President's Budget Advisory Committee

Minutes, March 6, 1993

Present:

Absent:

Guests:

The meeting began on a somber note

President Armiñana announced that the presentation he was about to make was based on a set of preliminary 1993-94 budget reduction recommendations that came from the Cabinet members after concluding an extensive two-day retreat. He expressed that this recommendation is a set of cruel choices and was done for the singular purpose of maintaining the teaching goal and mission of our University. This means availability of courses to our students and continuous appropriation of classes to ensure timely graduation in their respective choice of bachelor's degree. He also emphasized that this plan is very preliminary and numerous campus consultations will be made. The final outcome will be submitted to the Chancellor's Office by April 5, 1993.

The President also said that this institution has to change its mix of resources in order to survive. Our current resources are 78% dependent on the State's support system. This is an invitation to disaster and alternatives to this funding have to be sought. A more aggressive local fund raising program is being considered along with the review of the student fee policy by the campus presidents during their March 15, 1993 meeting at the Chancellor's Office.

The Plan

Vice President Schlereth handed out the 1993-94 General Fund Analysis of Projected Revenue and Expense. Starting at the Governor's Appropriation in 92-93, he went through the reduction process and explained the "most likely to best case" and "most likely to worst case" scenarios. Each cabinet level officer explained the preliminary budget cuts in their divisions culminating from reductions and/or the elimination of management, staff, part-time faculty, school programs OE&E as well as restructuring schools and departments.

Vice President Farish emphasized that these cuts are not "shopping lists" that can be resurrected if and when funding returns. These reductions are essential in order to rebuild the needed OE&E that has been significantly cut in past years. The proposed elimination of the Athletic Program will have an impact on our community and recruitment efforts. However, the question will always come back to where Athletics is in our academic mission. Preservation of our tenured and tenure-track faculty to carry the mission of this institution is the highest priority. As to the downsizing of schools, President Armiñana emphasized that size will not be the predominant variable in the consolidation of schools, but rather on functionality, mission, and objective.

Dean Link explained that the proposed increase in the student health fee from $30 to $45 per semester would result in 75% funding support to the Health Program. He stressed that the remaining support is a requirement by the system to provide basic health care services to our students. However, this requirement is currently being discussed by a systemwide committee.

Reactions/Recommendations

Professor Girling recommended that the resulting SFR of 21.1 as compared to 18.1 in the past be included in the budget message. He also asked that cost recovery of working personnel during the summer months be reviewed. Professor Barnier proposed some editing changes.

Last, but not least, President Armiñiana said that this initial plan will create anxiety, stress, confusion and even panic. He hopes this situation will unite students, parents, staff, and unions in making a case to the Governor.


PBAC minutes 1992-1993
Updated 2007-12-14
afd.webcontact@sonoma.edu