PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Minutes March 6, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT

STAFF PRESENT

MEMBERS ABSENT

STAFF ABSENT

GUESTS PRESENT

AGENDA

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:07am. Goldstein asked for any additions or deletions to the agenda. Rick Luttmann would like to brainstorm ideas and would like to discuss the no lay-off policy for full-time permanent employees. Goldstein agreed to add these items. The agenda was approved with no objections.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 13, 2002

John Kramer expressed concern that the minutes did not reflect certain aspects of the budget presentation and would like to see additional detail added. Schlereth asked Kramer to list these items for Neil Markley to include in the minutes. Link asked that certain revisions be made with respect to his comments about program cuts outside of the General Fund. Approval of the minutes was tabled until the April 17, 2003 PBAC.

CSU Q&A DOCUMENT

(Please see the March 6, 2003 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth presented a budget FAQ document distributed by the CSU. He informed Members that budget information could be obtained on the CSU and Sonoma State University web sites.

ENDOWMENT EARNINGS

Schlereth informed Members that that the endowment funds were not performing well given the current economic climate. Earnings have been substantially reduced causing a suspension of earnings distributions for the 03/04 fiscal year. CPA stands to lose $180,000, Library $200,000, Information Technology $100,000, Wine Business Program $30,000, and the Engineering Program $150,000. Other programs, including scholarships, will be affected as well.

2003-2004 GOVERNORS BUDGET: LAO COMMENTS

(Please see the March 6, 2003 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth presented the highlights of the Legislative Analysts report on the Governors budget. The LAO is proposing enrollment growth funds be limited to 4% instead of the requested 7%. The LAO feels 3% of the growth is already at the campus being taught with current resources. The LAO proposes a 15% fee increase, down from the Governors proposed 25%. The LAO does not require one-third of the fee to be allocated to financial aid, however. This could create a further hardship for financial aid students. The LAO also proposes severely restricting rollover of funds from year-to-year. This would hurt many campuses, as rollovers are an important piece of budget planning. In short, the LAOs proposal would cost the campus an additional $1,400,000. Schlereth suggested support for the Governors budget is important. Rick Luttmann is outraged by this report. He feels professors are taken advantage of because they are often willing to help students by teaching more without extra funding. When budgets are examined, the state does not recognize this extra workload. He feels it hurts to have a conscience. He is also very concerned about the impact of this proposal on financial aid recipients. Catherine Nelson asked if restriction of rollover funds would be likely. Schlereth feels this is unlikely, however he cant rule anything out. Melinda Barnard is also very concerned about this proposal. She is aware of strong lobbying by K-12 schools and school boards. Many of these groups have received commitments from legislators. She feels the CSU has been fighting internally and has not been effective in lobbying efforts. She feels strongly that the CSU needs to stop internal fighting and take a unified stance to the legislature. Campuses need to be very careful about the messages and resolutions they are sending out to the community. Lynn McIntyre responded that the California Teachers Association is second only to prison guards in lobbying efforts. The CSU has been actively lobbying at the state level. The CSU Alumni Day is an important lobbying tool and will soon take place. She feels it is important the CSU make linkages with the K-12 and not fight against them in the budget process. Rand Link added that the CSU Governmental Affairs Office did issue two-page letters supporting the Governors proposed budget.

DIVISION REPORTS: 2003-2004 BUDGET PLANNING

Schlereth informed the Committee that the divisions were working hard planning for upcoming budget reductions.

He presented the Executive Offices most recent plan. Only one permanent position and $150,000 in operating expense exists in the Executive Office. Operating expense will be reduced $25,000-$30,000 by reducing photocopying and relying more on electronic distribution.

McIntyre presented reductions planned by University Affairs. All employees are permanent and operating expense currently stands at $80,000. This operating expense hasn't increased in eight years. University Affairs is anticipating reductions in copying and printing of $40,000. Electronic distribution of documents will be increased.

Stuart Jones presented reductions planned by Development. Development is working toward eliminating General Fund support of operating expense by seeking donated funds for this purpose.

Goldstein presented reductions planned by Academic Affairs. Within Academic Affairs the total amount of the reduction is $4,960,000. This amount was allocated across the operating units (that is the Provosts Office, the five academic Schools, Library and ESAS). Reductions were disproportionately targeted to ESAS. That unit could not bear such reductions without impact to permanent employees.

The impact to ESAS has been modified by sharing those targeted cuts across the division but primarily in the Provosts Office. Growth funding has been distributed across all units and will help to offset the budget reductions. The University must keep in mind that there are real costs to serve the increased student enrollment.

