Just the (Corrected) Facts - Part 3

We have been following the so-far-unsuccessful quest of the Academic Senate (Legislative Assembly) for basic budget information from Murphy Hall. A meeting of the Legislative Assembly was held on February 5th which included this matter on its agenda.

As blog readers will know from previous posts,* the Legislative Assembly and Senate leaders have requested basic budget information - essentially revenues (broken down and itemized), spending (broken down and itemized), and reserves. The information should include at a minimum, the past fiscal year, the current fiscal year (estimate), and projections for next year. What has come back is either assertions that we gave you what we have (not so), or vague oral statements, or other excuses.

Using bits and pieces of information, a partial picture was assembled by the Senate, but it is missing important information. Athletics, for example, is shown with deficits of $80 million in the past, present, and future years as a net, i.e., no breakdown of revenue and spending. But we have spent lots of money buying ourselves a new football coach and an entourage to go with him. And we are now embroiled in what is likely to be very costly litigation with the Rose Bowl and Pasadena over breaking a long-term contract to play there.

And let's not even think about the wisdom of buying a defunct and inaccessible Catholic college campus in Palos Verdes for $80 million. (There's that $80 million number again!)

Apparently, in oral statements, the CFO has blamed "facilities" costs - which seem to be energy, the labor agreement with TAs and other student workers - which is up for renegotiation, and faculty salaries. Of course, you can take any segment of spending and say that if only it were cheaper, things would be better, budgetwise. And it has always been the case that if you cut out graduate programs, hired cheaper instructors, and increased courseloads, spending would be lower. More undergrads could be processed per budget dollar. But if you did those things, you wouldn't have UCLA. You would have Cal State-Westwood.

As blog readers will know, there was a resolution proposed with lots of "Whereas" clauses that repeated the Senate's demand for basic budget information.* When it was discussed, participants raised the possibility of Public Records requests,** lawsuits by outside entities (the Senate can't sue UCLA since it is part of UCLA), and future votes of no confidence. If I were the CFO or the chancellor, I would be concerned. Just saying...

Nobody spoke against the resolution, so it seems likely to have been passed with a strong vote. (Voting occurred after the meeting electronically and the results will be announced.)

====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/01/just-corrected-facts-part-2.html.

**At least one such request has since been filed.