To maintain its reputation as an elite public research institution, UCLA must distance itself from former Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey, who is under federal and state investigation for bribery and obstruction of justice, among other alleged crimes.
As a public institution, UCLA has an added responsibility to be transparent and accountable for its financial dealings. This includes removing itself from those who have a history of questionable financial practices.
UCLA was first looped into Peevey’s questionable financial dealings and faulty communications back in 2013, while he facilitated a settlement for the closing of the San Onofre Power Plant. He reached out to the California Center for Sustainable Communities at UCLA to offer to use some of the settlement funds to build an academic energy center.
The discussions indicate that the settlement was underway almost a year before it was publicly announced, prompting a federal probe into Peevey’s actions.
The conversations marked the latest in a series of questionable communications involving Peevey, who stepped down from his position late last year, after 12 years as president of the Public Utilities Commission.
In the midst of the controversy, Peevey was offered and accepted a position on the board of the Luskin Center for Innovation at the start of 2015.
No one from the center has discussed the ongoing San Onofre controversy with Peevey, according to a spokesperson from the center. He remains on the board.
Because of its continuing connection to Peevey, all subsequent decisions the board of the Luskin Center makes will be tainted.
UC Berkeley already had to reject funds raised at a gala in his honor, after his critics spoke out against the dinner.
UCLA must take similar steps in distancing itself as much as possible from any board member or donor so widely criticized. As an institution that relies so heavily on donations and grants, UCLA cannot afford to lose any sense of credibility.
That’s particularly true because UCLA is in the midst of a centennial campaign to raise $4 billion for the university. Donors may rightfully choose not to give to an institution that is associated with alleged bribery, which is a risk that UCLA literally cannot afford to take.
Though the Luskin Center is separate from the university as a whole, they are both branded under the UCLA name. Thus, the entire university’s financial honesty is jeopardized by Peevey’s presence.
To save face for the university, the Luskin Center for Innovation must distance itself from Peevey and all other questionable affiliates. Even perceived culpability can cause severe damage for the university’s reputation amongst influential donors. One alleged criminal’s board seat is not worth that risk.