President's Budget Advisory Committee

Minutes March 12, 1996

(Approved by PBAC, 2 April 1996)

MEMBERS PRESENT

STAFF PRESENT

Approval of the Agenda

Approval of the Minutes of February 27, 1996

The meeting was called to order by Don Farish at 3:10 PM who asked for a motion to approve the minutes of February 27, 1996. The minutes were changed to reflect the individual representing Tracy Terrill at the February 27, 1996 meeting. Andrea Todd was Terrill's representative, not Dawn Bohte. With this change, the minutes were approved with all members supporting approval accept Margarita Zuniga who abstained from voting.

Announcement of Briefing Sessions for Academic Senate, Staff Council, VPBAC, and CRC

Farish then informed the PBAC that briefing sessions for the Academic Senate and the Staff Council regarding the Multi-Year Financial Plan had been scheduled for March 28 and April 11 respectively. In addition, the Vice-President for Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee (VPBAC) was scheduled to hear a presentation of the Plan on March 19, 1996 while the Campus Reengineering Committee would review the Plan at their March 15, 1996 meeting. A meeting with the Associated Students was in the process of being scheduled.

Revisions to the Multi-Year Financial Plan

Schlereth then presented 3 revisions to the Multi-Year Financial Plan reproduced below:

REVISIONS TO THE MULTI-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN
1996-2000

  1. After additional discussion and analysis, the Provost and the Chief Financial Officer believe it appropriate to ask Intercollegiate Athletics to generate resources needed for gender equity in 1996-1997 from external fund-raising sources or internal departmental reengineering activities.

    The Provost and Chief Financial Officer also recommend that resources needed to finance salary increases in certain Independent Operations account be accommodated internally by the units in question.

    Resources generated by these actions total $60,000. It is the recommendation of the Provost and the Chief Financial Officer that this money be allocated to Academic Affairs to finance an Academic Budget Officer.
  2. The Provost and the Vice-President for Student Affairs have agreed that clerical support in the Office of Campus Life will be accommodated by the reassignment of an individual from Academic Affairs to Student Affairs.
  3. Based on revised information from the CSU, SSU now believes that only $50,000 of discretionary new resources will be needed for FRS maintenance. Savings totaling $34,000 represent new "residual resources" and are recommended to be allocated to the campus general fund reserve.

Budget Recommendations

Schlereth then presented 5 recommendations (illustrated below) related to the Multi-Year Financial Plan and the 1996-1997 campus budget.

BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS
1996-1997

1. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE FOLLOWING NEW OR ON-GOING EXPENSES,CURRENTLY FUNDED WITH ONE-TIME MONEY BE FINANCED VIA A $100,000 REDUCTION IN THE CAMPUS GENERAL FUND RESERVE AND A $200,000 REDUCTION IN GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT:

Executive Office OEE $35,000
Admissions Director $90,000
Academic Budget Officer $60,000
Employee Assistance Program $25,000
Academic Affairs Clericals $90,000
TOTAL $300,000

 

2. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT NEW DISCRETIONARY RESOURCES TO SSU IN 1996-1997 FROM THE CSU, PROJECTED TO TOTAL $124,000 BE UTILIZED TO FINANCE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES CURRENTLY FUNDED WITH ONE-TIME MONEY:

SAS Operating Expense $40,000
FRS Maintenance $50,000
Campus Reserve $34,000

3. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE UNIVERSITY INITIATE AN INTER-FUND LOAN FROM THE SSU PARKING PROGRAM AND THE SONOMA STATE ENTERPRISES TO FINANCE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES CURRENTLY FUNDED WITH ONE-TIME MONEY OR NOT FUNDED AT ALL. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INTERFUND LOAN WILL BE REPAID BY THE GENERAL FUND AT A RATE OF $200,000 ANNUALLY FROM THE UNIVERSITY RESERVE BEGINNING IN FISCAL 1996-97. IT IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT IF A PERMANENT FUND SOURCE IS NOT IDENTIFIED FOR THESE EXPENSES IN 1997-1998 AND BEYOND THEY WILL REMAIN UNFUNDED UNTIL A FUND SOURCE CAN BE IDENTIFIED.

