PRESIDENTS BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Minutes February 28, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT

STAFF PRESENT

MEMBERS ABSENT

STAFF ABSENT

AGENDA

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:08am. Rand Link moved and Gloria Ogg seconded a motion to approve the proposed agenda. The agenda was passed unanimously.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: December 13, 2001

Rand Link moved and Ogg seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2001 meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously with abstentions from those not in attendance at the December 13, 2001 meeting.

2001-2002 ONE-TIME BUDGET REDUCTION

(Please see the February 28, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth presented revised one-time budget reduction for 2001-2002. The reduction has been revised from $737,820 downward to $614,000 due to legislative action. The revision will provide for a smaller reduction to the Academic Affairs budget. If the reductions are revised further downward, Academic Affairs reductions would be revised further downward. Goldstein expressed his support and gratitude for the recommendation. Rick Luttmann also expressed support for the recommendation and feels this action is in line with the faculty's wishes. Melinda Barnard, speaking as the CRC representative, feels Administration and Finance has not only taken a hit in this reduction, but has also needed to find money for other needs. She feels Administration and Finance should receive a portion of the reduction as well. Schlereth expressed appreciation for Barnard's comments, however he feels Academic Affairs has some very pressing needs. Steve Wilson moved and Gloria Ogg seconded a motion to approve the 2001-2002 One-Time Budget Reduction recommendation. The recommendation was approved unanimously with no abstentions.

GOVERNORS BUDGET 2002-2003

(Please see the February 28, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth updated Members on the proposed Governors Budget for 2002-2003. He reminded Members that due to the nature of this being an election year, this budget is very optimistic. Schlereth feels a more grounded budget will come in the revised budget in May. This current budget is better than expected with the Governor fully funding enrollment growth. The Governor, however, takes some money back in the form of an unallocated budget reduction and a reduction in the utility budget. Schlereth presented the effects of the Governors budget on the campus. New money to SSU would be $1,643,625. After budget reduction, utility reduction, increase to the risk pool premium, and CMS costs the actual new money to SSU is $456,448. After University Wide items are deducted, the actual net new revenue is $-173,552. Schlereth noted that this does not leave enough money to fully fund enrollment growth, even if the University-Wide items are decreased. Rick Luttmann informed Members that in a recent visit to John Burtons office, an aide said the budget was unrealistic and cuts should be expected. Victor Garlin expressed his dismay that money that should be coming for instruction is not being used for instruction, but to fund CSU mandates. Schlereth indicated that in the past, the university would reduce enrollment and keep the money. He feels, however, that the current Governor would not allow us to do this and would take the money back. Schlereth pointed out that if we did not grow, or reduced enrollment, and did not receive growth money, SSU would be in a far worse position.

CAMPUS BUDGET PLANNING 2002-2003

(Please see the February 28, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth and Goldstein have developed a recommendation to reduce University-Wide costs, distribute new growth money via the marginal cost formula, and allocate reductions based on 1.9% reduction for each unit. The net effect of this plan would be a zero increase in most campus budgets except for Academic Affairs who would receive enough money to support the hiring of new faculty for enrollment growth. Ogg supports this plan for the current year, however does feel this is a good long-term strategy. She feel units also affected by growth (e.g.: ESAS, Customer Services, and Financial Aid) would not receive adequate funding to support their operations. Barnard would like to see an accounting of how this money ultimately gets spent. She does not feel the money that is allocated for faculty growth gets spent solely for faculty growth. Catherine Nelson asked if legislators were aware of the cuts to the university. Lynn McIntyre indicated that they are aware of cuts, but not in this detail. Jim Meyer does not feel the taxpayers are very sympathetic at this time due to the poor state of the economy and budget. Goldstein thanked Schlereth for his work on this recommendation and indicated it was easy for him to support. Goldstein asked if there were any objections to the recommendation. No objections were voiced and the recommendation will be forwarded to the President.

ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER

Schlereth indicated that our next meeting will be light until the revised budget in May is issued. Barnard expressed interest in more information regarding debt service. McIntyre feels it is foolish to not examine raising tuition fees in light of the current budget situation. Ogg noted that while state tuition fees have remained constant, University based fees are rising, most notably due to the Recreation Center referendum. Student do not fully understand this and are asking why fees are going up. Garlin suggested a reeducation of the legislature on the value of funding higher education is needed. Garlin and Gordon expressed opposition to raising fees.

Goldstein adjourned the meeting at 9:37am.

Minutes prepared by Neil Markley


PBAC minutes 2001-2002
Updated 2008-01-23
afd.webcontact@sonoma.edu