Watch the Afternoon Meetings of the Regents: March 18, 2026

We continue catching up with the Regents' March sessions.

At the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, one consent item was approved without discussion. The Committee then turned to the UCLA sports medicine and lab project to be placed in an existing structure that requires substantial internal modifications.*

It was reported that the winning contractor's bid came in 38% below estimate. Other than a comment by Chair Cohen that he was happy to hear of the discount, the project was approved without discussion.

The other UCLA project was the 19-story undergrad dorm to be constructed at 901 Levering Avenue which we took note of in an earlier post.** It was presented by AVC Michael Beck. Regent Makarechian raised the issue of cost. He compared it with a mid-Wilshire Building that UCLA had bought for grad students and noted the lower cost there. Beck said that building was a distressed sale by a developer. A second issue raised by Makarechian was bathroom construction. The plan has 8 students sharing two bathrooms. Makarechian said at no cost the bathrooms could be divided for multiple use. Beck said ADA compliance would prevent such a division. But Makarechian noted that ADA compliance did not require all bathrooms in all apartments. Beck agreed to come back with an alternative bathroom arrangement.

Another issue raised was that grad students have been displaced from the immediate campus area. But the project was approved.

Academic and Student Affairs approved professional program tuition increases for various medical degrees. It was noted that the number of Pell grant recipients had recently dropped, but the reasons for that decrease were not known at this point.

The Compliance and Audit Committee then approved some technical amendments with no discussion. There was then a presentation by KPMG, a new auditor, about its audit for the current fiscal year. It was said that AI would be used to analyze audit data. The plan was approved.

The Board then met for a brief meeting in which the reports from the various committees were approved.

===

As always, we preserve recordings of Regents meetings because the Regents have no policy about retention.

The sessions of Finance and Capital Strategies, Academic and Student Affairs, and Compliance and Audit are at:

https://ia601500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Finance%20and%20Capital%20Strategies%2C%20Academic%20and%20Student%20Affairs%2C%20Compliance%20and%20Audit%20Committees%203-18-2026.mp4.

The afternoon Board meeting is at:

https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Board%2C%20Committee%20Reports%203-18-2026.mp4. 

===

*We previously discussed this project at https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/new-off-campus-health-complex.html.

**https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/big.html.

Straws in the Wind - Part 296

From Inside Higher Ed: The halfway point of the federal fiscal year looms at month’s end, yet the National Institutes of Health has only obligated around 15 percent of the estimated $38 billion it has to distribute in grants and contracts to universities and other research institutions, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC [last] Tuesday released an analysis of data from NIH’s RePORTER site, showing it had only obligated $5.8 billion as of [the previous] Friday, compared to nearly $9 billion by that date in the final full fiscal year of the Biden administration. When the NIH “obligates” funding, it has sent an institution a notice saying the dollars are available to its researchers to spend...

The report says that current funding rates “raise concerns” that the NIH could be in a similar situation to last year, when it was forced to accelerate its spending to obligate the full amount of its budget by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. According to the AAMC, last year the NIH obligated over half of the necessary research funds to institutions in the final three months of the fiscal year, July to September. Many of the grants were obligated through controversial multiyear funding of individual grants that reduced the number of new grants it distributed over all.

The agency’s own data also suggest that the careers of early-career researchers were particularly harmed by fewer grant awards last year...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/science-research-policy/2026/03/25/aamc-nih-has-only-obligated-15-external-research.

Getting In - Part 2

Yesterday, we noted a Facebook ad promising to get your kid into a UC and featuring a former "reader" of applications to Berkeley. It was more of a hard sell. Act Now! Today we find a (somewhat) softer sell from a former admissions "officer" from UCLA and UC-San Diego:

Is Your Teen Interested in a UC School? Learn What a Strong Application Looks Like!

UC Applications: 250,000+ per year. 9 campuses, each unique.

Get insider knowledge from former UCLA and UC San Diego admissions directors!

• How top schools like UCLA & UCSD differ in what they want

• The truth about major choice & academic rigor

• Build a balanced list to boost admission odds

Ready for your teen's strategic head start?

