Minutes: February 2, 2001
Larry Schlereth brought the meeting to order at 12:17 PM. Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. Dennis Harris moved and Lynn McIntyre seconded a motion to approve the Agenda. The Agenda was approved without objection.
December 15, 2000 Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the minutes of December 15, 2000. Carol Cinquini moved and Perry Marker seconded the motion. The minutes were passed unanimously with abstentions from those not in attendance at the December 15, 2000 meeting.
Schlereth asked Members to note the additions to the list since the last meeting
The Governor's Budget. Schlereth introduced a January 8, 2001 report from the CSU Office of Governmental Affairs, entitled "2001/02 California State University Support Budget". [Available at the following CSU web site:http://www.calstate.edu/GA/legindex.shtml.] He noted that, although the language was that of the CSU Office of Public Affairs, and might be subject to interpretation, the figures were those of Governor Davis. Turning to page 2 of the document, he noted that the Trustees' had received "most of what they requested", including 3% enrollment growth (4.5% for SSU); no increase in the student fee for the 5th or 6th straight year; and a 4% pool for employee compensation. SSU would receive a portion of the funds designated for K-12 collaboration; a portion of the $10 million for high cost programs, which is now permanent, for the campus Nursing and Computer Science programs; a portion of the $10 million for technology build-out, the final piece of in-lieu funding for the forming CETI initiative. The $20 million in one-time instructional equipment funding would bring about $225,000 to campus; this would be in addition to the $200,000 in permanent funding identified by VP Schlereth and Provost Goldstein. Of the various items "above the base", Schlereth noted that the 2% for salary equity was probably the highest priority. Of the remaining items, little would come to SSU, assuming any of it survives the impact of the energy crisis.
McKillop asked whether the CSU has looked at COLA increases for the comparative institutions used to determine the salary gap. Schlereth said he would follow this up with the Chancellor's Office. Nakamoto asked whether the budget included funding for Year Round Operations (YRO). Schlereth answered that nine campuses were going on YRO in Summer 2001 and would be funded at the Marginal Cost of Instruction: Chico, Fresno, Hayward, Long Beach, Pomona, Sacramento, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, and San Francisco. The remaining campuses, including SSU, will begin YRO in Summer 2002
Status of the Campus Reserve Schlereth introduced the following table for purposes of discussion:
|Schulz Center Completion||$ 250,000||$-250,000||$ 0|
|Loan Repayment to Library||50,000||-50,000||$ 0|
|Sick Leave-Art & Humanities||40,600||-40,600||$ 0|
|Learning Skills Services Deficit||13,302||0||13,302|
|Student Union Fee Referendum||10,000||0||10,000|
|Environmental Technology Center||125,000||0||125,000|
|Osborn Preserve Renovation Project||12,000||0||12,000|
|Sick Leave-Natural Sciences||28,956||0||28,956|
|Fund Source||Percent||Amount||Difference Amount||Distribution Amount|
|Administration & Finance||17.11%||90,659||-58,277||32382|
Increase in Natural Gas prices could produce a potential new Reserve item of as much as $750,000.
The CSU is attempting to obtain additional funds from the State of California for this purpose.
Discussion focused on the footnote at the bottom of the table. Schlereth commended the campus for its reduced electrical usage. Because of the joint CSU-UC contract with Enron, which runs through March 2002, SSU should do fairly well. However, the Department of General Services has informed the campus that it can expect a natural gas deficit of as much as $750,000. Harvey DeLorm, SSU's Director of Engineering has taken the figures for natural gas expenses through December, combined with a forecast of usage for the remainder of the year, and estimates a shortfall of about $550,000. At worst, the energy crisis could absorb all the enrollment growth money for 2001/02; if that happened, the faculty would lose the most, since they would teach an additional 305 FTES with no additional instructional resources.
Bernard asked about the impact of Student Housing on the utility bill. Schlereth responded that Harvey's "shedding the load" plan left Housing as the last area to have utilities cut off. Unfortunately, the units in Sauvignon Village had individually controlled thermostats, and the cost of utilities was built into the contracted housing price. Increases in utility costs could lead to higher housing prices next year. Pridmore noted that the thermostats only had two settings -- high and low -- and that the insulation did not seem to be that great. Carlson said that he understood the thermostats had fixed, non-adjustable, temperature settings. He also noted that there was strict language in the student contracts prohibiting any tampering with the thermostats. Schlereth noted that Harvey would like to move to central control of heating in Student Housing, but there would be a cost to make the change. Another possibility is to moving Housing from "Interruptible Commercial Customer" status to that of a "Core Customers", although this would increase the cost of Housing utilities. Christmann said that, with central heating, students do not understand the cost of natural gas on the environment. Sam Scalise cautioned against creating a situation in which students would resort to electric space heaters, which are considerably more expensive. McIntyre noted that we are all spoiled by inexpensive electrical costs, but that students -- if educated -- would respond well to conservation measures, particularly if the alternative were to pass on the increased cost of utilities. Christmann observed that we were already in a conservation mode; any money saved from the capped electrical costs can go to pay the uncapped natural gas bills. He also referred to a somewhat cryptic comment from the Governor regarding the UC and CSU systems becoming the sites of energy co-generation and asked if Schelereth could clarify this. Carlson expressed his concern that the Marginal Cost formula would be used to distribute the increased energy costs. He suggested that this be distributed instead on the basis of square footage. He also expressed concern about the impact that these costs would have on programs with fixed revenue such as IRA. Schlereth said that all programs, including those of the Associated Students, the Student Union, and the Student Health Center, should be building budget plans expecting a utility price increase. McKillop noted that this is going to require publicity on campus. Schlereth responded that Harvey is planning meetings with the School Deans and the Department Chairs, and that each of the vice presidents is aware of the problem.
