> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. I WANT to MAKE SURE EVERYONE
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CSU SBAC Budget Meeting May 23, 2012
>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE
HAS THEIR CELL PHONES OFF. IF WE CAN MINIMIZE THE PAPER
MOVEMENT. THESE MICS ARE EXTREMELY SENSITIVE. WE HAVE A
MINUTE TO GO. I'M JENNIFER WICKS BY THE WAY. WELCOME.
>> JENNIFER I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PASS YOU THE
PRESENTER BALL NOW.
>> OKAY. I SHOW RIGHT AT 10:30 YOU READY? LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN THANK YOU FOR STANDING BY, WELCOME TO TODAY'S WEB
CAST. DURING THE PRESENTATION ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL BE IN A
LISTEN ONLY MODE. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I LIKE TO GO OVER A FEW
TOOLS THROUGHOUT TODAY'S WEB SEMINAR. TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN
QUESTION, LOCATE Q AND A PANEL ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF
YOUR SCREEN. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME
DURING THE PRESENTATION. CLOSED CAPTION IS AVAILABLE AND IS
LOCATED IN THE RIGHT BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER OF YOUR SCREEN.
SOUND FOR TODAY'S EVENT IS BROUGHT TO YOU VIA AUDIO
BROADCAST. YOU EXPERIENCE ANY CHALLENGES WITH THE AUDIO
BROADCAST YOU CAN STOP AND RESTART YOUR AUDIO STREAM OR
SIMPLY DIAL INTO THE TELECONFERENCE. YOUR MODERATOR FOR
TODAY IS JENNIFER WICKS. JENNIFER, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS
JENNIFER WICKS. WE'RE HAPPY YOU COULD JOIN US THIS MORNING
FOR THIS SYSTEMWIDE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. AS
AARON MENTIONED, THE Q AND A WINDOW IS AVAILABLE. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE Q AND A SESSION AT THE VERY END. THE
RECORDING WILL BE AVAILABLE. WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT IN THE
CHAT POD FOR YOU. I’d LIKE TO INTRODUCE DR. BENJAMIN
QUILLIAN.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS REGULARLY SCHEDULED SYSTEMWIDE
BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING. HOWEVER, MANY OF YOU
KNOW THAT I GAVE A PRESENTATION ALONG WITH GAIL BROOKS,
ROBERT TURNAGE AND EPHRAIM SMITH, DISCUSSING AT OUR LAST
BOARD MEETING A NUMBER OF STRATEGIES THAT WE COULD USE OR
CONSIDER TO ADDRESS THE POSSIBILITY OF A $200 MILLION
TRIGGER, WHICH WAS A REDUCTION IN OUR BUDGET THAT MAY HAPPEN
IF THE GOVERNOR'S TAX INITIATIVE ISN'T PASSED. DURING THAT
PRESENTATION, OR AFTER THAT PRESENTATION, THE BOARD THOUGHT
IT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA IF WE USE THIS GROUP AND ALSO
SOLICIT INPUT BROADLY FROM OUR CAMPUSES ABOUT THOSE IDEAS
AND ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAT THEY MAY HAVE. THIS MEETING
IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE ARE UNDER LIGHTING. WE HAVE
LIGHTS AROUND AND CAMERAS AND SO FORTH AND WEB CASTING THIS
AS YOU KNOW SO OUR BROAD CONSTITUENTS CAN PARTICIPATE. WITH
THAT, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE ATTENDANCE. JEN I I'M GOING
TO ASK YOU TO TAKE THE ROLL OF THE SBAC MEMBERS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE ROLL
CALL. IF YOU’D LET ME KNOW WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED. DR. RUBEN
ARMINANA. MR. GARY ASHLEY, MS. GAIL BROOKS, MR. PAT GANTT
PRESIDENT CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, DIANNE HARRISON, PRESIDENT CSU MONTEREY BAY, MR. GUY HESTON REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE CSU ALUMNI COUNCIL, TOM McCARRON, CSU NORTHRIDGE,
DR. JAMES POSTMA, FACULTY MEMBER AT CSU CHICO., DR.
POSTMA, DO YOU HAVE OTHER ATTENDEES YOU LIKE TO ANNOUNCE?
>> NO.
>> MR. MICHAEL QUIBUYEN? LOOKS LIKE HE'S NOT PRESENT
YET. DR. BENJAMIN QUILLIAN, WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER ON THAT.
JAMES ROSSER, PRESIDENT CSU LOS ANGELES, DR. EPHRAIM SMITH,
EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR AND CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER,
DR. ELOISE STIGLITZ, DR. LILLIAN TAIZ, FACULTY MEMBER AT CSU
LOS ANGELES, DR. ASHISH VAIDYA, CSU LOS ANGELES, MR. GREGORY
WASHINGTON PRESIDENT CALIFORNIA STUDENT ASSOCIATION,
DR. DARLENE YEE-MELICHAR, ACADEMIC SENATE CSU, MR. BILL
CANDELLA, SYSTEMWIDE LABOR AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS,
DR. MARSHA HIRANO-NAKANISHI ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR,
ACADEMIC RESEARCH AND RESOURCES. SHE'S LISTENING IN THIS
MORNING, OK. DR. DAVID HOOD BUDGET SPECIALIST, ACADEMIC SENATE
CSU LONG BEACH, -- MR. KEVIN LAXER CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES UNION, MS. PATRICIA LEE GENERAL
MANAGER, CALIFORNIA FACULTY ASSOCIATION, MS. OLGALILIA
RAMIREZ, MS. AMEE SHRECK, MR. PRAVEEN SONI, ACADEMIC SENATE
CSU, MS. SARAH VAGTS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIT ASSOCIATION, MR. RODNEY RIDEAU BUDGET DIRECTOR,
MR. ROBERT TURNAGE ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR FOR BUDGET.
MS. KAREN YELVERTON-ZAMARRIPA ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR, ADVOCACY AND STATE RELATIONS, WE HAD TWO OTHER FOLKS FROM
THE ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL OF CALIFORNIA WHO ARE --
>> THEY'RE NOT PRESENT.
>> THEY'RE NOT PRESENT AT THIS MOMENT. WITH THAT, I'LL
TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU BEN.
>> THANK YOU JEN. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS TO
DISCUSS THE MAY REVISE. YOU ARE AWARE EARLIER IN MONTH, THE
GOVERNOR PROVIDED US WITH THE REVISION IN HIS BUDGET AND WE
WERE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I PRESENTED THE IMPLICATION
$200 MILLION TRIGGER THAT COULD BE PULLED. THAT TRIGGER HAS
INCREASED A BIT. ROBERT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO UPDATE US
ON THE MAY REVISE.
>> THANK YOU. SINCE WE HAD THE DISCUSSION IN FRONT OF
THE BOARD THE GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION COME AND RECASTLE
STAGE IN THE STATE CAPITAL HOPEFUL THE GAME FOR THE STATE
BUDGET. THE OVER ALL PROBLEM THAT THE STATE IS FACING HAS
GROWN FROM WHAT THE GOVERNOR ESTIMATED IN JANUARY WHEN HE
RELEASED HIS ORIGINAL BUDGET PROPOSAL. THE DEFICIT HAS
GROWN ACCORDING TO HIS CALCULATIONS FROM $9.2 BILLION IN
JANUARY TO $15.7 BILLION NOW. THAT'S $15.7 BILLION DOES NOT
COUNT THE GOVERNOR'S INTENTION TO CREATE A $1 BILLION
RESERVE IN THE GENERAL FUND. WHICH IS A REALLY A MINIMAL
RESERVE TO HAVE. WHEN YOU THROW THAT RESERVE IN, YOU REALLY
HAVE A BUDGET PROBLEM THAT'S $16.7 BILLION IN DIMENSIONS
BASED ON HIS OWN AND FINANCE CALCULATIONS. LET'S SAY ANALYST OFFICE RECENTLY COME OUT WITH A PRELIMINARY OVERVIEW
IN WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE AN EXPENDITURE CALCULATION OF
THEIR OWN, THEY ALREADY OPINED THAT THE BUDGET PROBLEM
ACTUALLY IS MOST LIKELY EVEN LARGER THAN WHAT THE GOVERNOR
HAS ESTIMATED. GIVEN THAT DIFFICULT CONTEXT, I GUESS WE CAN
CONSIDER OURSELVES LUCKY THAT THE MAY REVISION DID NOT
PROPOSE FURTHER DIRECT CUTS TO THE CSU BUDGET. BUT BEN
INDICATED, THE SIZE OF THE TRIGGER CUT THAT HE IS PROPOSING
HAS NOW GROWN FROM $200 MILLION TO $250 MILLION. IF THE
STAKES WEREN'T HIGH UP WITH REGARD TO THE NOVEMBER TAX
ELECTION, THEY'VE BECOME EVEN LARGER FOR THE CSU. THAT'S
REALLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING IN THE MAY REVISION FOR US
IS THIS LARGER TRIGGER. WE ALWAYS HAVE TO BARE IN MIND NOT
FORGET, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES MEETING, IS THAT REGARDLESS OF THE TRIGGER, EVEN
IF THE TAX MEASURE PASSES IN NOVEMBER, THE PRIOR CUTS THAT
CSU IS TAKEN FROM THE STATE ARE SO LARGE RELATIVE TO THE
STEPS THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN TERMS OF RAISING STUDENT
B REVENUES, THAT WE STILL HAVE A MOPEY $100 BILLION BUDGET
GAP TO SOLVE. BASED ON THE PRIOR CUTS. WE HAVE A TWOFOLD
PROBLEM, ONE IS STRUCTURE DEFICIT THAT HAVE TO BE OPENLY
RESOLVED. IF THE ELECTION DOES NOT TURN OUT AS WE HOPE, WE
HAVE ANOTHER $250 MILLION BASED ON A PROPOSAL THAT THE
GOVERNOR AHEAD. I HAVE TO ALSO STRESS BETWEEN NOW AND THE
END OF JUNE WHEN HOPEFULLY AND THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR WOULD HAVE FINALLY COME UP WITH A STATE BUDGET ACT.
