CAMPUS REENGINEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES

December 11, 1998

Approved Unanimously by CRC, February 12, 1999

MEMBERS PRESENT:

• Larry Furukawa Schlereth, Chair
• Chris Adams
• Melinda Barnard
• Bill Barnier
• Karl Binswanger
• John Bond
• Diane Brown
• Carol Cinquini
• Letitia Coate
• Katharyn Crabbe
• Bernie Goldstein
• Dennis Harris
• Ahmad Hosseini
• Rand Link
• Lynn McIntyre
• Neil Markley
• Andy Merrifield
• Kitty Merrifield Salsedo
• Edna Nakamoto
• Gloria Ogg
• Katie Pierce
• Floyd Ross
• Marty Ruddell

MEMBERS ABSENT

• Drew Calandrella
• Susan McKillop
• Alan Murray
• Cara Puccio
• Crystal Shrouf
• Steve Wilson

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Furukawa-Schlereth brought the meeting to order at 12:10 AM and asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. A motion was made by Floyd Ross. A second was obtained from Ahamad Hosseini. The Agenda was approved unanimously.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: November 13, 1998

Schlereth then asked for a motion to approve the minutes of November 13, 1998. Dennis Harris made a motion. A second was obtained from Bernie Goldstein. The minutes were then approved with no nay notes but with abstentions from those Members not present at the November 13, 1998 meeting.

VICE-PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Schlereth then made his report to the CRC focusing on the following items:

• Schlereth noted that problems related to slippery steps in Nichols Hall, raised at the November 13, 1998 CRC meeting, was being addressed by Facilities Services.
• He indicted that Dave Powers was developing a cost proposal related to "deep cleaning" of the campus - an idea also raised at the 11-13 meeting of the Committee.
• The Vice-President explained that he had had conversations with Cara Puccio regarding the possibility of creating bike paths along Cotati Avenue. He noted that this property was off-campus and in the jurisdiction of the County of Sonoma. He did indicate that he would raise the issue at an upcoming meeting of campus officials and City of Rohnert Park staff.
• Schlereth then briefed the CRC on the activities of both the Financial Services and Human Services Information Groups. He commented that both Groups were very valuable to both himself and the Provost in obtaining feed-back and providing important information to key campus management personnel.
• Schlereth concluded his report by asking for advice from the Members on the structure of the CRC. He indicated that he had received comments that the Committee's size was a problem and perhaps it would be appropriate to reduce the number of persons asked to serve on the CRC. Following discussion, the Members agreed, by consensus, that the CRC structure was appropriate in its current format and urged the Vice-President to not make any changes in this regard

PBAC UPDATE

Schlereth then updated the Members on a variety of topics covered in the President's Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC), including:

• a review of the Parking Budget and its relationship to land acquisition
• a review of the Housing Budget and its relationship to the EMT program
• an analysis of the budget variance in 1998-1999
• an explanation of the Academic Affairs Plan for Financial Adjustment in 98-99
• an analysis of the student-faculty ratio

The following summary information was presented:

REVIEW OF THE PARKING BUDGET - LAND ACQUISITION

Referencing materials contained with the Agenda Packet (Packet), Schlereth then outlined for the Members the nature of the campus Parking Budget and how it would be utilized to finance the land acquisition initiative. Several questions were raised including:

• How long was the term of the debt associated with land acquisition? (30 Years)
• Would the item be reflected in the University Wide Budget category? (Yes)
• Why was the Parking Budget being used to finance land acquisition? (Trustee policy required the use of either the Housing, Parking or one of the auxiliary budgets).
• Why was a debt service reserve needed? (To protect the bond holders in case parking revenue dropped below projected levels.)
• Would the Reserve requirement ever disappear? (Possibly, once it reached a level that the campus believed was prudent.)
• How would parking lot repairs and road resurfacing be financed? (A fund source for these items was not yet identified but could require a change in the Parking Fee structure, which had not been changed since 1985.