Quality of Instruction $450,000
Operating Support, Information Tech., $100,000
Instructional Equipment $200,000
TOTAL $550,000

4. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT GENERAL FUND RESOURCES CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FOR MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS BE REALLOCATED TO ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE TO ASSIST THE UNIVERSITY WITH GAAP COMPLIANCE ISSUES, THE INCREASED COMPLEXITY OF THE CSU FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND GROWTH IN THE FOUNDATION ENDOWMENT.

5. IF CSU POLICY PERMITS, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE POSITION IN ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE BE FINANCED FROM THE SSU PARKING PROGRAM.

Steve Wilson then moved to adopt the recommendations of Farish and Schlereth with respect to the 1996-1997 budget. The motion was seconded by Letitia Coate. Harris then moved to divide the motion and take each recommendation in turn. Farish ruled that the Harris motion superseded the Wilson motion and a vote was therefore taken on the Harris motion. The Harris motion passed with one nay vote (Katharyn Crabbe) and no abstentions.

Crabbe then introduced a motion to approve Recommendation 1 (reproduced below). A second was obtained from Carol Cinquini. 

  1. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE FOLLOWING NEW OR ON-GOING EXPENSES, CURRENTLY FUNDED WITH ONE-TIME MONEY BE FINANCED VIA A $100,000 REDUCTION IN THE CAMPUS GENERAL FUND RESERVE AND A $200,000 REDUCTION IN GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT:
 
Executive Office OEE $35,000
Admissions Director $90,000
Academic Budget Officer $60,000
Employee Assistance Program $25,000
Academic Affairs Clericals $90,000
TOTAL $300,000

Prior to discussing the motion, it was agreed, by consensus, that analysis prepared by Wilson with respect to the Farish/Schlereth Recommendations for 96-97 should be distributed to PBAC members. While the analysis was being distributed, a brief discussion took place with respect the revisions to the Multi-Year Financial Plan presented by Schlereth. Farish and Schlereth clarified that the recommendation related to gender equity financing for fiscal 96-97 ($30,000) and salary increases in Independent Operations ($30,000) were to seen as on-going in nature.

Discussion then ensued with respect to gender equity in athletics program Several questions were raised by Committee Members including:

  1. Should the Athletic Director address the PBAC regarding the revision? the recommendation?
  2. Was it possible to provide some new general fund support to Athletics in 1996-97?
  3. What was the probability of raising external support for the Program?

After discussion, the PBAC determined it was it was not appropriate to ask the Athletic Director to make a presentation to the PBAC. Moreover, information was provided to the Committee that indicated that additional support for athletics could be obtained from outside sources . The PBAC also recognized that alternatives other than additional resources could be deployed within Athletics to resolve the 96-97 gender equity issue. Committee members agreed that while nearly every unit on campus had sustained real budget cuts since 1991, the athletic budget had not been touched although funding sources for the program had clearly changed. By general consensus , the PBAC concluded it was appropriate to ask Athletics to finance gender equity internally in 96-97 although Victor Garlin noted that the PBAC and the campus needed to keep in mind that the issue of gender-equity represented an important and worthy goal for Sonoma State University.

Farish then responded to Dennis Harris's question related to the academic budget officer and whether this item had been discussed with the VPBAC. Farish indicated that a discussion had not taken place during the current semester but that the budget officer position was the highest priority item that was not be funded in fiscal 95-96. Les Adler confirmed VPBAC support for the position and Carol Cinquini stressed the importance of the position for efficient and cost effective financial management in Academic Affairs.

The PBAC then turned to the motion on the floor related to Recommendation #1. It was clarified that resources for instructional equipment were provided in Recommendation #3 and that the items projected to be financed by Recommendation #1 represented on-going expenses that needed a permanent fund source.

