Summary of the September 25, 2008 Meeting
I. Campus Quality Fee - Piper
Piper distributed and discussed two documents that outline and will guide the distribution of the 2008-09 Campus Quality Fee: Campus Quality Fee Allocation and Accountability Process 2008-09 and a working draft of the Campus Quality Fee Proposals for 2008-09. Piper summarized the timelines for the solicitation and consideration of proposals. The process calls for the Provost to consult with the Educational Resource Committee (ERC) and the University Planning and Budget Group (UPBG). The proposals will then be considered by the Student Fee Advisory Committee (SFAC). UBPG and SFAC in reviewing spending plans, to the extent possible given restraints of time, will have formative as well as summative input. Final decision making authority for implementation of the project resides with the President.
In 2008-09, as in subsequent years, Academic Affairs will concentrate on using the Campus Quality Fee (CQF) allocation to support programs that already had course fees. Additional ‘freed up fees’ will be used to augment the course schedule.
Other CQF proposals groupings are generally in the categories of: Student Support Services, Technology improvements, and IRA type support.
II. Enrollment - Hellenbrand
Hellenbrand summarized the fall enrollment picture and reviewed census enrollment data provided by the Office of Institutional Research. In spite of efforts to control enrollment, urban campuses, including CSUN, have experienced considerable growth above the planned targets. He believes that three factors contribute to this pattern: the economy, demography, and increased high school graduation rates in some populations. The effectiveness of outreach and recruitment, increased average unit loads, and additional non-resident and graduate students are additional contributing factors to the CSUN enrollment pattern.
Hellenbrand expressed his appreciation to faculty and advisory community for their exceptional cooperation in planning for and responding to the additional enrollment demand.
Hellenbrand encouraged people go to the Institutional Research website for additional enrollment information and analysis.
III. Update on 2008-09 Budget – Questions and Answers
Hellenbrand summarized the discussions in UPBG last year as a part of preparation and planning in anticipation of a challenging 2008-09 state budget. He distributed his budget message to Academic Affairs, Day of the Locusts, in which he provides historical context for and the challenges of the current budgetary climate, outlines the responses academic priorities and objectives of Academic Affairs for 2008-09.
McCarron reported that the State budget deficit, currently estimated at $15 billion, may worsen as a result of lower tax revenues from property, sales income, and capital gains. He anticipates that California will probably engage in a mid-year budget revision and likely a downward revision. He expects the State to have multiple years of challenging budgets.
Hellenbrand and McCarron said the campus will continue to plan, anticipate, and prepare a variety of options and strategies in order to make the most effective and nimble decisions to respond to budget changes. In spite of current budgetary challenges, the campus remains committed to its institutional priorities, reducing the overall cost of attendance, and meeting the instructional and instructionally-related needs of students.