Rumor has it that no opposition was expressed. So that might indicate how the votes will come out. We await the tabulation.
November 2025
Submitted by:
Aparna Bhaduri, Assistant Professor of Biological Chemistry; Salmaan Craig, Associate Professor of Architecture and Urban Design; Andrea Goldman, Associate Professor of History; Choon Hwee Koh, Assistant Professor of History; Gregory Leazer, Associate Professor of Information Studies
Executive Summary
This resolution reaffirms the Academic Senate’s statutory role in campus budget oversight under Regental Bylaw 40 and UCLA Divisional Bylaw 65.3. It calls for full disclosure of UCLA’s 2024–25 and 2025–26 budgets, transparency regarding the reported $300 million deficit, and documentation of reallocations affecting campus units. Drawing on the 2009 Budget Planning Principles, the 2024 Best Practices for Divisional CPBs, and the 2025 CPB Budgetary Environment memorandum, it seeks to restore meaningful shared governance through the release of budget data, the implementation of CPB’s recommended consultative structures, and a renewed Senate-led articulation of principles for financial decision-making during periods of fiscal disruption.
Resolution on Financial Transparency and the Restoration of Shared Governance in Budget Planning
1. Whereas Regental Bylaw 40 and UCLA Divisional Bylaw 65.3 assign the Academic Senate a central advisory role in campus planning and budgetary matters, indicating that the administration provide timely and complete financial information to enable informed consultation and that the Council on Planning and Budget (CPB) and the Executive Board (EB) are the primary advisory bodies to the Academic Senate on matters of planning, budget and administration;
2. Whereas the University Committee on Planning and Budget’s Best Practices for Divisional CPBs (November 2023) and the Principles to Guide Fiscal Decision-Making in the Current Budget Environment (May 2009) affirm that transparency, early consultation, and shared information are essential to the integrity of shared governance;
3. Whereas the UCPB Report on Divisional-CPB Best Practices identifies six goals that define the UC systemwide standard for effective shared governance in planning and budget:
1) information sharing and transparency in all budget matters;
2) oversight of operating budgets and resource allocation for individual units;
3) timely participation in long-term strategic planning;
4) regular consultation between CPB and campus leadership;
5) training and maintenance of institutional knowledge; and
6) dissemination of financial information to the broader campus community;
These goals collectively entail that CPB receive predictable and advance access to relevant budget information before reviews are undertaken, to ensure meaningful and timely consultation;
4. Whereas the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) has not provided the Academic Senate or its Council on Planning and Budget with full written or digital budget statements for fiscal years 2024–25 and 2025–26, nor with the data necessary to understand the reported $300 million campus deficit, including statements of revenues, expenditures, reserves, and the definition and composition of said deficit;
5. Whereas academic units across the campus have reported disruptions to their budget processes without adequate explanation regarding their appropriations, thereby impeding the Senate’s capacity to exercise its statutory advisory role and to ensure that budget allocations align with academic priorities;
6. Whereas the Council on Planning and Budget’s CPB Recommendations to Executive Board on Budget Priorities (April 2024) memorandum documents that these disruptions, coupled with the lack of data sharing and analyses, have impeded CPB’s ability to provide informed advice as indicated by Senate bylaws—issues that become especially critical during a budget crisis—thereby weakening shared governance and diminishing faculty participation in decisions affecting UCLA’s academic priorities;
7. Whereas this absence of transparency and consultation undermines financial accountability, shifts burdens to Senate faculty to seek extramural funds to address deficits, and weakens the University’s ability to uphold its core academic missions of teaching, research, and service;
8. Be it therefore resolved that the Legislative Assembly requests that the Chief Financial Officer and other relevant administrative officers immediately release to the Council on Planning and Budget and to the Executive Board comprehensive financial statements for fiscal years 2024–25 and 2025–26, including statements of revenues, expenditures, reserves, and a clear definition and accounting of the reported deficit;
