 Greetings and welcome to this special edition of Campus Conversations. I'm Dan Mogulaw from the University's Office of Communications and Public Affairs. Today, we're gonna be talking about our university's financial health, the status of our budget and the plans and processes being developed in order to address what are both short and long-term challenges. And with that, I'm pleased to welcome Chancellor Carol Christ, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Ben Hermelin, Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer Rosemary Ray, and Chris Stanich, Associate Vice Chancellor for Financial Planning and Analysis. As always, we welcome, we need your questions actually to help guide the conversation. They can be posted to our Facebook Live streaming site at any point in today's program and we'll do our very best to get to them. So Chancellor, let's start with you. Perhaps you could just sort of set the table, if you will, provide some overall context and perspective for the conversation today. Thank you, Dan. I'd be happy to do that. Unfortunately, we're facing yet another time of budgetary challenge. I've been joking with people. I feel a little bit like Sisyphus. I pushed the ball up to the top of the hill twice and it's rolled back down and now I'm pushing it up to the top of the hill yet again. The base problem is that our increased costs are greater than our revenues. So our increased costs are $128 million for faculty and unrepresented staff salary increases and about $20 million for the cost of the UAW contract for GSIs. So you can see from those figures, the biggest part of our challenge is the increase for staff and faculty salaries. This is wonderful. It's putting money in all of your pockets, but it also, it poses a financial challenge to the campus. Our revenues don't nearly match that. We will get if the state budget holds and that's a big if right now. 35, 23 million from the increased state revenues. That's a 5% increase that is provided in the governor's budget and $12 million from increased tuition costs from our cohort tuition. So you don't have to be a financial genius to realize that 128 and 35 are pretty far apart and that we have a deficit of about, we're projecting a deficit of about $96 million. So we have done this before, we can do it again, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a challenge. Okay, a lot of things there we're gonna be following up on important issues, but Ben, just hear from you a little bit, just maybe speaking to some of the concerns, challenges and kind of vision for the academic side of the house in this context. Sure, Dan, as the chancellor has indicated we definitely face some challenges going forward. And of course, no one should minimize their seriousness. At the same time, I hope we can also keep in mind the many positives about Berkeley. We remain the number one public university in the world. We have an amazing faculty and we continue to recruit the very best. And while we don't win every battle we win far more retention battles than we lose. We have wonderful graduate students, something I'd say even if my son wasn't one of them, we continue to attract bright, curious and impressive undergraduates. And our educational research enterprises are supported by an amazing staff. Yet, as Carol has indicated, these are challenging times. And they are challenging outside the 907-20 zip code as well, of course, within it. And there are many reasons for that, including the long legacy of the COVID pandemic. Moreover, I know people feel as if they're being asked to do more with less. And although I'm hopeful that our ongoing efforts to reduce the bureaucratic burden will help with that this continues to be a challenge for all of us. Budget limitations certainly do not help. We will have to be creative in thinking about how we can continue to be successful despite these limitations without asking people to do more with less. I am, however, confident that we will be successful. The chancellor referred to Sisyphus. And one of the advantages of having been at Berkeley for 35 years is I've seen many such periods of tough budgets. Yet Berkeley has continued throughout this 35-year period not only to remain excellent, but to improve and become even better. So while I don't wanna downplay the seriousness of this or the stresses that we're all under, I do remain optimistic about our future. Thanks, Ben. Rose, perhaps a few comments from you about what this all means for this year's budgetary cycle or process. Yeah, thank you, Dan. Well, given the significant financial burden placed on divisional budgets this year, as Carol has already mentioned, we have made a set of decisions about the budget process for next fiscal year. The first is that there will be no reinstatement of the cost recovery assessment or budget targets. Some may refer to those as budget cuts because we acknowledge that divisions have a lot on their plate in terms of the expenses that will increase for next year. The center will cover 100% of the salary and benefit increases for state-funded faculty positions. The center will provide partial coverage for non-represented staff salary and benefit increases paid on central funds. And lastly, as a result of these actions, there'll be very little central funding available for other priorities. And only the most compelling needs will be considered for the budget process. So, Rose, before I ask the chancellor and Ben some additional questions, you talk about the center. For those who may not be that familiar with the intricacies of our budget, what exactly does that mean? Can you just step back a little bit so people can understand sort of in a very general way how the budgeting system and how the flow of money works on campus? Great question. When we refer to the center, what we mean is that we receive on the revenue side, it is the place where we record all of the tuition for the most part. It is the place where we record the state appropriation or support. We also record indirect cost recovery there. And in that