California State University San Marcos
Budget and Long Range Planning Committee
Minutes from 12th Meeting 2006-2007 Academic Year
November 30, 2006
Present: David Barsky, Tom Bennett, Vicki Golich, Kit Herlihy, Robin Marion (co-chair), Judy Papenhausen, Patty Seleski, Wayne Veres, Kathleen Watson (co-chair)
November 8 minutes approved as revised and sent to Marcia Woolf
Topics addressed:
Ø Provost Cutrer visit to review status of budget process for Academic Affairs
Ø Begin reviewing originator response to letter requesting clarification on “P” form for MA in Education Option - Communicative Sciences and Disorders
Ø UAMP update by David Barsky
Ø Revisit how to address over enrollment issue
Academic Affairs Budget Update
After thanking Tom Bennett, Mary Hinchman and Linda ____ for their tireless efforts to bring the budget some clarity, we reviewed four handouts:
1. Template designed to elicit accurate data from each subdivision/unit
2. Base Budget Overall Summary
3. Summary of data from each subdivision/unit
4. Example data from School of Nursing
The template (#1) has seven categories:
A. All permanent employee lines – in the past some funded by fiscal resources, goal to move all to permanent monies.
B. Permanently funded vacant positions being recruited for 2006-07 start
C. All other vacant permanent positions (e.g. unfilled lines, retreat lines)
D. All other permanent dollar non-salary budgeted needs
E. Recurring Operating expenses not permanently funded (chemicals, frogs, paper)
F. Other Fiscal Expenses – one time (equipment or travel)
G. Other funding sources to offset operational expenses (e.g. foundation, lottery, trusts, CERF)
This template was sent to each unit to self-report what it actually costs to do business in that unit. From that input, the next two handouts were compiled.
The base budget summary (#2) indicates (constantly being revised):
Permanent dollars - ~$34,747,026 in
~$41,354,773 out
~$ (6,607,747) gap
Fiscal dollars – ~$ 8,754,831 in
~$ 2,836,726 out
~$ 5,918,104 gap
Bottom Line – Permanent and Fiscal in minus Permanent and Fiscal out = ~$(689,643)
As a result of over target enrollment, $1.9 million in student fees came to the campus. A formula was used to determine the instructional costs of those additional students, as follows: 30 freshman x 5 classes per freshman = $25,000 per cohort of 30 students
Therefore the extra students over target generate additional instructional costs of approximately $500,000 per semester. So $1 million will go toward those additional instructional costs, another $400,000 to additional tutors, advising, police overtime, etc. Leaving $500,000, which will be discussed in UBC and Exec. How should this be used? Should it go toward the permanent deficit?
There will be some fiscal salary savings by moving all permanent employees to permanent dollars. Operating money comes from base funding (currently 20:1 faculty line without allocations for staff or OE & E) and a portion of growth funding.
How decisions are made concerning how far to go over target was discussed. When does the cutoff occur? Is there sufficient data to make good projections and determine when applications should be cut off? The Chancellor’s office ultimately determines how many students will be admitted. The process is:
Ø An enrollment group including Provost, Deans, Gerry Gonzalez and Enrollment services meets and makes a recommendation to –
Ø Executive Council who makes a recommendation to –
Ø President Haynes who makes a recommendation to –
Ø Chancellor who sets the targets.
Next year’s target will be 3% above this year’s actual, and 13% over this year’s target. Our campus argued for a higher target (4-5%) but was turned down by the Chancellor. The CSU system cannot exceed 2.5% overall, but many campuses are not making that target, so we may exceed ours next year as well. The determination of when to close admissions is challenging since there are many variables.
Going over target may have long term advantages, by increasing the base coming into the campus, but is a real challenge in the short run.
Summary data from each unit (#3) –
This two-page summary has columns that correspond to the A-G categories in #1 above. Each self reported item from the template has been gone over one by one with the originators to be certain that it was filled out correctly. Tough questions were asked to be sure only actual needs were recorded, and in the proper columns, in an attempt to get each unit what they need.
Every attempt is made to use consistent terminology toward a goal of a more sophisticated model that will get budgets to units immediately.
Sample data from Nursing Template (#4)
This example served to demonstrate the type of data that came into the group developing the budget summary.
Next steps
As a result of collecting this extensive data, internal and broad discussions are taking place about what we have, how we spend, and how units can be made whole. We are also looking for other sources of funding to augment needs.
The next step is to develop a new model for allocation. In this way units will have predictable budgets to work from as they go forward. Then when additional monies become available they can be tied to strategic priorities.
Conversations should continue, perhaps with the Co-Chairs of BLP as we continue to make decisions for this year and long range. The end product is a clear vision of what academic excellence through rigor and equity with support look like in Academic Affairs. We need to think of ways to focus thematically, build on our strengths, and work together toward common goals rather than view our resources as discreet “splinters” of the whole.
Questions/Concerns from BLP about the Budget Process
What has happened to commitments made on the Academic Blueprint? Commitments from Academic Blueprint were honored this year through strategic funding, but we need to think differently going forward about where support comes from, as there are no more long-range allocations through the Blueprint.
Are there guidelines for costs of particular programs to get up and running? For BLP it would be helpful to have an idea of costs to begin a new program, a sense of resources required. Perhaps in categories such as a lab related, versus a non-lab course. We may be able to look at similar existing programs, knowing that different campuses are set up very differently and will not be comparable line by line.