Schlereth also explained the nature of the Parking Decentralization initiative which returned resources to the campus previously held by the CSU. He noted that this decentralization step made it possible for the campus to transfer certain expenses from the General Fund to the Parking program in 1995-1996, creating a mechanism to assist with balancing the General Fund during a budget cutting year in order that cuts to the instructional program would not be necessary. He acknowledged the President's leadership in this regard.
Schlereth also reviewed where the $485,000 allocated for land acquisition had come from including:

REVIEW OF THE HOUSING BUDGET - EMT

Again, referencing materials contained in the Packet, Schlereth outlined the campus Housing budget and its relationship to the Educational Mentoring Team (EMT). Specifically, he pointed out that $200,000 of Housing revenue was used to finance the EMT Program, largely to fund release time for faculty who teach in the Program. He also explained that staff resources associated with EMT were generated from the redesign of those position descriptions and no funds from the instructional program were utilized in this regard. Finally, he noted that a variety of administrators taught in the EMT program and no additional compensation was provided to them for their efforts in EMT. Schlereth noted that the EMT program was a significant generator of FTE and, because the instructional costs of the Program were financed largely by the Housing Program, the revenue associated with EMT enrollment accrued to the General Fund budget.

ANALYSIS OF BUDGET VARIANCE 1998-1999

Again, referencing materials contained in the Agenda Packet, Schlereth explained how the final campus budget for fiscal 1998-1999 was developed. In Spring, 1998, the President's Budget Advisory Committee (PBAC) analyzed projected new revenue sources to the campus and identified several University-Wide priorities that it believed warranted "off the top" funding. These new revenue and University-Wide expense items are outlined below:

AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION: $1,065,000

The PBAC also agreed that the most appropriate method to allocate the resulting new revenue was the marginal cost formula developed by the CSU Trustees. This formula is used by the CSU to determine how much marginal revenue in each area of campus operations is needed when target enrollment is increased. For Sonoma State University, the marginal cost formula produces the following percentage distributions among the four operating Divisions:

In concert with the PBAC's discussions, the Vice-President for Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee (VPBAC) was also developing recommendations regarding how new resources allocated to Academic Affairs should be allocated. In this regard, the following allocation recommendations were established:

Both the PBAC and VPBAC recommendations were finalized in May 1998 even though the final budget from the State was not approved until early in the fall, 1998 semester. As is almost always the case, the final budget approved by the Governor contained certain differences from what was expected earlier in the budget process. These items are summarized below:

The marginal cost allocation model recommended by the PBAC would have produced the following set of Division specific appropriations:

In a similar fashion, the PBAC model, had it been applied to the final budget approved by the Governor, would have produced a deficit in the allocation model developed by the VPBAC:

Because the budget model recommended by the PBAC, when taken in concert with the final budget figures received from the Governor, would have produced a shortfall in Academic Affairs, the President and the Cabinet met to devise a method to minimize the impact of externally driven changes on the instructional program. Specifically, the Cabinet recommended that while the marginal cost formula was a good method to distribute new revenue in most years, it urged the President to modify the formula to the advantage of Academic Affairs in 1998-1999. The President agreed and the following budget allocations were approved for 1998-1999:

Modifying the marginal cost formula for the current fiscal year had the impact of lessening the impact of externally driven changes to the budget on the instructional program as reflected below:

The Cabinet then turned to additional administrative strategies that would serve to eliminate not only the unallocated reduction remaining in Academic Affairs but also fund a variety of newly identified administrative budget priorities that had emerged over the Summer. These included:

• the residual need in Academic Affairs: $79,920
• a need for operating expense in the President's Office: $40,000
• the need for fund the already employed Scholarship Coordinator: $55,000
• additional costs associated with land acquisition: $105,000
• operating deficit - Athletics: $ 60,000
• renovations costs associated with the temporary high school site: $400,000
• annual debt service - Academic Affairs interfund loan to Parking: $100,000
• TOTAL: $839,920

To finance these items, the Cabinet agreed it was appropriate to take the following administrative actions:

• Administrative reengineering in Administration and Finance: $510,000
• Administrative reengineering in Enrollment and Student Academic: $130,000
• Administrative reengineering in Information Technology: $100,000
• Administrative reengineering in the Provost's Office: $71,677
• Reduction in the Provost's Discretionary Resources: $28,243
• TOTAL: $839,920

Administrative reengineering areas identified in the Provost's Office include the elimination of Provost discretionary resources and efficiencies realized between the Office of Sponsored Programs and the California Institute for Human Services.

