PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Minutes April 25, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT

STAFF PRESENT

MEMBERS ABSENT

STAFF ABSENT

AGENDA

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:08am. Goldstein welcomed Staff Representative Keith Marchando to the Committee. At the request of Rick Luttmann, Goldstein added an item to the Agenda regarding the cost of the Vice-President for Development search. Rand Link moved and Gloria Ogg seconded a motion to approve the proposed agenda. The agenda was passed unanimously.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: February 28, 2002

Luttmann moved and Noel Byrne seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2002 meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously with abstentions from those not in attendance at the February 28, 2002 meeting.

VICE-PRESIDENT FOR DEVELOPMENT SEARCH

Luttmann asked if the full $35,000 allocated for search related travel had been expended. Lynn McIntyre responded that $27,000 has been spent for six candidates to travel, one video conference, and search committee travel. Luttmann asked if the search firm added any value to the process. McIntyre feels the value of a search firm is a matter of opinion. In this case, the search firm brought one of the candidates, gave good insight into the selection process, and staved off some possible problems in the process.

CHANCELLORS OFFICE CAMPUS BUDGET DATA

(Please see the April 25, 2002 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth previously presented estimates of the 2002-2003 budget based on the Governors revised January budget. Schlereth presented more precise numbers based on refined numbers from the Chancellors Office. New revenue remains constant, however adjustments have been made to the Governors, CSU, and SSU expense categories that increase total expenses by $10,000. Steve Wilson noted that these numbers will change many times before the budget is finalized. Schlereth stated that he will again revise these numbers after the May revise is presented.
Victor Garlin asked Schlereth how the allocations were determined. Schlereth, working with Goldstein, formulated the numbers in the spirit of fairness with equitable reductions. Garlin does not believe the cuts are fair. Luttmann feels some comfort in the fact that Academic Affairs will receive 79% of the new money and only 69% of the cuts.

PROJECTED ENDOWMENT EARNINGS: 2002-2003

Schlereth explained that endowment funds are invested and proceeds are allocated to the appropriate funds. Due to the recent downturn in the financial markets, endowment earnings are substantially lower than last year. Jim Meyer and Wilson have advised the Foundation Board of Directors that returns will be 50% of normal levels this year. The Wine Business program and the Schulz and Person endowments will be the most affected. The VPBAC is currently examining how to address this issue for Academic Affairs and the CRC is addressing for Administration and Finance. Melinda Barnard asked if a mechanism would be in place to ensure these items were funded only on a one-time basis. Schlereth responded that a one-time addition to the base would be added. Ogg asked how much of the fund is linked to people and how much to operating expense. Schlereth estimates this amount to be roughly fifty-fifty with some programs invested more heavily in people than others.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: CONTRACT WITH CFA

Schlereth explained that the Governor has allocated 1% in compensation increases for the 2002-2003 budget. The faculty have negotiated a 1.5% increase for the next fiscal year. Past tradition at the CSU is to extend the higher increase to all CSU employees. Because this additional increase is not in the allocation from the Governor, the CSU will attempt to raise fees for out-of-state residents to cover the difference. Should this increase not be approved by the Governor, the system could end up covering the difference out of existing funds.

STUDENT FACULTY RATIO

(Please see the April 25, 2002 Agenda Packet for this document)

Goldstein presented a survey recently completed by Steve Orlick dealing with Sonoma State University's student faculty ratio (SFR). He used data available from the CSU and Sonoma State University. Orlick determined the Sonoma State University has the highest lower division SFR for a small campus. We are in the middle range for upper division and graduate students. Rose Bruce in Analytical Studies has studied the data further and determined that Sonoma's SFR has remained basically the same for the past 10 years. Bruce is analyzing the data further to determine how to lower SFR at lower division levels.

Byrne asked if any program exists to allow a Sonoma State University student to enroll at the Santa Rosa Junior College for no cost. Goldstein responded that he has met with his counterpart at SRJC to discuss such a program for nursing students. Crabbe noted that we receive funding based on student credit units to meet target. If our students take courses at other institutions, this funding may be in jeopardy. Byrne feels the only way to lower SFR is to hire more faculty or decrease student enrollment.

Garlin feels a 5-10% increase in SFR is alarming and only leads to lower instructional quality in the classroom. Garlin and the CFA would like to see SFR decreased and funding be increased for instruction. Ogg noted that more money for faculty has been allocated to Academic Affairs and this hasn't always been used for direct teaching. She suggested that money be allocated directly for teaching to drive down the SFR. Goldstein noted that some funds have gone to faculty release time which is very important to faculty. Jim Meyer asked how we compare to other campuses in the use of release time and how this affects our SFR. Byrne feels that other campuses provide more release time than Sonoma. He agrees with Meyer and would like to see how we compare with other campuses. Garlin feels release time is important for faculty, as for other employees, to accomplish other duties. Letitia Coate noted that many staff take on additional duties in addition to their current duties. She has done this for the CMS project because of her dedication and commitment to Sonoma State University. She added that this was a personal choice of her free will. Link feels SFR is important and out faculty are committed, however a broader picture needs to be examined. For instance, our classrooms are smaller than many other Universities and this poses a unique scheduling and staffing situation. Ogg believes the PBAC has been very supportive of the SFR issue and has given money to Academic Affairs for additional faculty. The PBAC should not be blamed for SFR issues.

ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER

Schlereth informed Members that the 2001-2002 budget Black Book has been released and will be sent out to all Members.

Goldstein adjourned the meeting at 9:54am

Minutes prepared by Neil Markley.


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