PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE

April 11^th, 2024

MEMBERS PRESENT:

STAFF PRESENT:

GUESTS PRESENT:

MEMBERS ABSENT:

            AGENDA

1. Call to Order and Welcome
2. Approval of the Minutes: February 8^th, 2024
3. Cost of Education Review
4. Announcements for the Good of the Order

1. Call to Order and Welcome
   Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, Karen Moranski, welcomed the committee and began the meeting at 8:30 a.m.
    
2. Approval of the Minutes: February 8^th, 2024
   Moranski introduced the agenda and asked if there were any additions. Hearing none, Moranski requested a motion to approve the minutes of the February 8^th meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously.
    
3. Cost of Education Review
   Lupei reviewed the Cost of Education analysis with the committee. This analysis is to help better understand the University’s spending trends against peer CSU campuses and incorporate the data into the University’s strategic budgeting practices and inform reorganization and reallocation decisions. This cost of education review does not look at budget, but instead compares actuals across campuses in functional categories rather than by divisional organization. Lupei first reviewed the definitions of each of the functional categories. These categories include Instruction, Academic Support, Student Services, Institutional Support, and Operations and Maintenance of Plant. In order to benchmark against other CSU campuses, this review focuses exclusively on the Campus Budget which is comprised of the funding sources of state allocation, student fees, and cost recovery.
   
   Lupei next reviewed the Expenditures Comparison Summary which compares expenditures by functional category between SSU, the CSU Average, and the Similar Sized Average, a composite of campuses with comparable Full Time Equivalent Student (FTES) targets. Compared to Similar Sized Campuses, SSU spends approximately $1.8k less per FTES. SSU is falling closer to the CSU average as the FTES on campus is going down. But, while receiving less funding per FTES, SSU has been able to allocate 51% directly to students’ academic experience (instruction and student services) which is roughly in line with other CSUs and small campuses.
   
   Lupei then summarized the proportional spending trends over time and compared them to the CSU averages, and similar size campuses for each functional category. For 2022-23 actual expenditures (the latest year with actuals available for all CSU campuses), SSU was above average in actual spending by proportion in the following categories: Academic Support, Student Services, Institutional Support, and Operations and Maintenance of Plant.  The Instruction category was the only category where SSU fell slightly below the CSU Average in proportional spending. Compared to prior years, there have been a handful of changes in spending, which have caused a shift in proportional spending throughout the categories. Since these categories are proportional, when spending in one area increases spending in other areas decreases. SSU has typically been higher than average in instructional spending but due to the following changes, the proportion has shifted in this year’s review: General Salary Increases (GSIs) were allocated over two years for faculty and one year for staff. Faculty received 7% increases over two years, whereas staff received 7% all in one year causing a jump in spending on Academic Support, Institutional Support, and Operations and Maintenance of Plant. Additionally, the campus's Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (VSIP) lowered instructional spending proportional to other categories as it resulted in several payouts in the Operations and Maintenance of Plant category, causing a large increase in one-time costs for this year. Finally, the Operations and Maintenance of Plant category includes the campus utility charges. The campus had an astronomically high gas bill in the previous year that again increased spending in the Operations and Maintenance of Plant category.
   
   The final aspect of the presentation was looking at the University’s actual FTES per Employee FTE comparisons for each employee type (Faculty, Staff, and MPP). Sonoma State is just below the CSU Average in FTES per Faculty FTE and FTES per Staff FTE, but higher than the CSU Average in FTES per MPP FTE. Monir Ahmed pointed out that this data is prior to the staffing and MPP adjustments that were made last year.
    
4. Announcements for the Good of the Order
   Puspa Amri shared news that a student had received an intensive summer fellowship that will focus on increasing diversity in the economics profession.

Moranski adjourned the meeting at 9:46 a.m.  

Minutes prepared by Hayley Avery.