Budget Advisory Committee

Tuesday, March 7, 2000

Senate Chambers, 3 p.m.

The meeting was called to order by Ron Root, Chair; Barbara Croteau (Co-Chair).

Members present: Craig Butcher (for Deborah Sweitzer), Christopher Crystal, Rosemary Darden, Paul Finn, Micca Gray, Ricardo Navarrette, Ben Partee, Sandi Tassano.

Members absent: Ed Buckley, LuAnn Campbell, Marty Carpenter (Ex Officio), Danielle Edwards, Doug Garrison, Curt Groninga, M. Lee, Ron Schuelke, Ed Sikes.

Also present: Karen Furukawa

Staff to the Committee: K. Bradbury, E. Cichocki, R. Kyle, Lamont Royer.

Agenda Item #2, Status Report on Current Enrollment, "The figures on the P-1 report show actual enrollment for S99 and (change: F00 to F99)..." Agenda Item #8, Governor's Budget Recommendation, "Approximately 80% of the (add: increased) funding..." Minutes approved as amended.

This item was moved behind Item #9 on the agenda.

Ron Root observed that the figures on the Enrollment Comparison handout for Spring 1999/Spring 2000 indicate that while total headcount is up 4.04%, units/credits generated is down 1.21%. The number of students taking 12 or more units has decreased while all other unit categories have increased, and he tied this to more sections being offered. While the district is making an effort to offer convenient class times and locations to the public, growth is not being attained. It was speculated that this could be attributed to several factors: increased competition in the community, and reduced loads by adult, non-traditional students, who may be holding down a full-time job. In order to experience growth, this institution becomes less efficient as it offers technology-based courses, off campus courses, and unusual meeting times, such as weekend courses. However, the mission of the college and what it chooses to be to the community will necessitate exploring more alternatives for offering courses to the public. Ricardo Navarrette remarked that in chasing FTES and enrollment, there is always a point of diminishing return- and this year the difference is that the district generated the headcount but not the unit count which drives FTES. Past practice has been to make budget assumptions on F94 enrollment productivity, which may need to be re-examined. It must be impressed upon the state that the goal of increasing access costs more as the institution's market penetration increases. The state does not address funding for high cost classes, and since the district is firmly attached to state funding and there is very little local control, it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain enrollment growth without jeopardizing baseline programs.

Ron Root provided a "Partnership for Excellence Update," gave a brief overview of P4E funding history, and explained that the program began with very few strings attached, other than the five broad goal statements summarized in the handout. SRJC moved cautiously from the beginning, establishing a process through collaboration and consultation with IPC and allocating funding for such things as one-time projects, computers for faculty, and adding four new full-time faculty positions. This has not occurred at other institutions where the funding has in some instances been lost in the general fund. Since its inception, P4E funding has dwindled from the proposed three-year plan for $100 million annually beginning FY 98-99 to this year's $25 million proposal. Recently the Legislative Analyst has recommended withholding funding in order to add more rigorous numeric goals. The Chancellor's Office, in consultation with trustees, administrators, faculty, staff and student representatives, is proposing P4E funding at $155 million attached to three specific 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.

Along with the total $500+ million package presented for community college funding, the Chancellor is requesting an additional $80 million for a "Human Resources Infrastructure Fund," 60% of those additional funds being earmarked for part-time instructor benefits (compensation, benefits, and office hours). Additionally, these funds are targeted for a five-year plan to achieve the 75/25 full-time/part-time faculty ratio- a very costly proposition for this institution, estimated at anywhere from $3.6 to $14.7 million for 52 to 210 full-time faculty (holding enrollments constant). The trend seems to be toward adding restrictions on all new money to satisfy special interest groups which, from the business officer's perspective, is not in SRJC's best interests.

Deferred until the next meeting.

Deferred until the next meeting.

California Federation of Teachers (CFT) data was provided with the agenda for information indicating the changes in the FT/PT ratio from 98-99 to 99-00 throughout the state. Refer to second paragraph from the bottom of Partnership for Excellence Update (agenda item #4 above) for estimated district cost to achieve 75% ratio.

Karen Furukawa gave a quick overview of the progress made and the steps necessary to complete the classification study. There were 352 requests for appeal/review job descriptions. The committee will complete their work on the final 60 requests that required further review. At the end of today, job descriptions will be finalized, and the committee will finish its work on March 25. The Classification Study Committee will meet with the District and SEIU representatives to come to consensus. The study will go to the Board of Trustees on April 11 for adoption and referral. At that point Phase I will be completed. Phase II involves salary data from the Hay Group consultants, who surveyed 20 comparable entities. Salary and phase-in process will take place in negotiations. Ron commended Karen and the Classification Study Committee for their work.

A memo from the IPC Co-Chairs, "Integrated Institutional Planning," was distributed for review and response. In order to tie the Budget Advisory Committee, District Facilities Planning Committee, Enrollment Management Group and Educational Policy Coordinating Committee more closely to planning and budgeting decisions, it is proposed that IPC standing agenda include reports from all four groups, share agendas/minutes, and core planning presentations at IPC on specific planning issues. Additionally, it is recommended that EMG be given permanent and formal status as a College Standing Committee. The proposal is a derivative of BAC's discussion at a previous meeting on the committee's function and some members expressed desire to effect policy. There were no objections voiced, and Ron will respond positively to IPC. This item will be placed on the next agenda so that a more full discussion can occur as to what the committee's function has been and what it is going to be.

Meeting adjourned: 4:35 p.m.