Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:11AM and asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. Andy Merrifield moved, and Katharyn Crabbe seconded a motion to approve the proposed agenda. Merrifield requested that a new item II - Two New Members to PBAC be added to the agenda. With the unanimous consent of the body, the addition was agreed to, and the Agenda was approved as modified.
Merrifield introduced the item by noting that the PBAC, as presently constituted, was not in conformance with the University Policy on Faculty Consultation in Budget Matters. Members had been added from both the Campus Reengineering Committee (CRC) and the Academic Affairs Reorganization Coordinating Committee (AARC). The latter body had been defunct for at least the past two years. The Faculty Chair and the Provost discussed the issue and agreed to the replacement of the two AARC Faculty members. The issue was taken to the Academic Senate Executive Committee. That committee agreed to recommend to the President that the two existing AARC Faculty be replaced by (1) the Chair-Elect of the Faculty, to provide continuity; and (2) a Faculty member from the Vice President's Budget Advisory Committee (VPBAC) recommended by the Senate's Structure and Functions Committee. The President has not yet acted upon the Executive Committee's proposal. Merrifield then introduced Prof. Phil McGough, Business Administration, Chair-Elect of the Faculty, and Prof. Scott Gordon, Computer Sciences, a Faculty member of VPBAC. In response to a question from Dennis Harris, Merrifield confirmed the Senate's intent to replace AARC Faculty members Les Adler, now on sabbatical leave, and Marty Rudell.
Merrifield then moved, and Steve Wilson seconded, a motion to add the Chair-Elect and a Faculty representative of VPBAC selected by Structure and Functions to the membership of the PBAC, simultaneously removing the two AARC Faculty positions and individuals currently serving on the committee.
Larry Schlereth noted that the motion was inappropriate, since only the President may approve a change in the governing policy. Although the CFO has every reason to believe that the change will be approved by the President, he has not yet done so. Goldstein suggested that the two individuals could serve as proxies for the AARC Faculty members. Merrifield withdrew his motion. Goldstein asked for and received unanimous consent to recognize Gordon and McGough as proxies for Adler and Ruddell at this meeting of PBAC.
Goldstein asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the October 22, 1999 meeting. Harris moved and Bill Barnier seconded the motion. Harris noted that agenda items III, IV, and V did not include the referent material that was included in the agenda packet and the subject of the discussion on these three items. Since the approved minutes are the only official record of the committee's actions, the omission seriously compromised the minutes both as a record and as a reference. He requested that the committee return to its practice of including all referent materials in the official minutes. Without dissent, the change was agreed to. There being no further corrections or additions, the minutes as modified were approved with no dissenting votes. Megan Solomon, proxy for AS Treasurer Joe Latulippe; Eric Carlson, proxy for AS President Crystal Shrouf; McGough, proxy for AARC Faculty representative Ruddell; and Gordon, proxy for AARC Faculty representative Adler, all abstained since they were not present at the previous meeting.
CFO Schlereth introduced the item. The 2000/01 Budget Plan (see below) is the product of discussions among the campus Presidents, their Provosts, Finance Officers, and staffs and between the campuses, the Chancellor's Office, and the Trustees. As presented, it is only the first step in a lengthy budget process. The plan will be reviewed by both the Governor and by his Department of Finance, who will modify it before presentation of the Governor's proposed State budget for the next fiscal year. The Governor's budget will be released in January. Between release of the Governor's Budget and refined financial figures made available in May, it will be subject to revision. Following the "May Revise", serious budget deliberations will ensue between the Executive and Legislative branches, with the CSU and other stakeholders lobbying both branches of state government. Last year, with both branches controlled by the same party, both the Legislature and the Governor were able to meet the state constitutional requirement and pass a budget in June. When there is strong disagreement between the branches, or even between the Senate and Assembly, the budget may not be passed and signed into law until August. Since the final budget will not be approved until after the end of the Spring semester, PBAC members will have to meet during the summer, subject to scheduling and appropriate compensation, to deal with the actual budget.