THAT THINGS CAN STILL CHANGE FURTHER. THAT HIGHER EDUCATION
REMAINS VERY VULNERABLE IN THE OVER ALL MIX THAT IS BEING
PRESENTED. THERE ARE A LOT OF CUTS THE GOVERNOR HAS
PROPOSED IN HIS BUDGET IN OTHER AREAS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
ALREADY INDICATED IT DOES NOT WANT TO APPROVE. SO THERE
COULD BE SOME REARRANGING OF THINGS BEFORE WE SEE A FINAL
STATE BUDGET AGAIN. WE'RE HOPING THAT WOULD BE WILL BE THE
END OF JUNE.
>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMITTEE LIKE TO ASK?
>> THINK THIS QUESTION OF STRUCTURAL DEFICIT, WHICH
FURTHER AGGRAVATED WHEN $100 MILLION CUT WAS TEMPORARY WAS
MADE PERMANENT, IT REALLY -- IT'S REALLY A BIG HURDLE TO DO
THAT IN WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN LITTLE SYSTEM SOLUTIONS AND
BASICALLY HAVING TO FIGURE OUT. MY GUESS IS THAT WE ARE
STILL AT THE CAMPUS LEVEL, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE
THOSE TEMPORARY ISSUES PERMANENT AND THAT'S A BIG ISSUE, I
JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT.
>> I AGREE. IT'S A VERY BIG ISSUE. FOR THOSE WHO MAY
HAVE FORGOTTEN, WE STARTED THE YEAR EXPECTING $500 MILLION
CUT. THEN WE WERE TOLD THAT IT MAY GO TO AN ADDITIONAL
$500 MILLION. TURNED OUT THAT IT WAS 500 PLUS 150. I WAS
IN A STRANGE POSITION AT THAT TIME BEING HAPPY ABOUT A
$650 MILLION BUDGET REDUCTION AS OPPOSED TO A $1 BILLION
REDUCTION. BUT THEN, AS YOU JUST POINTED OUT RUBEN, WE HAD ANOTHER $100 MILLION REDUCTION, WHICH TOOK US TO
$750 MILLION THIS YEAR AND WE WERE HOPING THAT LAST
$100 MILLION WOULD BE ONE TIME. ROBERT AND HIS STAFF AND
ALONG WITH KAREN WORKED AS HARD AS THEY COULD TO MAKE THAT A
ONE TIME REDUCTION. WE COVERED THAT THROUGH ONE TIME FUNDS,
CREATING THE STRUCTURAL DEFICITS IN OUR BUDGET. WE DID IT
THAT WAY TO PREVENT LAYOFFS, MINIMIZE REDUCTIONS IN STAFF
THE IMPACT ON OUR EMPLOYEES AND OUR STUDENTS. WE HAVE NOT,
AS YOU POINTED OUT, WE HAVE NOT FULLY FIGURED OUT HOW WE'RE
GOING TO HANDLE THAT ABLE $100 MILLION ON AN ON GOING BASIS.
AN ADDITIONAL 250 ON TOP OF THAT WILL PRESENT SOME MAJOR
CHALLENGES AND THAT PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO
DISCUSS HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THAT LARGER ITEM. I TALKED TO
SEVERAL PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO MYSELF AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM
THAT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CUTS IS ONE THING. THE SPEED WITH
WHICH WE HAVE HAPPENED IS ANOTHER. TO THINK THAT WE COULD
ABSORB A BILLION DOLLAR REDUCTION IN OUR BUDGET OVER A
PERIOD OF LESS THAN TWO YEARS, HAS BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY
CHALLENGE AND CONTINUES TO BE. I'M HOPING THAT THE
DISCUSSION TODAY WILL HELP US. WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS SOME
OF THE IDEAS IF YOU WILL THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR
ATTENTION. WE'RE GOING TO SHARE SOME THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN
THINKING ABOUT. AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH
THE PRESENTATION THAT ALL WENT THROUGH AT THE BOARD MEETING,
GAIL, EPHRAIM, ROBERT AND I PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE THE SLIDES UP THERE AND WE CAN
GO TO THE FIRST SLIDE BECAUSE AS JUST MENTIONED AT THE BOARD
MEETING, WE PRESENTED A NUMBER OF IDEAS. WE WERE TRYING TO
ADDRESS A $200 MILLION TRIGGER CUT THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE
POSSIBLY IN '12, '13. AS ROBERT JUST EXPLAINED, WE WERE
DEALING WITH $200 MILLION AT THAT TIME, IT HAS NOW GROWN TO
$250 MILLION. OUR GOAL TODAY IS TO DISCUSS THE IDEAS WE
PRESENTED AT THE BOARD MEETING AND PROVIDE THIS COMMITTEE,
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, OFFER INPUT
AND THERE MAYBE OTHER IDEAS THAT WE HAVE NOT THOUGHT OF YET.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE IDEAS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY ARE NOT RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY ARE NOT
EVEN SUGGESTIONS AT THIS POINT. THEY ARE MERELY THE IDEAS
THAT HAVE COME FORWARD. THEY REFLECT A BROAD MENU OF FOOD
FOR THOUGHT IF YOU WILL THAT I'VE RECEIVED FROM FACULTY AND
STAFF AND OUR PRESIDENT AND CFOs. SO, NOT ALL OF THESE
IDEAS ARE WORTH PURSUING. THEY ARE THE IDEAS THAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO PUT ON THE TABLE AND GET SOME INPUT ON. NEXT SLIDE
PLEASE. A FEW WEEKS AGO VICE CHANCELLOR ATTENDED SYMPOSIUM
ON FUNDING OF CSU ON NORTHRIDGE CAMPUS. IT GAVE US A CHANCE
TO HEAR A NUMBER OF IDEAS. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT TAKE AWAYS
FROM THAT SYMPOSIUM WAS THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR CORE
BUSINESS. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED TO TAKE SOME
THINGS OFF THE PLATE. WE CAN NO LONGER DO EVERYTHING THAT
WE WERE DOING. WE NEED TO ANTICIPATE THE FUTURE AND INVEST IN THOSE FUTURE NEEDS. WE'RE GOING TO TALK TODAY ABOUT TWO
CATEGORIES, COST REDUCTION STRATEGIES AND REVENUE
ENHANCEMENT STRATEGIES. GAIL AND EPHRAIM AND I ALONG WITH
ROBERT ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THESE. WE'LL ADDRESS THE COST
REVENUE IDEAS FIRST. SINCE THE FIRST SLIDE IN MY VIEW IS A
VERY IMPORTANT IDEA, IT'S ONE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY BEGUN
WORKING ON. THE NOTION OF CONSOLIDATION SERVICES.
MENTIONED TO THE BOARD AND EVERYONE HERE I'M SURE IS AWARE
THAT CSU HAS JUST ABOUT 23 OF EVERYTHING. 23 POLICE
DEPARTMENTS, 23HR OFFICES, 23 ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENTS AND THE
LIST GOES ON AND ON.
>> 24
>> 24 IF YOU INCLUDE THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE. THIS
IDEA ISED IDEA OF A SHARED SERVICES CENTER. IDEA TAKING
HOLD IN THE CORPORATE WORLD AND IT IS ALSO TAKING HOLD NOW
IN HIGHER EDUCATION. RECENTLY, UC ANNOUNCED THEY ARE
PLANNING HR SHARED SERVICES CENTER. EXPECT TO SAVE MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS, ACTUALLY THEY STATED $100 MILLION ANNUALLY WITH
DEBT SHARED SERVICES. RECENT ARTICLE DESCRIBED SHARED
CENTERS AT YALE. WE BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD
CONSIDER. THERE ARE SOME BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES AND THOSE
ARE IN FRONT OF YOU. HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS ONE
HOLDS A GREAT DEAL OF PROMISE. PRESIDENTS ARE ALREADY
LEADING A TASK FORCE TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF A SHARED
SERVICES CENTER THAT WILL HANDLE PROCUREMENT AND ACCOUNTS PAYABLE. WE BELIEVE THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BE
SAVED IF WE CAN MOVE INTO A SHARED SERVICES CENTER AND
CHANGE DRAMATICALLY THE WAY WE PURCHASE GOODS AND SERVICES.
BY COMBINING AND LEVERAGING THE SIZE OF THE CSU. THIS NEXT
ONE, CLOSURE OF CAMPUS. THIS CAME TO ME VERY EARLY. THEY
WERE USUALLY PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE SYSTEM SUGGESTING IF
YOU'RE IN TROUBLE, WHY DON'T YOU CLOSE ONE OF THE CAMPUSES.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AS EASY AS THAT. YOU DON'T JUST WALK
AWAY FROM A CAMPUS AND JUST CLOSE THE DOORS AND SAVE MONEY.
I MENTIONED -- THAT'S JUST A FEW OF THEM. I THINK THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING IS CLOSING A CAMPUS WILL BE CONTRARY TO OUR
MISSION. WE WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SERVE STUDENTS IN A
PARTICULAR REGION OF THE STATE AND THERE ARE A LOT OF
COMPLICATED FACTORS TO CLOSING A CAMPUS. YOU WOULD HAVE TO
DECIDE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY, HOW YOU'RE
GOING TO DO DEBT OBLIGATIONS WITH THAT CAMPUS ETCETERA. OF
COURSE THERE WILL BE STRENUOUS POLITICAL BARRIERS TO
OVERCOME. CANDIDLY, I DON'T SEE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN GET A
CAMPUS CLOSED IN TIME TO DEAL WITH THE UP COMING POSSIBILITY
OF $250 MILLION TRIGGER. IT'S AN IDEA THAT HAS BEEN AROUND
AND I WANTED TO PUT IT OUT THERE. THIS ALSO WAS AN IDEA
THAT WAS PRESENTED. THIS REALLY IS THE IDEA OF ESTABLISHING
A CHARTER CAMPUS IF YOU WILL OR IN SOME CASES CHARTER
PROGRAM. THE IDEA WOULD BE TO ELIMINATE THE STATE SUPPORT
THAT GOES TO A CAMPUS AND THEN USE THE MONEY THAT WERE GOING THERE TO DISTRIBUTE THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE SYSTEM. THE
PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT YOU WOULD INCREASE THE TUITION OF
THE CAMPUS, OF THE CHARTER CAMPUS SIGNIFICANTLY IF IT WERE
TO COVER ITS ENTIRE COST. OF COURSE, IF WERE TO TAKE ONE
OFF THE GRID, THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT UPON OUR MOST NEEDY
STUDENTS. THERE WOULD BE A GREAT DEAL OF DEPENDENCE ON
EXTERNAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A GREAT
DEAL OF FUNDRAISING AND SO FORTH. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT
LAST CHALLENGE, WE WOULD HAVE TO REACH AND AGREEMENT WITH
SACRAMENTO IF WE TOOK THE CAMPUS OFF THE GRID, IT WOULDN'T
REDUCE OUR OVER ALL FUNDING APPLICATION. EPHRAIM IS GOING
TO TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DISCONTINUING CERTAIN
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS.
