President's Budget Advisory Committee

Draft Minutes April 30, 1996

MEMBERS PRESENT

STAFF PRESENT

Approval of the Agenda

Approval of the Minutes of April 16, 1996

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 PM by Don Farish who asked for a motion to approve the minutes of April 16, 1996. Rand Link explained that he had reconsidered his vote on the Differential State University Fee (DSUF) taken at the April 16 meeting and that he wished his vote to be recorded as a yes vote rather than an abstention. This change had been made in the minutes which were then approved unanimously.

Line of Credit for Campus Infrastructure

Larry Schlereth then asked if their questions on the Campus Reengineering Committee (CRC) information item regarding the Line of Credit for Campus Infrastructure. (Written material had been forwarded to the PBAC prior to the meeting- Attached). Tracy Terrill questioned whether it made sense to move forward with the renovation of the Pub given plans to construct a University Center which would contain a new Pub. Schlereth indicated that this issue would need further discussion with students.

Proposed Change in Budget Presentation

Schlereth then introduced a proposed change in budget presentation that had been reviewed by the CRC and was being forwarded to the PBAC for action. (Materials on the proposed change had been forwarded to the PBAC prior to the meeting - Attached). Harris moved that the PBAC approve the Proposed Change in Budget Utilization and Presentation as outlined and forward it to the President with the recommendation that he implement the proposed change for SSU subject to Chancellor's Office approval. A second was obtained from Margarita Zuniga.

Melinda Barnard spoke in favor of the motion indicating that the IRA Board has reviewed the proposed change and endorsed the concept. She noted that it would be particularly helpful to the intercollegiate athletic program. Rand Link also spoke in favor of the motion citing its importance to the Health Center. Carol Cinquini questioned whether the program would be optional. Schlereth informed her that it this would be the case. Bill Ingels spoke in favor of the motion citing its potential importance for the Student Union Corporation.

Harris then asked if there was any objection to waiving the first reading of the item. The Committee agreed to a waiver of the first reading by consensus. A vote was then taken on the motion itself which passed unanimously

Proposed Multi-Year Financial Plan

Farish then turned to the question of Multi-Year Financial Plan and the proposed. He reference a draft timeline of activities, reproduced below.

PROPOSED NEXT STEPS: MULTI-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN

  1. Work with Associated Students to obtain agreement on use of fee proceeds.
    (Summer, 1996, Farish/Schlereth, Terrill)
  2. Work with Associated Students to develop draft referendum language and related materials.
    (Summer, 1996, Farish/Schlereth, Terrill)
  3. Logistical Details Associated with Line of Credit for Campus Infrastructure
    (Summer, 1996, CRC - Schlereth)
  4. Develop Financing Plan - University Center (Summer, 1996, CRC - Schlereth)
  5. Appoint DSUF Committee
    (September, 1996, President)
  6. Complete Housing Demand Study
    (October 15, 1996 - CRC- Schlereth)
  7. DSUF Committee develops referendum language and related materials.
    (October 31, 1996 - Committee- Farish, Schlereth, Terrill)
  8. PBAC reviews DSUF Committee Recommendation to President
    (November, 1996 - PBAC)
  9. President makes decision regard DSUF, Housing, Line of Credit
    (November, 1996 - President)
  10. Information Campaign - DSUF
    (November-December, 1996 - PBAC, DSUF Committee)
  11. Referendum on DSUF
    (December, 1996 - Student Body)

Farish also explained that presentations on the DSUF has been made to the Associated Students and that the Department Chairs would her information on the item at an upcoming meeting. He asked the PBAC for reactions and suggestions to the draft timeline.

Link indicated that he felt the date of the referendum needed to be changed so that compliance with the University's election code could be maintained. He recommended November 20 and 21, 1996.

Victor Garlin informed that PBAC of the California Faculty Association's (CFA) interest in the DSUF indicating that the CFA was concerned about the possibility of two-tiered system of higher education being created in the CSU as a result of the DSUF. He noted that the CFA planned to carefully watch the situation and informed that Committee that the local chapter of CFA at SSU had no position on the matter at the present time. He did note that SSU's CFA planned to sponsor a forum on the CSU budget crisis in general and SSU's financial challenges specifically.