Schlereth noted that the 2000/01 Budget Plan is divided into two sections: Sources of Funds and Utilization of Funds. Regarding revenue sources, he would have little to say. The revenue assumes a 4% General Operating Increase, funding for a projected enrollment growth of 4.5%, and a buyout of any student fee increase proposed by the Trustees.
|Higher Education Partnership Agreement||4% General Operating Increase||85,341,000||$121,689,000|
|1% Long-Term Budget Core Needs||21,335,000|
|General Fund Fee Increase Buyout||15,013,000|
|Enrollment Growth||CSU Projected Enrollment Growth (4.5%)- General Fund||73,110,000||91,437,000|
|Enrollment Growth Net Available Revenue||18,327,000|
|Subtotal, CSU Operations and Enrollment Growth Revenue||$213,126,000|
|Revenue Above Partnership Agreement||Campus Operations/Faculty Salary Support||31,256,000||31,256,000|
|Total, Sources of Funds||$244,382,000|
|Percentage increase over Gross 1999/2000 Appropriations||8.1%|
|Mandatory Costs||Employee Benefits||7,136,000||$ 25,801,000|
|1992/2000 General Employee Compensation increase||3,600,000|
|1999/2000 Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement||6,800,000|
|1999/2000 Full-Year Service-based Compensation Increases||2,500,000|
|Enrollment - 4.5% Increase; 12,577 FTE Students||Marginal Cost for Instruction (@ $6,512 per FTES||81,901,000||86,291,000|
|State University Grant Increase||4,390,000|
|Compensation (4% pool effective July 1, 2000)||77,444,000|
|Long-Term Budget Need||Technology||15,000,000||21,300,000|
|Deferred Plant Maintenance||3,300,000|
|Subtotal, CSU Operations and Enrollment Growth||$213,126,000|
|State Investments||Campus Start-Up Costs - CSU, Channel Islands||10,000,000|
|Off-Campus Center Support - Coachella Valley||380,000|
|CPEC Faculty Salary Lag Adjustment, 2% compensation pool increase||20,876,000|
|Subtotal, Campus Operations/Faculty Salary Support||31,256,000|
|Total, 2000/01 Proposed Expenditure Increase||$244,382,000|
Regarding Mandatory Costs, Schlereth noted that these were determined by collective bargaining, PERS, and state regulations. SSU would receive New Space funds for the Schulz Center, which are restricted to Facilities, cleaning and maintenance, and to Utilities. The General Employee Compensation Increase, the Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the Service-based Compensation Increases are the full-year funding of the prior year's negotiated salary increases. If these are not funded by the State, the university "will eat the costs." The CSU Enrollment Increase is projected at 4.5%; SSU will grow by at least 4.5% and perhaps as much as 5%.
Barnier asked whether the space in Salazar Hall being vacated by the Library and IT will be ready by next fall. Schlereth responded, no it won't be ready. Jim Meyer asked whether or not the Schulz Center had four large classrooms. Schlereth responded in the affirmative but added that they will probably not be ready for use for Fall 2000.
Schlereth also noted that the 4% Compensation increase for all employees could change, since most, if not all, the bargaining agents have re-opener clauses regarding salary. These negotiations will take place in the Spring. Merrifield said that the CFA was "not too much buying the 2% gap 'below the line'." Schlereth explained that "below the line" referred to the items listed under State Investments.
Harris asked whether the CSU expected the Governor and Legislature to again reduce mandatory student fees. Schlereth responded that the Trustees have proposed a 5% increase in the student fee, but have proposed that the State fund this increase rather than pass it on to the students.
Crabbe asked what percent of the CSU budget was represented by the budget of SSU. Schlereth replied "about 2% or $60 million." Several members remarked that SSU and its financial needs did not loom very large in the CSU universe.
