Approved by PBAC, 23 April 1997
Don Farish convened the meeting at 8:09 AM by asking for a motion to approve the Agenda. Dennis Harris moved to approve the Agenda. A second was obtained from Debbie Gallagher. The Agenda was approved unanimously.
Farish asked for a motion to approve the minutes of both the March 20, 1997 and the March 27, 1997 meetings of the PBAC. Gallagher moved to approve the Minutes. A second was obtained from Katharyn Crabbe. Discussion ensued with respect to the recording of comments regarding whether the University's policy creating the PBAC was in conflict with the campus budget parameter regarding reallocation of the base budgets. The following revision was suggested:
Victor Garlin noted that he felt Section 2.1-B was in conflict with the budget planning parameter that did not permit reallocation among the base budgets of the University. Farish noted that this provision of the Policy (Faculty Consultation on Budget Matters) could also be viewed as being only applicable to existing campus funds, not new campus resources.
The minutes of both meetings were then approved unanimously.
Schlereth directed Members to the revised Summary of Funds To Date indicating that changes or modifications should be directed to his office.
Farish then introduced Tony Apolloni, Director of the California Institute for Human Services (CIHS) who provided background information on CIHS referencing a handout which was distributed to the Members and incorporated into the PBAC Record of Proceedings (Record). At the conclusion of the Presentation, several points were raised.
Harris asked whether the proposed integration of CIHS into the University's Special Projects accounting structure presented problems. Apolloni noted that CIHS was supportive of the integration but believed that certain human resources management policies needed to be resolved in order for the integration to be successful.
Garlin asked whether CIHS's indirect cost rate was lower than what might be expected at other institutions. Apolloni indicated that indirect cost rates had fallen as a result of increased competition and CIHS was actually doing fairly well in this regard. Garlin also asked how much CIHS contributed back to the University for discretionary purposes. Apolloni indicated that CIHS reimbursed Administration and Finance (AFD) for administrative services provided by AFD to CIHS and made a contribution to the School of Social Sciences.
Les Adler asked about the ratio of reimbursement to Administration and Finance and Social Sciences from CIHS. Specific data was not provided though Apolloni noted that these resources were probably used to support the University's overall mission.
Farish reflected recent attention paid to indirect cost recovery noting the experience of Stanford University. He indicated that CIHS brought significant intangible benefits to the University even those the tangible direct rate of financial return was probably not high.
Farish then asked Silvia Barajas to proceed with an analysis of the Consolidated Student Services Fee. Barajas proceeded referencing a handout which was distributed to the Members and incorporated into the Record. At the conclusion of the Presentation, several points were raised.
Harris asked if employees paid from this fund source were probationary/permanent or temporary. Barajas noted that they were probationary/permanent.
Tracy Terrill asked who specifically was paid from this fund. Barajas indicated that Members would see this data doing the Academic Affairs All Funds presentation scheduled for later in the meeting. Terrill asked for clarification on the Graduation Check process which was explained by Barajas. Melinda Barnard questioned whether revenue to Admissions and Records from this fund was additive in nature. Farish indicated that the primary purpose of the Consolidated Fee was to reduce administrative costs associated with collecting a variety of fees associated with transcripts, graduation etc. Schlereth concurred with Farish's comments regarding administrative cost-effectiveness but indicated to Barnard that approximately $50,000 of new revenue was added to the Admissions and Records OEE budget as a result of the fee consolidation.
A presentation was then made by Dennis Harris on the General Fund budget of the University-Wide budget. Harris referenced materials contained with the Agenda Packet (Packet) At the conclusion of the Presentation, several questions were raised.
Bill Barnier asked if discretion existed with respect to the amount and term of the interfund loan payment. Schlereth indicated that discretion did exist so long as the lending fund did not need the money for that fund's expenses. Barnier asked that the Record reflect that flexibility could exist in this area as a strategy to help meet the campus financial challenge.
