President's Budget Advisory Committee

Minutes December 10, 1998

Approved by PBAC as corrected, 4 February 1999

Members Present:

• Bernie Goldstein, Interim Provost, Co-Chair
• Larry Furukawa Schlereth, Vice-President, Administration and Finance, Co-Chair
• Cara Puccio, President, Associated Students
• Joe Latulippe, Associated Students
• Sue Parker, Past Chair of the Faculty
• Steve Orlick, Chair of the Faculty
• Bill Barnier, Faculty Representative at Large
• Jim Meyer, Vice-President, Development
• Rand Link, Vice-President, Student Affairs
• Les Adler, AARCC
• Katharyn Crabbe, AARCC
• Phyllis Fernlund, AARCC
• Marty Ruddell, AARCC
• Melinda Barnard, CRC
• Dennis Harris, CRC
• Gloria Ogg, CRC
• Steve Wilson, CRC

Staff Present:

• Letitia Coate, University Controller
• Bill Ingels, University Treasurer
• Katie Pierce, Academic Affairs Budget Officer

Members Absent:

• Tom Cooke, CFA Representative
• Pat Seda, Staff Representative

Guests Present:

• Diane Brown
• Drew Calandrella
• Mike Kiraly
• Lori Heffernon
• Carol Cinquini
• Bob Karlsrud
• Rose Bruce

Meeting Agenda

• APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
• APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 12-3-98
• CONSULTATION ON THE BUDGET - GOLDSTEIN/SCHLERETH PROPOSAL
• NEWLY IDENTIFIED TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL ISSUES
• ACADEMIC AFFAIRS PLAN FOR FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENT
• ANALYSIS OF STUDENT FACULTY RATIO
• CMS UPDATE

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:05 AM and asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. A motion was made by Dennis Harris. A second was obtained from Gloria Ogg. Steve Orlick requested that Item VI be deferred until the next meeting of the PBAC in order that Members could have time to verify the data presented. Schlereth objected. A motion was then made by Orlick to defer the item. A second was obtained from Steve Wilson. Discussion then ensued with the following points being made:

• Orlick repeated his comment with respect to the Members needing time to verify and study the data.
• Barnard concurred with Orlick's comments.
• Ogg noted that the item was not an action item but rather a discussion. She noted that if, after discussion of the item, Members felt additional time was needed, the item could be re-agendized at a future meeting.
• Bill Barnier concurred with Ogg's comments.
• Bob Karlsrud noted that he had attended the meeting specifically to here the discussion on the item in question.
• Rose Bruce noted that the data utilized in the item was widely available via the Web.
• Harris noted that instructions had been forwarded to the Members a week ago, informing them how to access the data.
• Orlick commented that the instructions were quite difficult to follow.
• Barnier noted that he had no problems in accessing the data.

The question was then called and a vote taken on the motion. The motion failed with Melinda Barnard, Orlick and Sue Parking casting Yes votes. Cara Puccio abstained from the vote. All others voted to defeat the motion on the floor.

Cara Puccio then requested that a brief report on CMS be added to the Agenda. By consensus, the Members agreed. Schlereth then requested that a brief report on newly identified technology financial issues be added to the Agenda. By consensus, the Members agreed. A vote was then taken to approve the Agenda as modified. The Agenda was approved unanimously.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: 11-5-98

Goldstein then asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of the December 3, 1998 meeting. A motion was made by Harris. A second was obtained from Ogg. The Minutes were approved unanimously.

Consultation on the Budget - Goldstein/Schlereth Proposal

Referencing materials contained in the Packet, (reproduced below) Goldstein explained a proposal developed by he and Schlereth designed to craft a budget policy on budget consultation:

The Goldstein/Schlereth Proposal

1. Form a small group of individuals to craft a policy on budget consultation
   Proposed members to be:
   • Provost (Co-Chair)
   • Chief Financial Officer (Co-Chair)
   • Chair of the Faculty
   • Chair-Elect of the Faculty
   • Associated Students President
   • Associated Students Treasurer
   • One School Administrative Manager (Selected by the Provost)
   • One Campus Staff Member (Selected by the President)
2. Policy to be based on three principles:
   • Consultation and advice must be based on financial facts and conform to CSU Policy.
   • Consultation and advice must be based on a global perspective of the campus operations.
   • 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:
   • Academic Senate
   • Vice-President for Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee
   • Campus Reengineering Committee
   • Current Structure: President's Budget Advisory Committee
   • 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 motion was made by Marty Ruddell that the PBAC endorse the Goldstein/Schlereth proposal. A second was obtained from Wilson. The Ruddell motion was approved unanimously.

Newly Identified Technology Issues

Schlereth then briefed the Members on four, newly identified, technology issues. He prefaced his comments by indicating that the data was still preliminary and no action was required by the PBAC at this time. He noted that he wanted the Members to be aware of the issues since discussions regarding the funding the items would likely take place in the Spring, 1999 semester. The following items were identified:

Clarifying questions on the items were answered by Schlereth with assistance from Calandrella and Wilson.

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.

