The Partnership for Excellence Program was begun in FY1998-99 as a state/local partnership to significantly expand the contribution of community colleges to the social and economic success of California. It was conceived as a broad fund supplementing base apportionment funding, and was to increase $100 million annually for three years, as an augmentation to full state funding for

COLA and growth. The State was committed to the establishment of high priority policy objectives, but they were not intended to fully capture the complete value of a community college education. Performance goals were articulated for the next five years, conditional upon receipt of the state support of $300 million previously mentioned The goals covered five areas: (1) increased numbers of students transferring to baccalaureate institutions; (2) increased numbers of degrees and certificates awarded; (3) increased course completion rates; ( 4) increased numbers of students completing workforce development courses; (5) increased numbers of students completing coursework at least one level above their initial basic skills enrollment.

In general, SRJC began cautiously and purposefully to expend the resources from this new fund. Most projects approved for the first year were either one-time expenditures or major new initiatives that clearly would advance the institution forward over the long-run, such as the Office of Institutional Research, funded at $130,000. During the current year, the same philosophy has guided the consideration of new expenditures: namely, one-time expenditures will get priority unless there is a compelling argument to commit base funding resources. The wisdom of taking such a cautious approach is now becoming apparent because of what appears to be a significant swing in public policy regarding the use of these funds.

In the first year of the three year plan, $100 million was allocated as planned. However, in year two, only $45 million was allocated, and the Governor is recommending only $25 million for the third year, leaving the three-year plan under-funded by $130 million. Moreover, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) recently recommended that the Governor's proposal for $25 million be

withheld, pending a system development of more rigorous goals (interpreted as specific, numeric targets per institution).

Over the past two months, the Chancellor's Office has struggled to get consensus among the various stakeholder groups on how P4E funds should be used in order that a united front can be

presented while trying to increase the funding level. Since many special interest groups have expressed a strong desire to target P4E funds for their specific purposes, this has been a difficult

task. In what is represented as an agreement between the Chancellor's Office and leaders representing trustees, administrators, faculty , staff and students, a proposal for $155 million is being advanced to the Governor and legislature which would be tied to three "conditions":

.Districts must use the funds in ways to achieve Partnership for Excellence system goals related to student success-

.Expenditure of funds in the local districts will be determined following appropriate collegial consultation and effective participation processes.

.District governing boards will review the P4E expenditure report at a public meeting prior to transmittal to the Chancellor's Office.

While these "conditions" do not pose a significant problem for SRJC, which has essentially already followed them, the Legislative Analyst's recommendations to tie the money more specifically to certain outcomes will serve to further limit flexibility in the funds.

There are other funding developments which suggest that any other new money will also have strong "strings" attached, such as a new and different categorical entitled the "Human Resources Infrastructure Fund." Perhaps in an effort to draw attention away from P4E as a resource for fixing faculty compensation concerns, the Chancellor has achieve consensus to propose this new fund at $80 million, but with the requirement that 60% of any dollars allocated under this program would have to be targeted toward improving the compensation, benefits, and office hours for part-time instructors. Another piece of the proposal calls upon districts to develop a five-year plan, updated annually, for making progress towards the 75/25 ratio of full-time to part-time faculty, and "reasonable progress" must be achieved in those years where ongoing, unrestricted funds are provided beyond full-funded COLA and growth.

If the legislature ends up approving next year's funding with only COLA, growth funding (which SRJC will not likely be able to take advantage of), and a small increase for P4E, and then expects the college to make progress toward P4E goals, F-T/P-T ratios, and improvements in compensation for adjunct faculty, there will be a serious disconnection between public policy expectations and the college's ability to respond. For instance, the Business Office has calculated that between 52 and 210 full-time faculty would have to be hired to achieve a 75% ratio at SRJC(holding enrollments constant), which translates to a budgetary cost of $3.6 million to $14.7 million. It is not clear whether the Chancellor's Office has calculated the total system cost to achieve this ratio, but the number must be astronomical.

In summary, then, while the attempt to increase the budgetary pie for community colleges is commendable, there is a clear trend toward placing spending restrictions on all new money to satisfy special interest groups, severely penalizing an institution such as SRJC that has an exemplary track record in many of these areas. SRJC ranks high in certain categories such as salaries and benefits, degrees awarded, and other statewide measures. From a budgetary perspective, it is not in this college's best interests to have most state funding targeted to issues that this college has already addressed in a reasonable fashion.

3/9/00