place, we then make allocations to each of the divisions of that funding. So you might think of it as a funnel in which we record the revenues of state support, tuition and ICR. There are some other revenue sources that are recorded there such as current private gifts. And then we disperse those revenue funds then to the campus through allocations. So I'm not sure who's best positioned to answer this question, but I know the first thing, at least in the past, that's come to people's mind during times of financial stress or budgetary difficulties is the possibility of layoffs. Are we looking at something like that? Is that going to be required to balance the budget? No, it's not. And so then how do you balance the budget? How will we make up for a 80 something million dollar or 90 something million dollar whole? Go ahead, Rose. Great question. The way we're going to do it as we do almost every year is that we realize gains from the investments that we've made either through STIP, the short-term investment plan or TRIP, the total return investment in my ment pool, excuse me, investment pool or investments that we've made in the allocation pool for the general endowment. So we're planning on realizing investment gains for next year for that difference. Okay. Carol, let me come back to you with something broader because I think this might be during your tenure, the third or fourth campus conversation we've had about the budget when you talked about the Sisyphus metaphor. Does this, how serious is our structural problem? I mean, do we have a university that we can't afford is the current model broken? How do we make sense out of this recurring phenomenon that we've seen on the Berkeley campus? No, thank you for that question, Dan. I first want to differentiate the three budget crises we've had. The first was a structural deficit. About 150 million where we really had, we were overspending our income. And we met that largely through cost reductions. The second was the impact of COVID. And we met that through a combination of the federal funding for COVID that was quite generous to institutions as well as a loan strategy for some of what we call our unsilveries that has housing and dining, athletics, cow performances, units that are very dependent on some form of sales and services for their budgets. This time, the cause is this imbalance between salary increases which are larger than normal because everyone is conscious of the burden of inflation. But it's also representative or an indication of a fundamental imbalance in our budget. We used to be a university that was generously supported by the state. Then the mix changed and we were supported by a combination of state and increasing tuition. Now both of those fund sources are not sufficient to support the level of excellence at Berkeley. So what we're doing, I mean, with some pain, obviously is moving toward a different financial model in which we multiply and diversify revenue sources. Philanthropy has become an extraordinarily important revenue source and not just for nice halves for core expenses that we have. We also are increasing the revenues that we get from non-degree enrollments thanks summer session and extension from intellectual property. That's Rich Lyon's job is to think that through and form self-supporting degree programs. So we're moving from a state support tuition model to a model that has more funding streams that make up our core budget. Thank you, Ben, I'm gonna come to you to ask a little bit more about these plans and the initiative for the future. Before I do that, I just wanna welcome people who may have joined us late. It's a special edition of Campus Conversations. We're talking about the budget with the chancellor, the provost, our CFO and Chris Stannich who's associate vice chancellor for financial planning and analysis. If you have questions, we'd welcome them. They can be posted to our Facebook live site. So Ben, the chancellor talked about a number of things that we're doing for sort of what sounds like a sort of fundamental transition or change in our financial model or plan or system that we have. And I guess that all falls under the rubric of what's being called the financial sustainability initiative. If I've got that right, can you fill in some of the gaps there about what that's all about, how long it will take and how it's going to work? Sure Dan. So the financial sustainability initiative has multiple parts. One is of course trying to think about how we can, as the chancellor has said, come up with more revenues to cover what we wanna do and support people in generating those revenues of providing people with appropriate incentives so that they will generate those funds just to give a quick example to create incentives for people to raise money for endowed faculty lines. We of course have to promise people that we won't reduce the number of state funded lines we get. So part of thinking about the financial sustainability initiative is broadly thinking about many types of incentives that we can put in place to make sure that people have the appropriate, appropriately incentivized to generate these revenues that we need through philanthropy, through degree programs, through IP and so forth. The other part of the financial sustainability initiative though is to try to make sure that our resources are going to where they are most needed. So the chancellor referred to our traditional model where we were largely state funded and then state funded and tuition funded. And with that model came a certain budgeting where funds came and they were essentially color coded for certain uses. Now our money is pretty much all green but our way we do our budgeting doesn't always give people the appropriate ways of thinking about it to make sure that our resources are used to their best purposes. And so part of this is to think about how can we more empower decision makers, deans, chairs, others to make decisions recognizing that they're so that they make the decisions so they utilize our resources in the best way. So it's