November 8, 2001






Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:08am. Kathryn Crabbe moved and Steve Wilson seconded a motion to approve the proposed agenda. The agenda was passed unanimously. Schlereth informed Members that Neil Markley would be the proxy for Dennis Harris until he returns.


Steve Wilson moved and Rand Link seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2001 meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously with abstentions from those not in attendance at the October 25, 2001 meeting.


(Please see the November 8, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth thanked members of the CRC and VPBAC for their advice on this matter. Schlereth's initial thought on this item was to use new revenue to fund the BATS shortfall while attempting to solve the Salazar funding gap in Administration and Finance. After further thought, Schlereth feels a more appropriate method would be to attempt to fund the BATS shortfall using Administration and Finance money, and use new University revenue to fund the Salazar funding gap. This method makes sense since IT is in Administration and Finance. Wilson motioned to approve the item, Crabbe seconded the motion. Melinda Barnard is concerned that academic computing issues may fall through the cracks. Schlereth noted that he is sensitive to this concern and the Information Technology Advisory Committee was formed with faculty, staff, student, and administrators to tackle these issues. Gloria Ogg expressed her support for the plan, however expressed concern about funding this program when budget cuts were imminent. Further, she is not sure faculty want the items that are funded in BATS and questioned whether to fund these items if they aren't wanted. Schlereth feels that faculty aren't opposed to BATS, there is just not consensus on should be provided in BATS. Barnard noted that faculty workstations were not originally part of BATS funding, the University had a contract with Apple. Schlereth explained that it was funded through the housing program, however did not feel comfortable with this arrangement and felt it was inappropriate. Wilson sensing no objections to the plan, called the questions. No objections were heard. A vote was taken and the plan passed unanimously.


Schlereth updated members on fund sources identified to pay for BATS. Schlereth has identified $23,000 from surplus salary increases to go toward the needed $350,000. He explained that every year money is allocated for salary increases based on salaries at a given time during the year. Often, retirements or other job actions take place that provide surpluses in the salary increase pool. This year, $23, 000 was generated. Schlereth will be bringing this up to the CRC for action tomorrow.


(Please see the November 8, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth presented macro-variables he sees affecting the budget for 2002-2003. The Board of Trustees have asked for a budget increase of $269,000,000 for the upcoming year. However, it seems unlikely this increase will be funded given the current economic situation in the State. On November 7th, Chancellor Reed sent a memo to the campus asking for the following: hiring freeze of non-essential employees, one-time budget reduction of 1% this year, and at least 5% next year. The reductions apply to the general fund allocation received from the State, not student fee dollars. This campus will need to find $526,490 this year to cover the 1% reduction. Further, any growth will likely impact the budget as well. A mid-year reduction of this magnitude has not occurred since 1988. Noel Byrne asked whether lecturers can be hired for the upcoming year. Goldstein responded that he has called an emergency VPBAC meeting to discuss this issue. Rick Luttmann feels the obvious solution to help solve the budget for next year would be to cut enrollment. Further, he finds it strange that we would grow enrollment when no money is available. Schlereth feels the CSU may use this argument in Sacramento to show how bad this will be for students. Phil McGough feels items such as faculty workstations should be eliminated before courses. Barnard noted that faculty will fight against cutting Academic Affairs when other funds exist. Schlereth agreed that other funds exist, however the University must follow the rules of those funds. He suggested a refresher on these fund rules. Victor Garlin agreed with Barnard and feels a different formula to allocate cuts should be developed. Link noted that the CSU is currently over enrolled by 2 % and campuses are now admitting for next fall. He feels it will be hard to reverse for the upcoming fall at this point. Saied Rahimi feels raising tuition could be an opportunity to generate more revenue. He suggests the University should start educating the student so they will support an increase. Schlereth feels it is unlikely the Governor or legislature will allow a tuition increase. Crabbe feels it is up to each unit to cut their fair share, however asking smaller areas to take larger cuts has a disproportionate effect on that area. Luttmann argued that the CSU was not able to share in the States good times, why should we have to share in the bad times. He noted that when times get tough and University's are cutting enrollment, demand for admittance rises.

Barnard asked that a Spring meeting be added to explain the various funds so that new members could be well informed. Crabbe asked Schlereth what his best guesses are for the future. Schlereth feels three years of cuts are likely followed by a rebound. Schlereth believes the President will ask for a plan in dealing with the 1% cut by the end of the Fall term. Garlin reiterated his feeling that the marginal cost formula be reevaluated in allocating these cuts. Schlereth asked Garlin to reevaluate his position before suggesting a new formula be developed. John Hughes feels he is hearing the faculty advocate for 80% in the good times and no cuts in the bad. As staff are forced to work harder in bad times, so should the faculty. He feels this problem should be dealt with as a group, not as one side against another. Schlereth feels a discussion of values is needed before big decisions are made. This often makes the process easier. Byrne responded to Hughes that it is not the faculty's objective to cut staff but to protect the educational mission of the University. Garlin agrees and feels we should look at other expenditures that are non-salary related. Wilson expressed the need for the group to come together to solve problems in a unified manner. Many issues in the world today have come together to create the situation we are in. He feels now is no the time to be divisive.


(Please see the November 8, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)

Luttmann asked if some of the listed reserve items should be considered off-the-top based on the definition of a reserve item that Schlereth presented. Schlereth explained that Luttmann is probably correct and that the strict definition has not always been followed. Garlin finds it unreasonable that $100,000 is being allocated to search for a Vice-President of Development and only $65,000 has been allocated for all faculty searches combined. Lynn McIntyre noted that much of this money is being used to retain an executive search firm. She feels this is a highly competitive market and that it takes money to make money. Further, this type of position is in high demand and a low number of applicants are searching. McIntyre explained that Jim Meyer has brought in over $70,000,000 in his ten-years at Sonoma State University. She feels this is a good investment. Garlin feels this should fall into the developed list of priorities and does not believe this is a priority to pursue.

Goldstein adjourned the meeting at 10:02am

Minutes prepared by Neil Markley

PBAC minutes 2001-2002
Updated 2008-01-23