item:**

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/fin1.pdf

The full agenda is at:

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13.html

*UPDATE: The search process for the new UC president is described in a UC press release:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/29127

**UPDATE: The continuation of the surcharge refers to a surcharge imposed when the Regents lost some litigation relating to professional school fees.
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/f6.pdf

Another UC capital project that seemed like a great idea

From time to time, we have noted that UC capital projects don't necessarily work out as planned. While we have generally raised this point in the context of the UCLA grand hotel, other campuses are not exempt.

The Sacramento Bee carries the interesting report from UC-Davis excerpted below:

Before construction began, UC Davis laid out a vision for West Village, its new on-campus community, as a showcase of energy efficiency that would provide affordable housing for faculty and students. Nearly two years after the $300 million development opened, it has not yet fulfilled those expectations. Its student apartments have experienced high turnover. Single-family homes for faculty and staff have not materialized. And the developer can't quantify whether the project is meeting its goal of using no more energy than it produces from solar panels. As for being affordable, West Village apartments have some of the highest rents in town.  ...West Village isn't actually run by UC Davis. The school contracted with private developer Carmel Partners to build and manage the community...

The project received $22 million in public funding, including $14.5 million from UC Davis to pay for streets, utilities and other infrastructure, and $2.5 million from the California Energy Commission to explore renewable energy...

Full story at: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/02/5159639/west-village-complex-has-yet-to.html

Of course, $14.5 million is small potatoes compared to the UCLA grand hotel cost  But I guess we think big.  Seems like there must be a lesson here somewhere:

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/02/5159639/west-village-complex-has-yet-to.html#storylink=cpy

He said/she said official rebuttal misses the big issue on the Grand Hotel

An earlier post noted an op ed in the Daily Bruin by Laura Lake on the grand hotel project slated to occupy a location roughly across from Ackerman where a parking structure now sits.  A rebuttal op ed ran yesterday by Steve Olsen, UCLA's chief financial officer (and a very capable individual).  Here is an excerpt:

The Meyer and Renee Luskin Conference and Guest Center will become a reality at UCLA in 2016 thanks to a generous gift from two alumni who share UCLA’s vision of creating a place where academics from all across the world can gather to share ideas, host world-class conferences and stay on our campus, experiencing the inspiration and vitality that are part of UCLA. Once built, it will be a boon both to the campus and the larger Westwood community.  It is unfortunate that Save Westwood Village and its co-president, Laura Lake, are trying to impede that progress with a lawsuit. In fact, they have a long history of opposing projects on campus and in the community that have ultimately gone on to successfully serve UCLA and Westwood Village. UCLA believes their lawsuit is utterly without merit and we fully expect to prevail...

The full rebuttal op ed is at:
http://dailybruin.com/2013/01/10/submission-claims-against-approval-process-for-luskin-conference-and-guest-center-lack-merit/

But the problem is that the rebuttal misses the larger key point.  There could have been alternatives, less grand to be sure, that would have met UCLA's needs and would have been in total compliance with the wishes of the donors.  Instead, a grandiose  project was put before the donors and sold to them as the best use of their money.  There is no way that the donors would have approached UCLA and said what we really want is a grand hotel.  It simply didn't happen that way.  The project was proposed to them by high level campus administrators.  No one has ever asserted a different history.

The original plan would have replaced the Faculty Center and was so grandiose that it led to a faculty outcry.  It was justified by a contrived and indefensible consulting report containing glaring errors.  As a result of the outcry, the project was then slightly scaled back and relocated.

The Regents were very skeptical of the revised project as the recording of the March meeting posted on this blog makes clear.  They were then subject to a campaign to convince them otherwise, the culmination of which was a letter - ostensibly spontaneously written by the donors - that essentially said it would be the grand hotel or nothing.  Not wanting to reject $50 million, the Regents approved the project and put the best face they could on their change of heart.  What choice did they have?  Again, all of this is in the public record: the letter, the Regents meetings (with the audio we posted), etc.

If you look at the Regents' procedures for capital projects - a general topic noted in this blog in earlier posts - they in fact have no capacity for real oversight.  Campuses send up grand plans with Excel sheets that pencil out and pretty architectural drawings.  There is no independent auditing capacity at the Regents.  There is no mechanism to go back and review whether the promises made were actually delivered once the structures are built.  We are talking really big bucks here in an age where dollars are scarce.  If you want real oversight, well meaning, part-time Regents cannot provide it.  They would need professional auditors, independent of UCOP.

