HCM 8.9 Upgrade Status Meeting Agenda

FOA Meeting Agenda

Delegate’s Meeting

Wednesday, August 4, 2010 – Crowne Plaza

9:00am – 3:00pm

Members

1) Welcome, Roll Call, Introductions 9:00 am

2) Agenda Approval – Three Additional items;

• CFS and Sponsored Programs and Auxiliary Organizations –Leticia
• FOA – AOA Conference Update – Wade
• Interest on Student Fees Use for Capital Projects – Sharon Taylor

3) Treasurer’s Report – Mary Hinchman reported no activity for July. Balance remains at $68,365. Per FOA agreement at the July 7, 2010 meeting, each campus will be charged $300 via CPO. If a campus requires an invoice, let Mary know.

4) CFS Governance – CABO Discussion – Cindy Matson (Larry Schlereth and Jesse Lum call in at 9:45 AM)

Cindy Matson provided a brief summary of the recent CABO discussion on CFS Governance. CABO provided strong opinions regarding FOA’s roles as advisory to VP’s. The concerns regarding design components, interfaces, etc, by FOA must play an advisory role to VP’s.

Larry Schlereth: Thanked FOA for bringing the concerns and comments forward. The Executive Committee (EC) reaffirms that the appropriate governance structure is CABO for CFS. The EC is comprised of a variety of executives from Provosts, CIO’s, CFO’s, etc. Therefore EC is looking to CABO as the primary owner of CFS – Finance. The role of FUG is being changed. FUG was a key player in the original implementation of PeopleSoft Finance. The EC views FUG as no longer playing a governance role but a user role. It is recognized that FOA Delegates are most involved in the day to day operations and it is anticipated that CABO will ask the FOA to create a sub-committee to provide guidance (Mary Stevens, Larry Schlereth and Cindy Matson will support this concept) at their next meeting.

i) Common Door – for those systems that link into the PeopleSoft Oracle application (i.e. cashiering, scheduling, parking, etc). There were questions raised regarding the definition of the common door. Larry believes this information has been shared with campuses in particular Campus Directors. Larry believes this issue has been resolved. Jessie reported that the Interface document was posted last week. As each campus reviews the list, they should raise issues directly to Jessie.

ii) Web Based Interfaces – Larry has only recently become more familiar with what the issues are related to web based interfaces. A conclusion has not yet been reached. The design team did not deal with these, and used SLO as the basis for CFS baseline. It is not a surprise to Larry that many campuses have determined that there are no solutions for all. CSUN provided an overview to Larry of what their web based interfaces are. Requisitions seem to be the largest area of concern. Larry is going to speak with SJSU. Fullerton has changed their process to use CFS baseline and the EC is reviewing how it is going and what the impacts are. Larry has become aware that the design team did not have adequate time to review this area, and now understands why campuses may wish to keep their web-based interfaces. The Exec VC agrees that we do not want to have 23 web-based interfaces, and perhaps we need to have one web based interface otherwise we are back to where we were-especially related to requisitions. The purpose of CFS is to have common best practices. Some enhancements and embellishments are still needed. Some campuses will participate in a “proof of concept”. E-Procurement is owned by CSU. It is currently not being used and Larry heard from Texas that it may be a solution for requisitions and CFS. A demo may be scheduled. Per Jessie we need to evaluate e-Procurement as well as the CSU requirements.

(a) How does FOA feel about our involvement with a subgroup? Many individuals are in support.

(i) FOA agreed to support FUG would turn into a User Group. There should be no limitation on the representatives or participants in the group (currently there is a limit of 2 per campus a primary and a secondary). FUG would serve has a users group for which information will be disseminated across campuses. Should campus FUG participants have issues or concerns, those would be raised via the campus FOA Delegate.

(ii) FOA would support a subcommittee to advise CABO on CFS issues.

iii) Larry Auxiliary and Sponsored Programs are still in design. There may be a need for two FOA groups (general finance and auxiliary rep) or should there be one group.