Barnard asked for a definition of Graduate Equity and Space Management which was clarified by Harris. Steve Wilson asked the Members to focus on the list of unfunded items reflected in the material presented. He urged the Members to recognize that the items represented real expenses in 97-98 for which there presently was no money. Garlin asked whether the unfunded items listed in University-Wide were the result of an accounting decision or a result of campus policy. Farish indicated that the present budget (96-97) did not contain resources for these items. Garlin questioned how these items would be financed in 97-98. Barnard noted the role of the PBAC was to offer recommendations on that question. Marty Ruddell concurred with Barnard's comment. Following an exchange between Farish and Garlin related to the process followed by the PBAC to date and the method to identify resources for the University-Wide unfunded items, the Committee adjourned for a 10 minute break.
Following the Break, Garlin made a statement which raised questions regarding the role of the PBAC questioning whether the Committee was permitted to macro or micro-manage the various Division's base budget allocations. He also noted that the was worried about the time left for the PBAC to undertake budget deliberations and questioned whether the Committee would be able to an adequate job in addressing the task at hand.
Schlereth then provided an explanation of the General Fund budget in the Executive Office including items that were projected to be unfunded in this Division in 97-98. In the course of his presentation, he referenced materials provided with the Packet. Crabbe asked for clarification regarding the unfunded Scholarship Director position. A response was provided by Jim Meyer.
Rand Link then provided an explanation of the General Fund budget in Student Affairs including items that were projected to be unfunded in this Division in 97-98. In the course of his presentation, he referenced materials provided with the Packet. Harris asked for clarification on the vacant clerical position in the Assistant Vice-President: Student Affairs office which was provided by Link.
Silvia Barajas then provided an explanation of the General Fund budget in Academic Affairs. She distributed a handout which was referenced during the course of the presentation and which was added to the Record. Following Barajas's presentation, a variety of questions were raised to clarify or define certain categories of budget and projected expense in Academic Affairs. Barajas responded to each in turn. Farish then distributed a list of unfunded items in Academic Affairs which was added to the Record. Farish noted that the key focus with regard to unfunded items in Academic Affairs were expenses financed during 1996-1997 by the inter-fund loan.
Terrill noted that he was bothered by what he termed the "vagueness" of the Academic Affairs unfunded items list particularly in the Admissions and Records area. Farish responded by explaining the additional resources were needed in Admissions and Records due to the increasingly competitive pool of candidates from which SSU drew its freshmen class. He indicated that a large percentage of freshmen applicants were "UC-Eligible" making it necessary to expand the applicant pool in order to generate the needed number of freshmen students who actually chose to enroll at SSU.
Harris asked how Admissions and Records was doing with the new Admissions Director position and would this position ultimately pay for itself given increased application fee revenue. Farish noted that a certain lead time was necessary before an assessment could be made but the trend for additional application fee revenue was upward.
At 11.45 AM, the Committee took a short break so that lunch could served. At approximately 12:15. Schlereth noted that Farish (who had been called from the meeting to meet with the President) still had a speaker's list related to the Academic Affairs presentation. Schlereth noted that he would proceed with an explanation of the General Fund budget in Administration and Finance including items that were projected to be unfunded in this Division in 97-98. During the presentation, he referenced materials contained with the Packet. At the conclusion of the presentation, Schlereth responded to clarifying questions from the Members.
During the Good Order, Farish noted that analysis was still be done regarding the implementation of the Spring Early Registration Program. He noted that the budget outlook appeared to be worsening which could have an impact on the Registration Program although he indicated that he was concerned regarding the message dropping the Program would send. Farish also noted that he would resume the Speaker's List related to the Academic Affairs budget presentation at the next meeting.
At 1:07 PM Farish adjourned the meeting and reminded Members of the next meeting scheduled for April 16, 1997 from 4-10 PM.
Minutes prepared by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth
PBAC minutes 1996-1997