>> EACH YEAR WE RECEIVE FROM THE CAMPUS REQUEST
ACADEMIC MASTER PLAN, NEW BACHELORS MASTERS PROGRAM AND WE
ALSO RECEIVED DISCONTINUATION OF PROGRAMS. AS YOU MIGHT
EXPECT, THE ADD LIST IS ALSO MUCH LONGER THAN THE
DISCONTINUATION LIST. AS BEN MENTIONED EARLIER, IF SOME
ITEMS HAVE TO LEAVE THE PLATE BECAUSE OF THE DEEP BUDGET
CUTS, YOU REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT SOME LOW PROGRAMS TO SEE IF
RESOURCES CAN BE DONE TO PUT INTO THE PROGRAMS ARE HIGH
DEMAND SO WE CAN ADD SECTIONS SO STUDENTS CAN GRADUATE IN A
TIMELY MANNER. SPECIALIZATION ON CAMPUSES, THIS IS HAS BEEN
TAUGHT FOR YEARS THAT CERTAIN CAMPUSES COULD SPECIALIZE IN
CERTAIN PROGRAMS AND NOT HAVE OTHER PROGRAMS. THE DIFFICULTY HERE IS THAT MAJORITY OF OUR STUDENTS ARE
PLACE-BOUND STUDENTS. ESPECIALLY OUR TRANSFER STUDENTS. 60
TO 65 PERCENT OF OUR TRANSFER STUDENTS ARE PLACE-BOUND. TO
SAY THAT ONE CAMPUS IN THE BASIN WOULD GIVE UP ONE PROGRAM
AND THE STUDENT WOULD TRAVEL TO ANOTHER CAMPUS, EVEN THOUGH
THE MILES MIGHT BE -- IT'S AN EVENING CLASS AT 4:30 OR 5:00,
THE STUDENT NOT EASILY WILL BE ABLE TO GET FROM ONE CAMPUS
TO THE NEXT. SO THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO US TO HAVE -- LARGE
CAMPUSES NOT TO HAVE A FULL ARRAY OF PROGRAMS. GAIL?
>> BEFORE I ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, I WANT TO NOTE THAT WE
RECOGNIZE THAT MANY OF THESE IDEAS COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A
DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACT ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
EMPLOYMENT FOR OUR FACULTY AND STAFF. THAT'S THE CASE,
THESE IDEAS COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEE GROUP AND THERE WOULD NEED TO BE
CONCERN FOR THE IMPACTED EMPLOYEES. LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE
OR THE IDEA TO INCREASE CLASS SIZES. GIVEN THE AVERAGE
CLASS SIZE OF 31 TO 32 STUDENTS, 5% INCREASE IN AVERAGE
CLASS SIZE COULD SAVE AS MUCH AS $36 MILLION. BUT BEFORE
IMPLEMENTING THIS IDEA, WE WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER SEVERAL
ISSUES. STUDENTS FACULTY RATIOS ALREADY BEEN INCREASING AS
CAMPUSES HAVE TRIED TO COPE WITH PREVIOUS BUDGET CUTS. IT
WAS 20.6 IN 2007 AND 2008, 22.4 IN 2010 AND '11. WE WOULD
NEED TO PREPARE FACULTY AND TO CAREFULLY EVALUATE WHICH
CLASSES COULD BE INCREASED WITH SIZE WITH MINIMAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON STUDENT LEARNING. WORKLOAD IMPACT WOULD HAVE TO
BE MANAGED AND INCREASE IN STUDENT FACULTY RATIO COULD HAVE
AN IMPACT ON THE ABILITY OF FACULTY TO CARRY OUT THEIR FULL
RANGE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDING SCHOLARSHIPS,
UNIVERSITY SERVICE AND ONE ON ONE CONTACT WITH STUDENTS. TO
MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS FOR TENURE AND PROMOTION. LARGER
CLASSES WILL REDUCE OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONAL CONTACT AND
INTERACTION WITH THE PROFESSOR. RESEARCH SHOWS THAT SUCH
INTERACTION HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON STUDENT'S SUCCESS.
INCREASES IN FACULTY WORKLOAD --
>> BEFORE YOU GO THERE, YOU MISSING ONE ITEM, WHICH IS
CALLED THE PHYSICAL PLAN. MOST WALLS DO NOT EXPAND. IF YOU
ALREADY CREATED LARGE SIZES, THEORETICALLY, YOU CAN INCREASE
IT BUT PHYSICALLY YOU CAN'T. THE FIRE MARSHAL HAS ISSUES
WITH MOST OF THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MANY OF OUR CAMPUSES DO NOT HAVE LARGE LECTURE
SPACE. FROM THE OLD DAYS THE ORANGE BOOK AND IT ISN'T A
CHALLENGE.
>> THE PRINCIPLE FOCUS ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION AND
THE QUALITY BY DESIGN --
>> IT ALSO TIES TO GRADUATION INITIATIVE. WHEN YOU
THINK OF LARGER CLASSES, YOU USED TO THINK ABOUT FRESHMAN
AND SOPHOMORE LEVEL CLASSES. RESEARCH SHOWS UNDER
REPRESENTED SCHOOLS IN THOSE FRESHMAN CLASSES WHERE WE NEED MORE ENGAGE THE. IT WOULD AFFECT US IN A NUMBER OF WAYS
FROM THE PHYSICAL CAPACITY OF OUR ROOMS TO WHAT'S ACTUALLY
HAPPENED IN THE CLASSROOM AND WHO GRADUATES FROM
UNIVERSITIES.
>> THANK YOU. INCREASES IN FACULTY WORKS LOAD AND
AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THE BENEFITS WHICH ARE COST SAVING, EVERY
TENURE TRACK FACULTY MEMBER TAUGHT ONE MORE COURSE PER YEAR,
WE COULD OFFER 10,000 FOR CLASSES WITH A VALUE OF ABOUT
$60 MILLION. HOWEVER, IF WE COULD CONSIDER THIS OPTION, WE
NEED TO KEEP SEVERAL THINGS IN MIND. CSU FACULTY ALREADY
HAVE A HIGHER TEACHING LOAD THAN FACULTY AT MANY FOUR YEAR
UNIVERSITIES. OUR RESEARCH ACTIVE FACULTY BRING IN GRANTS
AND CONTRACTS THAT BENEFIT THE UNIVERSITY AND THE STUDENTS
WHO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR RESEARCH PROJECT. WITH A HIGHER
TEACHING LOAD, THEY MIGHT NOT BE AS COMPETITIVE FOR THESE
GRANTS. TEACHING MORE CLASSES WILL REDUCE THE TIME THAT
FACULTY HAVE TO ADVISE AND MENTOR STUDENTS AND PARTICIPATE
IN OTHER ACADEMIC INITIATIVES. HIGHER TEACHING LOADS COULD
HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO RECRUIT NEW
FACULTY. REDUCTION OF SABBATICAL. IN THE MOST COMMON TYPE
OF SABBATICAL, FACULTY MEMBER RECEIVES FULL PAY OF SPENDING
A SEMESTER OR A QUARTER PURSUING A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN
APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY. WE SPEND ABOUT $12.5 MILLION A
YEAR REPLACING FACULTY MEMBERS WHO ARE ON SABBATICALS. WE
CANNOT NECESSARILY REPLACE THEIR UNIQUE EXPERTISE. SABBATICALS ARE BENEFITS OFFERED BY MOST UNIVERSITIES AND
ARE INTENDED FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACULTY,
WHICH IS INTENDED TO HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THEIR
TEACHING. UNDER OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
PROPOSALS FOR SABBATICALS ARE REDUCED FOR MERIT AS WELL AS
IMPACTS ON THE CURRICULUM AND THE DEPARTMENT OPERATION.
THEY ALSO REDUCED FOR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS. GIVEN OUR
CURRENT CHALLENGE IT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE CAMPUSES TO
CAREFULLY REVIEW SABBATICAL PROPOSALS BEFORE THEY MAKE A
DECISION TO FUND THEM. IF WE WERE TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE
THE NUMBER OF SABBATICALS, IT WOULD LIKELY TO HAVE A
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO RECRUIT NEW FACULTY.
CHANGE IN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE SHARED HEALTHCARE PREMIUM. JUST
A BACKDROP FOR THIS. CALPERS PROVIDES THE BENEFIT PLAN,
THERE ARE VENDORS SO TO SPEAK FOR OUR HEALTH PLAN. THEY
DESIGN THE PLAN, THEY DETERMINE WHAT PARTICULARS TO BE
OFFERED TO OUR EMPLOYEES. THEY SET THE RATES AND THE
EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION, CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYER MAKES
FOR THE EMPLOYEE AND THEN THAT WHICH IS LEFT FOR THE
EMPLOYEE TO MAKE IS SET BY THE GOVERNMENT CODE. SO, UNLIKE
OTHER UNIVERSITIES OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE ABLE TO
DESIGN AND MANAGE THEIR OWN PLANS AND THEREBY MANAGE THEIR
COST, CSU HAS NO OTHER WAY TO MANAGE HEALTHCARE COST EXCEPT
TO CHANGE THE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE SHARE OF HEALTHCARE
PREMIUMS. SINCE 2008 COST HAVE INCREASED $59.5 MILLION TO AN ESTIMATED TOTAL OF $335 MILLION IN 2011, '12. DESPITE
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE 3000 FEWER EMPLOYEES. COST ARE
PROHIBITED IN THE CONTEXT OF CUTS TO THE CSU. INCREASES
GOING FORWARD WILL ERODE CSU'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT THE CORE
OF ITS MISSION. THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
AND THAT'S THE DEPARTMENT THAT MANAGES ALL OF THE CIVIL
SERVICE, THE OTHER STATE INSTITUTION, CONTRIBUTES 80% TOWARD
PREMIUM COST AND THE EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTES 20%. CSU HAS A
ROUGH ESTIMATE OF SAVING IF WE WERE TO MOVE TO THE SAME
80/20 SLIT THAT WOULD BE ABOUT $70 MILLION. SOME THINGS TO
THINK ABOUT. POTENTIAL PENSION REFORM MAY REQUIRE EMPLOYEES
TO CONTRIBUTE UP TO 50% OF RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS, WHICH
WOULD BE AROUND 11% OF PAY. THE CURRENT EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTION IS 5%. IT WOULD BE A DOUBLE HIT IF PAY
INCREASES IN BOTH HEALTHCARE AND RETIREMENT WERE TO HAPPEN
AT THE SAME TIME. OF COURSE ANY CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE
NEGOTIATIONS.
