Delegate’s Meeting
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 – Crowne Plaza
9:00am – 3:00pm
Members
1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Clinton Moffitt (Fresno), Chair
Cynthia Matson (Fresno) CABO Liaison
Doug Wade (Bakersfield)
Emily Deakin (Channel Islands)
Dave Foreman (Chico)
Karen Wall (Dominguez Hills)
Debbie Brothwell (East Bay)
Brian Jenkins and May Wong(Fullerton)
Carol Terry (Humboldt)
Sharon Taylor (Long Beach)
Jose Gomez (Los Angeles)
Susan Foft (California Maritime Academy)
John Fitzgibbon (Monterey Bay)
Robert Barker (Northridge)
Darwin Labordo (Pomona)
Justine Heartt (Sacramento)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bob Wilson (San Bernardino)
X
X
X
X
Scott Burns (San Diego)
Agnes Wong Nickerson (San Francisco)
Josee Larochelle (San Jose)
Rick Ramirez (San Luis Obispo)
Mary Hinchman (San Marcos)
Letitia Coate (Sonoma)
Claire Tyson (Stanislaus)
George Ashkar (Chancellor’s Office)
Sean Boylan (Chancellor’s Office)
Lori Erdman (Chancellor’s Office)
Jean Gill (Chancellor’s Office)
Mike Redmond (Chancellor’s Office)
Rodney Rideau (Chancellor’s Office)
Tom Roberts (Chancellor’s Office)
Michelle Schlack (Chancellor’s Office)
Nancy Freelander-Paice (Chancellor’s
Office)
Sherry Pickering (Chancellor’s Office)
Welcome, Roll Call, Introductions 9:00 am
2) Agenda Approval – Three Additional items;

CFS and Sponsored Programs and Auxiliary Organizations –Leticia
 FOA – AOA Conference Update – Wade
 Interest on Student Fees Use for Capital Projects – Sharon Taylor
3)
Treasurer’s Report – Mary Hinchman reported no activity for July. Balance remains at
$68,365. Per FOA agreement at the July 7, 2010 meeting, each campus will be charged
$300 via CPO. If a campus requires an invoice, let Mary know.
4)
CFS Governance – CABO Discussion – Cindy Matson (Larry Schlereth and Jesse Lum
call in at 9:45 AM)
Cindy Matson provided a brief summary of the recent CABO discussion on CFS
Governance. CABO provided strong opinions regarding FOA’s roles as advisory to
VP’s. The concerns regarding design components, interfaces, etc, by FOA must play an
advisory role to VP’s.
Larry Schlereth: Thanked FOA for bringing the concerns and comments forward. The
Executive Committee (EC) reaffirms that the appropriate governance structure is CABO
for CFS. The EC is comprised of a variety of executives from Provosts, CIO’s, CFO’s,
etc. Therefore EC is looking to CABO as the primary owner of CFS – Finance. The role
of FUG is being changed. FUG was a key player in the original implementation of
FOA Executive Committee * Chair, Clint Moffitt * Vice Chair, Anges Wong Nickersen * Secretary,Josee Larochelle *
Treasurer, Mary Hinchman * One year Member at Large, Doug Wade * Two year Member at Large, Justine Heartt
FOA Meeting Agenda
PeopleSoft Finance. The EC views FUG as no longer playing a governance role but a
user role. It is recognized that FOA Delegates are most involved in the day to day
operations and it is anticipated that CABO will ask the FOA to create a sub-committee to
provide guidance (Mary Stevens, Larry Schlereth and Cindy Matson will support this
concept) at their next meeting.
i) Common Door – for those systems that link into the PeopleSoft Oracle application
(i.e. cashiering, scheduling, parking, etc). There were questions raised regarding the
definition of the common door. Larry believes this information has been shared with
campuses in particular Campus Directors. Larry believes this issue has been
resolved. Jessie reported that the Interface document was posted last week. As
each campus reviews the list, they should raise issues directly to Jessie.
ii) Web Based Interfaces – Larry has only recently become more familiar with what the
issues are related to web based interfaces. A conclusion has not yet been reached.
The design team did not deal with these, and used SLO as the basis for CFS
baseline. It is not a surprise to Larry that many campuses have determined that
there are no solutions for all. CSUN provided an overview to Larry of what their web
based interfaces are. Requisitions seem to be the largest area of concern. Larry is
going to speak with SJSU. Fullerton has changed their process to use CFS baseline
and the EC is reviewing how it is going and what the impacts are. Larry has become
aware that the design team did not have adequate time to review this area, and now
understands why campuses may wish to keep their web-based interfaces. The Exec
VC agrees that we do not want to have 23 web-based interfaces, and perhaps we
need to have one web based interface otherwise we are back to where we wereespecially related to requisitions. The purpose of CFS is to have common best
practices. Some enhancements and embellishments are still needed. Some
campuses will participate in a “proof of concept”. E-Procurement is owned by CSU.
It is currently not being used and Larry heard from Texas that it may be a solution for
requisitions and CFS. A demo may be scheduled. Per Jessie we need to evaluate
e-Procurement as well as the CSU requirements.
(a) How does FOA feel about our involvement with a subgroup? Many
individuals are in support.
(i) FOA agreed to support FUG would turn into a User Group. There
should be no limitation on the representatives or participants in the
group (currently there is a limit of 2 per campus a primary and a
secondary). FUG would serve has a users group for which
information will be disseminated across campuses. Should campus
FUG participants have issues or concerns, those would be raised
via the campus FOA Delegate.
(ii) FOA would support a subcommittee to advise CABO on CFS issues.
iii) Larry Auxiliary and Sponsored Programs are still in design. There may be a need for
two FOA groups (general finance and auxiliary rep) or should there be one group.
5) Travel Policy Clarification – Sharon Taylor raised the question regarding the intent of the
policy. Typically ICSUAM policies are high level policies and each campus is to develop
campus specific procedures. George Ashkar indicated that the policy is at a high level with
recommended guidelines and he will be personally reviewing all comments submitted and
reviewing them with the Chancellor. It was suggested that the policy be specific to state that
the campuses have the jurisdiction to develop campus specific policies and procedures.
George will have a separate conference call with Sharon Taylor, Bob Barker and any other
FOA delegates who are interested in the topic to discuss more. The time/date of the
conference call will be sent to the FOA delegates.