Provost Goldstein introduced the topic, calling members attention to the second page of the Campus Financial Planning document contained in the agenda packet, titled "Campus Financial Affairs -- Unresolved Items". Schlereth noted that all the items with strikethrough had previously been addressed by PBAC. Goldstein noted the first item following, the 1999-2000 Tenure Track Searches, budgeted at $1,111,250, and the page in the packet which listed the seventeen tenure-track searches currently underway (see page 8). He summarized the events which led to the development of this list: meetings between the Deans and their Department Chairs to identify definite retirements; a review of enrollment data and rates of change over the past several years (FTES, FTEF, SFR, Majors, and Degrees) prepared by Dr. Harris; and meetings he and the CFO had with the Deans to identify both position needs and funding sources. Schlereth noted that PBAC review of the proposal was the next step in this process. Barnier asked whether the listed costs included the costs of the search for these positions. Schlereth responded that the search cost was a separate item.
Harris noted that the budgeted FTES for SSU in 1999/2000 called for an increase of 40 FTES; at an SFR of 20 to 1, the current budget would generate two new FTEF positions. He asked whether the list of searches reflected that increase. Goldstein replied that the list included fifteen replacement positions and two new positions, those for Education and for Computer Sciences. McGough, noting that the 1998-9 budget called for an increase of 220 FTES, and 11 FTEF at the same ratio, asked whether or not these positions had been added. Schlereth responded that the President had approved a 1998/9 budget that fully funded the budgeted increase. Questions regarding expenditure of the budgeted funds within the Academic Affairs division for that enrollment growth led to the establishment of the accountability measures now in effect. The Provost remarked that he had introduced sixteen new faculty at the Fall Convocation, a number which should reflect both replacement and new hiring. Barnier commented on the danger of looking at a single year's hiring practice: departments will hire in advance of an expended vacancy or new position; departments will also defer a hire and instead utilize part-time faculty. Harris commended the Provost and CFO, noting that this was the first time, at least since the demise of the old Orange Book and formula-based budgeting, that such academic and financial planning had appeared before PBAC. Gordon concurred, noting that when this material was presented to VPBAC it was a significant advance in budget planning at that level.
At the request of Co-Chair Schlereth, Harris moved and Merrifield seconded a motion recommending that the President approve the proposed budget for 1999-2000 Tenure Track Searches. Merrifield, noting the $29,000 difference between the costs of the most expensive searches (3 positions in Business) and the least expensive (e.g., Art and CJA) stated that he had a difficult time accepting the alleged market conditions that explained the different salary levels. Crabbe noted that the figures are budget maximums for each position; the university hopes to hire at salaries below these figures. She also said that previous experience has shown that the campus can't hire in Business Administration at the Assistant Professor level; demand for more technical faculty also explain the higher levels of the Computer Science, Geography, and Education positions. Gordon said that in Computer Science the vast majority of Bachelors of Science graduates are hired at more than the budgeted $60,000 level.
Meyer asked why, for several of the positions, two faculty are leaving and there is only one replacement. Schlereth explained that, under the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) and the current contract, retired faculty have the option of teaching half-time for up to five years following their retirement. When each faculty member's FERP period ends, the remaining half position will come back to the department for another replacement position. Goldstein noted that FERP placed a heavy burden on the remaining full time faculty, since most FERP faculty do not participate in academic advising, the supervision of graduate work, and committee assignments.
Meyer asked whether Academic Affairs had looked at growth patterns in all academic areas. Schlereth responded that growth patterns were considered in each of the areas listed. With one exception, all departments had met or exceeded the campus' overall experience. That exception was Art Studio. The major was not growing, but it was not declining either. More to the point, the Art Studio major required a faculty member who specialized in Sculpture. The search was warranted to maintain the breadth and credibility of the major.