We noted in our previous post on the governor's budget that he is very interested in efficiency and cost saving.  And he expresses an explicit concern about UC's capital projects process.  The building and bond bureaucracies on the campuses are artifacts of an earlier age of UC physical expansion - which the state no longer will support.  That age ended in the 1990s, but the incentives to build-and-bond remain.  The needs of UC and UCLA are more in the human capital area now, not physical capital.  We need scholarships, research grants, endowed chairs, etc., far more than we need brick and mortar.

In a sense, the grand hotel and the Regents' initial resistance to it should be the canary in the coal mine for the old approach.  But it is not clear that the message has gotten through.  It will require leadership - in Oakland and in Murphy Hall and at the Regents - to change the system. What the governor's budget message is saying is that if the system isn't fixed internally, there will be changes imposed from outside.  It may be painful to do the fixing internally and so far there has been little sign of it.  It will be more painful if the fix comes from outside UC.

UPDATE: The Olsen rebuttal also appears at:
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/claims-against-approval-process-242540.aspx

A Forget-Me-Not About the Grand Hotel Project

Over many past postings, we have noted problems with the Grand Hotel plan UCLA is determined to pursue.  Now a lawsuit is pending and an op ed has appeared in the Daily Bruin concerning the deficiencies of the project: [excerpts]

Proposed UCLA conference center too costly, ignores tax code and zoning 

Laura Lake, co-president of Save Westwood Village, 1-7-13

The University of California is a public trust, a public treasure, an institution of world renown, not because it operates campus hotels, but because of its faculty and student body. Broken down by square footage, the 250-room, $162 million Luskin Conference and Guest Center is 91.5 percent hotel and a mere 8.5 percent conference meeting space. At $648,000 per hotel room, it is a Taj Mahal for a campus cut to the bone. When it opens, it will charge $224 a night. That is why in March the UC Board of Regents asked for alternatives that would be less costly and less risky. But a July 3 letter from Meyer and Renee Luskin to the Regents derailed all alternatives by insisting on Lot 6. Save Westwood Village v. Regents of the University of California and Meyer and Renee Luskin, real parties in interest, is about inadequate fire protection in Westwood; UCLA’s failure to impartially analyze less costly alternatives to this project; violation of city zoning; and UCLA’s refusal to pay local and federal tax on its many hotels...

Full op ed at http://dailybruin.com/2013/01/07/submission-proposed-ucla-conference-center-too-costly-ignores-tax-code-and-zoning/

Some Closing Thoughts for 2012

U of Chicago Economics Professor Steven Levitt, co-author of the Freakonomics books, radio programs, blog, etc., made some interesting comments about business and MBA education in the context of a larger discussion of confirmation bias. Basically, he says that willingness to admit ignorance and non-expertise is not part of the business culture and that MBAs learn confidently to provide answers to questions for which they don't know the answers. Admitting you don't know is unacceptable. You can hear his comments at the link below.

One suspects that the problem is not just one of business but of management of all types of organizations. Could it possibly be a characteristic of university management, for example? We have noted that the Regents confidently approve vast sums for UC capital construction relying on reassuring statements by campus management officials that they have foolproof business plans illustrated by spreadsheets and pretty PowerPoint charts. The Regents are so confident that they have the expertise to evaluate such plans on their own that they feel no need for outside opinions or even follow-up mechanisms to see if what was promised was actually delivered. One thinks about the grand hotel project at UCLA, for example, but the problem extends more widely to other projects and campuses. Might the situation change in 2013?  I can confidently say that I don't know for sure but that I am a natural pessimist about such matters.

One might also question Levitt's assertion that that unlike those business types and MBAs, academics always start from the position that they don't know the answer.  Happy New Year!

Levitt's comments can be heard below:

Lessons from NYU for Murphy Hall, UCOP, and the Regents to Ponder

Inside Higher Ed today has an interesting and lengthy article on a pending NYU faculty vote of no-confidence in that university's president which relates to a construction project of the university.  We have reported in this blog about the large capital project agenda that is routinely approved by the Board of Regents for UC campuses without real independent oversight capability on the part of the Board.  Perhaps there are lessons from NYU to be learned.  The recent extended brouhaha about the UC logo – clearly a minor issue compared to the NYU matter – suggests that folks in Murphy Hall, in Oakland, and on the Board of Regents should do some reflecting on current procedures.  Grand campus hotels and similar projects could eventually trigger something more than the logo affair at the campus, systemwide, and regental levels, particularly if the business plans for these projects don't work out.

You can find the NYU article at:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/12/19/nyu-vote-no-confidence-highlights-divergent-views-faculty-role-governance