>> I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT ON THE
SLIDE CONFORMS TO COST THROUGHOUT THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE
OTHER AGENCIES IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT THAT HAVE THAT COST
SHARE FORMULA, ONE, WERE GIVEN MONEY TO COMPENSATE TO
OFFSET. TWO THEIR BUDGET HAVE NOT BEEN CUT CONTINUEIOUS ALL
LIKE CSU.
>> THANK YOU. THE NEXT SLIDE IS YOURS.
>> WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO PARTICIPATE SO THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT CODE. THAT WOULD ENABLE
US TO NOT BE A PARTICIPANT?
>> YES.
>> THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A CHANGE IN STATUTE ALONG
WITH ANY NEGOTIATIONS THAT MIGHT OCCUR IF WE WERE TO MOVE A
DIFFERENT RATIO OF SHARING OF WHAT THE COST ARE IN HEALTH
BENEFITS.
>> YES.
>> WE CAN NEGOTIATE IT AND IF WE REACH AGREEMENT WITH
THE LABOR OF ORGANIZATION, WE CAN CHANGE IT.
>> I WAS THINKING OF TERMS IN TIMING OF THIS RELATIVE
TO THE MAGNITUDE OF THE ISSUES. SOME OF THESE THING THAT WE
CAN CONSIDER, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE WHETHER OR NOT THIS
IS LONG TERM OR SHORT TERM.
>> I WOULD CERTAINLY THINK THAT ONE WOULD BE MORE
LONGER TERM BECAUSE THE NEGOTIATIONS AND AS PAT JUST POINTED
OUT, I THINK THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WOULD EXPECT SOMETHING
IN RETURN FOR THAT TYPE OF AGREEMENT. IN OUR SITUATION, I
DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'VE BEEN OFFER.
>> AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, WE WANT TO BE LOOKING AT
THINGS THAT DOESN'T MAKE SINCE. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT
ARE SHORT TERM AND THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE LONG TERM.
MAYBE TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO CONFIGURE WHAT MIGHT MERGE FROM
THIS.
>> I LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE ON YOUR FIRST QUESTION THAT RELATES TO OUR BEING ABLE TO GO TO SOME VENDOR OTHER THAN
CALPERS. WE'VE NOT REALLY CONSIDERED THAT BECAUSE OF THE
LEGISLATION. HAVING WORKED IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WHERE WE
MANAGED OUR PLAN, THERE IS CERTAINLY A SAVINGS IN TERMS OF
ABILITY YOU CAN CONFIGURE YOUR PLAN. IT REQUIRES GREAT
AMOUNT OF INTERNAL EXPERTISE AND STAFFING. IF WE WERE EVER
TO TAKE SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THAT, IT MAY NOT BE A LONG TERM
ADVANTAGE. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A SHORT TERM ONE. THAT CAN
BE EVALUATED OVER TIME.
>> FIRST, BENEFITS TO THAT RELATES TO INTEREST AN TOP
OF INVESTMENT. IF YOU'RE A SMALL ENTERPRISE, YOUR ABILITY
TO HAVE A LARGER RETURN. THERE ARE SOME OTHER FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS.
>> ACTUALLY ONE MORE PIECE, THAT IS MANY OF THESE
VENDORS DON'T HAVE NETWORKS WHERE YOU WANT THEM. SO IT'S
DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE THAT MEDICAL SERVICE TO YOUR EMPLOYEES.
HAVING WORKED FOR OTHER NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND
STATEWIDE ORGANIZATIONS, IT'S VERY CHALLENGING TO FIND THE
VENDORS WHO REALLY WANT TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE TO YOU IN
THE WAY YOU WANT AND WHERE YOU WANT IT. IT'S A GOOD
QUESTION THAT YOU'VE RAISED AND THERE'S A LOT TO CONSIDER.
>> INTERESTING EXAMPLE OF FACILITY -- [INAUDIBLE]
>> GAIL, MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY FOR US. IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING, FOR THE MAY REVISE IS A PROVISION ALREADY TO
MODIFY THE GOVERNMENT CODE TO ALLOW COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OVER HEALTHCARE COST? IS THAT A FACT? IS INFORMATION I'M
RECEIVING INCORRECT?
>> NO, THERE IS A -- SPEAK TO THE TECHNICAL ISSUES
SURROUNDING IT.
>> THE GOVERNOR'S MAY REVISION HAS PROPOSED CERTAIN
LANGUAGE CHANGES. ONE OF THE LANGUAGE CHANGES PROPOSES IN
THIS AREA, THEY HAVE PROPOSED CHANGING THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
TO MAKE THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE SPLIT ON HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS A
SUBJECT OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AS IT IS WITH THE DPA AND
THE STATE UNIT. HE'S PROPOSING TO REFORM THE GOVERNMENT
CODE FOR CSU TO WHAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR THE LAST 20
YEARS.
>> THIS IS LILLIAN TAIZ. THIS SUGGESTION WHILE THESE
ARE IDEAS THAT YOU'RE SHOWING TODAY, THERE ARE SOME THINGS
THAT ARE ACTUALLY ALREADY IN MOTION? AM I MISUNDERSTANDING?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. AS I POINTED OUT, THE NOTION WITH
THE SHARED SERVICES CENTER IS WELL UNDER WAY. THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE TAKING ACTION ON ALREADY,
YES.
>> SO THEY'RE NOT JUST IDEAS. THEY ARE ACTUALLY THINGS
YOU ARE IMPLEMENTING NOW?
>> WELL --
>> UNDER CONSIDERATION --
>> THAT'S ACCURATE. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE SHARED
SERVICES CENTER. WE HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION TO MOVE WITH THE SHARED SERVICES CENTER. BUT IT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE A TASK FORCE THAT'S LOOKING AT IT. THEY WILL COME
BACK. I THINK THE PLAN RUBEN IS REALLY THE END OF DECEMBER.
THEY WILL COME BACK WITH AN ANALYSIS AND A DECISION WILL BE
MADE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT. THESE THINGS
ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT MANY OF THEM WE ARE TAKING
ACTION ALREADY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE FEASIBLE OR NOT.
THIS NEXT SLIDE IS ONE THAT -- NO, GO BACK. IT IS ONE THAT
PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST DISTASTEFUL SUGGEST REDUCING THE
COMPENSATION OF OUR EMPLOYEES. I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT 85% OF
OUR BUDGET IS DEVOTED TO PERSONNEL COST. AS A RESULT, VERY
SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS CAN BE GENERATED BY REDUCING EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION. IN FACT, EACH ONE PERCENT OF COMPENSATION
REDUCTION YIELDS ABOUT $28 MILLION. ON THE OTHER SIDE,
HOWEVER, THE REDUCTION IN COMPENSATION, CERTAINLY FOR OUR
REPRESENTATIVE EMPLOYEES, WOULD REQUIRE NEGOTIATIONS. WE
ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT IT WOULD IMPACT MORALE,
PRODUCTIVITY, MOST OF OUR EMPLOYEES DO NOT RECEIVED RAISES
SINCE 2008. IN FACT, ALMOST ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES RECEIVED
2% PAY REDUCTION AS A RESULT OF FURLOUGH. THIS IS ONE THAT
MUST REMAIN ON THE TABLE GIVEN THE SEVERITY OF THE BUDGET
CUTS. AGAIN, NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS DIRECTION.
BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY ON THE TABLE.
>> HOWEVER, IN THE TRUSTEE MEETING, DID THE CHANCELLOR
SAY THIS IS NOT A CONSIDERATION? WAS THAT JUST OFF THE CUFF COMMENT THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO BACK TO FURLOUGHS?
>> HE DOES NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO FURLOUGHS. HE DID
MAKE A STATEMENT SO THAT EFFECT. HOWEVER, I HAVE TO SAY
THAT WITH THE INCREASE FROM 200 TO $250 MILLION TRIGGER,
WE'RE GOING TO NEED SOME TIME TO MAKE SOME THINGS HAPPEN.
VERY RELUCTANTLY, I HAVE TO SAY THAT FURLOUGHS TOO HAVE NOT
BEEN ON THE TABLE BUT NOW THEY ARE ON THE TABLE AS WELL. NO
DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. AGAIN, NO DECISION. WE'VE GOTTEN
TO A POSITION WHERE JUST ABOUT ALL OPTIONS, NOT QUITE ALL,
BUT CERTAINLY MOST OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE.
>> IN THE GOVERNOR'S MID-YEAR REVISE, HE ALSO PUT
FORWARD REDUCING STATE EMPLOYEES 5% BY ADJUSTING THE WORD
WEEK, BASICALLY MAKE IT A FOUR DAY WORKWEEK.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> THERE IS SOMETHING THAT ROBERT HAS MENTIONED THAT'S
IMPORTANT HERE. WE HAVE A STRUCTURAL DEFICIT OF 4 TO
$500 MILLION. FURLOUGHS ARE TEMPORARY. BIG CUTS ARE NOT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF
DISCOURSE RELATED TO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A STRUCTURAL --
>> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IF YOU NOTICE I SAID WE
MAY NEED TIME TO PUT SOME OF THESE COST CUTTING MEASURES IN
PLACE WHICH WILL THEN PLACE FURLOUGHS POSSIBLY ON THE TABLE.
I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF PERSONAL DISLIKE FOR THE FURLOUGH.
OUR EXPERIENCE WAS THAT THEY CERTAINLY IMPACTED PRODUCTIVITY. I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO IT.
>> IT DIDN'T HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
>> IT DOES NOT. IT JUST BUY US TIME.