just two parts to the financial sustainability initiative. Let me ask all of you, is there any consideration of the university stopping to do what it's currently doing, contracting in any way to any fundamental changes in how we operate in terms of our academic programs? Dan, that's an interesting question. And the large answer is no that we have grown to about 42,000 students. And so currently our faculty at 1500 is not really big enough to educate the students we do have. Now it always is the case that faculty positions move around from one area of the university to others as some fields become more exciting to undergraduates to choose as their majors or become very important research areas. So it's not that each budget is fixed in every academic unit, but no, there's no thought of eliminating academic units nor any thought of reducing the support given to the academic programs. You know, Carol, you mentioned that students grow and it's always a source of frustration for me. I open up Berkeley side and I look at the comments and people are saying, of course, you see Berkeley is enrolling more students because that's how they make a lot of money. And that's how they benefit financially. Is that the case or are those people who write those comments missing something? Those people who write those comments are missing something that we get about 25,000 in a combination of the state resources and tuition for each California undergraduate. It costs us about 33,000 to educate each California undergraduate. Out of state students who pay out of state tuition help us make up for the gap. So do other revenue sources. Thanks, Rosa, a question for you. I noticed in the budget message that went out to campus, there was reference to mandated increases for staff salaries. Does that mean that the decision about the amount and the extent the timing of those increases was not made on campus? That's right, that decision is made by the Regents. So the Regents approved a 4.6% increase for non-represented staff. And then other drivers in salary increases are bound by, for represented staff are bound by our labor agreements. Got it. Question came in, I'm not sure who's best positioned to answer this one, but I'll just read it. Does this calculation of salary increases include increases for departments that are soft money funded? Not sure what that means. Hopefully somebody here does. My understanding is that soft money funded departments raise their own revenue so it wouldn't affect the center. I can begin with that. I don't know of any whole departments that are soft money funded, but it is true that the funds that will distribute from this center will only cover centrally funded positions. Those that are dependent for their funding on grants and contracts, for example, or philanthropic contributions will need to cover those costs. Got it. Anybody want to add to that or I don't know enough to know, okay. Another question just came in. How can we explain to our alumni the evolution and key differences in our new funding model between Berkeley and our peer private universities? Ben, do you want to take a whack at that first off? I'll give it my best shot, Dan. I mean, there are a few things. So first of all, our private peers charge much higher tuition than we do. And although they often offer significant discounts through financial aid, their sticker price is very high and they are able to raise it quite a bit, five, six, seven percent a year, which is much more than we can raise our tuition. And moreover, I think we feel that it's really not part of our mission to try to fund our operations through tuition or on the backs of the students. That's not consistent with our goals to be an engine of social mobility and to provide as much as broad access as possible to an excellent education. Many of our private peers are years ahead of us in terms of philanthropy. So even though Berkeley has done a tremendous job and now ranks number seventh in the nation in terms of annual fundraising, which is amazing for an institution that does not have a medical school. Keep in mind that Princeton and Harvard and Stanford have been doing this for decades and decades and decades and have built up very significant endowments over that period of time. And they're much smaller. So they don't have to provide a quality education to as many students as we seek to provide a quality education. There, I think maybe a total of 8,000 undergraduates at Princeton, we have well over 30,000 here. It's a matter of scale as well. So lots of differences. Patrick, Carol, I wonder if you want to add anything to that. Just thinking about stepping back about what differentiates us. Differentiates us is the access that we provide. We do education scale. There's something that I've always really disliked about the US, there are many things that I've always disliked about the US News and World Report rankings. But one of them is that a very heavily weighted factor is how much you spend per student with the assumption that the more you spend the better education, better the education is. And I believe that we should be trying to provide education to much larger groups of students and try to do it as effectively as is possible within the resource space that we have. Private universities just live in a very different world. They have very fewer state restraints on what they do. The leading privates have very large endowments. And as Ben said, they're just a lot smaller. And the tuition increases, what was Stanford's tuition increase that it approved this year? I think 6%. 