Each of the units is developing a plan, appropriate to its circumstances to deal with the reductions.
The Library is cutting the materials acquisition budget as well as general OE funding. They are working to reduce on-line databases, student assistant hours and temporary help.

The academic schools are cutting part-time faculty funding by reducing assigned time of tenured and tenure track faculty, combining sections; that is offering fewer, probably larger, sections of multi-section classes. Many departments will adopt a semi-annual schedule for some classes that will mean that courses that might have been offered under ordinary circumstances will not be offered this coming year. At this point in the planning Academic Affairs expects that course section offerings will be reduced by approximately 110 sections next year. There will be reductions in departmental as well as school-level OE. In all but exceptional cases temporary staff positions will not be renewed.

ESAS will be making almost all recruitment and admission information available exclusively on-line in order to reduce postage and printing expenses. OE budgets will be reduced. By modifying assignments in that unit they will eliminate at least two positions. EMT will be offered through a less costly model in order to serve a larger class of incoming Freshmen.

In the Provosts Office, there will be budget reductions or temporary faculty and staff positions. OE and some assigned time will be reduced. Full funding for faculty sabbaticals may not be possible. Many advisory groups have been consulted over the past two weeks and with benefit of their advice the Provost will reduce support for a number of special projects and programs.

Barnard asked if Goldstein had a sense of part-time faculty reductions. Goldstein feels 40% is in the neighborhood, however he will need to double-check this figure. Barnard expressed the importance of knowing this reduction soon as it affects departmental planning. John Kramer noted that the $450,000 in course reductions is equal to the budget of Development. He feels that if Development was self-supported, courses could be restored. Further, he suggested dipping into endowment funds to cover lost earnings for this year. Jones responded that most CSU campuses, unlike private institutions, fund salary and benefits in the Development Office through state funds. He added that endowment funds cannot legally be used. Jones expressed his willingness to raise funds for operations, however donors do not always respond well to this. Kramer would like to see the Development Office pay for itself. Jones responded that seeking donations for the Development Office could effect fund raising efforts for Academic Affairs.

Link presented the reductions planned for Student Affairs. He has found that many in his area are have been eager to move toward solutions. Operating expense will be reduced by $70,000. Temporary help will be reduced by $112,000. The areas with more full-time staffing have been hurt less than those areas with more part-time or temporary employees. The Health Center, Athletics and Psychological Services have been hit particularly hard. $13,000 will be reduced in student staff funding. Roll-forward dollars and salary savings will also be used.

Luttmann noted that a service such as Psychological Services is being reduced at a time it is most needed.

Schlereth presented reductions planned for Administration and Finance. Schlereth expressed his gratitude to his Senior Directors and the Campus Reengineering Committee (CRC) for their continued help in seeking reductions. Also, employees and labor groups have been very supportive and the spirit of cooperation is high. Schlereth explained Administration and Finance has very few part-time employees. With the exception of the custodial pool, these employees will not be renewed. Schlereth will preserve student positions. Vacant positions and operating expenses are being scrutinized and reengineering of positions is being examined. The CRC has reviewed Customer Services, Police Services and Financial Aid. The CRC agreed growth dollars should be applied to Customer Services and Financial Aid to maintain services. Police Services, by law, must maintain 24x7 services. Two officers must be in service at any given time. The CRC has agreed to cut one vacant community services officer position. Schlereth explained the operating expenses are being reduced, jobs are changing, vacancies being eliminated and employees are working harder. Without lay-offs, Administration and Finance is being seriously stretched.

BRAINSTORMING

Luttmann is concerned that the University's no lay-off policy places little value on part-time faculty. He would like this policy revisited. Noel Byrne feels the University values the part-time faculty but feels the current no lay-off policy is appropriate. Link added that lay-off of full-time employees is very difficult for the entire campus. Bumping rights can cause problems for employees and departments. Hammond feels the loss of part-time employees will affect morale. She suggested that flexible work rules could alleviate some of the pain. Byrne suggested a deferred compensation plan to alleviate the short-term reductions. Schlereth responded that this type of solution would need to be bargained with the union.

Barnard explained that the University can only endure across-the-board reductions for a limited time. At some point a reengineering of the entire University will be necessary.

ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER

Schlereth asked Members if a weekly information session would be useful for the campus community. Barnard likes this idea, but noted that information would need to be distributed as well.

Goldstein adjourned the meeting at 10:02am

Minutes prepared by Neil Markley


PBAC minutes 2002-2003
Updated 2008-01-24
afd.webcontact@sonoma.edu