Recommendation #1 was then approved by the PBAC with one abstention (Harris)

Dennis Harris then introduced a motion to approve Recommendation 2 (reproduced below). A second was obtained from Charles Merrill.

  1. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT NEW DISCRETIONARY RESOURCES TO SSU IN 1996-1997 FROM THE CSU, PROJECTED TO TOTAL $124000 BE UTILIZED TO FINANCE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES CURRENTLY FUNDED WITH ONE-TIME MONEY:
SAS Operating Expense $40,000
FRS Maintenance $50,000
Campus Reserve $34,000

The Recommendation was approved unanimously.

Charles Merrill then introduced a motion to approve Recommendation 3 (reproduced below). A second was obtained from Katharyn Crabbe

  1. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE UNIVERSITY INITIATE AN INTER-FUND LOAN FROM THE SSU PARKING PROGRAM AND THE SONOMA STATE ENTERPRISES TO FINANCE THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES CURRENTLY FUNDED WITH ONE-TIME MONEY OR NOT FUNDED AT ALL. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE INTERFUND LOAN WILL BE REPAID BY THE GENERAL FUND AT A RATE OF $200,000 ANNUALLY FROM THE UNIVERSITY RESERVE BEGINNING IN FISCAL 1996-97. IT IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT IF A PERMANENT FUND SOURCE IS NOT IDENTIFIED FOR THESE EXPENSES IN 1997-1998 AND BEYOND THEY WILL REMAIN UNFUNDED UNTIL A FUND SOURCE CAN BE IDENTIFIED.
Quality of Instruction $450,000
Operating Support, Information Tech., $100,000
Instructional Equipment $200,000
TOTAL $550,000

Discussion ensued. Dennis Harris indicated that while he understood the rationale behind the Recommendation for fiscal 96-97, he was troubled by it since it implied that funding for class sections and instructional equipment could be materially curtailed in 97-98 and subsequent fiscal years. Farish responded to the concern by stating the importance of the acting affirmatively on the proposed differential state university fee (DSUF) which would permanently finance these items beyond 1996-1997. Harris suggested that the , VPBAC consider the consequences of the Recommendation should a DSUF not materialize. Farish indicated that this would be done but reminded the Committee that the present selection of course sections (among the best in the CSU) was financed with one-time money in 95-96, and that the course schedule for 96-97, again one of high quality and availability, was built with the assumption that Recommendation #3 would be approved. He again stressed the importance of the DSUF for 97-98 and beyond.

Carol Cinquini asked now the inter-fund loan would be repaid if the DSUF was not initiated. Schlereth indicated that Recommendation #3 called for loan to be repaid over a six year period by the University Reserve.

Charles Merrill indicated that the Recommendation, if approved, would permit the campus the time to plan a course of action should the DSUF not be enacted. He indicated that if the Recommendation was not approved, the campus would have no choice but to curtail sections and eliminate financing for instructional equipment effective July 1, 1996.

Larry Clark suggested that if the DSUF was not approved there were, perhaps, other things that could done to meet identified needs in Academic Affairs. Farish and Schlereth responded that this was not likely since inter and intra-divisional reallocation was not viable given the condition of base budgets campus-wide.

Victor Garlin indicted that it was important to focus on bringing new revenue to the campus either in the form of additional support from the State or in the form of the DSUF. He stressed the need to make the case for the DSUF to the student body so that planning for cuts in part-time faculty staffing and instructional equipment could be avoided.

Don concurred with Garlin's view and stressed that he and Schlereth hoped that the PBAC would, at subsequent meetings, fully analyze the merits of a DSUF. and then assist with discussions among the student body regarding the need for a differential state university fee at SSU.

Tracy Terrill indicated that in discussions with students regarding any new fee, it was important to incorporate what students would specifically gain by supporting a new fee. He also urged the Cabinet to fully consider the political impact of other fees discussions (Health Center, Open Recreation and Technology) on the DSUF discussion.