Charles Merrill questioned whether the PBAC needed to meet during the summer months to address the many issues related to the DSUF. Farish indicated that it would depend on committee member's schedules but consultation, formal and informal, would, no doubt take place with the PBAC over the summer. Merrill recommended regular written briefings and Farish agreed. Merrill also recommended that information on the DSUF be provided and discussed at the Fall convocation.

Larry Clark questioned the role of the DSUF Committee and the relationship to the PBAC. Farish and Schlereth responded that under the proposed Trustee Police, the DSUF Committee would be charged with the task of (1) determining whether it wished to recommend a DSUF for Sonoma State (2) ascertaining how the proceeds of the DSUF would be allocated (3) developing appropriate referendum language and (4) coordinating the referendum election.

Les Adler indicated that he believed a key issue for the faculty on campus was the use of the proceeds from the DSUF. He questioned if faculty would have input on this item. Farish indicated that faculty would have input. He reminded the PBAC that financial aid was a policy requirement for the DSUF and that a shortfall existed in Academic Affairs effective 7-1-97. He noted that the proceeds from the proposed new fee would ultimately result from negotiations between students, faculty and the administration.

Garlin questioned whether the Academic Senate would have input in to decision regarding utilization of fee proceeds. Farish indicted that he was looking to the PBAC for input on this question but felt that an endorsement by the Senate would be most helpful and needed. Garlin noted that it was important that a delicate balance be maintained - that it was important for the students to not feel pushed by the faculty and yet the faculty had a vested interested in the outcome of the referendum.

Barnard noted that she felt faculty members had several roles to play in the DSUF discussion. These included:

Barnard also noted that she felt the Vice-President for Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee (VPBAC) should be consulted and involved in discussions regarding the utilization of DSUF proceeds. She also expressed concern over publicity materials on the DSUF particularly those prepared for parents at Summer orientation cautioning that the materials should be general in nature since specific fee proceed utilization would not have been determined prior to the orientation program.

Harris urged the administration to accelerate the time line, via Summer meetings, so that further definition of the DSUF could be developed. He noted that it was difficult to defend and promote a concept that lacked definition.

Carol Cinquini indicated that she sensed a bit or resentment among the department chairs. She noted that she felt they might believe they were being co-opted by the administration on the DSUF issue and encouraged greater use of small group meetings with faculty to counteract this problem. Cinquini also echoed and supported Harris's comments about timeline acceleration and Summer meetings.

Garlin questioned how the $150 per semester level of the DSUF was developed. Farish and Schlereth responded indicating that the PBAC had examined financial needs for the campus during the Fall, 1995 semester and identified a funding gap that would exist in Academic Affairs effective 7-1-97. Upon the direction of the PBAC, Farish and Schlereth developed a proposal for a DSUF that would meet this gap. Keeping in mind that one-third of any new fee needed to be allocated to financial aid per proposed Trustee policy, this reality coupled with the identified funding gap generated a need for $2,000,000 annually. Given enrollment of about 6500 students, the semester fee level of $150 for the DSUF was calculated.

Harris then made several suggestions for modification to the draft timeline. Specifically he argued that:

Merrill asked Terrill if he thought it would be possible to get student representatives together for Summer work on the DSUF. Terrill indicated yes. Merrill also indicated that he was a little concerned that if a ballot and proceeds utilization schedule was developed over the Summer by the DSUF Committee, it would be difficult to obtain input from campus faculty on the utilization issue.

Farish suggested that perhaps the DSUF Committee could develop a draft ballot and fee utilization schedule over the Summer that could then be refined and modified as the DSUF sought input from the campus early in the Fall semester.

Farish then made summary comments indicating that discussion during the meeting was most useful and that the input provided was very valuable. He noted that on-going consultation would be key in obtain a successful vote on the DSUF issue and recognized that much work needed to be completed both during the Summer and Fall, 1996 semester. He informed the Committee that he and Schlereth would be in touch over the coming months and urged Committee members to continue to express their views on this important issue

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 PM.

Minutes prepared by Larry Schlereth


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