Budget Advisory Committee

Tuesday, February 23, 1999

Senate Chambers, 3:00 P.M.

The meeting was called to order by John Roberts, Chair. Members present: Maria Angel, Ed Buckley, Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair), Rosemary Darden, Doug Garrison, Micca Gray, Steve Olson, Ben Partee, Ron Schuelke, Deborah Sweitzer, Sandi Tassano, Caroline Tice.

Members absent: Ken Fiori, Sally Heath.

Staff to the Committee: K. Bradbury, E. Cichocki.

1. Approval of January 26, 1999 Minutes

It was M/S/C to approve the minutes of the January 26, 1999 meeting.

 

2. State Budget Update

A handout was distributed authored by the Community College League of California regarding the Governor's budget proposals for 1999/2000. This document provides a good summary and analysis of the Governor's proposal. The highlights consist of:

This budget results in a significant challenge, that is to budget for step and column movements, benefit increases, uncontrollable costs, and then address a salary program.

1. Faculty Hiring Obligation

This item was put on the agenda because it seems to come up often. A handout authored by Dr. Roberts was distributed containing a glossary of terms and our current obligation calculation. Our obligation for Fall 1999 is 300.5 FTE contract faculty. For fall 1998 we had 296 FTE which did not include 5 vacancies. For Fall 1999 we are filling those vacancies plus adding four (4) FTE new contract Faculty. This will bring us above our obligation. Micca Gray asked if program expansion and an increase in adjunct hours effects our obligation. Dr. Roberts clarified that it would effect our ratio but not our obligation. Obligation plus growth funded equals our new obligation. Meeting the ratio is not expected, reaching the obligation FTE is expected. Ron Schuelke asked if 3% growth resulted in an increase to the percentage of hours taught/worked by FTE faculty (currently 65%) or an increase to the obligation (currently 296)? Dr. Roberts indicated a 3% increase to the obligation (296FTE).

 

 

5. Other

A handout was distributed titled "1998/99 Institutional Goals". The Institutional Planning Committee and the Board of Trustees approved these goals last year. IPC is asking for input from BAC members regarding which items should be emphasized in 1999/2000. BAC would then use this list in developing the 1999/2000 budget. IPC has identified items 3, 6, and 9 to be emphasized. Rosemary Darden asked for an update on what has already been accomplished on these goals. Deborah Sweitzer indicated that IPC is getting updates from the components now and the Pocket Planning guide will be coming out.

The Budget Calendar for 1999/2000 Budget Development was distributed. Steve Olson indicated that Academic Affairs was interested in streamlining the Budget Development process and would be trying out a pilot project this year. This would effect unrestricted department budgets only. Steve asked for any feedback or suggestions to be sent to himself or to Eileen Cichocki.

 

2. Enrollment Growth/Revenue/Productivity

This item was put on the Agenda as a continuing item open for discussion. Dr. Roberts indicated that we are struggling to maintain base enrollments and that "access" is a new term for growth. While we are not looking for any conclusions at this meeting, we should have a mindset that growth is a good thing. Ed Buckley brought up the topic of WSCH (Weekly Student Contact Hours) load and feels that BAC cannot advise on budget issues until we have knowledge of the interrelation of the Schedule of Classes, the cost of the Schedule, and a better understanding of growth funding. He feels BAC members would benefit from presentations on the interrelationship of the Schedule, finance, the EMG (Enrollment Management Group), etc. Dr. Roberts indicated that presentations could be prepared if the group felt they would be useful. Deborah Sweitzer asked what the objective would be? Dr. Roberts indicated a better understanding of the integration of planning and budget. Ed Buckley feels that BAC should have some sense of what it means to add new Faculty in regards to its effect on growth funding and FTEF obligation. He is suggesting the BAC attain a level of understanding of the dynamics of SRJC.

Ron Schuelke indicated he sensed some alarm regarding the COLA's ability to cover the costs of step and column movements. He asked what "frills" could we cut from the budget before instruction? Athletics? SRT? Dr. Roberts indicated that Athletics and SRT are both FTE generators. Dr. Roberts clarified that at this time we are not suggesting the need to cut budgets. BAC would be the first to know if we had any indication of the need to cut. There was a general discussion on innovation at SRJC and our need to explore new markets. Many ideas were mentioned including facilities, scheduling, research, identification of student needs, partnerships with other agencies, locations of classes, and improving access.

Presentations will be brought to the next meeting of BAC regarding the history of growth, growth funding (credit and non-credit), calculation of growth cap, and other data relevant to budget development.

Meeting adjourned.

NEXT MEETING

March 23, 1999

3:00 P.M.

SENATE CHAMBERS