9. Be it further resolved that the Chief Financial Officer and other relevant administrative officers provide detailed documentation of all reallocations or transfers of funds from campus units, specifying the sources, amounts, and uses of those funds;
10. Be it further resolved that the Chief Financial Officer and other relevant administrative officers work collaboratively with the Council on Planning and Budget to strengthen communication and consultation with the Senate by implementing the Systemwide Academic Senate Best Practices for Divisional Committees on Planning and Budget, as requested in the CPB Budgetary Environment 2024–2025 memorandum but not yet undertaken, including the specific steps outlined on page 2 of the May 29, 2025 memo—training for CPB members, quarterly meetings with the Chancellor and EVCP, an annual campuswide budget town hall, regular CPB–CFO consultations, and end-of year CPB reporting—and that this collaboration produce by December 13, 2025 a public report establishing a recurring, transparent process of consultation consistent with Senate policy;
11. Be it further resolved that the Council on Planning and Budget and the Executive Board, drawing on the precedent of the Academic Senate’s 2009 Principles to Guide Fiscal Decision-Making in the Current Budget Environment, prepare a joint report articulating principles to guide fiscal decision-making during the current period of financial uncertainty, to be circulated to the Senate and campus leadership by February 2026, thereby renewing the Senate’s role in defining the values and standards that should govern future budgetary planning and administrative consultation;
12. Be it finally resolved that the Legislative Assembly requests that the Chief Financial Officer and other relevant administrative officers provide, in consultation with the Council on Planning and Budget and the Executive Board, detailed analyses and forward projections addressing:
i. the impact of reductions in state funding, identified at the recent town hall by the CFO as the primary factor underlying the structural deficit;
ii. anticipated changes in federal funding across campus programs and research portfolios, recognizing that such developments are determined at the Regents level; iii. potential reductions in federal grants and their downstream effects on campus operations;
iv. projected impacts of graduate student researcher (GSR) wage increases;
v. past and anticipated changes in campus debt service obligations;
vi. costs and status of recent real estate acquisitions, including expenditures needed to bring new properties into active use;
vii. expenditures and commitments associated with campus-wide technology initiatives such as One IT and the integration of artificial intelligence tools;
viii. recent and current agreements with external consulting firms; and
ix. trends in the growth of administrative budgets relative to academic expenditures—and that these analyses be transmitted to the Council on Planning and Budget and the Executive Board in time to inform deliberations for the 2026–27 budget cycle.
Source: https://dms.senate.ucla.edu/~councils.and.committees/meeting_view.cfm?V=924C501AB5F6BFA2D5647E97D91DB0E5E28EC8AB85538A89FBE5C867391F7C638EE301C8EB230D9C (actual pages 248-250)
=============
November 2025
Submitted by:
Isabella Arzeno-Soltero, Assistant Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering; Matthew Fisher, Associate Professor of English; Kaily Heitz, Assistant Professor of Geography; Jennifer Jay, Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering; Gregory Leazer, Associate Professor of Information Studies; Greg Okin, Professor and Chair of Geography
Executive Summary
This resolution reaffirms the Academic Senate’s statutory authority and responsibility under Regents’ Bylaw 40, Standing Order 105.2, and UCLA Bylaw 50.4 to participate in decisions affecting the University’s research and teaching mission. It responds to the breakdown of consultation and oversight in campus information technology (IT) initiatives, including the One IT consolidation. Drawing on the IS-3 Electronic Information Security Policy, the 2016 Data Governance Task Force Report, and the 2022 CDITP Shared Governance Recommendations, it calls for a pause in One IT, academic impact assessments for new IT projects, disclosure of costs, and the establishment of a permanent Joint Governance Committee on Academic Information Technology and Data to ensure transparency, accountability, and shared governance in all future IT decisions.