Travel Program (DGS and Connexxus) Update – George Ashkar reported that 6
Campuses have indicated they would like to move forward as pilots for Connexxus. UC
has visited each of these pilot campuses. The MOU as well as a letter agreement is in
Page 2 of 5
FOA Meeting Agenda
draft form. Significant savings are anticipated from FY0809 baseline, potentially $4-6
million per year. Timeframe would be 18-24 months following the first 6 for all campuses
to be on-line with Connexxus. Pilot Campuses: San Francisco, Humboldt, San
Bernardino, Stanislaus, Fresno, Northridge, and Chancellor’s Office.
6)
4+1 Bachelors/Masters degree program Fees – Scott Burns provided an electronic copy
of Draft Consultation on “Blended Programs” Policy
7)
Chancellor’s Office Update

Financial Services
(1) Legal Close – George Ashkar
(a) George Ashkar reported that the legal close went very smoothly this year,
with all campuses completing their reports by the deadline.
(b) There were some over expenditures by KPMG from some campuses.
Comments by these campuses were that campuses trained many of the
auditors. KPMG does account for all hours and then applies a discount rate
based by lack of knowledge and learning curves. Some suggestions for next
year are to have the budgeted hours per tasks. When campuses do not
complete stand alone audits annually, there may be an impact to the hours.
If the additional hours will costs the same as completing standalone
statements, perhaps it would be more beneficial to complete financial
statements annually.
(i) Per George Ashkar, the legislation language to remove the requirement
for standalone audits is not moving forward. Issues surrounding
transparency, auxiliary focus, and UC issues are the primary causes.
Therefore, the legislative mandate requires each campus to complete a
full audit every other year. Each campus has the option to do a full scope
audit annually with campus paying the bill. Campuses can receive quotes
for the full annual audit.
(ii) This year’s audit and last year’s audit was at a reduced rate (lowered by
$1 million). The reduction was due to C category campuses to desk
audits with no visits. One half of the campuses had full scope and the
other half did not. One year left on the 5 year contract agreement with
KPMG. CO will continue to pay for KPMG audits. Campuses pay for a
small portion via CPO in the range of $20k to $30k.
(iii) If a campus is in the A category, they must go through a full scope but are
not required to issue financial statements.
(2) FSAC – Sherry Pickering
(a) 4 Main Discussion items, 3 of which related to Cost Recovery.
(i) Work Study
(ii) O-U and Special Session
1. Allocations between CERF and 485
(iii) Transactions for Interagency between Campuses
(iv) Accounting Treatment for University Items on Auxiliary Organizations (this
was postponed until the draft policy is available). Per George there is a
draft policy that was provided to the VP’s and this is Ben Quillian’s
highest priority.
(3) ICSUAM – George Ashkar and Sherry Pickering
(a) Fee Revenue Policies are under development
(b) Cell Phone Policy – No further Info available at this time. Requested a copy
of the draft provided. Campuses were requested to send copies of
policies if they have one, to George. Some campuses indicated they have
implemented stipends and some campuses indicated that they needed to
meet and confer.
Page 3 of 5
FOA Meeting Agenda
(c) Cal Grant Information – recommendation by CO is to issue A & B and the
access grants/stipends. CO prefers that campuses hold harmless the
students due to State Budget issues.