November 2, 1999
|Tenure Track Searches, 1999-2000||$1,111,250|
|Faculty Promotions, 1999-2000||$ 70,000|
|Schulz Center Telecommunications Deficit||$ 770,000|
|Financial Aid Administrative System||$ 300,000|
|Energy Technology Center Construction Gap||$ 262,000|
|Energy Technology Center - Annual Operations||$ 84,000|
|School of Education - Projected Operating Need|
|Provost's Discretionary Fund - Required Reductions|
|Instructional Equipment, 1999-2000|
|Moves to the Schulz Center|
|Library Loan Repayment|
|Library Software, ARSS|
|Sculpture Paint/Move - Safety Concerns|
|Backlog - Voice and Data Connections|
|Schulz Center Group II Equipment|
|Renovation Commitments - School of Natural Sciences|
|Tenure Track Searches: Start-Up Costs|
|Initial Assigned Time - New Tenure Tracks|
|Faculty Sick Leave Reserve|
|Instructional Equipment - Base|
|Permanent Fund Source - BATS|
|IT Base Infrastructure - (Help Desk, Phone Services, Security, General Info)|
|CMS Desk Top Replacements|
|Moves to Salazar Hall|
|Ukiah Building Loan Repayment|
|Stevenson Hall Renovation|
|Classroom Renovation Program|
|Instructional Technology Enhancements|
|Faculty Development Program|
|Staffing Shortage - Public Safety|
|Staffing Shortage - Financial Services|
|Staffing Shortage - Admissions Office|
|Staffing Shortage - Financial Aid Office|
|University Center Financing|
|Support for Office of Sponsored Programs|
|Working Capital - CIHS and ASC|
|Student Union Operations|
|Health Center Operations|
|Support for Office of Campus Life|
|Staffing Need - Intercollegiate Athletics|
|Operating Expense Need - Intercultural Center|
|University Lecture Series|
|Quarter 1 Salary Costs - Employee reassigned to Education||$ 8,927|
|Quarter 1 Salary Costs - Employee reassigned to ESAS||$ 8,051|
|Quarter 1 Salary Costs - Employee reassigned to ESAS||$ 12,513|
|Quarter 1 Salary Costs - SNS AM Resignation||$ 16,747|
|Quarter 1 Salary Costs - Social Sciences AM Resignation||$ 19,072|
|Quarter 1 Salary Costs - Employee reassigned to Student Affairs||$ 8,712|
|Faculty Diversity Program||$ 25,000|
|School of Natural Sciences Year-End Issue||$ 70,000|
|Provost Discretionary Fund Commitments||$ 30,000|
|Extended Education One-Time Funds due to Provost||$ 92,422|
|Net Surplus - Instructional Programs 98-99 Year End*||$109,131|
*Available after the following commitments have been honored:
|Item||Amount Needed||Recommended Funding Plan||Plan Detail||Amount Funded|
|1. Position assigned to Administration and Finance from Natural Sciences||$69,850||Retirement of Fred Jorgensen position||
Duties performed by Fred will be absorbed by:
|2. Affirmative Action Officer #2||$90,326||Obtain funding from Housing Program for Emergency Preparedness||Funding available from Sauvignon Village Growth||$45,000|
|Obtain funding from Parking Program for Emergency Preparedness||$45,000|
|3. Information Technology Administrative Manager #1||$97,993||Obtain funding from Bad Debt Collection Program||Previous fund use eliminated via pay-off on loan to Parking on behalf of Instructional Programs. Pay-off Made possible via efficient project management in the Sauvignon Village construction Project.||$70,000|
|Reduce Division Reserve||Reserve reduced to $98,195||$27,993|
|4. Information Technology Administrative Manager #2||$50,307||Reduce Division Reserve||Reserve reduced to $47,888||$50,307|
|Support for an Internal Audit Program||
|Support for Emergency Preparedness||
|Support for Workers Compensation||
|Human Resource Para-Professional - Create a new para-professional position to support the activities of Joyce Suzuki, Barbara McCaffry, and Raoul McDuff.||Reduce Division Reserve||Reserve reduced to $7,888||$40,000|
|Item||Item Details||Amount Needed|
|Deans' Recommendation: Recruitment Costs||15 searches at $3,500 per search = $52,500||$ 52,500|
|Deans' Recommendation: Relocation Costs||18 new faculty hired @ $2,000 per employee relocation + $36,000||$ 36,000|
