November 9, 2001
Larry Schlereth brought the meeting to order at 12:21 PM. Schlereth noted that the Campus Lighting Program item has been removed and will be deferred to the December meeting. Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. Mike Kiraly moved and Remy Heng seconded the motion to approve the Agenda. The Agenda was approved without objection.
Schlereth deferred the approval of the minutes of October 12, 2001 until the December meeting. This action was taken because the minutes were not sent in advance of this meeting. No objections were heard.
(Please see the October 12, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)
Schlereth reported that the Academic Planning Committee had requested an accountability measure for Administration and Finances goals and objectives. Schlereth agreed that an accountability measure is important and informed the APC that the Division Goals and Objectives document distributed at the CRC is our accountability measure.
Nate Johnson reported that installation of the six remaining new emergency phones should be complete by November 11, 2001.
Johnson reported that he has contacted two companies to update the 911 system. He is hoping to fund part of the cost through Emergency 911 funds.
Schlereth reported that a feasibility study was conducted to renovate Darwin Hall. The study was prompted by complaints that the air quality in Darwin Hall is not acceptable. Environmental Health and Safety reviewed the complaint and agreed the air quality is not acceptable due to the dated air circulation system and hoods in the building. Schlereth noted that while this problem needs to be addressed, the air is not unsafe. The cost to correct the problem will be around $7,000,000. Because this issue is an environmental health and safety concern, it has been placed near the top of the capital outlay budget to be financed through a bond sale if approved by voters. Jim Christmann and Saied Rahimi argued that if Darwin was to be torn apart for this project, we may as well renovate the whole building. The argument was accepted and the cost now stands at $26,000,000. Dr. Arminaña is working in Long Beach to secure an increase in our share of the bond money to cover the entire $26,000,000. The $26,000,000 does not include money to house Darwin classes while they are displaced due to the renovation. Schlereth asked Bruce Walker and Christmann to present the proposed building changes at a future CRC meeting. Phil McGough feels this project would be hard to pull off based on the States current budget situation. Schlereth asked that bullet points be developed for the public relations campaign to approve the bonds.
Schlereth announced the return of the Staff Incentive and Recognition Program. The program has three components: 1) Staff Applause Program recognition by peers for good work; 2) Service Awards length of service awards for all non-management employees; 3) Annual Staff Award Committee will select two staff to honor annually. Funding has not yet been identified for this program, however it is likely to come from the Presidents discretionary fund through SSE.
Schlereth read a letter written by the employees of Charlie Browns Caf. The letter accompanied a donation made of employee tips were presented to the Red Cross to help victims of the September 11th tragedy. Schlereth feels the letter and action to be touching and wanted to share it with the CRC.
At the October CRC meeting a funding strategy was presented for the Salazar Hall renovation gap and BATS funding gap. After some thought, Schlereth felt it to be more logical that Administration and Finance attempt to fund the items included BATS because this is an IT expense and IT is in his division. The Salazar renovation would now be the responsibility of the campus. He made this proposal to the PBAC and it was accepted.
(Please see the November 9, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)
Schlereth read a letter from Chancellor Reed informing the campus about the current budget situation in the State and CSU. The letter explained that each campus is required to freeze hiring except for essential positions and full-time, tenure track faculty. Further, each campus will be expected to reduce its budget by at least 1% for the current fiscal year and possibly 5% or more next fiscal year. The 1% cut for this year works out to be around $526, 940 for the University with Administration and Finances share approximately $94,000. Dr. Arminaña has asked that a plan be developed for the 1% reduction before the holiday break. Bernie Goldstein informed Members that he has called a VPBAC meeting for November 20th to work on a plan for Academic Affairs. Goldstein emphasized that there are no layoffs planned for full-time employees. Andy Merrifield asked if contract lecturers would be included in the full-time group. Goldstein said that issue need to be studied. Melinda Barnard asked if the Chancellors Office would be included in the cuts. Schlereth assumes they would, but needs to check on this. Schlereth noted that next years cut would be larger and the budget would probably not include growth money. Schlereth explained that this topic would be the main discussion for the PBAC in upcoming meetings. Phil McGough asked Schlereth for his best guess on where cuts would be. Schlereth feels he has not had enough time to digest the cuts, but knows the cuts will be difficult because much of the money has already been committed or spent.
Schlereth reviewed University Reserve items and explained assessments are being made to cover the expenses. Schlereth and Goldstein have agreed to not bring any additional items to the reserve this year.
(Please see the November 9, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)
Utilization of New Division Funds: 2000-2001
Schlereth explained the use of new division funds for this year. $59,507 has been added to Financial Aid for operating expense. When Financial Aid arrived in Administration and Finance last year, it had almost zero operating expense. This problem dates back some time and was not the fault of the current administration. $75,000 has been allocated toward a lease purchase agreement for the new police station. $40,000 has been directed to add a receptionist to the Human Services cluster. Human Services has been using police dispatchers to help with reception needs, however the police will be moving and taking their dispatchers with them. Barnard expressed concern about hiring a receptionist in our current budget situation. Edna Nakamoto added that this position is not just a receptionist, other duties include: new/student hires, information, phones, main contact and more. Barnard expressed her concern again. Schlereth feels consensus exists for the items, however will delay a bit until the budget shakes out a bit further.