>> IT REDUCE OUR EXPENDITURES FOR A YEAR BY
$270 MILLION. IT SOLVEDS BUDGET IMBALANCE FOR A YEAR FOR
$270 MILLION. IT DID -- IT MAY HAVE HAD SOME DISADVANTAGES
TO IT ONE THING IT DID DO VERY QUICK AND POWERFUL WAY
MAINTAIN OUR BUDGETARY BALANCE.
>> REDUCTIONS IN ENROLLMENT. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK
TO THIS BY THE WAY.
>> REDUCTIONS IN ENROLLMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
QUESTIONS COME UP. WE SHOULD BRING OUR ENROLLMENTS IN LINE
WITH OUR BASELINE BUDGET. THE BUDGET HAS BEEN DECREASING.
WE TRY TO MODERATE OUR ENROLLMENTS BUT THEY HAVE NOT COME
DOWN. WE ARE ALREADY DENYING ADMISSION 22 TO 28,000
ELIGIBLE STUDENTS EACH YEAR. THE MISSION OF CSU IS TO
ACCEPT ALL CSU ELIGIBLE STUDENTS. BRINGING DOWN ENROLLMENTS
WILL EXACERBATE THAT PROBLEM. THE LAST FEW YEARS, THE
NUMBERS OF ELIGIBLE STUDENTS HAVE BEEN COMING DOWN. WHAT'S
THE SAVINGS ON A REDUCTION ENROLLMENT? FOR EACH 1% OF
ENROLLMENT DECLINE, THERE IS A NECESSARY BUDGET IMPACT OF
$20 MILLION. THAT TAKE INTO EFFECT LOST REVENUE FROM THOSE
STUDENT AND THE SAVINGS ON FEWER PERSONNEL NEEDED BECAUSE OF
FEWER STUDENTS. CURRENTLY, WE'RE BASELINE BUDGET
APPROXIMATELY 331,000 FTS. 3% DECLINE WILL BRING US DOWN TO ABOUT 321,000 STUDENTS. AS YOU SEEN THE REPORTS THIS WEEK
FROM THE OFFICE CONCERNING APPLICATIONS FOR NEXT YEAR AND
WHAT WE HEAR ABOUT ADMISSIONS AND INTEND TO REGISTER THE
FORM ON THE CAMPUSES, IT LOOKS LIKE OUR ENROLLMENTS ARE
STRONG FOR THE FALL. BRINGING DOWN ENROLLMENTS IS GOING TO
BE A MAJOR CHALLENGE.
>> THE ENROLLMENT REDUCTION, MOSTLY FRESHMAN LEVEL
STUDENTS OR IS IT SPREAD OUT ACROSS ALL LEVELS. TWO, WHAT
ARE THE LONG TERM IMPACTS ON RECRUITING?
>> LET'S BEGIN WITH HOW IS IT BEING IMPLEMENTED. THE
SYSTEM HAS BEEN OVER TIRED. THIS YEAR WE'RE PROJECTING
COMING IN JUST UNDER 103%. NEXT YEAR, WE ALREADY SAID THAT
WE WOULD CLOSE A STRING OF 2013 FOR BUT SB14 STUDENTS SOME
CONTRACTS WE HAVE -- THE LAST TIME WE CLOSED WHICH WAS THE
SPRING OF 2010, WE WENT FROM SPRING ENROLLMENT IN THE SYSTEM
FROM APPROXIMATELY 16,000 STUDENTS TO ABOUT A THOUSAND. WE
WERE PRETTY TIGHT WHEN WE BRING IT DOWN. ALSO, WE HAVE A
WAIT LIST ALL STUDENTS FOR THE FALL OF 2013 UNTIL WE SEE
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TRIGGER. WHEN WE OPEN ON OCTOBER OF
THIS YEAR, ALL STUDENTS WILL BE TOLD, THEY WILL BE PUT ON A
WAIT LIST. SECOND PART IS WHO IS AFFECTED MOST. IN THE
PAST YEAR, WHEN WE CLOSE FOR THE SPRING ONLY, THE GROUP OF
STUDENTS AFFECTED THE MOST IS THE UPPER DIVISION TRANSFER
STUDENTS. FOR SPRING, WE TAKE IN A VERY LOW NUMBER OF
FRESHMEN BECAUSE OF WHEN HIGH SCHOOL HAVE GRADUATIONS AND WHAT NOT. BY PUTTING ALL OF 2013 STUDENTS ON A WAIT LIST,
WE CAN COME BACK THEN AND TALK ABOUT WHICH STUDENTS WE
SHOULD PAIR DOWN. SHOULD IT BE FRESHMEN, UPPER DIVISION
TRANSFERS, CREDENTIALS GRADUATE STUDENTS. IT WOULD BE A
DIFFERENT DECISION IN THE FALL. IN THE FALL UNDER THE
UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL, TAKING ABOUT A EQUAL NUMBER MIGHT BE
SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN TRANSFER STUDENTS. IT'S FAIRLY EVEN.
IN THE SPRING YOU'RE TAKING IN THE BIG NUMBERS ON UPPER
DIVISION TRANSFERS.
>> THERE'S AN ADDED PROBLEM THAT WE'RE BEGINNING TO
EXPERIENCE AS IT RELATES TO TWO YEAR COLLEGES. SOME OF US
ARE FAR MORE DEPENDENT ON TRANSFER STUDENTS. INABILITY TO
OFFER TRANSFER COURSES -- SOME OF US EXPERIENCING A DECLINE
IN THE NUMBER OF APPLICANTS.
>> WE'RE NOT ON A ISLAND HERE. THE OTHER SEGMENTS
BEING AFFECTED ARE THE SAME AS WE ARE. CLASSES BOTH IN THE
CSU AND THE COMMUNITY COLLEGES, IT'S DIFFICULT TO THE
STUDENTS. ONE TO GRADUATE AND SOME STUDENTS ARE HOLDING
BACK GRADUATING WANTING TO STAY BECAUSE OF THE JOB MARKET.
>> THE L.A. COMMUNITY COLLEGE INFORMED US THEY HAVE HAD
A SIGNIFICANT DECLINE. L.A. CITY COLLEGE HAD TO CANCEL ITS
SUMMER PROGRAM. WE AS A SYSTEM, ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE
STUDENTS GRADUATE FROM CSU TRANSFER IN FROM TWO YEAR
COLLEGE. WE ARE INTERLINKED HERE.
>> NEXT SLIDE. >> I'M GOING TO EXERCISE A LITTLE DISCRETION AND I HOPE
MY COLLEAGUES DON'T MIND. THE NEXT PART OF THIS IS REVENUE
ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY. I TRUST MEMBERS OF THE BUDGET
ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAVE LOOKED AT THOSE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT
STRATEGIES, READ THE BOARD AGENDA ITEM. I ALSO TRUST THAT
MANY OF THOSE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING THROUGH THE WEB CAST
HAVE DONE THE SAME. WE HAVE ABOUT 30 MINUTES LEFT IN THIS
PRESENTATION OR IN THIS MEETING. I REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS THESE THINGS, ASK QUESTIONS,
FIELD QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE COMING IN FROM THE WEB CAST. I
LIKE TO JUST ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, TO
TAKE A LOOK AT THE REVENUE ENHANCEMENT STRATEGIES. THEN
OPEN THIS UP FOR SOME DISCUSSION OF THINGS THAT YOU THINK --
IDEAS THAT YOU WANT US TO HEAR. THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DROP
OFF THE TABLE ALL TOGETHER, IDEAS THAT MAY NOT BE INCLUDED
IN THE PRESENTATION. AT THIS POINT, WITH NO OBJECTION, I'M
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO THE FLOOR.
>> I NEED TO BE THE ONE TO SUGGEST TUITION INCREASES.
AS I WATCHED OVER THE YEARS, THE STATE GIVES US A BUDGET.
WE TAKE SOME TIME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO REACT. THEN WE
SOMETIMES ENDED UP RAISING TUITION AND THEN THERE'S A FLURRY
OF PUBLIC REACTION TO OUR DECISIONS TO RAISE TUITION. SEEM
LIKE AN UNHEALTHY DYNAMIC BECAUSE WE HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE OF
INCOME BEYOND THAT IN THE STATE. SUGGESTION, IT IS TO SORT
OF TIE A STRING TO THE GOVERNOR'S TRIGGER, WHICH IS TO SAY AHEAD OF TIME IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE $250 MILLION OR
WHATEVER NUMBER FALLS OUT THE FINAL STATE BUDGET, WE ARE
COMMITTED TO RAISING TUITION BY A CERTAIN AMOUNT TO
ACCOMMODATE THAT. TRY TO PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY WHERE IT
BELONGS WITH THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR RATHER THAN
MAKING IT LOOK LIKE IT'S OUR DECISION.
>> COMMENTS?
>> WE HAVE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW, HOW MUCH WE YIELD 1%.
>> IT EVERY ONE PERCENT. EVERY PERCENTAGE POINT
TRANSLATE INTO $15 MILLION. REVENUE ACTUALLY COLLECTED AND
CAN BE SPENT ON YOUR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS.
>> THAT'S BECAUSE OF CAL GRANTS SET ASIDE?
>> WELL, THAT ESTIMATED AMOUNT IS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT
THE TRADITIONAL POLICY WHERE WE CALL IT A SET ASIDE BUT
WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON INSTEAD ABOUT A THIRD OF THE
THEORETICAL REVENUE THAT WE COULD BE COLLECTING, WE'RE
ESSENTIALLY WAIVING. WHEN WE GIVE A STATE UNIVERSITY GRANT
TO STUDENTS WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO COLLECT
TUITION FROM YOU. WE HAVE TO FACTOR THAT IN WHEN WE ARE
CALCULATING HOW MUCH DOLLARS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE RAISED
BY A GIVEN CHANGE IN TUITION RATE.
>> WE HAVE TO FACTOR IN AS WELL PELL GRANTS. SOME OF
US LIKE CAL STATE L.A., OVER 60 PLUS PERCENT OF OUR STUDENTS
ARE PELL GRANT RECIPIENTS. YOU GOT SIX YEARS. AVERAGE AGE
OF OUR STUDENTS IS HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF STUDENTS WHO ATTEND ON A GRADUATE INSTITUTIONS. BECAUSE
THAT DEPENDENCY ON TRANSFER STUDENTS. THERE'S A LOT THAT
HAVE TO BE FACTORED IN. IT COULD BE DEVASTATING FOR CSU.