5) Travel Policy Clarification – Sharon Taylor raised the question regarding the intent of the policy. Typically ICSUAM policies are high level policies and each campus is to develop campus specific procedures. George Ashkar indicated that the policy is at a high level with recommended guidelines and he will be personally reviewing all comments submitted and reviewing them with the Chancellor. It was suggested that the policy be specific to state that the campuses have the jurisdiction to develop campus specific policies and procedures. George will have a separate conference call with Sharon Taylor, Bob Barker and any other FOA delegates who are interested in the topic to discuss more. The time/date of the conference call will be sent to the FOA delegates.

• Travel Program (DGS and Connexxus) Update – George Ashkar reported that 6 Campuses have indicated they would like to move forward as pilots for Connexxus. UC has visited each of these pilot campuses. The MOU as well as a letter agreement is in draft form. Significant savings are anticipated from FY0809 baseline, potentially $4-6 million per year. Timeframe would be 18-24 months following the first 6 for all campuses to be on-line with Connexxus. Pilot Campuses: San Francisco, Humboldt, San Bernardino, Stanislaus, Fresno, Northridge, and Chancellor’s Office.

6) 4+1 Bachelors/Masters degree program Fees – Scott Burns provided an electronic copy of Draft Consultation on “Blended Programs” Policy

7) Chancellor’s Office Update

• Financial Services

(1) Legal Close – George Ashkar

(a) George Ashkar reported that the legal close went very smoothly this year, with all campuses completing their reports by the deadline.

(b) There were some over expenditures by KPMG from some campuses. Comments by these campuses were that campuses trained many of the auditors. KPMG does account for all hours and then applies a discount rate based by lack of knowledge and learning curves. Some suggestions for next year are to have the budgeted hours per tasks. When campuses do not complete stand alone audits annually, there may be an impact to the hours. If the additional hours will costs the same as completing standalone statements, perhaps it would be more beneficial to complete financial statements annually.

(i) Per George Ashkar, the legislation language to remove the requirement for standalone audits is not moving forward. Issues surrounding transparency, auxiliary focus, and UC issues are the primary causes. Therefore, the legislative mandate requires each campus to complete a full audit every other year. Each campus has the option to do a full scope audit annually with campus paying the bill. Campuses can receive quotes for the full annual audit.

(ii) This year’s audit and last year’s audit was at a reduced rate (lowered by $1 million). The reduction was due to C category campuses to desk audits with no visits. One half of the campuses had full scope and the other half did not. One year left on the 5 year contract agreement with KPMG. CO will continue to pay for KPMG audits. Campuses pay for a small portion via CPO in the range of $20k to $30k.

(iii) If a campus is in the A category, they must go through a full scope but are not required to issue financial statements.

(2) FSAC – Sherry Pickering

(a) 4 Main Discussion items, 3 of which related to Cost Recovery.

(i) Work Study

(ii) O-U and Special Session

1. Allocations between CERF and 485

(iii) Transactions for Interagency between Campuses

(iv) Accounting Treatment for University Items on Auxiliary Organizations (this was postponed until the draft policy is available). Per George there is a draft policy that was provided to the VP’s and this is Ben Quillian’s highest priority.

(3) ICSUAM – George Ashkar and Sherry Pickering

(a) Fee Revenue Policies are under development

(b) Cell Phone Policy – No further Info available at this time. Requested a copy of the draft provided. Campuses were requested to send copies of policies if they have one, to George. Some campuses indicated they have implemented stipends and some campuses indicated that they needed to meet and confer.

(c) Cal Grant Information – recommendation by CO is to issue A & B and the access grants/stipends. CO prefers that campuses hold harmless the students due to State Budget issues.

• Budget – Rodney Rideau reported that the Democrats came out with a draft budget proposal yesterday (8/3/10). The Conference Committee is expected to approve the proposal, but a budget is not expected until September at the earliest. The proposal encompasses the following;

(1) CSU $305m restoration and $60m enrollment sustained. The funding is based upon revenue assumptions totaling $4.7 billion and may or may not remain in the budget.

(2) Fee buy out is not maintained.

(a) Board of Trustees did approve a 5% fee rate increase with a review of the issue in November if necessary.

(3) Final Budget letter will assume a 10% fee increase, but will not allocate the $305m or the $60m enrollment growth to campuses. The 10% fee increase has been calculated by the CO and may be adjusted when the final budget is enacted.

