Approved as Corrected by PBAC, 7 May 1998
ATTACHMENT: DEVELOPMENT OFFICE RESPONSE TO VPBAC RESPONSE TO PBAC
Don Farish brought the meeting to order at 8:15 AM and asked for a motion to approve the Agenda A motion was made by Dennis Harris. A second was obtained from Debbie Gallagher. The Agenda was approved unanimously.
Harris was then recognized who questioned whether the Attachment to the Agenda Packet (Packet) would be discussed by the PBAC. Farish indicated that as the Committee moved through the Agenda, items raised by the Development Office would be discussed.
Schlereth then referenced materials contained with the packet illustrating proposed reimbursements to the General Fund from self-sustaining funds and auxiliary corporations. He noted that marginal new revenue projected from this fund sources had been increased due to refinement in utility cost projections. He explained that if the model was implemented, approximately $308,000 would be generated in the General Fund. Steve Wilson then distributed an outline of services to be provided to the Associated Students and Student Union related to proposed new institutional charges. Schlereth also noted that CSU Policy regarding reimbursement was issued in 1983. He explained that Staff were attempting to determine whether a more recent policy had been issued.
Harris questioned why the Health Center was not included in the model. Schlereth responded that the Health Center was not a fully sustaining fund and questions existed as to whether it should be incorporated.
Farish noted that it was important for the campus to be in compliance with CSU policy and it was his understanding the proposed model represented a method to accomplish this mandate for fiscal 98-99. He indicated that he viewed the model as a first pass and that refinements could be required.
Wilson then moved that SSU adopt the proposed model for reimbursement for fiscal 98-99. Harris provided a second. Clarification was by provided by the Chairs that a vote in support of the motion indicated a neutral position on the assumptions and footnotes incorporated in the model.
Discussion then ensued on the motion.
Silvia Barajas noted that she did not believe it was appropriate to vote on the motion until all other issues and recommendations regarding the budget had been discussed.
Wilson noted that the motion dealt with adopting a reimbursement policy required by the Trustees. He disagreed with Barajas' view that a delay in a vote on Trustee policy was appropriate.
Katharyn Crabbe then called the question. A second was obtained from Harris. The motion to call the question passed unanimously.
A vote was then taken on Wilson's motion. The motion was approved by the PBAC with 16 yes votes and 2 no votes.
Farish then referenced material contained in the Packet describing projected new revenue to the campus for fiscal 98-99.
A motion was made by Bill Barnier to recommend to the President that projected new revenue in fiscal 98-99 outlined below be allocated as indicated: A second was obtained from Victor Garlin.
Barnier's motion was approved unanimously.
A motion was then made by Sue Parker to recommend to the President that projected new revenue in fiscal 98-99 outlined below be allocated as indicated: A second was obtained from Dennis Harris.
Discussion on the motion then ensued.
Steve Orlick indicated that he believed certain areas of the campus did not require an increase in budget simply because enrollment had grown. He noted that he felt 100% of new revenues should be allocated to Academic Affairs.
Harris disagreed with Orlick indicating that direct instruction was most dramatically impacted by enrollment changes but other areas experienced impacts as well. He noted that the marginal cost formula was calculated to give the most emphasis to direct instruction and to equitably address other areas of campus operations excluding financial aid an plant operations.
Melinda Barnard expressed the view that while past practice was to provide all new money to Academic Affairs, it was not equitable or practical to believe that other areas of campus operations could continue to exist without augmentation, particularly in light of enrollment growth.
The Committee then voted on the Parker motion which passed unanimously with one abstention by Mette Adams, who asked that her abstention be recorded. Unanimous consent was given by the body for recording her abstention.
A motion was then made by Dennis Harris to recommend to the President that projected new revenue in fiscal 98-99 outlined below be allocated as indicated: A second was obtained from Debbie Gallagher.
The motion was approved by the PBAC with 17 yes votes and 1 no vote.
A motion was then made by Dennis Harris to recommend to the President that projected new revenue in fiscal 98-99 outlined below be allocated as indicated: A second was obtained from Steve Wilson
Barnier opposed the motion indicating the need to identify funding for the Assured Access Requirement before utilizing these projected new funds for CMS. Katharyn Crabbe concurred with Barnier indicating that if Associate Vice-Chancellor Tom West was correct, SSU's allocation for Assured Access would be reduced by the amount of new funds allocated to the campus for technology in 98-99. She then offered a substitute motion recommending to the President that new funds for technology be first allocated to Assured Access but if full-funding (approximately $500,000) was obtained for Assured Access from other fund sources, then new technology funds be diverted to CMS. Barnier provided a second to the substitute motion.
Victor Garlin questioned whether it was appropriate for the PBAC to consider the matter of how to use the new technology money should it not be needed for Assured Access. He noted that he felt this should be the case, the matter should be discussed by the PBAC. Members agreed and by unanimous consent this notion was added to the substitute motion.
Parker indicated that it was her understanding the CMS would be mandated. She questioned whether this was also true for Assured Access.
Harris and Adams expresses frustration of having to make a financial choice between fundamental and needed administrative systems and the assured access program.
Garlin then called the question. Crabbe provided a second. Members voted unanimously to call the question.
A vote was then taken on the Crabbe substitute motion which passed with 14 yes notes and 4 no votes.
Schlereth indicated that this was Debbie Gallagher's last meeting since she had accepted a new position with an investment firm in San Francisco. He recognized Gallagher's many contributions to the campus, her work with the FAC and most notably her valuable comments and counsel to the PBAC and President regarding the campus budget. The PBAC concurred with Schlereth's remarks, thanked Gallagher on behalf of the campus community and wished her the very best in her new post.
As the time for adjournment was approaching, Farish indicated that the PBAC would continue discussion regarding the 1998-1999 budget recommendation at its May 7, 1998 meeting and adjourned the Committee at 10:00 AM.
Minutes prepared by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth.
PBAC minutes 1997-1998