There has be a lot of back and forth on this issue which seems to be coming to a head at the February 5 meeting of the Legislative Assembly, which has just issued its meeting agenda. The agenda runs well over 900 pages (!), mainly with other issues. But section 5 deals with the ongoing budget controversy.
It is helpful to start with a table from page 833 of the agenda which the Committee on Planning and Budget appears to have pulled together from various oral and slide presentations provided by Murphy Hall. (The table presumably does not include the hospitals.) I will refer to what is shown on the table as the campus General Fund following common usage for state and local government units, since I assume there are other campus funds - such as for the hospitals, other enterprises, and athletics.
---
Note that there is not breakdown of revenue on the table. All we learn is the revenues are basically flat over the 3 years shown. Perhaps the various sources are broken out elsewhere. The breakdown of spending is also not particularly useful. What is called Category 6 for "allocations to organizations" is also not broken down. I assume the organizations are units such as schools and departments. Clearly, you want useful breakdowns.There is some confusion of terminology. The general fund apparently started fiscal year 2024-25 with a negative balance of $46.2 million. The balance would have been pushed further in the red to the tune of $184.6 million (a workload deficit) had "corrections actions" of +$214.8 million not been taken. We don't have any breakdown of what those actions were. But as a result of taking them, the general fund ended with a positive balance of $30.2 million.
What about fiscal 2025-26, the current year? There would have been a workload deficit of $280.1 million absent anything else happening. But "new central funding requests" - we don't know what these were - came along in December to the tune of an additional $163.7 million during the current year. (Are "requests" mandatory? Can they be negotiated? Refused?) Assuming the requests are mandatory, there would be a deficit of of $280.1 + $163.7 = $443.8. So, absent any corrective actions for this year, the projection would be a General Fund with a negative balance of $413.7 million. (The table calls this a deficit which is bad terminology and puts it on the wrong line. It should be on the bottom line. There is confusion between deficit - a flow concept - and ending balance - a stock concept.)
Before we get to next year, 2026-27, what can we expect in corrective actions to be taken this year in which 7 months have already passed? It's hard to believe that no plans for such actions are in the works. However, on January 26, Chancellor Frenk and EVC Hunt responded to a Senate request for detailed written information in a letter (pp. 841-842 of the agenda) that gives clue to what the corrective actions for 2025-26 are planned. Can there really be no plans when more than half the fiscal year has passed? It's not clear which is worse: not sharing plans that exist or having no plans to share.
The table does have some projections for next year. If we made no corrective actions this year, and no corrective actions next year, the General Fund would have a balance of -$799.5 million. Presumably, that is not what will occur. There will be some corrective actions this year and next. And if I had to guess, not only are there some preliminary, but undisclosed, plans for this year and for next.
There is a second table (p. 837) that tries to provide some detail, although it, too, raises questions.
---
First, note that departments and schools are lumped together as core teaching and research units. Second, since the table ostensibly shows what percentage of the deficit is attributable to the various categories shown, it is unclear how costs are allocated. Who pays the electric bill and other overhead? The main thing we learn is that an annual deficit of $80 million/year is attributed to athletics for all three years shown. (But we are paying UC-Berkeley a tax, nonetheless.)---
Due to concerns about incomplete budgetary information, a group of faculty have submitted a resolution to be considered on Feb. 5: (Sec. 6 of the agenda, pp. 870-871)
Resolution on Shared Governance, Senate Consultation, and Administrative Accountability
Jan 26, 2026
Sponsors:
- Hiram Beltrán-Sánchez, Department of Community Health Sciences
- Aparna Bhaduri, Department of Biological Chemistry
- Michael Chwe, Department of Political Science
- Matthew Fisher, Department of English
- Andrea S. Goldman, Department of History
- Yogita Goyal, Department of English, Department of African American Studies
- Miloš Jovanović, Department of History
- Koh Choon Hwee, Department of History
- Gregory H. Leazer, Department of Information Studies
--
Whereas the University of California’s tradition of shared governance recognizes faculty participation in the operation and guidance of the University and in sustaining academic excellence;
Whereas the University of California and its Academic Senate concur that meaningful faculty consultation requires timely access to relevant information, substantive administrative engagement,
and reliance on established faculty governance bodies, and that shared governance is undermined when:
- information necessary for informed faculty advice is withheld, fragmented, or delayed;
- faculty consultation is treated as advisory in name only, without substantive response;
- decisions proceed while consultation is ongoing, rendering it ineffective or merely procedural;
- assurances are offered without supporting data or follow-up; or
- ad hoc administrative committees are substituted for established Senate bodies;
Whereas there is a multi-year record of Academic Senate requests to restore meaningful shared governance, including resolutions adopted by the Legislative Assembly on November 13, 2025, for which administrative responses have not substantively addressed the requests made by the Legislative Assembly;
Whereas recent administrative initiatives have relied on non-Senate advisory groups, including One IT working groups and the Executive Budget Advisory Group (EBAG), which are not accountable to Academic Senate governance and do not fulfill the administration’s obligation to consult formally with the Senate;
Therefore be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly finds that non-Senate advisory groups cannot substitute for formal consultation with the Academic Senate and its standing committees as required under Regents Bylaw 40.
Therefore be it further resolved that the Legislative Assembly expresses its dissatisfaction with the administration’s responses to the Legislative Assembly resolutions adopted on November 13, 2025, and reiterates its prior requests for transparency, accountability, and substantive engagement as set forth in those resolutions;
Therefore be it further resolved that the Legislative Assembly requests that the administration cease characterizing non-Senate working groups and advisory bodies as consultation and instead engage in formal, timely, and substantive consultation with the Academic Senate and its standing committees, including timely and substantive responses to Senate requests;
Therefore be it further resolved that the Legislative Assembly requests that the administration report to the Legislative Assembly on the specific steps it will take to restore meaningful consultation with the Academic Senate and its standing committees, including changes to the use of advisory groups and the provision of timely and substantive responses to Senate requests, the report to be delivered at the next meeting of the Legislative Assembly;
Therefore be it further resolved that, on the basis of the foregoing, the Legislative Assembly finds that the administration has failed to meet its obligations under shared governance, as defined by University bylaws.
===
*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/01/just-corrected-facts.html.