Register now!

In the end, both ads are designed to get you to hit the panic button.

He ain't here... (for budget explanations) - Part 4 - Update

In our last iteration of "He ain't here...," we noted a Daily Bruin article describing an email sent by UCLA's interim CFO on budget affairs. We surmised from that article that the email likely gave no data or definitions of data other than citing a projected $220 million deficit for the current fiscal year.

Someone has now forwarded the email to yours truly.* It's not clear why I didn't get it directly; perhaps it wasn't sent to emeriti. But, in any case, the surmise was correct. The only number cited in the email is the deficit figure, without definition. From the email:

Based on approved spending plans and current planning assumptions, UCLA’s closing deficit on central accounts for FY26 is projected at approximately $220 million. You may have seen previous references in the media to a higher deficit figure. That projection included uncommitted funds: spending requests that had not yet been approved and did not therefore reflect UCLA’s projected closing deficit on central accounts.

The email came with an FAQ attachment.** In it, there is a question about the former CFO's deficit estimate of $425 million:

Where did the $425 million figure come from?

You may have seen previous references in the media to a higher deficit figure. That projection included uncommitted funds: spending requests that had not yet been approved and did not therefore reflect UCLA’s projected closing deficit on central accounts.

So what do we learn? It appears that it isn't the case that the CFO gave out a false number. It is common practice in public sector budgeting to make what-if projections, i.e.. what would happen to the budget if all planned spending were to occur and nothing was done to change inflows of revenue. For example, at the state level, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) typically releases a workload projection of this type before the governor releases his budget proposal.

If you look at the budget book the former CFO Agostini provided just before he was fired, it contains a breakdown by academic unit.*** You will find a footnote for the units that indicates the projections for the current year 2025-26 were as of September 2025. So it appears the figures in the budget book were really starting numbers for the year. Between September 2025 and February 2026 when the budget book was released, the powers-that-be at UCLA (probably including the CFO) had made some course corrections, bringing down the starting projection from $425 million to $220 million.

It remains the case, as we have repeatedly pointed out, that precise definitions remain elusive. And there is no information on reserves. If an organization is spending more than it is taking in, it has to be pulling the difference from somewhere. And what you have in reserve matters.

Let's take a simple example. If you have an ongoing deficit of $220 million and you have only $100 million in reserve, you have an immediate emergency. Drastic and quick action must be taken. If you have a billion dollars in reserve, you have a problem, but you also have some time - about four and a half years - to correct that problem.

In short, what is needed remains the same. When we talk about UCLA running a deficit, what portion of UCLA are we talking about? Is it everything including the hospitals? Is it some carved out sector? When we talk about a deficit, are we talking about the difference between revenue and expenditure in a specified fiscal year? And what are the reserves which have been financing the deficits?

===

*The email is at https://ia803207.us.archive.org/35/items/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026/Interim%20CFO%20message%20to%20campus%203-26-2026.pdf. As blog readers will know, we are preserving all budget documents on the Internet Archive in case any of them disappear. The complete collection is at https://archive.org/details/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026.

**https://ia803207.us.archive.org/35/items/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026/Interim%20CFO%20FAQ%20message%20to%20campus%203-26-2026.pdf.

***https://ia903207.us.archive.org/35/items/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026/UCLA%20Budget%20Book%20v%20FINAL%20Feb%202026.pdf.

Watch the Morning Meetings of the Regents: March 18, 2026

We're catching up with the Regents. We previously posted about the March 17 sessions.* Here we focus on the morning of March 18:

The meeting began with public comments. Topics included Academic Advancement funding for UCLA, confidentiality of sexual violence reports, notice of immigration agents on campuses, textbook costs and open access course materials, the shutdown of the UC-Davis equestrian team, Teamsters issues including health plan costs and bilingual pay, Carpenters Union contract concerns, antisemitism including accountability and retaliation for filing complaints, medical care for immigrant and international students, security and safety for UC social workers, African American funding at UC-Berkeley, the recent Dept. of Justice lawsuit and academic freedom, Native American artifacts, hiring by UC of undocumented students, AFSCME pay issues, and the use of the bear symbol of Native American students.