>> JIM, THE ESSENCE OF YOUR IDEA THOUGH IS KIND OF
NOTION OF THE TRIGGER ON THE TRIGGER IF YOU WILL.
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO FACE THE ELECTION IN NOVEMBER AND
WE HAVE TO WORK TOWARDS THAT IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER WITH OUR
STUDENTS AND STUDENTS PARENTS. IT'S KIND OF IRONIC THAT
THERE WAS NO NEW TAXES. BUT YET THEY DON'T SEEM TO MIND
REDUCING EMPLOYEES SALARIES AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO MIND
INCREASING STUDENTS FEES. THOSE ARE IN REALITY TAXES. I
THINK AS WE GO TOWARDS NOVEMBER, YOU NEED TO KEEP THAT IN
MIND.
>> THINK ALSO YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NEW
MAJORITY IN CALIFORNIA OF WHO WE SERVE, A LONG TERM PROSPECT
OF THIS STATE. YOU HAVE TO BE VERY -- I THINK IT REQUIRES
DIFFERENT LEVEL OF TALK OF WHERE CALIFORNIA WANT TO BE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE GAP IN CALIFORNIA BETWEEN HAVES AND HAVE
NOTES IS WIDER THAN OTHER COMPARABLE STATES.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU BUT IT'S NOT JUST WHAT WE WANT TO
BE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY WHAT WE ARE.
>> THE QUESTION BECOMES INVESTING.
>> THAT'S RIGHT, INVESTING IN THE FUTURE. YOU DON'T
WANT TO DENY PEOPLE THEIR FUTURE.
>> I LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK ALSO IN PART OF OUR THINKING, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO FINANCIAL AID
FOR STUDENTS, REMEMBER THAT THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES IN
PELL GRANTS THAT WILL EFFECT A NUMBER OF OUR STUDENTS ALSO.
>> GREG?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH JIM ON
THE ISSUE OF STUDENT TUITION INCREASE. ESPECIALLY A THIRD
OF TUITION INCREASE GO TO GRADUATE UNIVERSITY GRANT AN ALSO
IN THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET, THERE'S GOING TO BE A
DISPROPORTION IMPACT ON PELL GRANT RECIPIENT. IT ALSO
LOOKING AT IT FROM A PRAGMATIC SENSE, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
A $250 MILLION SHORTFALL, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE
$250 MILLION FEE REVENUE GENERATED. ALSO THINK IN TERMS OF
ENROLLMENT REDUCTIONS, WHICH IS KIND OF THE OTHER BIG THING
THAT IMPACTS STUDENTS, THAT'S GOING TO SERIOUSLY HARM THE
INSTITUTION MOVING FORWARD. ALSO JUST ONE OF THE THING I
THOUGHT OF WITH THE WAIT LIST PROSPECT OF GIVING WAIT LIST
TO EVERY STUDENT THAT'S APPLYING IN THE FALL. I THINK THAT
MIGHT HAVE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF DRIVING STUDENTS
AWAY. IF I'M 17 YEARS OLD AND I GET ACCEPTED SAY ARIZONA
STATE OR SOME COMPETITIVE INSTITUTION, I'M GOING TO DISCOUNT
THAT AS I GOT DENIED. THE IMPACT OF THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
DRIVE A LOT OF QUALITY TALENT FROM CSU. I WANT TO MAKE THAT
KNOWN. I WANT TO STRESS THAT ANY -- THE WAY WE'RE LOOKING
AT ALTERING EDUCATION QUALITY, I DON'T THINK IT'S
SUSTAINABLE NOR IS IT BENEFICIAL TO WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GO IN THE FUTURE.
>> GREG, JUST A COMMENT. THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. I
WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I WOULD BE CONFIDENT, 100%
CONFIDENT EVEN IF THE DECISION WERE MADE TO INCREASE
TUITION, WE WOULD NOT BE GOING AFTER THE ENTIRE
$250 MILLION. WE DO HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE MOVING ON
AND SO REST ASSURED, WE WOULDN'T BE GOING AFTER AN INCREASE
THAT WOULD BE AT THAT LEVEL OF $250 MILLION.
>> I ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT IN MY OBSERVATION OF THE
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING SO FAR. THE PELL GRANT ISSUE IS
GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THE LEGISLATURE
WILL BUY INTO THE GOVERNOR'S PLAN. IT REALLY DOES UNDERMINE
A VERY GOOD PROGRAM, GIVING ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FOR
HUGE MAJORITY OF STUDENTS. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE
BIGGER BUDGET PICTURE. THE LAO IS QUESTIONING WHETHER WE
NEED A $1 MILLION RESERVE AT THIS TIME. ALSO THERE'S SOME
ANALYSIS THAT SAYS THE GOVERNORS REVISE MAYBE OVER PAYING
$1.5 BILLION. RIGHT THERE THAT'S $2.5 MILLION CUSHION THAT
COULD GO SOME OTHER PLACE. ALL OF LOT OF BAD CUTS THAT MAY
REVISE. IF THOSE TWO REVENUE TYPE ISSUES AND OTHER PAYMENTS
IN THE PROP 98 GIVES FLEXIBILITY TO THE CAL GRANT AND
POSSIBLY SOME OTHER CUTS EVEN THE TRIGGER CUTS.
>> CONCERNING ENROLLMENT REDUCTION. WE GET ENOUGH FROM
OUR TUITION FEES AND HAVE A MARGINAL COST IN THE SHORT TERM.
I AM VERY PLEASED WITH SOME OF THE STRATEGIES, CONSOLIDATION OF SERVICES AND SHARED SERVICES. WE LOOKED AT CALPERS,
HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS. THEY ARE NOT SHORT TERM SOLUTIONS.
THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY LONG TERM. ONES WE HAVE ON THE PLATE
THAT I THINK TO BE LOOKING AT IS A FAIRLY SMALL LIST. WHICH
COULD BE POSSIBLE CHANGES TO STATE UNIVERSITY GRANT FORMULA.
SOMETHING WE DIDN'T DISCUSS YESTERDAY. BASICALLY PAY
REDUCTION. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT CAN HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT
IN THE SHORT TERM.
>> THAT HAS RECEIVED SOME CONVERSATION IS THIRD YEAR
TUITION. IN THE THIRD TIER TUITION WOULD BE STUDENTS ENROLL
IN SE OVER 13 AND 15 STUDENTS WOULD HAVE TO PAY AN
ADDITIONAL FEE.
>> THAT'S A REASONABLE SOLUTION BUT IT'S ALSO SOMETHING
STUDENTS WHO WANT TO TAKE ABOVE 15 UNIT, GEL -- GENERALLY
THEY WILLING TO PAY EXTRA. THERE IS ONE CAVEAT TO THAT.
FOR THE GRADUATING SENIORS, GENERALLY IN THEIR LAST
SEMESTER, THEY HAVE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL CLASS AND WOULD TAKE
ABOVE 15 OR 16 UNITS. I KNOW PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD THAT
SITUATION HAPPEN JUST THIS LAST SPRING.
>> EASIER IF YOU VOTE ON OR TAKE A POSITION ON THE
SENIOR ISSUE.
>> THERE'S NO FORMAL ACTION TAKEN. AS GREG NOTED, IT
WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED. THERE WAS ANTON OF
OPPOSITION TO THAT. I DID WANT TO NOTE NOT ALL SUPER
SENIORS ARE STUDENTS THAT HAVE MESSED UP DURING THEIR EDUCATIONAL CAREER. SOME OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY THERE
COMPLETING A SECOND DEGREE OR DOING SOMETHING ON CAMPUS.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY DID WANT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING
STUDENTS ARE MESSING UP. ONE QUICK QUESTION. FOR REVENUE
ENHANCEMENT, HAS IT BEEN DISCUSSED OR ANY OTHER SYSTEM DONE
AN ABILITY TO PAY TYPE SYSTEM? I HEARD THE IDEA A COUPLE
YEARS AGO, WAS CURIOUS I KNOW IT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED HERE.
>> TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT.
>> JUST FAMILIES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY HIGHER
TUITION LOCKED INTO THAT COST. IT MIGHT MAKE IT A LITTLE
DIFFICULT. I'M CURIOUS IF ANY OTHER SYSTEMS HAVE
ENTERTAINED IT?
>> WE HAVE NOT YET ENTERTAINED IT. I THINK IT'S
ANOTHER IDEA TO PUT ON THE TABLE. I THINK IT MIGHT BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGE BUT, WE'LL LOOK AT IT. JIM?
>> JUST OBSERVATION ON THAT. MOST FINANCIAL AID
POLICIES IN THE STATES ARE DRIVEN BY PELL GRANT STANDARDS.
THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL THIRD
TIER, WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT THAT WOULD BE ON FINANCIAL AID?
FOR EXAMPLE, LAST YEAR CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON FINANCIAL
AID CHANGE HOW THEY ALLOCATE, IF YOU WILL, PELL GRANTS BASED
ON A NUMBER OF UNITS. OUR CURRENT TWO TIER CREATED A
PROBLEM. THEY SAID WE WILL ONLY REIMBURSE YOU FOR THE
NUMBER OF UNITS YOU'RE CARRYING. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE
CARRYING 20 UNITS AND IT'S LEGIT, YOU GET REIMBURSED FOR THAT. THAT HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE PELL GRANT. THE OTHER
PIECE OF THIS IS REALLY INTRIGUING IS THAT PELL GRANTS ARE
THE PRINCIPLE SUPPORTERS OF THE FINANCIAL AID THIS YEAR. WE
DON'T GET A LOT OF MONEY IN TERMS OF DOLLAR TOTAL AMOUNT OUT
OF PELL GRANTS. IT'S EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL FOR EXAMPLE.
>> IT OUR BIGGEST SOURCE OF FINANCIAL AID BY FAR.
>> ON THE THIRD TIER, ONCE YOU PENCIL OUT, IT MIGHT NOT
BE THAT MUCH OF A REVENUE ENHANCER. WHAT WOULD HAVE IS A
BEHAVORIAL CHANGE BUT THAT DOESN'T BRING -- PEOPLE WOULD
ADAPT TO THAT CHANGE BUT WOULD NOT --
>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON
JIM'S NOTION ABOUT FINANCIAL AID AND HOW WE WOULD HANDILY
ABOVE 15?