Following Schlereth's presentation, several questions were raised. These included:

• Barnier: What were the value judgments used in determining the which items should be funded. Goldstein responded to Barnier's proposal by indicating that the recommendations made the represented the best judgment's of the Deans and their administrative managers. He did note that the Deans and Administrative Managers were developing a plan to restore the instructional equipment resources from other areas in Academic Affairs.
• Ruddell: Since some or most of the items appeared to have historically existed, Ruddell questioned how they were funded in the past. Schlereth responded to Ruddell's question by taken the un-funded item in turn as indicated below:

Adler asked what was one-time money being used for in 98-99. Schlereth noted that one-time money in 98-99, largely the result of revenue above the base earned in 97-98 and indirect cost recovery revenue allocated to the Provost earned in 97-98 and rolled to 98-99 was being used to help fund the Academic Affairs deficit realized at the close of fiscal 1998. He also noted that revenue above the base was not likely to materialize in the current fiscal year since the campus was teaching at its budgeted enrollment target.

Barnard asked if $450,000 has been allocated directly for instruction. Schlereth responded that it had. Administrative Managers present concurred with Schlereth's response. Carol Cinquini noted that the $450,000 identified by Barnard was intended for instruction and instructional support. She also noted that employee benefits for newly hired faculty also had to be financed from this fund source. Schlereth clarified that the $450,000 was intended for direct instruction and not instructional support. He also noted that the $450,000 budget for enrollment growth was developed keeping in mind that employee benefits would be required. Specifically, 180 new students required 9 faculty positions in order to maintain a Student Faculty ratio of 20 to 1. Assuming a starting salary of $40,000, 9 positions would require $360,000. Employee benefits add to this cost bringing the total to $450,000.

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 at the request of Steve Orlick. Orlick asked whether these were the same figures he had obtained from the CSU, LA web site. Harris explained that those figures were for Fall semesters only, and that there was a lag of almost a year in getting full CSU data. For that reason, he had used the SSU Analytic Studies file "Historic FTE", which provided FTES and FTEF for both semesters of each calendar year and permitted a computation of annual FTES, FTEF, and SFR. This seemed more appropriate for two reasons: first, PBAC dealt with annual budgets; and second, by using the local data available through the Academic Planning Data Base (APDB), it was possible to provide more current data. Harris then reviewed the material reproduced below.

December 3, 1998

Members of the Campus Community:

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.

Sources:

• SSU, Analytic Studies, "Historic FTE"
• 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; and
• 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"
• 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); and
• 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"
• 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.

Following Harris's presentation, Rose Bruce, SSU's Director of Assessment and Analytic Studies, presented an analysis of the data available on the CSU, LA web site, 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.

INSERT BRUCE DATA HERE

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 fullfilling 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.

Following the presentations by Harris and Bruce, several questions were raised. These included:

• Orlick stated he would like to see a comparison with smaller institutions.
• Puccio indicated her appreciation for the Harris study, but would like to see data at the departmental level, indicating that majors like Communication Studies had very high ratios. Harris replied that the "Historic FTE" file was organized by Department, then aggregated by School and totaled for the University, so that information was available.
• Phyllis Fernland, Education Dean, indicated that there were significant differences for progams that were graduate or included a service component.
• Dean Karlsrud stated that, after reviewing the SFR figures himself, he was inclined to support Dr. Harris' conclusions regarding SFR. However, he said that there are many other factors that have to be considered as we examine Faculty Workload variations over time. For example, if you look at Direct WTU's per FTEF for Faculty over the last ten years (this is the average Weighted Teaching Units for all Faculty in Direct Instruction), you would find that for SSU Faculty as a whole workload as reflected by direct instruction has decreased. From the late 1980's to the late 1990's, SSU's WTUs/FTEF has gone from over 14 - which was one of the highest in the system - to just around 12. In the Social Sciences, the decrease was nearly 25%. Faculty in some departments, Anthropology for example, showed even larger decreases, dropping from 17 to less than 12. According to Karlsrud, Faculty in the late 80's were still operating as they had been earlier in the decade when layoffs of tenured faculty were justified by declining enrollments. Faculty had taken on the task of increasing their FTES by offering classes above the 12 WTU stipulated in the contract for Direct Instruction. When he became Dean, he worked hard to convince the Faculty that they would not be laid off, that working above the contract requirement of 12 WTU's of Direct Instruction, and teaching small sections, was not necessary to their survival. Karlsrud also indicated that Faculty , at least in the Social Sciences, have willingly and deliberately supported practices that have led to higher SFRs. For example, Social Science faculty have agreed to support as many fully-funded sabbaticals as possible, while at the same time agreeing to maintain FTES targets assigned to their units. By this mechanism, which would inevitably lead to slightly higher SFRs for the affected units, many more sabbaticals have been awarded to Social Sciences faculty in the 1990s than in the 1980s.Please understand that Faculty are not working hard. On the contrary, he stated, he believes they are working as hard as ever. But SFRs alone do not tell the whole story.
• Gloria Ogg observed that if SSU had an average SFR of 20 FTES to 1 FTEF, then there must be many very small sections to balance the few large lecture classes.
• Lori Heffernon, Administrative Manager for Arts and Humanities, stated that Puccio's concern about high numbers in COMS referred to the ratio of Majors to Faculty and not to SFR.
• Katharyn Crabbe supported Harris' call for strategic planning based upon a target SFR appropriate to SSU's mission and budget planning to implement that target. She also observed that the architects for the campus' buildings had made it impossible for SSU to have very many large classes.

CMS Update

ADJOURNMENT

Given the time, Goldstein then adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:55 AM. He noted that items not addressed but contained in the Agenda Packet would be discussed at the next PBAC meeting.

Minutes prepared by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth.

PBAC minutes 1998-1999
Updated 2007-12-14
afd.webcontact@sonoma.edu