After public comments, the undergraduate student representative discussed diversity concerns, A-G course UC admissions requirements in high schools, repatriation of Native American artifacts, disabled student issues, and Basic Needs. The graduate student representative discussed Native American artifacts, AI, sexual assault, and student advocacy in Sacramento.

There followed a session on Basic Needs with data on sending and other elements of the program. Budgetary pressures were discussed. It was said that while spending was not being reduced, there was growing demand for the program outstripping the current supply of services. 

Finally, the Governance Committee approved an executive pay item for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, to be paid by the US Dept. of Energy. (Governance was originally scheduled for the morning but the open session component occurred in the afternoon.)

---

As always, we preserve recordings of Regents meetings since the Regents have no policy on duration of retention.

The morning board meeting including public comments is available at https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Board%20AM%203-18-2026.mp4.

The Governance Committee segment can be seen at https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Governance%20Committee%203-18-2026.mp4.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/watch-regents-meeting-of-march-17-2026.html.

Straws in the Wind - Part 295

From the Chronicle of Higher Education: Faculty members and students at the University of Kansas recently voted no confidence in the institution’s chancellor, Douglas A. Girod, by an overwhelming margin — but the university is sharply disputing the vote’s validity. The results of an online survey were largely critical of Girod, with nearly 80 percent of respondents saying they didn’t have faith in his leadership. But Kansas administrators are calling the survey an “entirely unscientific, informal straw poll” created by two rogue faculty leaders and “shared only with a small subset of the university population — specifically a subset the authors knew would support their narrative.”

The survey results, and the university’s denunciation, arrive at a tumultuous time for Kansas. Changes in nationwide rules governing payments to athletes and a $450-million renovation to the football stadium have prompted questions about the university’s sports spending. And while the poll was live, the university was negotiating its first contract with the faculty union. While the parties have since come to a tentative agreement, a university spokesman characterized the vote as a “pressure tactic” designed to influence the process.

The poll was disseminated by the presidents of Kansas’ Faculty Senate and University Senate, two elected positions. But the faculty leaders acted independently in sending it, and the survey “does not represent a formal action of governance,” said Joe Monaco, associate vice chancellor for public affairs. The survey did not require respondents to verify their affiliation with Kansas, and allowed multiple submissions by the same user, casting doubt on its legitimacy, he said. The poll was also emailed directly to “specific groups the authors assumed would be aligned with their predetermined narratives” and posted on social-media accounts not affiliated with the university, Monaco added...

...The flow of funding between the university and its athletic department was a particular cause for concern. Historically, the athletic department has sent the university about $15 million each year as a kind of reimbursement for the free tuition, housing, and other benefits athletes enjoy, according to The Lawrence Times. But a landmark settlement in 2025 allowed universities to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to about $20 million per institution. That new expense has made athletic departments’ budgets tighter, including at Kansas, which has stopped the $15-million payments to the campus to help it make ends meet. In the memo to Girod and the board chair, Kansas’ Faculty Senate referenced “funds from a general fund or any academic pool of funds” being used to cover stipends for athletes. Monaco said no tuition or taxpayer money is being used to pay athletes...

Full story at https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-kansas-faculty-and-students-voted-no-confidence-in-the-chancellor-or-did-they.

Getting In

There seems to be a proliferation of ads on Facebook offering parents the secrets of admission to top universities. Not clear on the timing of such advertising. The fellow above claims to have been a "reader" of applications at Berkeley. Text:

If your kid is in 9th or 10th grade and you don't have a college plan yet, you're already behind the families whose kids get into Berkeley and UCLA.

Not because they're smarter. Because they started earlier.

I was a UC Berkeley admissions reader.

I saw thousands of applications from smart kids who waited until junior year.

Most got rejected.

The difference wasn't talent.

It was timing.

This free guide shows you exactly what needs to happen in 9th and 10th grade - before the window closes.

Get it now while there's still time to course-correct.

Note that the idea that you-need-to-act-now is classic late-night TV advertising. Act now before... (fill in the rest).