The decision by UCLA Recreation to reduce the number of lunch-time swim hours at the North Pool marked an unexpected end to an 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. weekday schedule that had been in effect for nearly 20 years, and triggered an immediate backlash among the many regular users of this pool.
We challenged the assertions put forth to justify this action, to wit, statistical evidence suggested underuse of the North Pool, and that there was a “demand for creative swimming, such as aquatic kickboxing.” There was no reliable counting mechanism in place, and those of us who had used the pool for years could attest to the fact that it was always well attended. Moreover, UCLA Recreation could have easily accomplished such “creative swimming” by choosing different times or by using one of the other pools, such as the Family Pool or the Dirks Pool at the Spieker Aquatics Center.
It quickly became obvious that this was a decision motivated by economics, an attempt to kill two birds with one stone: Cutting open swim would save on some lifeguard and staff costs, and staff and coaches can earn additional money since these “creative swimming” classes require an extra fee.
As long time swimmers in the North Pool, it was bad enough having this change forced upon us unannounced, seemingly an attempt to sneak through this reduction during the summer when most students are gone. What has been even more troubling, however, has been UCLA Recreation’s response to our challenging of this decision.
As UCLA students, staff and faculty, we felt it was well within our purview to question this type of unannounced, unilateral action, and question it we did. The initial response was simply a refusal to acknowledge the alternatives we had suggested, followed by a reticence to provide us with requested information. This then seemed to grow into outright indignation that we would have the temerity to even question their decision making, culminating in a call to me from an extremely irate Rich Mylin, an associate director at UCLA Recreation.
Mylin informed me, among other things, that he was “rapidly losing patience” with my questing of this decision, accusing me of “mistreating” his staff, presumably because we questioned and challenged the narrative UCLA Recreation had spun to justify taking away open swim hour. In what can only be described as a rant, Mylin accused me of “not listening” to him, and then made the astonishing claim “You think you own the North Pool.” He concluded by leveling threats, saying that he was going to “reconsider” my membership status at UCLA Recreation.
In almost 30 years at UCLA – as a grad student, as a post doc and now as a staff member – I have never been confronted with such a thuggish abuse of power.
This all begs the question: Why is UCLA Recreation so afraid of having its decisions questioned? What is there to hide? Why the secrecy, why the lack of transparency, why the refusal to consult and partner with those who use the pool?
The answer, I believe, has to do with conditions and practices of long standing, things that, from their point of view, are better left unexamined. Lifeguards who are inattentive, chatting with friends, texting, hungover to the point where they are fighting to retain consciousness and even dozing. A complete failure over the past eight years to check the credentials of those who use to pool to see if they have a right to use the pool. Failure to maintain the disabled shower stall. The practice of allowing UCLA Aquatics affiliated staff and coaches to give private swim lessons at a public pool during open swim, and their videotaping of those they teach, videotaping that also captures others using the pool – both above and below the surface of the water. Coaches from swim camps who – contrary to pool rules – actually photograph swimmers waiting to use the pool, coaches for whom UCLA Recreation covers up by refusing to divulge their identities.
One can understand, then, the tension that might arise within this organization when pool patrons refuse to accept weak explanations and instead dig deeper into the workings of those who administer the North Pool and other aquatic venues. If scratching the surface as we have done provokes this sort of backlash, one can only imagine what a deeper dig would produce.
It appears very obvious to us that UCLA Recreation decided some time ago that the North Pool was going to serve as a cash cow of sorts, our wishes to the contrary notwithstanding. Thus, the statement by UCLA Recreation in the above-referenced Daily Bruin article that it is going to “continue to evaluate pool use during the fall quarter” simply rings false. Rather, this seems to be little more than UCLA Recreation serving notice that it is keeping all its options open with regard to cutting lunchtime swim hours at the North Pool. Its job is to administer this public pool, in an open and aboveboard fashion.
If it were to enter into a dialog with those of us who use the pool, this would be a welcome – if not somewhat surprising – development. If, however, it wishes to continue to operate in the shadows, then it leaves us no choice but to continue our attempts to uncover the motivations for the choices it has made, and to examine the extent to which its practices do or do not conform with UCLA Recreation’s obligations as an oversight body in a public university such as UCLA.
Ron Richards is an Anderson School of Management employee and UCLA alumnus.