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS PLAN FOR FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENT

Referencing materials contained with the Agenda Packet (Packet) Schlereth then explained the 1998-1999 Academic Affairs Plan for Financial Adjustment. The following specific points were made:

• Financial deficiencies in Academic Affairs were identified after the 1998-1999 budget had been finalized.
  • These deficiencies were not discussed by the President's Budget Advisory Committee in Spring, 1998.
  • These deficiencies were not identified in the VPBAC Budget Plan developed for Academic Affairs in Spring, 1998.
  • These deficiencies were not known by either the President or the Chief Financial Officer until early in Fall Semester, 1998.
• On October 23, 1998, the Provost and Vice-President for Administration and Finance sent a memo to the Deans explaining the issue. Attached to that memo was the following information indicating how the Provost's Base Budget was being deployed and what unfunded items had been identified:

Variance between $607,264 and $523,246 = $84,018

Reason for Variance:

PBAC Presentation Numbers excluded the value of the Academic Affairs Budget Officer position

Rationale:

Dollars realized from the elimination of the Academic Affairs Budget Officer position were utilized to finance operating expense needs in Admissions and Records (recommended by VPBAC) and to reduce the Provost's Reserve need.

• The October 23, 1998 memo to the Deans asked each Dean to identify non-teaching resources that could be used to finance the identified un-funded academic needs.
• The following items were identified by the Deans and discussed with the VPBAC on November 17, 1998.

ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENT FACULTY RATIO: 1998-1999

Referencing materials contained within the Agenda Packet (Packet), Harris introduced the Analysis of Student Faculty Ratios at SSU, which he had prepared.

One result of the campus budget process has been a long discussion about increases in the Student/Faculty Ratio (SFR) at SSU over time. At the request of some members the President's Budget Advisory Committee, we have prepared the following analysis of those changes. All data regarding actual student enrollment, faculty actually teaching, and actual SFR is taken from SSU's Analytic Studies report of "Historic FTE", which is available to all on the Main SSU Server. Data regarding CSU target enrollment for SSU is taken from the CSU's Analytic Studies "CSU College Year Report", which is available on the web.

The study uses the Academic Year 1987-88 as a starting point, since this was the last year in which the State of California, the CSU, and SSU itself enjoyed a budget surplus until the recent recovery. The following year, the Gann Initiative, Prop. 13, took effect.

1987-88 through 1991-92, INCREASED ENROLLMENTS AND HIGHER SFR's

Sources: SSU, Analytic Studies, "Historic FTE" and CSU, Analytic Studies, "CSU College Year Reports"

Several observations are clear from the above data:

• Actual enrollment (FTES) exceeded Targeted FTES during each of these years.
• The total increase in actual enrollment was 1,412 FTES, an increase of 31%.
• Although actual FTEF increased, that increase was less than the increased FTES. Total FTEF increased 38 positions, or 15%.
• As a result, the SFR deteriorated, increasing 14%, from 17.6 in 1987-88 to 20.1 in 1991-92

1992-93 through 1997-98, RETRENCHMENT AND RECOVERY

In 1992-93, both enrollment and faculty positions dropped dramatically. The Target FTES declined from 5800 to 5267, or 9%; the actual FTES dropped from 6005 to 5442, also 9%; Faculty positions in instruction also declined, from 298 to 263, or 12%, explained by "golden handshake" early retirement and part-time faculty positions which were not replaced. As a result, the SFR increased from 20.1 in 1991-92 to 20.7, or 3%. The following three years - 1993-94, 1994-95, and 1995-96, actual FTES fell below targeted FTES.

Sources: SSU, Analytic Studies, "Historic FTE" and CSU, Analytic Studies, "CSU College Year Reports"

Again, several observations are clear from the above data:

• Actual FTES only exceeded Targeted FTES in 1992-93 and 1996-97 through 1997-98.
• The total increase in actual enrollment was 456 FTES, an increase of 8%.
• Actual FTEF increased by 25 positions, or 9.5%.
• As a result, the SFR has remained generally constant.

