Approved by PBAC, 29 January 1998
Don Farish brought the meeting to order at 8:15 AM and asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. A motion was made by Dennis Harris. A second was obtained from Debbie Gallagher. The Agenda was approved unanimously.
Farish then asked Members to consider the Minutes of November 20, 1997 which had been distributed electronically prior to the meeting. Members approved the Minutes by consensus.
Discussion then turned the list of financing alternatives developed by the PBAC in Spring, 1997 that had not been discussed at the November 20, 1997 meeting. The following items were discussed:
During discussion, Members raised the following points in this regard:
To assist in the development of a recommendation on this potential strategy, Farish requested that the Office of Financial Services prepare a listing of Trust and Foundation balances as of December 31, 1997 for discussion at the January meeting of the PBAC.
Members discussed the merits and weaknesses of a centralized vs. a decentralized development effort. In addition, some Members indicated a need for the development of an over-all philosophy regarding development strategies. Members agreed that the PBAC was not the appropriate body to address either topic. Little support was generated by the Members for implementing this financing strategy since it could potentially represent a loss of support for the overall advancement activity which was already perceived as minimal.
Members did not see this financing strategy as viable for Sonoma State University.
Members did not see this financing strategy as viable for Sonoma State University and argued that additional resources should be devoted to the area of employee training and development for faculty, staff and administrative employees. Victor Garlin questioned how much money was spent on administrative travel (excluding CSU business) in Academic Affairs. Silvia Barajas indicated that she had provided this data in Spring, 1997 for the PBAC but would provide it again at the January, 1998 PBAC meeting.
Farish indicated that the Vice-President for Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee (VPBAC) was discussing this topic. He noted that data existed regarding release time provided by the Provost's Office but was not readily available for release time provided by the Deans. This information was being gathered for review and analysis by the VPBAC. Sue Parker noted that the VPBAC was also discussing the need for the restoration of release time for Department Chairs and Coordinators and that shifts in release time allocations were a possibility. Harris noted that release time was really an issue for VPBAC and not PBAC although Link indicated that it would be helpful for the PBAC to have a more complete understanding of this budget item in analyzing overall campus priorities. Farish agreed to provide data on release time at the January meeting. Barajas noted that similar information had been provided to the PBAC in Spring, 1997.
Clarification on this item was provided by Schlereth noting Academic Center included such areas as Continuing Education, the Center for Anthropological Studies, the California Institute for Human Services, the Center for Critical Thinking etc. Farish noted that he, Schlereth and Wilson were studying this issue in relation to the utilization of indirect cost recovery dollars provided by the academic grants and contract function.
Members agreed that this potential initiative primarily applied for Mathematics and English. Bill Barnier indicated that the Math Department had become much more efficient in providing remedial education which was now primarily for freshmen students. Katharyn Crabbe indicated that similar progress was being made with English. Farish asked Barajas to gather data regarding total dollars budgeted for remedial education at SSU for fiscal 97-98 for distribution at the January, PBAC meeting.
Advantages and disadvantages of this initiative were discussed. A key advantage included the inclusion of certain summer-based programs, primarily in the School of Education, in the third semester at a lower cost to students that currently charged in the Summer School. A key disadvantage would be the loss of Summer job income to students who participated in the third semester.
Given the time, Farish indicated that the PBAC would continue discussion of the following remaining initiatives at the January PBAC meeting:
Minutes prepared by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth
PBAC minutes 1997-1998