Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:11AM and asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. A motion was made by Dennis Harris. A second was obtained by Rand Link. The Agenda was approved unanimously.
Goldstein asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the April 5, 1999 meeting. A motion was made by Link. A second was obtained by Harris. No changes were made to the minutes. The minutes passed with no dissenting votes. Those not at the April 15, 1999 meeting abstained.
Harris presented the following tables summarizing the pie chart analyses from previous PBAC meetings.
|Executive Office||5||7||+ 2|
|Provost's Office||5||8||+ 3|
|Enrollment & Student Academic Services||4||5||+ 1|
|Information Technology||6||7||+ 1|
|California Institute for Human Services||0||11||+11|
|Student Affairs||9||10||+ 1|
|Administration & Finance||33||34||+ 1|
|Executive Office||5||7||+ 2|
|Academic Affairs||25||32||+ 7|
|Student Affairs||5||4||- 1|
|Administration & Finance||23||26||+ 3|
|Executive Office||1||2||+ 1|
|Academic Affairs||18||20||+ 2|
|Student Affairs||5||4||- 1|
|Administration & Finance||10||12||+ 2|
At the last meeting of PBAC (April 15, 1999), members were presented with two charts. The first showed the distribution of the 71 MPP positions which existed in 1992/3; the second showed the distribution of 93 MPP positions which exist in 1998/9 plus an additional 48 positions which were redefined from Staff to MPP between 1992/3 and the current year. The increase of 22 MPP positions was exclusively in the Professional category, which increased from 18 to 40; there was no increase in either the Administrative (35 in both years) or Supervisorial (18 in both years) positions.
In the tables prepared for the April 29, 1999 meeting of PBAC, the same positions for the same years are presented in a somewhat different fashion. Table 1, which reports MPP positions from All Funds (the General Fund, Auxiliaries, Independent Operations, Special Funds, and Reimbursed Activities) shows a growth of 22 MPP positions between 1992/3 and 1998/9. Of these, 2 are in the Executive Office, 18 are in Academic Affairs, 1 is in Student Affairs, and 1 is in Administration and Finance. Of the 22 new MPP positions, half are funded by the General Fund (see Table 2), and the remaining 11 are funded or reimbursed from other sources. These positions include 11 positions in CIHS, the result of increased grant activity. The 1 position increase in Student Affairs is funded by a grant for the Pre-College Program. The 1 position increase in Administration and Finance is funded by the Information Center construction budget.
Growth in MPP positions funded through the General Fund is shown in Table 2. The 2 new positions in the Executive Office are both associated with Development. The 7 new positions in Academic Affairs result from increases in the Provost's Office (+3), the Schools (+2), ESAS (+1), and IT (+1). Student Affairs declined by 1 position. Administration and Finance is shown with an increase of 3; however, each of these represents a position which existed in 1992/3 but was funded through Reimbursed Activities. Instead of reimbursing AFD for the OEE dollars it used to pay for these positions, the positions were moved to the General Fund, Personnel Services category, with reimbursement continuing from the appropriate auxiliary, special fund, or independent operation. By this change, the General Fund rather than the source of the reimbursement - was made responsible for Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs).
Table 3 shows the distribution of the higher-level administrative positions (III and IV) among the divisions, using the All Funds budgets. There is a total growth of 4 positions -- 1 in Executive Office, 2 in Academic Affairs, a decrease of 1 in Student Affairs (the General Fund position referenced in Table 2), and an increase of 2 in Administration and Finance (including the position referred to in Table 1 and a position which was reclassed from Administrator I to Administrator III - which explains why the net increase for AFD was only 1).
Goldstein indicated there were no abnormalities with the numbers. Harris noted that much of the increase in MPP positions was due to the reclassification of staff positions. Some discussion on this point ensued. Larry Schlereth commented that if discussion on this point continues to be a topic of debate, the positions can be reclassified back to Staff positions. This move, added Schlereth, would have a positive and negative impact on the human side. Harris feels a reclassification of these positions, back to staff, would be unfair.