|Provost's Office Central Costs||$ 11,500|
|Presidential Allocation to Provost, 1998-1999, Recruitment*||$ 50,000|
|Academic Innovation Program Moved to Faculty Recruitment||$ 50,000|
|Item||Amount Needed||Funded By||Amount Funded|
|One-Time resources needed in 99-00 to fund commitments made from Academic Innovation and Faculty Recruitment:||
|Social Sciences AM to CMS effective 7-1-99 vs 10-1-99||$ 19,000|
|98-99 University-Wide Surplus||$ 16,000|
|1.||Art||Resignation of existing faculty||$ 44,000|
|2.||Hutchins||98-99 search not successful||$ 44,000|
|3.||Music||98-99 search not completed||$ 44,000|
|4.||English||Departure of Dr. Patterson||$ 44,000|
|5.||Business||98-99 search not successful||$ 73,000|
|6.||Business||Departure of Dr. Johnson||$ 73,000|
|7.||Business||98-99 search not done||$ 73,000|
|8.||Education||Departure of Dr. DeMuelle||$ 50,000|
|9.||Education||One-Time CSU funds become permanent||$ 50,000|
|10.||Education||Departure of Dr. Kakalik||$ 44,000|
|11.||Kinesiology||Departure of Dr. Yates||$ 44,000|
|12.||Nursing||Departure of Drs. Hitchcock/Thomas||$ 50,000|
|13.||Computer Science||Redirection of part-time faculty||$ 60,000|
|14.||History||Departure of Drs. Mellini/Holmes||$ 44,000|
|15||History||Departure of Drs. Markwyn/Stasz||$ 44,000|
|16||Criminal Justice||Departure of Dr. Lopez||$ 44,000|
|17.||Geography||Departure of Dr. Baker||$ 50,000|
|Employee Benefits||University-Wide||$ 236,250|
Wilson noted that differential salary demands affected all employee hiring, not just that in the faculty ranks. Schlereth stated that the Provost sets the salary level for the search in consultation with the Deans and in consideration of the Academic Planning Initiative.
Barnier asked Meyer whether endowed chairs and endowments had been considered as an alternative to or supplement for General Fund monies. Harris noted that Meyer had already negotiated at least one endowed chair when he was last department chair. However, as successful as Meyer had been, the endowment would not become available until the donor died. Meyer said there were other problems with endowments as a source of funding for faculty positions.
Barnier observed that this discussion was more appropriate for VPBAC than for PBAC, but that he supported the motion. Crabbe responded that this was only one piece of the analysis, not the whole plan, which included sabbaticals, released time, and promotions. Goldstein added that the money that would remain from either the departure of an existing faculty member or the budget for a new hire would be used to funds these other issues. Merrifield stated that, since the PBAC advises the President on the expenditure of university resources, this is an appropriate topic for the committee. He expressed his concern regarding faculty turnover and enrollment forecasting. The decision to fund and hire a tenure track faculty member affects the campus for a period not of five or ten years but of thirty years. Goldstein noted that SSU is not unique in the age cohort of its faculty. The competition for new faculty will be severe.
The question was called and the motion to recommend the 1999-2000 Tenure Track Searches proposal to the President was passed unanimously.
Schlereth introduced the material in the packet regarding Faculty Promotions (see page 9 of the Campus Financial Planning document). The funding proposal was developed on the basis of historical experience with faculty promotions. The projected salary differential between senior faculty retirements and new tenure track junior faculty hires would permit the campus to establish a pool of $70,000 to $80,000 to fund the promotion of faculty recommended to the President by the University RTP Committee.
Harris moved and Crabbe seconded a motion to recommend to the President approval of the proposed budget for Faculty Promotions.