6% or 7, yeah. Yeah, so the financial models are just entirely different. So you talked a lot, we've been talking about public and private and that dovetails with the question that just came in, it's something that came to mind. This person asked, would Berkeley still be a public institution if our funding becomes largely private? Are we at risk of losing our public character as we begin to change the essence of our financial model? Carol? I don't believe that's the case. I always say that the state is our most important donor. And indeed, year after year, this state gives us more money than any other single source. And we have a public mission. And that mission is to educate the California students and no matter what their financial resources or their family backgrounds. And I believe that that's an extraordinarily important public mission, particularly today. So no, I don't think that there's a danger that we're gonna become privatized. The state will always be our most important donor. And I can't imagine Berkeley's not having the public mission that it has. Yeah, thank you for that. Before I go on to, we've got more great questions coming in. Just remind people who may have joined us late that we're here having campus conversation dedicated to the university's budget and financial health. Welcome your questions. They can be posted to our Facebook live site. The next question that came in, I'm not sure who to direct it to is as follows. Can you talk about the connection between the financial challenge being experienced at Berkeley and how that challenge interrelates, if at all, to the deficits at the UC-wide level? Well, that's a hard question to answer. I don't think there are deficits at the UC-wide level. The way the budget works is that all of the state revenues, the state contributions and the tuition revenues that we receive are distributed to the campuses. And then the campuses are taxed a certain amount that funds the operation of the office of the president. So almost by nature of that financial model, you can't do accumulating deficits at the office of the president. And they're also subject to incredible scrutiny by the legislature and by the regions. I wanna talk also about philanthropy. You mentioned, Carol, that it's become a very important source of revenue. And we know that we surpassed in a pretty amazing fashion the $6 billion mark. That seems like a lot of money. And that seems like a sufficient amount of money to bail out a deficit, let's say, of 80-something, 90-something million dollars. How do we make sense of that? For those of us who don't know all the intricacies of philanthropy, but that enormous sum of money and the financial straits that we're in right now. Well, people rarely give gifts without some kind of designation for the gift. They rarely give gifts to say, oh, use this to pay your electric bill or use this to pay your garbage bill. That our alumni, our friends, our donors are extraordinarily generous. But almost every gift comes with a specific purpose and a specific recipient in mind. What we've been trying to do in philanthropy is shift philanthropy from what used to be understood as at Berkeley, which is the nice to have. Do things that are absolutely essential. So we're trying to raise money, for example, for more faculty positions because I think that's one of the most important needs that the campus has. My goal was to raise 100 so far. We're at 36, but we keep trying. Similarly, we've been trying to raise money for graduate student support. We've raised almost half a billion dollars for graduate student support. We've raised also about half a billion dollars for undergraduate student support. Most of our buildings that have gone up recently have been funded financed by philanthropic support. By philanthropic support. So the real key is to try to fit donors own desires for what they want their legacy to be, how they want their wonderful generosity and resources to be used and what the campus' greatest needs are. Yeah, Ben, I see you have your hand up. Yeah, I just to add to what Carol said, the other thing to remember is that people are giving to the endowment and that's, so it's not just cash that we can use. It's sitting on the endowment. We can only use the income from that, which is roughly 4%. And then again, as Carol's pointed out, many of those endowments are for specific purposes. We can't just use them to pay the electric bill, as Carol pointed out. Ben, let me follow up with you about something else. As you sit down, as we're gonna enter into it, we'll probably be a, obviously we'll be a challenging, more challenging than anybody hope, budgetary process. And you think it's a zero-sum game. You give a little more here, you have to find someplace else to take it away. What are the principles and values? What guides you in your thinking and your decisions as you approach that process? Well, the most important thing is preserving and expanding our excellence and providing access to that excellence. So those things that are part of our mission, our research mission, our teaching mission and our key to it, those are going to be priorities. We want to be, part of being excellent is always looking to the future. We can't stand still, we can't rest on our laurels. So we wanna make sure that we're providing enough funding for where fields are going, for new innovation, areas of new innovation or areas of change in pedagogy. So we wanna make sure we have enough funds to invest because if we try to stand still or simply just preserve in a kind of curatorial fashion, what we have won't remain excellent. So it's also a trade off between preserving what we have but also investing for the future. Carol, anything you wanna add to that or just your own sort of what you bring to that sort of decision-making table as you consider options, financial options for the year ahead? I think Ben has said it very well. Primary for me is the excellence of the faculty and that's a place where we haven't cut corners. We've really tried to be very competitive in retention and recruitment, trying to keep our faculty and recruit the faculty that we want. And the second is access, providing the instruction that the students need. So what can people do? Is there an advocacy call to action? Are there, is there a place to write letters to? For those who wanna get involved and not just sit on the sidelines and hope for the best, what kind of options do they have? The most important thing that you can do is advocate to Sacramento. I said before, the governor's