Interesting that an anonymous poster on a Penn State message board knows something that could potentially derail the entire B10 expansion deal....that none of the dozens of lawyers and university administrators knew when they were doing their due diligence on the deal. A tip of the cap to you.
"Entire"? USC is a private university to which the state law does not apply, so I don't know why you've used that word.
Here's the operative language from the 2016 statute:
"(b) A state agency, department, board, authority, or commission, including an agency, department, board, authority, or commission of the University of California, the Board of Regents of the University of California, or the California State University, and the Legislature shall not do either of the following:
(1) Require any of its employees, officers, or members to travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that * * *
(2) Approve a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that * * *"
I've omitted the description of the laws the California legislature didn't like. The statute further requires that the attorney general maintain a list of states with such laws and Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio are on it. There are six exceptions to that subsection, one of which is to "meet contractual obligations incurred before January 1, 2017," which allows UC and Cal State teams to continue to travel to Idaho and Utah, which are also on the list.
Since I'm a attorney practicing in the Los Angeles area and you're not, I'll help you with reading the language in the statute that backs up what I said: "a[] department * * * of the University of California * * * or the California State University * * * shall not * * * require any of its employees to travel to a state" on the AG's list. See that word "department"? Yeah, that includes UC and Cal State athletic departments. I'm sure you get this, but I'll say it any way: coaches and staff are all employees subject to subsection (b)(1).
I also don't know why you'd say "none of the dozens of lawyers and university administrators knew" about that statute. I neither said nor implied such a thing and your non sequitur inference completely misses the likelihood that the responsible officials believed they could address the issue. That they would have confidence in their plan to do so in no way conflicts with what I said: the statute as currently written is a big problem that will require a fix if UCLA is going to send teams to Indiana, Iowa, or Ohio.
Here's a tip of the cap right back atcha for your trenchant powers of observation and incisive insight into both the legal and political landscapes in California.
