President's Budget Advisory Committee

Minutes December 10, 1998

Approved by PBAC as corrected, 4 February 1999

Members Present:

Staff Present:

Members Absent:

Guests Present:

Meeting Agenda


Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:05 AM and asked for a motion to approve the Agenda. A motion was made by Dennis Harris. A second was obtained from Gloria Ogg. Steve Orlick requested that Item VI be deferred until the next meeting of the PBAC in order that Members could have time to verify the data presented. Schlereth objected. A motion was then made by Orlick to defer the item. A second was obtained from Steve Wilson. Discussion then ensued with the following points being made:

The question was then called and a vote taken on the motion. The motion failed with Melinda Barnard, Orlick and Sue Parking casting Yes votes. Cara Puccio abstained from the vote. All others voted to defeat the motion on the floor.

Cara Puccio then requested that a brief report on CMS be added to the Agenda. By consensus, the Members agreed. Schlereth then requested that a brief report on newly identified technology financial issues be added to the Agenda. By consensus, the Members agreed. A vote was then taken to approve the Agenda as modified. The Agenda was approved unanimously.


Goldstein then asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of the December 3, 1998 meeting. A motion was made by Harris. A second was obtained from Ogg. The Minutes were approved unanimously.

Consultation on the Budget - Goldstein/Schlereth Proposal

Referencing materials contained in the Packet, (reproduced below) Goldstein explained a proposal developed by he and Schlereth designed to craft a budget policy on budget consultation:

The Goldstein/Schlereth Proposal

  1. Form a small group of individuals to craft a policy on budget consultation
    Proposed members to be:
  2. Policy to be based on three principles:
  3. Draft Policy to be discussed by the following organizations:
  4. Sentiments raised in the above groups to be compiled, published to the campus community and forwarded to the President for final policy formulation.

A motion was made by Marty Ruddell that the PBAC endorse the Goldstein/Schlereth proposal. A second was obtained from Wilson. The Ruddell motion was approved unanimously.

Newly Identified Technology Issues

Schlereth then briefed the Members on four, newly identified, technology issues. He prefaced his comments by indicating that the data was still preliminary and no action was required by the PBAC at this time. He noted that he wanted the Members to be aware of the issues since discussions regarding the funding the items would likely take place in the Spring, 1999 semester. The following items were identified:

Newly Identified Technology Issues
Issue Amount
Year 2K Compliance Issues $1,500,000
Telephone Switch Replacement $1,000,000
Telephone Voice-Box Registration Equipment $ 130,000
Localtalk to Ethernet Conversion (Year 2K) $1,500,000
TOTAL $4,130,000

Clarifying questions on the items were answered by Schlereth with assistance from Calandrella and Wilson.

Academic Affairs Plan For Financial Adjustment

Referencing materials contained with the Agenda Packet (Packet) Schlereth then explained the 1998-1999 Academic Affairs Plan for Financial Adjustment. The following specific points were made:

Fund Sources
Source Amount
Provost's Base- June 1998 $ 1,755,715
Plus New Revenue , Campus, Off the Top $ 128,000
Less Loss of New Revenue to Provost $ -28,243
Less EMT General Fund Revenue * $ -199,000
Plus Transfer from A&R (Associate VP) $ 99,432
Plus Adjustments to Departure Tax $ 1,431
Plus Funding for GSIs, SSIs, MPPs $ 52,222
Plus Adjustment to Marginal Cost $ 323
TOTAL $1,809,880

Fund Uses
Use Amount

Salaries and Wages Base 98-99

$ 1,437,387

Provost Operating Expense

$ 185,029

Assigned Time Senate

$ 44,282

Assigned Time CFA

$ 15,182

Admissions and Records Operating Expense

$ 128,000


$ 1,809,880

Unfunded Items
Item Dean's Memo 10-23-98 PBAC Presentation 12-3-98
Admissions and Records $ 72,000 0
Provost Reserve $ 30,206 18,188
Assigned Time, Provost $ 130,461 130,461
Ukiah Liberal Studies Program $ 62,640 62,640
Equity Salary Adjustments $ 42,957 42,957
Mendocino College Building Project $ 40,000 40,000
Faculty Position Commitment, Business/Economics $ 54,000 54,000
Faculty Recruitment Costs $ 50,000 50,000
Academic Innovation Program $ 50,000 50,000
Faculty Diversity Program $ 25,000 25,000
Faculty Travel Program $ 50,000 50,000
TOTAL $ 607,264 523,246

Variance between $607,264 and $523,246 = $84,018

Reason for Variance: PBAC Presentation Numbers excluded the value of the Academic Affairs Budget Officer position.