|Item||Amount Needed||Recommended Funding Plan||Amount Funded|
|Historical Experience - Faculty Promotions||$60,000 to $70,000||Projected Salary Differential: Senior Faculty Retirements
Replaced with new tenure track junior faculty, 1999-2000
|$70,000 to $80,000|
Barnier asked whether the utilization of the salary differential meant that the campus was "scooping" salary savings from the school budgets. Schlereth responded that the answer depended upon promotion recommendations; the money might fund promotions in the school from which the funds originated or it might fund promotions in another school. Barnier remarked that the campus appeared to be moving away from decentralization and the concept that each unit would take care of its own needs. Schlereth replied that the Provost was following a more centralized approach. Harris said that tenure, promotion, and sabbaticals are university-level decisions; therefore, centralization is appropriate in these three areas. Merrifield agreed and stressed the importance of clear information from year to year. Solomon asked whether this change would result in the denial of a promotion within any department. Barnier replied that this was definitely not the case; departments had never been allocated funds for promotion. Schlereth stated that if the University RTP Committee recommended faculty for promotion, we must find the resources to fund the recommended promotions. Merrifield noted that the RTP committees consider merit, not available funding. Barnier stated that he had served on the RTP committee for the previous four years, and that it never looked at the amount available or at the school from which the faculty member was recommended. Then he asked whether the motion was one recommending the $70,000 from the salary savings in the school budgets or on a general principle? Gordon asked whether the tax on salary savings no longer exists? Schlereth replied that the school deans appear to have approved centralization, in which case the departure tax no longer exists. If they have not approved, then it will continue. Gordon observed that, from the faculty prospective, financial centralization is a much cleaner approach. Merrifield observed that the campus needed clarity on the centralization/decentralization issue; it needs something beyond the life of the current leadership, something defined by policy and not be existing personnel.
The question was called and the motion to recommend to the President approval of the proposed budget for Faculty Promotions was approved unanimously.
Schlereth introduced the funding proposal for Schulz Center Telecommunications, noting that the design modifications had been worked out in consultation with the Library and with IT. Barnier moved and Wilson seconded a motion to recommend to the President approval of the proposal for funding Schulz Center Telecommunications (see page 10 of the Campus Financial Planning document).
Merrifield asked whether the modifications were temporary, with features to be restored when more money was available. Schlereth responded that the CSU Telecommunications Initiative would address any identified concerns
Solomon asked what the impact would be on the Signage Replacement program and deferred maintenance projects. Schlereth replied that proposals for improvements in SSU roadways, HVAC, as well as signs, won't go away, but they can wait six to nine months. He said there was also a proposal for a National Science lab improvement for a new professor. Sam Scalise explained the difficulty of trying to plan two years into the future given the rapidity of technological development within telecommunications. Most of the funds are for infrastructure to provide flexibility for the future.
|Project Estimate||$ 1,285,000|
|Less Schulz Center Construction Budget||$ - 515,000|
|Projected Deficit||$ 770,000|
|Scheduled Repairs*||$ 100,000|
|Minor Capital Outlay Program, 1999-2000||$ 175,000|
|Reduce Schulz Center Project Contingency**||$ 240,000|
|Modify Design: Selected Items to CSU Telecommunications Project***||$ 255,000|
*Budget for Campus Signage Replacement Phase II deferred until 00-01. Will impact priority listing of maintenance and repair projects.
|Current Construction Contingency Balance||$ 400,000|
|Less Allocation to Telecommunications Deficit||- 240,000|
|Remaining Balance||$ 160,000|
***Design modifications discussed and approved by the Library and IT
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken on the motion to recommend to the President approval of the proposal for funding Schulz Center Telecommunications. The motion passed unanimously.
Schlereth introduced the Energy Technology Center's budget gap, noting that Facilities had prepared an updated Project Cost Estimate which showed a projected deficit of almost $380,000. Current funding sources include both a grant from SSU and a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant. Even though over budget, the project must go forward. Returning an NSF award would jeopardize the institution's chances of receiving awards in the future. The first two items under the funding plan - a university-wide assessment for landscape, site preparation, and utilities; and adequate funds for necessary Group II equipment - are one-time taxes. The loan from Sonoma State Enterprises (SSE) is a three-year commitment funded through monies freed by the decision of the SSU Alumni Association to fund the Presidential Scholars program. Annual operating costs will be covered by an agreement between the Department of Environmental Studies and Planning (ENSP) and the School of Social Sciences to eliminate the position currently held by Prof. James Stewart when he retires at the end of the current fiscal year.
Wilson moved and Crabbe seconded a motion to recommend to the President approval of the proposal for funding the Energy Technology Center Budget Gap (see page 11 of the Campus Financial Planning document).
