Minutes December 13, 2001







Bernie Goldstein brought the meeting to order at 8:05am. Melinda Barnard moved and Phil McGough seconded a motion to approve the proposed agenda. The agenda was passed unanimously.


Rand Link moved and Barnard seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2001 meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously with abstentions from those not in attendance at the November 8, 2001 meeting.


(Please see the December 13, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth informed the Committee that a one-time mid-year budget reduction has been requested by the Department of Finance to help balance the States budget. Sonoma State University's portion of the reduction is $737,820 for the current year. In addition to this reduction the campus must also find $350,000 to cover the campus-based assured access technology needs. The total amount needed to balance the budget is $1,087,820. Schlereth reviewed the reductions by division and noted that the cuts were not apportioned via the marginal cost formula. Though the marginal cost formula exists, the PBAC has never used it for reductions. Instead, the cuts have been decided in a collegial way that usually favors the academic program to preserve course sections. Catherine Nelson asked how the low-enrolled coursed were determined and how these cuts will be spread equitably across the schools. Goldstein responded that eight courses with low enrollment were discussed in the Deans Council and they determined the closure. McGough asked how the reductions in Academic Affairs were determined. Pierce responded that pools of money in Academic Affairs were assessed first, the remaining deficit was allocated across the division based on units percentage of the Academic Affairs budget. Schlereth noted the he and Goldstein have drafted a memo to the Campus outlining this information. Goldstein indicated he and Schlereth would update the Campus periodically. Schlereth thanked the Campus Reengineering Committee for their advice on the Administration and Finance reductions.

Barnard stated that the assured access technology needs are here for funding because they have not been funded by the Chancellors Office. Further, this program is not one-time in nature and is an ongoing expense in Administration and Finance. She feels if this item had not come for funding at this meeting, Academic Affairs portion of the state budget reductions would come close to equaling their marginal cost formula percentage. Schlereth disagrees and feels assured access cannot be taken away as an item needing funding and noted that if this program were to be eliminated, the money would be at the PBAC for allocation. Steve Wilson reiterated that many assured access program such as open computer labs are actually an extension of the academic program. McGough agrees with Barnard and feels a fast one has been pulled on the Committee. He feels the campus reductions are close to the marginal cost formula if assured access is removed from the state budget reductions. He suggested the information be presented differently to show that the marginal cost formula was used, plus Administration and Finances funding of assured access, equals the campus reductions. Letitia Coate feels the numbers are accurate. She explained that the University's allocations had been reduced and the campus needed to solve the problem. She does not want to see the Committee fight over presentation. Noel Byrne agreed with Coate that the Committee should not fight over presentation, however if impression management is suspected, distrust among Members may occur. Barnard reiterated McGoughs statements and feels the presentation should be changed. Barnard and McGough are concerned that budget issues will be lost in a marginal cost discussion if the presentation looks muddled. Goldstein informed Members that he and Schlereth rarely look at percentages when allocating cuts. They both see what they can afford and share the cuts. Goldstein feels the presentation is accurate as presented.

Wilson moved acceptance of the presentation. McGough seconded the motion. Link called the question and a vote commenced. The motion was passed with one dissenting vote and one abstention.


(Please see the December 13, 2001 Agenda Packet for this document)

Schlereth presented the parameters in dealing with the 2002-2003 budget. He noted that though we should be anticipating a 5-10% budget reduction next year, he does not want to assume any particular percentage until the actual numbers are known. Wilson noted the magnitude of these reductions and asked the Committee remain focused on solving these problems. Kathryn Crabbe asked Schlereth if he believes the budget will improve in years following these cuts. Schlereth responded the variable costs should be reduced first as these are the easiest to restore as the budget improves. He feels a lesson from the reductions in the early nineties is to assume the reductions will be permanent and hope they are on-time instead of planning for one-time reductions that could become permanent. Crabbe asked if the no lay-off policy was a policy of this campus or of the Chancellors Office. Schlereth responded that he does not know the lay-off policy of the Chancellors Office, but President ArmiƱana has always believed in no lay-offs at this campus. He added, though, that the President has never faced a 10% reduction at this campus. Schlereth believes that lay-offs are extremely hard to do and are very difficult to plan. Crabbe expressed her support to not grow if the budget is reduced. Lynn McIntyre suggested a plan for multi-year cuts based on past experience. Byrne noted that the last 10% reduction, in the eighties, resulted in a 10% reduction in permanent employees. Crabbe asked who would determine enrollment cuts; the campus or the CSU. Goldstein responded that we are still unsure and are waiting to see what the Governor does. McGough asked if budget reductions had been discussed in Academic Affairs. Goldstein responded that the discussion is beginning. Barnard feels that all units must think outside the box when dealing with these cuts. She suggested combining departments, looking at athletics, and other alternatives. Byrne expressed his belief that the cuts must come from the bottom of the organization to the top. Nelson believes that if any cuts are made it will directly impact the work of the Academic Senate. She feels the budget and he Senate are linked and is frustrated that the President does not feel this way. She would like to see the cuts come from the bottom up as well. Link agrees that any plan should come from the bottom as well, however it is up to the central level to be sure the cuts are as easy as possible. Goldstein asked embers to be careful what they asked for. Gloria Ogg believes it is up to each division to constantly change the way they do business so huge change does not happen all at once. Steven Wilson (faculty) would like to give this problem a chance to work itself out before we have to make cuts. McGough would like to see the top do some planning and reducing then give the bottom a less of a cut to manage.



Goldstein adjourned the meeting at 10:06am

Minutes prepared by Neil Markley

PBAC minutes 2001-2002
Updated 2008-01-23