ISU President Gregory Geoffroy’s decision on whether to continue progression on the new budget model has been postponed for another two weeks.

Although members of the Budget Model Review and Implementation Committee were set to have the latest report on the budget model on the president’s desk by Oct. 13, they asked for additional time and a new deadline of Oct. 31 to finalize specific parts of the report.

Ellen Rasmussen, committee member and associate vice president for budgeting and planning, attributed the delay to two components of the report.

“We felt that we needed more time to work with the full committee on a couple of issues, one being the advisory board structure,” Rasmussen said.

In the fourth report – the committee’s most recent formally issued public document – the committee recommended the provost set up several advisory boards to guide the university in implementing the new budget model.

According to the fourth report, there would be one universitywide advisory board charged with making recommendations on the annual distribution of revenue and periodically reviewing the coefficients in the formulas that allocate the university’s money.

This main structure would be accompanied by three more department-specific advisory boards, which would handle things such as the library’s budget, the cost of student services and funding for common good services.

Kevin Kane, committee member and program manager of information technology services academic technology, said one thing to consider is who should be on the advisory boards.

“We’re looking at how the composition should be selected, what representatives groups should be part of the composition and if that composition should be the same for all of the advisory groups,” Kane said.

The other component of the report that Rasmussen said is still being discussed is how to pay for administrative expenses.

Previous reports suggested calling on individual colleges to help shoulder the cost.

Although the report is still not finalized, Rasmussen said she expected two weeks to be sufficient time to submit a quality draft to the president.

Kane agreed. “Instead of releasing something to the university that wasn’t quite finished, we felt that it was more important to take the time and do it right,” he said.

After the president receives the report on Oct. 31, he will choose one of three options: He can reject the report, ask the committee for further revisions or accept the report and pass it on to groups such as the Faculty Senate and the Professional and Scientific Council so they can contribute their input.

Geoffroy said an extra two weeks would only benefit the process and ensure a quality report.

“It will not slow down our overall timeline for review,” Geoffroy said, “but it will give them [the committee] more time to make sure all the important issues are addressed.”