Pac-12 survival: UC Board of Regents examine details of UCLA’s pending departure, indicate move could be overturned

For all the half-answers and complete unknowns presented Wednesday at the University of California Board of Regents meeting about UCLA’s planned departure for the Big Ten, one thing was perfectly clear: This isn’t over.

From UC system president Michael Drake describing the impact report as an “interim” document to regent John A. Perez noting that the meeting was “a really good start to the conversation,” the governing body of the UC indicated it plans a deep dive into all aspects of UCLA’s move, including its impact on Cal.

“I’m very concerned about the financial impact to Cal-Berkeley and to make sure whatever new revenue might be achieved” — by UCLA’s membership in the Big Ten — “envisions a scenario to help offset (Cal’s) need,” regent Tony Thurmond said.

The “financial impact” on Cal was one of many topics covered in a 17-page impact report discussed Wednesday by the regents. It laid out both the benefits and drawbacks of UCLA’s move to the Big Ten, along with USC, in the summer of 2024.

But it wasn’t until the conversation plunged into the procedural weeds of regental policy that the most significant development came to light.

The Bruins’ exit from the Pac-12, announced June 30, was surprising in many regards, including the manner by which UCLA was able to dodge bureaucratic potholes and leave behind its sister campus in Berkeley.

In response to an inquiry from the Hotline, a spokesperson from the UC Office of the President explained at the time that there was “no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

In other words, UCLA chancellor Gene Block had the authority to act on his own.

But based on comments made during the open session of the regents’ meeting at UCLA’s Luskin Center, that isn’t the case.

Charlie Robinson, the general counsel for the UC Office of the President, indicated the regents could withdraw the authority delegated to a chancellor when it comes to conference affiliation.

“For this particular matter, the regents could say ‘We want to act and therefore we do not want the (UC) president or the (campus) chancellors to act in this area,’ and simply assert that,” Robinson said.

Another key exchange came moments later, when Perez, the former speaker of the California State Assembly — and a Cal graduate — asked Robinson about the mechanism required for withdrawing authority from a campus chancellor on matters of conference affiliation.

Couching the issue in hypothetical terms, Perez asked:

“Without noticing a meeting, without going to a meeting, between meetings, the board chair and the vice chair could act under interim action to retain an authority that had otherwise been delegated?”

“Correct,” Robinson said.