Summary from Senate Budget Report for 2005/06

In 2005/06  the Schools received less money (by 1 percent) than they did in 2001/02 at a time that the total sent to campus increased by 16 percent!!!
*General Fund monies are the funds sent to campus from the Chancellor’s Office.

Other Funds

The amount of money available on campus greatly exceeds what the General Fund provides.  This is money from various campus auxiliaries, grants, etc.  

Administration and Finance greatly enhances its budget with funding from these sources.  In 2002/03 they had access to another $9.5 M. which funded 53 positions in A & F.  Neither Academic Affairs, nor its constituent schools has access to anything like these kinds of dollars.
The Schools Percent of the General Fund 1992-93 40.11999-00 39.22005-06 32.3
Note that these numbers are from the annual operating budgets or expenditure plans provided by the Sonoma State University administration.  The actual amounts that the schools end up with are diminished every year by “paybacks” levied by Administration and Finance, so the money that the schools actually receive is even less than reported in

these plans.


  1. 1. Police and parking services in 1997/98 were paid $740,185 from parking revenues and no money for this purpose was drawn from the General Fund.  Since 2001/02 over one million dollars per year has been drawn from the General Fund to pay for Parking and Police Services.  In 2004/05 parking revenues totaled  $1,769,000 but the General Fund was charged $1,059,792 for Police and Parking Services.  In that same year $725,426 in parking revenues went to pay off a loan from the Green Music Center parking lot and an additional $300,000 were owed “to the Green Music Center Project.”
  1. 2. When the freshman EMT program was established in the 1990s the administration helped sell the program by pointing out that its costs would be borne mainly by profits from the campus housing operations.  In 1994/95 through 1996/97 Housing funds provided $350,000 per year to Academic Affairs for the costs of EMT.  From 1997/98 onward that support eventually dwindled to zero, meaning the costs must now be borne by the General Fund.
  1. 3. In 1992/93 instructional units had a “Replacement and Support Equipment” budget of $500,000 in the initial allocation, reflecting previous years’ practice.  That budget line was later removed and has never been restored.  Irregular equipment dollars have been granted to Academic Affairs units from time to time, but no planning is possible given present arrangements, and aged equipment abounds.
  1. 4. Until the turn of the millennium the campus had a three-year rotation of computer refresh.  In 1999/2000 and prior years there is a line item in the budget for $130,000 for faculty work stations, the last year that item appeared (though in 2000/01, $100,000 was set aside for non-faculty work stations).  Since no refresh program existed for several years, it represented another loss of roughly $130,000 annually to Academic Affairs.
  1. 5. The campus formerly covered payout expenses for grants and contracts.  Those operations are now paid for by loans from the Sonoma State University Academic Foundation which charges the campus interest that amounts to a loss to Academic Affairs of over $500,000 for 2005/06 and a profit to the Foundation.  This cost was instituted in 2003/2004 when the fee amounted to $30,000.  This means 65 percent of the Indirect Costs now flow to Administration and Finance in one way or another.  The amount going to Financial and Human Resource Management alone increased from $635,000 in 2003/2004 to $966,527 in 2005/2006.  The allocation goal of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs for 2005/2006 has a SHORTFALL projected at $512, 716 (Source:  report presented at AABAC, 3/28/2006).  While A & F is able to collect indirect costrevenue for its services, Academic Affairs cannot, yet administrative assistants in departments may contribute as much as 25 percent of their time in grant-related tasks.
  1. 6. The campus annually enforces assessments to its academic units that may amount to a million dollars or more annually (e.g., in 2005-06 these charge backs amounted to $366,000 in the School of Social Sciences alone).  This means that on an annual basis the growth monies, or a substantial portion of the amount actually received, are removed through assessments.  The budget that is printed represents the picture prior to the implementation of these assessments, but the amount that flows to the academic side is always reduced through these levies.  (Source:  AA budget presentations and School budget presentations over a series of years).

1 Response for “THE ARMINANA YEARS”

  1. Noel Byrne says:

    This Academic Senate Budget Report is all the more significant in light of the unprecedented level of informed and accomplished talent on part of the Committee membership that produced this report. These members included a former dean of the School of Social Sciences who had served for 18 (eighteen) years in that capacity and at the high levels of Sonoma State University administration, as well as a Professor of History; a chair of the Geography Department, a former chair of the Academic Senate and chair of the department of Environmental Studies, and other seasoned, experienced, level-headed citizens of the academic community, all having served as department chairs and at higher levels of responsibility. The most high-powered Academic Senate Budget Committee in the history of the SSU Academic Senate, this committee was informed by extensive familiarity with day-to-day and year-to-year SSU budgetary matters, decades of direct participation in university budgetary matters. Their dedication to the mission of this university, the learning of its students, and the welfare of this institution provided the undelying drive for this report.

Leave a Reply


Log in -