>> WE'VE ASKED OUR FINANCIAL AID PEOPLE TO LOOK INTO
OUR THIRD TIER WILL WORK OUT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A THIRD
TIER, HIGH UNIT MAJORS WILL BE FACTORED IN. NO ONE WOULD BE
CUT OFF. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE -- WE'RE ASSUMING OVER
16 UNIT. 120 MAJORS WILL TAKE 16. IF YOU'RE IN ENGINEERING
AND THAT REQUIRES 132 UNITS, IT'S ASSUMED THAT YOU WOULD BE
ALLOWED 18 UNITS IN THOSE SEMESTER SO THAT YOU CAN GRADUATE.
>> CAP ON PELL GRANTS AS WELL EPHRAIM?
>> MINIMUM OF 12.
>> YOU CAN USE UP.
>> WE MAY WANT TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT.
>> OTHER IDEAS, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> DR. QUILLIAN, THIS IS DARLENE YEE-MELICHAR PEPT TO
THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND THE DISCUSSIONS
THAT'S BEEN GENERATED. I HAVE ONE SUGGESTION. THAT IS
COULD THE CSU AS A SYSTEM PIGGY BACK ON OUR GOOD WORK ON THE
PROFESSIONAL MASTERS DEGREE WITH BIOTECHNOLOGY BUSINESSES BY
LOOKING AT OTHER INDUSTRIES TO PARTNER WITH? WHERE THEY
MIGHT INVEST IN PERHAPS EDUCATING OUR STUDENTS FULFILLING
SPECIFIC JOBS THAT THEY NEED MET?
>> GOOD IDEA. I THINK WE NEED TO WORK MORE IN THAT
DIRECTION NOW. USUALLY THE CORPORATIONS TEND TO BE MORE
INTERESTED IN GRADUATE RESEARCH. WOULD YOU AGREE EPHRAIM?
>> CORPORATIONS ON GRADUATE RESEARCH AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, WE BRING IN QUITE A BIT OF MONEY FOR
UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH. EVEN IN THE FRESHMAN YEAR, WE HAVE
QUITE A FEW GRANTS.
>> VERY PARTNERED MUCH WITH OUTSIDE CORPORATION?
>> NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE DONE WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
>> BUT IN SOME CASES, WE PARTNERED WITH HOSPITALS AND
OUR NURSING PROGRAMS.
>> OUR NURSING PROGRAMS, WE HAVE EXTENSIVE
PARTICIPATIONS IN THE STATE WITH HOSPITALS.
>> THE INVESTMENTS THEY USUALLY WILL MAKE MOSTLY THEIR
EMPLOYEES. RATHER THAN INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT THEIR
EMPLOYEES. >> BUT THEY HAVE BUILT FOR -- MUCH THE EQUIPMENT IS
COMING FROM PRIVATE OFFICE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT IDEA.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> CAN I ASK FOR A LITTLE DISCUSSION ABOUT STATE
UNIVERSITY GRANT NUMBERS. THIS IS DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES MEETING. ABOUT SKIN IN THE GAME CONCEPT. WE
CURRENTLY ALLOCATE APPROXIMATELY $700 MILLION A YEAR OF OUR
CSU BUDGET TO STATE UNIVERSITY GRANT. IT WAS SOME
DISCUSSION IF SOMEONE PUT IN LET'S SAY A 10% AT THE BOTTOM
OF THAT, THAT MIGHT BE $700 A YEAR. THAT WOULD BE A NUMBER
IN $70 MILLION A YEAR. I WANT TO TEST THOSE NUMBERS AND SEE
IF THEY'RE ACCURATE.
>> I THINK THEY'RE ROUGHLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE'S A WHOLE REALM OF POLICY CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED WHEN
YOU START TALKING ABOUT FINANCIAL AID. I THINK THE NUMBERS
ARE APPROXIMATELY THE RIGHT MAGNITUDE. THE POINT IS THAT --
POINT UNDERLINING YOUR COMMENT IS THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE
ABLE TO PAY A LITTLE SOMETHING?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY IT.
>> RODNEY DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR SOMEONE?
>> ACTUALLY WE HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY, I'M GOING TO MOVE THIS CAMERA AROUND SO YOU
CAN SEE WHO'S SPEAKING HERE. WE HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS
COMING FROM PARTICIPANTS. THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY FOR TYPING IN THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE. KIND OF SUMMARIZE THESE IN
TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. IF YOU DON'T HEAR YOUR EXACT
QUESTION, IT'S BEEN SUMMARIZED HERE. WE WILL BE ANSWERING
EVERYTHING IN THE FAQ TO FOLLOW. QUESTION HERE, WHAT
PROPOSALS ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO IMPROVE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT BY CAMPUS EXECUTIVES AND ADMINISTRATORS.
PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO TRAVEL CELL PHONES AND PERKS
FOR PRESIDENTS AND VICE PRESIDENT, OUTSOURCING OF WORK?
>> I CAN TAKE PART OF THAT. TRAVEL HAS BEEN REDUCED
VERY SIGNIFICANTLY.
>> SINCE OUR CRISIS BEGIN IN THE '07 OR '08 FISCAL YEAR
ARE OPERATING FUND TRAVEL EXPENSES HAVE DROPPED 45% THROUGH
SOME VERY TIGHT MANAGEMENT IN THAT AREA. WE'RE SPENDING
$14.7 MILLION LESS THIS YEAR THAN WE DID BEFORE THE CRISIS
BEGAN. THERE ARE OTHER AREAS LIKE THAT WHERE WE HAVE SEEN
SIMILAR EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS OF 30% DROP FOR EXAMPLE IN
I.T. EXPENDITURES THAT'S SAVING US $23 MILLION A YEAR.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD IN THIS AREA. BEN CAN
ELABORATE, WE CONTINUE TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE OF TRYING TO
FIND MORE.
>> WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT
QUESTION?
>> LET'S SEE, THEY RELATED TO TRAVEL, CELL PHONES
EMPLOYEE PURCHASES, VICE PRESIDENTS AND PRESIDENT.
>> CELL PHONES WE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE NUMBER OF CELL PHONES OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE. OUR EMPLOYEES, MANY OF
THEM PREFER THAT IS TO PURCHASE OF MY OWN PHONE THAT I CAN
USE AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE TYPE OF PHONE THAT IS
PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY. MANY OF OUR EMPLOYEES ARE
MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION CARRYING THEIR OWN MOBILE UNIT. AS
FAR AS THE PERKS AND OTHER THING GO, THERE ARE ISSUES
RELATED TO BOARD DECISIONS AND I'M REALLY NOT IN A POSITION
TO SPEAK TO THEM.
>> THANK YOU. ANOTHER COMMENT QUESTION THAT'S BEEN
COMING IN. CAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BE RUN WITHOUT
ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATION SUCH AS NO DEANS? OR ADMINISTRATION
SUCH AS FEWER VICE PRESIDENTS FOR INSTANCE?
>> WELL, I THINK, EPHRAIM MAY WANT TO SPEAK MORE TO
THIS. I CERTAINLY THINK THAT THE ROLE OF ADMINISTRATORS
WHETHER THEIR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS OR NON-ACADEMIC
ADMINISTRATORS, I THINK THEIR ROLES SOMETIMES NOT
UNDERSTOOD. MOST OF THE ADMINISTRATORS THAT I KNOW
PERSONALLY, ARE ALMOST 24/7. THEY DO PLAY A VERY
SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE OPERATIONS AND DECISION-MAKING OF AN
INSTITUTION. I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN HAVE A SCHOOL
WITHOUT SOME LEADERSHIP OF THE SCHOOLS BUT EPHRAIM WANT TO
SPEAK TO THAT?
>> WE HAD SEVERAL UNIVERSITIES LOOK AT THE COMPOSITION
OF COLLEGES THIS YEAR. THINK SAN FRANCISCO STATE WAS ONE
THAT ANNOUNCED A REORGANIZATION. I THINK THERE WERE SOME OTHER CAMPUSES THAT LOOKED INTO CONSOLIDATION OR REVIEW OF
THEIR COLLEGES ON THE CAMPUS. THE SIZE OF OUR PROGRAMS AND
NUMBERS -- THERE IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS TO BE IN PLACE
TO ACCOMMODATE THE STUDENTS. WE HAVE LOOKED AT CERTAIN
POSITIONS SYSTEMWIDE.
>> THE DIFFERENCE IS CONSOLIDATION AND ELIMINATION.
THE QUESTION WAS IF WE CAN ELIMINATE THING? I DON'T THINK
WE CAN ELIMINATE DEANS? CAN WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DEANS
THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN PUT ON THE TABLE.
>> THIS IS LILLIAN TAIZ. I AM A TINY BIT CONCERNED
ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME IN WHICH THE FOLKS WHO ARE WATCHING
THIS AND I MUST SAY LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS IT'S ABOUT .005%
OF OUR CAMPUS COMMUNITY WHO'S BEEN TUNING INTO THIS. THE
LABOR COUNSEL HAS A MOTION TO OFFER OR SUGGESTIONS TO OFFER
TO THIS BODY THAT REGARDING THE SUGGESTION BY TRUSTEE GLAZER
THAT THIS GROUP RECOMMENDS PUBLIC HEARINGS BE HELD REGARDING
ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS. ONE IN THE NORTH, ONE IN THE SOUTH.
WE WOULD CERTAINLY COMMIT TO GETTING TURNOUTS. I IMAGINE
THAT THE REST OF YOU COULD ALSO COMMIT TO GETTING TURNOUTS.
WE'RE TEN MINUTES LESS AND LESS THAN 30 MINUTES ALLOCATED TO
CONVERSATION WITH OUR FOLKS OUT ON THE CAMPUS. SOMETHING
LIKE THIS WOULD REALLY BE ESSENTIAL IN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A
MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION. SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN
TALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY ARE INTERESTING. SOME ARE IDEAS AND
SOME ARE OBVIOUSLY ALREADY BEING IMPLEMENTED. IT FEELS LIKE IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR OUR SYSTEM TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION
WITH A BROADER COMMUNITY ON CAMPUS OF REPRESENTED AND
ADMINISTRATIVE AND STUDENT FOLKS WHO MAY HAVE MORE IDEAS TO
OFFER BUT IN THIS LIMITED TIME, NOT BEING ABLE TO DO SO.
>> THAT'S UNDERSTOOD.