Schlereth presented three charts which were discussed at previous PBAC meetings. Schlereth also presented the following pie chart which summarizes the amount of Academic Affairs money which was spent for direct teaching. The chart illustrated the following:
Direct Teaching includes: Provost and Schools of Business, A and H, Natural Sciences, Education, and Social Sciences
*1998-1999 adjusted for the following:
Faculty COLAs moved from University-Wide to Academic Affairs (Est. $90,000)
Mendocino College Project moved from University-Wide to Academic Affairs ($35,000)
Though these numbers look dramatic, Schlereth noted SFR and large course sections have not increased. Schlereth added the shift in dollars is due, in large part, to the following: lower-paid junior faculty replacing higher-paid retiring faculty, coaches moved from the General Fund, and some salary savings money has been redirected to the library for acquisitions. Schlereth said these factors are a great tribute to the hard work of the Schools Deans and Administrative Managers. Gloria Ogg feels these salary savings are logical, however the money should be used to balance the budget instead of adding positions in other areas. Schlereth noted, in our decentralized model it is up to the Deans and the Administrative Managers to make these decisions. Carol Cinquini indicated the salary savings in faculty positions are not extra money "laying around"; this money is used to fund unfunded items in the School such as faculty recruitments and future promotions. Because of our decentralized budgeting model and complex decisions made within the Schools, Barnard feels any budget cuts should be made on a percentage basis instead of the PBAC trying to target areas in the School. Harris again suggested a reserve to absorb unexpected hits. Some members expressed concerns that end of the year bills they receive in their school is similar to the sweeps they experienced in centralized budgeting where extra end-of-the-year money was to be returned to the business office. Schlereth said Deans and Administrative Managers will agree they are better off with a decentralized model. In order to survive, Schlereth said Sonoma State must grow and have a structural realignment in the way we manage instructional delivery. Goldstein noted we have moved to agenda item six (VI).
Phyllis Fernlund pointed out other universities are not in our situation because they have chosen to grow and are utilizing the extra money which comes with growth. Harris suggested growth be discussed. Link feels the growth discussion should be accelerated. Steve Orlick expressed his concern that additional money we have had has been used in an unwise manner such as land acquisition and the technology high school project. Schlereth clarified no general fund money has been used to fund the projects Orlick mentioned. These projects have been funded through restricted funds which cannot be used for instruction. Barnard requested to hear recommendations which have come from the CRC and the VPBAC. Schlereth responded to Barnards request with the following themes: no lay-offs, Y2K needs to be addressed, Schulz warm shell needs to be addressed, Presidential Scholarship needs to move to a private donor, no cuts to instructional lines, and no effect on the operational integrity of the institution. Barnard asked what the PBAC can do now. Schlereth and Goldstein indicated the PBAC is in limbo for a few weeks until the new Provost is selected and the May revised budget is released. Schlereth said the PBAC will have to reconvene in the Summer or Fall to develop a plan. He feels the plan will be controversial and could include changes similar to those the CRC made a few years ago. Schlereth feels this plan will need a lot of support. Bob Karlsrud suggested an across the campus hiring freeze. Goldstein indicated he had suggested this at the last Cabinet Meeting. Barnard feels the marginal cost formula should be recalculated subtracting instruction from Academic Affairs, hiring should be frozen outside of instruction, and the campus should focus on 200 FTE growth for the upcoming year. Crabbe suggested a combination of growth and a supplemental student fee. Schlereth feels the theme he and Goldstein will be discussing are administrative redefinition and reengineering. Goldstein would like to see the PBAC meet to discuss the plan. From experience, Schlereth noted, reengineering cannot be done by committee. He feels it would be helpful if the Committee made a recommendation to the President to undertake a realignment. Les Adler does not feel comfortable with Schlereths suggestion as it would be like "writing a blank check". He would like any plan to come back to the PBAC for approval. Adler finished by stating he feels the PBAC is out of the loop when it comes to decision making. Barnard does not feel in the loop, as well, because decisions were brought to the cabinet before the PBAC. Crabbe reiterated the need for not only cost cuts, but increased revenue through growth or a fee. Karlsrud would like any plan that is developed to come back to the Committee. He said last time people went away and made a recommendation, not so wise decisions were made. Schlereth commented any recommendation would come back for discussion. Members indicated they would like to schedule another meeting in the near future.
adjourned the meeting at 10:02am.
Minutes prepared by Neil Markley
PBAC minutes 1998-1999