budget had a 5% increase in it for UC because the state's revenues are coming in much lower than people anticipate that there has been talk already in the legislature of reducing that to 3.5% which would have a $7 million cost to Berkeley. So trying to keep our 5% and trying to keep the money that we have in the budget for capital projects is the most important thing right now. The budget season is now, right now through June is the time when the governor and the legislature, the two houses of the legislature and then the legislature and the governor are negotiating the budget. So keeping our share as the governor proposed it is advocating for that is probably the most important thing that you can do. Great, Rose, I have a couple of questions for you. First of all, for people who are interested in understanding more about the campus' budget which is a complex beast to say the least, is there a place on your website where you'd wanna direct people? Do you guys have some sort of, what is it, a budget 101? Where would you direct people who wanna understand more? We do, we have a budget 101 on the CFO website and invite folks to take a look at that. We also will post the budget presentation for folks to look at some of the particulars of the things that we've talked about today. We're also more than happy we would be delighted to attend divisional town halls, meetings with faculty, making ourselves available to any size group. We're already meeting with our students. We're meeting with the deans and chairs, cabinet, the academic senate. So I offer the invitation. We would be very happy to come and present and even partner with your chief administrative officers or divisional finance leaders to better understand even the divisional budgets and the allocations that support the divisions. And beyond some of the things you talked about at the very beginning, for people who are involved in the budgetary process on behalf of their unit, their college, their school, will there be any other differences or changes as you see things right now that folks should start to think about and be prepared for? So we had a flurry of financial modeling in the spring and then a period of engagement with different stakeholder groups, the academic senate, the deans and the like. And we refined our budget assumptions, a budget call letter with the technical requirements of the budget will be issued. Chris, I think in the next week or so and folks will sort of bear down on their divisional budgets between now and June. We'll hold office hours and guide anyone who needs assistance in the preparation of their budget between now and June. You know, one of the things, sorry, go ahead. So I just wanna reiterate, no, we're not anticipating any changes at this point to the budget call letter. There will not be a shoe to drop. Thanks. Couple of, a few more questions have come in, I'm gonna ask. It says, you mentioned that non-represented staff will have part of their 4.6% increased compensation covered by central funds. Will there be any central funding for represented staff? One group, UC police department and facilities division have a large represented staff and no funding to cover their salary increases which could cause, I'm filling in some missing words here, I hope I get it right, which could cause a reduction in staffing and service. Who can respond to that? Rose, is that your Bailey Wick or Chris Pratt? I'd be happy. Oh, Chris, go right ahead. Sure, yeah, absolutely. Now the plan right now is that central resources will be used to provide 3% of the 4.6% salary increase for both represented and non-represented staff paid on core funds. Got it. Anything to add to that or is that, again, those are technicalities, so I wanna be sure we're being comprehensive. It sounds like that. Just one more thing to add, Dan, we are advising that divisional leaders have some latitude in terms of how they apply that 3% around their divisions. We're trying to offer some flexibility there as well. All right, Rose, I'm gonna follow up with the next question that came in right to you. Both the revenue and expense increases do not sound like a surprise, this person says. And it sounds like investment gains will more than cover the deficit. Is this the model of operation for future years? If not, what other strategies is Berkeley exploring? Dan, before I move on, I just saw Carol's hand raised. Sorry. I wanted to make sure she had an opportunity to reflect on the last question. Oh, please. I just wanted to add to what Chris said. We wanna encourage the heads of all units, all the CFOs to see all money is green. We used to have this budgetary system in which every kind of money was coded a different color. Its uses are really restrictive. We're moving to a system that is indeed more like the profits in which all dollars are green. So as individual units think about how they're gonna cover their additional salary costs, they don't have to use the monies they get in the ways they're designated, but make the most of their resource base using all of their possible income streams. Thank you. Rosa, let me come back to you and just to sort of re-encapsulate the question here. It sounds like this person is saying, at least it sounds okay. We have revenue and expense increases, but then we have investment gains that we can use to cover the deficit. Is that the way it's gonna be going forward? And if not, are there other strategies that we're gonna need to look at? Oh, I think it works in the short-term, Dan. It's a strategy that we can use for two, perhaps three years, but the difference is that if we anticipate that we have salary increases that are above the historical averages. So for many years, salary increases were, you know, in the aggregate one or two percentage points lower, and we now assume that they're higher, the investment gains will not be sufficient in the long-term. So I think it's really important as a campus for us to be thinking in a five, seven, 10-year horizon, and in that horizon, it would not be sufficient, which is why the provost