>> JUST ONE COMMENT. IF THE NUMBERS YOU'RE SEEING UP
THERE, THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY
CONNECTED. IT UP DOESN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE
IN THE ROOM WITH THAT CONNECTION.
>> IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW THE TURN OUT OF
THIS SO WE HAVE SOME IDEA HOW MANY FOLKS WE ARE REACHING. I
DO APPRECIATE THE WINDOWS WE'RE OPENING TO ALLOW FOLKS ON
THE CAMPUSES TO SEE. THERE WAS A VERY SHORT TIMELINE ON
THIS AND VERY EXPERIENCED WITH TURNOUT, I KNOW THAT IT TAKES
MORE THAN A FEW DAYS TO GET SIGNIFICANT PARTICIPATION IN A
CONVERSATION LIKE THIS.
>> UNDERSTOOD. RODNEY RAISES AN IMPORTANT POINT. WE
DON'T KNOW HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS ON EACH CAMPUS ARE ACTUALLY
LISTENING IN, WATCHING IN THE LOCATIONS THAT THE PRESIDENTS
DESIGNATED ON THE CAMPUS. YOUR POINT IS TAKEN. ONE OF THE
THINGS WE'RE DOING, WE ARE GOING TO PUT OUT A QUESTION AND
ANSWER. INVITE MEMBERS OF OUR UNIVERSITY COMMUNITIES TO
OFFER COMMENTS IN ADDITION TO THIS SESSION. WE WILL GIVE
ADDITIONAL THOUGHT. TO THE NOTION OF TWO MEETINGS, THERE'S
SOME EXPENSE AND TIME DEVOTED TO THOSE AND WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT THOUGH.
>> I JUST WANT TO ADD, WE TALKED ABOUT AND THOUGHT
ABOUT IT. THERE ARE SOME DECISION POINTS HERE MOVING
FORWARD FOR THE LONG TERM. THERE'S SORT OF SOME SHORT TERM.
YOU HAVE JULY TRUSTEE MEETING AND A SEPTEMBER TRUSTEE
MEETING. BOTH OF THOSE PROBABLY GOING TO BE DECISION POINTS
ON THE BUDGET. I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE ANY
DECISION POINTS UNTIL YOU SEE THE BUDGET. THEN WE WON'T
KNOW UNTIL WE GET AN IDEA CERTAINLY AWARE OF THE BUDGET
MIGHT BE PENDING THE NOVEMBER ELECTION AND TAX MEASURE.
EVEN AFTER THAT POINT, THERE'S OTHER DECISION POINTS. AN
OPEN CONVERSATION SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS HOW THE
SYSTEM AND A BROAD CONSTITUENCY CAN HAVE INPUT, MAY HAVE A
CAUSE BUT MAY GIVE US LONG TERM BENEFITS.
>> I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR THE TRUSTEES, THE
DEVELOPMENT OF, IF YOU WILL, THESE IDEAS EMERGED OUT OF A
RETREAT THE TRUSTEES HAD WITH REGARD TO THIS. THE
PRESENTATION WAS MADE IN RESPONSE TO TRUSTEE'S REQUEST. MY
EXPECTATION WITH REGARD TO THIS THOSE THINGS EMERGED THAT
PEOPLE CONSIDER SHORT TERM WILL BE SUMMARIZED AND SOME, IF
YOU WILL, ANALYSIS WE MADE ABOUT WHERE WE CAN IMPLEMENT IN A
SHORT TIME FRAME. OTHERS THAT ARE LONG TERM THAT HAVE
POTENTIAL WILL BE REPORTED BACK TO THE TRUSTEE AND THINGS
THAT SHOULD BE ON THE TRUSTEE'S AGENDA FOR FURTHER DISCOURSE
WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY AT LARGE. >> WE DO PLAN TO SHARE WHAT WE'VE HEARD IN THIS MEETING
WITH THE BOARD. I DO HAVE TO SAY THOUGH THAT, I THINK IT
BEHOOVES US TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE SOME DECISIONS SOONER
RATHER THAN LATER.
>> WHAT ARE THE POINTS? WHAT ARE THE DECISION POINTS
THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US NOW?
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE CFOs
TOMORROW TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT THEY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH PLANNING FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A $250 MILLION TRIGGER.
YOU CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THE TRIGGER IS PULLED TO DECIDE WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO DO. I AM GOING TO TELL THEM THAT THEY NEED
TO MOVE FORWARD AS IF THE -- AS IF THEY KNOW THE TRIGGER IS
BEING PULLED. THERE'S SOME ISSUES OUT THERE THAT WOULD
SUGGEST THAT IT IS AN UPHILL BATTLE FOR THE INITIATIVE.
MAKE SURE THAT THE INITIATIVE IS PASSED. IF IT DOESN'T
PASS, WE HAVE TO BE READY TO MOVE. WE CAN'T WAIT UNTIL
NOVEMBER.
>> I'M A FORMER CFO. THEREFORE I SPEAK WITH IT. THE
SOLUTIONS ARE NOT AT THE CAMPUS LEVEL. YOU CAN ASK US AS
CFOs TO PLAN. I HAVE TO TELL YOU THE SOLUTIONS ARE NOT
THERE. THE SOLUTIONS ARE AT THE SYSTEM LEVEL. YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO FIND IN MY CAMPUS $5.75 MILLION IN LOCAL SOLUTIONS.
I CANNOT FIND, YOU KNOW, $2.3 MILLION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS
YET. THEREFORE, I'M -- THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE TOOLS TO
MAKE THAT. WE CAN CLOSE THE UNIVERSITY ONE DAY A WEEK. WE CAN DO FURLOUGH ONE WAY A WEEK. WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY
OF THE CAMPUS TO DO THAT. YOU CAN SAY, I CAN REFUSE
ENROLLMENT BY A THOUSAND STUDENTS. WE DON'T HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. THEREFORE, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE
ASKING IS A FAIR QUESTION FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE
TOOLS. THE TOOLS ARE NO LONGER AT THE CAMPUS LEVEL.
>> I LIKE TO OFFER AN OBSERVATION. WE HAVE ALREADY, I
WOULD SUBMIT, ALL 23 OF US PLANNED FOR THE $200 MILLION
TRIGGER. WE PLANNED FOR THAT WITHIN SOME GUIDELINES THAT
WERE ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED TO US. THE
GUIDELINES ON MY CAMPUS TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THERE
WOULD BE -- WE PLANNED FOR THAT. THIS ADDITIONAL 50
PRESENTS ANOTHER ISSUE FOR US. IN TERMS OF WHAT'S MY --
WHAT'S MY SHARE OF THAT. I EXPECTED TO SERVE 16,000FTEs
NEXT YEAR. AS JIM POSTMA SUGGESTED, WE ADDED A TRIGGER TO
TUITION FEE INCREASE TO THE TRIGGER. IN SOME RESPECT WITH
REGARD TO THE 50, I NEED SOME GUIDANCE. WITH RESPECT TO THE
200, I GOTTEN THE GUIDANCE THAT I NEEDED. WE'RE PREPARED TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH 250. IT COMPLICATES.
>> IT CERTAINLY DOES. NOT ALL OF THE CAMPUSES HAVE
FIRMED UP A PLAN FOR THE 200. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN ARE VERY
PRELIMINARY PLAN. I EXPLAINED TO THE BOARD THE PLAN. I
SAID AT THE BOARD MEETING, ELIMINATION OF LOW ENROLLMENT
PROGRAM, ELIMINATION OF ATHLETIC SPORTS PROGRAM. THE BOARD
SAID, WE UNDERSTAND THAT BUT WE WOULD LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES. SOME OF THESE ALTERNATIVES -- I HEAR YOU
RUBEN AND I HEAR YOU LOUDLY AND CLEARLY -- SOME OF THE
ALTERNATIVES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MADE AT THE SYSTEM
LEVEL. I'M PLANNING TO ENCOURAGE THE CFOs TO DO IS TO GET
TO THE POINT YOU'RE THOUGHT JIM. I'M NOT CONFIDENT THAT
MOST OF THEM ARE READY TO ROLL.
>> LET ME CLARIFY. OUR PLANNING AN MY CAMPUS IS NEVER
COMPLETE UNTIL THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THE BUDGET. TO BE HONK,
ALL OF MY PLANNING FOR NEXT YEAR ALWAYS BEEN TEMPORARY OR
PRELIMINARY. THAT'S WHERE THE DIRECTION COMES FROM. I
CAN'T STOP PLANNING. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVEN'T
TALKED ABOUT THE BACK OF STUDENTS OF THE TIMING OF WHEN
DECISION MADE ABOUT ADMISSIONS AND WHAT THE BUDGET CYCLE IS
LIKE AND WHAT THE FAMILIES HAVE TO PLAN, ETCETERA. WE TRY
TO TAKE ALL OF THIS INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE TRY TO PLAN.
THE MORE WE GET INPUT WHAT THE GUIDELINES ARE THAT WE MIGHT
EXPECT, THE BETTER I CAN ANTICIPATE AND PLAN. WHENEVER A
FINAL BUDGET COMES DOWN, WE ARE ON A CAMPUS BASIS MUCH MORE
INFORMED POSITION TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT THE IMPACT
WOULD BE ON FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS.
>> GOING BACK TO RUBEN'S POINT TOO. I THINK THAT'S WHY
SO MANY OF THESE DISTASTEFUL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE. LIKE
FURLOUGHS FOR EXAMPLE. IF I HEAR FROM THE CFOs THERE'S NO
WAY THEY CAN GET THERE, WE WILL HAVE TO PUT SOME OTHER
ISSUES ON THE TABLE THAT WE HADN'T PLANNED TO PUT ON THE TABLE.
>> ALL CUT BUDGETS WILL BE DEVASTATING TO MOST OF OUR
CAMPUSES. TRUSTEE MENTIONS AT THE LAST MEETING, WE SHOULD
NOT DILUTE OURSELVES BELIEVELY WE CAN JUST CUT. NATIONALLY
WITH OUR LARGE CAMPUSES. WE SPEND THE LEAST PER STUDENT. I
DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT REDUCING THAT SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THERE. THERE
THANK YOU. WE ARE JUST ABOUT OUT OF TIME. THERE WILL BE
MORE TO COME. WE WILL CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS
MEETING. I GUESS WE SHOULD ADJOURN THIS MEETING. THANK
YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S
TELECONFERENCE, YOU MAY NOW DISCONNECT YOUR LINES.