Is a discussion of sweeps possible? Sweeps are particularly problematic for long range planning for new and existing programs since setting aside money results in it being taken away.
What does a signature on a “P” form mean? Is it an OK to plan? It is not necessarily an indication that the resources exist for the new program. How might we build into the process a “go ahead” with the caveat that it is based on “available funding?” Perhaps a line next to signatures
A solid budget plan is as important as actual spending. If we can create a strong budget plan, then units can be asked, “How are you doing with the plan?”
What is the process to get a new College up and running? Is that being determined? By whom?
Discussion of Response from Originator of MA in Education, Communicative Science and Disorders Option
A letter was sent Nov 15 to the originator. A partial response was forwarded to BLP. After a brief discussion of the responses, the following issues arose for clarification. Robin, as the COE rep, will set up a meeting with the originator, COE Dean and Associate Dean to clarify.
Semester sequence and impact on load
Time to degree is five semesters, but the Appendix indicates that Sem 1 and 4 are in the fall, and Sem 2 and 5 in the Spring. How is this explained? Is the program a Fall, Spring, Summer, Fall, Spring? Or Fall, Spring, Fall, Spring, Fall? There are different faculty load implications and therefore budget implications for each scenario. Is there commitment from the College of Education to a full load for students and faculty for this program in the summer if it is an integral part of the program?
If in summer, Sem 3 has a 14 credit load for both faculty and students in only 10 weeks.
If not in summer, by the time cohort three starts, there will be an overlap of three cohorts enrolled that fall.
For one scenario it appears the new tenure-line faculty will have 12 units to teach but 6 preps? Is that accurate? For other scenarios the total annual load for some faculty will exceed our expected load. How will this overload be compensated?
Please clarify the semester sequence, then forecast on a long-range grid faculty loads for the scenario, and obtain a commitment from the college of ed for the additional cost of the full summer loads if applicable.
Cost associated with supervision
How will faculty be compensated for supervision? You mentioned "similarly to the credential program," does that mean three students for 1 credit? Has this been accounted for in faculty load as outlined? Or will this require additional faculty?
Is there a cost associated with supervision by clinical staff in medical or school settings and how will it be covered?
Staff Costs for Placements
Will there be a need for additional staff or staff time to coordinate placements of the students in school and medical settings? This time would be to complete contracts, insurance agreements, etc. as well as making the placements.
Program Coordination
What will be the cost of coordinating the program and how will the cost of program coordination be covered? Will it be release time and how much?
Faculty Ratios
Does the ASHA accrediting body have requirements for tenure track/part time faculty teaching in the program? In the response it was somewhat unclear what the guidelines might be.
IITS
Please provide confirmation through Wayne Veres at IITS about any costs associated with supporting this program, either through procurement of equipment, software or tech time to support students.
Library
Is there a timeline within which Mark Stengel will be providing details of Library costs. There were some areas for clarification of numbers, and the issue of startup vs ongoing costs.
Startup vs. Ongoing costs
Table 3 in Section 6e of the new “P” for would be very helpful for separating Startup from Ongoing costs of the program. This should not necessitate any new numbers be calculated, rather just redistribute them in order to complete our analysis.
Source of funds
Blueprint funds cannot be confirmed beyond this year, for which they were paid from Strategic Priority funds. Any costs going forward must be accounted for in other ways.
Scope of Program
A rationale for offering a program beyond the K-12 certification is needed, since the proposal is based on need in the K-12 community, but the scope of this program goes well beyond the requirements for filling that need.
Placements within the medical community go beyond the normal scope of the College of Education. Could you elaborate collaborations with medical communicative science and disorders colleagues? Or would a connection with the School of Nursing or other colleagues at CSUSM working in medical settings be indicated?
UAMP Update
David Barsky provided two handouts:
Ø Academic Plan 2006-07 through 2015-26 as sent to trustees
Ø Academic Plan 2006-07 through 2015-26 as returned revised
Three degrees were added:
Child and Adolescent Development BA 2009
Digital and Media Arts BA – 2008
History MA
Music BA – 2009
HHS replace with School of Nursing
Social work dropped
Scheduled reviews of several programs moved back
The suggestion to strike “San Diego State University” from the footnote was made.
Revisit how to address over-enrollment issue
Rather than a resolution, might we ask Darrin Bush to come to Senate and talk about the issue of targets and enrollment with the whole body? The key date seems to be when applications are no longer accepted. Would Exec be the better venue to ask him questions? We need a constructive way to seek information.
Impact on instruction, workloads, programming all important and of concern. For example, more MWF courses will be offered since there is an increase in lower division enrollment. We added about 125 students (100 FTES). To what extent are we recruiting Graduate students with associated increased FTES?
Next Time
Continue review of MA in Education Communicative Science and Disorders Option.
Continue budget discussions.
Work completed by BLP thus far this year:
During the first 12 gatherings, including 11 BLP meetings and 1 joint AALC and BLP meeting, the BLP committee accomplished the following:
Ø Revisited the BLP charge, review the newly approved “A” and “P” forms.
Ø Represented faculty voice and bridge dialogue across campus in four arenas: President’s Cabinet, Executive Committee, University Budget Committee, WASC Theme #1 (formerly ABC) committee, and Academic Affairs.
Ø Articulated an increased role for BLP in the University Long Range Planning process.
Ø Discussed the process by which new programs are originated and move through the academic planning process, including those not clearly linked to existing faculty expertise or existing college structures.