CURRENT CONDITIONS

SSU projected enrollment to decline slightly from that in 1997-98; however it also projected faculty positions to increase, resulting in a lowering of the SFR. Actual data is only available for the Fall 1998 Semester. This shows that both FTES and FTEF exceeded projections. Nonetheless, the SFR has declined.

Sources: SSU, Analytic Studies, "Historic FTE" and CSU, Analytic Studies, "CSU College Year Reports"

Since Spring enrollments historically fall below those of the Fall, the Actual figures for 1998-99 should more closely approximate those projected. As a result,

• FTES will reach the highest point since 1991-92
• FTEF will also reach the highest point since 1991-92
• SFR will be the lowest since 1991-92

SUMMARY

The table below shows the change in SFR from year to year during the period under study. The years of greatest SFR deterioration (or increasing SFR) where 1990-91, 1991-92, 1988-89, and 1992-93. The years of greatest decline have been 1995-96 and that projected for 1998-9.

Sources: SSU, Analytic Studies, "Historic FTE" and CSU, Analytic Studies, "CSU College Year Reports"

It is clear from the above that:

• The deterioration in the Student/Faculty Ratio primarily is a product of the period between 1987-88 and 1992-93
• The Student/Faculty Ratio first declined and then remained constant for the period between 1995-96 and 1997-98, reflecting first an increase in FTEF relative to FTES and then increases in FTEF equal to increased enrollment (FTES)
• The projected FTES, FTEF, and resulting SFR for 1998-99 will result in the second greatest decline in SFR and in an SFR lower than that for any year since 1990-91

Comparisons between institutions may be inappropriate, even within the same university setting. However, they are also unavoidable. Even though decisions regarding enrollment (FTES) and the allocation of resources to Direct Instruction (FTEF) are made at the campus level, the Chancellor's Office does aggregate data in order to compare SFR's among campuses and with the CSU as a whole over time. The following table shows the CSU system Average SFR, that of SSU, and the difference between the two for the period 1987-88 through 1996-97 (the last year currently available).

Sources: SSU, Analytic Studies, "Historic FTE" and CSU, Analytic Studies, "CSU College Year Reports"

Again, several observations are clear from the above data:

• Throughout the period, the variance between the CSU and the SSU SFR has never exceeded one (1) SFR
• Prior to 1989-90, the SSU SFR was below that of the CSU; after 1988-89, the SSU SFR equaled or exceeded that of the CSU

Harris then summarized an analysis of the SFR prepared by Rose Bruce, SSU's Director of Assessment and Analytic Studies, showing changes in Fall SFR, Average Class Size, Unique Courses, and Small Sections, for both SSU and the CSU, from Fall 1989 through Fall 1997. That material, also contained in the Agenda Packet, is reproduced below.

Historical Data CSU and SSU

The unadjusted Student Faculty Ratio (SFR) has increased systemwide 1.4 persons (from 19.2 to 20.6) and 1.7 persons for the SSU (18.3 to 20.0) since 1989. SSU has been slightly above the systemwide average since 1993.

The Average Class Size is the average number of students enrolled in class sections excluding courses that are only supervision, independent study or in non-traditional classrooms (CS numbers C01-C21). The Average Class Size has increased systemwide 1.3 people (26.5 to 27.8) and 4.0 people for the SSU (22.1 to 26.1) between 1989 and 1997. SSU is below the system average with respect to the Average Class Size.

The number of Unique Courses is the count of each unique course in a discipline. The number of Unique Courses has increased slightly (2%) for the CSU and decreased slightly (2%) for SSU.

The number of Small Sections is the count of class sections with enrollments lower than 13 (LD), 10 (UD), and 5 (GR) for sections with CS numbers C01-C21. The number of Small Sections has dropped 15.6% systemwide and 52.9% for SSU.

The overall shift in Student Faculty Ratio, Average Class Size, Unique Courses and Small Courses are reflected in the table and figure below.

