Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:07am. The agenda was approved with no objections.
Rick Luttmann moved and Katharyn Crabbe seconded a motion to approve the minutes of March 6, 2003. The minutes were approved unanimously with abstentions from those not in attendance at the March 6, 2003 meeting.
(Please see the April 17, 2003 Agenda Packet for this document)
Schlereth presented the University's proposed plan to met the Governors proposed 2003-2004 budget. Unallocated and specified budget reductions of $4,994,990 are anticipated. In addition, Sonoma State University must also absorb its share of certain CSU mandatory costs. These costs, mandatory compensation/benefit increases and utility costs, are anticipated to be $2,246,400. Anticipated enrollment growth revenue of $3,296,115 is expected to offset a portion of the reductions. The combined effect of this new revenue along with mandatory costs and the Governors reductions produce a net reduction in campus general funds of $3,945,275.
The anticipated budget reductions have been allocated to the operating Divisions in accordance with the Governors Budget and based on FIRMS data contained in the campus's most recent published expenditure plan. Enrollment growth dollars have been allocated to the programs of instruction, academic support, student services and institutional support in accordance with the marginal cost formula. Required compensation increase dollars for Unit 3 have been allocated to the program of instruction. Required compensation dollars for Unit 6 have been allocated to the program of maintenance and operations of plant. Increased costs associated with employee benefits have been allocated to the Divisions based on each Divisions percentage share of the campus personnel services budget. Increased costs associated with utilities have been allocated to the Divisions based on the allocation of campus square feet to the budget programs.
Assuming the Governors January Budget is signed, Sonoma State University will meet target enrollment and will not lay-off any permanent employees.
Importantly, the University will also largely mitigate any impact of Governors Budget on student access to course sections of instruction for the upcoming year. This is made possible by the Presidents decision to allocate $917,787 from the 2002-2003 Campus Reserve and Year-End funds in Academic Affairs to the program of instruction in 2003-2004. Without this allocation, it would have been necessary to remove 225 course sections from the class schedule.
Academic Affairs plans to meet its net reduction target of $2,324,074 as follows. The Provosts Office will reduce central office expense and academic support activities by $468,389. ESAS will use salary savings from vacant and part-time positions as well a reduction in operating expense to reduce its budget by $287,438. The library will reduce material acquisitions and student assistant salaries by $78,003. Academic Schools will reduce temporary staff/students, part-time back-fill for assigned time and operating expense by $158,184.
Administration and Finance is still working on its plan to reduce its budget $1,859,146. As of today, the division will absorb new enrollment growth without additional employees and will eliminate a vacant CSS position in Police Services and two vacant positions in Financial Services. These actions comprise $615,596 of the net reduction.
Luttmann noted that these cuts would affect more than course offerings in Academic Affairs. Schlereth affirmed these comments and explained that these cuts will create profound changes throughout the University. Victor Garlin has heard that $917,000 will not fully fund all courses for the upcoming academic year, though the Academic Affairs reduction plan states full restoration of course reductions. Schlereth expressed that this is a genuine, honest and sincere commitment to preserve courses. The actual dollar amount may be higher or lower, but the $917, 000 is the current estimate. Some discussion ensued whether this figure would actually be a full restoration of course section. Barnard suggested that the language from the University Budget Plan more accurately reflects the course restoration. The language reads: Importantly, the University will also largely mitigate any impact of the Governors Budget on student access to course sections of instruction. Schlereth agreed and asked that this language replace the full restoration language. Saied Rahimi asked if the $917,000 constituted permanent or one-time funding. Schlereth answered that this is a one-time funding solution.
Lynn McIntyre noted that this budget is based on the current facts as known. Many changes will occur once the May Revised Budget is issued from the Governor. Schlereth reiterated this point and feels the budget will only get worse for the CSU.
Schlereth is looking at rescheduling the May PBAC Meeting to the 22nd so that the campus has time to understand the May Revised Budget and can present this information to the Committee. Barnard strongly urged that summer meetings be considered. Crabbe feels summer meetings may be necessary, especially if enrollment changes occur.
Rand Link explained that he is attempting to limit reductions in counseling to one part-time position. He is attempting to minimize reductions.
Barnard believes it is unrealistic for faculty to worry only about the loss of course sections when other services are also being drastically curtailed. While students may get their course sections, they will be very upset when other services create frustrations. She feels the PBAC Members should put their biases aside and look at the global picture. Steve Wilson agrees and added that there are many other people needed to support the educational process. All of these employees are important.
Crabbe informed Members that ESAS is restructuring to improve services to the campus. She noted that users of PeopleSoft are being trained to better utilize the software. Crabbe stated that the PeopleSoft product is a strategic investment and we are beginning to realize benefits.
Luttmann asked Schlereth how potential legislative action, as a result of the PeopleSoft audit, would affect the campus. Schlereth feels legislation will be introduced, and passed, that would place restrictions on technology procurement. The legislature has been very interested in technology matters in light of recent issues involving not only People Soft, but also Oracle and the DMV system. This legislation would likely also include limits on outside activities and strong conflict of interest language. Garlin agreed that legislation would be forthcoming. Schlereth has encouraged the CSU to take strong, swift action on these issues. Coate noted that Financial Services was able to eliminate two positions due to the efficiencies created by PeopleSoft and the integration of the campus auxiliaries.
Henry Amaral asked what would happen if a staff position became vacant and was not filled. Schlereth responded that without staffing some tasks will not be able to be completed.
Schlereth asked Members for a motion to support the proposed budget plan. Luttmann and Garlin expressed support for a recommendation that any new resources be used to support course sections. Barnard feels supporting just course sections at the expense of other student services is not good practice. She reiterated her belief that the Committee must look at the University as a whole. Schlereth proposed a motion to recommend support of approximately $917,000 to mitigate loss of course sections as a result of the Januarys Governors Budget, and the University will work to mitigate other issues as well. Crabbe moved and Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Goldstein adjourned the meeting at 10:03 am
Minutes prepared by Neil Markley
PBAC minutes 2002-2003