Melinda Barnard expressed concern regarding how the campus could ask students to pay an additional fee for something they currently have. Farish indicated it was important for students and faculty to realize that all the items items currently funded in the instructional program could not be financed after 96-97. Approval of the Recommendation provided the time to for students and the entire campus to evaluate whether it was prudent to make profound cuts in instruction or move to a DSUF.

Schlereth stressed that it would be difficult for the instructional program to adjust to a $750,000 cut effective July 1, 1996 if the Recommendation was not approved. Crabbe concurred indicating that the class schedule for 96-97 was essentially complete. Wilson urged the Committee to approve the Recommendation so that the budget for 96-97 could be finalized and the PBAC could take up the more important task of planning for 97-98 and beyond.

A vote was then taken on the Recommendation which was unanimously approved with one abstention (Harris)

Steve Wilson then introduced a motion to approve Recommendation 4 (reproduced below). A second was obtained from Letitia Coate

  1. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT GENERAL FUND RESOURCES CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FOR MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS BE REALLOCATED TO ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE TO ASSIST THE UNIVERSITY WITH GAAP COMPLIANCE ISSUES, THE INCREASED COMPLEXITY OF THE CSU FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND GROWTH IN THE FOUNDATION ENDOWMENT.

The Recommendation was unanimously approved with one abstention (Clark)

Steve Wilson then introduced a motion to approve Recommendation 5 (reproduced below). A second was obtained from Letitia Coate

  1. IF CSU POLICY PERMITS, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AN ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE POSITION IN ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE BE FINANCED FROM THE SSU PARKING PROGRAM

Steve Wilson then moved the following motion which was seconded by Letitia Coate

"To adopt a 1996-1997 General Fund and Lottery working budget for planning purposes as presented in Attachments A - Revenue Assumptions and B - Budget Allocations, which incorporates the recommendations of Provost Farish and Vice-President Schlereth presented to the PBAC. The following general provisions apply:

The Recommendation was approved with two no votes (Barnard, Harris) and one abstention (Cinquini).

  1. Any additional unrestricted resources that may come to the campus in excess of existing General Fund and Lottery assumptions will be allocated to the Campus Reserve.
  2. All allocations are made to the division executive. Distribution within each division is the respective VP's responsibility.
  3. Any reduction to the revenue assumptions resulting from passage of the final budget in an amount greater than $100,000 will be brought back to the PBAC for disposition. Any amount less than $100,000 will be adjusted by mutual agreement of the Provost and the Vice-President for Administration and Finance.
ATTACHMENT A - REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS - 1996-1997
  Appropriation Revenue Lottery Total
95-96 Base $35,664,181 $11,919,413 $319,000 $47,902,594
96-97 Change $2,662,214 $-39,413 $0 $2,622,801
96-97 Base $38,326,395 $11,880,000 $319,000 $50,525,395
Foundation Surplus 95-96       $200,000
SSE Loan       $200,000
Parking Loan       $550,000
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION       $51,475,395

 

ATTACHMENT B - BUDGET ALLOCATIONS
PROPOSED BASE BUDGETS - 1996-1997
UNIVERSITY WIDE $14,460,504
EXECUTIVE OFFICE $898,385
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS $27,905,854
STUDENT AFFAIRS $1,189,404
ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE $6,071,248
TOTAL $50,525,395

 

ALLOCATION OF ONE TIME FUNDS IN 1996-1997
Foundation Foundation 95-96 Surplus $200,000
SSE Loan $200,000
Parking Loan $550,000
TOTAL $950,000
Finances Quality of Instruction $450,000
Curricular Innovation/Faculty Development $200,000
Operating Expense, Information Technology $100,000
Instructional Equipment $200,000
TOTAL $950,000

The motion was approved unanimously with no abstentions.

Adjournment

Farish adjourned the meeting at 5:05 PM.,

Minutes prepared by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth


PBAC minutes 1995-1996
Updated 2007-12-14
afd.webcontact@sonoma.edu