Resolution on Information Technology Accountability, Transparency, and Shared Governance
1. Whereas under Regents’ Bylaw 40 and Standing Order 105.2, the Academic Senate has the authority and responsibility to participate in the formulation and administration of University policy, particularly in matters that directly affect teaching, research, and public service;
2. Whereas the UCLA Academic Senate Bylaws, including Bylaw 75.5 (Committee on Data, Information Technology, and Privacy), assign to the Senate advisory responsibility for information technology and data-related decisions that bear upon the academic mission;
3. Whereas the University of California’s IS-3 Electronic Information Security Policy identifies as its governing principle that information security practices must enable the academic mission and ensure that risk management occurs in proportion to academic and research needs;
4. Whereas the 2016 UCLA Data Governance Task Force Report and the May 2022 Committee on Data, Information Technology, and Privacy (CDITP) Recommendations on IT Shared Governance both affirmed that effective IT governance necessitates formal, ongoing faculty participation; called for a balanced joint Senate–Administration Board on Privacy and Data Protection; and recommended the establishment of structured consultation procedures, public documentation of IT decisions, and meaningful faculty representation on all major campus IT governance bodies—recommendations that remain unimplemented;
5. Whereas the September 7, 2025 Letter from UCLA Chairs and Directors Regarding One IT warned that the initiative, announced without consultation during the summer, would “put faculty research and teaching programs at risk” and urged that “UCLA faculty, through the appropriate Senate governance structures, [should] assess the proposal’s potential benefits and risks,” and called for a pause on its implementation, and whereas the October 8, 2025 response from EVCP Hunt and the October 21, 2025 town hall with AVC Michael Beck and CIO Lucy Avetisyan did not meaningfully or substantially address the concerns of faculty regarding the One IT administrative initiative;**
6. Whereas multiple campus-wide technology projects in recent years have been marked by delayed implementation, escalating costs, and inadequate oversight—revealing systemic weaknesses in governance, communication, and accountability for initiatives that directly affect the research and teaching mission of the University, and reducing trust and confidence for future administrative projects;
7. Whereas the UC Assembly of the Academic Senate, on June 12, 2025, adopted a systemwide Resolution on Use of Trellix and Similar Monitoring Software calling for its suspension because of the threat it poses to academic freedom, privacy, and research integrity, and yet as of November 2025 there has been no formal response from UC President Milliken or UC CIO Van Williams, a silence that further erodes faculty trust and underscores the breakdown of transparent engagement between UC leadership and the Academic Senate;
8. Be it resolved that the administration pauses implementation of One IT until it addresses the concerns raised by faculty about the initiative; that they reverse the transfer of IT staff reporting lines from academic units to central administration undertaken unilaterally without faculty advice or consent; and that all new campus IT plans include a formal academic impact assessment evaluating their potential effects on research, teaching, and faculty governance before implementation;
9. Be it resolved that UCLA ensures that all faculty have the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the assessment, design, and implementation of any One IT initiatives, and that new procedures be established to guarantee substantive Senate authority and responsibility in decisions affecting teaching, research, and service;
10. Be it resolved that CIO Avetisyan and AVC Beck provide data by December 1, 2025, substantiating the claim that One IT will increase “equity”;
11. Be it resolved that the Chancellor and appropriate administrative officers disclose the total costs associated with recent campus-wide technology initiatives, including the Ascend project***, explain how administrative oversight will be restructured to prevent recurrence of governance failures, and identify how accountability will be ensured for future IT projects and restore trust;
12. Be it finally resolved that the administration and the Academic Senate, through CDITP, the Committee on Committees, and the Executive Board, establish a balanced Joint Governance Committee on Academic Information Technology and Data—building upon the unimplemented recommendations of the 2016 Data Governance Task Force Report and the 2022 CDITP Shared Governance Recommendations—to oversee campus IT and data initiatives, ensure early and substantive Senate participation in all major IT decisions, require that future projects align with the University’s research and teaching mission, with durable Senate authority and responsibility in policy development and day-to-day governance of academic computing.
Source: https://dms.senate.ucla.edu/~councils.and.committees/meeting_view.cfm?V=924C501AB5F6BFA2D5647E97D91DB0E5E28EC8AB85538A89FBE5C867391F7C638EE301C8EB230D9C (actual pages 251-252)
====
*We previously took note of the budget-related resolution:
https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/11/rumors.html.
**https://strategic-plan.ucla.edu/one-it/.
***https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/05/do-i-sense-computer-snafu-part-3.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment