Academic Senate Minutes January 27 ,2004

Chair MacConnie called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27, 2004, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present:Butler, Cheyne, Dalsant, Derden, Dixon, Dunk, Green, Klein, Knox, Kornreich, MacConnie, Marshall, Meiggs, Mortazavi, Moyer, Mullery, Newsom, Oliver, O’Rourke-Andrews, Paselk, Paynton, Sanford, Schwab, Shellhase, Sonntag, Thobaben, Varkey, Vrem, Yarnall.

Members Absent:Coffey, Fulgham, Richmond, Snyder, Wieand.

Proxies:Meiggs for Paynton (1st half of meeting); Platin for Kiesling

Guests:Steve Carlson, CNRS; Karen Earls, Budget & Inst Data; Martin Flashman, Mathematics; Susan Higgins, COPS; Kathy Munoz, Health & PE; Val Philips, AH&SS; Carol Terry, Univ. Budget Office.

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Klein/Knox) to approve the minutes of December 9, 2003 as submitted.Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

It was moved and seconded (Derden/Cheyne) to approve the minutes of November 18, 2003 as submitted.Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair MacConnie read a thank you note from Greta.

Chair MacConnie announced the following:

Special Election – Nominations for four representatives to the new University Budget Committee are due by noon, Thursday 29.There will be one representative from each of the three colleges and one non-college affiliated (counselors, librarians, coaches) representative elected.Election will be Feb. 3 & 4.

Voter Registration – An email from Provost Vrem encourages faculty to announce to students that voter registration forms are available around campus and to provide them in classrooms as well.A suggestion was made to notify students that, unless they send the forms in early (at least 7-10 days before the date on the form), they should get a Humboldt County ballot registration form.Otherwise, the deadline on the statewide form, which is only three days before the close of registration, may not allow enough turnaround time from Sacramento for the Humboldt County Registrar to get them on the rolls.

President’s Council Meeting – All senators have been invited to the President’s Council Meeting on Friday, Jan. 30 at 8 a.m. The Council is comprised of Deans, Directors, Dept. Chairs, Senate Exec Comm. members, and Vice-Presidents. The Senate is invited because part of discussion will about the budget process and the proposed budget policy. It will be a more detailed discussion than occurs in the Senate meeting, and is an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the budget process and the budget policy.

The Chancellor’s Office has announced two faculty openings: 1) Faculty Director for the CSU Institute for Teaching and Learning; and 2) CSU Service Learning Scholar.Information is available in the Senate office if anyone is interested.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Associated Students – CSSA has hit the ground running this semester.Two approaches will be taken to oppose the budget cuts and fee increases.The first will be educating campus constituents.To do this, A.S. members will be asking for about five minutes of class time to speak to students, targeting largest classes first.The second target will be the capitol constituency, including CSSA lobby day in Sacramento on Feb. 23, and scheduling bi-weekly meetings with legislators’ district offices in Eureka.Three main points for educating constituencies will be 1) financial aid, 2) outreach, and supporting outreach programs, and 3) looking for a sponsor to provide legislation to create a textbook affordability bill.

A.S. passed a resolution titled “The Resolution Supporting the Preservation of the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) at Cal Poly Humboldt.There will be a rally on the Quad on February 6 from 11-2 with student speakers, visual aids, etc.

OAA – Unofficially, it appears that Humboldt’s enrollment target for next year will be changed from 7,450 FTES downwards to 7,077 FTES.It also appears that campuses will have the option of suspending state supported summer operation next year (Summer 2004) and moving that operation to Extended Education with the anticipation that the fees would not increase for students.

Question was raised as to how savings from cancellation of summer session would be used.Savings could be used to meet part of our budget reduction.It was noted that student fees anticipated over the summer would not be available and would impact A.S. budget.

Educational Policies – The Committee is working on a number of items and resolutions will be coming forward the next couple of senate meetings, including a resolution with regard to online course evaluations.

Statewide Senate – At the last meeting of the Statewide Senate information on the budget was presented by the vice-chancellor. John Travis spoke about the contract being ratified by the Board of Directors, that Robin will mention later. The chair of the Board of Trustees expressed the Board’s concern regarding the role of the CSU and the budget cuts, as well as the number of vacant Board positions that need to be filled by appointment. David Spence expressed concerns on dealing with transfers. A Task Force will be formed on Transfer that will look at policies and issues. A resolution was passed to encourage campuses to look at their own policies. A resolution was passed encouraging local senates to look their campus employment of graduate students and teaching associates. A process has begun to organize graduate students. A resolution was passed in support of Proposition 56. A resolution was passed to look at the CSU Project and lower division requirements for majors. A last resolution concerned letting the CSU decide its own priorities for budget cuts.

University Curriculum Committee – The UCC met this morning to determine this semester’s schedule.The Committee will be working with several program reviews, including some in areas that have not been done before.

Senate Finance – The ad hoc Budget Committee has completed its task with the resolution included in today’s agenda.

Student Affairs – There is a resolution from the Committee on today’s agenda.

CFA – The CFA Board of Directors accepted the tentative agreement on behalf of CFA in order to meet the January 28 deadline. It is expected that it will be ratified. It is a ratification of a re-opener. There are some specific changes involved in the tentative agreement. Details can be found at www.calfac.org.; highlighted areas include order of lay-off which is very specific now, very detailed outline of the golden handshake, FERP program, pre-tax parking, and the $500 tax subsidy for rural counties like Humboldt that do not have HMOs. More details will be forthcoming in the media after the agreement has been accepted.

4. Budget Update

The budget will be an ongoing discussion topic this semester.The idea behind today’s agenda item is to get all the senators updated on what we currently know, discuss and, hopefully, pass the budget policy, and review the budget process that was accepted last semester.

Carol Terry provided an update on the budget situation.All were encouraged to take a look atCal Poly Humboldt News Online – it will be used to communicate updates on the budget, etc. Everyone is reminded that this is an iterative budget process that we’re going through now.Over time, as the budget iterations change and the dollars and percents change -our position might change.Now, based on the governor’s budget, the CSU is looking at taking a net reduction of another $220 million, that represents an 8.3% reduction to the CSU.Adding that to the last couple of years represents a reduction of over three-quarter billion dollars to the CSU.

Humboldt is looking at a reduction in enrollments of ca. 16,700 students and will lobby for the flexibility for deciding the best way to take the reductions at Humboldt.Also looking at the governor’s proposal for a 10% increase in undergraduate fees, a 40% increase in graduate fees, and a 20% in non-resident fees.

Humboldt is looking at a $5.7 million reduction in this particular iteration of the governor’s budget.We could look at the flexibility of using the summer session as part of that reduction which would be about $2.7 million.Humboldt is also looking at a reduction of 373 FTEs.Humboldt will need to focus and plan for reduction at the 10% level.

5. Resolution on Cal Poly Humboldt Budget Policy (#11-03/4-SF)

It was moved and seconded (Mortazavi/Meiggs) to place the resolution on the floor.

Whereas,Cal Poly Humboldt Budget Review Process requires an open, inclusive, and objective budgeting process; and

Whereas,an open, inclusive, and objective budgeting process must be accompanied by a budget policy that provides the opportunity for openness, inclusion, andobjectivity; and

Whereas,an open and inclusive budget process/budget policy demands greatest participation by faculty, staff, and students in preparation of a university budget on annual basis; and

Whereas,an objective budget process/budget policy must be goal oriented; and

Whereas,an objective budget process/budget policy provides an opportunity for feedback to Cal Poly Humboldt constituencies for modification, improvement, and accountability; and

Whereas,a responsible budget policy requires a university reserve to provide stability and predictability; be it

Resolved:That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend the attached document prepared by the Ad hoc Budget Policy Committee to the President for implementation; and be it further

Resolved:That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that Cal Poly Humboldt Budget Policy be reviewed during the Fall 2006 term.

Senator Mortazavi provided a brief summary of the changes in the revised document. Comments from the first reading at the last meeting were considered and some are reflected in the new draft.Concern about the use of the term department was addressed by eliminating the term and substituting the term “cost center”.Taxing roll forward monies is no longer part of the document.The university reserve is still included, but the manner of accumulating the reserve is changed in the new document.

Discussion points included:

§Under the section “University Contingency Reserve” (p.5), there is still no mention of what the reserve will be used for.What would total percentage of reduction be with the addition of $1 million off of the top for the reserve?Would be helpful to have the decision-making process outlined for use of reserve/contingency funds.

§It is difficult to predict what the reserve will be used for, but an example of how it might be used is the mandated Rural Health Care supplement that is not being paid by the state.Each campus will have to come up with the funds.Unforeseen events that occur during the year, some coming down from the system, put us in a difficult budget situation if we don’t have the money to deal with them.

§What percentage of our budget is in salaries and benefits, so that it is not flexible?About 92% of Academic Affairs budget is salaries and benefits.Reductions would not necessarily come out of OE, in some departments may come out of salaries.

§Point of clarification – the Senate Executive Committee decided that it would be possible to make a motion to amend the document.

§Important to consider elimination of summer session to help with reduction.Reserve is a necessity, a basic principle of budgeting.

It was moved and seconded (Thobaben/Derden) to amend the Budget Policy document by removing paragraph “University Contingency Reserve Policy” from the section titled “University Contingency Reserve” (p.5-6).

Discussion points included:

§Is this the correct amount for next year?How do we know?Do we have enough information at this point to know?Prefer to re-visit this issue when we have more information on the budget.

§Is it possible to wait until later this semester to see what the budget is at that point?Instead of eliminating the reserve outright, could it be re-visited later.

§We don’t have any place to borrow money from.Previous contingencies have been used up, we need a reserve given the current uncertainty even more than before.Without a reserve we cannot respond - a contingency lets us make rational decisions when the State does not.

§We have $20,000 in the current reserve fund.In order to meet contingencies such as last year’s fire insurance, we would have to set up a continuous mid-year reduction.No one would have a stable budget.

§We have had this level of reserve on our campus, but it was invisible, held centrally . That is no longer acceptable, with the new open budget process

§The choice is to either vote for constant reductions for contingencies that come up during the year or have a reserve.

§If we have a reserve but don’t want to take funds off the top to build it, could we turn to fundraising efforts to build reserve outside of state funding?

§The issue is not whether we have a contingency fund or not, but with the specificity in the document at this particular moment.In order to have flexibility, we should eliminate this paragraph now and bring it up again later, in order to have a better handle on what is needed.

§It is inappropriate to think of the reserve as savings account.It is essential to build a reserve, to prevent constant demand for reductions.

§The reserve is for necessities, not for frills, and is a necessity.In terms of waiting, we’ll be lucky if we have any hard information by summer.The new open process is appreciated, it is a good way to legitimize something that has already existed.Recommend the language “the highest funding priority” (p. 6, 1st paragraph) be addressed when decision is made about motion.

§Concern about priority of reserve was addressed at a meeting with labor groups.Concern expressed that the impact will be carried on the backs of students and people who will lose their jobs.A university reserve is important, maybe not a million dollars and maybe not as a top funding priority.

§Concern about suggestion that part of funding for reserve will be salary savings from elimination of summer school – and that decision has not been made.Some academic programs were created to be dependent upon on summer school, especially graduate programs.Elimination of summer session will be a controversial decision.Decision on summer school will be important information to have before making decision on contingency.

§We need a reserve, but do we have to lock ourselves into 1.2% today, based on how fluid the whole situation.Can we wait a little longer for more information, and bring this up again later.

§Safer to identify percentage figures rather than dollar figures, they are general guidelines.A reserve is needed to build into a process of responsible budgeting.The money in the reserve will be going back to units as needed, it is not money that will not be used.

§What percent of the budget has been spent on contingency in the past?The University has spent ca. $2 million each year through a contingency and reserve scenario.

§“Until the goal has been reached” (p. 6, 1st paragraph) refers to the goal of 2.4%.

§If the Senate passes this policy, we are bound by the policy, but the resolution states that the policy will be re-visited in 2006.

§Rather than take out a whole part of the document as the motion stands, it would be valuable to keep the section intact, and take out some of the specificity.There needs to be something in the document that the budget process will consider assigning a part of the budget to reserves.

§Delay will create problems for scheduling courses; reductions usually come out of spring because of overspending in the fall.Better to know now, to schedule for next year.Will $1 million be enough if we’ve been spending $2 million a year on contingencies?

§There was discussion on idea of tabling the motion and re-visiting it at the next Senate meeting.

§Need to understand that not moving forward with new policies is an instruction to implement the old policies.The old policy includes taking a June 30 snapshot of salaries as they are, use vacant positions, and create a $2 million reserve out of the savings.

§Fall schedules are being put together now, need to have some sense of budget now.

It was moved and seconded (Cheyne/Paselk) to call the question.Voting occurred and PASSED WITH 5 NO VOTES.

Moved and seconded (Cheyne/Paselk) to vote immediately on whether or not to remove the paragraph “University Contingency Reserve Policy” under the section “University Contingency Reserve” from the Budget Policy document.

Voting on the motion to amend the Budget Policy document by removing the paragraph “University Contingency Reserve Policy” under the section “University Contingency Reserve” occurred and MOTION FAILED WITH 3 YES VOTES.

It was moved and seconded (Cheyne/Knox) to change the wording in the paragraph titled “University Contingency Reserve Policy” (p. 6, lines 6-7) from “shall be considered the highest funding priority” to “shall be considered a high funding priority”.

Discussion included:

Reserve will be built just this once time, and will be part of ongoing budget in subsequent years.This is a one-time decision, to set aside $1 million to reach the goal of a healthy reserve.Think of the reserve as an ongoing pool of money, like salaries, that will provide more stability to the university budget.

It was moved and seconded (Derden/Sonntag) to call the question.Voting occurred and PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Voting on the amendment occurred.MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The revised paragraph reads:

Approximately two and four tenths percent of the University’s state allocation shall be established as a reasonable base budget funding level for the University’s contingency fund.A base budget contingency reserve of one and two tenths percent shall be established with an initial budget reallocation from divisional budgets for the fiscal year 2004-2005.Starting in fiscal year 2005-2006, an additional base budget allocation of a third of one percent per year shall be added to the University Contingency Reserve until the goal has been reached.Once fully established, maintaining the based budget contingency reserve level at the funding goal shall be considered the highesta high funding priority during the annual budget process.The university contingency reserve funds shall be allocated by the President and the Executive Committee.Allocations from this reserve shall be reported during the annual budget process.

Discussion returned to the budget policy document, focusing on the percentages and amounts set as goals:

§Longer term goal should be larger than 2.4 %, in small increments.How much do we need versus how much would be nice, e.g., what is critical versus discretionary.

§What are people comfortable with for next year (1.2%); what should the ceiling be (2.4%); and what would be the build-up amount (1/3 of 1% each year out, until goal is reached).

§Since document will be re-visited in 2006, numbers seem reasonable to leave as is.

* We are trying to come up with roughly $1 million the first year, and add about $300,000 in subsequent years. Percentages in document aren’t exact, but reflect an overall goal.

It was moved and seconded (Derden/Meiggs) to call the question.Voting occurred and PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

Voting on the motion to approve the resolution with the above revision to the attached budget policy document occurred.MOTION PASSED WITH TWO ABSTENSIONS.

The policy will be reviewed at the President’s Council and budget process will also be reviewed at the meeting.

It was moved and seconded (Paselk/Moyer) to make this an emergency item for immediate transmittal to the President.Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

6. Discussion Item:Budget Review Process [attachments included]

• General Information and Background for Budget Discussion
• Budget Fact Sheet
• Criteria for Humboldt Budget Reduction
• Budget Review Process Proposal

Information in packet to peruse at your discretion.

7. ResolutionRecommending the Faculty Athletic Representative to Check Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages for Student Athletes at the Beginning of Both the Fall and Spring Terms (#12-03/04-SA)

Deferred to next Senate meeting.

It was moved and seconded (Derden/Schwab) to adjourn the meeting.Meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.