In last-minute vote, UNC-Chapel Hill trustees advance millions more in cuts
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Trustees backed a surprise $17M administrative cut toward a $70M goal.
- Resolution appears 30 minutes before vote amid trustee and student reservations.
- Plan centers ServiceFirst, program reviews and possible layoffs to cut costs by June 30.
Members of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees backed a surprise resolution to cut $17 million in administrative costs on Wednesday, a proposal that relies at least in part on layoffs and further cuts to academic centers and institutes.
The last-minute resolution, presented in a committee meeting by board member Marty Kotis, would bring the trustees closer to their overarching goal of cutting $70 million from the budget. The resolution didn’t appear on the meeting’s agenda, nor was it available to the public for review before it was discussed in the meeting. The full board approved it Thursday.
Given 30 minutes to review the resolution before being asked to support it, trustee Ralph Meekins voiced his uncertainty and frustration. Student body president Adolfo Alvarez, a member of the board, voiced reservations as well. Still, board members sent the resolution to the full board for approval.
Chapel Hill’s pocketbook has felt worryingly light to leadership as of late, thanks to a number of factors, like the lack of a new state budget, federal funding pressure, and a new method for funding campuses’ performance that disadvantages Chapel Hill in favor of other UNC System institutions.
The latest proposed cuts would take place by June 30. The university would rely heavily on centralizing administrative functions, reducing duplication, and standardizing processes, an initiative they’ve titled ServiceFirst. But ServiceFirst won’t be enough, the resolution acknowledges. It explicitly encourages identifying areas for layoffs, though they’re referred to as a “last resort.” It also encourages the board to consider return-to-work mandates for certain remote employees.
“Layoffs are always a last resort,” UNC Chancellor Lee Roberts told The N&O while answering reporters’ questions on Thursday. “Most of our operating budget is salaries and benefits, and so as soon as you start talking about savings, you very quickly get to head count.”
“But we can do a lot through attrition and through slowing down our hiring,” Roberts added. “So far this fiscal year, we’ve already saved about $8 million without layoffs, just in slowing down hiring and through attrition. That’s how we think about it.”
The resolution said the university already plans to cut $6 million from academic centers and institutes and suggests cutting $1 million more. The December announcement that Chapel Hill would cut all of its geographic area study centers generated substantial outcry. Trustee Patrick Ballantine indicated at the Wednesday meeting that trustees have received “hate” as a result.
Nate Knuffman, the vice chancellor of finance and operations, told the trustees that his department identified 28 degree programs, in addition to 19 departments, that qualify for further review and could possibly be cut. That’s 10% of all degree programs. Knuffman said the department is targeting programs with low completion rates or low number of degrees awarded.
“It’s our job to be the fiduciaries, and we have to make the tough decisions,” Kotis said at the meeting. “Nobody wants to do things like this. It’s not popular. No one’s going to pat you on the back for doing that, but it has to get done, and we can’t abandon the administration. … [The resolution] does not specify which centers will be cut. That’s a separate decision.”
Some savings could be found by integrating programs into other existing schools and departments, rather than cutting them altogether, Kotis emphasized.
“What we’re showing here is we’re in support of the efforts of the administration so far and what they’re doing,” he said. “If they’re going to take arrows, we’re going to take arrows with them. That’s kind of the concept of this resolution.”
Meekins, for his part, was unconvinced that that was the true purpose of the resolution.
“I generally do not want to vote on a resolution before I’m able to determine if it was problematic or not,” Meekins said. “This resolution specifically includes the centers and institutes … You’re dealing with specifics here. In fact, we’re cheering on the fact that you’re taking $6 million dollars away from this particular project, and we want you to do another million in this particular project. I just don’t think we need to do that. I’m not the vote for that.”
The resolution passed the full board Thursday as part of a slate of items approved without discussion.
This story was originally published January 21, 2026 at 6:07 PM.