Schlereth said that the feasibility study had reached the point where the campus needed to retain an architect to develop plans for the prospective housing. It was proper to delay this until we know what land we are working with, and that there had been encouraging conversations with the owners of the land across the creek and northwest of campus. Noting concern that campus funds not be used, Schlereth said the committee is considering building into the purchase price a home owner's fee of about $200 per month to fund the estimated $466,000 required for a project of 290 houses. Administration and Finance will probably "front" the funds required, with repayment coming as the houses are sold.
Harris expressed support for building the architectural fees into the purchase price rather than making those part of the maintenance fees; these are construction costs, and not ongoing maintenance expenses. Ludmerer expressed his agreement and his belief that these below-market houses will indeed sell well.
Responding to Schlereth's comment that Administration and Finance would also have to absorb the cost of landscaping the Green Music Center and the Parking area north of the creek, Nakamoto expressed her concern about the impact of this on the division.
Christmann asked whether the university would retain title to the land on which the housing would be built, and - if so - would it share in the appreciation of the property. Schlereth responded affirmatively to both questions. Christmann also asked how utilities would be handled. Schlereth responded that he was not sure; they could either be purchased through the university, taking advantage of the CSU-UC contract with Enron, or handled as they would be in any private subdivision development -- through direct contract with the local public utilities. Carlson suggested the campus look at the special interest group market for housing sales, organizations such as campus fraternities and sororities. McKillop noted that the CSU Trustees would be under increasing pressure to deal with the high cost of housing; SSU should position itself to take advantage of any initiative they undertake in this area. Christmann observed that an expenditure of $1,250 per faculty member would be a very good investment for the Chancellor's Office. Ogg asked whether our on-campus construction project managers would handle this project as well. Schlereth said they already have several projects underway.
Katharyn Crabbe expressed her support for the project. Goldstein expressed his appreciation to Schlereth for the leadership that he has provided on the faculty housing initiative.
Schlereth expressed his appreciation for the helpful comments provided by CRC on this issue. He noted that the Faculty clearly wants some way to have input, and that he is delighted that the Academic Senate has created an ad-hoc committee on student housing. Administration and Finance is focusing on the technical and financial issues associated with student housing expansion; questions regarding the impact of this on campus climate and on academic quality are properly the province of the Academic side of the house. He is hopeful that the Academic Senate will respond in a timely fashion, because the President has given him a mandate to proceed by no later than August 1st. The campus has selected an architectural firm for the project, but he is not ready to announce the identity of that firm until the fee has been negotiated.
Schlereth briefly reviewed the subcommittees working on this issue. Crystal Shrouf volunteered to work on the Affordability Subcommittee.
This item was skipped.
Schlereth asked Cinquini to provide an update on it. Cinquini announced that the Human Resources element was moving well and was on target; additional consultants have been hired for the report segment. Financial Resources lost its lead consultant to another project and is hiring a replacement. Student Affairs is "snowballing", with the number of planning meetings. It has been "fast-tracked, and all training and implementation is to be completed within twenty months. Business Practices will begin implementation in March. The campus CMS program has recovered the old CMS training facility near the new ETC building, and it will be operational by March 1st. There are technical concerns, particularly the collapse of the contract with IBM for hardware and operational support and the short staffing for a project of this magnitude. There will be an orientation in February, an overview of the Student Administration module. Crabbe commented that the training program is quite good and that she is impressed with the functionality and increased confidence participants are gaining.
Schlereth said the most important issue was the magnitude of the impact of the initiative on the personnel who most implement it on campus. Things can easily "slip through the cracks" as key personnel are handling both their normal responsibilities and the intensive training and development demands. As an example, he cited Payroll people training all day and implementing the Unit 3 (Faculty) raises late at night. Crabbe said her group has 22 days of training in February alone, and this is on top of their regular responsibilities. Even where there is CMS backfill, it is not possible to get the expertise the people normally assigned to the responsibilities bring with them. Scalise noted the impact of CMS on IT and the difficulty of operating when key expertise is involved in training or development.
Johnson introduced a proposal to initiate an amnesty program for those with unpaid parking violations. The proposal was formally moved by Harris and seconded by Christmann. Ogg provided background, noting that the campus had done this three years ago, and that it had been quite successful. SSU had been unable to utilize DMV records because its MAC computers were not compatible with the DMV system. She noted that both SSU employees and students would be included. Shrouf expressed her approval for the amnesty program and her concern that for some students it will be there parents who find out about the program and not the students, since the vehicles will be registered in the parents' names. Bond noted that the amnesty involved the penalties only; violators would be required to pay the fines. There being no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously, with one abstention.
McIntyre announced an open session for one of the candidates for the Senior Director of Enrollment Services would be held Tuesday, February 6th, from 10 to 11 a.m. in Schulz 1121. The candidate is currently Director of Enrollment Services for the six-campus Austin, Texas, community college system. She also noted that both finalists have extensive experience in system conversion.
Bond announced that the Recycling Program had received two $25,000 grants. A conveyor belt had been acquired and was now being used to sort recyclable materials with increased efficiency and under much more sanitary conditions. The greatly increased funds from the sale of recycled materials are now paying for student labor.
Cinquini commended Pat Seda for the renovation of the Stevenson Computer Lab and his ability to utilize remnants to replace the worn-out carpeting.
There being no further business, Schlereth adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m..
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dennis Harris March 6, 2001
CRC Minutes 2000-2001