Harris concluded the analysis of SFR by noting that changes in any of these measures (Class Size, Course and Section size and offerings, as well as SFR) are subject to different interpretations. For instance, a rising SFR could be interpreted as a sign of increasing productivity by some and as a sign of decreased student-faculty interaction by others. What the institution needed to do is have a strategic discussion of what is appropriate for SSU's mission. If that discussion results in a determination that a lower SFR is an appropriate measure of the degree to which SSU is fulfilling its mission, the institution should figure out what the target SFR ought to be. PBAC should then develop a multi-year plan to reduce the SFR to that target level.

AFD FINANCIAL ISSUES

Schlereth then moved to a discussion of various financial issues facing the Division of Administration and Finance. He noted that the Division had been given responsibility for a number of new operational requirements, which had been funded as reflected below:

Renovation Costs - Temporary High School $565,000

• Sonoma State Enterprises 97-98: $100,000
• Sonoma State Enterprises 98-99: $100,000
• Housing Growth Administration: $100,000
• Housing Reserves: $265,000
• TOTAL: $560,000

Costs Associated with New Space $ 83,240

Permanent funding expected in 99-00 from CSU "funds to open new buildings".
Temporary funding in 98-99 from CMS-AFD Specific Budget and Division general salary savings.

Funding for EMT Summer Stipends $ 10,000

General Housing Operations $ 10,000

Funding for Historical COLA Variance, Residence Life $ 40,000

General Housing Operations $ 50,000

Funding for Debt Service Garbage Truck $ 16,659

New Revenue to Division 98-99 $ 16,000

Funding for administration/management - Financial Control $ 32,750

New Revenue to Division 98-99 $ 33,409

He also explained that a number of items remained un-funded within the Division (outlined below). He indicated that these items were either being absorbed by staff and management within the Division (Endowment and Grants/Contract growth) or were currently unresolved. Finding fiscal solutions to these issues would be a key priority for the CRC in the months and years ahead.

• Interfund-Loan to Parking: $100,000
• Garbage Truck Driver: $ 42,235
• Emergency Preparedness Position: $ 65,000
• Risk Management Position: $100,000
• Internal Audit Position: $ 80,000
• Historical COLA Variance - Grants and Contracts: $ 45,000
• Growth in Endowment ($5,000,000 to $27,000,000): $100,000
• Growth in Grants and Contracts, 92-93 to 97-98: $ 40,000
• TOTAL: $572,235

UNIVERSITY BUDGET PRIORITIES

Referencing materials contained with the Packet, Schlereth reviewed the revised list of University Budget priorities (reproduced below):

• Telephone Registration Voice Boxes
• Phone Switch Replacement
• Technology - Year 2K
• Land Acquisition - Western Parcels
• Instructional Equipment
• Curriculum Development
• Articulation
• Services to Evening Students
• Faculty Travel
• Improved Student Faculty Ratio
• Faculty and Staff Development
• Employee Incentives and Recognition
• Support for the Office of Sponsored Programs
• Technology - Hardware Issues - CMS
• Technology - General Operations - Improved Service
• Classroom Renovations Including Technology Improvements
• Laboratory Renovations
• University Center
• Central Pool - Ergonomic Furniture
• Risk Manager position
• Internal Audit position
• Administrative Costs - Growth in Grants/Contracts
• Administrative Costs - Growth in Endowment
• Emergency Preparedness Position
• Creation of campus "gathering spaces" (One-Time item)
• Deep Cleaning - Campus (One-Time Item)
• Campus Reserve
• Student Life Programming
• Road - North Campus (One-Time Item)
• Traffic Light - South Entrance (One-Time Item)
• Traffic Light- North Entrance (One-Time Item)
• Landscape Costs - North Campus (One-Time Item)
• Salazar Renovation - Non-State Funded Portion (One-Time Item)
• Schulz Center Construction Completion (One-Time Item)
• Relocation Costs to Schulz Center IT and Library (One-Time Item)
• Parking Expansion-Enrollment Growth (One-Time Item)

Discussion among the Members then ensued with several points being raised including:

• The need to potentially categorize the items
• The need to determine whether the items presented were truly University-Wide in nature
• The need to continue discussion on the items in both PBAC and VPBAC
• A suggestion to ask the Provost and Chief Financial Officer to work with the list in order to ascertain what next steps, if any, should be taken

No formal action or resolution was taken by the Members regarding the Priority List. Schlereth indicated that he and Goldstein would meet to strategize on possible next steps and report back to the CRC, VPBAC and PBAC.

