This post was updated Oct. 12 at 12:54 p.m.
The UCLA Student Conduct Code identifies accountability as a core Bruin value. But UCLA’s administration has remained silent on an accountability issue of its own.
Seven current and former UCLA employees have filed at least 22 whistleblower reports against Mary Osako, UCLA’s vice chancellor for strategic communications. They allege she fostered a culture of intimidation and silenced those in the department who disagreed with her. Osako also allegedly spent millions of university dollars on overlapping contracts with communications firms, some of which were owned by her friends.
[Related: ‘A narcissist’: UCLA employees alleged top administrator misused funds, bullied staff]
The allegations against Osako have the potential to damage the entire university’s reputation – ironic given Osako’s involvement with strategic communications, a department tasked with representing UCLA’s image. Despite an independent investigation substantiating several claims about Osako’s conduct, she remains in her position.
The university must commit to fostering a culture of greater transparency among administrators. This includes disclosing information about Osako’s case and explaining any disciplinary action taken against her, or the reasoning for a lack thereof.
Granted, a judge recently extended a block on the release of the investigative report into Osako’s conduct, claiming its publication would violate her privacy. But UCLA cannot cite these legal restrictions as a justification for its complete lack of openness. There is room for both the protection of privacy and transparency.
[Related: Judge extends block on release of report into UCLA head of strategic communications]
Osako denies all wrongdoing, and her lawyers point out that the university has yet to discipline her. However, given UCLA’s record of punishing transparent employees and protecting those who don’t answer questions, the university’s support may not be Osako’s best line of defense.
[Related: Editorial: Agostini’s departure after interview with The Bruin shows UCLA punishes transparency]
But UCLA can change that. The reputation of a university should not be protected by silence, but by showing that no administrator is above accountability.
After all, if the university can ask students to hold themselves accountable, it should be no problem for a career administrator to do the same.
Comments are closed.