Rationale: Dollars realized from the elimination of the Academic Affairs Budget Officer position were utilized to finance operating expense needs in Admissions and Records (recommended by VPBAC) and to reduce the Provost's Reserve need.

Projected Academic Affairs Needs
  Issue VPBAC
  Projected Academic Affairs Needs




Eliminate Instructional Equipment



Office of the Provost      
School of Business and Economics

Reduce Dean's Discretionary Reserve



School of Education

Reduce Operating Expense - Office of the Provost



School of Social Sciences

Eliminate Vacant Administrator I position



Eliminate Permanent Salary Savings - Staff Positions




Eliminate Vacant Administrative Position



Eliminate subscriptions to rarely used periodicals


$ 59,018

Arts and Humanities

Reduce Student Assistants

$- 9,979


Eliminate Dean's Reserve



Natural Sciences

Eliminate part-time clerical position



Reduce School Reserve




Final Projected Need

$ 0

$ 0

Following Schlereth's presentation, several questions were raised. These included:

Historical Fund Source
Type Source
Provost Reserve One-Time Money,
Assigned Time,Provost One-Time-Money
Ukiah Liberal Studies Program One-Time Money
Equity Salary Adjustments New Item 98-99
Mendocino College Building Project New Item 98-99
Faculty Position Commitment, Business/Economics New Item 98-99
Faculty Recruitment Costs One-Time Money
Academic Innovation Program One-Time Money
Faculty Diversity Program CSU System
Faculty Travel Program New Item, 98-99

Adler asked what was one-time money being used for in 98-99. Schlereth noted that one-time money in 98-99, largely the result of revenue above the base earned in 97-98 and indirect cost recovery revenue allocated to the Provost earned in 97-98 and rolled to 98-99 was being used to help fund the Academic Affairs deficit realized at the close of fiscal 1998. He also noted that revenue above the base was not likely to materialize in the current fiscal year since the campus was teaching at its budgeted enrollment target.

Barnard asked if $450,000 has been allocated directly for instruction. Schlereth responded that it had. Administrative Managers present concurred with Schlereth's response. Carol Cinquini noted that the $450,000 identified by Barnard was intended for instruction and instructional support. She also noted that employee benefits for newly hired faculty also had to be financed from this fund source. Schlereth clarified that the $450,000 was intended for direct instruction and not instructional support. He also noted that the $450,000 budget for enrollment growth was developed keeping in mind that employee benefits would be required. Specifically, 180 new students required 9 faculty positions in order to maintain a Student Faculty ratio of 20 to 1. Assuming a starting salary of $40,000, 9 positions would require $360,000. Employee benefits add to this cost bringing the total to $450,000.

Analysis of the Student Faculty Ratio: 1998-1999

Referencing materials contained within the Agenda Packet (Packet), Harris introduced the Analysis of Student Faculty Ratios at SSU, which he had prepared at the request of Steve Orlick. Orlick asked whether these were the same figures he had obtained from the CSU, LA web site. Harris explained that those figures were for Fall semesters only, and that there was a lag of almost a year in getting full CSU data. For that reason, he had used the SSU Analytic Studies file "Historic FTE", which provided FTES and FTEF for both semesters of each calendar year and permitted a computation of annual FTES, FTEF, and SFR. This seemed more appropriate for two reasons: first, PBAC dealt with annual budgets; and second, by using the local data available through the Academic Planning Data Base (APDB), it was possible to provide more current data. Harris then reviewed the material reproduced below.