CAMPUS BUDGET CONSULTATION

Schlereth then recognized Harris, who moved to table his previous motion (made at the CRC Meeting of 11-13-98) regarding campus consultation on the budget. A second to Harris's motion was obtained from Barnier. Harris explained that his reason for moving to table his 11-13-98 motion was due to general acceptance of the Goldstein/Schlereth proposal on budget consultation (outlined below):

The Goldstein/Schlereth Proposal

1. Form a small group of individuals to craft a policy on budget consultation. Proposed members to be:
   1. Provost (Co-Chair)
   2. Chief Financial Officer (Co-Chair)
   3. Chair of the Faculty
   4. Chair-Elect of the Faculty
   5. Associated Students President
   6. Associated Students Treasurer
   7. One School Administrative Manager (Selected by the Provost)
   8. One Campus Staff Member (Selected by the President)
2. Policy to be based on three principles:
   1. Consultation and advice must be based on financial facts and conform to CSU Policy.
   2. Consultation and advice must be based on a global perspective of the campus operations.
   3. Persons participating in the consultative process and providing advice to President must be representative of all segments of the University Community.
3. Draft Policy to be discussed by the following organizations:
   1. Academic Senate
   2. Vice-President for Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee
   3. Campus Reengineering Committee
   4. Current Structure: President's Budget Advisory Committee
   5. Campus Cabinet (Excluding the President)
4. Sentiments raised in the above groups to be compiled, published to the campus community and forwarded to the President for final policy formulation.

A vote was then taken on the Harris motion to table, which was approved unanimously

KEY CONTROL POLICY

Schlereth then recognized Ogg who coordinated the second reading on the proposed Key Control "blue paper" policy. Ogg indicated that she had incorporated suggestions made regarding the policy made at the 11-13-98 CRC meeting. Harris then moved to approve the policy as presented. A second was obtained from Goldstein. The Harris motion was approved unanimously.

KEY CONTROL PROCEDURES

Schlereth then recognized Gloria Ogg who coordinated the first reading of proposed key control procedures, referencing materials contained in the Packet. Members made valuable suggestions regarding the proposed procedures which Ogg indicated she would incorporate for the Second Reading of the item.

CAMPUS CATERING

Schlereth then recognized Sandra Bond, Director of Events and Conferences, who led a discussion regarding catering pricing. She indicted that the Sonoma State Enterprises Board of Directors would take formal policy action on this item but input from the CRC was important. In essence, Bond raised the question of whether SSE should move to a form of market pricing for the catering product. She noted that she and her staff had obtained prices from Sonoma County catering organizations, and that prices fell in three ranges - high end, middle of the road, and low end. Bond indicated that the SSE Board was considering moving to the low end of the market for pricing of the SSE catering product.

Discussion then ensued, with a variety of opinions being expressed -- including those in agreement with a move to low-end market pricing and others who felt that the catering product for SSU users should be below market or subsidized to SSU community users.

Following discussion, Schlereth and Bond indicated that the various sentiments raised by the CRC would be expressed to the SSE Board.

GOOD OF THE ORDER

Schlereth reminded Members of the Spring Meeting schedule of the CRC as outlined in the Packet. A suggestion was made to ask Deborah DuVall to attend the February 1999 CRC meeting in order to outline the various components of the proposed Campus Master Plan revision. Schlereth indicated that he would coordinate DuVall's presentation. Several Members raised concerns about the presence of mice in certain campus locations. John Bond indicated he would take steps to address this problem.

ADJOURNMENT

Given the time, Schlereth thanked the Members for their attendance and participation and adjourned that meeting at 4:15 PM.

Minutes prepared by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth

CRC Minutes 1998-1999
Updated 2008-01-08
AFD.WebContact@Sonoma.edu