Schlereth explained that the Board of Trustees provided a 2% salary pool this year. MPPs were given 2% or less across the board this year. Approximately $25,000 was left over and will be used to cover the academic software portion of BATS. $75,000 has not yet been needed to pay for the police station, this money will be used to fund student assistants formerly paid by BATS money. Schlereth asked if anyone had objections. Susan McKillop updated Larry on an issue she brought to the group at the last meeting. The Art Department has a piece of computer equipment that is no longer supported by Information Technology. McKillop would like to get the equipment replaced. Schlereth believed this to be a piece of academic equipment and asked McKillop to speak with the Dean regarding this issue. McKillop did speak to her Dean who believes this equipment is the responsibility of IT to replace and sent her back to Schlereth. Based on comments from Members, Schlereth said he sees a need to review the Baseline Assured Technology Support program. The Information Technology Advisory Committee is being convened to discuss BATS. Barnard feels academic computing needs to be defined. The issue of McKillops computer shows this. Merrifield asked if the percentage of money being allocated to academic computing has changed since moving to Administration and Finance. Sam Scalises best guess is that it has not, however he will have to do some research to verify this. Crabbe asked Scalise to explain the difference between administrative computing and academic computing. Scalise explained that he sees three components to computing: administrative, academic, and infrastructure. Administrative computing is composed of finance, human resource, etc. Academic computing is composed of instruction, research, etc. Infrastructure is composed of network, labs, etc.
Schlereth asked members if they had suggestions on ways Administration and Finance could save money to pay for BATS. Barnard asked if this meant General Fund dollars only. Schlereth responded yes. Barnard asked what positions are currently vacant and how much money is attached to these positions. Schlereth responded that a number of positions are vacant, however he does not have a dollar amount off the top of his head. Barnard asked if the money generated by fully costing housing could be used instead of community improvement projects. Her feeling is a that the students are here for an education and would prefer academically related programs over swimming pools, hot tubs, etc. Schlereth responded that the money being reimbursed from housing should be used for the purpose it is paying for; in this case facilities related purposes. Schlereth stated that we would not use money from other funds that will in any way break covenants or rules applying to that fund. Barnard responded that she is not asking Schlereth to break covenants, but feels some creativity may be applied as he has done in the past. Schlereth said he would attempt to find some creative solutions. Rand Link asked what positions were currently open. Schlereth said he did not know from memory, but he does remember the John Bond, Sandy Bond, and Police Captain positions. Schlereth noted that he would fill open staff positions because they are essential to operations. Salary saving would likely come from management positions. Wilson commented that many special funds that have had more money in the past have been affected by a number of changes over the past two years that have drained funds. Executive Order 758 is one example. Ogg expressed her concern about having students paying into special funds, support the general fund. She feels if the money is paid for housing, it should stay in housing. Sue Hayes asked if any system initiatives, such as CMS, were being slowed due to the budget situation. Schlereth responded that it is too early to tell, however the Risk Pool is being analyzed due to increases in the program. Perry Marker suggested deferring maintenance items to conserve money. Schlereth said this could be looked at. McKillop suggested slowing the computer refresh rate. Kashack responded that some faculty arent heavy computer users and do not need a three-year refresh cycle. Merrifield stated that the assured access program was predicated upon funding from the Chancellors Office. Now that this is no longer the case, perhaps assured access should be eliminated. Merrifield continued that we have tried to be on the cutting edge of technology for many years and resources have been drained to keep pace. He feels it may be time to de-emphasize computing and cut faculty workstations as part of a longer plan. Hayes suggested that the ITAC conduct a survey to assess faculty computing needs. Perry Marker and Goldstein feel we should move cautiously in assessing the need for technology. Lisa Johnson feels technology is an important part of her education and is in favor of continuing technology funding to assist in the professors use of technology.
Deborah DuVall presented the Copeland Creek Master Plan draft developed by her committee. She noted the draft would be posted on the Web and in the library for the Campus Community to review. She would like feedback on the draft. Perry Marker feels the University should be working with others that have the creek running through their land. Schlereth asked DuVall to extend thanks to her committee for their work on this plan and asked a presentation be made to the Academic Senate.
Schlereth briefed the committee on the status of dial-in access to the campus. A cost of $100,000 is needed to update the system that allows dial-in access to the campus. Current users include a small number of faculty and staff and speeds are very slow. The current dial-in service is for business-related purposes and most staff employees should not be working at home without approval. The recommendation is to end dial-in service and suggest users contract with dial-in providers. Merrifield feels the service should be continued due to the 24/7 access requirements. The Committee asked that this issue be sent to the ITAC for review.
Perry Marker explained the roof in Stevenson had been leaking into offices. He asked what the cause of this leak was. Rich Marker explained this problem was due to seismic work done on the roof some time ago. The contractor did not properly seal the roof when work was complete. The roof will be resealed.
McGough noted students in his classes her very happy with the Schulz Information Center and wanted to relay this to the committee.
Jim Christmann noted the road between Redwood and Sequoia was getting bumpy.
Perry Marker feels the crosswalk by the Cooperage is dangerous. He would like sign before the crosswalk to warn drivers. Johnson indicated signs were being placed.
Hayes noted an issue with vehicles crossing the center line at Bodway that were dangerous. Johnson asked members to convey any safety issues they have when they notice them so he can work on correcting them as soon as possible.
Schlereth adjourned the meeting at 3:30pm
Minutes Prepared by Neil Markley
CRC Minutes 2001-2002