Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:07am. Phil McGough moved and Rand Link seconded a motion to approve the proposed agenda. The agenda was passed unanimously.
Steve Wilson moved and Sam Scalise seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 6, 2001 minutes. Link asked that a the quote attributed to him on the top of page four, line 4, pertaining to the use of the gym be changed to read "…and that the gym was significantly utilized by…" There being no other corrections, the minutes were approved as corrected, with abstentions from those not in attendance at the last meeting.
Larry Schlereth reviewed Executive Order D-49-01 that was recently formed by Governor Davis. The Executive Order asked for state agencies to cut operating budget by $150,000,000 due to a forecasted budget shortfall. This request is the first mid-year budget reduction since 1996 and could be devastating if expanded. The CSU and the UC, however, have been granted special consideration and may not have to cut their budgets. Luttmann asked if part-time faculty are subject to the recently announced statewide hiring freeze. Schlereth feels all faculty will be exempted from the freeze, however this is only his best guess.
|Instructional Technology Services||$ 120,000|
|Libraries — Central||$1,000,000|
Schlereth introduced this item by explaining the Lottery had a better than expected year which generated $10,000,000 more than expected for the CSU. The Chancellor has allocated the money for libraries and instructional technology. Sonoma’s share is $60,000 for library needs and $120,000 for instructional technology. Schlereth proposed utilizing the $120,000 in the classroom renovation project for the instructionally related technological equipment. This utilization would free up $120,000 in the classroom renovation budget and could be used for other facilities related projects. Schlereth and Goldstein are proposing this money be used to purchase new furniture for use in all remaining classrooms. They have both heard complaints for many years regarding the furniture in classrooms and feel this program will positively affect the most people across the campus. Wilson moved and Scalise seconded a motion to approve the proposal. Scott Gordon expressed a need for the CIS lab to be renovated. He feels part of the $120,000 could be used for this as opposed to the current plan. Victor Garlin asked 1. what alternatives to this plan had been considered? 2. For more details on the $120,000 3. if the Academic Senate could have time to consider this plan as it relates to instruction. Schlereth responded that he and Goldstein wanted to use the money in a way to affect the most students globally. He has heard many times in his years here that the basic classroom furniture was adversely affecting the classroom experience. Schlereth would allocate the $120,000 for the Classroom Renovation Committee to expend. Faculty Members of the PBAC were all selected by the Academic Senate to make decisions on budget. This decision will stay with the PBAC for consideration. Further, this matter is somewhat time sensitive. Garlin asked who decided to spend the $120,000 in the proposed manner. Schlereth again indicated that Goldstein and himself developed the recommendation. Garlin asked if any other Members had alternate recommendations for the Committee to discuss. Rick Luttmann moved and Gordon seconded a motion to allocate 30% of the $120,000 be used for new equipment in the Computer Science Lab. Luttmann feels the Committee is under undo pressure to make a decision and believes his recommendation is a compelling alternative. Melinda Barnard feels the replacement of furniture would be a great benefit to students in Arts and Humanities classes. Most Arts and Humanities classrooms are in good condition and not scheduled to be renovated for a number of years. The furniture, however, is in deplorable condition and cannot wait for the renovation program. Barnard also feels the PBAC is not the place to determine the needs of individual departments. This task falls to the VPBAC. Garlin indicated that he is not opposed to classroom renovations, however he needs to know all the alternatives and why this project was chosen over others. Garlin noted his disapproval for the current motion and feels only the original motion should be considered. Schlereth again reiterated his reasoning for selecting this project. Goldstein felt this proposal made sense to him because it was in the spirit of doing the best for the most. Link expressed his disagreement with the current motion and his approval for the original motion. He feels once the cost of the furniture replacement is known extra dollars may be available for other uses. McGough explained that the faculty travel budget of $150,000 last year has been only funded at $50,000 this year. He asked if the $120,000 had been considered for this purpose. Schlereth explained the extra funding for faculty travel came from one-time sources last year. This year those funds did not materialize for that purpose. Schlereth explained the $120,000 could not be used for purposes other than facilities/instructional technology purposes. McGough expressed his belief that faculty travel was reduced to fund furniture purchases. Luttmann moved and Garlin seconded a motion table his amendment. Saied Rahimi would like to take the Computer Science Lab issue outside of the meeting for discussion. Wilson called the question for a vote on the amendment. A vote was taken and the amendment was defeated with one yes note and one abstention. Garlin expressed his concern about voting on a recommendation that was developed on anecdotal evidence. He feels this proposal should have been developed through committee process. Goldstein indicated that faculty travel has been a top priority since he arrived at Sonoma and assured Members he would work with Schlereth to find additional money for this need. Goldstein noted that Dr. Arminana was the only President to argue in favor of additional faculty travel dollars at a recent Board of Trustee meeting. Link called the question for a vote. A vote was taken and the motion passed with 8 yes and 5 no votes. Garlin asked that the minutes reflect the past, current, and future Chairs of the Faculty along with the CFA Representative all opposed the proposal.