Merrifield noted that the proposed funding of annual operating costs was not a reduction in the ENSP budget, but a transfer of up to $65,000 from personnel to operating expenditures within the department. Solomon asked who would be taxed for the first two items. Schlereth answered that the first item would be distributed among the divisions according to the marginal cost formula, while the second item would by covered by the Provost and the school deans.
There being no further discussion, the Provost called for a vote and the motion to recommend to the President approval of the proposal for funding the Energy Technology Center Budget Gap passed unanimously.
|Construction Contingency||$ 37,000|
|Pre-Construction Services||$ 15,000|
|Bid Printing and Distribution||$ 3,000|
|Project Management||$ 52,000|
|Risk Management||$ 15,000|
|Landscape/Site Preparation||$ 12,000|
|Utility Relocation||$ 40,000|
|Group I Equipment (Included in Construction)||$ 0|
|Group II Equipment||$ 65,000|
|University-Wide Assessment for Landscape, Site Prep, and Utilities||$ 52,000|
|Commitment from the Provost and Deans - Group II Equipment||Instructional Programs is likely to fund this item in a number of ways, including (1) additional fundraising, (2) normal staff salary savings in the Instructional Program, (3) normal salary savings resulting from additional senior faculty retirements replaced with junior tenure track faculty, (4) surplus funds that generally exist in Instructional Programs at the close of the fiscal year, and (5) contingency funds, if any, Remaining in the project budget||$ 65,000|
|Loan from Sonoma State Enterprises Incorporated||Repaid in three years from allocation held for Presidential Scholars Program. Presidential Scholars Program to be funded by the Alumni Association.||$262,000|
The School of Social Sciences has indicated that it will eliminate funding for a faculty position in the Department of Environmental Studies and Planning when it becomes vacant at the close of the current fiscal year. These resources will be deployed to support the following annual expenses in the ETC: Instructional Support Technician, Faculty Assigned Time for the ETC, annual operating expense, and annual Information Technology Costs for the ETC.
Schlereth introduced the proposed funding of a replacement for the existing Financial Aid software, calling members attention to the three funding sources identified in the proposal (see page 12 of the Campus Financial Planning document).
Harris moved and Merrifield second a motion to recommend to the President approval of the proposal for funding the Financial Aid Software Replacement.
Carlson asked how the liquidated damages were calculated. Schlereth explained that, in order to open the available Sauvignon Village apartments on time, Administration and Finance division employees worked substantial hours preparing the grounds and units for occupancy. The contribution of the division was calculated by multiplying the number of hours worked by each employee by that employee's hourly wage rate and then totaling the contributions of all employees who volunteered their time on the project.
Barnier asked what software was being purchased. Wilson answered that College Board software would be purchased as bridge software until the PeopleSoft Student Affairs module was ready for installation. Rand Link noted that this was a critical need for students, without which Financial Aid applications and awards could not be processed. Merrifield expressed his concern over the speed with which the committee was addressing the issue and his hope that whatever sum was not spent would accrue to the relevant funding source. Schlereth responded that he would like to spend some time at the December meeting on how PBAC transacts its business, particularly to the timing and speed with which items are addressed.
There being no further discussion, the Provost called for a vote and the motion to recommend to the President approval of the proposal for funding the Financial Aid Software Replacement passed unanimously.
|Recommended Funding Plan||Amount|
|Administration and Finance, 98-99 Year-End
- Year-End Funds help previously for Employee Bridge Expense Bridge expense is no longer needed, given the identification of a permanent fund source for the identified employees.
|Administration and Finance applies liquidated damages from Sauvignon Village Project due to the Division for work performed by Division staff.||$100,000|
Link noted that SSU is making progress toward the long-term goal of integrating budget planning, academic planning, and enrollment planning.
Harris also commended the Provost and CFO on the development of a joint academic and financial planning proposal.
Upon the request of Co-Chair Goldstein, Solomon moved and Barnier seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed without dissent, and Goldstein adjourned the meeting at 9:57am.
Dennis E. Harris
November 24, 1999
PBAC minutes 1999-2000