December 3, 1998

Members of the Campus Community:

One result of the campus budget process has been a long discussion about increases in the Student/Faculty Ratio (SFR) at SSU over time. At the request of some members the President's Budget Advisory Committee, we have prepared the following analysis of those changes. All data regarding actual student enrollment, faculty actually teaching, and actual SFR is taken from SSU's Analytic Studies report of "Historic FTE", which is available to all on the Main SSU Server. Data regarding CSU target enrollment for SSU is taken from the CSU's Analytic Studies "CSU College Year Report", which is available on the web.

The study uses the Academic Year 1987-88 as a starting point, since this was the last year in which the State of California, the CSU, and SSU itself enjoyed a budget surplus until the recent recovery. The following year, the Gann Initiative, Prop. 13, took effect.

1997-1998 vs 1998-1999
  Actual 97-98 Projected 98-99 Actual Fall 1998
Target FTES 5600 5780 5780
Actual FTES 5898 5780 5983
Actual FTEF 288 295 300
Actual SFR 20.5 19.6 20.0


Since Spring enrollments historically fall below those of the Fall, the Actual figures for 1998-99 should more closely approximate those projected. As a result,


The table below shows the change in SFR from year to year during the period under study. The years of greatest SFR deterioration (or increasing SFR) where 1990-91, 1991-92, 1988-89, and 1992-93. The years of greatest decline have been 1995-96 and that projected for 1998-9.

1988-1989 through 1998-1999
  88-9 89-90 90-1 91-2 92-3 93-4 94-5 95-6 96-7 97-8 98-9
Current SFR 18.2 18.3 19.3 20.1 20.7 21.0 21.4 20.5 20.5 20.5 19.6
Previous SFR 17.6 18.2 18.3 19.3 20.1 20.7 21.0 21.4 20.5 20.5 20.5
% Change +3.4 + .5 +5.5 +4.1 +3.0 +1.5 +1.9 -4.8 0 0 -4.4
Cum. % Change +3.4 4.0 9.7 14.2 17.6 19.3 21.6 16.5 16.5 16.5 11.4


It is clear from the above that

Comparisons between institutions may be inappropriate, even within the same university setting. However, they are also unavoidable. Even though decisions regarding enrollment (FTES) and the allocation of resources to Direct Instruction (FTEF) are made at the campus level, the Chancellor's Office does aggregate data in order to compare SFR's among campuses and with the CSU as a whole over time. The following table shows the CSU system Average SFR, that of SSU, and the difference between the two for the period 1987-88 through 1996-97 (the last year currently available.

1987-1988 through 1996-1997
  87-8 88-9 89-90 90-1 91-2 92-3 93-4 94-5 95-6 96-7
CSU SFR 18.4 18.5 18.2 18.4 19.8 20.7 19.8 19.4 19.5 19.6
SSU SFR 17.6 18.2 18.3 19.3 20.1 20.7 21.0 21.4 20.5 20.5
Difference -0.8 -0.3 +0.1 +0.9 +0.3 0 +0.3 +1.0 +1.0 +0.9


Again, several observations are clear from the above data:

Following Harris's presentation, Rose Bruce, SSU's Director of Assessment and Analytic Studies, presented an analysis of the data available on the CSU, LA web site, showing changes in Fall SFR, Average Class Size, Unique Courses, and Small Sections, for both SSU and the CSU, from Fall 1989 through Fall 1997. That material, also contained in the Agenda Packet, is reproduced below.


Harris concluded the analysis of SFR by noting that changes in any of these measures (Class Size, Course and Section size and offerings, as well as SFR) are subject to different interpretations. For instance, a rising SFR could be interpreted as a sign of increasing productivity by some and as a sign of decreased student-faculty interaction by others. What the institution needed to do is have a strategic discussion of what is appropriate for SSU's mission. If that discussion results in a determination that a lower SFR is an appropriate measure of the degree to which SSU is fullfilling its mission, the institution should figure out what the target SFR ought to be. PBAC should then develop a multi-year plan to reduce the SFR to that target level.

Following the presentations by Harris and Bruce, several questions were raised. These included:

CMS Update


Given the time, Goldstein then adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:55 AM. He noted that items not addressed but contained in the Agenda Packet would be discussed at the next PBAC meeting.

Minutes prepared by Larry Furukawa-Schlereth.

PBAC minutes 1998-1999
Updated 2007-12-14