Faculty Center at risk
By Sean Greene
Oct. 22, 2010 12:46 a.m.
The UCLA campus may soon have the capability to host international academic conferences, at the cost of the now-standing Faculty Center.
The proposal to demolish the center, located next to Murphy Hall, has many faculty and staff members up in arms.
For 50 years, the building has provided a place for faculty to have lunch with colleagues and guests, and has served as a meeting place for various campus groups, said Dick Weiss, a chemistry professor and president of the Faculty Center’s board of governors. The center currently has 2,300 faculty and staff members and plays an important role in fostering communication between teachers, he said.
During the summer, the university proposed demolishing the Faculty Center and in its place, building a five to six-story, 300-room UCLA Residential Conference Center and Faculty Club. The new facility would include a new faculty club, and would be up and running by fall 2014, said Administrative Vice Chancellor Sam Morabito.
Morabito estimated the new building would cost between $120 and $150 million, but he said he envisions the conference center as a self-supporting enterprise and an addition to UCLA’s academic mission, not the university’s entrance into the hotel business.
UCLA’s interest in a conference center goes back to the 1980s, Morabito said. Now, with more interest in collaborating with other universities inside and outside the United States, the university needs a conference center to host academic conferences, he said.
The Faculty Center has suffered recent financial difficulties and several maintenance problems that would require pricey renovations, including repairs to the structure’s roof. Rather than foot the bill on two expensive projects, Morabito said the university can solve two problems with one new building.
The news of both the financial troubles and deferred maintenance came as a surprise to many faculty, said Michael Rich, an astronomy professor. He said membership dues could be raised, and donors could be sought out to make the necessary repairs and turn the financial state of the center around.
“It feels as though the administration and the chancellor have wanted to do this for a long time, and the administration settled on it when the faculty center was vulnerable,” Rich said. “I think the way it was handled was not really ethical or honest with respect to the Faculty Center membership.”
Weiss said he is skeptical the project will achieve what the university hopes.
“I’m concerned that whatever ultimately becomes the faculty club may lose much of the atmosphere which has made the faculty center so successful in the past,” he said.
The design of the new facility would keep the conference center aspect of the facility separate from the adjunct faculty club. Of the 295,000 square-foot construction, 16,000 square feet would belong to the faculty club, which is comparable to the current space, Morabito said.
During the construction period, which could take 25 to 30 months, the administration is considering plans for a semi-permanent structure that would replace some of the Faculty Center’s services ““ but nothing has been determined yet.
Velma Montoya, University of California Regent emerita, said she was disappointed in the plan. Formerly nicknamed the “UCLA Regent” for her advocacy for the campus, she said a conference center is not part of academia’s goal.
“It seems to me UCLA is trying to emulate USC,” she said. “I think caution is in order on this project. UCLA has a personality of overbuilding.”
Paul Sheats, a professor emeritus of English, read a letter to the Regents from former President Robert Sproul, emphasizing the importance of a Faculty Center to the university’s “development of institutional esprit” during a meeting between faculty and administrators. Sheats said the functions of a new, joint facility must not overshadow the faculty club’s purpose.
“It’s a place that can bring the faculty together,” Sheats said. “We can’t sacrifice the Faculty Center to the new functions of that building. We ought not to.”