Budget – Rodney Rideau reported that the Democrats came out with a draft budget
proposal yesterday (8/3/10). The Conference Committee is expected to approve the
proposal, but a budget is not expected until September at the earliest. The proposal
encompasses the following;
(1) CSU $305m restoration and $60m enrollment sustained. The funding is based
upon revenue assumptions totaling $4.7 billion and may or may not remain in the
budget.
(2) Fee buy out is not maintained.
(a) Board of Trustees did approve a 5% fee rate increase with a review of the
issue in November if necessary.
(3) Final Budget letter will assume a 10% fee increase, but will not allocate the
$305m or the $60m enrollment growth to campuses. The 10% fee increase has
been calculated by the CO and may be adjusted when the final budget is
enacted.
(a) When a final State Budget is enacted, allocations will be granted for the
$305m and the $60m if the funding is retained.
(4) What about the 2% Spring Enrollment Growth? There is some FTES growth
included in the $305m allocation, which would approximately covers this the +/2% enrollment leeway authorized by the Chancellor. The $60m growth would
involve additional FTES. My presumption is that we will have a budget by
September which will allow time to process Spring enrollment growth of 2%
should the $305m be included in the enacted budget.
(5) Payroll – 1/12 drawdown from State General Fund was authorized by legislation
in March 2009 for 2010-11. CSU was offered option to take drawdown rather
than suspend drawdown and deposit $300 million of revenue in CSU State Trust
account. CSU accepted this option which allows for the use of state funds for
July payroll and preserves CSU interest earnings on fee revenue in the CSU
State Trust account. This option avoided campus of fee revenue for total July
payroll costs.

Procurement Update – No update

Audit Update – Michelle Schlack reported that for 2010 8 Subject Audits have been
selected and For each subject area audit, six campuses are selected. Many audits
are in progress.
8)
Dr. Ben Quillian Comments – Unavailable. It is suggested that FOA will invite him back
for a future meeting.
9)
CSU 101 Deposit - Work has been done by Debbie Brothwell and Lori Erdman regarding
CSU 101. Debbie Brothwell provided an update as follows. A syllabus has been
drafted. There will be 3 spots per campuses. The dates are March 6, 7, & 8 2011.
Location is Monterey Bay with cost estimates of $575 - $625 with a room rate of $110.
Each campus should send a note to Debbie of whether or not they will be able to
send 3 representatives. FOA will be provided an update in November.
10) Liaison Reports
 Accounts Payable – Bob Barker
Some talk about Travel Policy but not much else. A question was asked about AP
Workflow and whether campuses have implemented workflow for invoice approvals and
Page 4 of 5
FOA Meeting Agenda
processing. Some campuses are using Hershey document imaging system but not
workflow. George Ashkar is implementing workflow for AP and would be willing to demo
their product.
 Student Accounts Receivable – Justine Heartt
Official Survey is ongoing in the area of Bursar’s Office
 Purchasing (PSSOA) – Scott Burns
March PSSOA and Risk Conference is being defined. It is targeted for the SeaCliffs
Resort 3rd week of March. An in-person meeting is occurring this week at the CO. Karen
Wall indicated she will be the liaison for PSSOA.

Budget – John Fitzgibbon No update.
11) CFS and Sponsored Programs and Auxiliary Organizations –Leticia Coate
The main concern is: How are Sponsored Programs and Auxiliaries going to report from
Data Warehouse? Thoughts are to create an Auxiliary Dashboard. There is a mod in CFS
for Sponsored Programs to capture required data, but no ability for reporting. Campuses
using CFS for their auxiliary organizations are; San Bernardino, Stanislaus, San Francisco,
Bakersfield, Humboldt, Monterey Bay, and Sonoma.
12)
13)
14)
FOA – AOA Conference Update – Doug Wade reported that conference is scheduled
for January 9 – 11 at Newport Beach Hyatt Regency. He has requested confirmation
of the number of attendees per campus based on spreadsheet sent out August 4
2010. FOA will not be collecting money. All registration will occur on AOA website
which can be reached via FOA website. Partial registration will be allowed.
Current Conference Topics:
i) General Fund Cost Recovery
ii) Process Mapping
iii) CFS Lessons Learned
iv) Affinity Group Planned
v) General Sessions (ICSUAM & EO919 and EO1000)
vi) Potential Topic: UBIT
vii) Monday Night Beach Party Theme
Interest on Student Fees Use for Capital Projects – The primary question is whether
a campus can use Interest on Student Fee’s to cover capital costs to supplement bond
proceeds since the bond is in suspense. The issue primarily involves GO Revenue Bonds.
Per Nancy Freelancer-Paice, a clarification memo from the CO will be provided soon and a
bond sale is anticipated for September. Memo says that if you are doing a bridge it should
be out of the project fund and stage the claims (do not send the claims into the State
Controller). That means that the campus is floating the construction expenditures with trust
fund cash. Clarification is needed if it is better to use trust fund cash, interest on student
fees or student fees to front the expenditures.
Next Meeting Teleconference September 1, 2010
Page 5 of 5