This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just
three workers, is it ready?
[October 21, 2026]
By MIKHAIL ZINSHTEYN/CalMatters
The science research institute that would likely receive $4.2 billion in
public taxpayer money if voters approve Proposition 38 this November had
only three employees as of last month — far fewer than the 51 staffers
it planned to have hired by last year. Public statements and public
records CalMatters obtained raise questions about how well prepared the
institute is to shepherd so much money if the bond measure passes.
Prop. 38 would allocate up to $8.4 billion in bonds for scientific
research on diseases and cures concerning the immune system, with an
emphasis on finding treatments for Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart
disease. The ballot language stipulates that a single, unnamed research
institute would receive half the bond’s money to conduct research and
partner with other researchers if it meets highly specific criteria.
Bonds are a type of debt that must be repaid.
Previous reporting by CalMatters found only one institute in California
currently meets those criteria: the California Institute for Immunology
and Immunotherapy. The institute’s principal funder is billionaire Gary
K. Michelson, who wrote Prop. 38 and is by far the largest donor to its
political campaign.
Backers of the proposition said state bond money is needed to stabilize
research funding after President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to
cut existing and future federal science grants. The measure’s critics
say Prop. 38 is well-intentioned but poorly designed because it
overlooks the many established public and nonprofit university and
hospital research labs in California. They also say California should
not subsidize subsets of scientific research and instead should support
research more broadly.
CalMatters obtained documents that included the five-year business plan
of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The plan
was part of the formal affiliation agreement between UCLA and the
institute, which the two parties signed in August 2024. Among other
details, the agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of the
net revenue of any drugs and technologies developed by the institute’s
staff. The institute is one of the founding tenants at a UCLA-owned
research park in West Los Angeles, where the institute is leasing
235,000 square feet of research space, the institute says.
Far fewer employees than plan called for
Between summer 2024 and summer 2025, the institute committed to hiring
“approximately” 51 employees, including six executives, five
“world-class” scientists who can lead research labs, and 40 other
employees, such as data scientists, lab technicians, biologists and
administrative personnel. Between 2025 and 2027, the institute would
hire roughly 90 more workers, including 10 research lab leaders,
according to the agreement.
But John Mazziotta, a senior UCLA official who also serves as a board
member of the immunology institute, last month said the institute has
hired just three employees: a chief operating officer, a general
counsel, and a scientific advisor, and “they’re well into the search”
for a director. Mazziotta, the CEO of UCLA Health and vice chancellor
for health sciences at UCLA, made his comments during the Sept. 16 UC
Regents meeting. The Yes on Prop. 38 campaign has repeatedly refused to
comment on whether the bond was written specifically for the immunology
institute. Claudia Briggs, a spokesperson for the campaign, told
CalMatters in July that whichever nonprofit receives the $4.2 billion
portion of the bond fund should be a sophisticated one that “is prepared
to accelerate lifesaving research immediately while maintaining the
highest standards of scientific quality, accountability, and stewardship
of public funds.” At a September press conference, a Yes on Prop. 38
spokesperson appeared to confirm CalMatters’ findings that only one
institute currently qualifies to be the one to receive half the bond
money. “It is very likely that CIII, which is a research institute
affiliated with UCLA, will qualify for half of the funds under the
current criteria,” said Robin Swanson. CIII is the initialism for the
immunology institute.
According to the five-year plan, the institute was supposed to spend $25
million on personnel between 2024-25 and 2025-26 and $45 million total
on operating expenses in that time, including maintenance, utilities and
rent. It was also supposed to spend an additional $167 million in that
time on capital expenses, such as construction and demolition. However,
Mazziotta told UC regents that the institute had so far spent a total of
$20 million on “operating expenses, hires” and other expenses.
[to top of second column]
|
 The Yes on 38 campaign refused
CalMatters’ request to interview Michelson for this story, as did
Michelson himself in a separate email. A spokesperson for the
institute, Becky Warren, sent a written statement that didn’t answer
CalMatters’ questions about employing far fewer people than the
five-year plan laid out. Instead, she highlighted the promise of the
institute and a few of its milestones, including signing the
affiliation agreement with UCLA and clearing a state environmental
review of its forthcoming research facility. The institute won’t get
state bond money if it isn’t ready to begin work, “plain and
simple,” wrote Swanson, the Yes on 38 spokesperson, in an email. She
stressed that though the institute very likely qualifies, the
ultimate decision to award half the bond funding is up to the
California Department of Public Health.
Institute facility will be built by 2028
The UCLA research park that houses the institute isn’t slated to be
fully built until at least late 2028, according to the agenda item
of the September UC regents meeting. The research park is a former
mall UCLA acquired in late 2023 that’s now undergoing major
retrofitting.
But the 2024 affiliation agreement between UCLA and the institute
anticipated this. The agreement permitted the institute to use UCLA
health research space on another campus property on an interim
basis. Mazziotta told regents that research is underway there.
Mazziotta also told the regents the institute’s construction costs
are not fully funded — it still needs roughly $100 million. He said
UCLA was in serious talks with a donor to provide about $50 million
to the institute.
If Prop. 38 passes, the bond funding would be provided in increments
based on how often the institute requests new money that senior
state officials approve. If all the funds are depleted, Californians
would repay the bond at a rate of $500 million to $600 million
annually for about 20 years.
Institute would be exempt from public records act
CalMatters submitted the public records request to UCLA, which must
comply with the California Public Records Act. The institute, as a
private nonprofit, does not have to comply. And while Prop. 38 would
channel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to the institute, the
proposition’s language specifically exempts the nonprofit that will
receive the $4.2 billion from state public meetings laws, political
reform laws and the public records act. The other half of the funds
would go to a council that’ll pick projects led by researchers from
a limited pool of universities and nonprofits. The council would
generally be governed by the state’s political reform act, which
prohibits financial self-dealing.
Briggs defended the institute’s exemption in Prop. 38, writing that
applying state transparency laws to existing private organizations
would “not fit well with how private entities are organized and
operate.” Instead, she noted the selected nonprofit institute would
be required to publish annual reports on its research progress and
financial plans plus commit to annual state audits, among other
disclosures written into the ballot measure.
Still unclear to the UC regents is the relationship between UCLA and
the institute on matters of public disclosure. Four senior UCLA
officials sit on the institute’s board. So is a document held by
those UCLA officials public because it’s related to UCLA affairs or
private because it’s related to the institute’s affairs? UC’s
general counsel couldn’t explain where that dividing line is after a
regent member asked him. The regent member, Michael Cohen, said he
wants more clarity when the regents meet again in November.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party endorsed Prop.
38, as have dozens of patient and research advocacy groups, plus the
state GOP. The union of graduate students and post-doctoral
researchers, whose pay often relies on science research funding, has
also endorsed the proposition. The union doesn’t represent faculty.
Money raised in support of Prop. 38 now exceeds $66 million,
including at least $61.2 million in contributions from Michelson and
his policy institute. Roughly $14 million of that includes loans
from Michelson. The no camp has raised about $8,800
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
