Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1980 [PAGE 12]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

2

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

[July 18

T h e meeting was the third of a series arranged to enable the trustees to receive detailed presentations of the University budget requests for 1980 and to conduct extended discussion in the process of reviewing the requests. (The previous meetings were held on Tuesday, May 23, 1978, and Tuesday, June 20, 1978.) T h e following documents were presented for discussion at the meetings of the committee: "Trends and Background Information for Preparation of FY 1980 Budget Request" dated May 23, 1978; "Background Information for the Review of the FY 1980 Capital and Operating Budget Request, Volume I, and Volume I I (Programmatic Components)" dated June 21, 1978; and "Preliminary Budget Review for Operating and Capital Funds Fiscal Year 1980." (These documents are on file with the secretary of the board.) O n July 18, the trustees were presented in the last-named document (p. 18) with alternative operating budget requests for review: three sets of figures, headed "Continuing Components," "Recommended" Requests, "Needs" Requests, each representing different increases over the present budget by percentages of 10.41 percent, 13.66 percent, and 20.46 percent, respectively. Discussion centered for the most part on that section having to do with salary increases and compensation. T h e "Recommended" alternative proposed an increase in the regular salary budget of 7.5 percent and an additional "compensation improvement" of 2 percent, the latter to be obtained by means of transferring 2 percent from the employee contribution to the State Universities Retirement System to the state. Thus, the proposal would reduce the employee contribution by 2 percent and increase the state's share by 2 percent. Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Howard expressed concern about this recommendation. Both have served as members as well as presidents of the State Universities Retirement System board, and both based their concern on a belief that it was unrealistic to expect the state to assume the additional financial obligation described — especially in the light of the state's record of insufficient funding of the State Universities Retirement System. It was pointed out that the state has not provided full funding for other statesupported retirement systems, as well as the University system. Other trustees indicated similar uncertainty but expressed their belief that the proposal was worthy of discussion, even in a preliminary way, at the state level and even if its acceptance might take time. Finally, on motion of Mr. Livingston, the trustees approved the alternative level of budget requests "Recommended," a total increase in the operating budget of $39,709,800, 13.66 percent over the previous base. T h e vote in favor of this motion was five, yes; two, nay. Those in favor were: Mr. Hahn, Mr. Livingston, Mrs. Rader, Mrs. Shepherd, and Mr. Velasquez; those opposed: Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Howard. (Both Mr. Howard and Mr. Forsyth indicated that their major objection rested, not on the totality of the budget request, but on that aspect dealing with the transfer to the state of additional cost of the State Universities Retirement System.)