(a) When a final State Budget is enacted, allocations will be granted for the $305m and the $60m if the funding is retained.

(4) What about the 2% Spring Enrollment Growth? There is some FTES growth included in the $305m allocation, which would approximately covers this the +/-2% enrollment leeway authorized by the Chancellor. The $60m growth would involve additional FTES. My presumption is that we will have a budget by September which will allow time to process Spring enrollment growth of 2% should the $305m be included in the enacted budget.

(5) Payroll – 1/12 drawdown from State General Fund was authorized by legislation in March 2009 for 2010-11. CSU was offered option to take drawdown rather than suspend drawdown and deposit $300 million of revenue in CSU State Trust account. CSU accepted this option which allows for the use of state funds for July payroll and preserves CSU interest earnings on fee revenue in the CSU State Trust account. This option avoided campus of fee revenue for total July payroll costs.

• Procurement Update – No update

• Audit Update – Michelle Schlack reported that for 2010 8 Subject Audits have been selected and For each subject area audit, six campuses are selected. Many audits are in progress.

8) Dr. Ben Quillian Comments – Unavailable. It is suggested that FOA will invite him back for a future meeting.

9) CSU 101 Deposit - Work has been done by Debbie Brothwell and Lori Erdman regarding CSU 101. Debbie Brothwell provided an update as follows. A syllabus has been drafted. There will be 3 spots per campuses. The dates are March 6, 7, & 8 2011. Location is Monterey Bay with cost estimates of $575 - $625 with a room rate of $110. Each campus should send a note to Debbie of whether or not they will be able to send 3 representatives. FOA will be provided an update in November.

10) Liaison Reports

• Accounts Payable – Bob Barker

Some talk about Travel Policy but not much else. A question was asked about AP Workflow and whether campuses have implemented workflow for invoice approvals and processing. Some campuses are using Hershey document imaging system but not workflow. George Ashkar is implementing workflow for AP and would be willing to demo their product.

• Student Accounts Receivable – Justine Heartt

Official Survey is ongoing in the area of Bursar’s Office

• Purchasing (PSSOA) – Scott Burns

March PSSOA and Risk Conference is being defined. It is targeted for the SeaCliffs Resort 3rd week of March. An in-person meeting is occurring this week at the CO. Karen Wall indicated she will be the liaison for PSSOA.

• Budget – John Fitzgibbon No update.

11) CFS and Sponsored Programs and Auxiliary Organizations –Leticia Coate

The main concern is: How are Sponsored Programs and Auxiliaries going to report from Data Warehouse? Thoughts are to create an Auxiliary Dashboard. There is a mod in CFS for Sponsored Programs to capture required data, but no ability for reporting. Campuses using CFS for their auxiliary organizations are; San Bernardino, Stanislaus, San Francisco, Bakersfield, Humboldt, Monterey Bay, and Sonoma.

12) FOA – AOA Conference Update – Doug Wade reported that conference is scheduled for January 9 – 11 at Newport Beach Hyatt Regency. He has requested confirmation of the number of attendees per campus based on spreadsheet sent out August 4 2010. FOA will not be collecting money. All registration will occur on AOA website which can be reached via FOA website. Partial registration will be allowed.

Current Conference Topics:

i) General Fund Cost Recovery

ii) Process Mapping

iii) CFS Lessons Learned

iv) Affinity Group Planned

v) General Sessions (ICSUAM & EO919 and EO1000)

vi) Potential Topic: UBIT

vii) Monday Night Beach Party Theme

13) Interest on Student Fees Use for Capital Projects – The primary question is whether a campus can use Interest on Student Fee’s to cover capital costs to supplement bond proceeds since the bond is in suspense. The issue primarily involves GO Revenue Bonds. Per Nancy Freelancer-Paice, a clarification memo from the CO will be provided soon and a bond sale is anticipated for September. Memo says that if you are doing a bridge it should be out of the project fund and stage the claims (do not send the claims into the State Controller). That means that the campus is floating the construction expenditures with trust fund cash. Clarification is needed if it is better to use trust fund cash, interest on student fees or student fees to front the expenditures.

14) Next Meeting Teleconference September 1, 2010

Page 1 of 5