is leading the Financial Sustainability Initiative. We have to start preparation for our longer-term financial security, that five to seven to 10-year outlook. And those would, and Ben, let me ask you, and those would include all the strategies you talked about before it turns the development of other revenue sources. Is that right, Ben? That's correct. Got it. Next question. With such a large increase in compensation and not in state funding, are there any concerns about not being able to meet pension obligations? In other words, is this a long-term existential threat that could reach that far? Ben, do you want to take that one? I'm happy to take it. I'm happy to take it, and I'll take it. Everybody is happy to take it. I mean, this audience here is no, there's no, I mean, the pension fund is under a very different system. It's controlled by the office of the president. They invest funds, you know, the question is how adequately funded is it? It's getting more adequately funded. And remember, every time we have a pay increase, that means more money is going into the pension fund as well. So there are many things to worry about, but I wouldn't worry about my pension at this time. Got it. How did you want to add anything to that? I wouldn't agree with Ben more. The regions watch the pension fund like Hawks, and it's walled off from all the other expenditures. It's never rated, and they spend several in-depth sessions a year assessing how adequately it's funded. So that's not something to worry about. All right, now I know how to get everybody animated. Just use the word pension. So we've kind of run through what were good, some really good probing questions, but before we wrap up, what's next? What is, I appreciate the fact there's not another shoe to drop, but in this whole process, what should we be waiting for or listening for? I'm assuming the finalized state budget is one of those things, but what else, Carol? What's there on the horizon in the next few months that the campus community should be primed to be ready for? I'm thinking hard about other revenue sources, thinking hard about continued success and raising money for faculty positions, for graduate students support, that thinking hard about ways in which we can increase the revenues from our intellectual property, ways in which we can increase revenue from summer session in university extension. So at the same time, advocacy with the state is the single most important thing. We also need to be thinking about our other sources of revenue. I wanna give you each just a chance for a few closing thoughts. Rose, let me just start with you or wrap up. It's kind of things that you really hope people take away from today's conversation. I hope what folks hear is that, you know, we're able to address our shortfall, the difference between our revenues and our expenses, that we are acting in a prudent and responsible way as a campus and that, you know, we have such a bright and hopeful future and that we are preparing for the financial sustainability of the campus over the next decade. Chris, you're down there in the budgetary trenches day by day. Yeah. What would you hope that people take away and understand as we go forward now? I mean, I think the most important thing I've been thinking about over the past couple of weeks is obviously there's not a great deal of money to spend next year. And we do have some significant financial challenges, but the money we are spending, we're spending on our people. I mean, we are our top priority is funding faculty and the salary increases there as well as providing as much support on the staff salary and increases as we can. And those really represent the top priorities. Great, Ben, same question for you, just that hopes for takeaways and what you're gonna be thinking about and concentrating on the months ahead in this context. Well, I think both Rose and Chris really nailed it. Focus on people, focus on, and not only just paying people well and making a priority to keep the faculty, but also trying to make people's day to day working environment better. We know it's a stressful period. We know people feel under a lot of pressure. And so we're gonna need to work on that to try to make things better for people. Hopefully we can reduce some of the bureaucratic burden that may free up some resources. And then as Rose was saying, we have to keep working on sustainability because otherwise in the long run, we will start to run into issues because there's only so many times that we can hope to realize these investment gains, the cop paper over, the shortfalls, particularly if our costs continue to rise more rapidly than our revenues. Carol, let me give you the last word and beyond just sort of closing thoughts, how confident you are that we won't be talking about that damn Sisyphus anymore in the years ahead. Well, I'm very confident. I just see, I mean, it hasn't been the subject of this conversation, but I see so many extraordinary things about Berkeley every day. When you face challenges like this, it's easy to think about the class half empty, but I think it's more than half full, just extraordinary research, extraordinary students. And we will solve this budget problem. We've done it before and we could do it again. And I think the future is bright for Berkeley. Ben often says there's hardly a time he remembers in his faculty career when Berkeley wasn't thought to be in crisis or the sky is falling. And I really believe in Berkeley's future and think we're doing the right thing to change to the right things, to change to a different financial model. That's a great closing thought. And look forward to our next conversation about something else entirely. I wanna thank everybody for joining us. I hope those of you who are sort of new or interested in the budgetary process will take Rose up on her offer to explore the Budget 101 website. Ben and Chris and Rose and Chancellor Chris wanna thank you all for joining us today and we'll see you on the next campus conversations. Have a great afternoon. Thank you.