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. The Agenda was approved unanimously.
Goldstein asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the November 12, 1999 meeting. Steve Wilson moved and Merrifield seconded the motion. Drew Calandrella, Phyllis Fernlund, and Steve Orlick all abstained since they were not present at the previous meeting. The minutes were approved with no "no" votes.
(Please reference December 17, 1999 Agenda packet for this document)
Larry Schlereth presented this item. He asked the Committee to act on each recommendation individually rather than as a package. The money associated with the items approved today can be moved as early as next week.
Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Instructional Equipment 1999-2000 funding plan recommendation. Crabbe moved, and Merrifield seconded the motion. Schlereth explained the funding plan. Merrifield asked if these expenditures would be on going or one-time. Schlereth responded that this would be a one-time expenditure. Bill Barnier indicated he did not want instructional equipment money muddled with faculty workstation money and asked if this equipment would be for student use. Schlereth answered, the Deans have told him they would not be able to mount a curriculum without the equipment. A vote was taken and the Instructional Equipment 1999-2000 funding plan recommendation passed unanimously.
Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Renovation Commitments &emdash; School of Natural Sciences funding plan recommendation. Merrifield moved, and Wilson seconded the motion. Schlereth explained the funding plan. Merrifield explained he feels good about this plan, however is concerned with comments made by Dean Swanson. He has been reassured, though, the money coming from the Schools is not coming from direct instruction. A vote was taken and the Renovation Commitments &emdash; School of Natural Sciences funding plan passed unanimously.
Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Assessment Activities funding plan recommendation. Wilson moved, and Crabbe seconded the motion. Schlereth explained the funding plan. Merrifield indicated his strong objection to the process by which the person was selected for the assessment position. He feels the process was more communication than consultation. He also objects to giving an additional $60,000 to the "assessment bureaucracy" and does not agree with WASCs top down process. He feels this is a dreadful waste of money and feels the discussions at the last VPBAC meeting supports his view. Crabbe feels Merrifield characterized this situation well, however the campus cannot risk WASC reaccredidation by ignoring their recommendation. Crabbe distributed a letter dated July 6, 1999 from WASC that included a recommendation for increased assessment activity on this campus. Crabbe, while not happy about getting funds from the schools, feels we must fund this assessment activity as it is crucial to the future of the University. Phil McGough also stated his objection to the process by which the faculty was selected for assessment activity. Fernlund feels an investment is assessment is worth the money. Barnier, though agreeing assessment is a must, objects to the assessment plan. He feels it does not seem to take care of our needs. Calandrella agrees that assessment is critical to our future. Merrifield explained, according to the Provost, at the CRC, we would not lose our accreditation. He feels this is not an all or nothing proposition. Merrifield also agrees with Barnier that this is not a good plan. Schlereth asked the group to remember that though the program is important, the PBAC is a financial committee not a program committee and requested the Members focus on the financial program. Steve Orlick stated the last two proposals have included a tax on the schools and does not believe this is the best way to fund these programs. Further, he does not feel budgeting item by item is the proper way to approve funding. Orlick feels we should prioritize our needs together and fund them based on priority. Gloria Ogg agrees that we need a priority list, but the group working on long range planning needs to form and present a list. Barnier does not know if this is a proper way to fund items either. Crabbe stated we have to pay for this item somehow and the Deans have agreed to pay for this items in the way presented. A vote was taken and the Assessment Activities funding plan was approved with eight yes votes, five no votes and no abstentions. Schlereth said since becoming more directly involved with the Academic Affairs budget, he has been in a triage mode patching problems as they come. He expressed his sensitivity to Orlicks comments and hopes the Spring will be more strategic.
Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Provosts Office Commitment to the School of Education funding plan recommendation. Ogg moved, and Wilson seconded the motion. Schlereth explained the funding plan. McGough commends the work of the School of Education, however is concerned about the continuing request for money at the PBAC. He asked if the University had a clear picture of funding the School. Fernlund explained most of the problems have come from growth dollars not coming with the growth in enrollment which has occurred in the School. Schlereth clarified that Academic Affairs has received growth money every year to keep a 20:1 SFR; however it was up to Academic Affairs to allocate the money accordingly. Merrifield suggested it may be useful to go back and analyze growth dollars. A vote was taken and the Provosts Office Commitment to the School of Education funding plan passed unanimously.
Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Start-Up Capital - Engineering funding plan recommendation. Schlereth indicated this is more of an information item since fund raising dollars are coming in and may be used.
Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Sculpture - Painting and Moving funding plan recommendation. Barnier moved, and Crabbe seconded the motion. Schlereth explained the funding plan. A vote was taken and the Sculpture &emdash; Painting and Moving funding plan passed unanimously.
Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Recycling Site &emdash; AB 175 Requirements funding plan recommendation. Rand Link moved, and Calandrella seconded the motion. Schlereth explained the funding plan. A vote was taken and Recycling Site &emdash; AB 175 Requirements funding plan passed unanimously.
Schlereth asked for a motion to approve the Backlog &emdash; Voice and Data Installations funding plan recommendation. Rand Link moved, and Calandrella seconded the motion. Schlereth explained the funding plan. A vote was taken and Backlog &emdash; Voice and Data Installations funding plan passed unanimously.
Schlereth expects the enrollment to grow by 285 FTES for the 00/01 year, 100 FTES are already on campus. He indicated it is still unclear how the FTES will translate into actual headcount. Schlereth emphasized this is an academic decision and feels this will drive the budget. Schlereth expects new money to come with increased enrollment, however expects $600,000 to $700,000 in off-the-top mandates from the Chancellors Office. Orlick asked if the University could plan and hire full-time faculty based on anticipated FTES. Schlereth responded no. The University did that in 1995-1996 and incurred a structural deficit when the money did not materialize. Schlereth added, usually part-time faculty back fills for the first year.
Schlereth adjourned the meeting at 9:55am.
Minutes prepared by Neil Markley.
PBAC minutes 1999-2000