Luttmann asked if Members could receive the agenda packets at least 48 hours in advance so they may review the material in advance. Schlereth said he would try, however with everything else on his plate it will be difficult to do. Schlereth added that this proposal should be no secret, especially to CRC Members, because it was discussed at the CRC over a week prior to this PBAC meeting.
|Costs Above Capital outlay Program||$3,500,000|
|Campus Decision to Install Utility Saving Infrastructure||$1,100,000|
|Campus Decision to Enhance Instructional Facilities||$1,500,000|
|Utility Allocation from CSU System||$110,000|
|PBAC University-Wide Recommendation, Salazar Renovation||$150,000|
|Potential Administration and Finance Reengineering efforts or||$350,000|
|Additional University-Wide allocation|
Schlereth explained the shortfall in the Salazar renovation budget. $3,500,000 has been known from the beginning of the project. This money was available as a result of the Technology High School, however was used to fund the third floor of Schulz. $1,100,000 has been allocated to fund an energy efficient heating and cooling system. This money should be paid back through energy cost savings. $1,500,000 was allocated to upgrade the 24 educational spaces to assure the best possible classroom experience. The entire amount will be funded as indicated above. Schlereth has agreed to attempt to fund $350,000 through administrative reengineering efforts. He communicated the CRC’s reservations regarding this plan due to the large amount of money and reengineering efforts that have already taken place. Schlereth noted that if Administration and Finance could not find the money, it would be brought back to the PBAC. Barnard feels this is a good solution and Schlereth has pinpointed some positions already for reengineering. She has reservations, however, because by solving this issue the CRC may not have a solution to a problem in the future. McGough feels Schulz has added greatly to the campus and is excited to see what Salazar can add.
CMS Requirements in IT above CMS Budget Plan: $208,000
Facilities Services charges to Enterprise Funds to increase from $2.00 per square foot to $4.00 per square foot.
|SSE Facilities||$ 60,000|
|Health Center Facilities||$ 39,000|
|Grants Facilities||$ 12,000|
|CDL Facilities||$ 6,000|
|Extended Education Facilities||$ 5,000|
|Housing Facilities||$ 429,000|
|Facilities Services Administrative Support||$ 45,000|
|Custodial Services Operating Expense Increase||$ 25,000|
|Facilities Services Shift Differential||$ 95,000|
|Housing Maintenance and Repair||$ 429,000|
|Sonoma State Enterprises||$ 13,639|
|Extended Education||$ 40,436|
|Grants and Contracts||$ 241,705|
|Technology Student Assistants||$ 150,000|
|Instructional Equipment||$ 50,000|
|Academic Software||$ 20,000|
|Faculty Workstations||$ 130,000|
Schlereth explained that Executive Order mandates self-support funds fully reimburse the General Funds for services provided. Schlereth indicated that Institutional Support and Technology monies would be used to cover the $208,000 CMS will require over their budget. Without this funding, the money would come off the top. A majority of the facilities reimbursement will be spent on housing related items because a majority of the revenue is derived from housing. Full costing of the Risk Pool will be used to fund the gap due to the loss of one-time money for the BATS program. Schlereth indicated that these monies could also be distributed via the full cost model, however a funding gap would be left for the unfunded programs.
Garlin feels new building are nice additions, however we must keep in mind the funding gaps that always occur with these projects. Schlereth expressed his agreement. Garlin feels the campus must say no when we can’t afford the project. Barnard expressed her strong disagreement with the use of the $350,000 to cover Assured Access expenses. She argued strongly against this at the CRC. Barnard agreed voted for the BATS program because the Chancellor’s Office paid through one-time money. Bow that this money is gone, she does not feel it is necessarily worth funding. Gordon feels this is another instance where the general computer labs are receiving money and the academic labs are not. Scalise pointed out that many of the labs are also used for instructional purposes. Schlereth explained that not voting for this recommendation would mean the IT student assistants would be laid off, the faculty workstation program cancelled, and a reduction in services. He feels these programs need continued funding. Schlereth indicated he would attempt to find $350,000 for the Salazar Renovation or the BATS needs, but not both. Rahimi feels some grants and contracts money should go to faculty as a reward for their work and to the School to help cover costs associated with the grant or contract. Remy Heng asked if student jobs would be lost if this proposal does not pass. Schlereth said no, he would fund the jobs, however money would then have to be found for the Salazar renovation. Luttmann asked that the $350,000 be distributed via the marginal cost formula. Schlereth asked the minutes to reflect his reiteration that if the this money is distributed via the marginal cost formula, he will need to fund BATS which would require the cost of the Salazar renovation to also be distributed via the marginal cost formula. He cannot fund both items. Link moved and Heng seconded a motion to table the proposal due to time. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Gordon suggested a student fee be considered to fund BATS before permanent funding is approved.
Goldstein adjourned the meeting at 10:08am
Minutes respectfully submitted by Neil Markley.
PBAC minutes 2001-2002