In "'Misguided Priorities' at Cal State" (Letters to the Editor, May 2), Susan Meisenhelder, the president of the California Faculty Association, perpetuates two myths: that a state audit found "outrageous cost overruns" in California State University's purchase and implementation of a new Common Management System that replaces the patchwork of outdated and dysfunctional information-management systems on 23 campuses, and that the university's management staff has grown rapidly while instructional spending has declined.

First, let me address the CMS cost issue. The university and the state auditor used different models to project implementation costs. ... This has allowed some people to grossly overstate the actual amount of new funds required for implementation as compared to the university's original estimates. There also are different points of view on how to establish ongoing maintenance-and-operation costs. When costs such as software upgrades and campus interfaces are included, as the university contends they should be, the university's 2002 estimate is only 1.1 percent higher than its 1999 estimate. This is by no measure an "outrageous cost overrun." ...

As for the university's spending priorities, there is no question that the faculty ranks have grown more rapidly than those of managerial staff. Since 1997, for every 100 new full-time-equivalent students, the university has added 4.2 full-time-equivalent faculty positions and only 0.7 full-time-equivalent management positions.

There is no doubt that difficulty lies ahead as the university is forced to absorb its share of reductions resulting from the state's budget crisis. There is also no doubt that even as we cope with this reality, the university's delivery of student services -- such as admissions, course registration, and financial aid -- will be greatly enhanced by the university's new information-technology system.

Debra S. Farar
Chair
Board of Trustees
California State University
Long Beach, Calif.